Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 153697

> > 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.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> You mean I have a choice? That's magnanimous of you. 

Leslie41:
Thanks!  And which one of those choices would you pick?   
 
> > Leslie41: 
> > 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. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> Would you believe it? Even after your passionate diatribe I am 
> still in the dark where the significance of names and baptism in 
> the Harry Potter books is concerned. I implore you show me some 
> Christian mercy (however undeserved) and explain it to me so that 
> even I with my less than average intelligence would understand. 

Leslie41:
Well, you said that.  I didn't.  Of course I could come up with an 
adjective for you.  A few, in fact.  But "unintelligent" wouldn't be 
one of them.  

> a_svirn:
> You said that you – unlike Spenser – are not into allegories. 
> (Personally, I don't see why bring up Spenser at all, if you don't 
> like his work and it's not conductive to the present discussion.) 

Leslie41:
I said if *you* like allegories, read Spenser.  Anyone who likes 
allegory should read Spenser.

For those of us who are not fond of allegory, Spenser makes us 
barf.  It takes all kinds.

> > Leslie41:  
> > 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.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Let me see
 Lily's sacrifice and Harry's baptism are kind of 
> complimentary? Part of the same spiritual experience? Wow!  Now I 
> know why all the others failed to repel AKs! You'd need someone to 
> sacrifice their life for baptism to work as spiritual protection. 
> Alternatively sacrifice without baptism wouldn't work at all, 
> since they come in one package. According to your logic if 
> Voldemort had managed to track the Potters down before Harry had 
> been baptised all Lilly's love as well as her sacrifice would have 
> been in vain. 

Leslie41:

Well, Harry *didn't* track down the Potters before Harry was 
baptized, did he? And I don't know where you are getting the idea 
that Lily's love would have been "in vain" had Harry not been 
baptized.  My logic does not lead there at all.  

Hrm.  Let's see if I can make myself clearer by using another work 
as a parallel.  

In The Fellowship of the Ring, Frodo receives the Phail of 
Galadriel, and lembas.  He takes these on his journey to Mordor.  Do 
they "protect" him from death?  No.  It's the mithril coat that does 
that, really. 

But the lembas can be seen as similar to the eucharist, and Mary was 
in part the model for Galadriel.  Can the eucharist save Frodo from 
the orcs?  Can the phial blot out all the darkness?  

No.  But when Frodo uses the phial he can bring a bit of light into 
a corner of the darkness, and the evil (shelob) fears it.  And when 
he eats the lembas, he's reminded of the gentle country of the 
elves, and their goodness, and it heartens him.

One need not be a Christian to appreciate elves and lembas and 
Galadriel, but when one IS, it expands the meaning of the text in a 
significant new way.
 
> > Leslie41:
> > 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.

> a_svirn:
> Then why fight it at all? Let it harm itself. 

Leslie41:
Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, I think.  

> a_svirn:
> Besides your "metaphorical kind of way" is too general by far. If 
> you keep expanding meaning of any word it will cease to mean 
> anything at all in the end. 

Leslie41:
Too general by far, for *you*.  It seems perfectly plain to many 
others.  You are entitled to not see it, or even to deny it.  It's a 
free country.

> > Leslie41:
> > The basic fact that I keep coming back to is that his parents 
> > thought Harry's baptism extremely important. 
> 
> a_svirn:
> We don't know it. There is no canon to support this statement. 

Leslie41:
The baptism must have been awfully important to them.  If it weren't 
important to them, they would not have done it.  It's that simple. 
What's canon is that the Potter family were fugitives and hunted by 
the Dark Lord.  They found a way to make the arrangements for this 
religious ritual anyway.

It's much easier to support that it *was* important to them than it 
wasn't, via canon. You can argue that it wasn't important all you 
like.  But at an impossibly difficult time for them, they found the 
time to do it.

To me, that perforce makes it very important.  

Again, you're free to believe otherwise.  But to say that I am 
unsupported by canon is just wrong.  Your view of course can be 
supported by canon as well.  But mine is just as valid.  Again, all 
sorts of interpretations can be supported by canon.  

Just look at what people say about Snape.     

> > Leslie41:
> > 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:
> And that exactly what makes me wonder whether Christianity is 
> really part of wizarding life. Mr and Mrs Black with their marked 
> predilection for dark magic – Christians? It boggles the mind. I 
> would imagine they would be struck by lightening as soon as they'd 
> cross any church's threshold. 

Leslie41:
Unclear pronoun, my fault.  By "his parents" I meant Harry's 
parents, not Sirius'.  But Sirius would have had to be baptized at 
some point in order for him to be godfather.  

 
> > Leslie41:
> > Do you doubt that "crux" means "cross"?    
> 
> a_svirn:
> I don't. It was your neologism *whorecrosses* that sounds like 
> rubbish to me, not your translation of *crux*. 
> 
>  
> > > > 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. 
> > 
> a_svirn:
> While I allow that *whoring* and *whoredom* in biblical use have 
> connotation of idolatry and unfaithfulness to the true God, the 
> interpretation of "selling one's soul" is something you made up.

Leslie41:
Au contraire, mon frere.  Look it up yourself on the internet.  
Whore: definition.  You'll find lots of interesting definitions that 
I most definitely did not "make up."

> a_svirn 
> And since whores have nothing to do with immortality, and 
> Voldemort isn't into idolatry I still don't think much of your 
> interpretation.

Leslie41:
Whores have nothing to do with immorality...er, we'll have to agree 
to disagree on that one.  As for Voldemort and idolatry, I'd have to 
think on that.