[the_old_crowd] Re: Ultimate Horcrux

[Kathy King]

  CMC:



The Hebrew commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is improperly
translated - it should read "Thou shalt not murder" - or more
idiomatically, "Don't murder!"  Hebrew scripture distinguishes
murder, which is unacceptable, from killing, which is the acceptable
taking of a life under certain sanctioned conditions:  the execution
of a condemned criminal, the sacrifice of a ritually purified animal,
or the taking of an enemy's life on the battlefield.  "Killing" is
legally allowed as a way to strengthen and protect the
community; "Murder" is a method through which an individual advances
a radically selfish agenda, taking a life to further that
individual's purpose, and thus lacks social sanction.

In HBP we read:

"How do you split your soul?"

"Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the
soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act
of violation, it is against nature."

"But how do you do it?"

"By an act of evil — the supreme act of evil. By commiting murder.
Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a
Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: He would encase the
torn portion —"

Slughorn defines the supreme act of evil as "murder," but muddies
things up for the would-be interpreter by going on to speak
of "killing" in the next sentence. But I'll still interpret this as
referring to those acts of "killing" which meet the legal criteria
for "murder."

Surely, to evoke a hypothetical situation, an Auror who killed a
Death Eater who was about to bring bodily harm to a number of
defenseless children would not suffer the same spiritual damage as a
Tom Riddle who decides to kill a wealthy old woman to obtain precious
heirlooms that were in her possession.


Snow:



Yes, of course you're correct and you explained it very well. My mind set
(when thinking of this) was more toward the order that Dumbledore had
dabbled in a bit of immortality himself with Flammel in making the elixir.  He
also had some potions-ala-dragon-blood discoveries. I am a bit curious as to
how saintly Dumbledore actually is considering his
previous…umm…accomplishments.



Then there is always Dumbledore's heartfelt statement to Tom; in the DOM
that there are things worse than death, which I instantly felt was from
personal experience. This, of course, could be about someone close to him
although I lean towards personal experience.



Something else that I wrote about, on the old list some time ago, that
remains a puzzlement to me is, in short, the way that Harry felt when he saw
and heard Fawkes and the Phoenix song and how this feeling progressed to
include that same feeling when Harry saw Dumbledore at his underage-magic
full-wizangamot hearing. The relationship between Dumbledore and Fawkes is
indeed questioning (considering the escape from his office in OOP) along
with the two feathers that miraculously found their way into the appropriate
wands.



You are More than likely correct that the Barmy Old Codger had remained
whole-hearted in his defeat of Grindlewald but I still feel a bit uneasy
about Dumbledore's past (and past endeavors) when we actually know less
about him than Lupin.



Snow


P.S. I noticed as I was about to post this that there were further response
and wanted to add quickly to Judy that I thank you for your concern for me
over my Dad's condition, I can assure you that we both feel it is the next
great adventure but getting there can be less than great and time is limited
in more than one way. My escapism to all of this however, appears to be
Potter, which is something to think about considering that the whole epic
deals with death.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]