[Lalwendë]

Originally Posted by Raynor

That Eru was supplicated by the valar to intervene doesn't mean he is forbidden to consider the situation of the Numenoreans more generraly, considering what was at stake by not doing so.

He is, actually. He sets that rule himself. He does not interfere with Arda, it is left to the management of the Valar. This is the one and only time he puts his nose in and he only does this because:

for that time the Valar laid down their government of Arda

If you look further, what he does is separate for ever the worlds of Men and Elves. In much the same way as Faerie is sundered from our own world except to those who know the path/Straight Road. It is not at all clear even if he intended to drown Numenor, he only intends to take Valinor away from the reach of mortals - but drown it he did, whether intentioned or not. Nothing is mentioned of it being to do with Sauron - in fact Sauron survives and goes on to greater things, having achieved his goal in having Numenor destroyed - if Eru was trying to deal with Sauron he would also have nixed all his future plans. If as you say, Eru can do what he likes (which he can't, due to a rule he imposes on himself), then we have to say "Hey! Eru! Why didn't you deal with that problem too? What do you think you're playing at?!"

Originally Posted by Raynor

Does any character in LotR or Silmarillion call this unjust? Obviously, other than the targeted numenoreans.

Note that nobody talks of Numenor anyway, so why would they talk of the more serious matter of its destruction and if that was just?

even the name of that land perished, and Men spoke thereafter not of Elenna, nor of Andor the Gift that was taken away, nor of Numen6re on the confines of the world; but the exiles on the shores of the sea, if they turned towards the West in the desire of their hearts, spoke of Mar-nu-Falmar that was whelmed in the waves, Akallabeth the Downfallen, Atalante in the Eldarin tongue.

Yes, it seems to me that Men still remained deeply hurt by the loss, and unable to talk of it. They even still desired Numenor and to go West; taking the physical reality of the place away could never remove that yearning. No, not even Eru could take that away. And with this memory still so sore in the minds of Men, this suggests that the loss of life, the human tragedy too was sore. This is clearly Tolkien asking us to think more deeply about the nature of tragedy and how it echoes down the ages.

Originally Posted by Raynor

Ok, I am growing uncomfortable myself with this line of reasoning, so I will change it. The problem is the value of individual damned lives, and not only to themselves, but in the greater scheme of things, esspecially when weighed against other lives (the numenoreans slew each other in madness), and esspecially more innocent lives (those who were sacrificied, most of whom were faithfuls). All the more, love has an object, but can the initial object of love be recognised in a Ringwraith (three were numenoreans), a Mouth of Sauron, a Necromancer, Black Numenorean (all these were or may have been numenoreans), orc (a possibility under Sauron too)? If we are to judge Eru, we are to walk in his shoes and take this extremely delicate position.

I'm not quite understanding you here. Are you equating a tiny child with a Mouth of Sauron? Are you also suggesting that a tiny child is somehow less innocent than one of the adult Faithful? Given that a two year old simply does not, cannot, understand right and wrong, how can the child make any kind of decision to be one of the 'Faithful' or not? I'd also argue that a child up to the age of about 10 (and maybe even beyond - plenty of adults cannot break free of family religious constraints) does not have the capacity to go against his or her parents' moral/religious wishes so he or she simply cannot be held to account for decisions taken for the child. Likewise, no child is born 'evil' - this is a dangerous way of thinking. All young children are absolute innocents ready and waiting for the experience of life itself to shape them - the baby of a drug dealer or terrorist or despot is still an innocent child nonetheless and all of them possess the potential to grow and to be different to their parents. How many of us have followed our parents blindly? Few of us. That personal experience alone should tell us just how innocent children really are!