Killing tears the soul apart redux.

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 139521

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at i...> 
wrote:

> houyhnhnm:
> 
> I am aware of the statement by Slughorn, but Slughorn makes the
> statement when he is discussing the creation of horcruxes, and he
> first uses the word "murder". He then does use the word "killing", 
> but to reinforce the word "murder".  As Caius Marcius pointed out 
> in post # 139481, "murder" and "killing" are not necessarily 
> synonymous in the Judeo-Christian tradition (or in most others).

It's all in the semantics, because I actually read that statement 
differently: Sluggy is talking about murder, but he then reverts to a 
general statement in place of a specific one, and lays out a 
categorical statement about the Potterverse.  It all depends in how 
you read it, and it easily goes either way.

<snip>

> I don't think there is any evidnce for such a simplistic viewpoint 
> in the books, just as the characters are not black and white.

How about this, though: the characters are not black and white, but 
there are indeed things in the Potterverse which are eminently so.  
It's simply that the characters, being human and thus imperfect, 
never completely reach one state or the other but partake of both.

I can easily envision the law of the Potterverse being, point blank, 
that killing (especially with AK, which is the absolute 
transformation of the intent to kill into the pure action) rips the 
soul.

That doesn't mean that souls can't be healed and the rips repaired, 
but it does mean that the action itself is categorically damaging, no 
matter the extenuating circumstances.  The circumstances come into 
play later, as each individual has to deal with what he has done.  
This fits in with JKR's comments about what makes Voldemort so evil 
is that he kills, and dead is dead is dead.

-Nora gives the short form: killing is categorically evil, but 
forgiveness and absolution can obtain