Damn. I thought I had come up with a good one. It is hard to do with so many good minds on this board. Thanks for the links burrahobbit. I am not familiar with the "Osanwe-Kenta". I will look it up.
I read the other thread, and there is some discussion. Maybe this thread will revive it. The ideas of even Melkor having the right of Redemption make sense, but how much is enough? Was it really necessary for all that came after the Valar's first chance to be rid of Melkor to happen in order to establish he was beyond saving?
In thinking more about this I get the idea that the restraint of the Valar in regard to Melkor makes them accomplices in all that took place via Feanor and his Oath.
Even more, the Valar are accomplices in all that went wrong after the attack on them during the time of the Pillars. I can appreciate the portion of the Osanwe-Kenta that was quoted in the other thread which talked about the fact that evil will always make use of the constraints that good places on itself.
Quote:
|
..he knew that Manwe was bound by the commands and injunctions of Eru, and would do this or abstain from that in accordance with them, always, even knowing that Melkor would break them as it suited his purpose. Thus the merciless will ever count on mercy, and the liars make use of truth
|
However, I don't think that relieves good of the responsibility to destroy evil when it reveals itself. Melkor revealed his evil when he destroyed the Pillars. There is a saying "If a dog bites you once, it's the dog's fault. If he bites you twice, it's your fault."
The only thing, in my mind, that would absolve the Valar of guilt would be if they did not have the ability to apprehend Melkor after the destruction of the Pillars. Surely the combined might of the Valar would have been enough had they chosen to exercise it, even though Melkor was still at or very close to the height of his power.