The atrocity of the Akallabêth

[Lalwendë]

Legate - bear in mind though that Eru created Melkor. When Eru tells him "no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me" he is telling Melkor that he may have free will, but he was put there by Eru and Eru made him what he is, whether for good or for bad.

I suppose in one way you might almost feel sorry for Melkor as he simply cannot help what he is.

The Ainur sing of the world and Melkor's discordancies create those things which would go on to be evil things - and no theme can be played which does not stem from Eru, therefore this logically tells us that Eru caused this to be (unwittingly or not, whichever you prefer, I prefer wittingly).

thou, Melkor, wilt discover all the secret thoughts of thy mind, and wilt perceive that they are but a part of the whole and tributary to its glory

I'll use this again, as it's about the very design which Eru came up with. Eru tells Melkor that he will soon enough find out what his darkest thoughts are, and that at some point, he will also see that such dark thoughts are a very part of the whole of existence and a part of the glory of existence.

This concept in fact ties in with poetry written by Tolkien's friend Smith, about the death of their friend Gilson in which he says that God cannot be glorified unless there is suffering.

Originally Posted by John Garth

One piece declares a stark view of divine providence: Gilson's death is "a sacrifice of blood outpoured" to a God whose purposes are utterly inscrutable and who "only canst be glorified by man's own passion and the supreme pain"

It's a very bloody and unforgiving concept of God, but nevertheless it is one that Tolkien seems to have held. In the situation that Tolkien was in on the Somme you either become an Atheist or you come to a view that God is quite a dark figure, a figure who at the very least will permit, if not commit, atrocities.

EDIT
Ultimately, there are two ways of looking at this:
1. We assume Eru is good - therefore everything he does is good too, it must be good because he does it. But this also means he can do anything and it is still good.
2. We look at what happens and work out if it was good or bad. If it was bad, then Eru has done something bad, and he is neither wholly good nor bad.

This all depends of course on whether sets of abstracts like good and evil control Eru's actions. They must do for 2 to be true so is he still omnipotent? But if we then go back to saying that 1 must be true, then there is no good or evil anyway as there is no moral standard apart from what we decide. Which brings us back to 2 again....and on and on and on.... Can Eru create a rock that's so heavy he cannot move it?