32 responses so far ↓

• 1 RC // Oct 18, 2007 at 5:55 am

  Mrs. Rowling did nothing else than most people do if there are somehow rooted to a religion. She choose a tiny little aspect of the religion which matters for her personally. Since her mother´s death the question about a “life after death” rules her mind more than any other aspect of religion. Her confusion about the issue finds its expression in the HP books. Of course there is nothing wrong with it; but it starts to become problematically if the “overcoming of death” suddenly smothers all other concerns/issues and life on earth is null and void (parents are proud if the child wants to die). A huge part of Mrs. Rowling´s ideas are of course the exact opposite of Christianity, but Mrs. Rowling does not realise that because there are aspects of Christianity (which includes being called by GOD, equality and charity and forgiveness (while still alive) for EVERYBODY, not just Gryffindors!) which are not of interest for her or maybe just marginal. Mrs. Rowling reduces Christianity to a superstitiously folklore. This is the main reason why I am very sceptically about her ” Christian beliefs”. Even Atheists, Heath, Muslims and Buddhists are capable of to quote the Bible. The quotation of Bible verses from the New Testament is not enough. Now I say (I am Roman Catholic by the way): Jesus Christ is my Redeemer, my Saviour and his death on the cross, his blood, made me pure in the eyes of GOD.

• 2 korg20000bc // Oct 18, 2007 at 6:36 am

  Well RC, that really is a bizzare take on the series. To me, it appears that you have not actually read the stories or you would not write what you have.
  I agree that death, people’s reaction to it and attempted avoidance of it is a major theme but to say “all other concerns/issues and life on earth is null and void” is so far out of whack that you must really work hard to maintain it.

  You complain that 2 Bible verses aren’t enough… enough for what? But it’s not all you have anyway. You have 7 books full of Christian ethos, imagery and morals, plus the author’s own statements.

  Which ideas are “the exact opposite of Christianity”?

  Please write more. Don’t just leave an inflaming comment and then bail out like so many others.

  Matthew

• 3 Travis Prinzi // Oct 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

  RC, if Rowling were setting out to do Christian catechesis with the HP series, we could have the conversation you want to have. As it is, it’s a work of fictional literature that is influenced by Christian belief. And it’s an excellent one, in my opinion.

• 4 reyhan // Oct 18, 2007 at 12:49 pm

  Travis, you expressed some interest in the works of Graham Greene in the pubcast. May I suggest that you start with The Power and the Glory? There are different interpretations possible, and for many people it is about the power of the Catholic sacraments, but to me it’s a twentieth-century re-telling of the crucifiction story. It tells the story of a nameless priest who is being hunted down by the forces of the government in a communist and atheistic country, Mexico, as it so happens. He is derisively called the whiskey priest, because of his weakness for drink. It is not his only human frailty. But transcending all his weaknesses is his unswerving faith in his calling, his devotion to the people he serves in the name of God, and his courage to the end.

  I have said before, I am not a religious person, but I would follow this whiskey priest anywhere, because he truly embodies all that is good and sacred in humanity. The Power and the Glory is also the one book which I have read which made me want to stop writing, because Greene had said all the things I wanted to say about courage and compassion.

• 5 Eeyore // Oct 18, 2007 at 1:19 pm

  Just for the record, RC posted the exact same thing over at Leaky Lounge, where (no surprise) many of the posts are still trying to twist the story into something that fits their beliefs. Interesting, but after my one post, I’m staying off that battlefield.

  Reyhan, I’ve never read Greene, perhaps I should add that book to my list. (Mexico, an atheist country? Hmmmm.)

  Pat

• 6 reyhan // Oct 18, 2007 at 1:51 pm

  Pat, I may have overstated the atheism; Wikipedia explains it better: the government is anti-Catholic Church, the local governer is the atheist:

  ‘The novel tells the story of a Roman Catholic priest in the state of Tabasco in Mexico during the 1930s, a time when the Mexican government, still effectively controlled by Plutarco Elías Calles, strove to suppress the Catholic Church. The persecution was especially severe in the province of Tabasco, where the atheist[1][2][3][4] governor Tomás Garrido Canabal had founded and actively encouraged fascist[5] paramilitary groups (called the “Red-Shirts”).’

• 7 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:15 am

  There seems to be more focus on JKR’s Christian beliefs in reference to the issue of death. But I am confused in this regard. Can anyone help me understand how JKR’s glorification of suicide (Harry’s march to a suicide by COP and DD’s assisted “Please Severus” euthanization) can be reconciled with Christian beliefs? I always thought Christianity took a stance against such acts and repudiated them strongly.

• 8 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:18 am

  Seeing as it wasn’t suicide, but willingly giving himself up on behalf of the wizarding world, because he had to die for the Voldemort soul piece to die, there’s no difficulty there.

• 9 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:20 am

  We’ve also had a good amount of discussion here about the Albus-Severus death arrangement. It’s really, really a stretch to see that as assisted suicide.

• 10 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 11:36 am

  I understand the motivation, but the reasoning does not change the “reality” that the action was one where the person intended to, and took action in an attempt to kill himself (suicide - Latin sui caedere, to kill oneself). In Harry’s mind, he would fail in his mission, if he lived. And, I am sure you are not espousing that the ends justify the means. “For the Greater Good” is not a Christian mantra, is it? (Of course, Harry didn’t have to die to eliminate the LV threat, many alternatives existed. In fact, he did not die and yet the soul piece was released.)

  You are right on the DD case. It was self requested euthanization (labeling can be so tricky). You are on point though, that DD requesting that he himself be killed is stretching the suicide point. Although he was the initiator of the action (by verbal request) he was not the one who executed the action. Again, there was altuistic motivation, but the ends don’t justify the means, for me.

  But in any case, to get back to JKR’s tie in to Christian themes, does Christianity support suicide and/or euthanasia?

• 11 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 12:28 pm

  Joe, no, I don’t espouse an “ends justify the means” way of thinking. I do not, however, think morality is always as clear as we’d like it to be, and as such, a “sin” in one context is not always a “sin.” The Jericho prostitute was justified for lying; there’s simply no other way to read it.

  I’m not sure what alternatives existed to Harry letting his body be physically destroyed in order to have Voldemort’s soul piece transferred to the “beyond.” You’re right, Harry didn’t die, but that was on a magical technicality that no one could have guessed, save Dumbledore. Any other person in that situation who didn’t have a double bond with Voldemort would have had to die, and that’s exactly what Harry believed he had to do. Sure, we can look back after the fact and say, “Hmmm…maybe if Harry had known about that technicality, and Voldemort wasn’t about to launch another attack and kill more innocent wizards, he could have taken a couple of days to sort out other options.” You know what they say about hindsight. But knowing what we know in hindsight doesn’t create an “ends justifying the means” explanation for what Harry did. As far as Harry knew - as far as any of us still know, for that matter - a person who is made a horcrux has to die in order to destroy the soul piece.

  As far as Albus goes, I’m of the opinion that when he gave Snape the line about Bellatrix playing with her food and such, he was trying to be light-hearted with a very serious issue. Altruism? By the strict definition of the word, sure - Dumbledore put into effect a plan that was self-sacrificial and was for the motivation of defeating Voldemort and saving Draco.

  So, back to your question: Christianity support suicide and/or euthanasia?

  No, but it does support deliberate, purposeful, self-sacrificial, self-determined death, should the opportunity present itself. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one that this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” That’s a deliberate act of submitting oneself to death.

  Context and motivation does matter.

• 12 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 2:05 pm

  There are, of course, many ways to achieve a goal. And what is the goal? To kill LV? Not in a Christian World where thou shalt not (he should be loved as Jesus loved us, and we should turn the other cheek to his actions against us). But in a more secular world, that would be seen as the most expedient way to the ultimate goal of eliminating the evil/threat (self preservation). Harry could have AKed LV from under the cloak in the forest, and dealt with the soul piece later. As Vapormorte disappeared so would have the DE’s as they did in ‘81 and as they do later in the book. Then there is plenty of time to figure things out (16 years last time and this time you know you need only eliminate the soul pieces in Harry and the snake and can prohibit access to Tom Riddle Sr’s grave). In fact, if DD didn’t decide to end his short term life to help just one boy, he could have used his precipitous powers to help find a solution and protect the whole WW. (How did his quickened death hasten the fall of LV? It more likely delayed it, as now “The Greatest Wizard of His Age” was no longer working directly toward LV’s demise.)

  So, as long as the act is self-sacrificial for the benefit of others, then suicide and euthanasia are ok in Christendom? The ends don’t necessarily justify the means, but they can.

  I can see what you mean in reference to “Greater love has no one that this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.” I always took “lay down” to mean to risk one’s life, perhaps with little chance of survival, but always with hope of living and not purely with the intent to die, but it clearly can be interpreted that way and is certainly more directly stated that way. I see your point.

  It just seems to me that Deathly Hallows brings the series to a climax that seems intent on justifying and glorifying suicide/euthanasia as if the author was trying to reconcile something she was struggling with in her mind. There seems a need to tie this in with her Christian belief system. My Christian up bringing always taught me killing/suicide/euthanasia was wrong - very wrong. And as the author took years to come up with the presented story it was certain that the use of suicidal sacrifice was well intended, when there were, to be sure, so many other options in forethought. Options that could well have tied more easily into the Christian imagery she espouses.

• 13 reyhan // Oct 19, 2007 at 2:26 pm

  Travis has said this, but I’m going to reiterate: Harry sacrificed himself to save the world from evil. That act has a very honorable tradition, and in fact reflects the act that Christianity is based on. So no, I don’t think Harry’s self-sacrifice is un-Christian.

  As for Dumbledore, he was only alive because of Snape and his potion-making talents. But Snape could not save him but could only delay his death. Dumbledore was going to die anyways; he did not choose to die, he only chose the moment of his death.

  I am very reluctant to quote Dumbledore, because I still haven’t forgiven him for lying to Snape about Harry, but in this case I will make an exception. Does anyone here think that Dumbledore harmed his soul by dying when he did and as he did? Does anyone here think that Snape harmed his soul by helping Dumbledore choose the moment of his death?

  Eroej_Kab, Harry’s story is a re-telling of the central theme of the Christian myth: a man gives his life to save the world from evil; he is resurrected because he gave his life wilingly, and out of love for mankind. Love triumphs over death.

  JKR’s views on assisted suicide, euthanasia, contraception, abortion, capital punishment, homosexuality and sex before or outside of marriage, as expressed in the stories, are not relevant to the central theme of the story: love tiumphs over death.

• 14 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 2:29 pm

  A few disagreements:

  “Thou shalt not kill” cannot possibly mean “Thou shalt never end a life ever for any reason,” since God, the giver of that command, also commanded the killing of lots of people.

  Had Harry AK’d LV from under the cloak, LV’s soul piece would have taken off and hidden like last time, and then found a way back, because two horcuxes remained: Harry and Nagini. Even if those two are eliminated over the ensuing years, there will still be a returned Voldemort, since that last soul piece still needs to be done away with. Surely that last soul piece would have quickly found a body to possess, and there’d be an eventual Voldemort return (deny access to Riddle Sr’s grave? Maybe…but who knows that that’s the only way for LV to return? And what are you going to do? Convince or pay people to guard the thing for the rest of eternity?), and more deaths until he was finally dealt the fatal blow.

  Unless, of course, the first action he took upon regaining his body was to start making horcruxes again, in which case you’d done no good whatsoever.

  Had Albus lived on the tower, he’d have had maybe a month or two left, in a continually weakening state. Not much chance of saving the WW like that.

  So, as long as the act is self-sacrificial for the benefit of others, then suicide and euthanasia are ok in Christendom?

  As I’ve said, I don’t think Albus was really requesting euthanasia. He just didn’t want to reveal to Snape the whole Elder Wand plan, so he tried to give another reason/explanation for wanting Snape to make that move.

  But as to the question on the whole: an act of self-sacrificial death would no longer be considered a sinful act of suicide, but a willing act of love.

  Overall, if we lay out the choices Harry had, they look like this:

  1. AK LV from under the cloak, temporarily keeping him at bay, but the net result could potentially be another LV return, and more death and chaos.
  2. Don’t AK LV, but don’t sacrifice yourself either; just take some time to think out a plan. In that situation, more of his friends end up dying that very night.
  3. Sacrifice self, leaving in place three people who know how to finish the job and have the tools to do so.

• 15 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 4:06 pm

  reyhan

  I know I am not a Biblical scholar but, I believe, Jesus did not commit suicide. He was taken by force, gave evasive answers to those adjudicating his case, was whipped to force him to the site of his crucifixion and bemoaned his fate on the cross. That fact that he dedicated the act to our benefit does not make it a suicide. Harry’s intent was to die - suicide, plan and simple. He decided to end God’s greatest gift specifically without considering options. Fight to live.

  We are all going to die. It is the choosing of a specific time for that to occur that is definitional to suicide and murder. Fight to live.

  Yes, I believe they did wrong to decide timing for someone’s death. We will all die, in God’s good time. Murder/suicide/euthanasia occur when we take God’s place and feel we can determine the proper time for our/someone’s death. It’s all in the timing.

  Harry didn’t die. He was saved by his Mother’s sacrifice not by his own attempted suicide. No one triumphs over death.

  Travis

  God ordering killings is why I’ll stick to Jesus’ commandment to “Love each other as I have loved you”.

  I believe the horcruxes are described as tethers. Without them your disassociated soul floats away, no further action required. It is all a feeble discussion, on both sides, because the basilisk venom did not destroy the Harry Horcrux, as it should have at the end of CoS, the soul piece liberated from Harry in the forest did not just enter the nearest living person as it did in ‘81 at Godric’s Hollow. JKR can have it any way she wants it.

  Albus wasn’t really requesting euthanasia? He was asking someone else to kill him. I say euthanasia because he was mortally suffering. It seems more correct at that point than murder. Is it OK to end your life so as not to “reveal to Snape the whole Elder Wand plan”. Can we so cavalierly give up our lives and expect to sit in good judgment with God? Fight to live.

  But as to the question on the whole: an act of self-sacrificial death would no longer be considered a sinful act of suicide, but a willing act of love.

  Is this the Christian point of view or a more secular one? The only distinguishing characteristic is the motivation, so this is more in line with the ends justifying the means.

  Would not the ultimate eternal glory of Heaven, for the righteous, be the goal Harry and we all should be striving for? Is this not the reason we should fear neither evil nor death, if we are righteous? Is this not the only thing that can make us Masters Over Death?

  Harry should not be considering throwing away God’s greatest gift to him in order to save, temporarily as it will be, the lives of others. The goal of his suicidal attempt is to facilitate the murder of LV. Would this not have tainted another’s soul? Does this not taint his own motivation? Is there not some bit of vengeance involved? Or can we rationalize these things as well?

  Harry should (in a Christian based story, like Jesus’s), as should we all, be trying to purify his soul and not be figuring out how he might use the ending of his life to ease the way to kill another, albeit evil, person. Although Christianity has a long history of war and killing, etc., these would be the mistakes we make as humans and not the intent of Christianity’s founder, Jesus.

• 16 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 4:21 pm

  Had Albus lived on the tower, he’d have had maybe a month or two left, in a continually weakening state. Not much chance of saving the WW like that.

  At least he could have told Harry how to destroy Horcruxes and saved JKR the embarrassment of having to sink to “Accio Horcrux Books”.

  Sorry about the multiple comments.

• 17 Jeremy // Oct 19, 2007 at 5:24 pm

  Eroej_Kab appears to be saying that if he were forced to choose between sacrificing himself and sacrificing all his friends and family he would refuse to sacrifice himself?

• 18 Scott Walker // Oct 19, 2007 at 8:33 pm

  “On the night in which He was given up, or, rather, gave Himself up for the life of the world…” from the Divine Liturgy of St, John Chrysostom. By Eroej-Kab’s definition of suicide, the sacrifice of Christ was suicide. Rather than fault our Lord, perhaps fault the definition? To equate Harry’s act of love and self sacrifice with suicide seems, forgive me, absurd. My goodness, how much clearer can it be than, “Greater love has no man than he who lays down his life for his friends?” This greater love is not the same thing as arrogating God’s power of life and death as is done by authentic suicides.

• 19 korg20000bc // Oct 19, 2007 at 8:42 pm

  Eroej_Kab,
  To say that Jesus didn’t intend to give up his life, to me, shows a serious misunderstanding of the gospel. Jesus tells his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, suffer many things and be killed. When Peter tells him not to Jesus calls him Satan and that he doesn’t have in mind the things of God. Jesus also says that no-one takes his life from him but that he willingly lays it down.
  Turning the other cheek is not about letting someone walk all over you either. It’s about not being a victim. You choose to allow yourself to be hit or choose to give away your cloak or choose to walk the extra mile. You don’t need only to be reactive to another’s demands.

  Killing is not murder and we have discussed this issue at length already on this forum.

  When I read your recent comments I think you’re being deliberately argumentative and that’s not we are about. Discussion is great, arguement is counter-productive. Please limit your use of emotive language.

  Matthew

• 20 Sean // Oct 19, 2007 at 9:34 pm

  Suicide is more than the knowledge that you are indirectly or even directly participating in your own demise. If that were the case, smoking cigarettes, eating processed foods or even getting into a motor vehicle would constitute suicidal ideation. Further and frankly, the cost of fighting to live often comes at the expense of others. I’m no biblical scholar either, but I doubt there is a verse highlighting the importance of self preservation. It’s a tenuous argument at best.

• 21 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:21 pm

  Excellent responses, all. There is more than a little misunderstanding of Jesus going on here. Jesus was on a mission to get to that cross. He was not one who was “fighting to live” and was simply taken by force. That doesn’t fit Jesus’ Messianic mission, nor that moment in the Garden when he knocked all the soldiers down to the ground with one word (demonstrating his power over them) only to let them get back up and take him to his death.

  Harry should not be considering throwing away God’s greatest gift to him in order to save, temporarily as it will be, the lives of others. The goal of his suicidal attempt is to facilitate the murder of LV.

  No, it’s to save the lives of thousands of wizards, magical brethren, and muggles. The martyrs believed God’s greatest gift to them was the opportunity to die for the faith. I’m thinking that the Christian view of life and death has been terribly confused by current culture wars.

  Disagree with Jesus himself, or Christian theology itself, but it’s just not accurate to say that Harry’s willing sacrifice is contrary to or opposite from what Jesus did.

• 22 Travis Prinzi // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:42 pm

  Now things are going to get really interesting…

  Rowling says Albus was gay.

• 23 Eroej_Kab // Oct 19, 2007 at 10:59 pm

  Jeremy

  That is not the choice I see. I see the choice is between giving up one’s life with no hope of survival and risking one life in actions meant to save others while still hoping to survive. I believe I discussed this in regards to laying down ones life, above.

  Scott

  I believe I stated, quite directly, that I feel in no way was Christ’s death a suicide and gave my reasoning.

  This greater love is not the same thing as arrogating God’s power of life and death as is done by authentic suicides.

  How is Harry’s action not exactly arrogating God’s power of life and death? Harry is deciding when his death will be and taking it out of the hands of God. Is it not exactly that?

  Matthew

  I admit my study and understanding of the gospel is limited, but I must say that I was taught that Jesus intended to fulfill the scriptures and knew what was in store, because he was God, and accepted it. And as God, he could have changed how things would turn out but knew they must be the way the were to be to ensure the prophesies were to come to pass. I thought it was a question of knowing the future but accepting it. Jesus was not self initiating his demise but accepting the role he was to play in the events. Can you enumerate the actions Jesus took to cause his own death?

  Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

  I believe I have used the lesson correctly.

  I don’t understand your comment re: argumentative? I state my positions/beliefs and respect yours, especially since you are probably more knowledgeable on these subjects. Please let me know what specifically is at issue and I will try to address it. To what emotive language do you refer?

  Sean

  I believe that suicide is the killing of one’s self where the intent is death and less than that is failure. Just as in Harry’s case. Is there another definition you feel should be considered? I believe there is a general Christian abhorrence to suicide that is quite well documented. And if suicide is to be abhorred then self preservation is indicated as the proper path. There are trade offs in all endeavors, such as fighting to live, and the actions in any particular case need their own examination but I believe a general outlook and attitude for us to preserve the great gift of life given to us by God, is in the best Christian tradition and is counter to what is presented in HP.

• 24 Eroej_Kab // Oct 20, 2007 at 7:06 am

  Travis

  it’s to save the lives of thousands of wizards, magical brethren, and muggles

  Is not this saving to ocurr by means of murdering LV? Does not Harry often decrie angrily that “Voldemorte killed my parents!” Is it a streatch to think there is more than a little bit of vengence involved?

  The martyrs believed God’s greatest gift to them was the opportunity to die for the faith

  Do you believe this? Would not their survice to Him be greater if they fought to live and further spread His word? Even to live to procreate and add to thr number of potential martyrs.

  it’s just not accurate to say that Harry’s willing sacrifice is contrary to or opposite from what Jesus did.

  What Harry does is not contrary or oposite to what Jesus did, It is so similar that the sublte, but hugh, difference is missed by so many. Jesus accepted his demise at the hands of others, Harry attempted to kill himself at the hands of another (cowardly as death by cop is).

• 25 Travis Prinzi // Oct 20, 2007 at 8:40 am

  I guess we’ll just go back to the point that killing Voldemort is not an evil thing to do.

• 26 revgeorge // Oct 20, 2007 at 10:56 pm

  So, if a soldier jumps on a hand grenade to save his buddies, is he committing suicide? Here’s a better one, was Lily committing suicide by not stepping aside when LV told her she could?

  I think most of us would say no. Sacrificing one’s life to save the lives of others is considered a noble thing whilst committing suicide is seen as either an act of desperation or mental illness or in some cases an attempt to flout God’s will for one’s life.

• 27 Eroej_Kab // Oct 21, 2007 at 10:21 pm

  revgeorge

  In both cases you sight, the person who died risked their lives by their actions. They risked them to the point that it was a 1000 to 1 shot that they would survive. I like to think they were hoping to hit the long odds and survive. That is absolutely not the case with Harry’s or DD’d deaths. In Harry’s case, his intent was purely to die. In his mind, if he did not die, he would have failed. Suicide plan and simple. In DD’d case, his desire and request was for Snape to kill him. No hope for survival. Not even the hope to hit the 1000 to 1 shot. They wanted to die. And they were glorified for it.

  Not at all following the Christian tradition of the last several centuries, where trying to end one’s own life is sinful indeed. I agree with you, in general, on how suicide is seen and rightfully so. But not so in the WW.

• 28 Travis Prinzi // Oct 21, 2007 at 10:37 pm

  Joe, you keep writing as though Harry and Albus were ending their lives solely for the purpose of ending their lives. That’s completely untrue. Just because you don’t think the reasons count doesn’t mean their weren’t reasons.

  I really think you’re stretching here.

• 29 korg20000bc // Oct 22, 2007 at 3:44 am

  Sorry Joe,
  I think your horse has carked it. Stop whipping. It’s dead already.
  
  Matthew

• 30 Eroej_Kab // Oct 22, 2007 at 9:18 am

  Gentlemen

  You are correct. There will be no affecting a change in opinion here. There is a firm dedication to the ends justifying the means, which is the only counter argument given. My comments focus on the means (assuming a good and valuable goal), while the counter arguments focus on the justifying ends, without alloying the possibility of other means being used to achieve those ends. So be it.

  Thanks for your time in your responses.

• 31 Travis Prinzi // Oct 22, 2007 at 9:48 am

  Joe, sure, that’s one way to frame the discussion. The other would be to say that we’re arguing that actions are not always objective, but that context defines their meaning.

  So I could say, There is a firm dedication on your part to the objectification of an action without any consideration for its context. But that would be just as inaccurate as your depicting my argumentation as a firm dedication to ends justifying the means. So I won’t do that.

• 32 colorless.blue.ideas // Oct 24, 2007 at 10:17 am

  Eroej_Kab (Joe) wrote:

  In both cases you [cite], the person who died risked their lives by their actions. They risked them to the point that it was a 1000 to 1 shot that they would survive. I like to think they were hoping to hit the long odds and survive. That is absolutely not the case with Harry’s or DD['s] deaths. In Harry’s case, his intent was purely to die. In his mind, if he did not die, he would have failed. Suicide plan and simple. In DD’d case, his desire and request was for Snape to kill him. No hope for survival. Not even the hope to hit the 1000 to 1 shot. They wanted to die. And they were glorified for it.

  Not at all following the Christian tradition of the last several centuries, where trying to end one’s own life is sinful indeed. I agree with you, in general, on how suicide is seen and rightfully so. But not so in the WW.

  I think that Christian tradition is a bit different than that. In His third year of earthly ministry, Jesus went to Jerusalem in order to die — and in the certain knowledge that He would die. In Gethsemane, He willingly surrendered Himself to those who were going to torture and kill Him, absolutely knowing that would be the outcome.

  He did this because of what it would produce: salvation for people. Was this a case of ends justifying means? I think that the two are so deeply intertwined that they can not be separated. “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” That has always been a part of Christian tradition.

  That is the deep symbolism of Harry setting his face towards the Forbidden Forest, symbolic of Jesus setting His face towards Jerusalem.

  I don’t think that self-sacrifice for others is the only situation in which ends-and-means are intertwined. Tough love is another example, and there are many more. As Travis put it, actions are not always objective, but that context defines their meaning. (Emph. added.)

Leave a Comment