Godfathers and Gravestones.... (was Re: Magical Latin)

[Goddlefrood]

No: HPFGUIDX 186126

> Geoff (snipped):
> If you have been on this group for any time, you may well 
> know that I am an evangelical Christian.

> No.Limburger makes reference to the coincidence of Christian 
> festivals with earlier pagan celebrations and the influence 
> of the Catholic Church. I have always been given to understand 
> that there is an earlier relationship. In the 1st century AD, 
> many of the Christians in the Roman Empire were slaves and did 
> not have the luxury of being able to choose their own dates 
> for festivals. So the Church often held its celebrations at 
> a time coincident with the older ones – Christmas being round 
> about the time of the Saturnalia – to allow these folk to be 
> able to join on worship.

Goddlefrood:

Not that I was around back then, but Constantine the Great 
legalised the Christian church in the, what, 4th century? 
While it is true that many current celebrations, and this 
actually includes other major religions, revolve around 
earlier so-called pagan rites, the fact remains that the 
roots of Christmas, Easter (a movable feast nearly upon us) 
and many other landmarks in the Christian church are in much 
earlier (considerably earlier than Roman, btw) times. (And,
how's that for a run on sentence?)

The dates of other major religions' holy days also coincide 
closely with the dates adapted by the Christians, suggesting 
that there was a much earlier commonish kind of religion (if 
it can be called that, although belief might be closer the 
mark) that revolved around seasons and equinoxes.This also 
ties in with archaelogical evidence that many current places 
of worship throughout the world had earlier significance to 
our many and varied ancestors aqnd pertained to whatever 
belief was current at the time. The Vatican stands on the 
site of the Circus Maximus, as one well-known example. The 
Circus Maximus was closely linked to the beliefs the Romans 
held and many of their festivals revolved around it.

Here I'll set out my antecedents very briefly. I'm as 
English as many currently calling themselves that. I 
was born into the Jewish faith and even attended Saturday 
school. I attended predominantly Church of England schools 
and services organised by that church. I have lived and 
worked in Fiji for the last 11 years, with variously 
Muslims, Hindus and various brands of Christian people. 
I have lived with Jains and Buddhists. I freely admit 
that Shinto is a mystery to me.

> No.Limberger:
> "Sirius Black is Harry's godfather, but this does not imply
> that Harry was ever taken to a church by James & Lily Potter 
> to be baptized. The term "godfather" is used for aman who is 
> either a sponsor or guardian of a child and doesnot necessarily 
> imply that it is used only with regard to a baptism."

> Geoff responded:
> I do not know this writer's nationality but I, as a native 
> Englishman, disagree with that. If a person in the UK says 
> "She is my godmother" or "My godfather says
." the great 
> majority of folk here will automatically assume that the 
> speaker has been baptised either in the Church of England 
> or the Catholic Church.

GoddlefroodL

A hundred years ago I would have agreed with Geoff. But, a 
large and increasing minority would not agree with the above 
statement. I, for instance, have a godfather but was never 
baptised and I'm an Englishman with ancestry in England going 
back to well before the Normans.

> Geoff again:
> Referring back to baptism and godparents, it is very common 
> for parents who have no contact at all with a church to ask 
> for baptism (or in the non-conformist churches dedication).

Goddlefrood:

All true, but it alters very little and is not, in my opinion, 
a valid rebuttal of the argument that Harry had a godfather 
without actually being baptised. In fact, this is not provable 
either way based on canon, notwithstanding what JKR may have 
said in an interview.

> Geoff:
> Finally, Christian opposition to the books. <SNIP>

Goddlefrood:

As indicated by Mel, and based on empricial evidence of my 
own, the objectors have typically not read the books. I have 
yet to see any valid objection to the HP series from any 
religious group based on actual analysis of the text.

PS, that man Mel had experience with may have read no books 
at all, leave alone the HP ones ;-)