Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Voldamort a Horcrux
Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282026] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 04:55
John  
What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282042 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 09:38
Toon  
On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:55:32 -0400, John <linton0 [at] gtcom.net> wrote:

>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?

No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282059 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 15:36
aaron  
Toon wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:55:32 -0400, John <linton0 [at] gtcom.net> wrote:
>
> >What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
> >on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
> >else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
> >The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
> >Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
> >without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
> >dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
> >his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
> >including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
> >and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
>
> No, unless baby Harry killed that night.

Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282063 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 16:17
Thomas Madura  
John wrote:

> What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
> on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
> else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
> The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
> Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
> without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
> dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
> his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
> including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
> and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?


While I appreciate your logic - it misses a valuable point. In order to
create a Horcrux - the soul must be fragmented by a murder.(THis it just
about the only thing we know must be true about creating horcruxes).
Harry did not murder anyone that night or before that night - so no soul
fragment. No soul fragment - no Horcrux.

However - JKR - on her website - clearly states that the connection
between Harry and V and the powers transferred are from the scar.

In addition - V says in GOF that the Death Eaters did know about the
precuations he took against being killed - so the DE's did know about
the horcruxes.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282065 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 16:33
Thomas Madura  
Aaron wrote:

> Toon wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 22:55:32 -0400, John <linton0 [at] gtcom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
>>>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
>>>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
>>>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
>>>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
>>>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
>>>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
>>>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
>>>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
>>>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
>>
>>No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
>
>
> Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!
>
> -Aaron
>

No - he did not kill V - he did not cast the AK - nor did V die.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282067 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 18:02
aaron  
Thom Madura wrote:
> >>>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
> >>>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
> >>>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
> >>>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
> >>>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
> >>>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
> >>>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
> >>>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
> >>>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
> >>>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
> >>
> >>No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
> >
> >
> > Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
>
> No - he did not kill V

Ok, first off, Thom, it was a joke.

> - he did not cast the AK

This is true.

> - nor did V die.

This is not, in the sense that applies here. Are you saying that if you
AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?

Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282073 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 20:02
Kish  
Aaron wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:
>

>>- nor did V die.
>
>
> This is not, in the sense that applies here.

What?

> Are you saying that if you
> AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?
>
> Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
> implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.

What? You can't murder someone with a functional Horcrux. That's the
whole point of a Horcrux, that it keeps you from dying, and the whole
point of Harry's mission to destroy all Voldemort's Horcruxes, so
Voldemort can die. Voldemort did not die--in any sense.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282078 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 22:07
Thomas Madura  
Aaron wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:
>
>>>>>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
>>>>>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
>>>>>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
>>>>>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
>>>>>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
>>>>>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
>>>>>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
>>>>>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
>>>>>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
>>>>>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
>>>>
>>>>No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!
>>>
>>>-Aaron
>>>
>>
>>No - he did not kill V
>
>
> Ok, first off, Thom, it was a joke.
>
>
>>- he did not cast the AK
>
>
> This is true.
>
>
>>- nor did V die.
>
>
> This is not, in the sense that applies here. Are you saying that if you
> AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?
>
> Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
> implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.
>
> -Aaron
>


Harry's soul will not split - because he did not Murder. (V did not
"die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
not among other things.

THe biggest problem with the Horcrux stuff is that we really have very
little knowledge of the process or the soul fragment or the Horcrux
itself except what slughorn said to Young Tom. THe fact is - when
slughorn was talking about making a living thing a horcrux - he wasn't
talking about a person - but an animal. We don't even know if a person
can be made into a Horcrux.

About the ONLY information we have similar to that is when Quirrel and V
joined. At the time - V was little more than the main fragment of his
soul - but he did not have special communication with Quirrel (THey
actually talked to each other rather than another way) and Quirrel got
no powers that were mentioned from V - although it IS clear that V
needed Quirrel to attack V.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282080 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 22:22
aaron  
Kish wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Thom Madura wrote:
> >
>
> >>- nor did V die.
> >
> >
> > This is not, in the sense that applies here.
>
> What?

You missed the point. See Thom's reply, which came after yours.

Also, clipping what I posted makes the remaining sentence baffling. I
said that one statement of his was true, but... "This is not (true), in
the sense that applies here."

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282082 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 22:26
aaron  
Thom Madura wrote:
> Aaron wrote:
> > Thom Madura wrote:
> >
> >>>>>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
> >>>>>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
> >>>>>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
> >>>>>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
> >>>>>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
> >>>>>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
> >>>>>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
> >>>>>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
> >>>>>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
> >>>>>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!
> >>>
> >>>-Aaron
> >>>
> >>
> >>No - he did not kill V
> >
> >
> > Ok, first off, Thom, it was a joke.
> >
> >
> >>- he did not cast the AK
> >
> >
> > This is true.
> >
> >
> >>- nor did V die.
> >
> >
> > This is not, in the sense that applies here. Are you saying that if you
> > AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?
> >
> > Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
> > implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.
> >
> > -Aaron
> >
>
>
> Harry's soul will not split - because he did not Murder.

I know. That's why I said I was joking.

> (V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
> who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
> fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
> not among other things.

So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?

I disagree. You've still murdered them. However, their soul remains and
they can return.

> THe biggest problem with the Horcrux stuff is that we really have very
> little knowledge of the process or the soul fragment or the Horcrux
> itself except what slughorn said to Young Tom. THe fact is - when
> slughorn was talking about making a living thing a horcrux - he wasn't
> talking about a person - but an animal. We don't even know if a person
> can be made into a Horcrux.

Thom, I'm completely in agreement with you on this.

> About the ONLY information we have similar to that is when Quirrel and V
> joined. At the time - V was little more than the main fragment of his
> soul - but he did not have special communication with Quirrel (THey
> actually talked to each other rather than another way) and Quirrel got
> no powers that were mentioned from V - although it IS clear that V
> needed Quirrel to attack V.

When did Quirrel attack V? What did you mean to say here?

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282084 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 23:00
Kish  
Aaron wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:

>>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
>>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
>>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
>>not among other things.
>
>
> So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
> in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
> through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
>
> I disagree. You've still murdered them.

Thank you, Humpty Dumpty.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282085 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 23:09
Kish  
Aaron wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:

>>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
>>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
>>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
>>not among other things.
>
>
> So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
> in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
> through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
>
> I disagree. You've still murdered them.

I would say it is logically insupportable to suggest that someone who
did not die was "murdered." Murder has a very specific English meaning
and it is not compatible with being reduced to an incorporeal form
or--anything that doesn't involve dying.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282087 ] Fr, 16 Juni 2006 23:32
Thomas Madura  
Aaron wrote:
> Thom Madura wrote:
>
>>Aaron wrote:
>>
>>>Thom Madura wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>What if the AK curse was not the only curse cast the night of the attack
>>>>>>>on Harry. What if the spell to make a horcrux has to be done by someone
>>>>>>>else or the spell leaves him so exhausted that he has to be helped away.
>>>>>>>The spell reflects off Harry and bam Voldamort becomes a horcrux for
>>>>>>>Harry . This would explain why Voldamort has the connection to Harry
>>>>>>>without a scar. If this is the case that might be why R.A.B left The
>>>>>>>dark lords service and why he was killed he knew the secret he then uses
>>>>>>>his second most trusted death eater Snape to make more horcruxes
>>>>>>>including the attempt on Harry. He assumes the spell failed that night
>>>>>>>and makes his pet a horcrux. I know it sounds crazy but could it be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, unless baby Harry killed that night.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ahh, but he did! He killed Voldemort!
>>>>>
>>>>>-Aaron
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No - he did not kill V
>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, first off, Thom, it was a joke.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- he did not cast the AK
>>>
>>>
>>>This is true.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- nor did V die.
>>>
>>>
>>>This is not, in the sense that applies here. Are you saying that if you
>>>AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?
>>>
>>>Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
>>>implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.
>>>
>>>-Aaron
>>>
>>
>>
>>Harry's soul will not split - because he did not Murder.
>
>
> I know. That's why I said I was joking.
>
>
>>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
>>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
>>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
>>not among other things.
>
>
> So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
> in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
> through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
>
> I disagree. You've still murdered them. However, their soul remains and
> they can return.
>
>
>>THe biggest problem with the Horcrux stuff is that we really have very
>>little knowledge of the process or the soul fragment or the Horcrux
>>itself except what slughorn said to Young Tom. THe fact is - when
>>slughorn was talking about making a living thing a horcrux - he wasn't
>>talking about a person - but an animal. We don't even know if a person
>>can be made into a Horcrux.
>
>
> Thom, I'm completely in agreement with you on this.
>
>
>>About the ONLY information we have similar to that is when Quirrel and V
>>joined. At the time - V was little more than the main fragment of his
>>soul - but he did not have special communication with Quirrel (THey
>>actually talked to each other rather than another way) and Quirrel got
>>no powers that were mentioned from V - although it IS clear that V
>>needed Quirrel to attack V.
>
>
> When did Quirrel attack V? What did you mean to say here?
>
> -Aaron
>

I meant to say when Quirrel Attacked Harry - sorry.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282101 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 06:21
John  
I cant remember the quote but it says by only the darkest means can a
soul be broken. I know from a lot of people that say when there parents
die it feels like a piece of there soul is gone. Now most people heal
over time but at the moment of death the heart or soul is broken. True
we don't a lot about horcruxe's but this could be the twist to the
whole problem. Baby Harry has just seen his mother die. He may not
understand but still he feels the loss. Of course this is all just an
idea of mine. But the letter from J.K.s Barrister requesting I don't
spread this rumor says something also.






Just Kidding!!! about the letter
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282110 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 09:56
Toon  
On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:02:12 GMT, Kish <Kish_K [at] pacbell.net> wrote:

>Aaron wrote:
>> Thom Madura wrote:
>>
>
>>>- nor did V die.
>>
>>
>> This is not, in the sense that applies here.
>
>What?
>
>> Are you saying that if you
>> AK someone who has a horcrux, your soul will NOT split?
>>
>> Granted, that is not what Harry did. But, to say "V did not die"
>> implies that murdering someone with a horcrux will not split your soul.
>
>What? You can't murder someone with a functional Horcrux. That's the
>whole point of a Horcrux, that it keeps you from dying, and the whole
>point of Harry's mission to destroy all Voldemort's Horcruxes, so
>Voldemort can die. Voldemort did not die--in any sense.

This is why I put die in quotes when I say die.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282111 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 09:57
Toon  
On Sat, 17 Jun 2006 00:21:02 -0400, John <linton0 [at] gtcom.net> wrote:

>Baby Harry has just seen his mother die.

No, he hasn't.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282142 ] Sa, 17 Juni 2006 16:36
DUH  
John wrote:
> I know from a lot of people that say when there parents
> die it feels like a piece of there soul is gone.

Hmmmm....don't know about that. Possibly for others. My experience was
that I went into an intellectual sort of shock and went straight up into
my head. But I was there to witness the event, and was 32 years younger
than I am now. A little unprepared for that sort of thing.



--
-------------------------
"Work like no one is watching,
Dance like you've never been hurt, and
Love like you don't need the money"

\
=8{B
\
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282241 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 16:28
aaron  
Kish wrote:
Responding to the more serious (and logical) of your two replies...

> >>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
> >>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
> >>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
> >>not among other things.
> >
> >
> > So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
> > in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
> > through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
> >
> > I disagree. You've still murdered them.
>
> I would say it is logically insupportable to suggest that someone who
> did not die was "murdered."

He certainly did die. His body died, completely and utterly. That, I
believe:

> Murder has a very specific English meaning
> and it is not compatible with being reduced to an incorporeal form
> or--anything that doesn't involve dying.

....fits in with any "specific English meaning" commonly used.

Christ is described as having died, correct? But his soul didn't leave
our plane. It came back, 3 days later.

....still, perhaps you can help yourself with a cite? Posting the
definition might help here:
"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with
premeditated malice. "

Perhaps you can provide a legal definition of murder? You ARE the one
who was calling me immoral before, right? Or, have I mistaken you for
someone else?

So...any mention of the SOUL in your legal definition of murder?

No?

Didn't think so.

Are you finally stating that things are *different* in the HP universe
than they are here in our world? Things, for example, like pranks...and
murder?

I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282260 ] Mo, 19 Juni 2006 21:53
Kish  
Aaron wrote:
> Kish wrote:
> Responding to the more serious (and logical) of your two replies...

Thank you, I canceled the earlier one.

>>>>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
>>>>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
>>>>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
>>>>not among other things.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
>>>in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
>>>through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
>>>
>>>I disagree. You've still murdered them.
>>
>>I would say it is logically insupportable to suggest that someone who
>>did not die was "murdered."
>
>
> He certainly did die.

He doesn't think so. "I have never died," he said when he was talking
about AKing Harry and how it might even be painless. "But still, I was
alive," he said when he was telling the Death Eaters about the night in
question. Rowling's also gone on record as intending resurrection to be
something that can't be done in her universe--dead is dead. Of course,
she said "properly dead" or something like that, and she certainly has
Voldemort say things she doesn't agree with, so if you want wiggle room
to maintain your premise, I don't doubt you can find it if you look.

> I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.

It's harder to be logical when you're more interested in the messenger
than the ideas. I may have called you immoral at some point, though I
rather doubt it, but I suspect most of your post is directed at Karnak
or Nystulc.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282275 ] Di, 20 Juni 2006 02:08
Thomas Madura  
Aaron wrote:

> Kish wrote:
> Responding to the more serious (and logical) of your two replies...
>
>
>>>>(V did not "die" by Harry's hand). We have no idea if attempting to murder someone
>>>>who has protection from death via a Horcrux will cause YOUR sould to
>>>>fragment - I guess it would depend on if you knew about the horcrux or
>>>>not among other things.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, what you're saying is that you can cast a killing curse at someone
>>>in cold blood, but if you know they have a horcrux and won't pass
>>>through to the spiritual plane, it's not murder?
>>>
>>>I disagree. You've still murdered them.
>>
>>I would say it is logically insupportable to suggest that someone who
>>did not die was "murdered."
>
>
> He certainly did die. His body died, completely and utterly. That, I
> believe:
>
>
>>Murder has a very specific English meaning
>>and it is not compatible with being reduced to an incorporeal form
>>or--anything that doesn't involve dying.
>
>
> ...fits in with any "specific English meaning" commonly used.
>
> Christ is described as having died, correct? But his soul didn't leave
> our plane. It came back, 3 days later.
>
> ...still, perhaps you can help yourself with a cite? Posting the
> definition might help here:
> "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with
> premeditated malice. "
>
> Perhaps you can provide a legal definition of murder? You ARE the one
> who was calling me immoral before, right? Or, have I mistaken you for
> someone else?
>
> So...any mention of the SOUL in your legal definition of murder?
>
> No?
>
> Didn't think so.
>
> Are you finally stating that things are *different* in the HP universe
> than they are here in our world? Things, for example, like pranks...and
> murder?
>
> I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.
>
> -Aaron
>


Well - First

V - did not die by Harry's hand is still true - V cast the spell - not
Harry. According to the Books - the AK spell only works if you "really
mean it" - hardly something you can attribute to the rebound from Harry.

However - even then - Harry would then have to be able to perform the
"complex magic" that is a Horcrux spell in order to make V a Horcrux as
well. (THere is no indication in the books that someone else can excase
your soul fragment - and I DOUBT it is possible) So - V would have been
able to encase HIS own fragement as a Horcrux - but not Harry's. Harry
was certainly not capable of doing much of any magic much less that.

However - V's "death" as you see it was not murder - at most - it was
self defense - and that assumes Harry actually did something to defend
himself - which he did not.

Now - the books cleary say that V did not die - because a long as a part
of your soul exists - you cannot. It also clearly says that V had a LIFE
- a Half life - one most would not want to have - but a Life
nonetheless. As long as the victim did not die - it is only attempted
murder - but it doesn't fall into that category either because Harry was
the intended victim.

AS far as Christ - Immortality is one part of the definition of a GOD.
An immortal God that had no Beginning and has no end(part of the
Catholic Mass - if not also in the Bible) - was not "born" in Bethlehem
and did not "die" on the Cross. I would also question whether a GOD has
a soul - being a spiritual creature to begin with - why would HE need one.

Of course - V is not a GOD (As described in the books). SInce JKR has
deliberately left Religion and Her Religious beliefs out of it - I will
just say that the analogy to CHrist doesn't apply at all.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282320 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 15:43
aaron  
Kish wrote:
> > He certainly did die.
>
> He doesn't think so. "I have never died," he said when he was talking
> about AKing Harry and how it might even be painless. "But still, I was
> alive," he said when he was telling the Death Eaters about the night in
> question.

I don't care what V said about it. He's a megalomaniac, and an
egomaniac, and would never admit to "death" because that would ruin his
claim to "immortality." This isn't evidence at all.

> > I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.
>
> It's harder to be logical when you're more interested in the messenger
> than the ideas. I may have called you immoral at some point, though I
> rather doubt it, but I suspect most of your post is directed at Karnak
> or Nystulc.

I wasn't interested in the messenger, except if you were that guy who
kept quoting the law at me, I would have been shocked that you didn't
agree with me on what "dead" is.

Look, I've thought about this some more, and I still cannot agree with
you that V didn't "die."

Legal and medical definitions of "dead" and "kill" say nothing about
the soul, or what happens to the soul afterwords. Before you say this
is not the HP universe, consider that the operative factor here is the
existance of a soul. Those who wrote those medical and legal
definitions of "dead" and "kill" wrote them in a time when the belief
in a soul was even more prevalent than it is today, and it's still
pretty prevalent today.

So, in both our world and HP's world, there is a soul, but yet in our
world what happens to the soul does not affect the simple fact of
whether or not you were "killed." If your body is made "dead," you have
been "killed."

Yes, but what about the fact that V came back, you ask? Well, what
about resurrection? I used the case of Jesus, and I disagree that he is
a special case because yes God is immortal but so are our souls.

Theoretically, any of us could be resurrected, if a being with the
power to do so saw fit to exercise that power.

What you have to consider is this: you take a gun and shoot me. I am
medically dead.

Have you killed me? Yes, I think you have.

Now, instead of that being the end of "me," I instead am resurrected.
Let's say my new body even looks exactly like the body I used to reside
in. But it's not THE SAME body, because that body died and rotted away.

Now, did any of this change the fact that I was dead, or that you
killed me?

I don't think it does. Do you really disagree?

I believe that the specifics of the resurrection are not important.
Therefore, V died (ok, if I say V's "body" died, is that better?).

So, I say again, if the killing act that made V's body die should be
classified as murder, the killer's soul would split.

What happens after, with the spirit, has nothing to do with it IMNSHO.
But, perhaps JKR could elaborate on this. To me, it isn't logical that
it's only killing if you don't come back, even years later.

Now, just to reiterate again, I wasn't serious when I said that Harry
killed V.

But, if someone had murdered V, their soul would split even though V
had a horcrux.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282321 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 15:51
aaron  
Thom Madura wrote:
> V - did not die by Harry's hand is still true - V cast the spell - not
> Harry. According to the Books - the AK spell only works if you "really
> mean it" - hardly something you can attribute to the rebound from Harry.

Thom, you need to get over this. How many times have I said I was
joking about the part about Harry killing V?

Sheesh!

As for the rest...

>
> However - even then - Harry would then have to be able to perform the
> "complex magic" that is a Horcrux spell in order to make V a Horcrux as
> well.

What?????

I have NEVER said that V is a horcrux. You're out in left field now.

> However - V's "death" as you see it was not murder - at most - it was
> self defense - and that assumes Harry actually did something to defend
> himself - which he did not.

I agree. I was joking. How many times is that now?

> Now - the books cleary say that V did not die

V said he did not die. As for the rest, they could easily just be
figures of speech.

> - because a long as a part
> of your soul exists - you cannot. It also clearly says that V had a LIFE
> - a Half life - one most would not want to have - but a Life
> nonetheless.

These are figures of speech. If your body dies, you died. Coming back,
or haunting, does not change that fact (see my other post from a few
minutes ago. I don't want to go through the explanation again).

> AS far as Christ - Immortality is one part of the definition of a GOD.
> An immortal God that had no Beginning and has no end(part of the
> Catholic Mass - if not also in the Bible) - was not "born" in Bethlehem
> and did not "die" on the Cross. I would also question whether a GOD has
> a soul - being a spiritual creature to begin with - why would HE need one.

Our souls are also immortal. Your argument here is irrelevant. I used
Jesus because he was resurrected. Plus:

Ok, you're not following the canon of the Bible, as far as I can tell.
What does the bible say Jesus did for our sins? What did he do on the
cross?

I believe you can provide the correct answer to each of those questions
by adding an "e" to one word from each of them.

He died. It is how the bible describes it. It is how we talk about it.

> Of course - V is not a GOD (As described in the books).

Of course. He just wishes to be immortal, like a GOD.

> SInce JKR has
> deliberately left Religion and Her Religious beliefs out of it - I will
> just say that the analogy to CHrist doesn't apply at all.

Whether it applies or not, and I still disagree with you on this
because Jesus was God made into a mortal man, resurrection applies.

If I killed you, and you were declared dead medically and legally, I
would not be exonerated of my full crime if you were later resurrected.

Resurrection, ESPECIALLY into a different body, has no impact on the
fact of whether you died before or not.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282322 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 16:14
aaron  
Kish wrote:
For you and Thom:

Wikipedia says this about resurrection: "The term resurrection is used
in the literal sense to mean either the religious concept of the
reunion of the spirit and the body of a dead person, or the return to
life of a dead person. "


Reunion of the spirit and the body of a DEAD person. Think about that
for a bit.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282324 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 18:14
Kish  
Aaron wrote:
> Kish wrote:
>
>>>He certainly did die.
>>
>>He doesn't think so. "I have never died," he said when he was talking
>>about AKing Harry and how it might even be painless. "But still, I was
>>alive," he said when he was telling the Death Eaters about the night in
>>question.
>
>
> I don't care what V said about it. He's a megalomaniac, and an
> egomaniac, and would never admit to "death" because that would ruin his
> claim to "immortality." This isn't evidence at all.

And you snipped my saying Rowling also said resurrection is impossible
in her series, instead of addressing it in any way, why, exactly?

>
>
>>>I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.
>>
>>It's harder to be logical when you're more interested in the messenger
>>than the ideas. I may have called you immoral at some point, though I
>>rather doubt it, but I suspect most of your post is directed at Karnak
>>or Nystulc.
>
>
> I wasn't interested in the messenger, except if you were that guy who
> kept quoting the law at me, I would have been shocked that you didn't
> agree with me on what "dead" is.

You do realize that a murder case would fall apart if the supposed
victim walked into a courtroom, I hope.


> What you have to consider is this: you take a gun and shoot me. I am
> medically dead.

That presumably means you're lying there, not, for instance, wandering
around possessing small animals.

> I believe that the specifics of the resurrection are not important.
> Therefore, V died (ok, if I say V's "body" died, is that better?).

Well, it's more accurate, but it renders the rest of your post moot.
Voldemort did not die.

>
> So, I say again, if the killing act that made V's body die should be
> classified as murder, the killer's soul would split.

Of course.

In OotP, Voldemort casts Avada Kedavra at Harry and Dumbledore
repeatedly. It hits walls and things instead of his intended targets,
but Voldemort means it to kill, certainly. When Dumbledore pulls a
statue in front of him to block Voldemort's Avada Kedavra, does that not
mean Voldemort failed to murder him? The purpose of a Horcrux is to
avert death. If I shoot you, and you're wearing a bulletproof vest so
it doesn't kill you, I would be charged with attempted murder, not
murder. Your argument that it's still murder because you're only alive
because of your bulletproof vest would not get me charged with murder.

> What happens after, with the spirit, has nothing to do with it IMNSHO.
> But, perhaps JKR could elaborate on this. To me, it isn't logical that
> it's only killing if you don't come back, even years later.

And it is logical that someone can be dead, every bit as dead as James
and Lily, and still be able to roam, see the world, kill (the creatures
Voldemort possessed died), read Harry's mind ("Give me the stone in your
pocket")? I would say that terminology which presumes no difference
between the state James Potter is in and the state the villain of PS/SS
was in at the time is severely lacking.

> Wikipedia says this about resurrection: "The term resurrection is used
> in the literal sense to mean either the religious concept of the
> reunion of the spirit and the body of a dead person, or the return to
> life of a dead person. "
>
>
> Reunion of the spirit and the body of a DEAD person. Think about that
> for a bit.

It's a definition of something that doesn't happen in the Harry Potter
series. How is it relevant?
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282326 ] Mi, 21 Juni 2006 18:40
aaron  
Kish wrote:
> >>>He certainly did die.
> >>
> >>He doesn't think so. "I have never died," he said when he was talking
> >>about AKing Harry and how it might even be painless. "But still, I was
> >>alive," he said when he was telling the Death Eaters about the night in
> >>question.
> >
> >
> > I don't care what V said about it. He's a megalomaniac, and an
> > egomaniac, and would never admit to "death" because that would ruin his
> > claim to "immortality." This isn't evidence at all.
>
> And you snipped my saying Rowling also said resurrection is impossible
> in her series, instead of addressing it in any way, why, exactly?

Because what V did is, for all intents and purposes, resurrection. Read
the definition.

In her universe, you need a horcrux at the time of your death in order
to be resurrected. If you don't have one, you can't be resurrected.

You still are dead. Just not "properly dead," or whatever term you
used. You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here.

> >>>I'm very interested in how you choose to support your stance here.
> >>
> >>It's harder to be logical when you're more interested in the messenger
> >>than the ideas. I may have called you immoral at some point, though I
> >>rather doubt it, but I suspect most of your post is directed at Karnak
> >>or Nystulc.
> >
> >
> > I wasn't interested in the messenger, except if you were that guy who
> > kept quoting the law at me, I would have been shocked that you didn't
> > agree with me on what "dead" is.
>
> You do realize that a murder case would fall apart if the supposed
> victim walked into a courtroom, I hope.

You're not thinking about this. If there's a dead body, and that body
never rises again, the case wouldn't fall apart.

Don't be ridiculous. As long as it could be proven that the body was
killed, dead, and decaying, there still was a murder.

> > What you have to consider is this: you take a gun and shoot me. I am
> > medically dead.
>
> That presumably means you're lying there, not, for instance, wandering
> around possessing small animals.

No, it doesn't. Medically dead. Do you know what "medically dead"
relies on? It relies on a series of biological attributes. The soul's
activities do not matter.

> > I believe that the specifics of the resurrection are not important.
> > Therefore, V died (ok, if I say V's "body" died, is that better?).
>
> Well, it's more accurate, but it renders the rest of your post moot.
> Voldemort did not die.

I'll ignore this, because you still don't get it. When you talk as if
you understand what "dead" really means, we can get back to this.

> > So, I say again, if the killing act that made V's body die should be
> > classified as murder, the killer's soul would split.
>
> Of course.
>
> In OotP, Voldemort casts Avada Kedavra at Harry and Dumbledore
> repeatedly. It hits walls and things instead of his intended targets,
> but Voldemort means it to kill, certainly. When Dumbledore pulls a
> statue in front of him to block Voldemort's Avada Kedavra, does that not
> mean Voldemort failed to murder him? The purpose of a Horcrux is to
> avert death. If I shoot you, and you're wearing a bulletproof vest so
> it doesn't kill you, I would be charged with attempted murder, not
> murder. Your argument that it's still murder because you're only alive
> because of your bulletproof vest would not get me charged with murder.

Now THIS is a bad analogy. You have protected the body with your
examples, so of course there was no murder.

If the body is killed, it would have been murder in the cases you use
above. Killing and murder have NOTHING at all to do with the soul.

Please cite something that says otherwise. If you cannot, then admit
you are wrong about all of this. The burden of proof regarding this
ridiculous definition of "dead" is on YOU, not me. Though, I have
already proven my part. You have cited nothing, but instead just
continue to argue what you "believe" death to mean.

> > What happens after, with the spirit, has nothing to do with it IMNSHO.
> > But, perhaps JKR could elaborate on this. To me, it isn't logical that
> > it's only killing if you don't come back, even years later.
>
> And it is logical that someone can be dead, every bit as dead as James
> and Lily, and still be able to roam, see the world, kill (the creatures
> Voldemort possessed died), read Harry's mind ("Give me the stone in your
> pocket")? I would say that terminology which presumes no difference
> between the state James Potter is in and the state the villain of PS/SS
> was in at the time is severely lacking.

You presume too much. Dead is the body. "Banished" would be one term
for the soul being sent away, though "passed on to the spiritual plane"
works as well.

Normally, when you DIE (there's that word again), your soul passes on
to the spiritual plane.

If you have a Horcrux, when you DIE your soul does not pass on.

What about those two statements above doesn't work for you?

> > Wikipedia says this about resurrection: "The term resurrection is used
> > in the literal sense to mean either the religious concept of the
> > reunion of the spirit and the body of a dead person, or the return to
> > life of a dead person. "
> >
> >
> > Reunion of the spirit and the body of a DEAD person. Think about that
> > for a bit.
>
> It's a definition of something that doesn't happen in the Harry Potter
> series. How is it relevant?

It is EXACTLY what happened to V, word for word, except that you're
arguing over "dead person."

V's spirit was reunited with a body. That final body he now occupies
had no life before his soul was united with it. In fact, it didn't
exist in that form before he was united with it. But, in any case,
calling his return a resurrection is quite accurate. His body was dead.
Now he is back, looking the same so effectively in the same body.

He's been resurrected.

-Aaron
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282338 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 00:05
mystic  
Aaron wrote:
> Kish wrote:> In her universe, you need a horcrux at the time of your death in order
> to be resurrected. If you don't have one, you can't be resurrected.
>
> You still are dead. Just not "properly dead," or whatever term you
> used. You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here.
>
Reminds me of Monty Python....except he was "mostly dead" thoough he was
getting better.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282339 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 00:14
mystic  
*MYSTIC* wrote:

> Aaron wrote:
>
>> Kish wrote:> In her universe, you need a horcrux at the time of your
>> death in order
>> to be resurrected. If you don't have one, you can't be resurrected.
>>
>> You still are dead. Just not "properly dead," or whatever term you
>> used. You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here.
>>
> Reminds me of Monty Python....except he was "mostly dead" thoough he was
> getting better.
Now that I start thinking about it....a Monty Python parody of the Harry
Potter books has alot of potential.
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282342 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 03:46
Taunto  
*MYSTIC* wrote:
> *MYSTIC* wrote:
>
>> Aaron wrote:
>>
>>> Kish wrote:> In her universe, you need a horcrux at the time of your
>>> death in order
>>> to be resurrected. If you don't have one, you can't be resurrected.
>>>
>>> You still are dead. Just not "properly dead," or whatever term you
>>> used. You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here.
>>>
>> Reminds me of Monty Python....except he was "mostly dead" thoough he
>> was getting better.
>
> Now that I start thinking about it....a Monty Python parody of the Harry
> Potter books has alot of potential.

Harry Potter and the Holy Grail?

Harry Potter and the Silly Walk of Doom?
Re: Voldamort a Horcrux [message #282408 ] Fr, 23 Juni 2006 14:40
aaron  
Taunto wrote:
>In her universe, you need a horcrux at the time of your
> >>> death in order
> >>> to be resurrected. If you don't have one, you can't be resurrected.
> >>>
> >>> You still are dead. Just not "properly dead," or whatever term you
> >>> used. You're splitting some pretty fine hairs here.
> >>>
> >> Reminds me of Monty Python....except he was "mostly dead" thoough he
> >> was getting better.

"Mostly dead" is Princess Bride.

"Not quite dead yet" is Monty Python. See below.

> > Now that I start thinking about it....a Monty Python parody of the Harry
> > Potter books has alot of potential.
>
> Harry Potter and the Holy Grail?
>
> Harry Potter and the Silly Walk of Doom?

Harry Potter, the Boy Who Was Not Quite Dead Yet!

-Aaron
Vorheriges Thema:Instant Reality Rendering
Nächstes Thema:Horcruxes and Books
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 07:24:51 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,06324 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered