You Don't Know The History of Calvinism! I do.
Despite barely surviving a narrow brush with a lawnmower back in 2006, Harry Potter theorist Anise has continued theorizing the stuffing out of Harry Potter. Her theory is that Harry Potter is all about Calvinism and Gnosticism, and she holds forth in threads like "Debate: Did Harry Potter Have a Good Moral Message?" No it didn't. It had a Calvinist message.

Carissa Lynn, one of the old Gryffindor Tower owners, asked P.S. To Anise: could you please provide a link to your discussions on the Calvinistic messages in DH. Being an Presbyterian myself, I'm anxious to discuss this with you!
Anise replied with a list of all her posts about Calvinism and Harry Potter. Starbuckxc posted that Predestination and Calvinism are not the same thing, and implied Anise was making this stuff up as she went along.

Anise: JKR's statements about the religious agenda behind these books needs to end all of the claims that "these were just simplistic fairy-tale children's stories" once and for all. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful to anyone who still thinks that, but there is no way in the world that I can even take that idea seriously anymore. If that statement on JKR's part didn't do it, the one about Dumbledore certainly does-- she now tells us about the complex, adult, Machiavellian way she was always writing him. The last place in the world you'd see a character like DD is some kind of Disneyfied fairy tale, because the last quality he has is that kind of simplicity. This "children's story" claim just needs to be dropped.

If it's not a children's story, what is it?

Anise: The totality or "most important message" of Calvinism vs Gnosticism certainly can't co-exist, and you're right about that. But aspects of Gnosticism certainly CAN co-exist with aspects of Calvinism, and that's what we see in the entire series, especially DH. Pieces were taken from each belief system. This is particularly clear with Gnosticism, and that's what the last part of my essay was actually about. The overarching, grand message of syncretism was NOT used. The very specific narrative of the Gospel of Judas WAS used, and the extremely focused concept of Abraxas was used. The idea of a special system of knowledge available only to the elite was definitely used.

Anyway, I actually wish I could agree with Daksian that we should read the series as a work of fiction first. The real failure of its writing is that we can't. We now know why we can't, and I don't think I really wanted to know.

Carissa Lynn said she personally didn't see anything Gnostic or Calvinist about it, but even if Anise was right, it's still a work of fiction, not a religious tract.

But it is a religious text! It's plagiarized from the Gospel of Judas!

Anise:The way that JKR borrowed from The Gospel of Judas, especially, is the kind of thing that would lead to a lawsuit if it were still in copyright. Obviously, it's not, and it's not that this means her plotline about Snape and Dumbledore was plagiarism, either. All authors borrow from ancient myths, legends, and narratives. But I have to say, I think that is where it came from, and if anyone does read TGoJ and then compares it with the Snape and DD storyline, they will see just what I mean. The usage of Abraxas as the patriarch of the Malfoy clan was another giveaway, IMHO-- that HAD to come from Gnosticism because there is no other origin of Abraxas. (There's much more info about this in my long essay towards the end, but in brief, Abraxas was a very prominent and well-known Gnostic god who represented both good and evil, and who was always pictured with dragons and/or snakes.)

(This leads to a bit of confusion, since the Gospel of Judas was only published in 2006 by National Geographic, but as Anise fairly points out, scholars had plot spoilers for it from the works of the early Church Father Irenaeus. ETA: Or was it?)

On the Calvinism front,

Carissa:I hope you realize that people who actually practice Calvinsim or denominations derived from Calvinism would vehemently disagree with you. This is all your opinion on Calvinism and completely irrevelant to this debate which is why I won't take the time to refute you here. If you want to discuss this via PM, I'm completely open.

And, by the way, I don't think Rhemus did a very good job of summing anything up. His assertions and definitions are extremely biased. You cannot have a real debate like that. I certainly do not agree with one single thing in his post and it does not constitute the majority of thinking regarding the moral message in HP. Rhemus may have just as well said, "the moral message in HP is bad and these things are bad too!"

What we have in this thread is utter chaos. People are saying "this is bad, and that is bad" but not tying it into the "moral message" and telling us why it's bad. Frankly, I'd like to know myself because it seems to me that this has become a bashing thread. That would be fine, I suppose, if it weren't titled so ambigiously and with the label "debate." If anyone really wants to "debate" let me know. I was a competitive debater in both high school and college and would love to participate.

So, now it's the war of the credentials!

Anise: My earlier posts, for which I provided links, contain direct and lengthy quotes from the writings of John Calvin to show that these ideas are indeed central to Calvinism in its original form. They are John Calvin's opinions as he expressed them in the sixteenth century, not mine. Of course they have very little or nothing to do with virtually any religion that people are practicing in the 21st century. I don't know of any even vaguely mainstream sect that believes in strict predestination now. Perhaps I have not made it clear enough that I am not talking about current religious practices, current theology, or current belief systems. I am writing and have written in the field of comparative and historical theology. I believe that it is in this context that JKR wrote as well. She certainly has the academic background to do research.

It is one thing to be a competitive debater, and I respect that you have that background. I am a researcher. I don't know how to have a debate when everyone isn't starting on the same page with the research. We aren't arguing from the same premises or utilizing the same information, so I think we'd better just agree to disagree.

Carissa fired back:

Really, Anise? Really? Any reformed church that is governed by the Westminster Catechism practices strict predestination. This is called "reformed" theology. I know this because I am Presbyterian.

She included quotes from various Calvinist denominations on this point.

Anise replied that modern Calvinists don't mean the same thing as John Calvin, which she knows because she's an expert on John Calvin. Carissa finally made the inevitable "I'm Leaving, And You Can't Stop Me" post.

I'm just gonna let you guys have it. Even though the thread is labeled "debate" it's clear that all y'all want to do it bitch about how bad the final message or the moral message or anything and everything related to HP, so you can tell yourselves you didn't like like the series for other reasons than just shipping. I suppose this helps you sleep at night. Or maybe writing all these "intellectual posts" and calling yourselves "researchers" makes you feel less like an idiot for being wrong and caring so much. Personally, I have no qualms with either the final message or the final shipping in HP so I have no reason to loose sleep or feel stupid. (*Does the I was right dance*)

One more word about the values of research.

Anise: Tantrums and name-calling are not debate, and they are certainly not research. I will not sink to that level, no matter what anybody else chooses to do. I'm a researcher and very proud to be one. That is how I choose to spend my life-- it's what PhD candidates do. So I wish everyone well, and I hope everybody has fun on whatever board they choose to visit, but this one is about debate. Actually, if I had my way, it would be about dialog rather than debate.