[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.