Quote:
Originally Posted by Raynor
While you and I may agree to define good as infinite compassion, we would have no way to understand how this can be best achieved or applied in regards to one human or all humanity.
|
No, but Good = Infinite Compassion, & if Eru didn't act with Infinite Compassion he would not be good. Hence Infinite Compassion is a standard by which Eru can be judged as Good. If it could be
proven that the destruction of Numenor was motivated purely by anger & hatred on Eru's part & he displayed a callous disregard to the resultant suffering we would have to say that it was not a 'Good' act according to the criteria laid down by Tolkien. You seem, if I understand you, to be arguing that we have to accept that whatever Eru does is 'Good' in the sense that he can only do Good (whether that is clear to a creature or not) , not that 'anything' Eru does is 'Good' even of it is cruel, mean, petty or spiteful. But this is, to my mind, to argue that there is an objective standard of Good by which are judging Eru's behaviour - we are saying 'Eru's behaviour is in conformity with The Good' not Eru can behave like Morgoth & that behaviour would still 'Good' simply because Eru was the one behaving in that way.
Quote:
|
Men have already been deceived by Melkor once, and he was worshiped instead of Eru. Lacking (at least) infinite knowledge, such a tragedy is rather possible on the human level.
|
Or more likely inevitable. If Eru is playing the long game, not appearing to men in a clear & unambiguous form & explaining what's going on then its inevitable that Men have to do their best, make the best choice they can in the circumstances. Moreso if Eru has decided to give Morgoth a free reign in Arda. Maybe that's necessary in the long run, but I don't see that having put Men in that position Eru can complain about their choices.