[alatar]

Originally Posted by obloquy

The idea does not apply to David and Goliath,

I think that Essex was using a colloquialism; Regardless, your argument (I assume) was that David had God on his side, and so even if he were smaller and weaker than Goliath, it was God that actually did battle with Goliath. My question is, did not Goliath have God (or gods) on his side as well? If we take the celestial out of it, you end up with an unarmored boy killing an armored soldier. To me, when someone points to this event, it is to mean that the seemingly weak overcome the strong, nothing more.

nor to Merry and the Witch-King, nor to anything in LotR that I can think of.

I'm sorry; I'm at a loss here. Do you mean that it was Merry's blade, not Merry? Or is 'everything done' by the agents of Eru? One possible example, I think noted by Gandalf in Rivendell (though correct me if I error), is that 'the Shire' thwarts the Nazgul. Think that Gandalf says something like, "Whodathunkit that the Witch-King of Angmar would fail to find and kill one lonely unguarded (except by a gardener) hobbit?"

However, the potential of an example ever occurring probably can't be unequivocally denied. Still, there are evidently some barriers which simply can't be transcended:

Think that I'm with you here. However, why do entities like the Christian Satan and Tolkien's Melkor bother? Surely these supernaturally-intelligent beings realize the end of the game won't be a win for their team. Is the play, the process, the road, or like here at the Down's, the discussion, the thing and not the end that matters? Or why else bother?