Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 153681

 
> a_svirn:
> You know, I think I object to your name-dropping even more than I 
> object to being called short-sighted. First Julian of Norwich, now 
> Spenser. Would you mind explaining what you mean without hiding 
> behind noted authorities? If you say that names are important 
> don't stop there, explain in what way they are important. A mere 
> assertion of their importance does not explain anything at all. If 
> you say that Harry's baptism is significant for the story, again, 
> don't stop there explain in what way it's significant. You first 
> said that baptism provided Harry with a shield of a sort. Then you 
> were obliged to admit that it's no shield at all, because it does 
> not provide any real protection against Voldemort. Very well, what 
> is its significance then? Not in the context of Christian culture, 
> but in the context of this story? 

Leslie41:
Well, if you're going to come up with a one-sentence description of 
the nature of Christ's purpose, I would say that's short sighted.  
And if you think you're actually capable of coming up with a one-
sentence description of the nature of Christ's purpose, I would 
assume that you are a) not a Christian, or b) a Christian with an 
ego the size of Montana.  

As for the noted authorities, I consider the people on this board to 
be intelligent folks who can generally be counted on to look up 
authors if they want further information.  The stuff I cited about 
Julian and Spenser is factual, not conjectural.  He wrote allegory.  
She saw Christ as a mother.  Personally, I didn't feel any further 
explication was needed, or wanted.  

As for it being a shield, I said explicitly it that baptism itself 
was not a shield.  I spoke of it initially as "spiritual 
protection," but I see the sacrifice of Lily and Voldemort's failed 
killing curse as part and parcel of the same experience.  

I think in the end that the location of the scar reminds us of 
baptism, that Harry was himself baptized.  In a metaphorical way, 
not necessarily in a precise "Harry is protected by baptism" kind of 
way, we are reminded that the evil of Voldemort will always lose, 
will always be repelled in the end by the ultimate good.  Evil in 
the end harms itself.

The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents 
thought Harry's baptism extremely important.  Rowling herself said 
that it was probably a hurried sort of affair, with just the family 
involved.  Obviously, having their son Christened was extremely 
important to them.  And the Christening service itself, the 
baptismal service, is a deeply spiritual experience in which all are 
required to renew their baptismal vows.  The godfather must be a 
baptized Christian himself as well.

Pardon me for thinking that yes, that's important.  You are free to 
think it's entirely meaningless.  But it's in there.  Harry was 
baptized.  Sirius was a Christian and so were his parents, or else 
they would not have been allowed to have their child baptized.

If you want to ignore those canonical facts, that's fine.  But 
they're there.  I didn't pull them out of the air, or anywhere 
else.   
 
> > > a_svirn:
> > > Yet he was christened Harry, which  – as you yourself said –  
> > > means  "power and destruction"!
> > 
> > Leslie41:
> > Christened as such, yes!  But he has to evolve out of that. 
> > That's his task in the seventh book.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Then his Christian name provided him with all the wrong values, 
> didn't it? So much for being baptised. 

Leslie41:
No.  Your assertion that Harry's destiny is set in stone by his 
baptismal affirmation of his name shows that you misunderstand the 
nature of baptism.  Being baptized is kind of like a promise...it's 
not the end but the beginning.  It's no assurance that one is going 
to be able to share in the eternal kingdom.  Harry must evolve out 
of that designation as destroyer and come to defeat Voldemort 
through love.

The fact that love is Harry's greatest weapon is absolutely 
canonical.
 
>  >  a_svirn:
> > > On a more profound level, there is nothing Christian about
> > > Horcruxes. It seems that Rowling's special brand of 
> > > spiritualism
> > > draws on syncretic folklore rather than on Christian beliefs. 
> > 
> > Leslie41:
> > Do you know what a "crux" is?  It means "cross."  
> > 
> > The word "hore" in middle/old english means "whore".  
> > Whorecrosses.  
> > Makes sense. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Does it? Sounds like utter nonsense to me. 

Leslie41:
Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"?  Look it up.  The 
curse "crucio" is directly related to the crucifixion.  Oh, you can 
blather about how "Crucio" is just the Latin word for "I torture", 
etc. etc. etc.  But who among us, even those who aren't Christians, 
are going to state that the word has no relation to the 
crucifixion?  There are other words Rowling could have chosen that 
mean the same thing.
 
> > Leslie41:
> >In the bible whores are associated with idolatry and 
> > faithlessness to god.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Or really?  And what about that female sinner that anointed ?
> Christ's feet? And even if the Whore of Babylon can be said to 
> have been faithless to God I still don't see what whores in the 
> Bible an out of it have to do with immortality.

Leslie41:
Selling one's body for money is thought by most to be 
immoral.  "Whoring" also has another connotation, also negative (I 
know of no positive one).  We speak of people who have "sold their 
souls" so to speak as "whores".  It doesn't always have a sexual 
connotation. 

"Crux" means "cross".  That's a fact.  I think that what Voldemort 
(flees from death) is doing is making a perverted, whored cross for 
himself.  And if you can't see it, I don't know what to say to that, 
because it seems perfectly clear to me.  It's right there in the 
name.