The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

For example, an emphasis on "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" while ignoring "There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought".

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God. As the Ainur (which actually is not even a native Elvish word; it is adapted from Valarin) were his direct servants in bringing about the creation of Eä, wouldn't this be a better interpretation of the intended meaning of "holy" in this context? Especially since Tolkien directly contradicts the notion that the Valar were "perfect": "Every finite creature must have some weakness: that is some inadequacy to deal with some situations" (Essay VI, "Myths Transformed"). This was in direct reference to the actions of the Valar upon Arda. Thus, I reject the notion that any of the Ainur were at any time "flawless". The explanation that they were holy because they were created to serve Eru directly seems to make much more sense.

And to me, that very imperfection of the Valar was something Eru used; it was part of how they served him, by being imperfect.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Also, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so." Elrond is one of Tolkien's primary truth tellers. He cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR.

And what exactly is "evil" in this context? Doesn't it refer to incarnate-constructed notions of good and evil? Generally people aren't raising Orc-armies from day one of their being on earth, no. In that sense I would agree with Elrond. But if you use evil to mean "flawed", then "all finite creatures" are very much evil, by Tolkien's own statements. Being flawed is an intrinsic aspect of their finititude.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru.

I won't bother quoting Eru's declaration about where all themes have their source, since you've already done that... and contradicted it with this statement.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

So account for ALL the text.

Indeed!

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

Actually, "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. Most of them refer to being in the service of God.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

'Holy' means 'pure'. Perfect. Flawless. In the beginning even Melkor was holy. Thus, evil, in the Ainulindalë, is equal to 'flawed'.

Really, it is just as Tar-Telperien says: "holy" has a bunch of different meanings. One of them is being in the service of God (in our case, Eru), one is also being "pure". If we reach for the examples to ancient Israel (I think a very good source of examples for this), we can read both the meanings:

Deuteronomy 7:6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
and
Leviticus 11:44 For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

(Just for explanation for those who don't know, the Israelites considered many of the insects, lizards&co. - those "creeping things" - being "unclean", thus, unholy in the meaning of unclean: they couldn't eat it. I wonder if they could eat Gollum... okay, jokes aside for now.)
Since, mainly in the Catholic environment (and we know Tolkien being Catholic), the second (elempi's) meaning is used often, I am inclined to believe that Tolkien might have used the word "holy" in this meaning (or both of them), also considering his area of interest being the language, I'd suppose that he was aware of the meanings of this word and he might have used it because he was content with all its meanings and they all conveyed what he had in mind. This is just a hypothesis however, we'll need some proof from his Letters or something like that, touching this subject... if a thing such as this exists? ... But as I said, I find it quite likely that Tolkien considered Valar both "pure" and "serving to Eru" (from which, in the end, Melkor retained neither) and used the word "holy" to express this.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

If Eru created everything then he also created evil? Did he put it into Melkor? Or is he saying that good/evil was simply not an issue when Eru created his Gods?

I think we are in need to bring in the definition of what "good" is, in the Middle-Earth. (Please consider this when reading my thought above that the "Valar" were "holy" meaning "pure, good".) Here is, I think, a fine explanation of "good": meaning "pure", "unflawed" (the meaning elempi used for "holy"). Good=unflawed. Eru puts his plan before the Valar. They do it, each his own way. Fine. But remember Galadriel's grieving after lost Lórien. Remember the Elves saying that the stars are less bright because the shadow of Melkor is cast over them from afar. This is not "good", this is "flawed". In the beginning, there is Fëanor the Best Craftsman who could create the most beautiful things in the world. In the end, there is Fëanor performing the Kinslaying, betraying his relatives and letting them to go over Helcaraxë. I hope everyone is clear about what "good" in M-E means. And "evil", thus, means straying away from the course of things what it was like in the beginning - flawless. Thus, Eru did not create evil. I hope this is obvious. This is why Eru himself must be good: because "evil" is just a product of other beings than himself. Eru is the creator, so that everything he does is "good". If in the normal course of action Eru put in the plans of Music an idea of destroying mountains or killing people, then destroying mountains and killing people would have been considered "good" in this M-E universe. I hope this is understood. In the beginning, Eru's plan was perfect, good. Some of the Valar (and later Men and Elves and so on) strayed from it - because they were given independant free will, and free will means that you can do whatever you wish - decide whether to move your left hand or move your right hand; as well as whether to move your hand to shake your friend's hand or to break his neck. Simply said: what the creator of the world himself considers ok, is "good" - other is evil. That he allows it, doesn't mean he agrees (as Eru said to Melkor). But he might somehow use even what is done against his will: that well-known Ulmo&frost&hot part. The people of ME clearly might be happy that they have snow and not just simple water, but on the other hand, no one could have died by freezing hadn't there been for Melkor's creation of cold. So, a flaw, even though Eru turned it to a thing Melkor didn't have in mind in the beginning (as he told).

Okay, one final note - I used my own logical aparate as much as I could. But in the end, these are transcendental thoughts we are attempting to make here, we must've been gods to undestand Eru as our equal, because his thinking clearly couldn't be that of human.

[Lalwendë]

Good cannot be linked with pure in Tolkien's creation as otherwise we would have very few if any heroes. All of them are flawed, even those who are incredibly good. So Good cannot be defined as Flawless.

Now, of course Eru's plan is 'good', but who does this idea of good belong to? It belongs to Eru. It's his 'good'. Which may in fact include a lot of what is 'bad' or 'wrong' or 'tragic' in the eyes of those in his creation.

Eru says that nothing can be done in his despite, which means that even 'bad' things are allowed by him. Simply put, he creates free will from the very beginning, and that the name Illuvatar means all-father, universe, everything, suggests that Eru is All. Illuvatar is his name within the world he creates, and outside it, wherever he is, in the void maybe, he is Eru, which means The One, which suggests that he is everything, and if evil exists then he must also be that too.

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar.

When the Ainur sing the Music they are creating a 'map' of everything that will exist in the world Tolkien creates; Melkor creates discordancies, and again:

no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me

Considering that Melkor and Melkor's works, and Aule's meddlings with creating Dwarves and the Valar's creation of Numenor all ultimately stemmed from Eru works. It makes sense of the fact that evil has been built into the fabric of this world from the very beginning (different to Middle-Eastern originating views of our own world where there was a Fall - there was no Falling to be done in Arda as there was no state of grace to begin with due to Melkor's discordancies...if there was a state of grace it was presumably when there was nothing but Eru, seeing as he says he created everything).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I completely agree with Lal's previous post. Seems that we came to a place where the two of us meet. Only one thing:

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

It makes sense of the fact that evil has been built into the fabric of this world from the very beginning (different to Middle-Eastern originating views of our own world where there was a Fall - there was no Falling to be done in Arda as there was no state of grace to begin with due to Melkor's discordancies...if there was a state of grace it was presumably when there was nothing but Eru, seeing as he says he created everything).

If I use your terminology, then the Fall in ME happened before the creation of the world itself. That's just the sole difference, but it actually happened.
The thought of mine that the Arda was flawed has its roots here:

Here ends the SILMARILLION. If it has passed from the high and the beautiful to darkness and ruin, that was of old the fate of Arda Marred; and if any change shall come and the Marring be amended, Manwë and Varda may know; but they have not revealed it, and it is not declared in the dooms of Mandos.

Marring of Arda. You are right that there was no "state of grace" for the Creation: but for Ainur, there was - before they played, let's say. I'd compare Melkor's music to the eating of the apple by Adam&Eve. The point is, that the flaws appear with the first beings independant on the Creator's will: someone of them just in time decides to do something which goes against the plans, or let's say, orders put to them by the Creator.

P.S. What was the original question of this forum?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Legate

P.S. What was the original question of this forum?

The best conversations always end up going off on mad tangents!

Now about the Fall happening at the point where Melkor adds his discordancies to the Music, I can go for that. But firstly it means that in Tolkien's creation, The Fall was not due to Man but to a God, which is interesting. And secondly, it still leaves me wondering if Eru placed the possibility there anyway, as all themes came from him; this allows room to discuss whether Eru planned this to happen or if he simply laid possibilities in the essence of his Ainur and then allowed them the free choice of which themes to sing. But in that direction discussions of Free Will lie and that's even thornier.

There is an interesting point to consider - if Eru drew a distinction between good/evil then who or what framed these concepts to Eru? Obviously the answer is nobody as Eru is The One, the beginning and end of creation in this world. In that case, there are simply an infinite number of possibilities of thought, behaviour etc and can Eru decide which ones he wants his creations to do? Which ones he wants to reward and which to punish? Can Eru change the rules? He clearly can exercise which rules he likes, as shown by his intervention in Numenor, at the pleading of the earth-bound Valar. Scary.

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There is an interesting point to consider - if Eru drew a distinction between good/evil then who or what framed these concepts to Eru? Obviously the answer is nobody as Eru is The One, the beginning and end of creation in this world. In that case, there are simply an infinite number of possibilities of thought, behaviour etc and can Eru decide which ones he wants his creations to do? Which ones he wants to reward and which to punish? Can Eru change the rules? He clearly can exercise which rules he likes, as shown by his intervention in Numenor, at the pleading of the earth-bound Valar. Scary.

I still have not been convinced by these people's arguments that Eru does make such a distinguishment. They define "evil" as going against Eru's Will (Indómë). But to me Eru's statements to Melkor show that no one can "get outside" Indómë, no matter how hard they try! It will just evolve and continue right along with their changing choices. It's laughable to think of a creation actually having any success in defying its creator, and that is what Eru is trying to show. His creatures have freedom of choice, yes, but they will never truly interfere with the Will of Eru. Rebellion is thus an illusion, and this is what is bad about it; it constitutes lying to oneself by thinking that one can escape Indómë even though one can't really possibly imagine a situation outside of Eru's influence.

This is why I say the mythology is not about Good and Evil, but about learning. Each creature has to learn how bound up it is with Indómë, and stop lying to itself about its ability to defy it. "The lies of Melkor thou shalt unlearn in bitterness," Mandos sternly tells Fëanor. It's not about defeating Melkor, it's about escaping falsehoods. This is why I can't believe that Eru really would prefer "good" over "evil", because he has not been shown to be bound to a specific morality, since morality is a constructed notion. Eru prefers it when people can see through lies, and he knows that everyone will eventually, so why hurry?

This is probably also the reason that Eru does not try at all to destroy evil and suffering, but merely waits on people to come to enlightenment. This inevitably takes time and experience, and generally a good deal of suffering, too. But Eru has all the "time" he needs, and more: he can outwait their stubborn smallmindedness.

As for Melkor, it was when he went into the Void outside the Timeless Halls that he first got his "strange thoughts". This is, I think, because it was then that he began lying to himself, because he thought he could imagine a place without Eru, this empty Void. (Eru's creatures have the ability to perceive difference; this is what allows them to lie to themselves. Melkor could perceive what made the Void different from the Halls, mainly its apparent featurelessness.) It was for this reason that he wanted the Flame Imperishable, so that he could rule in the Void. As with every other instance of what we call evil, this idea originally came from a lie, from a self-deception, from seeing something as different from what it actually was. Melkor viewed the Void as an empty place without Eru, so he came to view himself as a possible ruler of that Void, without Eru's influence. But Melkor could only contrast the Void with the Timeless Halls because he thought Eru wasn't in the former, which again shows that Eru is the ultimate source of all his ideas (namely because Eru created Melkor, and knew all the possible ranges of his thoughts).

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

There is an interesting point to consider - if Eru drew a distinction between good/evil then who or what framed these concepts to Eru? Obviously the answer is nobody as Eru is The One, the beginning and end of creation in this world. In that case, there are simply an infinite number of possibilities of thought, behaviour etc and can Eru decide which ones he wants his creations to do? Which ones he wants to reward and which to punish? Can Eru change the rules? He clearly can exercise which rules he likes, as shown by his intervention in Numenor, at the pleading of the earth-bound Valar. Scary.

Well, yeah, that's just it! But what about it? His Creation can anyway look at him not the way he really is but only the way he had himself presented to them (because he certainly is not in the same sense as for example this computer screen is): Eru, as nicely quoted by Maedhros in Silmarillion, is unreachable for them, so the only way they might know him is that he will present himself to them, and how he will present to them, is his way, and what he allows them to do is also his way...

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

I still have not been convinced by these people's arguments that Eru does make such a distinguishment. They define "evil" as going against Eru's Will (Indómë). But to me Eru's statements to Melkor show that no one can "get outside" Indómë, no matter how hard they try!

(continuing my previous thoughts) ...so if he presents (or lets present) something as evil to his Creation, even if he didn't distinguish something like this himself, he wanted his Creation to distinguish it... otherwise he'd put Melkor's dischord right into the first plan for the Music. I mean: you cannot go outside of the possibilities allowed by Eru; but he might allow them but not approve them. Hm...
...and not against that lying part, it seems a good observation to me...

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Well, yeah, that's just it! But what about it? His Creation can anyway look at him not the way he really is but only the way he had himself presented to them (because he certainly is not in the same sense as for example this computer screen is): Eru, as nicely quoted by Maedhros in Silmarillion, is unreachable for them, so the only way they might know him is that he will present himself to them, and how he will present to them, is his way, and what he allows them to do is also his way...

Indeed! I base my conclusions off how I understand Eru to be based directly on his presentation in the texts. We don't disagree on this point.

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

(continuing my previous thoughts) ...so if he presents (or lets present) something as evil to his Creation, even if he didn't distinguish something like this himself, he wanted his Creation to distinguish it... otherwise he'd put Melkor's dischord right into the first plan for the Music. I mean: you cannot go outside of the possibilities allowed by Eru; but he might allow them but not approve them. Hm...
...and not against that lying part, it seems a good observation to me...

I'm not entirely sure what point you are trying to make here. Why would Eru put Melkor's discord into the Music? He explicitly told the Ainur to add their thoughts to the Theme however they liked: "...ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will". Melkor's additions just happened to interact with the Theme in a rather strange way. In fact, it was not the fact of Melkor's adding his own thoughts into the Music that caused discord. It was only the way his ideas meshed with others' (namely because they were based on illusions).

Originally Posted by Legate of Amon Lanc

Good=unflawed.

Again, I disagree with this notion, because it means that no finite creature could at any time be called good, due to the quote I posted earlier. If they can't be good, how can they be bad? The two define each other.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Eru is not bound by morality, or it would be his master; rather, he is the creator of it, and as such, morality comes from him.

We don't disagree here. Everything comes from Eru. How couldn't it? But suggesting Eru acts in accordance with our moral systems is rather nonsensical. Why does he need to? And how could he fit into a moral system?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

As to Punishment: what, if Eru "did not 'punish' Melkor for being 'immoral', is being cast into the Void?

That was done by the Valar, not Eru.

Furthermore, of course Manwë would call Melkor's actions "wrong". They weren't helping Arda get built. No mystery there.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If Eru is creator of all things, and not moral, then morality cannot be part of his creation.

You might as well say, "If Eru is the creator of all things, and not mortal, then death cannot be part of his creation". Beings are not held to the workings of the things that they themselves create. I draw pictures of assassins and pilots. Am I an assassin or a pilot? Nope!

So yes, Eru created morality, as a possible guide to life in Arda. And this is precisely why Eru himself cannot be described in moral terms. After all, if he was "moral", wouldn't it be moral of him to tell his creatures to act morally? Not doing so would be unfairly negligent and thus immoral. But that's precisely what Eru did (or rather, didn't do). At least JHVH had the courtesy to give out the Ten Commandments, but then, he was a moral figure.

Because Eru created the Gift of Men, too. But has he died yet?

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If design is not divine command, what is it? In fact, it cannot be anything other than part of divine command; therefore, if morality is a product of design, then it must be a product of Eru's command. Your distinction is erroneous.

I meant "divine command" in the sense of "instruction given explicitly by Eru". Eru may have designed his creatures in such a way that their societies work best when adhering to moral precepts, but did he ever tell them to act according to those precepts? No. They devised their own laws and enforced them on their own.

After all, when raising your children, are you going to not give them any moral teaching and assume they will gain moral understanding because they were designed that way? I hope not. So yes, design and divine command are two different things here. Since you are a moral person, you feel compelled to pass your morality on to the next generation. Apparently, Eru saw no such reason to do the same for his Children. Which, if we say he is moral, is completely incomprehensible.

I'm also not so sure we can make such snap judgments about what is and is not pleasing to Ilúvatar, either; considering he said that Melkor's discord would only bring about better things, it can't have been that "displeasing".

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

Evil is not woven into the fabric of existence, but of Arda.

No. Melkor's theme affected all of Eä.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

That death is a gift of Eru to Men, actually makes the goodness of Eru easier for Men of Middle Earth to perceive than is the case of their counterparts in the real world, for if death is good, then the death of all those who died in the sinking of Numenor, is not an evil deed at all.

If Eru were moral, then we should follow his example, correct? Because obviously no being could act more morally than Eru. Therefore, since Death is the Gift of Men, we should clearly administer it to everyone like Eru did here, since Eru is the best of all moral examples.

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

If Eru became subject to this moral standard, then the moral standard would be greater than Eru, which is an impossibility, as if: "In the beginning was Moral Standard, and Moral Standard created Eru."

But this is exactly what you have been doing by taking human notions of morality (which is clearly intended for controlling human life on Earth, I hope we don't disagree there) and taking them out of context by equating them with Eru and his actions. Morality has certain strict standards, as understood by humans. To transgress these standards is immoral. Thus, you are attempting to control Eru by saying he is "moral", because that limits what he can do: wouldn't he cease to be moral upon doing an immoral act? And according to human standards of morality, destroying an entire civilization for the acts of some of its people is wrong, because it hurts innocent people. Therefore, how can you really say Eru is moral? I tried to look at his actions from a moral perspective earlier in this thread, as well, and while I think they were probably the best out of a series of bad alternatives, I'm sure we can agree that a being as powerful as Eru could have done better, especially if he felt morally obligated to do so.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Bricho

Eru's definition of what constitutes guilt and innocence is very, very strict indeed.

Here's your answer:

Ilúvatar sat and hearkened, and for a great while it seemed good to him, for in the music there were no flaws.

Flawlessness is Eru's standard.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

Melkor's discordant theme and even his thoughts are a product of Eru.

Melkor's first flaw was to think wrongly of Ilúvatar: "and it seemed to {Melkor} that Ilúvatar took not thought for the Void, and he was impatient of its emptiness. Yet he found not the Fire, for it is with Ilúvatar. But being alone he had begun to conceive thoughts of his own unlike those of his brethren." Melkor's second flaw was to desire that the Void be not empty before it was Ilúvatar's will to fill it. His third flaw was to isolate himself from his peers. His fourth was, of course, based on these first three: the discordant theme.

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And Eru allowed this to happen, but as is said above, "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me". That is one of the essential mysteries of Eru, why he makes Melkor the way he does, and allows Melkor the freedom to be part of this creation; who knows why evil is part of Eru's plan, but it is.

I have already answered the contention that evil comes from Eru. To summarize again, the text indicates that this is not so. 'Evil being a part of Eru's plan' must be understood in this context. Thus, evil may be permitted to exist (or else Eru does violence to the very freedom with which he has created the Ainur), but Eru's introduction of the 2nd & 3rd themes indicates that he works against evil. Eru is declaring that evil cannot undo his purpose; rather, Eru makes of Morgoth's evil a tool "in the devising of things more wonderful..."

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

And if you look at the books, then evil is part of Eru's plan. It has its origins in him.

But Elrond, one of Tolkien's truth speakers, says, "Nothing is evil in the beginning. Not even Sauron was so."Elrond cannot be wrong without doing violence to the story of LotR. Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

What did Eru do? He merely responded to the request of the Valar to do something, because by laying down their guardianship of the world, they showed that they weren't going to do anything. To the extent that it is possible for one of his creations to do so, they "forced" Eru to make a move.

First, thank you for adding valuable information and perspective to this thread that, until you first posted to it, was lacking.

That death is a gift from Eru to Men is a critical fact that certainly alters the discussion in terms of "innocents being killed".

It is a little much to say that the Valar forced Eru to make a move. By laying down their guardianship they submitted to the authority of their Master. He acted as He had planned from the beginning, as the Ainulindalë shows: "Ilúvatar called together the Ainur and declared to them a mighty theme, unfolding to them things greater and more wonderful than he had yet revealed; and the glory of its beginning and the splendour of its end amazed the Ainur, so that they bowed before Ilúvatar and were silent." This indicates that Eru's will was at work throughout the whole Theme, which is to say that his will was at work throughout the entire history of Arda, including the events of the Akallabêth as well as the War of the Ring.

It must be remembered that Eru is the one who introduced the 2nd theme: the Valar that remained faithful (and their deeds for good in battling against Melkor), and the 3rd theme: the Children of Ilúvatar. "For the Children of Ilúvatar were conceived by him along; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Ilúvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of hte Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Ilúvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur." So Elves and Men are free and not controlled by the Valar; they are only governed by them. Eru remains the power behind Elves and Men.

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

{Eru} completely neglected {the Numenoreans}, because they had done the same.

Eru propounded the themes and the Ainur listened - thus, Eru was from the beginning the only active agent in Elves and Men; he gave their governance to the Valar, but not control of their lives. Every Child of Ilúvatar has a fëa (spirit in the form of fire/light), something the Valar have not the power to bestow: a fëa comes from Eru. Therefore, Eru's hand and will are present in the making of every Elf and Man. Bodies and mind and will may come through lineage, but a fëa is fire and light, and as such cannot pass through lineage; it can only be created in each Elf or Man by Eru.

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

Now, a word about Eru: I really can't see him as a moral figure. He can't really be bound to morality himself.

Eru is not bound by morality, or it would be his master; rather, he is the creator of it, and as such, morality comes from him.

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

Furthermore, he did not "punish" Melkor for being "immoral", he simply let him be and do as he wished, though he did warn Melkor of the consequences of his actions (namely, that his plans would not ultimately be successful).

As to Punishment: what, if Eru "did not 'punish' Melkor for being 'immoral', is being cast into the Void? Furthermore, "But Manwë was the brother of Melkor in the mind of Ilúvatar, and he was the chief instrument of the second theme that Ilúvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor; and he called unto himself many spirits both greater and less, and they came down into the fields of Arda and aided Manwë, lest Meklor should hinder the fulfillment of their labour for ever, and Earth should wither ere it flowered. And Manwë said unto Melkor: 'This kingdom thou shalt not take for thine own, wrongfully, for many others have laboured here no less than thou.' And there was strife between Melkor and the other Valar; and for that time Melkor withdrew and departed to other regions and did there what he would; but he did not put the desire of the Kingdom of Arda from his heart."

Manwë, "dearest to Ilúvatar", names Melkor's deeds, drawn from his discordant theme in the Music, as wrongful; that is, full-wrong: a moral judgement.

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

If Eru made the quintessential "moral" and "immoral" figures of Arda, namely Manwë and Melkor, but is neither beholden to them nor gives any of his creatures any moral code to follow (this is the way in which he perhaps differs most from any Primary World deity), then how are we to assume he is moral?

The moral code is at first presented in the form of Music: that which is presented as pleasing to Ilúvatar are: harmony, flawlessness, unity, beauty; that which is presented as not pleasing to Ilúvatar are: discord, despondency, disturbance, faltering, turbulent sound, wrath, dismay, violence, singing no more, confusion. Only a few of these adjectives, which Tolkien sprinkles through the account of the Music, has to do with music, per sé; the remainder have strong moral connotations and implications.

As to "how are we to assume {Eru} is moral", it is not an assumption we make; rather, it is a necessary logical conclusion. If Eru is creator of all things, and not moral, then morality cannot be part of his creation. If it is not part of his creation, then it can only have preceded him. If it preceded him, it necessarily has to have created him, for if he is not first, then something had to create him; and morality would therefore be superior to him; and this is of course an impossibility, since it is at odds with what Tolkien wrote. Therefore, Eru must be the creator of morality; and since this must be so, morality necessarily exists according to the nature of Eru.

Originally Posted by Tar Telperien

Eru simply creates. Morality is a product of the fact that his creatures were designed in a certain way, and have limitations (namely, the ability to be hurt by others of his creatures). Morality rises from design and the practical facts of life in Arda, not by divine command.

If design is not divine command, what is it? In fact, it cannot be anything other than part of divine command; therefore, if morality is a product of design, then it must be a product of Eru's command. Your distinction is erroneous.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Child of the Seventh Age

Simply it is impossible to have an absolutely good act, even by Eru, in a world where evil is woven into the fabric of existence.

It would be more accurate to say that it is seemingly impossible. Evil is not woven into the fabric of existence, but of Arda. The Valar, not Eru, are bound by Arda. If Eru is good, as I have demonstrated from the text, and all that Eru does is morally upright because morality itself stems from the nature of Eru, then nothing that Eru does can be tainted by evil. Therefore, Eru's permission of evil (necessitated by the freedom designed into his creatures to do other than his will), and use of evil as a tool for his ultimate purpose, is necessarily a morally upright act. That the characters in the story cannot perceive this to be so, underscores the fact that they are not equal to Eru and cannot stand as his judge.

That death is a gift of Eru to Men, actually makes the goodness of Eru easier for Men of Middle Earth to perceive than is the case of their counterparts in the real world, for if death is good, then the death of all those who died in the sinking of Numenor, is not an evil deed at all. This is a separate matter from the mysterious afterlife fate of Men who did evil on Arda.

Originally Posted by Child

Eru is in a different position and could possibly have made such a choice with clear understanding of its consequences. This is essentially a no-win situation. Whatever Eru does, there will be evil consequences. He is trapped by his own creation and the latitude he has given to his children.

This is a rather dire picture of the situation as compared to the text: "it has been said that a {Music} greater still shall be made before Ilúvatar by the choirs of the Ainur and the Children of Ilúvatar after the end of days. Then the themes of Ilúvatar shall be played aright, and take Being in the moment of their utterance, for all shall then understand fully his intent in their part, and each shall know the comprehension of each, and Ilúvatar shall give to their thoughts the secret fire, being well pleased.: This seems far from no-win. The end consequences, once all is said and done, will not be evil, for all evil deeds will have been Eru's "instrument in the devising of things more wonderful" than anything his creatures could imagine.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

The point though is that Eru is beyond good/evil, he is at once both of them, and he creates the circumstances in which both enter the world.

If this were true, then Eru has no basis by which to condemn Morgoth to the Void, except pure whim. This does violence to the inner consistency of reality Tolkien built into his cosmos/mythos, and therefore cannot be accurate.

Originally Posted by Legate

We all know the story of Ainulindalë, and what Eru said to Melkor. When Eru put the plans of the Great Music before {the} Valar, there was nothing of what Melkor later did. In the beginning, there was nothing evil: not even Sauron, as it was said here many times.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by Lal

Legate - bear in mind though that Eru created Melkor. When Eru tells him "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" he is telling Melkor that he may have free will, but he was put there by Eru and Eru made him what he is, whether for good or for bad. ... I suppose in one way you might almost feel sorry for Melkor as he simply cannot help what he is.

Such determinism is not reflected in the text. Melkor had choices and made wrong ones. Eru created him to have the greatest potential of all, and Melkor fell to pride and lust for dominion outside the will of Eru. On what account, then, would one feel sorry for Melkor?

[littlemanpoet]

Sorry for the multiple posting, but I felt my responses needed to be broken up by topic and original poster (more or less).

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Even though death is the Gift of Eru to Men, I think this moral standard should also hold for him, regardless of the quality of the afterlife and regardless of whether life for the children would inevitably become very bad.

If Eru became subject to this moral standard, then the moral standard would be greater than Eru, which is an impossibility, as if: "In the beginning was Moral Standard, and Moral Standard created Eru."

Originally Posted by Macalaure

But maybe, at the time, the Drowning was simply the best choice that was left to Eru? This is possible. In fact, it would perhaps solve our dilemma. However, I think it leads to another question: Is Eru omnipotent or not? If he is, then he must have had the possibility to punish the evil and/or remove Valinor while sparing the innocent Númenoreans (I confess I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with this black-and-white painting of the society of Westernesse). Is there any textual support for either one of the positions?

The Ainulindalë does nothing if it does not indicate the omnipotence of Ilúvatar. The oft quoted phrase, "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me", indicates this. However, "sparing" the innocent Numenoreans (if such a thing exists in the context of what Tolkien presents), is unnecessary, as death is a Gift.