[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.