[skip spence]

Originally Posted by Raynor

Concerning your statement that Morgoth was the rote cause of "evil", my understanding is best expressed in this (bolded) passage, from a version of Ainulindale in BOLT 1:
...
Even in the published Silmarillion, Eru makes a similar statement about Melkor being but an instrument in his design.

True, Melkor was created by Eru. But was Melkor always destined to rebel against Eru like he did? Because if he was, he did not have a free will and was only doing what Eru created him to do. I say he acted independently of Eru however, as I don't think it fits the mythology to have Eru himself as the prime cause of "evil" as your resoning would suggest, even if the evil in the end will make the world a more beautiful place.

This is a quote from Morgoth's Ring; Ulmo is speaking regarding the death of Miriel:

"And death is for the Eldar an evil, that is a thing unnatural in Arda Unmarred, which must proceed therefore from the marring. For if the death of Miriel was otherwise, and came from beyond Arda (as a new thing, having no cause in the past) it would not bring grief or doubt. For Eru is the Lord of All, and moveth all the devices of his creatures, even the malice of the Marrer, in his final purpuses, but he doth not of his prime motion impose grief upon them."

So death, grief and sorrow would not exist in the perfect vision that is Arda Unmarred. These things come from the marring and Morgoth, and without him none of it would occur. The Valar were also greatly surprised to find that sorrow and death could be brought into the hallowed Valinor. Why were they surprised? If the Eldar could do wrong, then the Valar would surely not have been surprised to find that they eventually faultered, even in the Blessed Realm. Yet they were. This leads me to the conclusion that the Eldar in Arda Unmarred (had it been) weren't meant to be able to do wrong. Well, maybe they still would be able to do wrong, but they would never have had the will for it.

Originally Posted by Raynor

I don't know how to reconcile these two statements of yours. If the ability per se to choose between good and evil appears only because of Melkor's marring, and if the valar are not affected by the marring, then how could they have this ability to choose?

The marring concerns the created world. The Ainur existed before the creation and whether they have the ability to make moral choices is an different question than what effect the marring had on the Children. I certainly think that the Ainur had a free will to act independently of Eru.

Originally Posted by Raynor

In my opinion, the foremost sign of the existence of a fea would be the very ability to discern and choose between good and evil, and, again, I know of no reference about the Eruhini not having this ability by nature, for better or for worse. I don't see how Melkor could change in such a fundamental way the very essence of these beings - Ainulindale, at least, makes it clear that "none of the Ainur had part in their making". Not only did he modify them, he added to them this, what I believe, greatest manifestation of the spirit, the moral choice.

We're actually having a discussion about fictional theology here (christ, don't we have anything better to do?). But what we are talking about is basically the "fall of man", straight from christianity. Adam and Eve at first lived blissfully in Eden, in complete obedience to God. This is parallelled with life as it would have been in Arda Unmarred or life in Valinor without Morgoth. Then Eve is tempted or decieved by the snake, eats from the forbidden tree and gains knowledge of good and evil. The part of the snake is in Arda played by Morgoth. You can certainly criticise the logic in Genesis, and you can also criticise the logic in Tolkien's religious ideas. This, however, is the basic idea: What Morgoth brought into creation is a lower path to choose, apart from the high road ordained by God. And without a possible low road to take, good deeds would be without merit.

Originally Posted by Raynor

But this is the essence of the problem; even if he may not have had to act (or react), he still retained the ability to do so, regardless of the existence of Melkor and his marring. Moreover, the lack of marring does not guarantee that certain thoughts would not come to someone, or that that everybody would have the strength to resist temptations, however trivial they may be.

I agree that Feanor always had the abilily to make choices. I have never said anything different. I don't agree that the thoughts of pride and rebellion that arose in Feanor could have done so without the marring. No, they were a direct result of the marring and of Morgoths discord in the great music.