Quote:
Whether Grindelwald is dead or alive doesn't really matter.
Either way, Dumbledore could not have a horcrux.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dumbledore_Lives @ May 21 2006, 06:52 PM) [snapback]24936[/snapback]
|
Quote:
|
...Dumbledore ended a life. THAT damaged his soul... [/b]
|
Dumbledore's soul is not damaged.
It doesn't work that way.
Ending a life is not murder.
Yes, it makes all the difference in the world.
Quote:
|
...we know characters that have been to Azkaban...Sirius, Hagrid, and Dumbledore (visiting) and there was no mention of the most terrible man before Voldy, and any educated wizard would have noted Grindelwald rotting in his cell....Sirius...mentioned many death eaters.... [/b]
|
We don't know anything about Grindelwald except that he was a "Dark Wizard."
We do not know that he was important. Nobody called him "Lord."
He was certainly NOT as important as Voldemort.
The fact that nobody in any of the books has ever mentioned
him suggests that he did not leave a strong impression.
Quote:
|
...if Dumbledore didn't kill Grindelwald, then that shoots my theory about Dumbledore's Horcrux out of the water... [/b]
|
Bingo.
[/b][/quote]creating a horcrux is tampering with your soul and sinking to the bottom of lowlyness. do you guys really think the mostpositive character in the book,-Dumbledor, would do such a deed, proving himself to be nothing better than Voldemort?
Linear Mode
