The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Raynor]

Thus, any restrictions on his actions imposed by a desire not to remove their free will are obviated.

However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.

That an action which is 'morally wrong' for a human is morally right for God?

No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.

And, being aware of that fact, I stated it was in the '40's that the account of Numenor was introduced & developed

He goes from a story to a full manuscript in that period, if I read Hammod correctly. However, I will pick no more on this and where you're heading with it. As far as I know, there is no evidence, so it's not worth my effort until it surfaces; debating almost alone with 3 other persons is challenging enough.

I thought we were to refrain from telling each other what our 'points' were.

Forgive me if I was unclear; I was reffering to presuming personals values. I certainly don't want anyone to be executed; in this debate, I am following a line of argument which, for the time being, I believe it is correct. However, debating should not resort to painting the other persons in bad colors. I appologise in if I have done so.

Again, I think the problem is that are ignoring the spirit & implications of statements made.

Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

You refuse to accept that Miriel was one of the faithful because no-one has yet given you a quote in which Tolkien wrote 'Miriel was one of the faithful.' Does Tolkien anywhere say 'Frodo was a good person who sacrificed himself for others'?

False analogy; there is massive evidence that Frodo was good and was sacrificing himself, direct and indirect, in the books and letters; zero on Miriel behalf being a faithful.

Now, the 'situation' referred to is clearly not the general behaviour of the Numenoreans - which had been going on for a good while. The situation, clearly, is the attack of the fleet - this is clear because the result of the Valar's action is to open a chasm & engulf the fleet. The fact that the fate of Numenor is described in the passive (its on the edge of the rift & topples over) implies that it was a side effect, not a direct consequence.

Since this provides a further deviance from the story, Tar Calion engulfed, before I answer I will go back to my HoME V to see what this could possibly mean.

Throw up all the quotes you want but it won't address the real issue of how many readers feel about what happened.

If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in a certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

However, as I have pointed previously, it may be that Eru could not or would not remove corruption in creation until the end of time. This is something which is mentioned in the Atrabeth; Myths Transformed also notes that the eradication of Melkor (or, if I may note, of his corruption) is not possible without the destruction of Arda - which points again to the end of the world.

Well, it may be he could not or would not - but isn't he omnipotent? And the point is the reader's feelings about Eru's behaviour. The reader is in a difficult position if he or she finds the behaviour of Eru not fitting with his supposed character, or with the reader's own moral value system.

No, that is not how I understood Tolkien; God remains the ultimate source of good; however, we may not assume his omniscience, therefore not his judgement - and we also sin; to hope to have our sins forgiven, we must have mercy too. He was talking about being "extravagantly generous" in this aspect. In this, I believe he was also reffering to the Christian mercy, or to the love which forgives everything. In his comments to Frodo, he was indeed talking about two scales of morality which we must apply: absolute ideal for ourselves - and mercy for others.

Fine but this a) assumes Eru = the Christian God & b) leads us to ask exactly how destroying all the Numenoreans equates to 'forgiving everything'?

Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

Chesterton once remarked that the children in whose company he saw Maeterlinck's Blue Bird were dissatisfied “because it did not end with a Day of Judgement, and it was not revealed to the hero and the heroine that the Dog had been faithful and the Cat faithless.” “For children,” he says, “are innocent and love justice; while most of us are wicked and naturally prefer mercy.” Andrew Lang was confused on this point. He was at pains to defend the slaying of the Yellow Dwarf by Prince Ricardo in one of his own fairy-stories. ”I hate cruelty,” he said, ”. . . but that was in fair fight, sword in hand, and the dwarf, peace to his ashes! died in harness.”

Yet it is not clear that “fair fight” is less cruel than “fair judgement”; or that piercing a dwarf with a sword is more just than the execution of wicked kings and evil stepmothers—which Lang abjures: he sends the criminals (as he boasts) to retirement on ample pensions. That is mercy untempered by justice. It is true that this plea was not addressed to children but to parents and guardians, to whom Lang was recommending his own Prince Prigio and Prince Ricardo as suitable for their charges. It is parents and guardians who have classified fairystories as Juvenilia. And this is a small sample of the falsification of values that results. ....OFS

If this is your final position, then fine by me. If no mather the evidence, you persist in certain personal interpretation, it is your own right and choice and I respect that. However, if you imply there is "objective" (if I may say so) fault, then there is ground for discussion.

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response. As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion. It is an act which many readers find unpleasant, yet those same readers love the world Tolkien has created - its just they feel that Eru is the wrong God for that kind of world - as if the real God of Arda has been kidnapped & replaced by some vengeful psychopath.

And so, we return back to the beginning - if Eru didn't exist, & the world was basically a polytheistic one ruled over by the generally decent & well-meaning Valar who get things right most of the time but occasionally cock things up big time (like trying to destroy the invading Numenorean fleet & going a bit too far & accidentally drowning the Island) it would be fine - but bring in an 'all wise, all powerful, benevolent & loving' God who also wreaks havoc & mass slaughter & the problems start...

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by davem

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response.

Precisely. Which is why I feel that the current debate is never going to result in anything approaching agreement. You are both coming at it from entirely different perspectives, in which personal beliefs play a major part. Resolution is very unlikely in such circumstances.

As I have said before, the issue that I see as far more interesting is whether, and if so how, those of us who feel uncomfortable with Eru's actions here can reconcile that with our appreciation of the overall work.

[Thenamir]

May I be so bold as to suggest that the reason that this thread is generating so much more heat than light is that that there are those, myself included, who consciously or subconsciously see some of the comments being made here as a veiled accusation against the character of the God in which they believe. Conversely, I think it possible, and please forgive me if I am misinterpreting, that those who choose not to believe as I and others here do see the same kind of accusations made against them for not believing.

Now I am not trying to turn this thread away from Tolkien discussion and into theological debate, far from it. But this is the syllogism I see being hashed and rehashed here:

• Major premise: Tolkien intended his portrayal of Eru to be like the Christian God
• Minor Premise: Eru is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Numenor)
• Conclusion: The Christian God is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)

Now any student of logic can see the fallicies in this syllogism, but that's not really the point. The point is that neither side of the debate likes seeing their ox being gored, even if its under the veil of discussing ostensibly Tolkien-related topics. Thus, passions are roused that don't really make for enlightening and good-natured debate.

Anyone who's been around this forum for awhile knows exactly where I stand. And I have counter-arguments on the side I have chosen that I have not seen posted here. But I will not post them, because no matter how passionate I am about my beliefs (and I am, let me assure you), I don't believe that this is the space in which to do so. Whoever wants to carry on with me on this topic can do so in PMs, e-mails, or chat.

the issue that I see as far more interesting is whether, and if so how, those of us who feel uncomfortable with Eru's actions here can reconcile that with our appreciation of the overall work.

I second Saucy's motion here, well said.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Major premise: Tolkien intended his portrayal of Eru to be like the Christian God

As I pointed out earlier; the Atlantis myth from which Numenor likely comes from is not attributed to the Judo-Christian God so we cannot deduce any opinions on said Deity from the Numenor story. We here have two conflicting things; an overall idea of the supreme being, and Tolkien's desire for an Atlantis story.

The Christian God is either cruel or capricious (because of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah)

This has got me thinking. It has always seemed to me that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was due to the people of those cities being incredibly blasphemous and what not. Then one looks at Numenor; they were (at Sauron's prodding) worshiping Melkor. Weather or not this was the main reason for the destruction of Numenor or not, I do not know, but I think it was probably one of the larger straws that eventually broke the camel's back, so to speak.

I do not tend to think of Eru equaling YHVH, but being, if not inspired by, at least an attempt to portray some aspects of him. The Bible being so vast and having, to use a Rabbinical phrase, so many faces, any aspects that get emphasised by a writer are immediately argued away by arguments for other aspects. Tolkien, I like to think, probably didn't want the haste of arguing. Tolkien (neither J.R.R or Christopher) were (or are) the biggest brains on the planet and we cannot expect them to know everything about YHVH, so creating a character inspired or intended to represent or however you want to say it, by him is a difficult process to go through. They probably left things unsaid about him in order to avoid confrontation or controversy.

If I've said some of this before, I apologise.

[Raynor]

Concerning the drowning of Numenor by the valar: from what I read in HoME V, this was the manner in which things went only in the first sketch of the story, the first and the second variant; in those variants, the numenoreans cruised with their ships in the air, Melkor could come, if only by Shadow, to Numenor, Numenoreans could come close to Tol Eressea (even the kings could come to Valinor), the life length of the numenoreans was due to the light of Valinor, which they could enjoy and began to want more, and so on. These are obviously very early materials, which were later discarded. Begining with the revision of the second variant, Numenor is sank by Iluvatar. I am not sure how to explain Tolkien's pen slip in that paragraph, by writting about something which, as far as I can tell, he discarded. I guess regressing to the childhood memory of the Atlantis complex has its downsides ....

Well, it may be he could not or would not - but isn't he omnipotent?

True, however Tolkien states that Eru guarantee the acts and choices of the valar, their free will which later translates into the basic reality of Ea, making specific refferences to the evil of Melkor.

In Osanwe kenta we have the unati, rules which will not be broken by anyone while the creation lasts; I would hold that this is one. In The Lost Road, Elendil also talks about laws, which cannot be changed, and rules, to which exceptions exists. While Eru may bring exceptions to rules, by his own will the laws will be upheld; in his case, this won't affect his options much, seeing that Tolkien states he can transform even his punishments into divine gifts.

In the Ainulindale, it is stated that even the evil of Melkor is part of the whole - and that his most triumphant "notes" are woven into a more solemn patern. Removing evil would mean making this particular creation less whole. It is also stated that the splendour of the End of Arda amazed the Ainur.

Fine but this a) assumes Eru = the Christian God

Seeing that Tolkien applies Christian percepts when discussing Frodo I don't see the problem.

b) leads us to ask exactly how destroying all the Numenoreans equates to 'forgiving everything'?

You are changing the scope of my statement; forgiveness is to be acted by humans so as to atone for their sins. I don't know how Eru treats sins. One orthodox concept, which I think it is "shared" by the elves concerning Arda remade, is that all Men will enjoy a pleasant existence (forgiveness of all sins - I don't know the greek name, only heard it once, it almost broke my tongue).

Ok, please present the context from which you derive that children like cruel justice.

I guess I am left to comment on this on my own. It is nowhere near clear that children enjoy cruelty, no matter what it accompanies, be it justice or not. I would hold this to be esspecially true since their desire for justice comes out of innoncence.

As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion.

However, it seems that no other better way is possible in the circles of this world. All in all, this is the best solution possible to that situation. I won't repeat how I consider denigrating Eru, if we can't see something better to be done.

You are both coming at it from entirely different perspectives, in which personal beliefs play a major part.

The problem is that certain perspectives contradict what information we have about this world/work. As far as I can tell, his work is in consonance with the spirit of morality, humanity and spirituality. As such, this is not just about our personal opinions, but also about the relation of his works to these values.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by davem

This is not a case where an 'objective' interpretation can ever over-ride a subjective response. As Child & SPM have stated, this act of Eru's causes a serious problem for some readers, as it does not sit with his stated attributes of mercy & compassion. It is an act which many readers find unpleasant, yet those same readers love the world Tolkien has created - its just they feel that Eru is the wrong God for that kind of world - as if the real God of Arda has been kidnapped & replaced by some vengeful psychopath.

And so, we return back to the beginning - if Eru didn't exist, & the world was basically a polytheistic one ruled over by the generally decent & well-meaning Valar who get things right most of the time but occasionally cock things up big time (like trying to destroy the invading Numenorean fleet & going a bit too far & accidentally drowning the Island) it would be fine - but bring in an 'all wise, all powerful, benevolent & loving' God who also wreaks havoc & mass slaughter & the problems start...

Eru's actions aren't really a problem for me. Why? Well despite Eru being entirely alien to my concept of what our own God might be like, it doesn't stop me accepting Eru as the god of another world, which Arda is - it's a creation in a book and not in any shape or form real (news - Hobbits don't really exist ). And Eru and his actions are consonant with what we're told about Eru as he creates the world, even as he creates what comes before the world. He's not like any God I know, this Eru also creates evil in the shape of Melkor, he's quite capable of doing things which seem 'bad' to my eyes. So smiting down a load of innocent kiddies isn't entirely out of character; it's part of his mystery, he's omnipotent so he can do it if he really wants to, and he's not a 'nice' character.

I think why so many people have a problem with Eru is that we love Tolkien's created world so much we believe everything about it must be perfect - and that includes the god of this world, who we firmly and rightly want to be beyond question, beyond doubt. We don't want Eru to do things like drown innocent children in Numenor! Despite the fact that I can accept it's consistent with his character as presented in the books, I still don't like what he does, I can find no justification for it beyond it being consistent with a god who would create Melkor (and allow Melkor to do what he wants, sing what he wants and then go on to create a world with innocent, organic beings within it, knowing that it will be tainted by Melkor). I want Eru to be beyond reproach but he isn't.

EDIT - and having seen what Thenamir has put prompts another thought or two...

Firstly, how interesting it is that some people who have encountered moral problems with the actions of the 'traditional' interpretation of the Christian God also have problems with the actions of Eru. It's that whole "But he killed innocent people! How can we call that just?!" that has led so many people out of the traditional church and into other faiths or none at all. And furthermore, how interesting it is that we don't just give up on Tolkien in the same way as the god of his world is like the traditional God we have turned from (cruel, to our minds) - I'd suggest that it's that Tolkien's Eru is just a character in a book that we can accept him as he is in the context of the book, or can just ignore him and think about the 99.9% of good stuff.

Secondly - no disrespect intended there! Just being honest. Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway? No. So many Christians are like me and can only accept a wholly good God - anything beyond that is simply an act of nature or an act of evil (though there would be divisions over whether evil comes from other humans or from some devil figure).

Thirdly - the danger is that when you have people with strong faith who for some reason have come to associate Eru with their own God, that when you criticise Eru, they assume you're going after God. This is not the case. I see Eru as just words in a book, nothing more, so do bear that in mind when I talk about Eru.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

(news - Hobbits don't really exist )

Don't ruin our dreams.

I think that Lal has an interesting point there: Eru and YHVH seem to be similar in some aspects but in the end they are from two different places. I have, however, always through of Eru as not so much a silent character in that he does nothing, but more that he does stuff but doesnt say anything. Bilbo finding the Ring, Smeagol falling over the crack of Doom, Bilbo's Birthday cake not exploding*, that kind of stuff could be argued as the silent acts of Eru. (We could go into long detail about these, but let's not).


*Sorry, I liked the idea.

[Lalwendë]

That's the thing. It's all so ambiguous. I disagree Eru can be found in these things but I aint going to fight over it unless you want me to.

I think it's testament to Tolkien's skill as a writer that he simply cannot be pinned down to one meaning or interpretation. Just imagine how dull his work would be if he'd said "Alright, it's a Christian/WWII/English allegory*. Get used to it reader!" Why! He'd be like Lewis! Now I know a lot of you like Lewis (I'm not that keen, his life story is far more interesting, though Aslan is cute) but let's be honest, he's not got quite the fan cult that Tolkien has, has he?

*delete as appropriate.

Tolkien took the concept of the melting pot of the mind to its ultimate degree, and melded so many things into his work. That's why we argue so much about it. Let's not stop!

[Raynor]

Originally Posted by Lal

Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?

Two issues, both raised before:
- Tolkien applied Christian percepts to interpreting and commenting on LotR
- how could two transcendent realities differ?

Originally Posted by Lal

I still don't like what he does, I can find no justification for it beyond it being consistent with a god who would create Melkor (and allow Melkor to do what he wants, sing what he wants and then go on to create a world with innocent, organic beings within it, knowing that it will be tainted by Melkor).

Interesting. Can you reconcile your own positions?

Originally Posted by Lal

If the world was 'perfect' then there would be no need for inspirational figures such as Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. There would be no need for scientific endeavour or even education and we could all lie around on our chaise longues eating chocolate tangents for eternity. There would be no need for Art as the world would be so perfect why would we need to express any joy or sadness in it. And there would be NO Tolkien!

Darkness is essential to the creation of satisfying Art, without it there is no plot, we merely have a succession of thoroughly nice chaps and ladies being thoroughly nice to one another. A bit like one of those manufactured Disney stories about pretty princesses endlessly marrying handsome princes - the only way to increase the excitement is to increase the bling. Or those awful platitudes expressed on 'inspirational' posters that you used to get in the workplace. Poetry would all be like greetings cards and music would all be bland manufactured non-threatening pre-teen boyband pap. If you look at all the great pop and rock music it is there purely because of suffering and struggle - The Beatles wanted to break free of the limited expectations set on them and did it by becoming musicians. Art is the same - there would be no Pre-Raphaelites had they not been struggling against the establishment, and remember there would be no work by Tolkien to even discuss had he not suffered in his youth - he'd probably simply followed his father into banking.

It seems that you consider(ed) Melkor to be quite good for the Creation!

As a matter of fact, I quite like your point that evil will bring about Gandhi or the Dalai Lama. There is an interesting concept in the catholic religion, felix culpa, the happy sin that would bring about a great saviour:

Originally Posted by Introduction to Western Humanities -- Baroque & Enlightenment, Kansas State University

Easter Sunday in the Christian calendar is the day on which the Resurrection of Jesus from the Crucifixion (on Good Friday). The day in between is Holy Saturday, and is also the occasion for a mass specially designed for the occasion. In the Latin version, which was in use in the Catholic Church almost universally until the early 1960s, one of the lines in this mass is: O felix culpa quae talem et tantum meruit habere redemptorem. We might translate this "O blessed sin [literally, happy fault] which which received as its reward so great and so good a redeemer."

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Two issues, both raised before:
- Tolkien applied Christian percepts to interpreting and commenting on LotR
- how could two transcendent realities differ?

You're discussing this with a Universalist. So of course I am going to tell you that are limitless transcendent realities. I have no problem with there being even limitless interpretations of Christian transcendent realities, nor with limitless interpretations of Eruist transcendent realities. That wasn't perhaps what you expected, but that's where I come from and possibly why I can accept Eru for what he is within that context.

About Tolkien applying Christian concepts to interpreting LotR - I think he did indeed apply some in retrospect*, but as for the actual drafting, I think rather he was most careful not to put specifics in there.

* And that's interesting in itself - as he took his place as mere reader alongside us, interpreting his own work. It's also not uncommon. Philip Pullman does much the same, pondering the 'meaning' of his own work and often making contradictory statements. Makes you wonder about the whole business of being creative...is it all just a psychological outpouring of influences?

On to Melkor...I think the text is clear that he came from Eru. It's possibly a difficult thing to accept if you have a particular view of your own God as being absolutely Good, but note, this idea is consistent with Catholicism, so is quite possibly actually the way Tolkien saw things in reality. And it's not a difficult thing to accept if you simply step back and view the work dispassionately (i.e. by not thinking of your own 100% Good version of God as you read).

Melkor being who he is and stemming from Eru makes the whole thing hang together. It does not make you question why Eru decided to create a flawed world, makes events like Numenor possible. It's also much more interesting from the writer's point of view - he was able to 'let rip' with horror and evil in this creation, and likewise, to contrast it with genuinely meaningful forces of Light. And what's more, it enables the writer to do things like have Numenor destroyed and not have his own sense of morality brought into question by readers - this was the action of a created God who himself created Melkor so does not have to be restricted to doing just the nice and fluffy kinds of things.

[davem]

I have deliberately avoided speaking about YHVH because I don't believe
much light can be shed on Tolkien's creation by reading it in the light of the Bible. The Secondary World must be self contained & not dependent on the Primary - it may reflect aspects of the Primary but it is not an allegory of it.

One can only accept the events & characters of the S.W. as events that happened in, & characters who inhabit, another reality, one which is bound by its own rules & I attempted to demonstrate that applying the rules of this world to the S.W. is bound to lead to confusion - admittedly I have done that in a very roundabout way.

The only approach which is likely to work is to simply read the stories as far as possible without judgement & allow them to work on you as they will....

Or to put it another way, this has, imo, gone as far as it can & I can't sustain anymore interest in it.

So, unless someone manages to come up with some interesting new angle on things to draw me back in I shall leave you all to it now.....

[Raynor]

That wasn't perhaps what you expected, but that's where I come from and possibly why I can accept Eru for what he is within that context.

What does it mean you accept it? That you think what he does is good? Or that a transcendent being can err? Or can it do actual evil?

About Tolkien applying Christian concepts to interpreting LotR - I think he did indeed apply some in retrospect*, but as for the actual drafting, I think rather he was most careful not to put specifics in there.

In retrospect? He was writting in his letters as early as, arguably, 1951, that "myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error), but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary 'real' world." The famous letter #131, the preface to the Silmarillion.

It's possibly a difficult thing to accept if you have a particular view of your own God as being absolutely Good, but note, this idea is consistent with Catholicism, so is quite possibly actually the way Tolkien saw things in reality.

Compare this to: "Now can we even say that a god like Eru is like the God known by all Christians anyway?". Aren't your statements contradictory?

Melkor being who he is and stemming from Eru makes the whole thing hang together.

How does the whole thing hold together, if you state that "he is not 'nice'" but he is repeatedly depicted as good, and that considering him bad is the root of evil? Please explain.

[Thenamir]

In answer to Saucy's question, I do not find that the compassion and kindness of Eru is incompatible with the story of the downfall of Numenor in the Akallabêth.

To quote something I said a long time ago in a wholly different thread on a barely related topic,

Originally Posted by A Much Younger Thenamir

When an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-compassionate Ilúvatar who has your best interests in mind says to you "Don't go there," then it isn't self-actualization, or rugged individualism, or even free-thinking to go there anyway -- it is probably suicide.

If you have laws, you have sanctions or penalties for breaking that law. To say that Eru Ilúvatar is not loving or compassionate because He enforces the rules He lays down is a fundamental fallacy. He didn't make rules for sport, or to prevent men from receiving good things, or to rain on their parties. The Ban was there for their good.
He warned,

And he sent messengers to the Dúnedain, who spoke earnestly to the King, and to all who would listen, concerning the fate and fashion of the world....it is not the land of Manwë that makes its people deathless, but the Deathless that dwell therein have hallowed the land; and there you would but wither and grow weary the sooner, as moths in a light too strong and steadfast.

He gave signs,

out of the west there would come at times a great cloud in the evening, shaped as it were an eagle, with pinions spread to the north and the south; and slowly it would loom up, blotting out the sunset, and then uttermost night would fall upon Númenor. And some of the eagles bore lightning beneath their wings, and thunder echoed between sea and cloud

He even slew some of them, which was then unheard of,

the lightnings increased and slew men upon the hills, and in the fields, and in the streets of the city

He did everything that he could do short of blunt coercion to get them to choose the right way. When they *chose* to listen to Sauron instead of Eru, to violate the Ban of the Valar, then Eru set the consequences (the sanctions of penalties of the law) in motion. Those who saw what was coming and took heed, Amandil and Elendil and all their company, and were saved from the destruction.

RE: Denying their free will. It has been said here that by killing them Eru is effectively removing their free will. That is quite correct. He allowed them to exercise their free will right up until the time that they violated his command. Just as we do -- we don't arrest criminals *before* they commit the crimes. But once they cross that line, the authority (whether it's Eru, a Shire bounder, or your local policeman) steps in to stop you, apprehend you, and remove your freedom to act further.

When you have an incorrigible child, you take away his free-will to act by putting him in his corner or his room, or perhaps you give them the child's "death penalty", a good spanking, in hopes that you can change his will, his self-destructive direction. When you have an incorrigble adult criminal, you take away his free will to act by either jailing him or executing him. When you have an incorrigible nation, as an omnipotent and all compassionate deity, you could possibly jail them, perhaps put up some kind of barrier around Numenor so that they cannot infect the rest of the world. But then you will have generation after generation, getting (as humanity generally does) worse and worse, going from lesser evils to greater ones, even if it's just amongst themselves. Or you can execute them -- bring the civilization to a screetching halt.

How, you ask, is this not cruel? Which is the more cruel, to allow countless thousands of lives to be born, live in evil and misery, and die?

they were become quick to anger, and Sauron, or those whom he had bound to himself, went about the land setting man against man, so that the people murmured against the King and the lords, or against any that had aught that they had not; and the men of power took cruel revenge.

they came no longer as bringers of gifts, nor even as rulers, but as fierce men of war. And they hunted the men of Middle-earth and took their goods and enslaved them, and many they slew cruelly upon their altars.

in that temple, with spilling of blood and torment and great wickedness, men made sacrifice to Melkor that he should release them from Death. And most often from among the Faithful they chose their victims

Or to prevent that inevitability and forebear that future misery by cutting off and cauterizing that festering and rotted piece of the world forever? Remember, Eru is not a fallible man who can, as sometimes happens in our legal systems, convict and execute the wrong person -- He can see the inevitable results of inaction. What you *don't* do is allow intractible evil to forever interfere and trample down the good. At some point, the arm or leg has to be amputated in order to save what remains. Honestly, I don't understand the problem here.

Re: Killing innocent children. Children will be raised by their parents to follow in their footsteps. The evil is not that the children were playing at pretending to be orcs, it was that the parents didn't stop them. You cannot ignore the upbringing of children in how they will turn out -- as the twig is bent, so grows the tree. With Sauron there to continually egg them on, the entire society would go from bad to worse, or else end up destroying themselves. Were the parents killed and the children allowed to live (the dream of every angst-ridden teenager), they would only grow up with the memory of their parents' instruction, and rise up again in rebellion.

Lastly -- I have been mentally goaded into making this post against my better judgement. I feel that this post will change no minds, that it has said nothing really new. I've said all I want to say on this subject, and will gladly hear the rebuttals and counter-arguments which will come whether I like them or not. I am not so self-deluded that I think I have all the answers here. I will hear what has to be said, and will consider it thoughtfully. But I will not tilt at windmills.