The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by Macalaure

Evil is defined as rebellion against Eru's will.

I define "evil" as the self-deception, and the effects that rise from it, of believing that such rebellion is even possible.

As for killing, it's wrong because it breaks the moral rule of: "what people can't re-create they shouldn't destroy without consent, because someone else might want it there" (the someone being that person's loved ones, etc.). The consent would be, of course, capital punishment, etc. But Eru is in the position of being able to create Incarnates, and so does not fall under this (again humanly-constructed) rule.

Also, killing falls under the Golden Rule of course. But since our "selves" are fundamentally different from Eru's "self", quite probably this social rule doesn't apply either. Also, if Eru didn't want "violent separation of hröa and fëa to take place, obviously he would never have bothered to place Incarnates into Arda Marred! Obviously, then, this is a poor assumption. I would rather think that such separation is indeed part of Indómë. Either that or abandon estel altogether and not bother believing in Eru.

Originally Posted by Macalaure

I think Eru's goal in destroying Númenor was to eliminate the evil/rebellion that spread from it. If we agree that he wasn't omnipotent (bear with me, but why isn't almighty=omnipotent?), then it's quite possible that he wasn't able to sort out the innocent and the guilty ones in the process. Leaving anybody to Sauron isn't even a real alternative, I'd say.

My theory of the Downfall, which I have written and alluded to a few times above, is still that Númenor's destruction was a secondary aspect of the Breaking of the World, and hardly the main reason for that Breaking. When we consider Eru in that context, we can either assume that Eru chose (if he is not a moral figure) to ignore that the island was there when he broke the world, since its inhabitants had chosen to ignore him. If he is a moral figure, the island was allowed to be caught in the destruction both because of the people's deeds, but also to deliver them (and their children!) from Sauron.

(Keep in mind that this is a very complex and many-sided issue, and I haven't thought about every aspect of it. There may well be holes in my argument/presentation.)

As to almightiness vs. omnipotence:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia, from the "omnipotence paradox" article

Y is almighty means that Y is not just more powerful than any creature; no creature can compete with Y in power, even unsuccessfully. In this account nothing like the omnipotence paradox arises, but perhaps that is because God is not taken to be in any sense omnipotent.

And that sounds exactly like Eru as he is presented in Tolkien's works: not stated to be omnipotent, but any attempt to rebel against him will in the end be unsuccessful.

Lastly, aside from the initial "miracle" of making a big crack in Arda, everything happened in accord with natural processes (the Faithful's escape may or may not have been the aid of the Valar). Númenor fell down into the Sea because that was according to the laws of physics. Sauron survived the Downfall because his ability to do so was part of his natural spiritual potency. Since Eru mostly decided (or was constrained) to let the laws of physics take place, it's no mystery why the innocent died as well in the huge catastrophe.

But I still think people's problem with this is to make Eru equal to God in their minds. Eru nowhere calls himself "good", "moral", or "right" that I know of, so he is not constrained to play nice. Eru is Sternness. That's the only attribute I've ever been able to ascribe to him consistently, anyway.