12/03/2017 12:04:49 ¶ ●

thetygre:

> titleknown:

> > prokopetz:

> > > Challenge: describe the moral ethos of Calvinism without making it sound like a Cthulhu cult.

> > @thetygre, this seems like something you’d have funny…

> @prokopetz

> Two words:

> Calvinism is rooted in the principle of Total Depravity; i.e. God is super, super, super awesome, and no human, no matter how good they are, is deserving of God’s love and Christ’s grace. Not even Mr. Rogers. But Jesus came down from Heaven and offered grace none the less, so obviously some people are going to Heaven. Before God had even created the universe, He had decided who would be saved from his judgment. These select and finite few are referred to, rather ominously, as the Elect. These people are just inherently awesome and good because God deemed them so. It’s essentially a form of Predestination, which still gets a lot of play, even today.

> Okay, so established; God decides who is saved and who is damned, and that is part of their inherent nature. So God is like some kind but stern fatherly figure, insightful but also willing to make the tough decisions. He has omniscience, but refrains from exercising His full power because He has mercy on the Elect. I am of course referring to…

> …the fucking talking hat. At the age of 11, a magical piece of cloth determines whether you’re a Cool Guy, an Evil Racist, a Huge Nerd, or a Jobber.

> Aka you are The Elect

> A sinner

> Or chattel.

> And you will stay that way for your entire life. And don’t give me that “But all the houses are equal!” line. It’s bull, and we all know it. When one house is nothing but heroes, and the other house has all the villains, it’s pretty obvious that there’s some favoritism going on here. I mean come on; it’s J.K.’s house. “But Snape!” Yes, Snape. First off, the scales have fallen off of everyone’s eyes, and it’s become pretty clear that Snape was a creepy asshole who picked on children. Second, for all his years of service to the Greater Good, Rowling saw fit to grant Snape the greatest accolade imaginable and state, “Sometimes we Sort too soon.” That’s right; the good Snape did wasn’t because he was a Slytherin, but because deep down he was a Gryffindor all along.

> Now, before I go on, I hear what you’re saying. “Calvinism? In my Harry Potter? Get out of here!” And that’s reasonable. You wanna’ say that I’m just this week’s nut over-analyzing children’s media for another fifteen minutes of fame, I don’t blame you. God knows it’s the nature of this blue beast. But consider this; J.K. Rowling has stated that Harry Potter wouldn’t exist without her faith. Her listed faith is currently the Church of Scotland. And the Church of Scotland’s orientation? Calvinist. Also, fun fact; the wizard’s hospital St. Mungo’s is probably named after Glasgow Cathedral, a noted meeting place for the Church of Scotland.

> But that’s the technical side of Calvinism in Harry Potter. The real meat of it is Rowling’s writing. Specifically, it’s in her characterizations. Remember, the Elect are worthy inherently, it’s in their nature; what they do is good because they do it. And what’s one of the biggest literary criticisms of the Harry Potter series? Nobody changes.

> Correction; some characters change, and they are the most baller mother-fuckers in the series.

> But back to receipts here. Harry Potter is inherently noble and heroic. Albus Dumbledore is inherently wise and kind and working for the greater good. So when Harry uses the unforgivable curses on Bellatrix and Amycus, it’s not bad or conflicting; it’s “very gallant of him”! Lilly, James, and Sirius telling Harry to go die? That’s not creepy at all; that’s “love”! And who does Harry Potter meet in Heaven or Limbo or whatever after he dies? Why none other than the kindly old man who raised and manipulated him into being a sacrificial lamb his whole life!

> And speaking of old Dumbledore, he says something that’s really very telling. He says to Harry, he says, “It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” You got that? Our choices show who we are deep down; it’s not our choices that affect us, it’s vice versa. Something inherent decides what we’re going to do. Voldemort? Never could have been a good guy. Harry? Never could have been a coward. Percy Weasely? Never could have been a slob. Luna Lovegood? Never could have been down-to-earth. Argus Filch? Even if he was a wizard, never could have been satisfied. People have something inside them when they’re born, and nothing can change it.

> And that’s Calvinism in a nut shell, or at least in seven books. Does it bother me? Surprisingly, no. I still like Harry Potter, all of it, and just group the overt Calvinism as another part of the series’ post-Goblet of Fire flaws. It’s still fun, and, and I want to be perfectly clear here, there’s nothing wrong with liking, loving, or even being inspired by it. It’s still infinitely more subtle than The Last Battle (though it does feature less vaguely homoerotic unicorns…). Hell, point to me the fantasy series that doesn’t have an ending that starts to show it’s cracks. If Game of Thrones ends on the same planet and with everyone dead remaining dead, I’ll call that a win. But the crossover of Religious Studies major and fantasy literature fan can’t help but see this shit where it is, and it’s not like this is the kind of thing I get to talk about around campus.