Sin/Redemption & Snape / Christianity in HP (was: Funerals are for the living)

[AyanEva]

No: HPFGUIDX 128302

Lupinlore in post 128255 says:

What if a person
is not penitent because they genuinely feel they are not wrong?
This applies perhaps more to Percy than to Snape. Shouldn't Percy
(or Seamus or Cho or even Umbridge) get a break if they honestly
believe themselves to be in the right?

The answer, in this perspective, is a flat NO. There are two
realizations that lead to the beginning of wisdom. 1. There is a
God. 2. You ain't Him. Your own understanding is not important.
What is important is whether you are acting in accordance with God's
edicts. The Court of God has no appeal, no rules of equity, and no
patience for arguments about technicalities or interpretations.


AyanEva: 

Ok. I'm really hoping this doesn't come off as an attack on
Christianity because it's NOT AN ATTACK at all! I just want to make
that clear. I'm just having some trouble understanding the
applicability of Christianity to the Harry Potter books, that's all.
I've read every post on this, but I'm still befuddled. So, please 
bear with me and keep in mind that it's not my intention to make 
anyone mad or offend people. These are honest questions that really 
are related to the Harry Potter series as a whole.

I'll admit that I'm not a Christian because Christianity confuses the
crap out of me, but the sin/repentence thing hardly seems fair or 
very logical. This train of thought will get to Harry Potter in a hot
second, by the way, but bear with me for a little bit and let's hope 
I don't derail completely. In regards to sin/redemption, if a person
thinks that they're right, then they don't know that they're wrong.
How can you be punished for being wrong if you never knew you were
wrong in the first place because you didn't know what was actually
right? I can't remember the Bible ever being too clear about these
things, but my Bible has a thick layer of dust on it, so it's 
entirely possible that I've forgotten. Someone please explain this 
logic gap? I'm really struggling with this one. :-( How can you act 
in accordance to God's edicts when the edicts are so terribly vague 
and contradictory, especially considering that the Old and New 
Testaments don't really match, since one was actually supposed to 
replace the other? In which case, can we even apply to Harry Potter a 
morality and theme that not everyone will understand? Otherwise, 
wouldn't the books come off as kind of evangelical? That doesn't fit 
with the fact that no religion is mentioned. Christmas doesn't count 
because the date pre-dates Christianity and it's the Winter Solstice 
anyway; and the birthday of some guy who killed a bull and stepped on 
a snake whose name I can't remember. I'm pretty sure there were some 
stars and a moon or something involved too, but that's beside the 
point.

I'm sure there are a couple of Buddhists, Scientologists, or
Zoroastrians reading the books that would be just as thrown off by 
the applicability of certain Christian ideas as I am. Does anyone 
know if JKR is aquainted with any other religious beliefs that are 
applicable? The whole Harry Potter series really reminds me more of 
some of the religious sagas that pre-date Christianity. Again, I 
can't provide references, because all of my sources are at home in 
Pennsylvania and I'm in Maryland. Ancient Mesopotamian and Greek 
BCE-era writings come to mind, though, rather than any CE-era works. 

Also, you mentioned Percy in regards to right versus wrong. In Percy's 
case, while I think he's being a total prat and I would've done 
something completely different, he's also following the rule of law to 
the best of his understanding, which should fall under the whole, 
"render unto Caesar what is Caeser's" or however that passage goes. 
Percy's attempting to abide by the law, no matter how stupid or
impracticle said law may be. So, Percy can't *truly* be wrong, can he? 
I mean if we take into account the Caesar to Caesar thing. The same 
thing applies to the case of Marietta; both she and Percy were
complying with what they thought was the law. Yeah, Marietta's a
sneak, but I still don't agree with punishing her so sadistically when 
she did what she thought was right. Maybe a swift kick to the shin or 
a swirlie would've sufficed. Though, I suppose that's not really much 
better than writing "sneak" across her face, huh? 

When do you stop obeying the law? According the Caeser verse, never;
so Percy, Marietta, and anyone else following laws established by
society can never be wrong. But Harry breaks the rules/laws plenty of
times, so if the Caesar rule, an important part of Christianity (at
least in my church when I was growing up) can't be applied to the
books. How many other Christian ideas can be applied? I would assume
this eliminates Christianity as the main influence (I imagine it could 
still be an influence, but not the main one), but I'm not sure because 
the government classified my childhood church a cult and I don't know 
what lessons were emphasized in "normal" churches.

***WARNING: Major Snape bias may influence the following opinion***

You've been warned! :-D I've given some thought to Snape's case in
light of the situation that you posited regarding whether he was doing 
the right thing for personal gain or because he'd truly repented of his 
previous actions. I'm of two minds on this. When it comes down to the 
really important Order/defeating Voldie stuff, half of me thinks that 
he's NOT doing it for the acclaim and his intentions are pure. The only 
time that it seems as if he was seeking attention was when he tried to 
have Sirius arrested. That seems to be only peripherally related to 
whatever it is that Snape is doing for the Order currently or did during 
Voldie's initial reign. As such, it's not all that important when 
considering Snape's true motives. So, yes, he wanted acclaim for 
catching a wanted criminal, but if anything, there's been no indication 
that he wants any attention for his work against Voldie. However, my 
other half says, "yeah, but what about his seeming jealousy for Harry's 
fame! He might be trying to one-up Harry and that's not an honest 
intention!" 

I don't know what to say about that, except for he seems more miffed
that Harry's initially gotten so much attention for doing a whole lot
of nothing, rather than being miffed for the sole fact that Harry has
attention. I'd be mad too if some kid was famous for still being alive 
while I was hated despite doing a bunch of dangerous work. So, it's 
jealousy; but not jealousy over Harry being famous. It's jealousy that 
Harry was initially famous without having done anything. If Snape's 
teaching methods are any example, he definitely feels that what you 
receive must be earned, not given. I imagine that Harry's automatic 
fame, even it if wasn't Harry's fault, was a great affront to Snape's 
sensibilities. And let's not talk about James Potter. 

My point is this, I think Snape's intentions are explainable and pure
enough for me because I can't make any sense of the Christian idea of
sin and redemption. He's doing the right thing now and as long as he
keeps doing the right thing, I can't see why it would matter so much
WHY he's doing what he's doing, so long as he's doing it. Yes, actions 
with intent are preferable and that's how I dictate what I do. However, 
during a nasty and justifiable war for survival, I think
"actions without or without intent" is somewhat relative. What I'm
talking about is say that Party A has the same goals as Party B, but
maybe for entirely different reasons. Making it easier is that Parties A 
and B both hate Party C; again, it may be for two entirely different 
reasons, but that's not important in the grand scheme of things because 
you both have the same enemy AND the same goals. If the goal is getting 
rid of someone that is 100 times more evil than either A or B, does the 
motivation really matter all that much? The greater threat is from C; 
anything else is nitpicking. 

Ok, say that stealing hats and socks is the most evil thing in the
world. What if Party A hates Big Nasty Evil Dude and wants him gone
because BNED stole Party A's socks. Party B hates Big Nasty Evil Dude
and wants him gone because BNED stole Party B's hat. Can you say that
Party A's reason for wanting Big Nasty Evil Dude gone is more
justifiable than Party B's? Big Nasty Evil Dude is Big, Nasty, and
Evil and A and B want him gone. Dumbledore may be all about good
versus bad, etc. and maybe Snape is "Voldie screwed me over, I'm gonna 
get him back." But can that matter if the end goal is to get rid of the 
darkest wizard the wizarding world has seen (aside from maybe Grindewald)? 
And who's to say whether Dumbledore or Snape has a more valid reason. 
"I got screwed over" might be really, really valid to me because I'm 
suffering the immediate effects. It's like, you're starving so you don't 
have time to worry about depleted fossil fuels. My goal coincides with 
the good guys, but my life's really crappy at the moment and I haven't 
worked my way past that immediate concern, so "we have to save the world 
from plunging into darkness" is a little beyond me at the moment. If I'm 
Dumbledore, I take what I can get. So, I guess my whole point is: there 
can't be absolutes, only relativity. 

How many people have I thoroughly confused? Raise your hands, please! :-)

AyanEva (ardent Severus Snape defender)

----------------------------------------------

Tonks:
> I think that religion is very quitely in the background. They 
> observe Christmas and Easter. Pagan wizards would not do that. And 
> JKR is not afraid of the Church. She has smuggled religion into
> the US schools!!  But not many people know it because they do not 
> understand the symbols that they are reading. JKR has the Hogwarts 
> motto "never tickle a sleeping dragon" for a reason. And I for one 
> just love it!!!  Right under the noses of all the "keep religion
> out of the schools" people. And it help that the Religous Right
> are opposed to it. I just chuckle.  JKR is smuggling God folks!! 
> She is teaching the children basic Christian truths, and most
> don't even know it.


AyanEva:

I know I just stated my confusion in another thread, but Christmas 
and Easter ARE pagan holidays. And it's very much in line with what 
pagans would practice (I used to practice Wicca, but I've mostly 
lapsed). And this is part of the reason that I'm so confused about 
the Christian-religion-in-the-books thing; I just don't see it. I 
think I'm looking at things from a completely different angle.

Info on Easter:
http://www.goddessgift.com/pandora's_box/easter-history.htm

Info on Christmas:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t0w32christmas.htm

I should add, that the Mithraic cult was actually competing AGAINST
Christianity for something like 200 years and the early Christian
church adopted the birthday (December 25th) and parts of the story of
Mithras in order to draw converts. The Mithraic cult eventually
failed, most likely because membership was open only to men. The 
women often worshipped Isis, who was synchrotized with the Virgin 
Mary, gaining Christianity more converts. By the way, in the other 
thread that Posted on, I mentioned the guy who killed a bull and 
stepped on a snake; that was Mithras who did all of that, I just 
couldn't think of his name at the time.

I've skimmed both of those web sources and they seem to in line with
what I remember from my texts; with the addition of the Mithras
information. The Easter information is quite reliable.


AyanEva (truly baffled)



--------------------------------------------------
REMINDER from your friendly neighborhood list elf:

Please send only your responses to the above that 
pertains to canon to the main list here.  As 
always, all off-topic responses should be sent to 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter 
(should you wish to discuss religions at large) 
while keeping in mind that this is a sensitive 
topic.  Keep it civil, please!  Thanks.