Horcrux: was Baptism/Christianity in HP

[leslie41]

No: HPFGUIDX 153730

> > 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.
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yet you still havenft explained the significance of names in the 
> HP books. Why donft you? At this point I would agree even for some 
> noted authority to guide me. Since you clearly un-er-willing to do 
> so. 

Leslie41:

It's a huge topic--as for a "noted authority," try...
http://www.mugglenet.com/books/name_origins.shtml

Mugglenet's done a better job than I could do with most of the 
names.  

> > 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.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Yes it does. Since you say that it is gpart and parcel of the same 
> experienceh, Lillyfs sacrifice wouldnft have worked without 
> baptism.  

Leslie41:
I don't see how that logically follows, any more than it logically 
follows that without a white dress and a priest one cannot be 
married.  Yet, in many cases, a white dress and a priest are "part 
and parcel of the same experience."
 
> > Leslie41:
> > Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, I think.  
> 
> a_svirn:
> Bravo. A very adroit way to avoid an uncomfortable question. 
> 

Leslie41:
When you asked "why fight at all if evil harms itself?" it seemed to 
me like you were being glib.

I think one fights evil because (as Galdalf says) "oft evil will will 
evil mar", evil does not always harm itself to the point of its own 
destruction.  

Also, because the fight itself against evil is ennobling and 
beneficial to the individual who fights.

For example: the Nazis did plenty of things in WWII they shouldn't 
have done, that "harmed" themselves.  Trying to wage a war on many 
fronts was a monumentally bad idea.  That doesn't mean that we 
shouldn't have fought them.  Evil harms itself, but it often doesn't 
destroy itself, at least without help.

I hope that better explains things.
  
> > > > 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. 
> 
> 
> a_svirn:
> It is not. Millions of people go through all the motions without 
> thinking them really significant. 

Leslie41:
True.  But then if they're not significant, why go through them at 
all?  To forge a tie to Sirius?  Yes, of course.  But why not just 
make Sirius Harry's guardian, all nice and legal?

Hey, you don't have to think it's important.  I think it's very 
important, because it's there in canon and Rowling could have chosen 
another way to make Sirius important to Harry, but *didn't*.

> > > > 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:
> Why donft you save me the trouble? Give me a link to any on-line 
> dictionary with a meaning for *whore* as esomeone whofs sold his 
> or her soulf. 

Leslie41:
Yes, sir!

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whore

"to compromise one's principles for personal gain".

http://m-w.com/dictionary/whore

"a venal or unscrupulous person".

http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

"to pursue a faithless, unworthy, or idolatrous desire".

I think the key definition is the first one, though the others are 
relevant as well. If what you're asking for is a specific definition 
that it means "to sell one's soul," you won't find that.  Because the 
idea of selling one's soul is a metaphor--for "compromising 
principles for personal gain."