And I think the main takeaway from this conversation for me (aside from the great Luther/Calvin primer!) is a reaffirmation that the concept of evil in HP is distinctly Christian. I mean, what both the Augustinian and Irenaean takes (and many others) have in common is

1) the idea that evil is something God *permits,* not something inflicted by God;
2) the idea that evil is *not* something that resides in matter and that one “escapes” by entering a solely spiritual existence (dualism, Manichaeanism, diehard Platonism suggest this, for example; the Creation/Resurrection/resurrection of bodies blows it out of the water);
and
3) the idea that God permits evil because a world with sin makes possible something greater–whether that’s seen as a “learning process” or “mercy” or the Incarnation/Paschal Mystery, etc. This is the “felix culpa” (happy fault) concept, with which I must admit I’m obsessed. The Fall makes possible Christ; maybe, in this context, the analog is that the death of Lily and James Potter makes possible the final annilihation of Voldemort?

I’m done. Hope y’all had as much fun as I did. :]

Evil enacted for the purpose of:

Respectibility and self-image–Petunia
Respectibility and materialist justification–Vernon
Learned as norm for power over the weak–Dudley
Ambition and status–Percy
Ambition and acceptance–young Severus
Political expediency–Fudge
Political expediency, self-righteousness and pleasure–Umbridge
Protection–Peter Pettigrew
Resentment over disability–Filch
Self-righteousness–Aunt Marge
Self-glorification–Lockhart

There are more; I just can’t think of them at the moment.

First off, let me say that original sin isn’t technically an Old Testament term, so you won’t see it or anything like it in that part of Genesis. It’s a distinctly Christian idea, and Jewish people don’t believe in original sin the way Christians do. Now, Augustine is a big proponent of original sin and it shows in his depiction of evil: in his framework, people misuse their free will and that results in an evil. Augustine also has a sense that Adam and Eve (originators of sin) should have known better, which means that they can be held accountable for their actions. So it makes sense that sin can get passed down the generations as a punishment for Adam and Eve’s misbehavior. In contrast, think about how the likeness theologians believe that evil is a learning process. If evil originates because of one’s sinful disposition (although often it doesn’t), then it’s not necessarily something bad or punishable. It’s part of the learning process. So this means that these theologians don’t have as strong a doctrine of original sin in the same way that Augustine does.

Hope this clarifies things! And the discussion on Calvin/Luther rocked!

As for the differences between St. Iranaeus & St. Augustine, I’ve read a bit more Augustine than Iranaeus (actually I’m ashamed to admit I’ve read no Iranaeus & I need to rectify that) so I can’t really comment on that.

The other place where choice is mitigated is Harry’s sorting: once we know that Harry’s a horcrux the hat’s oscillation is negated. The Voldy piece of soul confuses the hat into apparently giving Harry a choice when, without the horcrux Harry would go directly to Gryffindor and collect 20 galleons (monopoly anyone?). Yes yes, OT I know.

deacondon: “I don’t think predestination doctrine has anything to do with Harry’s prophecy. As Dumbledore says, Harry would try to kill Voldemort whether there was a prophecy or not.” So does that mean Harry is predestined to kill Voldemort? Probably not, just thought the phrasing was a little convenient for my purposes.

But then perhaps this isn’t on topic either. Not that that’s ever stopped us before…

I don’t think predestination doctrine has anything to do with Harry’s prophecy. As Dumbledore says, Harry would try to kill Voldemort whether there was a prophecy or not.