[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Even if you didn't understand my point, that doesn't justify that sort of distortion of my arguments.

I am asking if it is worth living as an instrument of evil.

You see - this is the problem. You seem to be saying 'Its better for a child who has chosen evil to die rather than grow up to be a 'monster'', but when I ask you 'Are you saying its acceptable to kill a child who has 'chosen' to be 'evil'?' you accuse me of misrepresenting you, but then you come right back & ask 'Is it worth living as an instrument of evil? And wouldn't any parent rather their child died than grow up to serve evil?' I honestly don't get what your position is.

Whatever. You tried your best shot with a letter that didn't address the issue at cause.

No - the letter refuted every one of your points:

There was a solemn article in the local paper seriously advocating systematic exterminating of the entire German nation as the only proper course after military victory: because, if you pleasse, they are rattlesnakes & don't know the difference between good & evil! (What of the writer?) The Germans have just as much right to declare the Poles & Jews exterminable vermin, subhuman, as we have to select the Germans: in other words no right, whatever they have done.

"Systematic extermination of a whole people is morally unnaceptable - whatever they have done" And to take your earlier point seriously I'm sure that if the Nazis could have assaulted Valinor they would have. In fact, I don't think the fact that the story of Numenor was developed & introduced into the Legendarium in the 1940's is entirely coincidental.

I don't see why you feign to miss my point. Free will has consequences; if those consequences are dire enough, the person in question should be stopped from perpetrating evil anymore. Free will doesn't exclude morality , responsibility and authority. This is common sense.

I know what you're saying. Of course a person may put themselves in a position where it is necessary to kill them as a last resort. But to kill them is to take away their free will. You argued that Eru had to kill the Numenoreans because he couldn't take away their free will - which is not logical. He killed them, thereby removing their free will.

I only saw they like justice. Where exactly is it said that children like "cruel" punishments?

I think I see how this dispute has come about - you're approach is an absolutely literalist one. Tolkien may use 3 or 4 different words in the Intro to LotR which mean 'entertainment' but because he doesn't use the actual word 'entertainment' you argue his intention was not to 'entertain'. The punishment suffered by the Queen in Snow White is cruel (as I remember she is forced to wear red hot shoes & dance until she falls down dead) & Tolkien speaks of child readers liking this kind of 'justice'.

How could it be an accident?? How can you sink an island by mistake? If they really wanted to protect the numenoreans, why did they save, by their grace, only the faithfuls? Where is there a sign of the plan of changing the world overstepping its initial objectives?

Because it is stated that the Valars' purpose was to remove The Undying Lands from danger & that Numenor happened to be on the edge of the rift. Hence, it was equivalent to someone being killed by a ricocheting bullet, rather than by one that was deliberately aimed. The way I read it, you don't just want the Numenoreans dead, you want them executed.

So, what is the standard of a very well crafted god figure? If we are at it. I see the repeated dodging my question about what tools do we have for adequately describing a transcendent reality.

One that convinces, behaves consistently, one who, if he is declared to be loving, compassionate & wise (as well as all-powerful) doesn't execute children.