[davem]

Originally Posted by Raynor

I would call this the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance; even if most of his actions are invisible to recorded history, the previous quotes I gave, of which I have the nagging feeling you continue to ignore, show that he is not passive at all.

But he is not an active participant in the world - he is not an actor within time - he does not do anything in the world until Numenor. I'm attempting to get at the effect he has on the thinking of the inhabitants & how they think about him. Its his character that is at issue - we can't ignore the fact that the major part played by Eru (after starting things off is one of destruction & thus there is (to my mind) the requirement for him to make amends.

One cannot simply state 'Eru is beyond human value judgements because he is so much greater than Man - so are the Valar, & no-one feels it is wrong to judge their actions, or critique their characters - Tolkien is the most ready of any of us to do that very thing. Melkor is also much greater than Man & his actions & motives could equally be characterised as beyond our understanding . The point is, once those beings enter into the world & become active participants (rather than vague 'influences') they become open to analysis & criticism.

Actually, if the Eruhini were created before time, they would be Ainur. They aren't.

No - their origin was in the Music. They may not have come into physical being until after the creation, but they existed in the mind of Eru from before the creation.

Acccording to the Atrabeth, all these were good before all Men started worshipping Melkor. After that, their nature became tainted.

According to Elvish tradition as set out by Finrod - can we accept this as a 'fact' within the mythology or is it simply speculation?

Yes, because Melkor was the greatest of all the Ainur; his might surpassed them, and was second to Eru only; this might became the corrupting power in the creation, which cannot be erased save by Eru. The fall of the most gifted is a recurrent motive: Melkor, Feanor, the Numenoreans.

Only in the beginning. Its clear that by the time of his fall he was far from superior. And once again, it is Tolkien's choice that the 'only way' for Eru to deal with this problem is Eru's incarnation - the introduction of such a 'fatal flaw' requires some serious justification - why paint himself into a corner where the 'only' solution is something he disapproves so strongly of?

There was a specific moment in time when the marring moved from a conceptual and moral level to a physical one - the coming of Melkor to Arda at the building of Utumno

No, the corruption (potential at least & arguably (argued by Tolkien himself btw) here inevitable came in with the dissonance introduced by Melkor & Eru's choice to create a world with such an 'inevitability' inherent.

Men are created unfallen by Eru; Silmarillion (and more so Atrabeth) refers to a certain moment when the marring of Men occured, after their coming.

Men are born into a world which is by its nature & in its creation, corrupt. Men & Elves are more prone to fall because of the nature of the world they inhabit, & the very presence of the immortal Elves is in itself guaranteed to inspire a feeling of wrongness in the fact of their (men's) own mortality.

This view is in stark contradiction with that of the valar and the elves - and of the faithful Men. Concening the denial that Eru is good and that his work will end in good, it is said in HoME X by Manwe:

We're still dealing with the Eru we are presented with in the story - not the opinions of various characters - or statements about him by Tolkien - does the Eru we are presented with live up to the hype?