Redemption after death
dumbledad
There's a lovely post over on the Yahoo group HPforGrownups about the
whimpering baby at King's Cross / afterlife in Chapter 35 of Harry
Potter and the Deathly Hallows. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/172930
Alexa asks:
>>> the entire King's Cross chapter creeped me right out because of the way both Dumbledore and Harry ignored the writhing, whimpering creature right there in the same room with them. It didn't speak well of either of them, in my opinion. <<<
And Valky replied:
>>> Harry didn't ignore the creature, he did try to help. The whimpering thing was Voldemort's soul in all the agony that he had brought on himself through destroying it. While Harry was in that white room what could he have done to repair the damage Voldemort had done to himself? <<<
I like Valky's reply, it suggests that Harry's attempt to get
Voldemort to show remorse during the final dual is motivated by a
desire to save Voldemort from his eternal fate.
Alexa goes on:
>>> He could have given Tom Riddle's soul some idea of what it was like to be touched, even for a moment, by comforting, caring hands. <<<
That's a beautiful idea. One of the things Deathly Hallows (which I
loved) showed me I had wrong about the Harry Potter series was the
centrality of the idea of redemption. For me it was important that
those on the side of good never killed - they always offered their
enemies another chance at redemption. I'm not disappointed that I was
wrong, my Quaker upbringing probably makes me more of a pacifist at
heart than Jo, but it has made me think again about redemption.
So that leads me to a question. Why does the Christian notion of
redemption stop at death? If one's resurrected soul is still sentient,
which I assume it is, why can't one show genuine remorse and seek
forgiveness after one has died?
Apologies if this sounds too dry a question to ask about such an
important subject. I'm an atheist so I tend to approach these
discussions from a curious standpoint, but I would be interested if
anyone can help explore this thought.
Cheers,
Dumbledad.
Mike & Susan Gray
> That's a beautiful idea. One of the things Deathly Hallows (which I
> loved) showed me I had wrong about the Harry Potter series
> was the centrality of the idea of redemption. For me it was
> important that those on the side of good never killed - they
> always offered their enemies another chance at redemption.
> I'm not disappointed that I was wrong, my Quaker upbringing
> probably makes me more of a pacifist at heart than Jo, but it
> has made me think again about redemption.
This comes before your get to your bigger point - but I'll say that's
something I've been thinking about as well. In fact, I had already noticed
from some of Dumbledore's remarks in Half Blood Prince that Dumbledore
believed that Voldemort had to be killed - and came to the assumption: OK,
Rowling is hardly a wannbe commando, but she's not a pacifist either. Her
good-guys are reluctant to kill, but they will if they have to.
> So that leads me to a question. Why does the Christian notion
> of redemption stop at death? If one's resurrected soul is
> still sentient, which I assume it is, why can't one show
> genuine remorse and seek forgiveness after one has died?
>
> Apologies if this sounds too dry a question to ask about such
> an important subject. I'm an atheist so I tend to approach
> these discussions from a curious standpoint, but I would be
> interested if anyone can help explore this thought.
You know, I hadn't noticed those points before (i.e., the ones from HPfGU),
but there *is* something to them. I'll let the folks over at HPfGU work
through the implications for the Potterverse, but as far as Christian
theology goes, the scenario is more complex than you might think.
There's a huge range of positions among Christians, ranging from
universalists, who believe that every soul will eventually be reconciled, to
exclusivists, who believe that only people with a very specific set of
beliefs at the time they die will escape the fiery furnace. The Catholics
have a further category called purgatory which is (theologically at least)
understood as a place where people capable of true remorse and forgiveness
can gradually find it. (I'm not a Catholic, but I like the idea.)
Similarly, CS Lewis wrote a book called The Great Divorce in which God
organizes bus rides to heaven for the denizens of the shadowy city. If the
people in the bus want to stay in heaven, they may; the one and only
condition is that they choose to do so. However, they won't choose to stay
unless they are willing and able to accept that there is something wrong
with them as they are. Some stay, some feel insulted and leave. Lewis
imagines hell as a prison locked from the inside - and I think something
similar would fit Voldemort to a V.
Mike Gray
_______________________
"Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been
bravery...." JK Rowling, The Goblet of Fire.
Libby
My understanding is that the prophecy said Harry & Voldemort were tied
together such that one could not survive if the other did. Nowhere
does it say one must kill the other, though, and that seemed to me a
fundamental misunderstanding that Harry had from the moment he heard
the prophecy (and, clearly, one that V shared). This does mean V has
to die; it doesn't mean he has to be killed. Though of course the
chances that he would die a natural death are, um, nil, right?
--Libby
On Jul 26, 12:35 pm, "Mike & Susan Gray" <mikesusang...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Mike & Susan Gray
Great to see you on board. I don't know if starting this group was a good
idea, but we'll see ... If it wasn't it'll peter out fast enough!
> My understanding is that the prophecy said Harry & Voldemort
> were tied together such that one could not survive if the
> other did. Nowhere does it say one must kill the other,
> though, and that seemed to me a fundamental misunderstanding
> that Harry had from the moment he heard the prophecy (and,
> clearly, one that V shared). This does mean V has to die; it
> doesn't mean he has to be killed. Though of course the
> chances that he would die a natural death are, um, nil, right?
Hmm. Yes - but apparently, Dumbledore had it too. During Dumbledore's
"coaching sessions" in Half Blood Prince, it is made explicit that
Dumbledore is preparing Harry to kill Voldemort. Here's a short example from
the last couple paragraphs of Chapter 23:
But, sir," said Harry, making valiant efforts not to sound argumentative,
"it all comes to the same thing, doesn't it? I've got to try and kill him,
or -"
"Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! [....]
Libby
time. And of course in fact Harry doesn't kill Voldemort after all--
maybe what he "had to" do in the example above is "try"? But that's
not right, either, since what he finally figures out is that he has to
NOT try but be a willing sacrifice.
Ah, my head's hurting now. I'm never sure how much is the omniscient
author (or, for that matter, the omniscient Dumbledore) and how much
is me trying to make things "work" after the fact that actually might
not...
--Libby
On Jul 26, 1:42 pm, "Mike & Susan Gray" <mikesusang...@gmail.com>
wrote: