DH as Christian Allegory (was Classical & Biblical Quotations)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 173313

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > In fact, I'd go so far as to say that what occurs in DH 
> > is not only not very Christian, it's actually in opposition to 
> > everything Christ taught and demonstrated.
> > Of course this is my opinion and I'm sure (very sure! <bg>)      
> > others will differ. 
> > <snip>

> >>KATIE:
> <snip>
> I agree that there are parallels that *can* be made to the         
> Christian story.

Betsy Hp:
I agree, though only in the loosest of ways.  So loose as to be 
practically negligible, IMO.

> >>KATIE:
> However, I do not believe that these are "Christian" books, at     
> least in the sense of a Narnia.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Goodness, no.  Frankly, I don't even see where a "Christian" moral 
comes in.

> >>KATIE:
> <snip>...incidentally, I wonder why it is that Christians often     
> claim that *any* redemptive or moral tale is Christian? Is          
> redemption copyrighted by Christianity?

Betsy Hp:
Not so far as I've been told. <bg>  But I think, because redemption 
is such a big part of the Christian philosophy, whenever a story 
contains redemption as a theme, it's possible to see a parallel 
there.  Not that it's the only or even the best parallel available, 
just that it's one of the choices

> >>KATIE:
> Why can't HP be books about personal truth, love, and redemption    
> without being Christianized?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I guess all that I'm saying is because I don't see that these books 
are about truth, love or redemption, they cannot be Christian.  They 
can also not be other things of course.  But since the Christian 
context was raised (ie, is this really a "Christain" story?), that's 
what I was responding to (ie, no).

> >>Chancie:
> While you are of course intitled to your opinion Betsy Hp, I wonder
> if perhaps you have over looked quite a few points.
> 
> In the garden, when Jesus prayed, he was discussing his impending
> crusifiction with GOD, Who is definatly alive, and in a way so are
> Lily, James, Sirius, and Lupin.

Betsy Hp:
Lily, James, Sirius and Lupin are all ghosts.  They're certainly not 
(IMO) a stand in for God.

> >>Chancie:
> <snip>
> Harry is NOT surounded by death, but Life and Love...Still see an   
> inconsistincy there?

Betsy Hp:
He's surrounded by dead people telling him to kill himself.  So yeah, 
it's hard for me to equate that either with Jesus's prayer in the 
garden, or with his going with the Roman soldiers.

> >>Chancie:
> <snip>
> I don't believe Harry "suicided", I think he definatly sacrificed! 
> He went in knowing that he would die, but that in his death many    
> would be saved because Evil could FINALLY be defeated!

Betsy Hp:
*IF* Neville killed Nagini, and *if* Voldemort didn't become true 
master of the Elder Wand.  So Harry actually left the battle before 
it was close to done.  Again, very different from what I see Jesus 
doing.  Much closer to escaping, IMO, and therefore a suicide.

> >>Chancie:
> <snip>
> As far as the "redemption limited to few" there are PLENTY of
> instances in the Bible where people COULD have chose to follow God,
> and decided not to. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The interesting thing to me is that in the Bible those folks were 
generally quite complacent in believing themselves morally good.  
They were sure they were chosen, IOWs.  But there were also plenty 
who were considered the dregs and the unclean of their society who 
*did* get the Christ message and were redeemed.

In DH, unfortunately, we didn't get a single example of someone 
designated "bad" becoming fully and truly good.  There was no 
redemption unless you'd already been chosen.  Which does fall in with 
what I believe are rather old-fashioned (and I think out of fashion?) 
Christian beliefs, but it doesn't fit with my own understanding of 
what Christianity is.

> >>Monica:
> <snip>
> I will agree that he [Harry] is certainly not divine, and has good 
> and bad within himself, making his sacrifice quite different than   
> that of Jesus. Nevertheless, his sacrifice was to eliminate the
> personification of evil, i.e. Voldemort.

Betsy Hp:
But Voldemort wasn't really the "personification of evil" was he?  
Otherwise his destruction would have brought about bigger (or quite 
frankly, any) changes to the WW.  Instead, as we see in the Epilogue, 
the WW and Hogwarts returns to business as usual.  It's pretty much a 
carbon copy of the world Harry entered in PS/SS.

Which means Harry's struggle was the equivalent to bringing down 
Hitler (though frankly, Voldemort didn't even come close to matching 
Hitler's evil).  Which okay, good job young man.  But hardly an earth 
shattering occurrence.  

> >>Monica:
> As far as the house system, I likewise think the ending could have 
> wrapped things up a little better by unifying Hogwarts instead of   
> allowing it to remain divided. Or perhaps a group of Slytherins    
> fighting the death eaters. But Malfoy, the quintessential Slytherin 
> of Harry's day, was redeemable, in his readmittance to wizarding   
> society. Perhaps that says something?

Betsy Hp:
Draco is returned to the spot he began in as well: a member of the 
unclean, the non-elect, the scapegoat house (clearly marked by their 
green and silver ties).  So again, nothing has changed.  And 
certainly no redemption occurs.  Harry's actions were a blip on the 
radar.  A footnote in "Hogwarts: A History".  Hardly equivalent to 
Christ. 

Betsy Hp