Harry Potter and Christian Theme - SPOILERS

[kindlekitten]

just walking away from this one...

[wodin]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

just walking away from this one...

Yup!!

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

just walking away from this one...

Originally Posted by wodin

Yup!!

I'm curious why you felt the need to announce this?

I provided textual evidence for my assertion, which is basically the only way to argue this. If the evidence does not bear out, or if I'm mis-using the citations, or if you see something else at work, I think that would be far more conducive to offer that up for discussion, such as pdurrant did.

This is a site about reading. How do you decide on thematic elements of stories without citing textual evidence? And do you always get frustrated and run away when a thematic element is presented that you disagree with?

-Pie

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Harry's physical blood, flowing through his veins, was imbued with the magical protection that resulted from his mother's loving sacrifice.

I see what you're driving at, but I still think you're forcing the text to meet your preconceived notions.

I do not see either Harry or his mother as an allusion to Christ, not even an unconscious one.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It may not be clear from my culled notes, but there are two references to blood.

1) Blood relationship, as you refer to in your post.

Dumbledore used this relationship to fashion protection for Harry at Privet Drive. As long as Harry called that home, he was safe there.

2) Harry's actual, physical blood flowing through his veins.

Lily's sacrifice imbues Harry's actual blood with magical protection.

Prior to the end of Goblet of Fire, Voldemort could not touch Harry without some terrible reaction (Voldemort-as-Quirrell, for example). In the graveyard at the end, Voldemort reconstructs his physical body, with one ingredient being Harry's own blood. After taking Harry's blood and making it part of his "new" body, he touches Harry without consequence.

Harry's physical blood, flowing through his veins, was imbued with the magical protection that resulted from his mother's loving sacrifice.

The problem is, none of this is specific to Christianity. Blood and sacrifice have been important elements in human cultures for as long as there have been human cultures, and Christianity's usage likely derives from much earlier sources.

In orthodox Xtian theology, Christ sacrificed himself to redeem and protect everyone. That doesn't exactly apply to Harry.

The usage you quote may accord with Christianity, but it accords with other things as well. You haven't proven that the intent was specifically Christian.

I agree with Pdurrant. I think you are seeing what you want to see. If it improves the series for you by finding such apparent associations, enjoy. You may even be right. I just don't think you've proven your case.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

I've actually dealt with some of these points in a previous post.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The problem is, none of this is specific to Christianity. Blood and sacrifice have been important elements in human cultures for as long as there have been human cultures, and Christianity's usage likely derives from much earlier sources.

There's actually a reason my argument took 3 posts. It's the conglomeration of multiple elements related the Harry's and Lily's sacrifice that point toward the Christ figure. If it were just the blood, or just a sacrifice, I would agree that there's way too thin of evidence. But there are multiple allusions connected to Harry's sacrifice that refer to Christ, and I made sure to explicitly state what those references were.

In orthodox Xtian theology, Christ sacrificed himself to redeem and protect everyone. That doesn't exactly apply to Harry.

As I stated pretty early in this thread, a Christ Figure is never a 1-for-1 exact duplicate of Christ. A Christ figure is an allusion, and does not require a 100% compliance.

Even Aslan is not 100% like Christ (Jesus was a person, not an animal), and that is an allegorical retelling of the Christian gospel.

The usage you quote may accord with Christianity, but it accords with other things as well. You haven't proven that the intent was specifically Christian.

I am giving evidence that Harry Potter is a Christ Figure. The term "proof" is, at best, problematic in this context.

I agree with Pdurrant. I think you are seeing what you want to see. If it improves the series for you by finding such apparent associations, enjoy. You may even be right. I just don't think you've proven your case.

Either the text bears out that Harry Potter is a Christ figure, or it doesn't. Any comment on my state-of-mind is absolutely irrelevant, and an entirely fallacious argument in this regard.

-Pie

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Indeed, they were pagan prior to being Christian. I heard a radio host going through the history of Christmas, and it's bounced around quite a lot in terms of defining tradition.

And we are kind of in the midst of another "bounce" so to speak. There has been a recent transition toward secularization.

I'd venture to say that the current trend is well on its way to commercialism. In the current "politically correct" environment there are fewer and fewer cards that cater to a specific religion, increasingly they all wish the recipient a happy holiday and provide a slot to put the money or gift card.

I'm only being slightly facetious.

Originally Posted by EatingPie

It may not be clear from my culled notes, but there are two references to blood.

1) Blood relationship, as you refer to in your post.

Dumbledore used this relationship to fashion protection for Harry at Privet Drive. As long as Harry called that home, he was safe there.

2) Harry's actual, physical blood flowing through his veins.

Lily's sacrifice imbues Harry's actual blood with magical protection.

Prior to the end of Goblet of Fire, Voldemort could not touch Harry without some terrible reaction (Voldemort-as-Quirrell, for example). In the graveyard at the end, Voldemort reconstructs his physical body, with one ingredient being Harry's own blood. After taking Harry's blood and making it part of his "new" body, he touches Harry without consequence.

Here's Harry explaining to Dumbledore (wait, isn't that backwards?).



Harry's physical blood, flowing through his veins, was imbued with the magical protection that resulted from his mother's loving sacrifice.

-Pie

I think your second reference to the "blood in his veins" is just a way of saying it is a part of him. Sort of like saying that "Klingon's are violent, it's in their blood". Using Harry's blood in the potion was not as important as simply using a piece of Harry, so he could potentially have just off one of Harry's ears and tossed it in there. He probably used blood though because it mixed in better and was easier to swallow.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

There's actually a reason my argument took 3 posts. It's the conglomeration of multiple elements related the Harry's and Lily's sacrifice that point toward the Christ figure. If it were just the blood, or just a sacrifice, I would agree that there's way too thin of evidence. But there are multiple allusions connected to Harry's sacrifice that refer to Christ, and I made sure to explicitly state what those references were.

Simply combining blood and sacrifice isn't sufficient to constitute proof. That's no more specific to Christianity than either alone would be.

As I stated pretty early in this thread, a Christ Figure is never a 1-for-1 exact duplicate of Christ. A Christ figure is an allusion, and does not require a 100% compliance.

And the question is how close a compliance is required for it to be the case.

Even Aslan is not 100% like Christ (Jesus was a person, not an animal), and that is an allegorical retelling of the Christian gospel.

Sure. But Lewis was a devout Christian, and specifically trying to do an allegorical retelling. I'd say the jury is still out on Harry, unless Rowling should specifically state that what you mentioned was intended as Christian allegory.

I am giving evidence that Harry Potter is a Christ Figure. The term "proof" is, at best, problematic in this context.

You've produced evidence good enough for you. The question is whether it's good enough for others.

Either the text bears out that Harry Potter is a Christ figure, or it doesn't. Any comment on my state-of-mind is absolutely irrelevant, and an entirely fallacious argument in this regard.

Sorry, but state of mind is absolutely critical, and even central to the discussion.

How convincing your evidence will be depends on the mindset of the person examining the evidence. You are a Christian, and find it so. I'm an agnostic who doesn't care one way or the other whether Harry is a Christ Figure, save as a possible point of academic interest, so your evidence doesn't convince me. It might well convince another Christian.
______
Dennis

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by dsvick

I'd venture to say that the current trend is well on its way to commercialism. In the current "politically correct" environment there are fewer and fewer cards that cater to a specific religion, increasingly they all wish the recipient a happy holiday and provide a slot to put the money or gift card.

I'm only being slightly facetious.

I think your second reference to the "blood in his veins" is just a way of saying it is a part of him. Sort of like saying that "Klingon's are violent, it's in their blood". Using Harry's blood in the potion was not as important as simply using a piece of Harry, so he could potentially have just off one of Harry's ears and tossed it in there. He probably used blood though because it mixed in better and was easier to swallow.

Good post! This is the kind of discussion I was hoping for!

Wormtail actually provided the body part, while Harry provided the blood ("blood of enemy").

-Pie

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Simply combining blood and sacrifice isn't sufficient to constitute proof. That's no more specific to Christianity than either alone would be.

Did you read the bullet items in my posts? I spelled out 5 or 6 elements specifically associated with the sacrifice that allude to a Christ figure. I've repeated them multiple times.

And the question is how close a compliance is required for it to be the case.

Good question. There's no hard-and-fast rule. The strength of the allusion is what matters to me. For example, the new Terminator: Salvation movie has a Christ Figure, as the movie starts out with him executed, spread out as if on a cross. The cross is an image strongly associated with Christ in our culture. And the image acts as a foreshadowing to a sacrifice later in the movie. The director McG actually stated of this scene, "Here we see him in the Christ position."

While we don't see Harry in the "Christ position," having 5 or 6 Christian allusions specifically associated with sacrifice and protection/redemption strikes me as pretty good.

Sure. But Lewis was a devout Christian, and specifically trying to do an allegorical retelling. I'd say the jury is still out on Harry, unless Rowling should specifically state that what you mentioned was intended as Christian allegory.

One correction: a Christ Figure is an allusion, not an allegory. I probably confused things by citing Aslan, but I wanted to illustrate that the demand for 1-to-1 correspondence was not required.

Harry Potter is not an allegory, nor a re-telling of the Christ story. It is a book about a wizard who makes a Christ-like sacrifice, linked with other actions that allude to Christ.

But indeed, I agree, unless Rowling rubber-stamps each thing with a "yes" or "no" we don't know for sure. She won't do that, though, as she wants the books to largely speak for themselves... at least that's my impression. That's why I insist on the term "evidence" in examining the text rather than "proof."

You've produced evidence good enough for you. The question is whether it's good enough for others.

Hence... discussion!

Sorry, but state of mind is absolutely critical, and even central to the discussion.

How convincing your evidence will be depends on the mindset of the person examining the evidence. You are a Christian, and find it so. I'm an agnostic who doesn't care one way or the other whether Harry is a Christ Figure, save as a possible point of academic interest, so your evidence doesn't convince me. It might well convince another Christian.

Okay, as stated this way, I am in at least partial agreement. The previous statements (not necessarily by you) struck me as a way of patting me condescendingly on the head, "you silly Christian, you, you need HP to be a Christ thing." Sheesh! Particularly offensive when I am actually providing textual evidence for an intellectual discussion, and am open to other views.

Why I agree with your wording now is that you're talking about our worldview. How our beliefs and ideas can influence how we see things. It's not about need, but about perception. Initial perception, anyway. When dealing with book and film, I often need to put aside my initial perceptions in order to examine what I consider to be the author's intent. I'm not always successful, but that's how my mind works. Ironically, I didn't see Harry as a Christ Figure until I read the last book a second time. And then the more I debated it on the Leaky Cauldron, the more evidence I found (at least I believe I found).

-Pie

[TGS]

You heard it here first!

Harry Potter is 'Christ-like' claims theologian
They are beloved by millions of children and adults alike, but the Harry Potter series has attracted widespread censure from fundamentalist Christians who claim the books encourage witchcraft. he congregation of the Christ Community Church in Alamogordo in southern New Mexico even staged a book burning claiming 'behind that innocent face is the power of satanic darkness.'

But now the boy wizard has found an unlikely ally.

Full story, (such as it is), here

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Thank you, TGS, for confirming Rowling did not intend the HP series to be a Christ allegory. I find it amazing how people can read some of the most interesting things into books, and include convincing arguments. When I first saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, "You have to be kidding!" First, the narrow minded Fundies who condemned the series just because it witches in it (and most never even read it!), now this? Nuff said.

I find it curious how many people here referred to C. S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles as being a Christ allegory (which I fully believe) yet never mentioned his other Christ allegory (it wasn't as obvious as the Narnia Chronicles and covered a broader scope).

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Thank you, TGS, for confirming Rowling did not intend the HP series to be a Christ allegory. I find it amazing how people can read some of the most interesting things into books, and include convincing arguments. When I first saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, "You have to be kidding!" First, the narrow minded Fundies who condemned the series just because it witches in it (and most never even read it!), now this? Nuff said.

I find it curious how many people here referred to C. S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles as being a Christ allegory (which I fully believe) yet never mentioned his other Christ allegory (it wasn't as obvious as the Narnia Chronicles and covered a broader scope).

Of course it's not a Christ Allegory. I never claimed it was, and have made multiple statements opposing that idea.

An allusion is not an allegory. And I even stated quite specifically, in almost the same words as Rowling used herself, that HP is not like Narnia.

I am quite surprised that this needs repeating in almost every post. A reference or allusion does not an allegory make. You can refer to Christ without retelling the Christ story.

That's exactly what Rowling did, again, by her own words.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157...17/story.jhtml

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

-Pie

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Of course it's not a Christ Allegory. I never claimed it was, and have made multiple statements opposing that idea.

An allusion is not an allegory. And I even stated quite specifically, in almost the same words as Rowling used herself, that HP is not like Narnia.

I am quite surprised that this needs repeating in almost every post. A reference or allusion does not an allegory make. You can refer to Christ without retelling the Christ story.

That's exactly what Rowling did, again, by her own words.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/157...17/story.jhtml



-Pie

Curious. In one article, she states:

"I did not set out to convert anyone to Christianity. I wasn't trying to do what CS Lewis (author of the Chronicles of Narnia) did. It is perfectly possible to live a very moral life without a belief in God, and I think it's perfectly possible to live a life peppered with ill-doing and believe in God."

Then in your reference:

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

The first quote suggests she was not doing an allegory (or allusion, if you prefer) then the second one admits there were parallels.

I still feel there wasn't enough in the series to warrent even a deliberate allusion nor support her apparent reluctant claim to it. But then I also feel she never intended for the series to become so dark as it progressed, despite her claims to the contrary. Either that, or she is far more devious than she lets on.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Curious. In one article, she states:

"I did not set out to convert anyone to Christianity. I wasn't trying to do what CS Lewis (author of the Chronicles of Narnia) did. It is perfectly possible to live a very moral life without a belief in God, and I think it's perfectly possible to live a life peppered with ill-doing and believe in God."

Then in your reference:

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

The first quote suggests she was not doing an allegory (or allusion, if you prefer) then the second one admits there were parallels.

I still feel there wasn't enough in the series to warrent even a deliberate allusion nor support her apparent reluctant claim to it. But then I also feel she never intended for the series to become so dark as it progressed, despite her claims to the contrary. either that, or she is far more devious than she let's on.

I certainly see how this looks contradictory. But I honestly believe she's being consistent, even in the context of such seemingly disparate remarks. It all comes down to the Christ allegory and Christ figure (allusion) being very different literary forms; and I believe Rowling knows that, and therefore can be consistent in the above quotes.

C.S. Lewis set out to re-tell the story of Christ in fantasy form, a way to communicate Christ through modern fairy tale, to educate those that would not necessarily be interested, to evangelize. Those all occur in an allegory form. Aslan is Jesus. Even his form -- a lion -- invokes Christ. He is equated with Christ. As I said, a re-telling of Christ's story.

Rowling, OTOH, is making reference to Christ. Not equating Harry with Christ, not saying that Harry is a duplicate of Christ. Just, in some particular instances, she uses the allusion to Christ as a tool to communicate something thematic. To me, it's that love is ultimate conquering force against evil. That's not even a specifically Christian theme, but I see her using the Christian elements of loving sacrifice, death, and redemption to convey that theme about the ultimate power of love.

This is why I'm so strict on delineating between allusion and allegory. On one hand, HP uses the Christ story to convey a message, but on the other hand, it's not done in the same -- or even similar -- way that CS Lewis did in Narnia. They're very different literary devices and not necessarily related. That's how Rowling can say deny one thing about religion in reference to Lewis, and then later affirm religion in the HP story in certain instances: Lewis used a totally different literary device than she herself did, even though they both are "accessing" Christianity to some degree.

-Pie

PS I feel I was a little "heavy handed" in my previous reply, and I apologize for that.