The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Elmo]

I grew sceptical of the Valar and therefore Eru and their supposed 'love' for Men when reading Silmarillion - the abandonment of men in the east for one the Valar could have easily sent a messenger but no they had to leave men defenceless in Melkor's grasp no wonder a lot of them turned evil- but the slaughter of women and children during the end of the Land of the Star made me become full of intense dislike for the Valar with them drinking metaphorical Piña Coladas on Eldamaar beach in their paradise while men are left slogging it out in the sometimes hell hole of middle earth. The Akallabeth is an atrocity comparable to whatever Melkor, Sauron or Hitler commited and yet they are supposed to be the 'Good' guys. By all mean smite the invading conscript army to your land but what threat were the women and children to the Valar? Its the equivalent of after 9/11 George Bush targeted all the nurseries of Saudi Arabia, even he didn't do that!

[The Might]

I am not sure if they really abandoned them. If I remember well, I think I read a bit of the HOME where Melkor first appeared to Men as a great and beautiful lord and deceived them, and Eru later spoke directly to the Men asking them not to listen to Melkor. I am not sure where it is, I am not such a HOME expert. As far as the Valar are concerned, the problem is we aren't given a lot of information on them and the Men in the east, or if any is given, I am not aware of its existence.
One proof that the Valar did not abandon people in the East where Alatar and Pallando who were sent there to help the people. Unfortunately Tolkien indicates they failed in their quest as well.

As far as Numenoreans are concerned I too think the Valar exagerated. They could have allowed the women and children to leave...I can't understand why they didn't. This wasn't just a warning, this was really too much.

[Thinlómien]

Originally Posted by The Might

As far as Numenoreans are concerned I too think the Valar exagerated. They could have allowed the women and children to leave....

I've always failed to understand this (very common) point of view. What had the "normal" Númenórean men done more wrong than the women of the country? Children are a different thing, but raising civilian women over civilian men is just something I don't understand...

edit: Just to make my point clear. I don't think the civilian/innocent women should have been saved any more then civilian/innocent men, but in general I don't think anyone should have been punished that strongly. I'm also against capital punishment....

[Findegil]

Well, I think you have missed a part of the information mentioned in the Akalabêth. The Valar did not do anything at the approache of Ar-Pharazôn. They laid down there responsibility and commited the reaction to this breaking of a rule set by Iluvatar himself to him. All that followed was not the action of the Valar but of Eru himself.

What the Valar did before was sending warning after warning to the Numenoreans.

What else should they have done?

Respectfully
Findegil

[Elmo]

It stills makes it atrocious if Eru did it then and anyway weren'te ALL the men in the invasion force (except the 'Failthful') I also dislike civilian women being held over civilian men and the Valar could still have evacuated the the civvies

[Legate of Amon Lanc]

I also don't think killing women and children would be OK, but I suppose what we have are forgetting is, that possibly 90% of the Númenoreans were really wicked at that time. This would include the women as well (they could very well make sacrifices of their own children to Sauron, for example). And after all, Valar let the Faithful leave. If they acted really ruthlessly as you say, they'd have put the island down no matter if any faithful were there.
TM, you said they missed warning... I think they got enough warnings: if you don't consider their own tradition, then from the Elves, the Faithful ... and this took centuries. Ar-Pharazon was really much then. I think we'll all agree that worshiping Sauron and making bloody sacrifices of other people is really not nice. But we have many warning omens even in the last generation: eagle-like clouds from the west, restless earth beneath the island, lightnings from the skies, and here is the reaction of the Númenoreans to the warning:

Then some few would repent for a season, but others hardened their hearts, and they shook their fists at heaven, saying: 'The Lords of the West have plotted against us. They strike first. The next blow shall be ours!'

If I exaggerate it a little bit, the Valar were very kind to wait until the last moment, till Ar-Pharazon really attacked Aman. You also have to look at it from the point of Valar, or Eru - you have some world you had a hard work with, but when your own creation turns against you, who have created it for them, believes Sauron that you are just a nonexisting phantom (sorry TP ) and instead worships Melkor as "Lord of All" (when actually he is stuck somewhere in the Void), and finally, wants to attack you (?!?! huh?), that's really much. Destruction of Númenor was not exaggerated punishment in my opinion, for the "evil ones", of course. And as I said, when the Faithful left, there possibly were not too many of those who didn't deserve the punishment. So, I also don't agree that the death of those women and children was O.K., but they surely were not so many - they were not all of the inhabitants of Númenor, there were just few of them, so the portrait is not as terrible as you show it.

[Elmo]

I believe not one child should die for the sins of their parents... and I'm also opposed to the death penalty

[Macalaure]

Unless I haven't overread something, there was no messenger or whatsoever sent to the first Men. Then again, the Valar only found out about the Elves by chance, so maybe they didn't know about Men before it was too late, because they didn't go to Middle-earth regularly anymore. Later the Valar couldn't have helped Men against Morgoth without helping the Noldor as well. Obviously they weren't particularly good at swallowing their pride.
I think that they didn't intentionally neglect Men, but that it all was just a lot of bad luck and maybe shortcoming of character.


As has been said, the Drowning of Westernesse was not the Valar's deed. I don't see what they could have done either. But it casts an ambiguous light on Eru, I think. Numenor was a gift to the Edain of the first age. Their descendants rebelled against the Valar, so Eru surely has a good right to take it from them again. But he killed everyone on it who didn't have a ship prepared perchance, and that was cruel.
I think we agree that the unfaithful Numenorians deserved punishment. Death? If there is one person who is able to judge that, it is Eru.
If he had let the women and children live (in Numenor or Middle-earth), history would have repeated itself, I'm sure. So, judge each individual and only kill the wicked? Leaves a weird feeling in me.
Maybe judge each individual, withdraw the gifts that the Valar once granted to the Numenoreans from the guilty and banish them from the isle, therefore making them no better than the average Man of Middle-earth? Not sure whether this would have been wise. But maybe Eru just wasn't wise in the moment? Maybe he was just angry about these people who received more wisdom etc. from the Valar than any other Man and still weren't satisfied and turned to evil to have more? Maybe he thought that even the Faithful would, after having multiplied, turn to evil eventually? (if I read the Silm correctly, it was the Valar, not Eru, who helped the Faithful escape)
Whatever the case, the drowning remains a deed that, in my mind, was unjustifiedly cruel and overshot the mark. Was it justified? I don't think so. Is it understandable? Maybe.

Concerning the warnings, I think the reaction of the Numenorians to it shows more of the paranoia of the people than of their actual peril. I doubt even the Valar knew what was to come when they laid down their supremacy.

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

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 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.

A distinction is needed between imperfect as limitation and imperfect as morally flawed. Aulë is not at his best in the Air while Manwë is, and vice versa. These are limitations designed into them, and thus they are inadequate out of their arenas of strength; this fits with the quote from Myths Transformed. This is not equivalent to moral flaw. On the other hand, Melkor is morally flawed, resulting from choices made in his pride that violate the Music.

It's equally important to consider what "holy" does NOT mean. Holy obviously does not mean evil. Thus neither Melkor nor any of the other Ainur can be understood to have been evil from the beginning.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

I might as well respond to this, too. Melkor's shame didn't arise as a result of anyone's responsibility. It came about because Eru matter-of-factly told him that his course of action would fail. Whether or not it was your fault that your desire to do something would fail, wouldn't you feel ashamed and angry about being informed of that in front of your peers?

On the contrary. Eru says, "...nor can any alter the music in my despite..." Eru names Melkor's act as one of despite against Eru himself; that is, malice or hatred against Eru. That goes beyond mere predicted failure.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

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.

I agree up to a point: they will never truly overthrow the Will of Eru, no matter how much interference they attempt. This must be the case, for if rebellion is a mere illusion, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who attempts to disobey his Will ... unless that is illusion also; but if you argue this to its necessary end, then the whole thing is illusion and nothing is real, including the Will of Eru.

I also agree that self-deception is at the core of Melkor's evil, and is a fundamental aspect of it. It is in lies that evil beliefs and actions find their justifications.

Originally Posted by Tar-Telperien

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?

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight. So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

If morality is not absolute, then Eru has no basis for punishing anyone who does evil, for if evil is a constructed notion, then who is to say that Melkor was evil and Manwë was good? It could be argued that it was vice versa, and a raging and vain debate would ensue that could not have a solution, and Tolkien's themes in The Silmarillion, which are presented in the Ainulindalë, are a sheer vanity and can hold no weight.

What is anything in Arda if it is not constructed? Everything is constructed by Eru, he is everything, he is omnipotent. Please tell me where evil comes from if Eru did not make it? Because if he did not make it then Eru's Authority instantly falls apart. Tolkien states it plainly - Eru is All. Those are the rules we begin, and end, with.

Let's imagine that one day in Middle-earth the Orcs were suddenly blessed with a lot of good luck, which happened to come from Eru (and bear in mind that the text also states that the Ainur do NOT know all of Eru's intentions, he keeps rather a lot back, in fact most of time is known only to Eru), and that Elves and Men suddenly started to fail. we would say that evil had come to Middle-earth. But would we still consider this evil if Eru did it? And I know what's going to be said now, that Eru would never do such a thing! How can you think that?! Well he could if he wanted to. Is Eru bound by your rules, my rules, the rules of Men, the rules of Melkor? No. If he is bound by anyone's rules but his own then yet again he loses his Authority. All anyone can do is hope that Eru is on their side, and sometimes he isn't, as shown by those innocents who die at Numenor.

So morality cannot be a constructed notion; it must come from Eru.

So where did the concept come from if Eru did not make it? If he made everything?

That means someone, something, else is at work which has Authority over Eru. And that doesn't work. If Eru is not omnipotent in this world then the entire work falls apart.

[littlemanpoet]

I stand corrected on the matter of Eru banning Morgoth to the Void; as you say, it is the Valar who do so. But that does not change my point. Eru is the author of Eä, and gives authority to the Valar who do his will. They enter Eä at his invitation; Melkor enters of his own accord. My point is that if the Valar have the authority to ban Morgoth, it came from Eru. To say "Eru is in his very nature moral", is not saying the same thing as "Eru is subject to morality".

It's like this: either morality flows from Eru, or amorality flows from Eru. If amorality flows from Eru, then why is there no terror, violence, and all the other negatives, in the Music originally propounded by Eru to which all the Valar listen? Why does it not rear up until it comes from Melkor? Further, why does Eru "dress Melkor down" for bringing discord to the Music "in despite of" Eru? ... if Eru is amoral? It just doesn't work. Therefore, morality flows from the very nature of Eru.

It's all there in the text; but since that doesn't seem to be enough to convince, let's take a look at words from Tolkien's Letters:

But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers of 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). - Letter 156, from 1954

The Knowledge of the Creation Drama was incomplete: incomplete in each individual 'god', and incomplete if all the knowledge of the pantheon were pooled. For (partly to redress the evil of the rebel Melkor, partly for the completion of all in an ultimate finesse of detail) the Creator had not revealed all. - Letter 131, from 1951 (before LotR was published)

Knowledge of the Story as it was when composed, before realization, gave [the Valar] their measure of fore-knowledge; the amount varied ver much, from the fairly complete knowledge of the mind of the Creator in this matter possessed by Manwë, the 'Elder King', to that of lesser spirits who might have been interested only in some subsidiary matter (such as trees or birds). Some had attached themselves to such major artists and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendant unique Creator. ...

The Creator did not hold himself aloof. He introduced new themes into the original design, which might therefore be unforeseen by many of the spirits in realization... - Letter 200, from 1957

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One. This was propounded first in musical or abstract form, and then in an 'historical vision'. In the first interpretation, the vast Music of the Ainur, Melkor introduced alterations, not interpretations of the mind of the One, and great discord arose. The One then presented this 'Music', including the apparent discords, as a visible 'history'. - Letter 212 - 1958

Lalwendë, your debate is with Tolkien and not with me.

One final thing: I cannot find the document right now, but I have read that Tolkien understood evil to be negative, as in the absence of good. Thus, evil is flawed good. This can be seen in various place throughout Tolkien's writings, in which he uses the prefix, 'un-' to describe a thing, such as 'un-light'.

This quote address the original question of this thread:

That Sauron was not himself destroyed in the anger of the One is not my fault: the problem of evil, and its apparent toleration, is a permanent one for all who concern themselves with our world. The indestructibility of spirits with free wills, even by the Creator of them, is also an inevitable feature, if one either believes in their existence, or feigns it in a story. - Letter 211 - 1958

A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. - Letter 212 - 1958

Why would divine eventiveness produce a good not otherwise to be attained if Eru is not good but both good and evil combined? It just doesn't work.

[Lalwendë]

I've no debate with Tolkien, I have read what he wrote and it's all there in the text. There is no need to seek further clarification as it's there. Simple as. I can fully accept what he says about Eru, the god of this world he creates, despite it being wholly alien to what I believe and wholly alien to what I was taught in Church (a Protestant church). As time has gone by though, I see where it may stem from, from Catholicism. Everything has its root in Eru? Hmm, sounds strikingly similar to the (to me) slightly frightening concept that everything has its root in God as expressed by Catholics in my family, with the only difference being that it was not Men who realised the concept of The Fall but a God.

I have no debate with Tolkien.

But I will ask yet again, where does evil come from?

Does Tolkien lie? When he says:

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

Is he putting a Lie into the mouth of Eru?

All that is needed to see this is to accept that this god which Tolkien created was omnipotent and by the very definition of that, he created Everything, yes, even Darkness.

Let's go right back to basics, to the beginning:

There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Iliivatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made.

First there is nothing but Eru. No void. No Ea. No Valar. No good. No evil. There is the All-Father.

Then he makes the Valar, offspring of his thought. And they are Holy Ones because they are the first things he makes, before he makes anything else. They are embodiments of his thought, given the Flame Imperishable to live to exist. They are in fact aspects of Eru himself.

Now the following supports the idea that Holy=Flawless is wrong:

But in this 'mythology' all the 'angelic' powers concerned with this world were capable of many degrees of error and failing between the absolute Satanic rebellion and evil of Morgoth and his satellite Sauron, and the fainéance of some of the other higher powers of 'gods'. The 'wizards' were not exempt, indeed being incarnate were more likely to stray, or err. Gandalf alone fully passes the tests, on a moral plane anyway (he makes mistakes of judgement). - Letter 156, from 1954

Ah! So here's Tolkien underlining just what I had read in his work! That Holy does not in fact equal flawless!

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One. This was propounded first in musical or abstract form, and then in an 'historical vision'. In the first interpretation, the vast Music of the Ainur, Melkor introduced alterations, not interpretations of the mind of the One, and great discord arose. The One then presented this 'Music', including the apparent discords, as a visible 'history'. - Letter 212 - 1958

They were shown by Eru the 'plan' they had all created and then were sent to make it - Ea is formless when they enter. In their music they sing of what it will be and Melkor alters his tune, but we cannot get away from the fact that no theme may be played that does not have its uttermost source in Eru. So despite him thinking he can be altering it to his own advantage, he still cannot alter what Eru has put there, which is the potential for darkness. Have you heard of Elgar's Enigma Variations? This is a suite of music, each tune said to possess a mysterious melody which cannot be identified, but each very, very different; that is how The Music works - each Valar sings a tune from one source, each of their tunes is unique but they all share the common source.

The Knowledge of the Creation Drama was incomplete: incomplete in each individual 'god', and incomplete if all the knowledge of the pantheon were pooled. For (partly to redress the evil of the rebel Melkor, partly for the completion of all in an ultimate finesse of detail) the Creator had not revealed all. - Letter 131, from 1951 (before LotR was published)

That tells us nothing about where Melkor came from and why he is how he is, but it does tell us something about why Eru did not reveal all the Vision, something which Tolkien does not tell us in the text. So Eru wants it kept secret in part to battle the evil he created the world with?

Knowledge of the Story as it was when composed, before realization, gave [the Valar] their measure of fore-knowledge; the amount varied ver much, from the fairly complete knowledge of the mind of the Creator in this matter possessed by Manwë, the 'Elder King', to that of lesser spirits who might have been interested only in some subsidiary matter (such as trees or birds). Some had attached themselves to such major artists and knew things chiefly indirectly through their knowledge of the minds of these masters. Sauron had been attached to the greatest, Melkor, who ultimately became the inevitable Rebel and self-worshipper of mythologies that begin with a transcendant unique Creator. ...

The Creator did not hold himself aloof. He introduced new themes into the original design, which might therefore be unforeseen by many of the spirits in realization... - Letter 200, from 1957

Again, Tolkien underlines what I'm saying, that this all beagn with the Creator, Eru.

Have you actually considered what Arda would have been like if Eru had not created Melkor? There would be no snow, no storms, no ice, no dragons, no failing Frodo, no heroic Aragorn, no jealous Boromir, no sneaky Gollum, no proud Feanor, etc etc...all of these are as a result of Melkor 'marring' the vision. In fact the creation of Men and Elves is seemingly as a direct result of Melkor's dicordancy - Eru raises his hand and brings that thought into the vision after Melkor has sung.

Melkor's trouble is that having been made possesing all of the aspects that all of his kin possess, he effectively has everything that Eru has, apart from the Flame and Eru's Authority. And he wants that. But Eru made him. There is no way of getting away from that fact unless you care to rewrite the Silmarillion and issue it as your own book.

EDIT: I've been looking for this, which may illuminate some of Tolkien's thought:

Originally Posted by Isaiah 45:07

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[Elmo]

just to claim the 100th post of my own post I realise why I thought the Valar were responsible for the Akallabeth because in 'Of the Rings of Power and the Third Age' Tolkien states that Sauron 'had forgotten the might of the Lords of the West in their anger.' as has already been stated somewhere in this very interesting debate Tolkien changed his mind about who was responsible for the carnage. As to why CT never changed this contradiction when they are merely pages apart in the Silmarillion is another matter...

[littlemanpoet]

Sigh.

Lal, you insist on taking that quote out of context.

Allow me to remind you of this, which may have been overlooked: I have read that Tolkien understood evil to be negative, as in the absence of good. Thus, evil is flawed good. This can be seen in various place throughout Tolkien's writings, in which he uses the prefix, 'un-' to describe a thing, such as 'un-light'.

As to the verse, I would be interested what the original Hebrew says, for my New King James version has Isaiah 45:7 this way:

I form the light and create darkness,
I make peace and create calamity;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Just to add oil to the fire.... :P .... Amos 3:6 says:

If a trumpet is blown in a city,
will not the people be afraid?
If there is calamity in a city,
will not the LORD have done it?

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context.

[Lalwendë]

I fail to see how this is taken out of context. I could in fact say exactly the same thing but I won't (or have I just? )...I'm trying to understand what Tolkien says about Eru from the text he gives us, nothing else.

Even if evil is an absence of Good then if Eru is omnipotent then he must have caused the situation for that absence to happen.

If you have a can of petrol and a match and you give them to someone and he then burns down your house, who is to blame? You might beat yourself up over it and not trust anyone again. How about if you give your best mate a can of petrol and he offers to fill up your car, and then asks if he can borrow a match to light a cigarette when he's done, but then he burns down your house? Who's to blame then? Of course we might say he was simply using his free will and as we did not realise the consequences, he was our best mate after all, it wasn't our fault. But what if the petrol and the match never even existed? Or we did not choose to put him into that situation? We caused him to be in contact with the petrol and the match, even if we had no idea what he would do.

If evil in Tolkien's world is the absence of something then Eru (as creator of all) causes Melkor to be missing something.

Add into this that Eru knows what will happen. If he does not know, and if he does not cause everything to be, then he is impotent, not omnipotent.

And if we try and solve it by saying "OK then, Eru is not omnipotent" then who is the Authority and how do we ever distinguish between good and evil?

Having Eru also put evil into the world does not mean that he prefers it, nor even that he likes it. It's just there. It's the understanding why that's the really interesting question.

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context.

The problem here is that you are confusing one type, one interpretation of God with Eru. Whereas there are many, many possible answers to this problem. The whole pursuit of Theodicy is devoted to this problem and that has continued for thousands of years and probably will continue as long as people have religions. Lots of answers have been turned up - and I'll get to one fully commensurate with Tolkien's writings at the end.

This essential problem is why Tolkien creates an Eru who is omnipotent, who creates All and causes All to be. This ties in completely with the concept of the Long Defeat, an idea that critics (including Christians) of Tolkien's work put down simply to the problem that evil can never be fully defeated but we must try to do it all the same or else existence is futile. It ties in with what Eru says about how evil is simply 'tributary to glory'; the only thing which evil can ultimately do is serve to greater increase Glory. It also ties in with the existence of Free Will as without options from which to choose, there is no point in having Free Will in a universe with a fully omnipotent God; the Children may as well be automatons otherwise, flawless Cybermen without the burden of choices to make. This rounding off of even the theological aspects is entirely what we might come to expect of a writer like Tolkien who covers his bases and sought out complete internal consistency and continuity in his world

This concept of an all-creating, all-powerful God is also to be found in the Book of Job in which God repeatedly smites Job with troubles (and allows Satan to do so). Job's comforters advise him to 'repent' as misfortune is always a divine punishment and fortune is always a divine reward, but Job won't do that. His wife tells him to renounce God as he cannot possibly exist if he does this; Job won't do that either. He says: "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". Job is eventually (it seems that way anyway, it's not wholly clear) released from his troubles. The lesson is that God simply exists, and he should be worshipped even if he does bad things to the good. It's about God's divine right to do as he pleases, as whatever he does it's in our best interests. Not comforting. not even something I personally agree with, but that's what comes out in Tolkien's work whether I like it or not.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

It is also interesting that Tolkien says that there is no humanly acceptable answer to the problem of evil if one posits a wholly good God (or Eru), which I still insist The Silmarillion does, in spite of how it can be taken out of context.

Yes, context!

I think the missing link in understanding Tolkien's cosmology is in the process by which it was assembled.

The process of writing The Lord of the Rings was holographic, not creative. He assembled a beautiful Metaphor out of a tiny fragment of human experience - his own. It was testament to nothing more than the word-thoughts which arose in him as he experienced reality unfolding, yet in it each of us can find our entire lives reflected.

Gandalf tells Frodo to take pity on Smeagol. Why? There are two possibilities.

1) Pity is an epiphenomenon of random processes, and it 'feels' biologically good to express pity.

2) Gandalf knows that Smeagol has never done anything wrong in his life.

It would not have mattered if Frodo fried Smeagol on the spit and feasted on him with Sam. But hey, we all read the book: we know he didn't!

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The Pagan legends he loved had Gods, the Religion he followed had a single God. In the Legendarium the two powers sit uncomfortably -

Perhaps...

Tolkien stated in the forward to the Lord of the Rings that he wrote it mostly for his own enjoyment. To me, this suggests that he would probably have wanted to get all (or as many as he could) of the things he loved about mythology and the Bible and mix them into one big bucket of fun!
I myself have experienced the process of taking different aspects of different things to build a pseudo mythology. Take all the bits you like and not the bits you hate and you have something that you yourself will enjoy, and if others like it then that is an added bonus.
I think the fall of Numenor is a perfect example of this; the mixture of a famous myth and the concepts of Judaic derived beliefs. I think there are many other examples of Tolkien wanting to get both and finding a way.

Certain stories from myth and from The Bible are present side by side. An interesting side note to make is that in one of (I think it was) Paul's letters he quotes a Cretan Prophet who said that 'Cretans are all liars and drunkards' or something and then he affirms that what he said was true. Perhaps Tolkien's intention was to sort of explore the ways in which something doesn't have to have the label 'God' or 'Christian' or anything in order for it to be good or true.
An american writer called Rob Bell once said,

"Is the greatest truth about the Adam and Eve story the fact that it happened or that it happens? The story resonates with us because we've all been there, we've all taken the 'fruit' we've all lost our way. Or the story of the Exodus; a lot of us have been in some kind of slavery or trouble and we've been brought out. It happened then... it happens now."

I think the same concept can be seen in Tolkine's work. Some stories can connect with people and some concepts can move us. Just look at the Barrow Downs alone. In the end, Tolkien's Legendarium is a fantastically enjoyable tale that seems to affect and keep affecting people, weather your just reading The Hobbit or are on your tenth History of Middle Earth.

After that random tangent...

But it all comes down to the fact that the Akallabêth was a story. Like the story of Atlantis. Its a story about some people who get greedy and want more. Again, if Akallabêth is framed after Atlantis we can't just copy and paste the God of The Bible and expect him to fit perfectly.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

The problem I have with the character is its 'primitiveness' & 'simplicity' (in a bad sense). The character lacks the necessary depth & complexity to sit well in the developed Legendarium

I hear you.
Perhaps the reason for Tolkien's lack of development of Eru is due to a sort of fear of getting it wrong or causing too much controvacy. To go into the character too deeply might make him too obviously an allegory of the God of the Bible and may have alienated some readers who just wanted to get down to the excitement, adventure and really wild things.
Now, the writers of the Bible seemed less interested in proving weather or not this God exists and were more interested in telling us what this God was like and who he is. The Bible is a long book and there are many aspects to the, shall we say for arguments sake, character of God. As I said, Tolkien wasn't a scholar and for every characteristic he might try to highlight, there might be an odd learned man or two to tell him how wrong he was. Polytheism is much easier to get away with on this level because, certainly in Tolkien's day, it wasn't as widely studied as Biblical theology and so to take assumptions and liberties in the characters of the Valar was much easier and less liable to be open to criticism.

Just a thought.

[Hookbill the Goomba]

Originally Posted by hewhoarisesinmight

Isn't that the crux of the matter though he did intervene in a BIG what with hilm destroying a whole civilisation and whatnot

Touche.

The only explanation I can think of is that Numinor had to be destroyed for the sake of the story and the Valar either did not have the power to do so or did not want to wipe people out without Eru's express permission... although, then there are the Orcs that they quite willingly killed. Then again, Numenor was different and... this is confusing!