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!

[Tar-Telperien]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.

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?

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

On the contrary. Problems only arise when we fail to account for all the facts in the text. 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'.

This only works if we project particular concepts of the meaning of 'Holy' onto the Valar. As Tar-Telperien says, the Valar were indeed flawed. As is shown in the topic of this whole thread. The Valar created Numenor and gifted it to favoured Men but did not account for the possibility that Men might, under the influence of Sauron or under their own steam, wish to break the Ban. The only way they could then get around this was by appealing to Eru who had sent them into Arda to remain in Arda for good. If Eru made them then he made all of them with the possibility of making errors of judgement and mistakes. And there is also Aule's little rule-breaking exercise in sub-creation when he made Dwarves.

I suppose we could say that Holy means 'perfect' in Eru's mind, but then this would clearly have to mean that 'perfect' in Eru's mind was not our concept of 'perfect', it was one that included the ability to make mistakes and learn.

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Therefore, evil cannot have its origins in Eru. And "Melkor was filled with shame, of which came secret anger" - - if Melkor is filled with shame, how can it be that Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion? If Eru is responsible for Melkor's rebellion, then Melkor would have no reason for shame.
So account for ALL the text.

If wanting to find out how this world was forged it makes sense to go right back to its earliest stories, its creation myths, tales of the times before Elves, Men and Rings. Otherwise we are running the risk of looking at the creation myth of Tolkien's world as viewed through the interpretations of creation given by generation upon generation of descendents.

Aside from that, what is Elrond actually saying here? Is he saying that evil was at a later stage imposed upon certain Ainur? If so, who by? 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?

Remember:

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

[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...

[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.

[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.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Eru is moral. He is also immoral. Eru is everything and everything springs from him. Eru is good, Eru is evil. If Eru is indeed omnipotent, if he is indeed the beginning and end (as Tolkien says he is) then he must have created everything. And in fact Tolkien says so. Again:

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

Where, precisely, could concepts of evil or immorality have come from if they did not come from Eru? These are parts of his being. But who decides which things are immoral, which things are moral. Eru does. And isn't he still omnipotent? Then where do the rules come from which force Eru to choose which things are so? Nowhere. Eru chooses, and he can choose as he sees fit at any time, that's the nature of omnipotence.

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

Eru had no part in this.

Originally Posted by lmp

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?

Who gave Melkor those choices? Who created the potential for pride and lust? Where did they come from? Eru cannot be 'everything' if there are outside forces at work putting concepts of pride and lust about, he instantly loses his omnipotence and Authority.

Originally Posted by lmp

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..."

Then where does it come from if not from Eru? There is not a twin creator somewhere unless you want to head down the path of some of my mad ramblings about Ungoliant. Better to stick with what Tolkien says in the books and he says that everything has its source in him. Even Free Will must be a construct by Eru. And Tolkien says something about Free Will and the Valar:

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 the 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.

The Children are 'other than themselves, strange and free'? Is this the point at which Eru actually creates Free Will, namely he gives it to the Children but not to the Valar? This is a bit of a revelation! The Valar learn something new looking at this vision, the possibility that you can act outside of Eru's intentions, which tells us that previously they had been acting within his intentions. Therefore Melkor could indeed have been bidden to act the way that he did. And remember when Eru tells him that he has still to learn some of the secrets of his thought, obviously things in his mind that even Melkor, a being in existence, does not know, things placed there that only Eru knows about. That's further backed up by the fact that nothing in the music can be played unless it has its source in Eru. It seems that Eru created evil, and probably to be 'tributary to glory'. He wanted Darkness and Light both. And that underlines the idea of The Long Defeat.

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 Melkor 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.

It seems to me that Melkor's crime is in not being willing to share. He wants all of Arda for himself and does not want to share the Darkness with the Light, which is where he prompts strife. And an important note to remember is that Eru is not here at this time, the Valar are outside of him and now are earthbound. Eru is not in charge. Manwe knows of Eru's second theme however, and he has to manage that. The second theme, which was one of Eru's intentions for Arda, is that the Valar shall work together - Melkor can have some of Arda to mould (note what it says in the text about how Melkor creates cold and hence snow and ice, which are terrible, but are in the end beautiful also - an example of how his 'evil' is in the end tributary to the glory and a necessary part of it all) but he cannot have it all.

Originally Posted by lmp

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.

I believe that the Valar simply could not act against the wishes of Men in Numenor. Note what I found above about the seemingly unique free will that the Children possess. The Valar are of a fundamentally different nature and so had to appeal to the father of the Children to do something. Note also the difference here in dealing with situations. When the Valar's help was sought to deal with Melkor they could and did do something as they were acting against a being of their own nature but they fundamentally could not do anything against Children not of their nature. In the Akallabeth it also tells us something about individual Children and how their nature simply cannot be altered except for the half-Elven where Eru has delegated Authority to the Valar in enabling them to become mortal or not; pure blood Men and Elves, the Valar are forbidden from altering.

[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 Lalwendë

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.

Tolkien's Middle-earth is a self-contained, completely rational model of reality. It is not a metaphor for an ideology or a statement about some Supreme Unknowable. It has nothing to say about the world you live in: it is a metaphor for the individual - for you.

Melkor in this metaphor is the Only Lie Which Exists: the lie that you have ever done anything wrong. There is nothing transcendental about this: it is pure logic, yet we fail to actualize this principle in our dealings with others. We are overly apologetic, sympathetic - we feel the need to speak, to reassure - these are lies which keep us from seeing each other: you are a mirror to everyone and the world is a mirror to you.

We empathize with Frodo because he was nice, he did the right thing, he failed, and he was unfulfilled - but there was still hope for him! This hope is born of Morgoth, The Only Lie Ever Told.

[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!

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by Lal

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

I don't follow how you get from your 'if' to your 'then'. Please explain.

Originally Posted by SoN

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

Huh? What are you talking about, pray? And are you certain that these are the only two possibilties?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

In The Lord of the Rings, there is no God. This is the first thing you have to realize in approaching The Lord of the Rings: there is no God.

That's Sauron speaking.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

That's Sauron speaking.

Through me, or Tolkien?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

You, obviously. The consistent message of your posts here seems to be that nothing that Tolkien did, nothing that he said, really means what it should mean. That we can't trust the word of the creator of Middle-Earth in explaining hiw work and purposes, but instead have to accept the radically different spin that you're putting on it. It's very similar to Sauron's seduction of the Numenoreans, coincidentally enough, considering the topic of the thread.

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

That's not what I'm saying at all, I did not mean to imply in any way that I know more about J.R.R. Tolkien than J.R.R. Tolkien: I do not and never will. 'I', in fact, cannot understand anything that does not exist in my own mind: I cannot understand something as simple as why I ate pizza and salad for dinner this evening, much less understand the reality of a deceased South African hobbit.

Regarding the pizza and salad, one would assume that it was because you inhabit a physical body with dietary needs, and must therefore fulfill them. Perhaps the reason you chose pizza and salad in particular was because you've enjoyed eating them in the past and are favourably disposed to eating them again. Maybe that's all that was in the refrigerator. Really, the possibilities for interpretation are endless, but if you look long and hard enough, you'll only find one true answer.

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

A question has plagued me since I first met J.R.R. Tolkien - that is, met him through Peter Jackson - whom I met through a video screen... etc. etc.

The question is this:

Can a piece of writing exist as a complete metaphor for my own life and as a metaphor for the person who wrote it?

The answer is yes.

Is it? Is that truly the answer, or is simpy what you've been led to believe is the answer? Perhaps the answer is that it just feels biologically good to attempt to interpret Tokien's works as a metaphor for your personal experiences.

Again though, don't you think that's interesting? How you, intentionally or not, are echoing Sauron and his appeals to the Numenorians turning them away from Eru and the Valar? The connection is an intriguing one, really. Perhaps you don't understand it, but nothing happens for no reason.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

Don't you think that's interesting? How you, intentionally or not, are echoing Sauron and his appeals to the Numenorians turning them away from Eru and the Valar? The connection is an intriguing one, really. Perhaps you don't understand it, but nothing happens for no reason.

You're seeing what you want to see in my words.

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?

[Beleg Cuthalion]

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

You're seeing what you want to see in my words.

Am I? Possibly, but then, it's just possible that you're also seeing what you want to see in what you've said.

Originally Posted by Son of Númenor

By a few logical conceits I could say that you are accusing me of being Evil, of being the Serpent. Or am I just playing that role right now, on the Barrow-downs, vis-a-vis a Faerie tale?

Either way, I would still find it intriguing.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Beleg Cuthalion

Am I? Possibly, but then, it's just possible that you're also seeing what you want to see in what you've said.

Either way, I would still find it intriguing.

Sadly, I usually do see what I want to see in what I write. But that doesn't mean that what you see isn't valid!

Everything happens for a reason. Sauron knew this and seized his chance.

[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

I don't follow how you get from your 'if' to your 'then'. Please explain.

Simply that if we decide that in Tolkien's world that evil means something is missing then as a world with an omnipotent creator God, we must also assume that this creator left something out of Melkor's creation. Everything comes back to him, even the gaps.

To use a metaphor, Melkor is rather like the talented son of a supremely talented father, but the talented son who the father has failed to give any guidance to; he has had all the gifts money can buy, and has had the best schooling, but the father did not guide him. Eventually, this son saw all the power his father had and decided for himself he wanted to have that. The good thing to come out of this situation though is that the eldest son's lack of guidance and his thirst for power has made all the younger siblings work all that harder (by and large, they aren't perfect) not to make the same mistakes. Nobody can say if the father intended this all along, but he was the father, nothing can take that away.

Originally Posted by SofN

Tolkien's Middle-earth is a self-contained, completely rational model of reality. It is not a metaphor for an ideology or a statement about some Supreme Unknowable. It has nothing to say about the world you live in: it is a metaphor for the individual - for you.

I agree, I don't think it is a 'lesson' or anything of that type - it is to me primarily Art.

But...

Originally Posted by SofN

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.

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies...

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

...this does not mean I think it has no structure or internal meaning. It has a lot of this, and it is good mental exercise to argue about that. And no matter how much I simply relax into the poetics of it all and like to speculate (it is after all fantasy, which encourages this sort of thing like no other literature can, apart from Poetry, which is perhaps even more like that), it is about a whole other world and there are boundaries, rules and frameworks.

But then who is to say that even what we read is correct if we choose to fully immerse into the concept of the secondary world? Like in the real world, how do we know that what we are told is the truth?

But that way madness lies...

The funny thing about Tolkien is we have access to such a wealth of words about his personal life, and we have three major works which exist as part of self-contained, utterly paradoxical cosmology. But that's not all we have. We also have access to other maddening pieces of information:

1) The finished product of the Trans-moral (Silm) was tampered with by people other than J.R.R. Tolkien
2) Tolkien himself was furiously revising major principles of the cosmology (orc - immortal Elf or Man doomed to die?) until his death - as well as offering seemingly contradictory statements about the books (i.e. it is fundamentally Catholic but is only an adventure story)

The question to ask is this:

How does a Trans-moral Cosmology give birth to a children's Faerie Tale and a Moral Epic, and how do the Faerie Tale and the Moral Epic force their Creator to revise the Trans-moral Cosmology?

Where you see madness I see Keanu Reevers saying, "Whoa!"

[Lalwendë]

I'm personally quite happy with the Sil as it is. I fully trust Christopher to have produced the work as his father would have wanted it. And then there's the not very small point that the Prof appointed Christopher to have full control over his work (including to burn it all, should he so wish) which demonstrates his own level of trust.

But as for ancillary works - such as Letters, we have to use those more carefully as they are secondary texts only; they can only serve to illuminate (or confuse) what we gather from the primary texts. Even so, the status of such documents can change over time. From reading the Companion & Guide it becomes apparent that even Humphrey Carpenter's Biography was flawed, as for example it gives the impression of a mousish, overly-studious man when he was quite the opposite, very outgoing and fond of pranks.

Anyway. Now when I ask if what we read is the truth - I mean that what we read is only one point of view of Middle-earth, most of it in fact seen through the eyes of either high ranking Elves or Hobbits. We don't see much through the eyes of Men or Dwarves or Wood Elves or Woses or Wizards or Orcs...not apart from reported speech and inserted documents. Heading down that path where we examine if what we read really is the truth of Middle-earth really is tempting madness...all kinds of questions about authorship, and not least maybe going over the edge of the fact that this is still just a book.

[Son of Númenor]

Originally Posted by Lalwendë

I'm personally quite happy with the Sil as it is. I fully trust Christopher to have produced the work as his father would have wanted it. And then there's the not very small point that the Prof appointed Christopher to have full control over his work (including to burn it all, should he so wish) which demonstrates his own level of trust.

But as for ancillary works - such as Letters, we have to use those more carefully as they are secondary texts only; they can only serve to illuminate (or confuse) what we gather from the primary texts. Even so, the status of such documents can change over time. From reading the Companion & Guide it becomes apparent that even Humphrey Carpenter's Biography was flawed, as for example it gives the impression of a mousish, overly-studious man when he was quite the opposite, very outgoing and fond of pranks.

Anyway. Now when I ask if what we read is the truth - I mean that what we read is only one point of view of Middle-earth, most of it in fact seen through the eyes of either high ranking Elves or Hobbits. We don't see much through the eyes of Men or Dwarves or Wood Elves or Woses or Wizards or Orcs...not apart from reported speech and inserted documents. Heading down that path where we examine if what we read really is the truth of Middle-earth really is tempting madness...all kinds of questions about authorship, and not least maybe going over the edge of the fact that this is still just a book.

"It's all just a book until someone gets bonked over the head with a wizard's sceptre."

Oh, but I am feeling fey today. I may be trying to see things that don't exist - as luck would have it I've snuck into Far Harad and the Blue Wizards have got a hold of me.

[littlemanpoet]

Okay, let's say the Eru caused Melkor to bring discord into the Music after Eru propounded it himself; why would he do that? And why would Eru then proceed to blame Melkor for having malice toward Eru as part and parcel of the discord, which Eru himself made Melkor do? The only answer is that Eru is evil; not that he is both good and evil, but that he is more evil than Melkor, more evil than Sauron.

I reach this conclusion because Eru has propounded the Music to the Ainur in the first place as flawless, and then blames Melkor for introducing flaw that Eru himself has caused Melkor to introduce. That is trickery. "Even though I made you do it, I'm not to blame because you hate me."

If Eru is capable of such trickery, then he is more devious and evil than any evil figure Tolkien presents in any part of his legendarium. If this really were the case, we should expect to see that Manwë gets tricked, that Aulé gets foisted, that Elbereth gets shammed, that every last Elf can expect to die in some horrible and tragic and tortured way, and that any beauty is mere trickery too.

But we don't see that.

[Lalwendë]

Firstly, you have to consider what Melkor does. Is it evil? I'll come to that later. But even if it is evil, and he was made that way by his father Eru, it is Eru's perogative to do what he likes. That's why the Why is so interesting.

And secondly, does Eru put the theme of the Music as a flawless thing?

Iluvatar called together all 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

The theme has might, wonder, glory and splendour. Is it flawless? We can only assume that if we want to read it that way. Now if we assume it is all good, then it's worth considering what Eru later says:

'Behold your Music! This is your minstrelsy; and each of you shall find contained herein, amid the design that I set before you, all those things which it may seem that he himself devised or added. And thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

This reveals that Melkor's discordancy is futile as it will not result in the things he assumes it will, only in things which in the end, will contribute to glory (for example snow and ice will result from his creation of cold). So what does Melkor assume his discordancy will result in? Now that brings me back to whether what Melkor does is 'evil'.

Melkor has all the powers of all his kindred, but instead of joining with them he seeks to follow his own path. This is interesting. He is the Mightiest and was made as the First of the Ainur, and it seems he decided he was going to challenge his Maker and have his own power. This is his 'sin', to attempt to seek his own way, not doing evil. There is nothing to say that Eru did not decide that 'evil' things like cold or despair or sadness were to be part of the theme; look at the words when he creates the vision of the Children:

The one was deep and wide and beautiful, but slow and blended with an immeasurable sorrow, from which its beauty chiefly came.

The Children are created with essential sorrow, which is also beautiful. So what we perceive as 'evil' can indeed be beautiful in Eru's eyes. All of Tolkien's stories are filled with strange combinations of sadness and joy, death and glory. It seems that Eru knew there needed to be Darkness in order for the Light to be all that more wonderful.

As to the why, I think it is Melkor's independence that rankles Eru. Melkor is filled with shame when he is 'found out' by Eru, presumably he has attempted something futile; his ongoing 'sin' then is to forget this lesson and continue, when he is in Ea, to pursue his goal of power and independence. If Eru wanted to create Ea with Darkness and Light, then it would have to be carefully balanced; I see that Melkor's discordancy puts that 'out of balance'.

It might in fact help to consider Tolkien's cosmology/theology not in terms of our Earthly Good/Evil axis but in terms of Light/Darkness, certainly that seems to be the way Eru intended them.

And just one more thing. Eru does trick Aule. He makes him think that he has smote down his Dwarves even before they have been given the Flame, but he hasn't:

Then Aule took up a great hammer to smite the Dwarves; and he wept. But Iluvatar had compassion upon Aule and his desire, because of his humility; and the Dwarves shrank from the hammer and were afraid, and they bowed down their heads and begged for mercy. And the voice of Iluvatar said to Aule: Thy offer I accepted even as it was made. Dost thou not see that these things have now a life of their own, and speak with their own voices? Else they would not have flinched from thy blow, nor from any command of thy will.' Then Aule cast down his hammer and was glad, and he gave thanks to Iluvatar, saying: 'May Eru bless my work and amend it!'

[davem]

One must be careful in one's analysis of Eru. Clearly Eru is not an 'interventionist' deity in the beginning. Apart from Ainulindale he is not present in BoLT (one might suggest that Tolkien introduced him because he needed a Creation myth & as a monotheist himself he uses such a figure. Interestingly, Illuvatar is translated 'All Father' a title of Odin).

Whatever. Once the story proper begins Eru plays no real part. In fact his main intervention is in Akallabeth, where he appears as a kind of weapon of mass destruction unleashed by the Valar.

Eru, it seems, is only 'necessary' to the story as an explanation of how things originated (as far as BoLT is concerned) & in practical terms the Secondary world is not monotheistic, but polytheistic. Which leads to an interesting digression.

The period in which Tolkien's creation takes on a new life & energy is the 1920's, where there is a movement away from the 'fairystory' world of much of BoLT, to a much 'higher' & more mythic world - yet this decade is one in which Tolkien turns away from his religion - he tells Michael in a letter that 'he ceased to practice his religion while at Leeds & at 20 Northmoor Road'. This period covers the whole of the 1920's & we must remember that for Tolkien the heart of his faith was the Mass & the Blessed Virgin, so that for him to cease to practice his religion was effectively to forget the whole thing.

Yet during this period the Legendarium is transformed, the Silmarils become the dominant theme & the Legendarium we know finds much of its form. Yet during this whole time Eru remains a very distant figure, & only really becomes an active participant in Arda with the appearance (& destruction) of Numenor. He's there, but basically passive all through. One can speculate he was responsible for this or that (Gollum's fall (even perhaps his Fall), but there is little evidence for direct interevention by Eru.

So, taking what we are actually given in terms of factual statements about Eru's nature we have very little to go on. He announces the themes to the Ainur, stops & starts the Music, & creates the Children. He effectively lights the blue touch paper & retires. Then, a very long time later, he totals Numenor - something Ulmo could have done - & reshapes the world - something the Valar could have done (at least in their early days).

In short, he is actually far, far less 'necessary' (in practical terms) to the plot than old Tom. What he does is add 'depth' & 'flavour' to the story. Yet he would hardly be missed - which one would expect given his secondary importance in BoLT. In fact, he is not necessary to the story at all, & a polytheistic M-e would work just as well.

As a character we know next to nothing about Eru beyond his talent for composition & we cannot, it seems to me, speculate too deeply on his morality, desires or intentions. Eru is a cypher, playing the part assigned to him & then disappearing till he is needed to drive the plot forward again (though it would not take very much rewriting to get rid of him altogether).

Eru, actually, is the most two dimensional character Tolkien created & the least necessary from a literary perspective. He appears first in the fairy world of BoLT, continues through the transformation of the Legendarium when Tolkien has little (practical) interest in religion at all (& thus probably only continued as part of the story because Ainulindale worked as a creation myth).

Speculating about who or what Eru is may lead to some interesting theories, but given the actual statements within the text, & avoiding as far as possible, conflating Eru with God, we have too little to go on.

As I said, Eru is the least important & certainly the least interesting character Tolkien invented. He's basically two dimensional & exists only to serve a purpose - making something happen to start things off & then disappearing. He is, effectively, equivalent to the impersonal source one finds in many myths. There is so little to the character that virtually anything one attributes to him in terms of motives & intentions is going to come from the reader rather than from the text.

Gets my vote for the most boring & gap filling character Tolkien created.