[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

But Melkor had no right to interfere with Men, to begin with, let alone deal death to them. Their introduction belongs strictly to Eru, their role is known only to him and He has supreme, and exclusive, authority over them. Melkor is a finite creature and his precedents leave no shadow of doubt about his motives when killing, while everything we know or can surmise of Eru depict Him as the source of good. And to reiterate my argument, how can we judge if we have less information than he has? What basis would our argument have?

Well, my oft-stated position is that Eru is a character as much as Frodo, Gollum or Morgoth, & we can judge any character according to the standards of the created world.
Even within a religion like Christianity Jesus instructs his followers to 'be like your Father in Heaven', implying that in the primary world a religious person should emulate God as far as they can. Eru slays his children. Eru is not beyond analysis as a character. To say we cannot judge Eru because we cannot know his nature in full is no different to saying we cannot judge Morgoth or Gollum or Frodo. Tolkien lays down a standard of morality & we surely have a right to ask whether Eru lives up to that standard or not.

I disagree; Tolkien's reading of the text was conducive to moral and religious truth, but you imply that others do not see this, which nullifies your above statement, since it warrants two contradictory conclusions.

I'm merely asking questions. I could argue that Eru is beyond the limits & rules which he sets, or that he sets different rules for himself. I could also argue that merely because Tolkien read the text in one way doesn't mean I or anyone else has to. I could argue that Wyrd is a 'religious' (or at least 'spiritual') concept & reading Wyrd into the story as a driving force is as valid as reading Eru into it - one doesn't need Eru to make the story 'spiritual', moral or 'religious'.

And as far as some readers understanding LotR without the Silmarillion, I can accept that, due to the fact that each individual defines for himself what he considers understandable or not; but this does not, or cannot, nullify the religious element that he put in the work.

One only has to accept a 'supernatural' dimension. LotR was published, & is usually read, as a stand-alone work & an author has no right to attempt to dictate how the work is read or interpreted - as long as the interpretation doesn't directly contradict what the text says. A reader cannot deny that there is a 'force' driving events in LotR, but a reader of LotR only cannot bring Eru into their interpretation. A reading of LotR alone which places the onus on Wyrd is equally valid, & may be the only one the reader can come up with. That doesn't invalidate their reading, or make it meaningless.