PDA

View Full Version : Harry Potter: Initiation Into Wicca, Witchcraft & The Occult



MeerkatMadden
Feb 18th 2008, 08:33 PM
My guess is that most people on this forum have either read some of the Harry Potter books or have seen some of the Harry Potter movies, or you have children who are very much into these things.

If so, this is a YouTube video that you have GOT to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKfFnABBis

Most people think that Harry Potter is a safe, fun, fantasy world that is great entertainment for our children, but as the film shockingly shows, that is not the case at all.

Did you know that the Harry Potter series describes witchcraft and the Occult with amazing precision and accuracy?

Did you know that the Harry Potter series is doing an amazing job of recriting our children into Occult religions?

One of the most stunning things in the film is the way that children describe the impact that Harry Potter has had on them. What the children have to say about Harry Potter will blow your mind.

Trust me, you will never look at Harry Potter the same way again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKfFnABBis

So what do you all think? After learning the things in the YouTube clip I know my outlook is different. Do the rest of you still think Harry Potter is a good thing for our society?

markedward
Feb 18th 2008, 08:38 PM
Did you know that the Harry Potter series is doing an amazing job of recriting our children into Occult religions?If so, it's doing it in the smallest of percentages. Most of the people I know have read many, if not all, of the Harry Potter books... and literally none of them are into occultic religions; they're either Christians, or they're a-religious that don't give a hoot about religion.

I'm not swinging one way or the other as to whether Harry Potter is wrong, but I'd hardly say it's doing an "amazing job" of turning people towards the occult.

Me? I read a couple of books... they were boring. I kept thinking "Man, this is a really bad rip-off of Star Wars mixed with Lord of the Rings... Set in modern day."

Athanasius
Feb 18th 2008, 08:42 PM
Or read them all and seen all the movies and planning on buying all the books because they'll make his library look nice, next to The Golden compass, of course.

But not next to anything by Lewis or Tolkien, since that would be blasphemy to all that is good and holy and righteous.

I have a problem with the books, but in agreeing with markedward, I'm not seeing mass conversions, nor would I recommend the books. Like the Golden Compass, they seem like hack jobs of a genre with immense potential.

markedward
Feb 18th 2008, 08:44 PM
Heck, I'd say more people are being converted into being pirates (Pirates of the Caribbean) than people are trying to become wizards or witches.

The video mentions that a girl "summons a three-headed Cerberus" as she calls magic real and the Bible lies... Um... why doesn't the video mention that the Cerberus never showed up? Or that anyone who believes magic is real based upon fictional book/movie is, in a word, delusional? All of the kids being quoted in the video are the bad cases of people who have read the books or seen the movies. I'd be willing to say about 85-95% of the people who have read the books don't think they're cool because they "teach you all about magic ... to control people and get revenge." Heck, I might not have enjoyed the books personally, but don't they teach that that's what the villain of the story does? It sounds like the kid being quoted was rooting for Voldemort rather than Harry Potter.

Taking a few bad eggs compared to the thousand and thousands of normal cases doesn't mean people are "flocking" to become Wiccan.

Codger
Feb 18th 2008, 08:59 PM
It's just the old nature in us that has a secret love for power and control over others. Somehow if it is done in the name of good it is considered to be OK.

It's just the "Mystery of Iniquity" that abounds in our every day life. You know, the slow encroachment of evil in our society, which moves in such small steps that it escapes notice or is usually considered not enough to fight for.

Larry

aliveinchrist
Feb 18th 2008, 09:13 PM
No, it doesn't mean they're flocking to become Wiccan.

But why should we put stuff that is clearly not of God, into children's heads?

You can't deny God hates witchcraft and says it is of the devil.

DanielF
Feb 18th 2008, 10:37 PM
Whoever says that the Harry Potter books teach anything about real magick, clearly dosen't know much about the occult! Yeah, they touch here and there on some points, but every Wiccan would know that it is mixed with a whole lot of pure fantacy!!!

I think the books are dangerous in the ense that they inspire curiosity that could lead children to go looking for the "real stuff"

Personally, I liked the movies! like I liked "Lord of the rings" and "Stardust". It's only a threat if you try to believe it! Like stars are girls or something like that :rofl:

aliveinchrist
Feb 18th 2008, 10:43 PM
Whoever says that the Harry Potter books teach anything about real magick, clearly dosen't know much about the occult! Yeah, they touch here and there on some points, but every Wiccan would know that it is mixed with a whole lot of pure fantacy!!!

I think the books are dangerous in the ense that they inspire curiosity that could lead children to go looking for the "real stuff"

Personally, I liked the movies! like I liked "Lord of the rings" and "Stardust". It's only a threat if you try to believe it! Like stars are girls or something like that :rofl:

Do YOU know about the occult?

I'll sit here and tell you, I don't.

But whether it teaches real stuff or not, to me, is not the point. The point is, it's not of God. It's still witchcraft (real or not), and that is something not of God.

So again I ask, why put stuff that's not of God, into children's heads, when we could be putting Christ-filled stuff into their heads?

DanielF
Feb 18th 2008, 11:27 PM
Actually aliveinchrist, I know more about the occult than I care to say; I wasn't always a Christian :saint:

I absolutely agree with you! that stuff makes witchcraft seem so exciting to children, it is dangerous in that sense!

MeerkatMadden
Feb 19th 2008, 08:08 PM
Do YOU know about the occult?

I'll sit here and tell you, I don't.

But whether it teaches real stuff or not, to me, is not the point. The point is, it's not of God. It's still witchcraft (real or not), and that is something not of God.

So again I ask, why put stuff that's not of God, into children's heads, when we could be putting Christ-filled stuff into their heads?


Interesting points!

Semi-tortured
Feb 19th 2008, 08:22 PM
How does the OP feel about LotR and Narnia since there is magic in both of those? Because Gandalf is a wizard and not a warlock is it OK, or do you hate all them?

Just curious as to whether or not there is a difference in people's minds. There is in mine even though I have seen the movies. I personally don't care for Harry Potter and wouldn't let my kids read it if I had any.

Theophilus
Feb 19th 2008, 08:29 PM
Ahem.

Note that this is Bible Chat, a forum for questions and answers about any topic related to the Bible.

With that in mind, try and relate this to the Bible, or else it's just going to turn into another "he said, she said" about Harry Potter.

'Kay? :)

harry
Mar 27th 2008, 12:28 PM
relating harry potter to the Bible!

Yale Divinity course examines theology in Harry Potter...

http://www.christiantoday.com/article/yale.divinity.course.examines.theology.in.harry.po tter/17554.htm

ProjectPeter
Mar 27th 2008, 12:53 PM
Thinking that this ain't happening! :lol:

Moving thread to Anything Goes.

Eginon
Mar 27th 2008, 05:56 PM
Still new to the boards just posted the introduction. However, after reading through the post I thought about some of the ideas on the way to the docs. And wanted to post a reply on some thoughts that ran through my head about how Harry could be interpreted through a Christian world view and actually demonstrate Christian values.

Note: I'm not saying whether or not Harry Potter is good or bad to read. For you or your kids those are personal decision between you and God, I've no right to tell you what you should do. I only offer these thoughts up for those whose kids (or themselves) may be fans of the book series. These are just some of the things I've thought of being both a fan of the books and a new Christian.

Perhaps I should caveat this with a spoiler warning.
***Spoiler warning if you haven't read all the books or are planning to watch the movies as they come out don't read any further.***

Often times with fiction, I find at any rate, that the fantasy realm created in the story the idea of God is implied rather than specifically stated. God is the force of good, and the force of good in the story really is God.
Personally, I'm a huge fan of fiction, because I believe it often speaks more to our human condition. It reveals the trials and tribulations of being human. Such as, in "Arabian Nights" when the stories there were told to the prince lent him the impetus to overcome his adversary and to be a brave and just leader. In this way I think fiction can help transform us. Jesus often delivered the most significant of his earthly ministries' teachings in parables.

Within the realm of the Harry Potter series, Harry and his friends, are the servants of good, implicit God. Harry, much like us, has no idea what God's plans or ideas has for him. He's thrown into difficult situations early on that are out of his league to handle alone however "the good thing" provides him with friends and a little luck in order to overcome Voldemort.

But evil just won't stay dead!

However, at the end of the series, Harry realizes that these things are not enough to truly overcome evil. Harry realizes that in order to save everyone, he, Harry Potter must die. Much like our brave Aslan, he wanders out to deliver himself to his enemies and his own demise, alone and afraid. And die he does. Then a miraculous thing happens! Harry is returned to life by the power of good, implying again God's grace, and as a result Voldemort, the personification of evil is powerless over him.

Allegorically speaking, this is the walk that every Christian has faced. We are a lot like Harry, we don't know why we are here, we don't know what meaning our life has, we are just trying to figure it out. Similar to the events in the story, through what appears to us a combination of luck and circumstance, we are lead to God's love.The great deceiver works in all manner of ways to keep us from God's grace and we can't rid ourselves of his power over us.

It is not until we die to ourselves and live to Christ that we are able then to rebuke Satan. Once we give up ourselves and let Christ into our hearts, much like Harry's Voldemort, Satan is revealed to have no power over our lives anymore.

So anyway, those were my thoughts about the discussion. If you're a fan of the series or a parent looking for new ways to reach your kids, I hope some of these points are helpful!

Blessings

IPet2_9
Mar 27th 2008, 06:25 PM
I played lots of Dungeons & Dragons as a kid. I was never tempted to get into anything satanic or occult because of it. If anything, I had a bigger problem shirking my day-to-day duties because I had a game addiction to D&D. In fact, it got me to thinking, since D&D has a concept of Chaotic Good vs. Lawful Good, and Lawful Evil vs. Chaotic Evil, or Chaotic Neutral, or Neutral Neutral.

I'm not overly paranoid of Harry Potter. However, those Christian parents who are, I am glad they're there, and they have their place in the body. Kids should know, this is where we stand regarding Harry Potter. That said, if you find entertainment value in Harry Potter's fantasy world, carry on. But really I'd be happier if you read the Narnia books instead.

HisBlood
Mar 28th 2008, 02:21 AM
I would greatly appreciate it if people would read and then form their own opinion on the books.

The whole "he said/she said" or "I read this article and it said . . . " thing does not help your credibility or impress me too terribly much.

MidnightsPaleGlow
Mar 28th 2008, 03:01 AM
Actually aliveinchrist, I know more about the occult than I care to say; I wasn't always a Christian :saint:

Same here, I never actually got involved in the occult during my 7 years of atheism/agnosticism (from the time I was 15 up until November), but I was heavily fascinated by it. But as of November, I found the Lord Jesus Christ, my savior, who loves me despite all the psychological agony I've been suffering from lately, and I am grateful to him now and forever for plucking me from a perilous pit that would have led straight to hell :eek:.

Luke34
Mar 31st 2008, 03:17 AM
The video mentions that a girl "summons a three-headed Cerberus" as she calls magic real and the Bible lies...

Hahahahaha...no...you're not serious, are you? Is this video seriously that? (I can't watch it because my computer is being dumb and claiming that I do not have Java Player 9 or whatever even though I just installed it twice). Anyway, I've kind of been hoping that someone would post this eventually: if the quote you are thinking of from the video is "...said Ashley, conjuring up an ancient spell to summon Cerebus, the three-headed hound of hell. But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that the Bible is nothing but boring lies," then the video is taken directly from a chain-type e-mail that was circulating a while ago. It's not true, obviously, but the really awesome part is that the "reports" quoted in the email and, presumably, the video are from The Onion, the famous and famously satirical newspaper. I don't know what person was originally culturally uninformed enough (and, apparently, unable to perform five seconds of Googling to check their sources) to take The Onion seriously, but whoever it was created an absolutely hilarious email about the HP books being "the most evil thing" they had ever laid eyes on. And, now it's apparently a Youtube video which I really want to watch as soon as my computer figures out that Java 9 really and truly is there.

Sorry for ranting about this even more, but really: how could whoever originally wrote this thing (I don't mean the OP, by the way; I mean the original sender of the e-mail) not know from the article itself that it was satirical? (Due to some strongish language I probably shouldn't link the article itself, but I will link to the Snopes article on the whole ridiculousness (http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp), which contains a link to the original article if anyone wants to read it. It is quite hilarious on its own.) How could s/he not know that J.K. Rowling did not actually say "I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan... People should be praising them for that!" Or they could have just looked at the other headlines on the site (e.g., today's include "Fearmongers, Warmongers Gather For Annual Mongering Conference (http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/fearmongers_warmongers)" and "Home-Buying Up Among Lame-O's (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27886)"). In any case, the whole thing was ironic because the article was originally meant to parody all the "Harry Potter is evil and occultic and Satanic!!!" nonsense, but its broad and obvious satire was apparently still too subtle, and it ended up being used inappropriately to promote the very cause it ridiculed.

Luke34
Mar 31st 2008, 03:38 AM
Haha yes...I managed to watch it, and it Exceeds Expectations (to make my own HP reference): Most of its six minutes and eighteen seconds appear to be random clips from the movies, interspersed with direct quotes from The Onion and completely unsupported claims ("Harry Potter accurately depicts Satanism"). Then some (unreferenced, so I'm not going to claim they're genuine; with this video they could be from The Daily Show for all I know) quotes from some children, which are only alarming if you think that fairly old kids (the youngest was maybe nine) are utterly and completely unable to make distinctions between fiction and reality, and also that a real-life "wizard school," whatever that would look like and if one even exists, would bear any passing resemblance to the books' Hogwarts, and thus would not disappoint the delusional children when they find out that Professor McGonagall does not exist. But I know the first thing is not true, at least, having more or less recently been a child myself - in fact, I played Harry Potter games fairly often and yet I have no plans to start summoning demons any time soon. (I also played Star Wars and I am not studying fencing or advanced weaponry or astronomy, and I have always been fairly certain that Wookies did not exist.) Also, much of the video's text appears to be written by a person who believes that every word in the English language takes an initial capital. Then at the end it makes one of those weird leaps typical of this sort of video, i.e., "Harry Potter is evil according to these unreferenced quotes and claims and also these excerpts from a humor website, so ARE YOU GOING TO BE WITH GOD OR SATAN??" Last thing I wanted to point out was that the closing sequence contains not only an extremely low-quality rendering of Satan's face that makes it look more like a red blob, but also (at 4:35) a shot of a painting of what looks like a Transformer or something.

RevChristopher
Mar 31st 2008, 06:13 AM
Well I guess I'm one of the few ammount of persons who has neither read the books or seen the all movies. I once sapped through a Harry Potter DVD and I don't think that this can influance on children in draggen them away from God or Jesus Christ. Because most children at the age between 8 an 10 years who use to watch or read Harry Potter don't have an accurate understanding of religions yet. It is nothing more than a good selling fantasy story, so we should not worry about it that much. In the end, even if it should be able to, to influance on children that way. It means just a bit more work for people like me. The Reverends...;)

skc53
Mar 31st 2008, 10:17 PM
I have to agree with aliveinChrist on the subject of Harry Potter. In fact, I saw the author of Harry Potter on t.v. 2 or 3 years ago, and she admitted being a witch. So anything a witch writes I will having nothing to do with, as the Bible says not to have anything to do with witchcraft etc., fantasy or not. It is not of God!

pinky
Mar 31st 2008, 10:40 PM
For what it is worth, speaking as someone who was formerly embroiled in occultism.............. Harry Potter is without a doubt an indoctrination for impressionable children into occultism/satanism.

Matthew 12:21
Mar 31st 2008, 11:42 PM
I have to agree with aliveinChrist on the subject of Harry Potter. In fact, I saw the author of Harry Potter on t.v. 2 or 3 years ago, and she admitted being a witch. So anything a witch writes I will having nothing to do with, as the Bible says not to have anything to do with witchcraft etc., fantasy or not. It is not of God!

I hesitate to say this because I don't mean to offend, but I don't think that's true. She in fact claims to be a Christian, and is a member of the Church of England. I say this because I've been a fan of the books over the years and have read a good deal about her, and in all my research on the subject I've never seen a single quote or sound byte where she said anything like that. She has actually denied that accusation on numerous occasions...


It's not true, obviously, but the really awesome part is that the "reports" quoted in the email and, presumably, the video are from The Onion, the famous and famously satirical newspaper. I don't know what person was originally culturally uninformed enough (and, apparently, unable to perform five seconds of Googling to check their sources) to take The Onion seriously, but whoever it was created an absolutely hilarious email about the HP books being "the most evil thing" they had ever laid eyes on. And, now it's apparently a Youtube video which I really want to watch as soon as my computer figures out that Java 9 really and truly is there.


That article is hilarious. I love the Onion.

Luke34
Apr 1st 2008, 01:46 AM
I have to agree with aliveinChrist on the subject of Harry Potter. In fact, I saw the author of Harry Potter on t.v. 2 or 3 years ago, and she admitted being a witch.
Here is what J.K. Rowling herself had to say in an interview with Entertainment Weekly (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/ewinter.html) on the subject of her being a witch:

"I'm not."

I think that about settles it.

Also, notice that J.K. Rowling directly quotes Jesus in Deathly Hallows (Book 7), as well as Corinthians, and quoting the New Testament (and then saying in another interview that said quotes "really say it all") is about the deadest giveaway I can think of that something has at least some Christian themes and imagery in it (and believe me, the last book, which probably you have not read, has a lot. Rowling said that the parallels between the books and Christianity have always been obvious to her (she wouldn't discuss her faith too much because she thought it would give away the ending), but that most people probably won't notice it till HPDH.

Also, here is J.K. Rowling herself with a quote from another interview (http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/editoral.php?feature=6586) (the link is an editorial on Deathly Hallows; don't read it if you don't want spoilers. I only posted it for reference to prove that I'm not making this stuff up or paraphrasing) on whether she is a Christian:

"Yes, I am."

Again, that pretty much settles it for me.

Luke34
Apr 1st 2008, 01:54 AM
I don't see why anyone is still taking this seriously after that video offered quotes from The Onion as proof for its wild claims, since without said quotes the evidence that Harry Potter is some kind of "initiation" (you're initiated into Wicca when you read a book?) for Wiccanism or occultism comes out to: nothing. Unless possibly people didn't read my long and rambling posts, which honestly I can't blame them for, so I'll sum them all up here (in boldface for extra emphasis!):

That video does not present real evidence for anything. It is so poorly researched that it presents fictional quotes from a satirical parody newspaper as straight fact. It is ironic because the original quotes were meant to parody the view that Harry Potter is evil in some way, and yet whoever made that video was too obtuse to realize that s/he was being made fun of and in fact used the quotes as the main "evidence" in their video. There is no evidence that Harry Potter has anything to do with witchcraft. Its author has specifically denied being a witch and has specifically confirmed that she is a Christian.

Thank you.

Big T
Apr 2nd 2008, 01:45 AM
I would greatly appreciate it if people would read and then form their own opinion on the books.

The whole "he said/she said" or "I read this article and it said . . . " thing does not help your credibility or impress me too terribly much.I almost agree with this. But there is also the part of me that says we need to listen to others opinions. Why? Well, I like to drink beer. Others may have an addictive personality. So, should they drink to form their opinion? What if they become alcoholics? There is a fine line regarding 'figuring things out for yourself'.

SethElijah
Apr 2nd 2008, 03:07 AM
I would say this....as a parent you would know if your children would be swayed from their faith by these books/movies. If your child cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not, if they do not understand this is fiction, or if they may be pulled toward the occult by reading/watching, then do not let them. My children do understand it is not real, they do not read the books by themselves, they actually got bored with them. I stood in line for the last two books when they came out, loved them. We love the movies, but we also watch the making of with the kids on DVD, so they can see what they had to go through to make all the "magic".

If you are an adult that is not strong in your faith, that may be swayed by the thought of magic and this may push you into the occult then stay away as well. It is not for everyone. For some it is safer for their faith to keep within a strict setting, for some it is not. It is up to the individual to know their limitations and let the Lord guide them. I know that watching the movies and reading the books will not sway my faith. If my kids have friends over, however, I must have a parents permission before they can watch anything like that.

Just my :2cents:

ETA: Aren't there already a bunch of these threads on here? I know I have posted in a couple already.

EarlyCall
Apr 2nd 2008, 10:49 AM
What did God say concerning all things having to do with witchcraft? Have nothing to do with it. The people in Acts burned all such things in order to rid their lives of them.

And yet we have Christians claiming to have read the books and watched the movies.

My suggestion then is this: before reading one of these books, before watching one of these movies, say a prayer and ask God to join you. In fact, read aloud to God from the books. Invite God into this world of witchcraft be it book or movie.

If however you find you cannot invite God into this time, then perhaps you ought to ask God to turn away from you while you go where He said in His word very clearly not to go.

Claims there are no influence on people because they do not turn to witchcraft are specious at best. Which one making such claims knows of every single person having watched a movie or read a book? You know some folk that have not and on this you make such a claim?

And what of the effect on their spirit where you do not see but God does?

We are called by God unto holiness. He actually meant it. That call is according to His standards and not our own.

thunderbyrd
Apr 2nd 2008, 01:42 PM
i watched the last HP movie when it came out on DVD. i saw some things in it that really disturbed me, so i posted some thoughts about it on various Christian web sites. from my experiences, i learned one thing for sure: HARRY POTTER IS THE MOST DEFENDED BY CHRISTIANS FICTIONAL CHARACTER IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD. i find that to be sorta strange.

9Marksfan
Apr 2nd 2008, 01:44 PM
Here is what J.K. Rowling herself had to say in an interview with Entertainment Weekly (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/ewinter.html) on the subject of her being a witch:

"I'm not."

I think that about settles it.

Why?

If we say we have fellowship with Him, and walk in darkness, we lie and do not practise the truth" 1 Jn 1:6 NKJV

The Harry Potter books are all about withcraft and Wicca IN IMMENSE DETAIL.


Also, notice that J.K. Rowling directly quotes Jesus in Deathly Hallows (Book 7), as well as Corinthians, and quoting the New Testament (and then saying in another interview that said quotes "really say it all") is about the deadest giveaway I can think of that something has at least some Christian themes and imagery in it (and believe me, the last book, which probably you have not read, has a lot. Rowling said that the parallels between the books and Christianity have always been obvious to her (she wouldn't discuss her faith too much because she thought it would give away the ending), but that most people probably won't notice it till HPDH.

The most dangerous thing is a mixture of truth and error - don't be deceived.


Also, here is J.K. Rowling herself with a quote from another interview (http://www.raidersnewsnetwork.com/editoral.php?feature=6586) (the link is an editorial on Deathly Hallows; don't read it if you don't want spoilers. I only posted it for reference to prove that I'm not making this stuff up or paraphrasing) on whether she is a Christian:

"Yes, I am."

Again, that pretty much settles it for me.

Why? Why are you so certain this woman, who has clearly spent a great deal of time researching withchdraft and Wicca and has made herself VERY rich out of it - should be treated as an honorable and credible individual? Should ANY Christian be dabbling with witchcraft? If she was truly Christian, I reckon she'd follow what the Ephesians did here:-

And many who believed came confessing and telling their deeds. Also, many of those who had practised magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them and it totalled fifty thousand pieces of silver. Acts 19:18-20 NKJV

Did you know that, in today's terms, that's between $30 and 50 BILLION?!?!?!? Whole lot of money lost there! But they saw how much more valuable being obedient to Jesus was!

I cannot believe that some Christian people are happy to try and justify a woman who has introduced the world's youth to witchcraft as somehow being "OK" because she says she isn't a witch and is a Christian - WAKE UP!!!!!!

Luke34
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:16 AM
Why?
Because there is no evidence that she is lying (please link to any reliable sources that provdie an ounce of evidence that J.K. Rowling ever participated in any kind of witchcraft whatsoever), and because if there is none of such, the most reliable person to go to for information about someone's religion is: that person. Not someone who reads The Onion, takes it seriously, and produces a video about it and puts it on Youtube.



The Harry Potter books are all about withcraft and Wicca IN IMMENSE DETAIL.
Really? Like which details? Do Wiccans attend wizarding school in a castle that cannot be plotted? Do they mass-produce brooms so that they can fly around on them and throw leather balls to each other? Do they own three-headed monster dogs and gargantuan spiders? Can they summon dinner tables out of the air by waving sticks with unicorn hair and phoenix feathers in them? Do they have a mortal enemy who has split his soul into seven parts and hidden them in cups and jewelry? Are they waited upon by house-elves? Can they cross continents instantaneously? Do they have their own secret government, the leader of which reveals himself to the U.K.'s Prime Minister? Do they celebrate Christmas and Easter? Do they live in fear of large slimy prison guards in cloaks who can suck all the happiness out of the air? Can chocolate migitate the effects of these creatures? Do they (Wiccans) possess a purple triple-decker bus which also is invisible? Can they, with the aforementioned wands made out of imaginary creatures, produce a silvery-white spirit which will drive away the slimy prison guards? Do they quote the Christian Bible on their sisters' tombstones and talk incessantly about the incredible power of self-sacrificing love? Do they attend history courses taught by ghosts?

I'm going to go ahead and assume that we would both answer "no" to all of these questions. I'm going to further assume both that you've never read the books (and probably don't understand half of what I said up there, so sorry) and that the "IMMENSE DETAIL"s you had in mind were stuff more along the lines of "they use crystal balls" -- i.e., not-actually-all-that-immensely-detailed stuff which is common to every myth of witchcraft in history and which pretty much everyone could name off the top of their heads when they hear "witch" (other examples: "They fly on brooms," "they use cauldrons," "they own cats," "they do magic").

That is, I will continue to assume that unless you can produce a reliable source that gives specific examples, giving both detailed and correct information from the books and sufficient evidence that Wiccans both attempt to do and are successful at whatever said source is attempting to correlate (i.e., if it turns out that Wiccans really do wave phoenix feathers in the air while speaking Latin, it also has to turn out that they're not just being stupid).



The most dangerous thing is a mixture of truth and error - don't be deceived.
The final book is so heavy with Christian symbolism that Rowling refrained from talking about her own beliefs because she would believe it would give away the story. If she had said that talking about Wiccanism would give away the story, everyone would assume that the characters probably start worshipping the earth or something in the final book, not that they fly on broomsticks to escape a giant dragon made out of fire.


Why? Why are you so certain this woman, who has clearly spent a great deal of time researching withchdraft and Wicca and has made herself VERY rich out of it
"Clearly" = "I have no real way to support this claim except for saying 'clearly' before I state it." Really, do you have a credible source that supports this claim of research in any way, or actual details from the books that would somehow require actual research into witchcraft (and by "actual" I mean "not Google").


Should ANY Christian be dabbling with witchcraft?
You still haven't established that JKR is "dabbling with witchcraft" in any way except to write books which use the subject in a very general, fictionalized, modernized and often humorous manner.


And many who believed came confessing and telling their deeds. Also, many of those who had practised magic brought their books together and burned them in the sight of all. And they counted up the value of them and it totalled fifty thousand pieces of silver. Acts 19:18-20 NKJV
Did you know that, in today's terms, that's between $30 and 50 BILLION?!?!?!?
Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for a reference for this too before I believe it, since both of the ones I found (one of which can be found in this Acts commentary on christnotes.org (http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=44&c=19&com=wes)) put the value at about six thousand pounds (this one states 6,250), which makes about twelve thousand dollars. Which makes sense because, frankly, I have trouble imagining there being enough books of enough value in one town to equal fifty billion dollars (even if every book was about $50 in value, they'd still need a billion of them, which is impossible).


I cannot believe that some Christian people are happy to try and justify a woman who has introduced the world's youth to witchcraft as somehow being "OK" because she says she isn't a witch and is a Christian - WAKE UP!!!!!!
Last request for evidence: Please provide some reliable and non-Onion evidence relating HP to any kind of rise in Wiccan enrollment rates among children.

Also, with everything I hear here about how unpopular and difficult it is to be a Christian in today's world or whatever, it doesn't seem like declaring her Christianity would be the shrewdest PR move of all time. And, do you really think she was so determined to introduce the world's children to witchcraft that she started writing the book on a cafe napkin? Wouldn't it be rather ridiculous to start out with such a lofty goal (e.g., I'm pretty sure the real Rowling just was hoping to get published, not sell eighty-five trillion billion copies* and become one of the best-selling writers on the planet).

*(hyperbole)

9Marksfan
Apr 3rd 2008, 11:50 AM
Because there is no evidence that she is lying (please link to any reliable sources that provdie an ounce of evidence that J.K. Rowling ever participated in any kind of witchcraft whatsoever),

But there is clear evidence that she is familiar with witchcraft - and she thought up the HP storeis when she was on the dole and desperate to make some money - whether consciously or not, I believe she was drawn to witchcraft by Satan - this verse comes to mind:-

And he said to Him, "All these things I will give You if You will fall down and worship me". Matt 4:9 NKJV

The fact of the matter is that HP is about witchcraft and has had a MASSIVE amount of interest in young people, to the extent that it has been the most popular children's book in living memory - coincidence?


and because if there is none of such, the most reliable person to go to for information about someone's religion is: that person.

I'm afraid that shows the UTMOST naivety - the most reliable source is God's word, which forbids witchcraft in the strongest possible terms, because it belongs to the kingdom of darkness - and the Prince of that kingdom is called "the father of lies" - anyone asociated with witchcraft is associated with him - to be certain in the absence of any "evidence" that she is therefore per se the most reliable person to go to for information is like believing someone who says they didn't commit a murder, just because of a possible shortage of direct evidence - but where there is a huge amount of circumstancial evidence and knowledge of the murder on the part of that person - one should surely be suspicious at least? For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not alleging that JKR IS a witch - just expressing surprise that you feel that her testimony ON ITS OWn "settles it".


Not someone who reads The Onion, takes it seriously, and produces a video about it and puts it on Youtube.

Have you looked at all the other materials that express concern about Harry Potter from a Christian perspective? Are they all rubbush?


Really? Like which details?

OK - turns my stomach even to mention these things, but I need to for your sake:-

Spirit possession
Scrying
Casting spells
Nicolas Flavel
The Hand of Glory


I'm going to go ahead and assume that we would both answer "no" to all of these questions.

Of course. But just because JKR adds all these fictional aspects to her plot doesn't make the real stuff any less dangerous - smokescreen anyone?


I'm going to further assume both that you've never read the books (and probably don't understand half of what I said up there, so sorry)

I have spoken to those who have, so am familiar with many of these things - but I don't see whay I should waste my time - or expose myself to spiritual danger.....

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. Eph 5:11 NKJV


and that the "IMMENSE DETAIL"s you had in mind were stuff more along the lines of "they use crystal balls" -- i.e., not-actually-all-that-immensely-detailed stuff which is common to every myth of witchcraft in history and which pretty much everyone could name off the top of their heads when they hear "witch" (other examples: "They fly on brooms," "they use cauldrons," "they own cats," "they do magic").

Maybe "immense" was the wrong word "amazing" would have been better - how many people have heard of Nicolas Flavel? Or The Hand of Glory?


That is, I will continue to assume that unless you can produce a reliable source that gives specific examples, giving both detailed and correct information from the books and sufficient evidence that Wiccans both attempt to do and are successful at whatever said source is attempting to correlate (i.e., if it turns out that Wiccans really do wave phoenix feathers in the air while speaking Latin, it also has to turn out that they're not just being stupid).

I don't see why I should waste my time trying to prove something is unsuccessful - as one familiar with the books, do you deny that there is reference to Flavel as a 14th century occultist? And the Hand of Glory in the shop? Are these details within the average person's general knowledge? I think not.


The final book is so heavy with Christian symbolism that Rowling refrained from talking about her own beliefs because she would believe it would give away the story.

And would have cost her a few million sales, no doubt! She'll know how unpopular Christianity is!


If she had said that talking about Wiccanism would give away the story, everyone would assume that the characters probably start worshipping the earth or something in the final book, not that they fly on broomsticks to escape a giant dragon made out of fire.

Sorry - don't understand the link there.


"Clearly" = "I have no real way to support this claim except for saying 'clearly' before I state it." Really, do you have a credible source that supports this claim of research in any way, or actual details from the books that would somehow require actual research into witchcraft (and by "actual" I mean "not Google").

See above.


You still haven't established that JKR is "dabbling with witchcraft" in any way except to write books which use the subject in a very general, fictionalized, modernized and often humorous manner.

So that makes it OK, then? And how is that NOT dabbling?


Sorry, but I'm going to have to ask for a reference for this too before I believe it, since both of the ones I found (one of which can be found in this Acts commentary on christnotes.org (http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?b=44&c=19&com=wes)) put the value at about six thousand pounds (this one states 6,250), which makes about twelve thousand dollars. Which makes sense because, frankly, I have trouble imagining there being enough books of enough value in one town to equal fifty billion dollars (even if every book was about $50 in value, they'd still need a billion of them, which is impossible).

OK - a denarius was a day's wage - in today's terms, I'm assuming that's $100 - 165 (apologies if that's an overstatement - here in the UK £50 ($100) a day would be a pretty low wage - maybe things are worse in the US - I was using $$$ because most people on here are from the US.)

A talent was the highest denomination of currency in NT times = 6000 denarii (footnote on Matt 18:24 and 28, equating the denarius with the drachma and a piece of silver in Acts 19:19, New Geneva Study Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1995).

So - $100 x 6000 x 50,000 = $30,000,000,000 = $30 billion.


So,

Last request for evidence: Please provide some reliable and non-Onion evidence relating HP to any kind of rise in Wiccan enrollment rates among children.

I didn't say this was happening - I said JKR was introducing children (ie to the concept) - not that she was enrolling them - not the same thing - but the spiritual dangers are stil there - if you play with fire,.......


Also, with everything I hear here about how unpopular and difficult it is to be a Christian in today's world or whatever, it doesn't seem like declaring her Christianity would be the shrewdest PR move of all time.

Well, it was her last HP and she's already got £500+ million - so - hey! - what's she got to lose now? Hmm....what shall it profit.......


And, do you really think she was so determined to introduce the world's children to witchcraft that she started writing the book on a cafe napkin?

Like I said, it may not have been a conscious decision, but I have no doubt who gave her the idea......


Wouldn't it be rather ridiculous to start out with such a lofty goal (e.g., I'm pretty sure the real Rowling just was hoping to get published, not sell eighty-five trillion billion copies* and become one of the best-selling writers on the planet).

So I wonder why she DID choose withcraft over any other fantasy subject.......?


*(hyperbole)

It will be a huge number - as I said, the most popular children's book in living memory..........

Can I finish with a challenge? Are you as zealous in defending the gospel in your daily life as you are JK Rowling?

thunderbyrd
Apr 3rd 2008, 12:44 PM
"Can I finish with a challenge? Are you as zealous in defending the gospel in your daily life as you are JK Rowling?"

EXCELLENT QUESTION. i gotta remember that one.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:45 PM
Can I finish with a challenge? Are you as zealous in defending the gospel in your daily life as you are JK Rowling?

He isn't being zealous in my eyes, he is just trying to get consistency and honesty into the discussion. I'm pretty sure he has left it open for you to prove him wrong, but instead all you give him is "You're wrong and I said so, now wake up!"

Good one, clearly Socrates himself would be proud of your form.

VerticalReality
Apr 3rd 2008, 01:57 PM
What did God say concerning all things having to do with witchcraft? Have nothing to do with it. The people in Acts burned all such things in order to rid their lives of them.

And yet we have Christians claiming to have read the books and watched the movies.

My suggestion then is this: before reading one of these books, before watching one of these movies, say a prayer and ask God to join you. In fact, read aloud to God from the books. Invite God into this world of witchcraft be it book or movie.

If however you find you cannot invite God into this time, then perhaps you ought to ask God to turn away from you while you go where He said in His word very clearly not to go.

Claims there are no influence on people because they do not turn to witchcraft are specious at best. Which one making such claims knows of every single person having watched a movie or read a book? You know some folk that have not and on this you make such a claim?

And what of the effect on their spirit where you do not see but God does?

We are called by God unto holiness. He actually meant it. That call is according to His standards and not our own.

It would serve folks well to heed the warning in this post.

I agree EarlyCall . . .

TSP
Apr 3rd 2008, 02:03 PM
Ok I for one am not against Harry Potter, I am actually glad they came along. Now kids are reading again and using there imagination instead of plopping down and watch television, which probably has way more sexual and violent content than any book they could possibly read. I seen people write they like Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Chronicles of Narnia but protest Harry Potter. I say if you give one up give them all up otherwise in my eyes you are a hypocrite. There is witchcraft or “magic, wizardry” involved in all those stories, but yet you only protest Harry Potter. When I was little I wanted to be a Jedi Knight and be able to use the force, honestly I am 24 I still want to be a Jedi Knight and be able to use the force. So what is the difference between kids wishing they could go to Hogwarts or a kid wishing he lived in Middle Earth with Gandolf the white wizard? Or live with Obi Won Kenobi on Tatooine (“That wizards just a crazy old man” – Owen Lars)? Even find a portal to cross over in a magical world and fight against the evil Witch in Narnia? There is no difference. Like I said I feel some are a bit hypocritical. That’s my opinion.

9Marksfan
Apr 3rd 2008, 04:46 PM
He isn't being zealous in my eyes, he is just trying to get consistency and honesty into the discussion.

Au contraire, I think he is being very zealous in defending KJR against all us "unreasonable" Christians who are concerned about people exposing themselves to witchcraft, with all its inherent dangers - not to mention the displeasure of a holy God, who has very clearly commanded us to have nothing to do with them.


I'm pretty sure he has left it open for you to prove him wrong, but instead all you give him is "You're wrong and I said so, now wake up!"

Hmm - would have to disgree with you on both of those - I can provide more information to back up what I am saying, but I don't want younger, more impressionable Christians delving into these things - I'm hoping that the fact that I've "rumbled" ther obscure occult/witchcraft references will be sufficient to prove my point.


Good one, clearly Socrates himself would be proud of your form.

Well, I'm glad I don't have to please him! :)

HisBlood
Apr 3rd 2008, 08:23 PM
I almost agree with this. But there is also the part of me that says we need to listen to others opinions. Why? Well, I like to drink beer. Others may have an addictive personality. So, should they drink to form their opinion? What if they become alcoholics? There is a fine line regarding 'figuring things out for yourself'.

I have nothing against, listening to the opinions of others. It's when someone adopts that opinion as their own without doing further research from the other viewpoint that it becomes ridiculous.

In the case of alcoholism, I would not encourage the person with an addictive personality to try beer because I realize that they have an addictive personality. If, however, there was a perfectly normal person who was strong opposed to alcohol and even went so far as to call it sin and condemn all that drink it I would ask further on why they have these opinions. If that person said they had never tried alcohol, nor done any sort of research on the subject and they are running on second-hand opinions I would have a problem with that.

In the case of HP, too many people yell and scream and condemn the books because their mother/father/pastor/boyfriend has said that their mother/father/pastor/boyfriend has said their . . . you get the point? Or, even worse, they use unreliable internet sources that condemn the books and then don't even bother too look at the other side. If you've read the books and you still think they're sin, fine! Condemn all you want then! But, please, refrain from commenting on something you* know nothing about.

* You refers to a group, not specifics.

diffangle
Apr 3rd 2008, 11:08 PM
In the case of HP, too many people yell and scream and condemn the books because their mother/father/pastor/boyfriend has said that their mother/father/pastor/boyfriend has said their . . . you get the point? Or, even worse, they use unreliable internet sources that condemn the books and then don't even bother too look at the other side. If you've read the books and you still think they're sin, fine! Condemn all you want then! But, please, refrain from commenting on something you* know nothing about.

My question to those of you who have read the books is, do the books contain the things Mark listed?

Spirit possession
Scrying
Casting spells
Nicolas Flavel
The Hand of Glory

HisBlood
Apr 4th 2008, 01:38 AM
My question to those of you who have read the books is, do the books contain the things Mark listed?

Spirit possession
Scrying
Casting spells
Nicolas Flavel
The Hand of Glory

Spirit Possession-Not that I remember.

Scrying-There is crystal ball reading, but it is considered imperfect and unreliable. It's basically a joke within the wizarding world.

Casting spells-Yes

Nicolas Flavel- I think he was in the first book. He was the maker of the Sorcerer's Stone, though he never actually made a physical appearance in the books.

The Hand of Glory- Yes, but this was considered "Dark Magic". In other words, it was considered bad.

Luke34
Apr 4th 2008, 01:50 AM
The fact of the matter is that HP is about witchcraft and has had a MASSIVE amount of interest in young people, to the extent that it has been the most popular children's book in living memory - coincidence?
Actually, as I've said about eighteen times, it's more about love and also its characters than witchcraft per se. Also, if you had read the books, you would know that the magic in them and its mechanics bear no resemblance to what you are probably thinking of as "real witchcraft."


...to be certain in the absence of any "evidence" that she is therefore per se the most reliable person to go to for information is like believing someone who says they didn't commit a murder, just because of a possible shortage of direct evidence - but where there is a huge amount of circumstancial evidence and knowledge of the murder on the part of that person - one should surely be suspicious at least?
Yeah, but you still haven't shown that either of these things exist.


Have you looked at all the other materials that express concern about Harry Potter from a Christian perspective? Are they all rubbush?
First of all, I'd like to correct your assumption that "Christian perspective" on Harry Potter is a monolith - many Christians tolerate, enjoy and even promote the series because of its obviously Christian themes and, in the last book at least, allegory.


OK - turns my stomach even to mention these things, but I need to for your sake:-

Spirit possession
Scrying
Casting spells
Nicolas Flavel
The Hand of Glory
Spirit possession and casting spells go under the "very general references vaguely to legends of magic that require exactly zero seconds of research" category which I already mentioned. (Casting spells, in particular - is there anyone who needs to do research to realize that some people have said that they could cast spells?) So does scrying, but it deserves special mention because to my memory the word is never mentioned in the book and also because the Divination teacher, Trelawney, is characterized as a fraud and charlatan and divination is basically treated as the astrology of the wizarding world (she makes exactly two real prophesies, which I feel I better point out are not an area specific to witchcraft or even magic. [And before you're all like "yeah but those prophesies came from EVIL SPIRITS," I'm also going to point out that prophesies are kept in the Department of Mysteries at the Ministry of Magic, meaning that the wizards do not fully understand them, and their source is never revealed]). Nicolas Flamel was not a wizard/Wiccan, he was an alchemist. (I'd ask for evidence for your claim but, well, never mind.) The Hand of Glory is basically an early-European version of an urban legend; it is not really related to witchcraft and it should be extremelyobvious to everyone here that it would not work (for those who haven't read the books or looked up "Hand of Glory" on Wikipedia, it's a superstition about the hand of a hanged criminal with a candle in it rendering people motionless or, in HP, giving light only to the beholder). Also, it is only ever used by the evil-ish and nasty Draco Malfoy.
So, in conclusion: none of these topics requires any particular familiarity with Wiccanism or even witchcraft. Also, you haven't given evidence that a real-life magic worker or Wiccan has performed scrying or spell-casting successfully or has been possessed by spirits or has made a Hand of Glory that actually worked. Until then, they're just myths.


I have spoken to those who have, so am familiar with many of these things - but I don't see whay I should waste my time - or expose myself to spiritual danger.....
If you're going to try to argue about details in them you should probably have read them or at least know the basic storyline and some relavent facts. Plus, it's not a waste of time: it's an excellent series. And since there's no evidence that even one person has for some reason joined Wiccanism after reading these books, I'd say you're fairly safe.

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. Eph 5:11 NKJV


Maybe "immense" was the wrong word "amazing" would have been better - how many people have heard of Nicolas Flavel? Or The Hand of Glory?
As pointed out above, neither of these things is related to witchcraft. One is an alchemist and one is a 14th-century superstition.



I don't see why I should waste my time trying to prove something is unsuccessful - as one familiar with the books, do you deny that there is reference to Flavel as a 14th century occultist? And the Hand of Glory in the shop? Are these details within the average person's general knowledge? I think not.
Since alchemy is basically a science rather than a fruitless and impossible pursuit in the HP books, Flamel is presented as a scientist who discovered the Philosopher's Stone and has lived for hundreds of years. Nothing occultic there. Also, as pointed out, the Hand of Glory is a superstitious urban legend (altered in the book, and sold only in a Dark magic shop) and not something witches invented or whatever. Also, given the amount of actual information on these things Rowling uses in the book, it would take an estimated ten minutes of reading Wikipedia (which, I know, didn't exist then) to use them as she did.



And would have cost her a few million sales, no doubt! She'll know how unpopular Christianity is!
Actually, she cited membership in the Church of Scotland in 1999, a full eight years before Deathly Hallows came out, and at least by 2002 (five years before DH) was saying that she "believ[ed] in God, not magic." Deathly Hallows was the fastest-selling book in the history of the world.

So, not that unpopular, obviously.



See above.
Ditto.



So that makes it OK, then? And how is that NOT dabbling?
It certainly makes it harmless, yes. Also: If I do a research paper on baseball (assuming she really researched witchcraft/Wicca, which you still have not shown), does that mean I am involved, even a little, with baseball?



OK - a denarius was a day's wage - in today's terms, I'm assuming that's $100 - 165 (apologies if that's an overstatement - here in the UK £50 ($100) a day would be a pretty low wage - maybe things are worse in the US - I was using $$$ because most people on here are from the US.)

A talent was the highest denomination of currency in NT times = 6000 denarii (footnote on Matt 18:24 and 28, equating the denarius with the drachma and a piece of silver in Acts 19:19, New Geneva Study Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1995).

So - $100 x 6000 x 50,000 = $30,000,000,000 = $30 billion.
If a denarius equals one of the silver coins mentioned, that would make it 50,000 denarii, not 300,000,000. I don't see where the talents have to come into it. So that would make it about $5 million worth of books - still a difficult value to come up with in books, but not utterly impossible like $30 billion.



I didn't say this was happening - I said JKR was introducing children (ie to the concept) - not that she was enrolling them - not the same thing - but the spiritual dangers are stil there - if you play with fire,.......
So, that still equals no proof that any kids have been turned on to witchcraft by the books. Conjecture doesn't prove anything.



Well, it was her last HP and she's already got £500+ million - so - hey! - what's she got to lose now? Hmm....what shall it profit.......
See above where I pointed out that she also said it in 1999 and 2002.


So I wonder why she DID choose withcraft over any other fantasy subject.......?
As I've pointed out, the books are not about witchcraft per se, and certainly not about "real" witchcraft. Also, it's not the only fantasy element in the books; almost everything's in there somewhere: dragons, elves, giants, monsters, mermaids, pixies, centaurs, you name it. The fun thing about the books is that all these things are updated and more modern - e.g., the importation of dragons is strictly controlled by a special Wizarding government agency.


It will be a huge number - as I said, the most popular children's book in living memory..........
About 535 million, according to Wikipedia.


Can I finish with a challenge? Are you as zealous in defending the gospel in your daily life as you are JK Rowling?
It's not neccessary, since no one I know ever really attacks the gospel. Actually, no one I actually know ever attacks J.K. Rowling, either, but, well, I was here. Mostly, I was lured in by the promise of laughing at a video that takes The Onion seriously.

9Marksfan
Apr 4th 2008, 09:26 AM
Spirit Possession-Not that I remember.

People being possessed by others' spirits or personalities is throughout the books - I'm not talking about demon possession.


Scrying-There is crystal ball reading, but it is considered imperfect and unreliable. It's basically a joke within the wizarding world.

But it's still there - and works sometimes. Oh, and I forgot mirrir gazing (related) for your deepest desire - with HP, it was his deepest desire to see his parents again, hence he kept gazing in the mirror.


The Hand of Glory- Yes, but this was considered "Dark Magic". In other words, it was considered bad.

The wya it's presented in the book - like everything - is tantalising and fascinating. There's no doubt that it's well-written, which makes it all the more dangerous - ALL the references have an attraction and fascination about them - and many are pagan and occultic. Is this what we should be exposing our kids to?

9Marksfan
Apr 4th 2008, 10:07 AM
Actually, as I've said about eighteen times, it's more about love and also its characters than witchcraft per se. Also, if you had read the books, you would know that the magic in them and its mechanics bear no resemblance to what you are probably thinking of as "real witchcraft."

A little leaven leavens the whole lump - and there's a LOT of leaven in HP!


Yeah, but you still haven't shown that either of these things exist.

I don't need to - I'm critiquing your naive and simplistic approach, which won't wash. You're looking for reasons to justify your love for the HP series, rather than really ask yourself if, as a Christian, such a love is pleasing and acceptable to the LORD, standing His VERY CLEAR prohibition of dabbling in all things occultic in the OT and passages like Acts 19 in the NT - note that God blessed what they did:- "So the Word of God grew mightily and prevailed" Acts 19:20 NKJV


First of all, I'd like to correct your assumption that "Christian perspective" on Harry Potter is a monolith - many Christians tolerate, enjoy and even promote the series because of its obviously Christian themes and, in the last book at least, allegory.

You're right - I should have said "biblical perspective" - Christians can't be trusted to be biblical in their approach these days. Thanks!


Spirit possession and casting spells go under the "very general references vaguely to legends of magic that require exactly zero seconds of research" category which I already mentioned. (Casting spells, in particular - is there anyone who needs to do research to realize that some people have said that they could cast spells?) So does scrying,

The details of how they are practised are not within general knowledge.


but it deserves special mention because to my memory the word is never mentioned in the book

Irrelevant - the practice clearly appears.


and also because the Divination teacher, Trelawney, is characterized as a fraud and charlatan and divination is basically treated as the astrology of the wizarding world (she makes exactly two real prophesies, which I feel I better point out are not an area specific to witchcraft or even magic. [And before you're all like "yeah but those prophesies came from EVIL SPIRITS," I'm also going to point out that prophesies are kept in the Department of Mysteries at the Ministry of Magic, meaning that the wizards do not fully understand them, and their source is never revealed]).

Do you really expect ANYONE to take this justification seriously? Kids are going to think that they work, therefore they'll believe that they DO work - what matters isn't whether it's good or evil - if it WORKS, they'll believe it!


Nicolas Flamel

You fell for my trap! ;)


was not a wizard/Wiccan, he was an alchemist.

And that somehow makes it OK? Do you know what alchemy is?


(I'd ask for evidence for your claim but, well, never mind.)

You've accepted it's true - I could provide it, but I don't want others drawn into things any further.

[qute]The Hand of Glory is basically an early-European version of an urban legend; it is not really related to witchcraft and it should be extremelyobvious to everyone here that it would not work[/quote]

So that makes it OK? Pagans believe it works!


(for those who haven't read the books or looked up "Hand of Glory" on Wikipedia, it's a superstition about the hand of a hanged criminal with a candle in it rendering people motionless or, in HP, giving light only to the beholder).

...and is an established practice within paganism - but hey! - that's OK, because it's not witchcraft!


Also, it is only ever used by the evil-ish and nasty Draco Malfoy.
So, in conclusion: none of these topics requires any particular familiarity with Wiccanism or even witchcraft. Also, you haven't given evidence that a real-life magic worker or Wiccan has performed scrying or spell-casting successfully or has been possessed by spirits or has made a Hand of Glory that actually worked. Until then, they're just myths.

I don't need to prove they work - they are unfruitful deeds of darkness (guess that means among other things that they don't work!) and I'm basically establishing that we as believers ought to have nothing to do with them - because of their source and spiritual influence.


If you're going to try to argue about details in them you should probably have read them or at least know the basic storyline and some relavent facts.

I know probably more than enough as it is.


Plus, it's not a waste of time: it's an excellent series.

You'd have spent your time far more wisely reading the Bible or some good Christian literatire - do you spend much time doing those far more worthwhile activities?


And since there's no evidence that even one person has for some reason joined Wiccanism after reading these books, I'd say you're fairly safe.

The Bible would beg to differ with you.



As pointed out above, neither of these things is related to witchcraft. One is an alchemist and one is a 14th-century superstition.

Alchemy is evil -Flamel sought to obtain immortality by pagan means - the Flamel in HP was over 600 years old - so it appeared to have worked! KJR clearly knew all about Flamel = research or specialised knowledge.


Since alchemy is basically a science rather than a fruitless and impossible pursuit in the HP books,

It's not a conventional science - there is a dark, spiritual side to it.


Flamel is presented as a scientist who discovered the Philosopher's Stone and has lived for hundreds of years. Nothing occultic there.

So how was he able to live so long? Do you know the origin of the Philosopher's Stone?


Also, as pointed out, the Hand of Glory is a superstitious urban legend (altered in the book, and sold only in a Dark magic shop) and not something witches invented or whatever.

But it's a feature of paganism - which is hugley anti-Christian - ever seen The Wicker Man?


so, given the amount of actual information on these things Rowling uses in the book, it would take an estimated ten minutes of reading Wikipedia (which, I know, didn't exist then) to use them as she did.

But that's just it - she must have either known or ready or conducted some research. I rest my case.


Actually, she cited membership in the Church of Scotland in 1999, a full eight years before Deathly Hallows came out,

As someone who grew up in the Church of Scotland and joined it BEFORE I was saved and having been aware of its teachings and practices since then (26 years ago), I think I'm fairly well qualified to say that, for the vast majority of churches, the gospel is never preached and the overwhelming majority of its members know nothing of true biblical Christianinty - it is for the most part a liberal denomination, like the PCUSA.


and at least by 2002 (five years before DH) was saying that she "believ[ed] in God, not magic."

Even the demons believe - and tremble.......


Deathly Hallows was the fastest-selling book in the history of the world.

Nothing to do with her saying what she did in 2002 - but EVERYTHING to do with the almost inexplicible fascination of children and adults alike with the series. This verse comes to mind:-

""And then those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". Rev 17:8 NKJV


So, not that unpopular, obviously.

My point is that, just because something is popular doesn't make it right and good - the German peoiple followed Hitler, didn't they? And this week, around half those eligible to vote in Zimbabwe voted to keep Mugabe in!


It certainly makes it harmless, yes.

:giveup:


Also: If I do a research paper on baseball (assuming she really researched witchcraft/Wicca, which you still have not shown), does that mean I am involved, even a little, with baseball?

Nothing spiritually dangerous about baseball (unless you make it an idol) - EVERYTHING spiritually dangerous about witchcraft, the occult, paganism, etc etc


If a denarius equals one of the silver coins mentioned, that would make it 50,000 denarii, not 300,000,000. I don't see where the talents have to come into it. So that would make it about $5 million worth of books - still a difficult value to come up with in books, but not utterly impossible like $30 billion.

OK - my apologies - I had understood a piece of silver equalled a talent - it doesn't, it equalled a denarius. The talents come into Matthew 18, which also mentions a denarius and in the footnote to the study bible I referred to, equates a drachma (Greek piece of silver) with a denarius.


So, that still equals no proof that any kids have been turned on to witchcraft by the books. Conjecture doesn't prove anything.

As I keep saying, I don't need to prove that - they fact that they're interested and (like you) consider it harmless is success enough for the Enemy.


See above where I pointed out that she also said it in 1999 and 2002.

Like I said, meaningless.


About 535 million, according to Wikipedia.

Well at least we'll agree on that! But I thought you didn't like using Wikipedia as a reference?!?!


It's not neccessary, since no one I know ever really attacks the gospel.

Hmm - well, maybe you haven't spoken to that many people - or haven't really shared the gosple with them - are you saying that most folks you know are OK with the fact that they're going to hell if they're not saved? They don't want to attack the message tht says that Jesus is the ONLY way?


Actually, no one I actually know ever attacks J.K. Rowling, either, but, well, I was here. Mostly, I was lured in by the promise of laughing at a video that takes The Onion seriously.

I'm not here to defend that video - but - like many others on this Forum - I do want to highlight the dangers of this series and the importance of obeying the principles of God's word. I find it very sad that many NON-CHRISTIAN schoolteachers are concerned about it, because they know the dangers of the occult and kids' fascination with the dark side of the supernatural (ouija boards etc) - so it greatly saddens me to find someone here who wants to defend HP as somehow "Christian", "harmless" and "excellent". I know that the Bible does not agree with you........

diffangle
Apr 4th 2008, 02:07 PM
1Sa 15:23 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=1Sa&c=15&v=23&t=KJV#23) For rebellion [is as] the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness [is as] iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of YHWH, he hath also rejected thee from king.

2Ch 33:6 (http://cf.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=2Ch&c=33&v=6&t=KJV#6) And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also [B]he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of YHWH, to provoke Him to anger.

Gal 5:19 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&verse=19&version=kjv#19) Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&verse=20&version=kjv#20) Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Gal&chapter=5&verse=21&version=kjv#21) Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

HisBlood
Apr 4th 2008, 02:25 PM
People being possessed by others' spirits or personalities is throughout the books - I'm not talking about demon possession.

Umm . . . show me where in the books. There are instances in the fifth in which Harry can feel the thoughts and feelings of Voldemort, but I would not count that as "spirit possession". I guess you could be referring to the fifth book in which Harry is briefly "possessed" by Voldemort, but that wasn't enough to count as "throughout the books".



But it's still there - and works sometimes. Oh, and I forgot mirrir gazing (related) for your deepest desire - with HP, it was his deepest desire to see his parents again, hence he kept gazing in the mirror.

Crystal ball gazing never once works in the books. The mirror gazing is not scrying. The mirror showed his deepest desire. He did not set out and purposefully look for the image when he stumbled upon in. I also believe that he thought in the beginning that it was dark magic. If anything, this shows us the destructive power of our deepest desires and obesessions and how it can consume us if we let it. I wouldn't say that lesson is a particular sinister one.


The wya it's presented in the book - like everything - is tantalising and fascinating. There's no doubt that it's well-written, which makes it all the more dangerous - ALL the references have an attraction and fascination about them - and many are pagan and occultic. Is this what we should be exposing our kids to?

Actually, I thought it was kind of frightening and not at all "fascinating" or "tantalizing". If you have taught and grounded your kids in a strong base of Christianity then this should not bother them at all. If you have taught them the difference between fact and fiction then they should not stray into "fantasizing".

Luke34
Apr 5th 2008, 05:31 AM
I don't need to - I'm critiquing your naive and simplistic approach, which won't wash. You're looking for reasons to justify your love for the HP series, rather than really ask yourself if, as a Christian, such a love is pleasing and acceptable to the LORD, standing His VERY CLEAR prohibition of dabbling in all things occultic in the OT and passages like Acts 19 in the NT - note that God blessed what they did:- "So the Word of God grew mightily and prevailed" Acts 19:20 NKJV
I don't think asking for evidence for unfounded and often ridiculous claims and assumptions amounts to a "naïve and simplistic approach." You haven't given evidence for any of these, but merely take them as self-evident when they are the very claims up for debate (for example, your claim/assumption in the paragraph above that reading HP = "dabbling in the occult" - you haven't yet shown that this is true, so I'm not accepting that the Bible passage is relevant). Also, I'm not sure how you determine whether love of a certain book is "pleasing" to God - does it please God if I like Vonnegut? Conrad? Orwell? But "acceptable," I'm going to have to go with "yes."



You're right - I should have said "biblical perspective" - Christians can't be trusted to be biblical in their approach these days. Thanks!
OK, so this changes it from an indefensible blanket statement to a claim that all Christians who don't share your assumptions are being unbiblical.



The details of how they are practised are not within general knowledge.
And are these details included in the book? If I got and somehow obtained a stick made with materials that do not exist, and waved it around and spoke in Dog Latin, could I make something appear? (P.S. Just including wands does not count as "detail," unless you also want to claim that every children's birthday party magician has special knowledge of the occult.) If I went and got a cauldron and dropped in boomslang skin, which does not exi—actually, now that you mention it, most (if not all) of the magical "details" in the HP world require the use of objects that do not exist. So, I'm going to go with "not actually all that detailed."



Do you really expect ANYONE to take this justification seriously? Kids are going to think that they work, therefore they'll believe that they DO work - what matters isn't whether it's good or evil - if it WORKS, they'll believe it!
I don't think so. Kids aren't complete morons, and I can say that with some certainty, having recently been a kid myself (according to legal definitions, I still am). I read Sorcerer's Stone in the second grade, and never for a minute did I even consider that anything in it might be actually real. Neither did anyone I knew. Unless a kid reads these books in, like, preschool, they're going to know that it didn't actually happen (and if they're reading novels in preschool, they're probably smart enough to figure that one out anyway). I'm not sure where this rather common perception comes from that kids are complete idiots who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality, but trust me, it isn't true. (And, kids are also perceptive enough to tell that Trelawney is more or less a complete hack, especially since Prof. McGonagall, one of the most trustworthy characters in the series, basically says so.)



You fell for my trap!
...I see.


And that somehow makes it OK? Do you know what alchemy is?
The attempt to transmute nonprecious metals into gold and discover an "elixir of life" (and, according to Wikipedia, to also find a universal solvent—apparently the alchemists had not yet heard of "water"). And I know that Isaac Newton wrote more papers on the subject than any other. It's an impossible pursuit, of course, but that doesn't make it evil—I assume you don't think that the perpetual-motion quest, also impossible, is evil. (And yes, I know that there were elements of mysticism in it a while ago. But, you have no reason to assume this makes it pagan [unless of course you have a reliable source...] and no reason to assume that this aspect overshadows the more recent and prominent scientific [or pseudoscientific] tacklings of the subject.)


You've accepted it's true - I could provide it, but I don't want others drawn into things any further.
No, I have not accepted that it's true, I just thought it would probably be point- and fruitless to ask you for evidence once again. I would still like evidence if you're going to continue claiming this.


So that makes it OK? Pagans believe it works!
Yeah (if they do—sources?...), but guess what: they have no evidence. So since it goes against all common sense and the laws of nature that this thing works, and since there's no evidence to the contrary, it's safe to assume that it doesn't work. Which means it remains an unfounded superstition. If pagans/witches for some reason adopted the superstition that throwing salt over your left shoulder after spilling some drives away evil spirits, and incorporated it into their practice, but there was still no evidence that it was anything more than a dumb superstition, would putting salt-throwing in a book automatically become "dabbling in the occult"?



...and is an established practice within paganism - but hey! - that's OK, because it's not witchcraft!
Well, you're correct that paganism =/ witchcraft, but see above about how the fact that it doesn't work just makes it something stupid that people do and not automatically "occultic." Also, sources.


I don't need to prove they work - they are unfruitful deeds of darkness (guess that means among other things that they don't work!) and I'm basically establishing that we as believers ought to have nothing to do with them - because of their source and spiritual influence.
You do need to prove that they work, because I thought the whole point about the dangers of occultism was that it brought dark forces into play or whatever, not that people stand around doing stupid stuff like holding up pickled hands with candles in them and trying to make lead into gold.
Also, what do you mean by "nothing to do with them"? It's not like Rowling went out and purchased a Hand of Glory (not that you can, or that it would make any difference), she mentioned its existence and functionality in the fictional HP world and has it play a semi-important plot role once (alchemy is slightly more prominent in Book 1, but it's still just basically a cursory explanation for how the titular Stone came into being). So, should we not even mention superstitions that may or may not, depending on evidence which you may or may not provide, have some connection to paganism, which some see as having connections to witchcraft?



You'd have spent your time far more wisely reading the Bible or some good Christian literatire - do you spend much time doing those far more worthwhile activities?
Some. But it's not like it took me days and months to read the things—I read fast, so it took maybe six or seven hours' reading, total, for the last four, and less for the first three. And it's not like anyone does or should spend all their reading time on the Bible and Christian literature (I actually don't really like "Christian fiction," as the term is usually understood, all that much. For example, things like Ted Dekker's Blink read like someone wrote an OK action-thriller book and kinda shoved in some religious stuff incongruously. I like C.S. Lewis), they read those things and then books they like—and the books I like happen to include Harry Potter.


The Bible would beg to differ with you.
I don't think so.


Alchemy is evil -Flamel sought to obtain immortality by pagan means - the Flamel in HP was over 600 years old - so it appeared to have worked! KJR clearly knew all about Flamel = research or specialised knowledge.
I think I'm going to think up some abbreviation that stands for when I ask you for evidence for stuff. I think I'm going to go with PPS—it stands for "please provide sources" ("reliable" is understood). So, PPS for your claim that Flamel practiced paganism (which, as already noted, =/ witchcraft).

Also, the following is what Rowling needed to know about Flamel to put him in her book:
*His name
*His approximate year of birth
*That he was an alchemist who worked on the Philosopher's Stone
That's not "all about" him. And it's certainly not "specialized" knowledge—it's the kind of knowledge that people who win on Jeopardy! have.

Actually, I've been looking up Flamel sources on my own, and here are some interesting and relevant facts from this bio (http://www.helium.com/items/175837-nicolas-flamel-french-alchemist) (on an articles site called helium.com; the biography is written by someone who apparently has done actual research and who knows what he's talking about):
*The alchemical book which Flamel was obsessed with was written by someone named Abraham the Jew. So, even if you for some reason want to claim that it was actually a pagan/evil source or whatever, it was clear that Flamel did not believe it was.
*Upon becoming fabulously wealthy (not due to the Philosopher's Stone), he donated money to institutions which included churches.
So, not all that evil.


It's not a conventional science - there is a dark, spiritual side to it.
PPS for "dark," and also as noted there has been a more scientific approach since the nineteenth century (as evidenced by the fact that Newton wrote on it).


So how was he able to live so long? Do you know the origin of the Philosopher's Stone?
Um, into his eighties? You know he didn't really live six hundred years, right? And the Philosopher's Stone is a legend.



But it's a feature of paganism - which is hugley anti-Christian - ever seen The Wicker Man?
I don't think horror movies count by themselves as "reliable sources." Also, no, I haven't. And PPS for "feature of paganism."



But that's just it - she must have either known or ready or conducted some research. I rest my case.
So, conducting ten minutes' (probably less) research on subjects which you have not shown to be witchcraft- or even pagan-related, or having Jeopardy!-type knowledge about said subjects, and using them fictionally in a fictional book, counts as "dabbling in the occult"?


As someone who grew up in the Church of Scotland and joined it BEFORE I was saved and having been aware of its teachings and practices since then (26 years ago), I think I'm fairly well qualified to say that, for the vast majority of churches, the gospel is never preached and the overwhelming majority of its members know nothing of true biblical Christianinty - it is for the most part a liberal denomination, like the PCUSA.
The Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian denomination and, as such, of course they read the Gospel. Also, Wikipedia says: "The basis of faith for the Church of Scotland is the Word of God, which it views as being 'contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.'" The only reason I can find that you would call them liberal (OH NO NOT THAT) is that they allow a variety of opinons on matters "not affecting the substance of the faith." But, I'm glad you're in a position to decide which churches contain "true" Christianity.


Even the demons believe - and tremble.......
Look, is there anything I can say that you won't turn against Rowling somehow? If I had said she was an atheist/in another religion, you would've been all "Oh, that's terrible, she's trying to draw kids away from God/Christianity." But when I said "No, she's a Christian, and here're two or three quotes to prove it," you said "Well, she announced it after the last book, so it doesn't matter now, and she's probably not a real Christian because she only said it when she knew it wouldn't hurt sales," and then when I said "No, she said it eight years before the last book came out, and here's a quote to prove it" you're going "Well, that doesn't really matter because demons believe in God too, and also her church isn't really Christian." What do I have to do to convince you that Rowling might, just might, not be a manipulative liar?


Nothing to do with her saying what she did in 2002 - but EVERYTHING to do with the almost inexplicible fascination of children and adults alike with the series. This verse comes to mind:-

""And then those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". Rev 17:8 NKJV
Or, um, maybe they're just well-written and imaginative books. Nothing "almost inexplicable" there.

Also, you said before that she announced her Christianity only after Book 7 because otherwise it would take a million or two copies off the sales. Then I pointed out that she said it eight years previously and also it was the fastest-selling book in the history of the entire world, ever, and now you say the two aren't related at all. My point was that her Christianity was not an impediment to her popularity, which you seemed to think it would be.


My point is that, just because something is popular doesn't make it right and good - the German peoiple followed Hitler, didn't they? And this week, around half those eligible to vote in Zimbabwe voted to keep Mugabe in!
When did I say that HP's popularity made it good? My point was that, as I say, Christianity was not so unpopular as to prevent Rowling from being the fastest-selling author ever.


Nothing spiritually dangerous about baseball (unless you make it an idol) - EVERYTHING spiritually dangerous about witchcraft, the occult, paganism, etc etc
So, it's better to remain completely ignorant of them? I'm not getting your connection of "some rudimentary knowledge of subject = fascination with and involvment with same subject."


As I keep saying, I don't need to prove that - they fact that they're interested and (like you) consider it harmless is success enough for the Enemy.
No, you do need to prove that, because otherwise your claim that HP interests kids in witchcraft is nothing more than just something you said. It has no support whatsoever at all, and I do not know why you're taking it as self-evident.


Like I said, meaningless.
But, it wouldn't have been meaningless if she's waited till late 2007? I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that one. You seemed to think that Rowling was afraid to announce her Christianity because it would hurt sales, while I have provided you with direct evidence that this is completely untrue. So, not meaningless.


Well at least we'll agree on that! But I thought you didn't like using Wikipedia as a reference?!?!
I think you must have me confused with someone else. Wikipedia is the best thing ever (I even bothered to start about seven articles and a userpage).


Hmm - well, maybe you haven't spoken to that many people - or haven't really shared the gosple with them - are you saying that most folks you know are OK with the fact that they're going to hell if they're not saved? They don't want to attack the message tht says that Jesus is the ONLY way?
Even I don't agree with your "everyone except certain Christians is going to hell" theology, but no, no one I know ever attacks the Gospels.



I'm not here to defend that video - but - like many others on this Forum - I do want to highlight the dangers of this series and the importance of obeying the principles of God's word. I find it very sad that many NON-CHRISTIAN schoolteachers are concerned about it,
PPS


because they know the dangers of the occult and kids' fascination with the dark side of the supernatural (ouija boards etc) - so it greatly saddens me to find someone here who wants to defend HP as somehow "Christian", "harmless" and "excellent". I know that the Bible does not agree with you........
And I think you're wasting your time attacking a fiction series which, to either of our knowledge, has not harmed anyone, and which has taught many children to enjoy reading and has improved their schoolwork (source: this study (http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_07252006_CP.htm) on HP and children's reading from The Kids and Family Reading Report, published on Scholastic.com), and which contains Christian themes (source: J.K. Rowling). I also find disturbing your tendency to claim that all Christians who disagree with you (Most of them. Source: This editorial (http://www.saintsalive.com/general/potter2.htm) on a Christian site, which is ridiculous but which contains survey data indicating that forty percent of Christians are fans of the series, seven percent aren't, and fifty-three percent are undecided) are "unbiblical" or not "true" Christians.

diffangle
Apr 5th 2008, 02:00 PM
Even I don't agree with your "everyone except certain Christians is going to hell" theology
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." John 14:6

You don't agree with that?



, but no, no one I know ever attacks the Gospels.


That's wild that you've never heard the whole "There's no proof Jesus ever existed" or " The Scriptures are nothing but the writings of fallible men(iow, not inspired by YHWH/Holy Spirit)" or "there's no proof Jesus did what the Bible says He did", etc. Well if you haven't heard these kinds of questions/accusations before, you definately will once you hit college. How often do you discuss the Scriptures with your non-believing friends?

xSTEADFASTx
Apr 5th 2008, 06:25 PM
it's just a book.

I often wonder what the church though of the industrial revolution.

HisBlood
Apr 5th 2008, 07:57 PM
"I am the way the truth and the life; NO MAN cometh unto the Father BUT BY ME." John 14:6

You don't agree with that?

Not sure, but I think he meant the whole "anybody who goes to this church is not a true Christian and therefore are going to hell" thing.


(I actually don't really like "Christian fiction," as the term is usually understood, all that much. For example, things like Ted Dekker's Blink read like someone wrote an OK action-thriller book and kinda shoved in some religious stuff incongruously. I like C.S. Lewis),

Just as a side-note, you might want to check out Ted Dekker's Circle Trilogy and the other books connected with it. It's actually quite good. He mixes fantasy/supernatural type themes with Christian themes very well.

EarlyCall
Apr 6th 2008, 05:01 AM
If there is anything of witchcraft in these HP books, anything at all, if the books do not speak against witchcraft but rather promote it by any means, be that kindly or otherwise, then they are contrary to God and His word.

And if this is so, that there is witchcraft in the books, any at all, then those trying to defend it, make excuses whatever you will, you go against God and His word.

I find that odd and strange that some claiming to be Christians so easily go against God and His word.

God spoke very harshly against witchcraft. There is not one redeeming factor to it. There is not one thing concerning it that you can find not to be against God and His word.

To defend it then puts you at odds with God. That is a losing proposition.

9Marksfan
Apr 6th 2008, 02:56 PM
If there is anything of witchcraft in these HP books, anything at all, if the books do not speak against witchcraft but rather promote it by any means, be that kindly or otherwise, then they are contrary to God and His word.

And if this is so, that there is witchcraft in the books, any at all, then those trying to defend it, make excuses whatever you will, you go against God and His word.

I find that odd and strange that some claiming to be Christians so easily go against God and His word.

God spoke very harshly against witchcraft. There is not one redeeming factor to it. There is not one thing concerning it that you can find not to be against God and His word.

To defend it then puts you at odds with God. That is a losing proposition.

FANTASTIC post, Early Call! :agree:

9Marksfan
Apr 6th 2008, 04:31 PM
I don't think asking for evidence for unfounded and often ridiculous claims and assumptions amounts to a "naïve and simplistic approach."

Neither do I - that's not what I was saying was naive and simplistic - it's your acceptance of JK Rowling as a Christian that is - as well as your acceptance of the HP series as "harmless" and "excellent" and reading it as "acceptable to God" - time you took your bible seriously, my friend - can i suggest you respond to diffangle's and EarlyCall's posts - they are very much in point - what does the Bible have to say? Not what does JKR or "Christians" - or you or me - WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES? HOW DO YOU READ THEM?


You haven't given evidence for any of these, but merely take them as self-evident when they are the very claims up for debate (for example, your claim/assumption in the paragraph above that reading HP = "dabbling in the occult" - you haven't yet shown that this is true, so I'm not accepting that the Bible passage is relevant).

See EarlyCall's post.


Also, I'm not sure how you determine whether love of a certain book is "pleasing" to God - does it please God if I like Vonnegut? Conrad? Orwell?

Whether it lines up with the principles, express or implied, of His Word.....


But "acceptable," I'm going to have to go with "yes."

Why? on what basis?


OK, so this changes it from an indefensible blanket statement to a claim that all Christians who don't share your assumptions are being unbiblical.

No - it's taking it back to Scripture, which is where this discussion is going now, if I'm to continue in it - if you don't like that, I'm done here.


So, I'm going to go with "not actually all that detailed."

It's dabbling, therefore unbiblical.


I don't think so. Kids aren't complete morons, and I can say that with some certainty, having recently been a kid myself (according to legal definitions, I still am).

I don't doubt you've been a kid recently - but how do you know you're not a moron?!? :lol:

Only a moron would disregard God's commands......


(And yes, I know that there were elements of mysticism in it a while ago. But, you have no reason to assume this makes it pagan

Getting back to Jeopardy, I think it's pretty much common knowledge that alchemy is tied up with wizardry and paganism.....


No, I have not accepted that it's true, I just thought it would probably be point- and fruitless to ask you for evidence once again. I would still like evidence if you're going to continue claiming this.

It does exist, but I don't think there's much mileage in my providing it for you - you'll still find an excuse to justify HP......


Yeah (if they do—sources?...), but guess what: they have no evidence. So since it goes against all common sense and the laws of nature that this thing works, and since there's no evidence to the contrary,

Are you saying the powers of darkness aren't real? What about Pharoah's magicians?


it's safe to assume that it doesn't work. Which means it remains an unfounded superstition.

I'm not going to be drawn into your flawed reasoning.


Well, you're correct that paganism =/ witchcraft, but see above about how the fact that it doesn't work just makes it something stupid that people do and not automatically "occultic."

The prophets of Baal's practices didn't "work" but what they did still angered the LORD - stupid superstition DOES anger the LORD, because it mocks Him and is a form of idolatry - these things are very important.


Also, sources.

:sleeping:


You do need to prove that they work, because I thought the whole point about the dangers of occultism was that it brought dark forces into play or whatever, not that people stand around doing stupid stuff like holding up pickled hands with candles in them and trying to make lead into gold.

Prophets of Baal story again.


So, should we not even mention superstitions that may or may not, depending on evidence which you may or may not provide, have some connection to paganism, which some see as having connections to witchcraft?

Correct - "In evil be infants, but in understanding be mature" 1 Cor 14:20 ESV

As my pastor when I was a student said once, "When it comes to these things, you can be as innocent as you like".


Some.

Can I encourage you to read it a bit more? What more important book is there to read?


But it's not like it took me days and months to read the things—I read fast, so it took maybe six or seven hours' reading, total, for the last four, and less for the first three. And it's not like anyone does or should spend all their reading time on the Bible and Christian literature

Well I do for the most part - and I think people should consider it - I think it's all about wise stewardship of time and worshipping God with all our mind - not pleasing ourselves in what we fill our minds with.


(I actually don't really like "Christian fiction," as the term is usually understood, all that much. For example, things like Ted Dekker's Blink read like someone wrote an OK action-thriller book and kinda shoved in some religious stuff incongruously.

I'm not talking about Christian fiction - I'm talking about solid books written either recently or classics over the centuries that help you understand the faith better and/or apply it to everyday living - there are 1000s of such books out there and 100s out of them that are really excellent, such that every Christian who is an avid reader (as you clearly are) should read.


I like C.S. Lewis),

So do I - for Christian fantasy fiction, you can't get better, imho - The end of The Last Battle is one of the most moving pieces of literature I've ever read. Have you read Pilgrim's Progress? Or Bunyan's other stuff (eg the Holy War)?


they read those things and then books they like—and the books I like happen to include Harry Potter.[quote]

Clearly......

[quote]I think I'm going to think up some abbreviation that stands for when I ask you for evidence for stuff. I think I'm going to go with PPS—it stands for "please provide sources" ("reliable" is understood). So, PPS for your claim that Flamel practiced paganism (which, as already noted, =/ witchcraft).

He wanted to gain immortality apart from Christ - nuff said.


Also, the following is what Rowling needed to know about Flamel to put him in her book:
*His name
*His approximate year of birth
*That he was an alchemist who worked on the Philosopher's Stone

What about his desire for immortality?


That's not "all about" him. And it's certainly not "specialized" knowledge—it's the kind of knowledge that people who win on Jeopardy! have.

I challenge that - prove it! :lol:


The alchemical book which Flamel was obsessed with was written by someone named Abraham the Jew. So, even if you for some reason want to claim that it was actually a pagan/evil source or whatever, it was clear that Flamel did not believe it was.

Why? Plenty of Jews in OT times were involved in pagan idolatry - one of the reasons God had to forbid it! Abraham the Jew was clearly one of such people!


*Upon becoming fabulously wealthy (not due to the Philosopher's Stone),

Hmm - coincidence with JKR's fabulous wealth? :hmm: How DID he get that wealth?


he donated money to institutions which included churches.
So, not all that evil.

Actually, unless he was a Christian, then God says that, at best, such giving is "nothing" and at worst, it actually added to his condemnation - if that shocks you, you don't know your bible that well....


PPS for "dark," and also as noted there has been a more scientific approach since the nineteenth century (as evidenced by the fact that Newton wrote on it).

Irrelevant.


Um, into his eighties? You know he didn't really live six hundred years, right?

Of course - but I'm referring to the Flamel in HP! :B


And the Philosopher's Stone is a legend.

Still a pagan one.....


I don't think horror movies count by themselves as "reliable sources." Also, no, I haven't. And PPS for "feature of paganism."

I have it on good authority that The Wicker Man is VERY accurate on pagan practices.....


So, conducting ten minutes' (probably less)

Prove it!


research on subjects which you have not shown to be witchcraft- or even pagan-related,

I have - you won't listen!


or having Jeopardy!-type knowledge about said subjects,

Prove it!


and using them fictionally in a fictional book, counts as "dabbling in the occult"?

EarlyCall's post again!


The Church of Scotland is a Presbyterian denomination and, as such, of course they read the Gospel.

I spent 18 years growing up in one - I was an active member of three and an adherent of one for approximately 10 years during my life as a believer therafter- I have visited several others in my lifetime and what I can tell you is that scant regard is given to the gospel in the vast majority of them. Two minutes reading a Wikipedia article and pretending you know what you are talking about (and better than me) is as insulting as it is ridiculous.


Also, Wikipedia says: "The basis of faith for the Church of Scotland is the Word of God, which it views as being 'contained

Yep - there's the liberals "get out" clause - it should read "comprising" the OT and NT - this allows them to say that certain parts aren't the Word of God because it's only CONTAINED in it!


in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.'" The only reason I can find that you would call them liberal (OH NO NOT THAT)

Please tell me what is good abot having a liberal approach to the Christian faith.


is that they allow a variety of opinons on matters "not affecting the substance of the faith."

In other words, anything goes! Which it does!


But, I'm glad you're in a position to decide which churches contain "true" Christianity.

A Christian should be able to make right judgements about these things by testing them against the Word of God - that's what most people on this Forum seek to do - so should you!


Look, is there anything I can say that you won't turn against Rowling somehow?

A credible Christian testimony would be a start! And if I'd heard that she'd repented of her evil deeds by following the practice of the converted magicians who had also made their fortune from witchcraft in Acts 19, I'd love to embrace her as a sister in Christ and write a book about her!


What do I have to do to convince you that Rowling might, just might, not be a manipulative liar?

Nothing until she repents of having led millions of kids into thinking that wichcraft is a exciting/harmless/a whole lot of fun. She's hardly made a big thing of whatever "faith" she has, has she? One reference before HP was really big, another in 2002 and one after she's written the last book - and nothing really convincing, if you know what the bible's definition of a Christian is.....


Or, um, maybe they're just well-written and imaginative books. Nothing "almost inexplicable" there.

But ANY book series that has sold as phenomenally as HP has requires an explanation - especially when children's books are "old hat" and he last was the fastest selling book ever, as you say - it seems that people are spellbound by him - and they most surely are.....


Also, you said before that she announced her Christianity only after Book 7 because otherwise it would take a million or two copies off the sales. Then I pointed out that she said it eight years previously and also it was the fastest-selling book in the history of the entire world, ever, and now you say the two aren't related at all. My point was that her Christianity was not an impediment to her popularity, which you seemed to think it would be.

She's never come out and said she's born again, has she?


When did I say that HP's popularity made it good? My point was that, as I say, Christianity was not so unpopular as to prevent Rowling from being the fastest-selling author ever.

Complete non-sequitur......


So, it's better to remain completely ignorant of them?

Yes - 1 Cor 14:20, Eph 5:11


I'm not getting your connection of "some rudimentary knowledge of subject = fascination with and involvment with same subject."

One can (and does) lead to the other.


No, you do need to prove that, because otherwise your claim that HP interests kids in witchcraft is nothing more than just something you said. It has no support whatsoever at all, and I do not know why you're taking it as self-evident.

:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:


But, it wouldn't have been meaningless if she's waited till late 2007? I'm pretty sure you'd be all over that one. You seemed to think that Rowling was afraid to announce her Christianity because it would hurt sales, while I have provided you with direct evidence that this is completely untrue. So, not meaningless.

I'm sure that whatever was contained in the final story would have reduced sales if she'd given the game away - the hype and the excitement about it just made more and more people want to find out what was in it - had they known that there were Christian overtones, I think many wiuld have refused to buy it. We live in a non-Christian world......


I think you must have me confused with someone else. Wikipedia is the best thing ever (I even bothered to start about seven articles and a userpage).

:rolleyes:


Even I don't agree with your "everyone except certain Christians is going to hell" theology,

OK - what is your theology, then? I see you haven't ansered diffangle's post yet.


but no, no one I know ever attacks the Gospels.

I'm not talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the very fact that you think I am makes me wonder if you understand the term "gospel" -please define it (WITHOUT looking up Wikipedia!!!!!)



PPS

:monkeyd:


And I think you're wasting your time attacking a fiction series which, to either of our knowledge, has not harmed anyone,

Prove it! :lol:


and which has taught many children to enjoy reading and has improved their schoolwork (source: this study (http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/news/press_07252006_CP.htm) on HP and children's reading from The Kids and Family Reading Report, published on Scholastic.com), and which contains Christian themes (source: J.K. Rowling).

Interesting you can't produce any other sources!


I also find disturbing your tendency to claim that all Christians who disagree with you (Most of them. Source: This editorial (http://www.saintsalive.com/general/potter2.htm) on a Christian site, which is ridiculous but which contains survey data indicating that forty percent of Christians are fans of the series, seven percent aren't, and fifty-three percent are undecided) are "unbiblical" or not "true" Christians.

Well it just shows the state of Christianity today if that's what the average Christian thinks! Please respond to EarlyCall's superb post - I'm not going to be responding to such posts again - let's see what the Bible says and seek to follow it, shall we?

TheDayIsComing
Apr 6th 2008, 05:24 PM
My guess is that most people on this forum have either read some of the Harry Potter books or have seen some of the Harry Potter movies, or you have children who are very much into these things.

If so, this is a YouTube video that you have GOT to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKfFnABBis

Most people think that Harry Potter is a safe, fun, fantasy world that is great entertainment for our children, but as the film shockingly shows, that is not the case at all.

Did you know that the Harry Potter series describes witchcraft and the Occult with amazing precision and accuracy?

Did you know that the Harry Potter series is doing an amazing job of recriting our children into Occult religions?

One of the most stunning things in the film is the way that children describe the impact that Harry Potter has had on them. What the children have to say about Harry Potter will blow your mind.

Trust me, you will never look at Harry Potter the same way again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iKfFnABBis

So what do you all think? After learning the things in the YouTube clip I know my outlook is different. Do the rest of you still think Harry Potter is a good thing for our society?

Yep, if you are a Christian, you should NOT want to watch or read any of those. It should be disgraceful to you. You should hate it.

Luke34
Apr 6th 2008, 07:04 PM
Neither do I
Apparently you don't find it an acceptable approach either, though, or you would actually provide such evidence.

- that's not what I was saying was naive and simplistic - it's your acceptance of JK Rowling as a Christian that is
So, instead of taking people's word for their religious beliefs when there is no evidence to the contrary (you haven't shown me any, at least), it's better to doubt them for no reason, take a holier-than-thou approach and insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is not a true Christian?
- as well as your acceptance of the HP series as "harmless" and "excellent" and reading it as "acceptable to God" - time you took your bible seriously, my friend - can i suggest you respond to diffangle's and EarlyCall's posts - they are very much in point - what does the Bible have to say? Not what does JKR or "Christians" - or you or me - WHAT SAITH
Any particular reason you're using archaic verb forms? (Or all capitals, for that matter.)

THE SCRIPTURES? HOW DO YOU READ THEM?
OK, I'm going to go ahead and just say this: I am not arguing that the Bible prohibits the practice of witchcraft. Please stop telling me this. I am arguing that Harry Potter =/ witchcraft or even "dabbling" in witchcraft, and thus the Bible's prohibition is not relavent on this issue.* The correct way to argue with me or to prove me wrong on this issue is to show me, since the burden of proof is on you, that reading or writing Harry Potter does constitute witchcraft. The incorrect way to do this is to use a bunch of smiley faces whenever I ask you for any evidence at all, which by looking through your post I can see you have done many times.

(A secondary argument would be that not everything in the Bible applies to everybody everwhere all the time forever. For example, one theory for why Hebrew men were required to grow beards was that this distinguished them from the clean-shaven pagan tribes who lived around the same time and place. The prohibition on shaving does not mean that not having a beard is EVIL EVIL EVIL.)



See EarlyCall's post.
That says "if" HP constitutes witchcraft. It does not show that it does.


Whether it lines up with the principles, express or implied, of His Word.....
It's not always possible to determine this. For example, take Upton Sinclair's The Jungle. The correct question to ask in this case, according to your method, would be "Does criticizing conditions in the meat-packing industry in the early twentieth-century United States line up with the Bible's principles?" Obviously this subject is not addressed directly, so the only thing you could do would be to go through the Bible and find some passage general enough so that you could either approve of or condemn the book (in many cases, I'm guessing, you could find both). So in this type of case you're not actually applying the Bible to the book, you're guessing that certain passages could possibly be applied to it if you interpereted them loosely enough. And wouldn't it please God merely if an author used God's gift of writing to its fullest and produced a masterpiece?

Also, how are you supposed to know whether a book "lines up with" the Bible if you haven't yet read it?


Why? on what basis?
Because I have not seen any reason to believe otherwise, and going with my hypothesis about literary gifts up above there, I believe that (all other things being equal) God is pleased when someone uses one of His gifts to the fullest.


No - it's taking it back to Scripture, which is where this discussion is going now, if I'm to continue in it - if you don't like that, I'm done here.
No, it's taking it back to your interpretation of Scripture, and your refusal to either consider that anyone with a different one could have a valid point or even merely to listen to them.


It's dabbling, therefore unbiblical.
This is one of those unsupported claims you keep making, and then I ask you to support it, and then you just say it again...

Plus, the discussion in the section you responded to wasn't on whether HP constituted dabbling, it was on whether its depections of magical practices were detailed or not. I pointed out that the details of magical practice in the book require nonexistent objects, and therefore it was impossible for the details to be real. Your response has, basically, nothing to do with any of that. So does that mean you've accepted that there are no details of "real" magical practice in Harry Potter, or did you just decide to respond with a non sequitur for reasons best known to yourself?


I don't doubt you've been a kid recently - but how do you know you're not a moron?!?
You're just going to have to trust me on this one. Yes, I can give you sources if you really really want them, but it would feel too much like I was being prideful (even saying that kind of did), so just take my word for it that I'm not a complete idiot.


Only a moron would disregard God's commands......
I'm assuming this is meant to apply to me, so, um, yay for ad hominem!


Getting back to Jeopardy, I think it's pretty much common knowledge that alchemy is tied up with wizardry and paganism.....
If it's that common, shouldn't you be able to show me instead of just telling me?


It does exist, but I don't think there's much mileage in my providing it for you - you'll still find an excuse to justify HP......
See, the thing about evidence is that you actually have to produce it for it to work for you in an argument. You can't just say "it exists, but I'm not going to show you." Even if you don't think it'll win the argument for you, you still have to produce it if you want to continue making a claim that I have called into question (and be taken seriously).


Are you saying the powers of darkness aren't real? What about Pharoah's magicians?
"Transforming" a staff into a snake probably wouldn't be all that difficult for a good illusionist. I'm not saying that Pharaoh's magicians were neccessarily sleight-of-handers instead of actual sorcerers, but it's possible that they were. Anyway, that's not the point because no, that's not what I'm saying. I was saying that there's no evidence that the Hand of Glory works, which there still isn't. Even if you accept that "dark powers" may have at one or more times been used for magical effects, you don't need to believe people every time they claim that they can break the laws of nature. If the only evidence that a pickled hand can do anything is some people saying it can, I'm not going to believe that.


I'm not going to be drawn into your flawed reasoning.
Nope, not flawed. The absence of evidence that a superstition is anything more than that means that it is still a superstition. I don't really see how you can argue against that, but if you can, please do so instead of just pretending that it's flawed. Or at least say how it's supposedly flawed, for heaven's sake. (On the other hand, if by "I'm not going to be drawn into your flawed reasoning" you mean "There is no way to argue that, but I'm going to try anyway," then, good! We agree!")


The prophets of Baal's practices didn't "work" but what they did still angered the LORD - stupid superstition DOES anger the LORD, because it mocks Him and is a form of idolatry - these things are very important.
So, if you believe that opening an umbrella inside the house is bad luck, or that Madalyn Murray O'Hair attempted to ban Christian broadcasting from the airwaves (look it up on Snopes), that makes God mad? There's a difference between baseless urban legends and idol-worship. Baal's prophets were praying to a god of their own creation; superstitous people believe in some stupid legend because they heard it somewhere and they haven't looked into it and found out it doesn't work.

:sleeping:
Smiley faces don't save you from having to argue correctly.



Prophets of Baal story again.
What I said about prophets of Baal story again.


Correct - "In evil be infants, but in understanding be mature" 1 Cor 14:20 ESV

As my pastor when I was a student said once, "When it comes to these things, you can be as innocent as you like".
Is there any particular reason to believe that that verse refers to the knowledge of evil instead of its practice? That makes more sense to me. I assume you don't think criminologists are sinning for knowing a lot about criminals.


Can I encourage you to read it a bit more?
I guess, but I don't have huge amounts of time for reading anything right now.


Well I do for the most part - and I think people should consider it - I think it's all about wise stewardship of time and worshipping God with all our mind - not pleasing ourselves in what we fill our minds with.
I'll read whatever's good. If I have to choose between poorly-written or uninteresting Christian lit and, say, Catch-22, I'll take the latter every time.


I'm not talking about Christian fiction - I'm talking about solid books written either recently or classics over the centuries that help you understand the faith better and/or apply it to everyday living - there are 1000s of such books out there and 100s out of them that are really excellent, such that every Christian who is an avid reader (as you clearly are) should read.
I have read some. Mere Christianity is excellent, as is The Reason for God by Timothy Keller, which I don't know if it's out yet because I have the advance reader's copy, but which if it is you should definitely read. Strobel's The Case for Christ was good, although he fell off a bit with the later books. Christ Among Us is good as well; it specifically addresses Catholicism but much of it can be applied to any Christian denomination.


So do I - for Christian fantasy fiction, you can't get better, imho - The end of The Last Battle is one of the most moving pieces of literature I've ever read. Have you read Pilgrim's Progress? Or Bunyan's other stuff (eg the Holy War)?
I wasn't really referring to the Chronicles when I mentioned Lewis. They're fine, but I enjoy The Screwtape Letters a lot more. Also The Great Divorce. And I've only read an excerpt from Bunyan; I'd like to read the whole thing (also Vaughan Williams wrote an opera on it).


He wanted to gain immortality apart from Christ - nuff said.
I don't think that's neccessarily paganistic. It's not a specifically Christian desire, but then not all historical figures are Christians, and writers can't be expected to include only Christian ones in their work. Self-preservation is quite a basic instinct, and outside of religion it makes sense that Flamel would want to pursue immortality.


I challenge that - prove it!
OK, let's see. Flamel was a rather obscure man who is well-known only among a certain group of people (alchemists) for a "discovery" he made (the Philosopher's Stone). This "Tournament of Champions" Jeopardy! episode (http://www.j-archive.com/showgame.php?game_id=2162) from Nov. 6, 2007 features a question about Robert Brown, a rather obscure man who is well-known only among a certain group of people (botanists) for a discovery he made (the movement of particles in a liquid). It was answered correctly by someone who had already won a Jeopardy! episode.


Why? Plenty of Jews in OT times were involved in pagan idolatry - one of the reasons God had to forbid it! Abraham the Jew was clearly one of such people!
Again, PPS for the claim that alchemy is "pagan idolatry."


Hmm - coincidence with JKR's fabulous wealth? :hmm: How DID he get that wealth?
I don't know, but without evidence to the contrary, it's a safe bet it wasn't by breaking the laws of nature.


Actually, unless he was a Christian, then God says that, at best, such giving is "nothing" and at worst, it actually added to his condemnation - if that shocks you, you don't know your bible that well....
My intent by mentioning that was to raise the possibility that he may have been a Christian. I don't know why he would give to churches if he weren't. Plus, Europe at that time was pretty heavily Christian.


Irrelevant.
No, it isn't. It demonstrates that for all practical purposes alchemy is now a psuedoscience instead of a mystical pursuit.


Of course - but I'm referring to the Flamel in HP!
Well then of course it's because he discovered the Stone. My original claim, long ago, was that this does not make it occultic. So, now we've come full circle.



Still a pagan one.....
PPS



I have it on good authority that The Wicker Man is VERY accurate on pagan practices.....
Really? Then which authority?


Prove it!
Fine: Googling "Nicolas Flamel" results in at least three results with all the neccessary information on Flamel on their first pages (not counting Wikipedia, which didn't exist back then). It took me thirty seconds to find his name, birthdate, and a mention of the Philosopher's Stone in each of them.



I have - you won't listen!
No, you haven't. I would definitely remember it if you'd provided any actual evidence. Claiming stuff does not count.


Prove it!
Done.


EarlyCall's post again!
It did not demonstrate this, as I said.



I spent 18 years growing up in one - I was an active member of three and an adherent of one for approximately 10 years during my life as a believer therafter- I have visited several others in my lifetime and what I can tell you is that scant regard is given to the gospel in the vast majority of them. Two minutes reading a Wikipedia article and pretending you know what you are talking about (and better than me) is as insulting as it is ridiculous.
I know that you have visited them and thus do have some knowledge, but that does not mean you are the ultimate authority on the Scottish church, to be trusted above all others. Particularly as your definition of "scant regard" to the Gospel is probably different from mine, given your tendency to call people unbiblical all the time. They did read the Bible at these services, did they not? (Also, the denomination is associated with Presbyterianism, which services I have been to. So my only experience with Scottish-church-related subjects is not two minutes' reading.)


Yep - there's the liberals "get out" clause - it should read "comprising" the OT and NT - this allows them to say that certain parts aren't the Word of God because it's only CONTAINED in it!
Actually, if you're going to use a form of "comprise," it should read "comprised of." But this is useless semantics, especially as Merriam-Webster's entry for contain (http://mw4.m-w.com/dictionary/contain) includes comprise as a synonym.


Please tell me what is good abot having a liberal approach to the Christian faith.
Really, your application of the Bible's witchcraft passages to Harry Potter could be construed as a "liberal" - i.e., not literal and exact - interpretation. In addition, any call for progressive reform within any church is de facto liberalism - liberals are the reason women are allowed to preach in many churches as well as the reason the Protestant denominations exist at all.


In other words, anything goes! Which it does!
No, that's not what that means. That's why it contains the clause "not affecting the substance of the faith." For example, a belief that Jesus was only man would affect the substance of Christian faith. A belief that gay civil unions should be allowed would not.

Luke34
Apr 6th 2008, 07:05 PM
A Christian should be able to make right judgements about these things by testing them against the Word of God - that's what most people on this Forum seek to do - so should you!
Again, remember that you're testing it against your interpretation of the Bible, and that your interpretation may not always be the correct one.


A credible Christian testimony would be a start!
I can't think of anything she could say that would constitute this to your mind.


Nothing until she repents of having led millions of kids into thinking that wichcraft is a exciting/harmless/a whole lot of fun.
PPS

She's hardly made a big thing of whatever "faith" she has, has she? One reference before HP was really big, another in 2002 and one after she's written the last book - and nothing really convincing, if you know what the bible's definition of a Christian is.....
Again, what would constitute "convincing" to you? Anything? And seeing as her most successfully-selling book is laced through with Christian themes, I'd say that's a pretty "big thing." Anyway, she's famous as an author, not as a member of the Church of Scotland. So her interviews and public statments are going to involve her primarily in the first capacity.


But ANY book series that has sold as phenomenally as HP has requires an explanation - especially when children's books are "old hat" and he last was the fastest selling book ever, as you say - it seems that people are spellbound by him - and they most surely are.....
The series is not really children's literature in the same way that, I dunno, Beverly Cleary is. Its main characters are teenagers beginning at book 3, and the later stories are quite "dark" (in the literary sense), containing murder (incl. of innocents), the deaths of beloved characters, torture (to insanity, in two cases), frightening descriptions of monsters and villains, horrific bodily injury, etc. etc.


She's never come out and said she's born again, has she?
She's said "I'm a Christian," but it doesn't really matter because you're not going to believe anything she says about herself. (The term "born again" isn't in all that common use in all denominations, anyway.)


Complete non-sequitur......
Um, no, it was related to the original point. You claimed that Christianity would be unpopular enough to cost Rowling millions of sales. I pointed out that this was untrue.

Yes - 1 Cor 14:20, Eph 5:11
I've already addressed the first passage, and the second doesn't relate to knowledge either (e.g., to use my previous example, would being a criminologist be "having anything to do with" crime?).


One can (and does) lead to the other.
PPS. Actually, I know this isn't true, so don't bother. I have a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, but it does not fascinate me.


:sleeping::sleeping::sleeping:
Again, smileys are no way to weasel out of having to make actual points instead of just saying stuff and then repeating them. Seriously, this blatant evasiveness on your part is becoming frustrating.


I'm sure that whatever was contained in the final story would have reduced sales if she'd given the game away - the hype and the excitement about it just made more and more people want to find out what was in it - had they known that there were Christian overtones, I think many wiuld have refused to buy it. We live in a non-Christian world......
Except that she revealed that it contained Christian themes before it actually came out (for example, her quote about giving away the ending is contained in this WorldNetDaily article (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56634), published on July 12, 2007 - over a week before the book came out). So, this hypothesis of yours doesn't work either.


:rolleyes:
Um...sorry? Should I not have added to Wikipedia for some reason?


OK - what is your theology, then? I see you haven't ansered diffangle's post yet.
OK, my theology isn't really relavent to this at all, but I will say that I believe that those in other religions or of no religion, particularly those who have not heard of Christianity or had it adequately explained to them, do have a chance to accept Christ, whether through their actions or after they die - I don't know. It just seems to arbitrary and cruel any other way - only those who have been fortunate enough to hear the Christian message thoroughly and competently explained, and have the capacity to understand it, have even a chance at eternal life? I don't believe so. But, again, this isn't about me, and I probably won't discuss it any further.


I'm not talking about Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the very fact that you think I am makes me wonder if you understand the term "gospel" -please define it (WITHOUT looking up Wikipedia!!!!!)
"Gospel" means good news, and, as far as I've ever heard, refers to the entire existence, purpose and message of Christ - i.e., the New Testament.

:monkeyd:
This isn't, technically, a smiley, but even a dancing monkey (?) will not suffice as a reasoned and well-supported argument.


Prove it! :lol:
I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that it has, otherwise the assumption is that it has not.


Interesting you can't produce any other sources!
She's the author, for heaven's sake. If you can't trust her on what she believes then at least trust her on her own work, particularly as you believe her saying this makes her unpopular. (Also, one source is still infinity more percent than you have provided.)


Well it just shows the state of Christianity today if that's what the average Christian thinks! Please respond to EarlyCall's superb post - I'm not going to be responding to such posts again - let's see what the Bible says and seek to follow it, shall we?
OK, but let's also keep in mind that our own interpretations of the Bible may not be absolutely correct all the time ever, and that people who disagree with them may not be "morons" and may actually have valid points. Let's also not assume that every Christian with different views than our own is nonbiblical or non-Christian, and refrain from making holier-than-thou statements about "the state of Christianity today."

Shall we?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 07:36 PM
He wanted to gain immortality apart from Christ - nuff said

What does wanting to do something outside of Christianity have anything to do with paganism? Do you know what paganism is?


Are you saying the powers of darkness aren't real? What about Pharoah's magicians?

Of course they're real, and even if they weren't, we have a great habit of making them more real than they actually are. Yay for the bad guys!


HOW DO YOU READ THEM?


Top to bottom; left to right, most generally in English.


you'll still find an excuse to justify HP......

I won't, I'v never read any of the books, though I have seen each movie. They're fairly entertaining for 2 hours, but not worth a 2nd watch.


Plenty of Jews in OT times were involved in pagan idolatry

I assume you're referring to Qabalah.

I also don't see how alchemy is automatically a pagan practice, again, it makes me think you don't have much understanding of what paganism is.


Hmm - coincidence with JKR's fabulous wealth?

What does that even mean? Is she wrong for becoming wealthy? I don't understand what you're saying here.


I have it on good authority that The Wicker Man is VERY accurate on pagan practices.....

I don't know what "good authority," but so far I haven't seen an understanding from you on just what paganism is. It's not like all paganism is exactly the same, you know.

Harry Potter might be dangerous and it might be wrong, but you're method of arguing is weak. I wouldn't suggest any format of public speaking or debate for you, unless it involved an audience that wasn't able to respond.

Athanasius
Apr 6th 2008, 09:34 PM
Reading the books and watching the movies are two completely different things. It would be like watching the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy and writing a book report based off the movies--you'd be missing out on so much material. In keeping with that I find it peculiar that people fancy themselves able to speak on the Harry Potter books when all they've seen are the movies. . . . But moving on from that, because I think that's a little too nit picky and probably offensive.

Perhaps it is the distinction between 'white' and 'black' magick that is confusing for some. That it is say that there really is no distinction and whether or not Harry, Ron, Hermione (and whomever else) use sorcery, shapshifting, soothsaying and astrology for 'good' is exactly the point Christians should be picking up on. Magick, whether considered 'white' or 'black' by the user, is Satanic in origin, and all 'black', regardless of what the user believes their application to be. Part of the danger in the Harry Potter books is the blurring between good and evil to the point of having difficulty in telling just who is good or evil.

But what about the Lord of the Rings?! What about it? I don't recall the Lord of the Rings' protagonists lying, using an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy or being the progenitors of moral relativism. This alone should be enough reasons why Harry Potter and the children of Christian parents shouldn't mix. (Harry, Ron and Hermione lie, cheat, break rules and justify it throughout the series; good moral foundation? No. . .) And magick? Do you mean to tell me that no one acknowledges the reality that the Lord of the Rings is set in a completely separate universe from our own (Arda, in Middle earth); Harry Potter is written as if you could almost touch it; modern day England. As mentioned above there seems to be no good or evil in Harry Potter, while in the Lord of the Rings there is a definite evil that can only be defeated by a definite good. And by the way, the good guys aren't using the tools of the bad guys, as they are in in Harry Potter. Most obvious of all is the sparing reference to magick in the Lord of the Rings, while it's a central theme in the Harry Potter books. It was Tolkien who said about the use of magick in his books, "Their {i.e., the Elves, Maiar, and the Valar} “magic” is Art…And its object is Art not power, sub-creation not domination."

Now with all of that said, I don't believe Rowling is intentionally trying to dismantle Christianity or undermind its values. The books I did enjoy reading, but I read these books with an already decent understanding of the Occult. I would never recommend these books to any Christians. They are spiritually dangerous and I would not wish any child of Christian parents to get caught up in them. 9MarksFan is absolutely right in his criticisms of these books. I think the following speaks for itself and hopefully isn't representative of younger Christians.





THE SCRIPTURES? HOW DO YOU READ THEM?


OK, I'm going to go ahead and just say this: I am not arguing that the Bible prohibits the practice of witchcraft. Please stop telling me this. I am arguing that Harry Potter =/ witchcraft or even "dabbling" in witchcraft, and thus the Bible's prohibition is not relavent on this issue.* The correct way to argue with me or to prove me wrong on this issue is to show me, since the burden of proof is on you, that reading or writing Harry Potter does constitute witchcraft. The incorrect way to do this is to use a bunch of smiley faces whenever I ask you for any evidence at all, which by looking through your post I can see you have done many times.

The point isn't that 'reading Harry Potter constitutes witchcraft'. The point is that Harry Potter advocates the use of withcraft. The Bible's warnings concerning witchcraft are extremely relevant. Especially since this is supposedly a discussion between Christians.

A820djd
Apr 6th 2008, 10:00 PM
Heck, I'd say more people are being converted into being pirates (Pirates of the Caribbean) than people are trying to become wizards or witches.


I'd say Ninja's... SH SHAAAA Fft fftt

Luke34
Apr 6th 2008, 10:13 PM
But what about the Lord of the Rings?! What about it? I don't recall the Lord of the Rings' protagonists lying, using an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy or being the progenitors of moral relativism. This alone should be enough reasons why Harry Potter and the children of Christian parents shouldn't mix. (Harry, Ron and Hermione lie, cheat, break rules and justify it throughout the series; good moral foundation? No. . .)
Since when do protagonists have to be perfect? Also, while there is some petty lying etc. because of homework or whatever, mostly they break rules ultimately to defeat Voldemort - if there ever was a reason to break school regulations, bringing about the downfall of the most evil man in the world is probably it.

As mentioned above there seems to be no good or evil in Harry Potter, while in the Lord of the Rings there is a definite evil that can only be defeated by a definite good.
I know you've actually read the books, but I have to ask why you don't think there is the same thing in Harry Potter. Voldemort is obviously and always evil, and Harry, Dumbledore et al. are always, while not perfect, basically good. In fact, some reviewers complained of a too-delianated moral dichotomy in the books. (The only real gray-area character, it seems to me, is Snape, and maybe Pettigrew and Malfoy.)


And by the way, the good guys aren't using the tools of the bad guys, as they are in in Harry Potter.
The HP good guys don't use all the same tools as the bad guys - magic whose only purpose is to harm needlessly (Sectumsempra, the Cruciatus Curse, Fiendfyre) is considered to only be used by Dark magicians. When Harry et al. use magic to harm, it is for defensive or preemtive strikes against foes (except a few times when Harry uses Dark magic in anger). And I realize what you said above about how all "real" magic is dark or whatever, but these are not "real" spells and the HP methods of magic do not work - so the books' magic is purely fictional.


Most obvious of all is the sparing reference to magick in the Lord of the Rings, while it's a central theme in the Harry Potter books. It was Tolkien who said about the use of magick in his books, "Their {i.e., the Elves, Maiar, and the Valar} “magic” is Art…And its object is Art not power, sub-creation not domination."
The goal of magic in HP is not really either power (for the good guys) or "art" - basically it's just there to be used, like a tool.


The point isn't that 'reading Harry Potter constitutes witchcraft'. The point is that Harry Potter advocates the use of withcraft. The Bible's warnings concerning witchcraft are extremely relevant. Especially since this is supposedly a discussion between Christians.
I didn't mean "not relevant" in the sense of "obsolete," I meant it in the sense of "does not apply to this issue" (the same way that the Bible's passages about, say, drinking do not apply here). And it doesn't "advocate" the use of witchcraft - it creates a fictional world in which characters use a completely fictional type of process that bears superficial resemblance to practices which in the real world are traditionally associated with "witchcraft." I think we can all agree that none of the magic in HP actually works in the real world, and thus it cannot really be said to advocate anything (does Star Wars advocate the use of weapons powered with crystals made on Tattooine?).

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 10:15 PM
Reading the books and watching the movies are two completely different things. It would be like watching the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy and writing a book report based off the movies--you'd be missing out on so much material. In keeping with that I find it peculiar that people fancy themselves able to speak on the Harry Potter books when all they've seen are the movies. . . . But moving on from that, because I think that's a little too nit picky and probably offensive.

If that was aimed at me, then I think you would be hard pressed to find me talking about the book. I was talking about fallacies in the argument, as well as what seem to be misconceptions and plain misunderstandings about paganism.


Perhaps it is the distinction between 'white' and 'black' magick that is confusing for some.

You are the first to bring it up, so I would say that isn't the case.


protagonists lying, using an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy or being the progenitors of moral relativism.

Aragorn joins the fellowship, not to ensure the destruction of the ring, but to follow Boromir to Gondor and reclaim his throne. It's been awhile since I read, and I didn't quite finish Two Towers, but Aragorn was not that great of a guy.


s mentioned above there seems to be no good or evil in Harry Potter,

I may not have read the books, but I think Voldemort is clearly identified with evil. It seems that those who associate and support him are also identified with evil.


And by the way, the good guys aren't using the tools of the bad guys, as they are in in Harry Potter. Most obvious of all is the sparing reference to magick

Have you ever read or watched any of those movies? Gandalf doesn't often use his powers in an overt way until his re-birth, but the other wizard..the brown wizard who's name I forget, does, as well has Bilbo's thievery and ring usage. Tolkien had a different way with magic in that he kept it hidden, vague, and imaginative where as mainstream fantasy today is flashy.


The point is that Harry Potter advocates the use of withcraft.

It advocates in the context of it's story, yes. The book, Red Planet by Robert Heinlein advocates living on Mars and sleeping inside martian flowers for oxygen because that's the context of it's story.

Athanasius
Apr 6th 2008, 10:35 PM
Since when do protagonists have to be perfect? Also, while there is some petty lying etc. because of homework or whatever, mostly they break rules ultimately to defeat Voldemort - if there ever was a reason to break school regulations, bringing about the downfall of the most evil man in the world is probably it.

That's exactly what I said; the books endorse lying, cheating, breaking the rules and an 'ends justifying the means' philosophy. Though it's troubling you'd call lying 'petty' and endorse an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy. I don't believe protagonists have to be perfect, but if you're going to have your children reading these sorts of books, I certainly wouldn't expect the endorsement of these non-values.



I know you've actually read the books, but I have to ask why you don't think there is the same thing in Harry Potter. Voldemort is obviously and always evil, and Harry, Dumbledore et al. are always, while not perfect, basically good. In fact, some reviewers complained of a too-delianated moral dichotomy in the books. (The only real gray-area character, it seems to me, is Snape, and maybe Pettigrew and Malfoy.)

Basically good? There is a Christian vs. secular world view when examining these books. From a Christian perspective good and bad are very much blurred, except for, as you mentioned, Voldemort. Now with that said you have 'basically good' protagonists using the same means to defeat this 'evil'. Where as in the Lord of the Rings you had a rising above the means of the antagonists as the means of defeat. Frodo becomes corrupted for using the Ring. . . .



The HP good guys don't use all the same tools as the bad guys - magic whose only purpose is to harm needlessly (Sectumsempra, the Cruciatus Curse, Fiendfyre) is considered to only be used by Dark magicians. When Harry et al. use magic to harm, it is for defensive or preemtive strikes against foes (except a few times when Harry uses Dark magic in anger). And I realize what you said above about how all "real" magic is dark or whatever, but these are not "real" spells and the HP methods of magic do not work - so the books' magic is purely fictional.

Well yeah, except those few times Harry uses dark magic in anger, that 'basically' good protagonist that he is. . . . This is a book that is set in pretty much modern day England in a world based on our own. My point was that you can't compare it to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or to Lewis' Narnia.



The goal of magic in HP is not really either power (for the good guys) or "art" - basically it's just there to be used, like a tool.

Well that's what magick is anyway, a 'tool'.



I didn't mean "not relevant" in the sense of "obsolete," I meant it in the sense of "does not apply to this issue" (the same way that the Bible's passages about, say, drinking do not apply here). And it doesn't "advocate" the use of witchcraft - it creates a fictional world in which characters use a completely fictional type of process that bears superficial resemblance to practices which in the real world are traditionally associated with "witchcraft." I think we can all agree that none of the magic in HP actually works in the real world, and thus it cannot really be said to advocate anything (does Star Wars advocate the use of weapons powered with crystals made on Tattooine?).

Harry Potter absolutely advocates the use of Witchcraft, at least for the characters in the book. Which for the characters in the book it's acceptable to lie, cheat and bend the rules. . .You take this latter situation, it affects the former and lines become blurred. 'Superficial resemblance' ... Resemblance, it's irrelevant it's witchcraft. By the way, crystal powered laser weapons aren't all that far from the truth. . .

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 10:53 PM
That's exactly what I said; the books endorse lying, cheating, breaking the rules and an 'ends justifying the means' philosophy.

Well, Lord of the Rings advocates killing, drinking large amounts of alcohol, smoking mind-altering plants, and conversing with magical creatures.



Frodo becomes corrupted for using the Ring. . . .

Segue to:


Well yeah, except those few times Harry uses dark magic in anger, that 'basically' good protagonist that he is. . .

Except for those couple of times he uses the ring to escape the bad guys, but at the end he is basically good in that he manages to get rid of the ring. At exactly what point did Frodo become the antagonist if it is unacceptable for him to be a basically good protaganist


Well that's what magick is anyway, a 'tool'.

Which, in the context of the story, makes it the responsiblity of the user. Like Star War's force, or Sarumann's magic and palantir, heck..even Peter's sword in Narnia.


Harry Potter absolutely advocates the use of Witchcraft, at least for the characters in the book.

I agree, but the issue is whether or not it advocates it for readers. Some people are just weak-minded..


By the way, crystal powered laser weapons aren't all that far from the truth. . .

Yes, the US Army is currently testing them and the US Navy is getting excited about their new (and useless) rail guns.

diffangle
Apr 6th 2008, 11:10 PM
My intent by mentioning that was to raise the possibility that he may have been a Christian. I don't know why he would give to churches if he weren't. Plus, Europe at that time was pretty heavily Christian.


Could it have been a political move, iow hush money to leave him be?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 11:13 PM
Could it have been a political move, iow hush money to leave him be?

It could, but isn't it possible that it wasn't?

Are we that cynical and mis-trusting?

Luke34
Apr 6th 2008, 11:17 PM
That's exactly what I said; the books endorse lying, cheating, breaking the rules and an 'ends justifying the means' philosophy. Though it's troubling you'd call lying 'petty' and endorse an 'ends justifies the means' philosophy.
It's also troubling that, according to you, apparently the "means" of breaking school rules wouldn't justify the "end" of defeating Hitler (if that were possible).

I don't believe protagonists have to be perfect, but if you're going to have your children reading these sorts of books, I certainly wouldn't expect the endorsement of these non-values.
See, you say you don't want them to be perfect, but then you complain when they do anything wrong. And I wouldn't agree that just because a sympathetic protagonist does something, said something is automatically "endorsed" by the book.



Basically good? There is a Christian vs. secular world view when examining these books. From a Christian perspective good and bad are very much blurred, except for, as you mentioned, Voldemort. Now with that said you have 'basically good' protagonists using the same means to defeat this 'evil'. Where as in the Lord of the Rings you had a rising above the means of the antagonists as the means of defeat. Frodo becomes corrupted for using the Ring. . . .
Surely just because a method of defeating the antagonist is used in Lord of the Rings, that doesn't make it the only acceptable method. In Star Wars, generally considered one of the most morally black-and-white movies ever, the Force is a neutral tool used by both evil and good. The Force itself is not morally sound or unsound; it is the deployment of it that makes it those things.



Well yeah, except those few times Harry uses dark magic in anger, that 'basically' good protagonist that he is. . . .
Again, Harry's not perfect. He's quite emotional and passionate, and prone to anger, and sometimes the anger bursts out of him (he yells at his friends and at Dumbledore, he inadvertantly inflates Aunt Marge, etc.). That doesn't mean he's bad - it's just one of his flaws which he will probably have to work on. And he usually regrets his use of Dark magic, and at one point is not able to sustain a torture curse because he is only righteously angry and is not causing pain for pain's sake.

And I don't really see how it's in question that Harry is basically a good or "pure" character - his defeat of Voldemort is ultimately not due to magic, but because Harry willingly and knowingly goes to his death (apparently) at Voldemort's hands to save his friends and schoolmates. Greater love hath no man and all that.



This is a book that is set in pretty much modern day England in a world based on our own. My point was that you can't compare it to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings or to Lewis' Narnia.
I realize that, but just because its world resembles ours in general does not mean it does in any of the particulars relevant to this discussion.


Harry Potter absolutely advocates the use of Witchcraft, at least for the characters in the book.
The book's fictional witchcraft is so unlike "real" witchcraft in any specifics that the resemblance is more alike in name than in anything else.


Which for the characters in the book it's acceptable to lie, cheat and bend the rules. . .You take this latter situation, it affects the former and lines become blurred.
I'm not sure what this means.


'Superficial resemblance' ... Resemblance, it's irrelevant it's witchcraft.
I don't think it's irrelevant. If HP were a how-to guide on summoning demons or whatever, or if it contained any magic that was even remotely possible in the real world, I might be concerned.


By the way, crystal powered laser weapons aren't all that far from the truth. . .
From Tattooine? The point was that all the neccessary magical materials in HP do not exist and therefore the book cannot possibly be "advocating the use of" them.

diffangle
Apr 6th 2008, 11:17 PM
It could, but isn't it possible that it wasn't?

Are we that cynical and mis-trusting?
:hmm: Why would a Christian be trying to obtain immortality by their own power/means?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 6th 2008, 11:26 PM
:hmm: Why would a Christian be trying to obtain immortality by their own power/means?

I didn't have the opportunity to ask, maybe he felt like he wanted more time to read the Bible and consider it's effects on human development or something.

Athanasius
Apr 7th 2008, 02:07 AM
It's also troubling that, according to you, apparently the "means" of breaking school rules wouldn't justify the "end" of defeating Hitler (if that were possible).

What does this have to do with anything?



See, you say you don't want them to be perfect, but then you complain when they do anything wrong. And I wouldn't agree that just because a sympathetic protagonist does something, said something is automatically "endorsed" by the book.

No, I said I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't expect Frodo to have godlike self control and the will to never use the 'ring to rule them all'. I don't expect Edmund (I believe it was him) to not be tempted by the White Witch of Narnia. I don't expect Frodo and Bilbo not to argue on their way to Mordor. This is a far cry from I don't 'want' them to be perfect and then complaining that they aren't. It's the type of imperfection that is the issue. The endorsement of the non-values, by the way, comes through the consistency in which the acts are taken part of.



Surely just because a method of defeating the antagonist is used in Lord of the Rings, that doesn't make it the only acceptable method. In Star Wars, generally considered one of the most morally black-and-white movies ever, the Force is a neutral tool used by both evil and good. The Force itself is not morally sound or unsound; it is the deployment of it that makes it those things.

The force also isn't considered comparable with withcraft (and once again, like the Lord of the Rings or Narnia it is set in a completely separate universe from our own).



Again, Harry's not perfect. He's quite emotional and passionate, and prone to anger, and sometimes the anger bursts out of him (he yells at his friends and at Dumbledore, he inadvertantly inflates Aunt Marge, etc.). That doesn't mean he's bad - it's just one of his flaws which he will probably have to work on. And he usually regrets his use of Dark magic, and at one point is not able to sustain a torture curse because he is only righteously angry and is not causing pain for pain's sake.

And I don't really see how it's in question that Harry is basically a good or "pure" character - his defeat of Voldemort is ultimately not due to magic, but because Harry willingly and knowingly goes to his death (apparently) at Voldemort's hands to save his friends and schoolmates. Greater love hath no man and all that.

I'm not talking about anger or outbursts, I have no problem with those. I'm talking about lying, and cheating, and stealing, and the use of magick by both the 'good' and 'evil' sides of the story. There's nothing extraordinarily biblical



I realize that, but just because its world resembles ours in general does not mean it does in any of the particulars relevant to this discussion.

Again, I pointed that out to show that you cannot compare The Lord of the Rings (Or Narnia, for that matter) to Harry Potter. To do so is to create a false dichotomy.



The book's fictional witchcraft is so unlike "real" witchcraft in any specifics that the resemblance is more alike in name than in anything else.

They're using magick and witchcraft. 'Superficial' resemblence or not.



I'm not sure what this means.

It means that you introduce one set of concepts, make those seem acceptable and then introduce another set. Slowly that second set becomes more and more acceptable. Anyone who's read Harry Potter will know that the more into them you get the more 'okay' witchcraft seems. The fact that it may not be witchcraft in the sense of real spells is irrelevant that it's witchcraft.


I don't think it's irrelevant. If HP were a how-to guide on summoning demons or whatever, or if it contained any magic that was even remotely possible in the real world, I might be concerned.

Uhm. . . A lot of the black magick has root in the 'real world'.



From Tattooine? The point was that all the neccessary magical materials in HP do not exist and therefore the book cannot possibly be "advocating the use of" them.

We don't need to be talking about all of them for some of them to be the problem.

Athanasius
Apr 7th 2008, 02:24 AM
Well, Lord of the Rings advocates killing, drinking large amounts of alcohol, smoking mind-altering plants, and conversing with magical creatures.

And as I said; is the Lord of the Rings doing any of this in modern day England?



Except for those couple of times he uses the ring to escape the bad guys, but at the end he is basically good in that he manages to get rid of the ring. At exactly what point did Frodo become the antagonist if it is unacceptable for him to be a basically good protaganist

Ingoring the difference between anger and temptation, of course.



Which, in the context of the story, makes it the responsiblity of the user. Like Star War's force, or Sarumann's magic and palantir, heck..even Peter's sword in Narnia.

Once again, Narnia, Middle Earth and Tatoonie are not modern day representable England. You can't draw a comparison between the three.


I agree, but the issue is whether or not it advocates it for readers. Some people are just weak-minded..

And it's the weak-minded we should be mindful of.



Yes, the US Army is currently testing them and the US Navy is getting excited about their new (and useless) rail guns.

Rail guns are useless? I think of them in the video game sense of the world.

Luke34
Apr 7th 2008, 02:52 AM
What does this have to do with anything?
You were complaining about the lying etc. and my justification of the means by the end, and I pointed out that its purpose was almost always to defeat the most evil man in the world, and attempted to compare it to the real world. I implied that in this case, the end does justify the means.


No, I said I don't expect them to be perfect. I don't expect Frodo to have godlike self control and the will to never use the 'ring to rule them all'. I don't expect Edmund (I believe it was him) to not be tempted by the White Witch of Narnia. I don't expect Frodo and Bilbo not to argue on their way to Mordor. This is a far cry from I don't 'want' them to be perfect and then complaining that they aren't. It's the type of imperfection that is the issue. The endorsement of the non-values, by the way, comes through the consistency in which the acts are taken part of.
Why is one type of imperfection better than another? Also, I still wouldn't say it's an endorsement, unless books have an implied message of "everything a good character does is also good," which would apply only to the blackest-and-whitest of storylines. Not every action has to have a judgement passed on it - sometimes it's just "here's what happened."


The force also isn't considered comparable with withcraft (and once again, like the Lord of the Rings or Narnia it is set in a completely separate universe from our own).
I submit that it is comparable in the sense that they are both natural and neutral tools that can be used for either good or evil. Just because they're in different universes doesn't mean they're not comparable (indeed, the LotR and Narnia and SW universes are more like ours than not - same laws of physics apply, humans and anthropomorphs exist, English is spoken, the same social rules generally apply, etc.).


I'm not talking about anger or outbursts, I have no problem with those. I'm talking about lying, and cheating, and stealing, and the use of magick by both the 'good' and 'evil' sides of the story. There's nothing extraordinarily biblical
OK, so if you believe that Rowling should have made her characters not lie, do you believe that teenagers generally do not lie or that Rowling should have painted deliberately inaccurate portraits of them? Or, again, that lying and stealing (I don't remember much cheating, honestly) to help bring down the most evil man on the planet is unacceptable?

And as I pointed out, magic (I assume you're adding the Old-Englishesque "k" to distinguish "real" magic from HP?) in HP is far more like Star Wars' Force than actual real-world witchcraft. Say what you will about real-world magic, but there is nothing Satanic about the force called "magic" in HP. (Also note that love is called more powerful than magic in the books, by no less than Dumbledore. So is music.)

And I would call the resolution of Book 7 obviously, even blatantly (no pejorative intended) Biblical - a willing death to save, basically, the world, followed by a resurrection, after which evil can no longer harm anyone? I don't see how it could be any more of a Christian allegory if it tried, which it did, obviously.


Again, I pointed that out to show that you cannot compare The Lord of the Rings (Or Narnia, for that matter) to Harry Potter. To do so is to create a false dichotomy.
In some respects, yes, but their differing settings doesn't mean all comparisons are automatically negated.


They're using magick and witchcraft. 'Superficial' resemblence or not.
OK, I'm using "superficial resemblance" in the sense of "there are similarities upon first glance, but if you look any more than that you'll see that there aren't any." So, no, they're really not. And now I am confused by the "magick" thing, because obviously here you're not referring to real-world magic.


It means that you introduce one set of concepts, make those seem acceptable and then introduce another set. Slowly that second set becomes more and more acceptable. Anyone who's read Harry Potter will know that the more into them you get the more 'okay' witchcraft seems. The fact that it may not be witchcraft in the sense of real spells is irrelevant that it's witchcraft.
"Not witchcraft in the sense of real spells"? It what sense can it said to be actual witchcraft, then? And no, the "more acceptable" thing did not happen to me. The basic principles of the HP universe went basically unchanged, it seems to me.


Uhm. . . A lot of the black magick has root in the 'real world'.
Like what? Name one act of magic in HP that could actually be performed by an actual person.


We don't need to be talking about all of them for some of them to be the problem.
By "all of them do not exist" I meant "none of them exist," not "not all of them exist." Every bit of magic performed in Harry Potter requires the use of imaginary materials (everything with wands is out, for a start, as are all the potions), therefore all of it is impossible to perform in this world. (OK, technically Apparition requires no materials, but I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that instantaneous material transportation of oneself is impossible as well.)

Athanasius
Apr 7th 2008, 04:39 AM
You were complaining about the lying etc. and my justification of the means by the end, and I pointed out that its purpose was almost always to defeat the most evil man in the world, and attempted to compare it to the real world. I implied that in this case, the end does justify the means.

The ends justifying the means is not always almost about defeating the most 'evil' man in the world (I know you're speaking in reference to Harry). In the case of Hitler would the means of medically experimenting on Jews justifying the result of medical advancement, as it did?

As you said, 'petty lying because of homework' is quite a different situation.



Why is one type of imperfection better than another? Also, I still wouldn't say it's an endorsement, unless books have an implied message of "everything a good character does is also good," which would apply only to the blackest-and-whitest of storylines. Not every action has to have a judgement passed on it - sometimes it's just "here's what happened."

An endorsement would consist of. Perform this action to achieve that result. To be silly: lie about your homework to defeat Lord Voldemort. Or, lie about a situation in your life that you feel is significant enough to warrant the lie. Or lie when you feel like it because things are seemingly out of hand. Or lie when you feel its justified. You don't have to spell out, 'This is endorsed. . . . ' to advocate a value. Now, was my ethical degradation ridiculous? No, I don't think so. Perhaps Harry Potter doesn't carry it to that extent, but that's certainly how a small thing can turn into a big thing.

Now as to your first question; doing an action out of hate and anger (using black magick) is definitely worse than fighting and giving into temptation (the use of the ring). Or knowingly using (the ring for instance) to escape a situation and still suffering the consequences for it (something that doesn't happen to Harry all that often).



I submit that it is comparable in the sense that they are both natural and neutral tools that can be used for either good or evil. Just because they're in different universes doesn't mean they're not comparable (indeed, the LotR and Narnia and SW universes are more like ours than not - same laws of physics apply, humans and anthropomorphs exist, English is spoken, the same social rules generally apply, etc.).

The force is completely natural, with witchcraft (as you pointed out above) there is a distinguishing in 'white' and 'black' magick. So I'll concede they may be 'natural' in their relative universes, but you can't compare the 'neutrality' of the two as magick isn't neutral.



OK, so if you believe that Rowling should have made her characters not lie, do you believe that teenagers generally do not lie or that Rowling should have painted deliberately inaccurate portraits of them? Or, again, that lying and stealing (I don't remember much cheating, honestly) to help bring down the most evil man on the planet is unacceptable?

Do I need to hear the protagonists of a war movie swear every other word for the movie to be accurate? No, I don't. Just as I don't need my kids (if I had them) to read books where the 'good guys', lie, cheat etc. Or at least if they do they suffer the consequences. . . .



And as I pointed out, magic (I assume you're adding the Old-Englishesque "k" to distinguish "real" magic from HP?) in HP is far more like Star Wars' Force than actual real-world witchcraft. Say what you will about real-world magic, but there is nothing Satanic about the force called "magic" in HP. (Also note that love is called more powerful than magic in the books, by no less than Dumbledore. So is music.)

Magick refers to the Occult; magic to the slight of hand. And the witchcraft in Harry Potter is quite comparable. 'Love' is a term that needs definition but it's no secret that 'love' is very prevalent in New Age circles, so it really has no bearing on anything..



And I would call the resolution of Book 7 obviously, even blatantly (no pejorative intended) Biblical - a willing death to save, basically, the world, followed by a resurrection, after which evil can no longer harm anyone? I don't see how it could be any more of a Christian allegory if it tried, which it did, obviously.

Adding a 'Christian' theme (which is in no way strictly Christian) to the end of a book with characters who willingly sin (to keep with the Christian language) is no redeeming factor.



In some respects, yes, but their differing settings doesn't mean all comparisons are automatically negated.

You're right, not all.



OK, I'm using "superficial resemblance" in the sense of "there are similarities upon first glance, but if you look any more than that you'll see that there aren't any." So, no, they're really not. And now I am confused by the "magick" thing, because obviously here you're not referring to real-world magic.

What I'm getting at is actual 'real world' witchcraft or not, it's still witchcraft in the sense of the book. It is still utilizing a condemnable practice. If I wrote a book about a group of heros that worshiped Satan (who I would describe differently than the biblical Satan) but their means of worship was entirely unrelated to actual Satan worship, don't you think people would still freak out? As I said, people are getting caught up over the 'white' and 'black' magick distinction--it doesn't exist. Witchcraft is witchcraft is witchcraft.



Like what? Name one act of magic in HP that could actually be performed by an actual person.

Familiar with riding or hagging?

Bobby Lee Dickens
Apr 7th 2008, 05:13 AM
yes i know BUT we do not need to go around screaming satian love and stuff we need to pray for them and say brother/sister this stuff is evil.
if you do it the wrong way you may end up losing him to the devil.because we humans dont like to be told so and so.

we have to handle stuff like this very carefuly or else it could make more trouble for this world you know?

i hope im not the only one that sees this.

but you guys should know there turning harry potter into a cartoon series on KidsWB so becareful about your kids watching cartoons on saturday mornings ok?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 12:59 PM
As I said, people are getting caught up over the 'white' and 'black' magick distinction

You know, I really don't think so, at least not in this discussion.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 01:21 PM
Like what? Name one act of magic in HP that could actually be performed by an actual person.


I'm not all too familiar with Harry Potter as I refuse to fill my mind with such ungodly nonsense, but one thing I can think of off the top of my head is levitation. I'm not sure what else is in those movies as I won't watch things having to do with witchcraft, but I have seen where they are levitating and so on.

diffangle
Apr 7th 2008, 01:38 PM
And I would call the resolution of Book 7 obviously, even blatantly (no pejorative intended) Biblical - a willing death to save, basically, the world, followed by a resurrection, after which evil can no longer harm anyone? I don't see how it could be any more of a Christian allegory if it tried, which it did, obviously.


Who are/is the saviour in this story? Wizards and/or witches?

HisBlood
Apr 7th 2008, 02:40 PM
I'm not all too familiar with Harry Potter as I refuse to fill my mind with such ungodly nonsense, but one thing I can think of off the top of my head is levitation. I'm not sure what else is in those movies as I won't watch things having to do with witchcraft, but I have seen where they are levitating and so on.

Try saying wingardium leviosa and see if you levitate.

You can't, can you? Because this is fiction! The incantations are Latin words warped and put together to make "spells".


Who are/is the saviour in this story? Wizards and/or witches?

Harry is the "savior" in the books.

And might I add that almost every fiction story with an evil antagonist has some sort of savior. Are you going to ban all those books too because they have a savior that isn't Jesus? What about Lord of the Rings? What about Narnia?

TheDayIsComing
Apr 7th 2008, 02:42 PM
Try saying wingardium leviosa and see if you levitate.

You can't, can you? Because this is fiction! The incantations are Latin words warped and put together to make "spells".

It doesn't matter if it isn't exact. What matters is this is dealing with the occult and playing around in the occult even if it is fiction, is not something I could see God patting you on the back for.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 02:42 PM
Try saying wingardium leviosa and see if you levitate.

You can't, can you? Because this is fiction! The incantations are Latin words warped and put together to make "spells".

I have no desire to levitate, but I know folks who have and continue to practice it, so it's definitely not fiction.

I also have no idea what this "chant" is you're talking about, but nonetheless it doesn't negate the fact that folks do practice real witchcraft and it does, in fact, have supernatural manifestations as part of it.

HisBlood
Apr 7th 2008, 02:46 PM
But that phrase does not work in real witchcraft. Because it doesn't really exist! It's fictional! JK Rowling put Latin words together to make spells for her characters to use.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 02:48 PM
But that phrase does not work in real witchcraft. Because it doesn't really exist! It's fictional! JK Rowling put Latin words together to make spells for her characters to use.

I really don't care if the phrase is fictional or not. What does that have to do with anything?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 02:54 PM
I have no desire to levitate, but I know folks who have and continue to practice it, so it's definitely not fiction.

I also have no idea what this "chant" is you're talking about, but nonetheless it doesn't negate the fact that folks do practice real witchcraft and it does, in fact, have supernatural manifestations as part of it.

Do these people you know levitate?

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 03:12 PM
Do these people you know levitate?

Here's my quote from my previous post . . .



I have no desire to levitate, but I know folks who have and continue to practice it, so it's definitely not fiction.

diffangle
Apr 7th 2008, 03:21 PM
Harry is the "savior" in the books.

Since it's, as Luke says, a "Biblical analogy", a wizard has replaced Yahushua in the book? I'm failing to see how that's glorifying to our God/Saviour.


And might I add that almost every fiction story with an evil antagonist has some sort of savior. Are you going to ban all those books too because they have a savior that isn't Jesus?
Do you they use the "Biblical analogy" that Luke speaks of? If so, then I'm not hip to them.



What about Lord of the Rings? What about Narnia?

Sorry, not a fan. I just don't see the value in using anti-Biblical things(wizards, witches, Pan/demons, magic) in order to portray a so called Biblical message/theme.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 03:22 PM
Your wording says that they have the interest to levitate and practice it, it doesn't say they in-fact pull it off.

What was the point of quoting yourself as an answer when I had already quoted and read it, and apparently had a clearer understanding of what you were writing than you did? Wouldn't a simple yes or no have sufficed? Are you trying to incite something? Obviously if I asked a question, it was because the answer wasn't given and I can see no reason for a "smart alec," response such as yours.

If your answer is "yes," then how do you know they levitate?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 03:25 PM
Sorry, not a fan. I just don't see the value in using anti-Biblical things(wizards, witches, Pan/demons, magic) in order to portray a so called Biblical message/theme.

Not everybody is a Christian, and I don't see why fiction has to be solely based on Christ, that's why it's fiction. Fiction isn't real. The purpose of Fiction is the exploration of the imagination and creativity outside the bounds of what is real, some people apparently just take it too far and get something completely different out of it.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 03:30 PM
Your wording says that they have the interest to levitate and practice it, it doesn't say they in-fact pull it off.

I think my wording was quite clear, but if you weren't clear on the meaning I'll confirm to you now that they both have and continue to practice levitation. Some I know that used to practice and no longer do and some who continue to do so now.


If your answer is "yes," then how do you know they levitate?

I have heard their testimony. And no, I do not believe that some of these folks who are now Christians themselves are lying about it.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 03:34 PM
They levitate because they said so. Well, I shoot fireballs out of my hands and electric beams from my eyes, and when I was a pagan reading the runes, I could stop time, freeze things or people, know the future, understand the past, communicate with animals, and correctly guess winning lottery numbers as long as I was not the winner.

It's all true because that's my testimony, right?

Why is it that we can believe these people, but we can't believe others? I think we give way too much power to these things.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 03:38 PM
They levitate because they said so. Well, I shoot fireballs out of my hands and electric beams from my eyes, and when I was a pagan reading the runes, I could stop time, freeze things or people, know the future, understand the past, communicate with animals, and correctly guess winning lottery numbers as long as I was not the winner.

It's all true because that's my testimony, right?

Why is it that we can believe these people, but we can't believe others?

Do you honestly think I'm walking up to people who I do not know and taking them at their word when they make claims? No. These are folks that I love and respect, and I see the work that Christ has done in their lives. Their testimony is just as real to me as someone like you who "claims" they have been born again and accepted Jesus as their Savior. I understand you have a skeptical heart and can't take folks at their word, but not everyone is the same as you. I actually have a little bit of faith in some folks.

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 03:54 PM
We can't all be arrogant and self-righteous.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 03:57 PM
We can't all be arrogant and self-righteous.

What is arrogant or self-righteous?

Clavicula_Nox
Apr 7th 2008, 04:01 PM
What is arrogant or self-righteous?

I had thought that my wording was clear, but I was referring to the way you speak to me, and I wonder if it's because you have some personal bias left over from another thread, and I would certainly hope that isn't the case.

I don't see how you get any skepticism from what I am posting, especially when most posts I've made in this thread have been giving the benefit of the doubt to people. The only skepticism I have shown are your buddies claims of levitation, and that is based on my own experience in the occult more than anything else.

VerticalReality
Apr 7th 2008, 04:13 PM
I had thought that my wording was clear, but I was referring to the way you speak to me, and I wonder if it's because you have some personal bias left over from another thread, and I would certainly hope that isn't the case.

For one trying to accuse another of personal bias, I am not the one trying to throw out insults by calling others arrogant or self-righteous. My personal opinion is that it is arrogant or self-righteous to tell others that their testimony is false just because you haven't experienced the same thing they have. It's the same as me questioning whether or not you are really saved just because you "claim" that you are. There's nothing wrong with having a little bit of faith in people. Especially ones you know quite well.

Cloudwalker
Apr 7th 2008, 05:25 PM
This thread has run it's cource and is now closed.