Harry Potter and the Bible/Who agrees with me?

[pegasus62]

My answer to the langauge part of your post is this-no, C.S Lewis did not use that in his book. Maybe in the movie, but I have read the Narnia series several times and he's far from pushing young children away by using bad words. Just because children are exposed to bad langauge 'anyway', why fill them with more of it. Isn't it odd that parents simply don't want there children to have horrible influences, and then let them read a book like Harry Potter? Why continue to do so?

And I'm not saying that you should 'take away all books with violence in them'. I'm saying the AMOUNT of violence included is surprising, even shocking. And Inkspot, there ARE books with no violence, actually a good deal. I say, the smaller amount, the better. Violence doesn't make something any greater then without.

What I want to ask all you lovers of H.P. out there is this question, and try to answer it truthfully if possible, especially directing this to Christians:
As Christians, does Harry Potter help us in any way in our walk of faith? Why?Does it degrade our thoughts, pushing us to listen to the world, instead of God? Overall, where is the entertainment in Harry Potter, and why do we put our lives around things that aren't even real?(H.P, Narnia, LOTR) What I'm trying to say is, why center your lives around what's the new Harry Potter trend, the new book, the new movie? Why let anyone get wrapped up in this only for 'the fun/excitment factor', especially your children? Aren't their harder issues to argue about other then H.P?(Morally.)
-Pegasus62

[Goldenrod22]

Hi! :D

Just a note...the vernacular in Harry Potter consists and relies upon the frequent use of such delights as (and I'm being a bit sarcastic) the 'D' word said by both good and bad characters and 'unfinished sentences' (aka the author was about to have the character use a bad word but had them interrupted) as well as frequent usage of British slang bad words, and innuendo about various rude subjects.
I am not allowed to mention the exact nature of these words, but you can find them in Book 4 on pages:
53
102
731
43
62
127
626
232
344
561
470

And more sprinkled throughout. This is in one book, remember, just one.

P.S. Inkspot, I'd like to correct myself about a statement I made earlier.
Leah and Rachel, as you mentioned, went out to collect mandrakes. This is because when God did not give them children as they wanted, they resorted to cultish superstition that said mandrakes could bring fertility. They did not trust God, and so caused Him grief and anger (I used the NIV notes to see this much more clearly). I was wrong earlier when I said that the 'wives were pagan'. They were not, but they did not trust God with their future children!

Also, you mentioned that Lucy from LWW used magic and so was praised by the Duffers. I have not read the book yet, but in the BBC movie Lucy was shamed when Aslan appeared in the spell book, showing her that her jealousy over her sister's beauty was not right (she wanted to look like her).
I don't think her actions were upheld as good.

You are making a huge leap from the minor, 'good magic' references of LWW to Harry Potter's obvious dallying in the real occult. If you cannot see the numerous references to necromancy (in the least!) with such grotesque characters as 'Nearly Headless Nick' (his head was almost severed until a botched execution prevented it), then you need to take a closer look.

One last thing, LOTR has violence, yes, but it is aimed for adults to understand the complex wording. Not six year olds.

[inkspot]

Okay, I don't have CON with me now, but I am absolutely certain Pole and Scrubb admonish each other "don't be an ass!" or some such in Silver Chair and/or Last Battle. I will try to look it up. Also Diggory's Unlce repeatedly calls Jadis a "dem fine girl" which of course, is a cuss reference. JKR also uses words which kids HP's age use in public school, so it's about the same thing.

Yes, Nearly Headless Nick is a gruesome character, but didn't any of you ever sit by the campfire and tell ghost stories? This kind of blood-curdling character for kids at a certain age is fun -- scary, but funny. It's certainly not demonic. There was Casper the friendly ghost for Pete's sake. I think this sort of thing is just nit-picky. Kids like gruesome stuff like that -- look at all the zaniness in Roald Dahl books, and no one says they are demonic.

It's just fun, it's just sily, it's just a fantasy story.

If all magic is condemned, even in a fantasy story, then any tiny amount in CON or LOTR ought to be condemned as well, but it isn't. How anyone can argue the magic in CON and LOTR is good while the magic in HP is bad is beyond me. Either magic is okay in fantasy or it's not okay ever, and you cannot decide it's good in a book because you judge the author is a Christian.

As Christians, does Harry Potter help us in any way in our walk of faith? Why?Does it degrade our thoughts, pushing us to listen to the world, instead of God? Overall, where is the entertainment in Harry Potter, and why do we put our lives around things that aren't even real?(H.P, Narnia, LOTR) What I'm trying to say is, why center your lives around what's the new Harry Potter trend, the new book, the new movie? Why let anyone get wrapped up in this only for 'the fun/excitment factor', especially your children? Aren't their harder issues to argue about other then H.P?

HP is just good entertainment for kids, and that's all it needs to be. If you want it to be something that builds your faith, or the faith of your kids, you can certainly search out the biblical symbolism, as I have pointed out several times. If you feel it is degrading to your faith, then it probably is -- if I think it can enhance my faith by showing me various aspects of love, courage and faithfulness, and this is what i share with my kids, then it can build their faith, too.

No one is suggesting we center our lives around HP! Good heavens, no. Life ought to be centered around Jesus Christ alone.

But this Forum is about dicussing (and debating) all kinds of fantasy literature and movies, so there's no reason everyone has to agree.

[inkspot]

I m no christian but i do understand your parents belive about Harry Potter books/DVDS

but if we were all the same it would be pretty boring
Too right, Narniafan!

Nevertheless, you are welcome over on the Christian side of the fence any time. We are certainly not all alike ... some of us allow our kids to read HP and some of us don't!

[pegasus62]

HP is just good entertainment for kids, and that's all it needs to be. If you want it to be something that builds your faith, or the faith of your kids, you can certainly search out the biblical symbolism, as I have pointed out several times. If you feel it is degrading to your faith, then it probably is -- if I think it can enhance my faith by showing me various aspects of love, courage and faithfulness, and this is what i share with my kids, then it can build their faith, too.

You say 'good entertainment' and it encourages 'courage, love, and faith'. What else does it encourage though? Look at the bad aspects that I've mentioned before. (Thank you for doing so with the Narnia books, I would like to admit, yes, C.S.Lewis does use cuss words in his books, but NOT as much as J.K.Rowling by far. Thank you for your interest in my posts and others. You are very considerate. :) ) Back to my point, let's say this is an example of Potter's day:
Harry Potter begins saying a curse word at the Hogwart's breakfast table, and tells a crude joke to Ron as he eats his gruel. Then he says he loves how Hermonie is so faithful. He repeats the curse word as he says this sentence to her. Then he does a brave act (unknown). After he does so, he decides to go to Hogwarts and practice some serious magick. When he finishes, he helps Ron with his magick assignment. Then, he goes to Hermonie and takes her to lunch. As he chats, he includes unnessecary jokes and cuss words in his sentences. Hermonie, of course, doesn't mind. As his school and work continue, he jokes vulgurly with students, does a couple helpful, loving acts, and at last retires to his room for the night.
Harry's day is done. Now, re-read this example, and check his various tasks. Count the amount of 'good' things he does, and then the 'bad' things. Sure, this is a made up, pretend day in Potter's life. But, overall, the books weave this scene in and out with no break between what is good and bad. Just because this is taken from my mouth, instead of Rowling's, makes no difference, does it? After all, Potter is equally distributed between his good acts and bad, very much like the books. He helps Hermonie, correct? He says a couple curse words you can skip over (or your children), right?

[Ephinie]

Now, re-read this example, and check his various tasks. Count the amount of 'good' things he does, and then the 'bad' things. Sure, this is a made up, pretend day in Potter's life. But, overall, the books weave this scene in and out with no break between what is good and bad. Just because this is taken from my mouth, instead of Rowling's, makes no difference, does it? After all, Potter is equally distributed between his good acts and bad, very much like the books. He helps Hermonie, correct? He says a couple curse words you can skip over (or your children), right?

What that sounds like to me is an example of Harry Potter being written as a fallable character who makes mistakes as well as does good things. (That representation of a "typical" day for Potter isn't anywhere nearly accurate based on what I have read, but that is neither here nor there.) The point is, really, that a character who does bad things does not make the book bad or inappropriate to read. It is our job as the readers to discern what actions of the hero are worthy of emulation and what actions serve as examples of things not to do. We are not mindless zombies who compact whatever information is fed to us. God gave us a mind, and he intends for us to use it. As far as the stories being appropriate for children to read, they have minds as well. They are capable of discerning what behavior is appropriate and what isn't, and they generally do so very well with just a nudge or two in the right direction from parents. The key is to engage in critical thinking, not to shield yourself from having to think.

[inkspot]

I'm pretty sensitive to cussing cuz I don't like it in my house, and I am not remembering that much cussing/vulgarity in any particular day of an HP story. Maybe I missed something. But even if he were vulgar and cussed as much as your "typical day," if the brave thing he did were to risk his life in heroically saving a baby from certain death, would the implied weight of this task outweigh all the cussing? Yes, he's got a potty mouth, but he's really a selfless boy, kind of thing? I'm just curious ...

And Ephinie is right, any story which presents people who make mistakes or display rude behavior can still teach us some good lesson. The Bible has lots of bad behavior and even some cussing in it!

[pegasus62]

We are not mindless zombies who compact whatever information is fed to us. God gave us a mind, and he intends for us to use it.

Of course not! But we all have a gradual sin nature. Some readers may, (much like innocent children who curse because they just recently heard it on television) immediatly take in the bad content and use it, while others take longer to absorb and think about the information given to them, and then, once they see their friends, family, or others say and think of it as 'all right', and Harry seems fine with it, it's just normal to assume cussing, bad humor, etc, is okay. While still others take longer to be convinced and weaseled with (Screwtape Letters, C.S.Lewis is a good example). Eve wasn't lied to and tricked in a few seconds. It took time and slyness for Satan to tell her the Fruit of Evil was fine, and would make her like God. Now don't get me wrong. Harry Potter is not Satan nor will ever be that evil. But the point is, fouling your mond with Harry's vulgur and crude humor and mbad manners doesn't teach you to be 'good, kind, and sweet' to others. Just the opposite! It's as if you're wobbling on one foot with the 'good moral' issues in one hand, and the other weighed down with quite the opposite, tipping you to fall. Overall, Potter has a wider variety of evil rather then the supposed 'good issues' Potter fans propose.What other things can you name off other then the stale 'loyalty, bravery, and friendship'? I can counteract these with the bad things that are coupled innocently beside. We're not zombies; we're smart human beings that can take this story in and absorb it, rather for the good or bad, but eventually, Potter will take a violent turn in our thinking-from the cuss words on the page, to our minds, to our lips.

[Goldenrod22]

But even if he were vulgar and cussed as much as your "typical day," if the brave thing he did were to risk his life in heroically saving a baby from certain death, would the implied weight of this task outweigh all the cussing? Yes, he's got a potty mouth, but he's really a selfless boy, kind of thing?

Hi :)
Inkspot, I have to disagree with your above quote. You basically suggest that any sin (in this case cussing) can be outweighed in a story as long as the character does something 'brave' or 'selfless' to redeem themselves. I have to take issue with that careless attitude!
If you want to use the LWW for example: Edmund is a bad child, he lies and treats everybody badly, even betrays his siblings. If Edmund were to save Lucy from certain death (before he is 'redeemed' by Aslan), would that negate all of the bad things he had done in the past? Would that one act (and I am sure C.S. Lewis would not have written LWW this way) suddenly brand him as a good person? I don't think it would! You can save someone's life and be a hero, but you are not forgiven of all your sins because of it. Aslan, in this case, was the savior of Edmund. Ed could'nt have been saved otherwise.

[Goldenrod22]

I take issue with Harry for another great reason. If you are a fan, I want you to answer these questions.

1. Why do you read the books?
Is it because:
A. I Want To Be Entertained
B. I Want To be Educated in the Fun World of Sorcery
C. Because I Get Bored Reading Classics
D. J.K. Rowling Is the Greatest Thing Since Narnia, Despite Her Skewed Morals
E. I Want to Fit in With All of the Other People Who Read It (or let their kids read it)
F. I'm Reading, Are'nt I?
G. The Reality of sorcery and Witchcraft Should be Embraced

Now, I get to say something.
If you answered A, than you have a problem. Anything can be entertaining, but as the old saying goes: "Garbage in,garbage out." I could use 'A' for anything, including watching immoral T.V. shows without any guilt.
I'll get to the other issues next time!

[Ephinie]

Overall, Potter has a wider variety of evil rather then the supposed 'good issues' Potter fans propose.What other things can you name off other then the stale 'loyalty, bravery, and friendship'? I can counteract these with the bad things that are coupled innocently beside. We're not zombies; we're smart human beings that can take this story in and absorb it, rather for the good or bad, but eventually, Potter will take a violent turn in our thinking-from the cuss words on the page, to our minds, to our lips.

Since when did loyalty, bravery, and friendship become stale? And more to the point, when did using a swear word become an act of violence? And even more to the point... there really isn't a lot of vulgarity in Harry Potter. I find it astounding that foul language is actually being used as an example of why Harry Potter would be inappropriate, since almost all of the objections I have heard about the series revolve mostly around uninformed opinions of witchcraft. But I suppose each person has his or her own "buttons," so to speak, of what is especially offensive or bothersome.

[inkspot]

I'll agree with Ephinie here. I just saw GOF movie, and the worst language was Ron's "Bloody H***!" I wouldn't want my kids saying it, but as language goes, it's not uncommon for British school kids. (The movie babe had the piggie saying "butthead," which I didn't want my kids saying, either, but on the whole it was a sweet movie.) The language in HP isn't that bad, and the morality is really strong, as Ephinie pointed out.

you want to use the LWW for example: Edmund is a bad child, he lies and treats everybody badly, even betrays his siblings. If Edmund were to save Lucy from certain death (before he is 'redeemed' by Aslan), would that negate all of the bad things he had done in the past? Would that one act (and I am sure C.S. Lewis would not have written LWW this way) suddenly brand him as a good person? I don't think it would! You can save someone's life and be a hero, but you are not forgiven of all your sins because of it.
I wasn't saying HP's bravery would absolve him of cussing, but in "real life," we forgive a good deal in a person whose heart we know is true.

GR, it seems to me in the quote above, you advocate for kids reading no books except explicitly Christian ones; especially if you cannot allow Harry's bravery to stand on its own as a good lesson -- you seem to want a penitent Edmund, a sacrifice of a Savior, and redemption from every story before allowing it is not harmful. If that's what you like, only to read explicitly Christian books, that's good.

But CS Lewis felt that all good fantasy stories pointed to Christ (even ancient mythology about different gods and demi-gods) because it teaches us about a world beyond ours, it opens our hearts and sense to the eternal, the ethereal. If you don't see it that way, you can read only Christian books and let your kids read only Christian books, but surely you can see why Lewis, and some of us, feel a good fantasy story can point the way to Jesus without specifically naming Jesus?

And even if JKR never brings an explicit CHristian message out of HP, it's still a fine fantasy series which so far has focused on friendship, courage, loyalty and keeping the faith -- good morals, even if you find them in literature which is not specifically Christian.

[Gondorgirl]

I mean, there are probably some good quotes in the books that apply to us, (can't think of them off the top of my head, mostly Dumbledore) the only real problem is that it has so much Magic. (as I've reccomended before, read the play "Magic" very interesting.)

[♥Green Eyed Goddess♥]

Ok people, well i'm a christian, but i know a lot of people that have a problem with harry potter. Now my thing is, is how is it much different than lord of the rings, both have good and evil. Both use magic as a means to fight. Most people get hung off on the witchcraft naming, but where is the difference in teh books though? It doesn't looks so much like witchcraft except for the potions stuff. Most of it looks like wizardry to me. which is what gandalf uses. Now some people have given me the arguement of the fact that maybe its a ploy of the enemy to make us think that witchcraft is ok and stuff. My thing is that i think people are looking too deeply into it. For me it doesn't affect me as i've read much crazier fantasy books. I just think its a part of the reason that LOTR has been deemed safe for some reason, even though they are not christian books. Now some will argue that they are, they aren't because tolkien gave lewis a hard time about writing allegories, they have the influence but are not strictly christian books. So my question is how do i help my arguement with the fact that i like them, but I just can't get people to get past their mental block on harry potter. They just don't seem to get it.

tg
Totally agreed! At least someone around here speaks the truth!

[Gus-Gus]

I love the movies and books of harry Potter.

And the actor Harry Potter (daniel radcliffe)!!!!!!!!!! :o

[pegasus62]

Since when did loyalty, bravery, and friendship become stale? And more to the point, when did using a swear word become an act of violence? And even more to the point... there really isn't a lot of vulgarity in Harry Potter. I find it astounding that foul language is actually being used as an example of why Harry Potter would be inappropriate,

I wasn't saying that loyalty, bravery, and friendship 'became stale'. I was saying that, right alongside them, Harry is doing just the opposite of what things like that don't need to go hand-in-hand with. And, again, you misquoted me. I was saying 'Harry Potter will take a violent turn'...meaning, eventually, in a sort of Eve and Satan mentality, the content of the Harry books will get to our senses. If Harry hasn't taken you on a wild goose chase yet for new kid's books just as gruesome and crude, it most likely will in the future. A lot of you members make the wrong (In my humble opinion) point that the whole reason to read the Potter books is to gain the sense of his supposedly 'good' acts. So? Why continue to read them with the vulgar content mixed within? Last of all, Ephinie, you say above that 'why is langauge being used as a point.' Because it IS a point! (See a member's post about the large amount of langauge in Potter on this thread, page 44, 'Goldenrod'.) Just because other books include it, does that mean we have to read those? Do I have to give children a gruesome book and tell them "Hey, kids, it's fine as long as you remember-Harry's the good, loyal, brave one and Voldermont's an evil one. Oh, yeah, and remember, too, just because Harry is rude, lies, and curses(copying Voldermont in these things, despite the fact he's 'good') he's still a wonderful young man!" Just think about it. My whole, underlying point is that Harry, 'innocent and brave' is always loved with sincerity despite his extreme faults. And I'm still including 'magick' as one of them, as I've stated before.
-pegasus62

[NarniaFanatic]

Okay, I have a lot of things to say about this.
First of all, Harry is not a rude character. I mean, come on! He's a teenager for a goodness sakes dealing with the issue of an evil lord plotting to kill him and he has all these hormones raging inside of him. lol
I agree with inkspot. Harry is a very selfless character who puts himself before others and always worries about others' safety.

The magic in Harry Potter is only a fraction of the story. It doesn't even play a major role in the story. All it does is protect the kids from harm and in the story, theres a difference between good magic and bad magic. It's just a fantasy series and therefore should never be taken seriously, but I think it has some very good Christian symbolism in it and that's one of the reasons I read it, so I can look for it all. :D

For example, I was reading Finding God in Harry Potter and the author was saying that there's a pattern in each of the books. Harry descends down into the earth, dies a figurative death, gets saved by a Christ-like figure, and rises from the dead to conquer evil. Like in the Chamber of Secrets, he gets saved by Fawkes the Phoenix (which is a perfect symbol for Christ) and in Prisoner of Azkaban he gets saved by a Patronus in the form of a white stag (again, another Christ figure). So, as you can see, the magic in Harry Potter is not the spells they cast, but there's more to it than that.
And the theme of the whole series is that Harry is rescued from Voldemort's curse by his mother's love and that is powerful than any magic spell. Dumbledore himself says so in Sorcerer's Stone. :)

[inkspot]

I'll agree and quote myself ...
I just saw GOF movie, and the worst language was Ron's "Bloody H***!" I wouldn't want my kids saying it, but as language goes, it's not uncommon for British school kids. (The movie Babe had the piggie saying "butthead," which I didn't want my kids saying, either, but on the whole it was a sweet movie.) The language in HP isn't that bad, and the morality is really strong, as Ephinie pointed out.
The language just isn't that bad.

And while Harry has had his days of being angry and short-tempered, I think other kids are allowed that -- Peter isn't always so sweet to Edmund in our beloved LWW.

Do I have to give children a gruesome book and tell them "Hey, kids, it's fine as long as you remember-Harry's the good, loyal, brave one and Voldermont's an evil one. Oh, yeah, and remember, too, just because Harry is rude, lies, and curses(copying Voldermont in these things, despite the fact he's 'good') he's still a wonderful young man!"
No, you don't, but if you are going to bar books on the grounds of being gruesome, LOTR has to fly out the window, too. To capture the attention, books must have conflict and tension. Unless you want your kids to read nothing but "Chicken Soup" books all their life, they're going to read scary books and books with harrowing conflicts and narrow escapes ... the Bible is full of them, too!

Anyway, no one has to let their kids read or view HP if they think it's too violent or scary. I wouldn't let little ones read any after book 2 or 3 for sure -- just as Harry grows up, the plots become more grown up, too. But this in itself doesn't suggest the books are anti-Christian or incompatible with Christianity, especially because they are just fantasy literature.

In the argument above, the strikes againt Harry seem to be:
He's rude
He lies
He curses (does spells)

The rudeness is realistic in a teenaged boy in his position, and it certainly is not his continual way of life.

He lies. A boy at war with an evil enemy is allowed this, isn't he? For instance, Frodo Baggins goes by the name Underhill in LOTR ... it's a lie. But it's also a subterfuge in warfare. And again, stories with notorious lliars such as Huck Finn are not seen as somehow incompatible with Christian readers.

He curses -- does spells. Yes, and so did Lucy in VDT and Dr. Cornelius in PC. In a fantasy world, magic is not automatically evil. In HP, it is more or less like "The Force" in Star Wars, and those who are able to wield it may do so for good or evil.

[Different_Name]

I don't see what the big deal about the language in Harry Potter is about. I mean there is just a couple of bad words in each book starting with the third one. And that's nothing compared to what I hear at my school.

[inkspot]

I don't see what the big deal about the language in Harry Potter is about. I mean there is just a couple of bad words in each book starting with the third one. And that's nothing compared to what I hear at my school.
I agree -- although I don't go to school anymore, from what I hear of the way youngsters (and adults) talk these days, there's worse in the real world than HP. Sadly. If everyone cleaned up theit language at least to HP level, the world would not be so toxic to the ears ...

[Narniachic42994]

well i have seen what reading hp books has done to people and i don't want it done to me. I don't like cause it's to magicie and it refers to magic as a tool people use to do stuff to people. But con has magic in it but it is refering to a spiritual meaning which i really like.

[she-elfwarrior19]

Me personally i grew up knowing that Witchcraft was evil i still think it is.
Im not a fan of Harry Potter.
I do realise in some aspects it does relate to Lord of the Rings. But Harry Potter seems like Witchcraft and evil too me, because of the "dark arts" type of things which people have said is kinda what HP is about, i dont think it is all i know about HP is this boy going to a wizardry school type thing and haveing many adventures with his friends and becoming a really important person n wizardry of something.

BUT alot of Christains i know dont see a problem with Harry Potter and its..dealings with witchcraft ect, other do very much so have a big problem with it.
MY siblings dont see any difference from HP and LOTR. Which is fine but i still think it has more than what it seems. Dealing with magic that i believe Harry Potter deals with seems really dark and evil to me, unless thats just how they show them in the movie previews.
I know im not a fan and i do admit that i have seen the fourth movie of HP, and i thought it was horrible b/c of the contents in it. It just seemes so dark and evil with those "death eaters" and the bald bad skinny guy i think his name was Voldewort or something like that ( forgive me if i messed the name up :o) It just sent a bad message to me and i knew something about it seemed bad, but thats just my opinion, i ahve no problem with people being fans of HP.

I dont know, i still think it isnt righteous, but thats how i was raised knowing and being taught about witchcraft and HP dealings to be bad.

[inked]

Well, well, well, after 6 months old GR22 is still at it! Bashing Harry P. I must admit I'd thought that would have self-corrected. I just repeat all my prior positives about HP which can be found by searching for INKED posts.

Hi, Inkspot! :D

Hi, GR22! :eek:

Hi, ya'll! :)

[PetersGal14]

My mum says Harry Potter is evil. So, i'm not aloud to watch it. But, it is full of witch-craft. And that is part of the Devils work. So, harry Potter is a Devil movie. Thats what my mum says. She says it goes hand and hand with the devil.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Harry Potter is a CONSTANTLY a debate between JKR and fans vs. Catholics, Christians, and people who, basically, don't like Harry Potter.
The thing is:
Harry Potter is a novel out of the imagination of one woman. It is NOT her fault that she can write so well as to make people think things in her novels are real. And if someone doesn't like Harry Potter : DON'T READ THEM.
It's up to people to decide what to wear, what to read, what to think, and what to write. JKR has made her decision to write about a boy who has magical talents, and she wasn't thinking when Harry "popped into her mind", "Oh, why don't I write about an orphaned wizard boy out to defeat a dark wizard just to annoy the heck out of anti-Magic people?".
No, she was thinking, "Wow! This is amazing! Now, who will his friends be..?"
JKR writes about what ever she wants, and it's up to people wether or not they want to believe it.

[inkspot]

Agreed, everyone has to decide for themselves whether to read HP. Some Christians think because it is a fantasy novel, the magic is a fantasy and not bad -- like when Lucy says spells in VDT.

Other Christians say any reference to magic is bad, because the Bible says all witchcraft is bad. They make up interesting ways to get around condemning the magic in LOTR and CON and other books they like. Or, I should say, they have interesting ways to explain how magic in other books is okay, but magic in HP is bad.

I don't understand them, so I won't go any further with that.

[Miss Understood]

i don't think there is anything wrong with HP. Ok, so they may include magic but the main message given across is that they are fighting evil. there may be no link with christianity but it doesn't matter because it is teaching people the same morals that christians' have. it cleary defines good and evil. the function of a novel is to entertain people and that is exactly what the HP books do.

[uknowuluvme]

HeY.. i am a catholic nd evrything i am in luv wit harry poottterr...i am not lyk a weirdo ova it i just think the books nd movies r realli gud..i mean yea it has witchcraft in it but its all fake... i mean isnt just a little fun just to imagine wut it wud be lyk if it were real..its not a sin if u dont belive it or put it before God <33

[inkspot]

INKED!!!
Will you please set these people straight?! (JK all "you people.") :p
I have missed you! :) Welcome back!
I hope you are well.

My mum says Harry Potter is evil. So, i'm not aloud to watch it. But, it is full of witch-craft. And that is part of the Devils work. So, harry Potter is a Devil movie. Thats what my mum says. She says it goes hand and hand with the devil.
And your mum's word is good enough for you, so you should listen to her. You are a good and wise young lady to be respectful to your mum in this and all things. :)

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

The magic in HP is not bad at'all:

The books are about:

-A teenage boy (well, teenage in most of the books) who was orphaned at birth and "chosen" to be killed by the darkest wizard in history, but survies and now has to defeat him--while, all around him, normal, everyday things are going on: People flirting, people dying, and the regular activities one would do (minus the fact that they're all magical!)

[Aravis Kenobi]

I'm not allowed to read the books or see the movies because of the wizardry and witchcraft. If you remember in the Lord of the Rings, witchcraft wasn't used all that much, only at small points in the movies.(not sure about the books) The fact that Tolkien didn't write the books as an allegory is true, but I would rather read the books ten times every day for the rest of my life than to stuff my head full of Harry Potter. My parents are very against Harry Potter, and I happen to be as well. It's not the fact that they have given me their opinion, but the fact that I've seen what happens to kids who watch and love Harry Potter. They mess with the occult, witchcraft. I know a girl who has gone gothic becuase of her seeing the movies and reading the books. I heard a pastor say one time, "Don't play with evil because it'll kill you." Very true. I know that most of you disagree with me, and that's fine. If you want to hurt your faith by seeing those kind of movies, then go right on ahead. I asked my mom a hypothetical question once, "If you had to choose between me seeing the new Star Wars trilogy and Harry Potter, which would you let me see?" she answered, "Star Wars." Without hesitation. Star Wars, whether you realize it or not, has a lot of Buddhism and New Age in it, but she'd rather me see them than see movies with blatant witchcraft. These movies, especially Harry Potter, can taint your relationship with Christ. God instructed the Israelites in the Old Testament not to worship the occult. something like that, I can't remember the passage, but that's kind of what it says. I love the Wizard of Oz, and you may be thinking, "what??? she just contradicted herself." Wait a minute, I haven't. The Wizard of Oz is fun, musical, and a great family film. What's the dif between that and Harry Potter you may ask? The Wizard of Oz may deal with a little bit of witchcraft, but not quite as much as harry Potter. If you have a qualm with me about this topic, PM me so that we can discuss it where other people can't see it in case one of us flies off the handle.

[ruffian.14]

I don't see why I look at these threads, they always make me mad lol

In my opinion, I hate the way people think everyone will go evil because of the magic in the books. That's the parents, not the books. If the parents were decent parents, they'd make sure they're children weren't stupid enough to believe it. They're fictional books; the spells are latin, nothing evil about them.

"I don't believe in witchcraft, though I've lost count of the number of times I've been told I'm a practicing witch. Ninety - let's say ninety five percent at least, of the magic in the books in entirely invented by me. And I've used things from folklore and I've used bits of what people used to believe worked magically just to add a certain flavor, but I've always twisted them to suit my own ends. I mean, I've taken liberties with folklore to suit my plot."
- J.K. Rowling on magic in the books


And what is it with all Narnia forums being so freakishly Christian? It's like you can't not be a Christian and like Narnia.

If you want to hurt your faith by seeing those kind of movies, then go right on ahead.

it's a BOOK. Get over it. Christians/Catholics/Whatevers can read it if they want, don't ruin it for them. And, if you ask me, it seems like being able to read the books/see the movies without being tempted would just strengthen your religion.


I first read the first book when I was seven. I've been obsessed since then. I don't study magic, I'm not evil.

[she-elfwarrior19]

In my opinion, I hate the way people think everyone will go evil because of the magic in the books. That's the parents, not the books. If the parents were decent parents, they'd make sure they're children weren't stupid enough to believe it. They're fictional books; the spells are latin, nothing evil about them.
What do you mean by that?
Parents might not want there kids deal with ark art or witchcraft if thats what they believe, thats there way of parenting its not necesaarily if they are decent parents, everyone is raised different with parents who believe in different things.

[ruffian.14]

What do you mean by that?
Parents might not want there kids deal with ark art or witchcraft if thats what they believe, thats there way of parenting its not necesaarily if they are decent parents, everyone is raised different with parents who believe in different things.

If I understood you're post correctly, exactly. That's what I was saying, maybe you read it wrong.

[she-elfwarrior19]

Maybe i did, but what you said about decent parents didnt sit well with me thats why i said something about:o

[ruffian.14]

Maybe i did, but what you said about decent parents didnt sit well with me thats why i said something about:o

lol yeah, these kind of posts just get me mad :p

I meant it as in the parents should make sure their children know what's real and what's not. If the parents let them read them, they should just make sure they know their kids aren't going to go off and study magic. I don't think Harry Potter should be banned, in any way, but at least most people here don't like them for a reason. Anyone hear about the woman in Georgia (US) who's trying to get them banned because they're 'too long'? :D

[she-elfwarrior19]

Thats really dumb if she's trying to banned them for their length. I highly dislike HP but still lengthy books are good, and they espand some peoples reading.I know reading long books wasnt my thing but now im all for reading long books.

[inked]

Sure, Inkspot! See referenced threads in post #4 in this thread (per Inkspot)!

My posts #7, 11, 25, 33 make for a good start. Thre real fun is in "Will the next CS Lewis step Forward" thread where we has this out all last year!

Harry Potter is a Christian series, Ya'll! (We spoke the King's English in South Carolina before it became the Scots variant proposed by JKR!) :)

[inkspot]

Inked, when HP book 6 came out, you were already on sabbatical, and we never had your response ... did you come up with any cool Christian concepts from book 6?

[Siren]

Just curious...how many people like Wizard of Oz and are Christian?

Wizard of Oz contained a Wizard, and 3 witches (least accoriding to the movie)....
Glinda the Good Witch of the North
The Wicked Witch of the West
and the deceased Wicked Witch of the East

If you read the books, you'd also know there is a Good Witch of the South.

I see HP as a mixture or Oz and LOTR. HP contains good and bad witches/wizards. Just like those book/movie series do.

If kids and parents really think real witchcraft is like HP...they need a reality check. Real witchcraft isn't like Oz or HP. Real Wiccans don't come down in bubbles or fly on broom sticks. They can't turn a rat into a cup or make ruby slippers appear on your feet. This is why I see no problem with letting kids watch or read LOTR, Oz, or HP. If you raise your kids within this reality, then they can read/watch them and not go "Wow! I want to do that!" and then try and get a book on witchcraft. Because believe me, if a bunch of kids saw HP and then went and bought a book on the subject, they would be severly disappointed. They'll find out its not making books float and palor tricks. Its a lot of preperation, meditation, and prayer. I find it spectacular, most find it a bit boring and too much tree-hugging.

I certainly understand that Christians have a problem with it. But their problems with it aren't founded. HP is fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was suppost to be a realistic portrayl of witchcraft, it fell flat on its face.

[inked]

well, Inkspot, here's a short start from over at SF-Fandom:

"But, to HBP as written:

1) Snape was being sought by Dumbledore for assistance AFTER he had imbibed and been seriously affected by the magic defences. DO YOU KNOW THAT DUMBLEDORE THOUGHT SNAPE COULD RESTORE HIM or are you just assuming that? It occurs to me that Dumbledore may have needed Snape to release him from the ongoing agony from which there was not another release.

2) I am particularly struck by Dumbledore's repeated use of Snape's first name in addressing him at the penultimate moments: Severus...sever us? It seems more a coded indication to proceed with a previously agreed plan of action.

3) Dumbledore does not ask Snape for mercy or to spare him. He is not afraid and betrays remarkably little fear that Snape will do the deed. He seems to welcome it - more as a release from the agony he is hiding from Harry and Draco - and it seems, to my mind at least, a suspected and planned for consequence of his seeking the Horcrux in the cave.

4) If so, then the fear and loathing on Severus' face is the realization that Dumbledore is beyond restoration (an idea hinted at with the blackened, non-healing hand, by the way), in mortal agony, and has requested death - as previously arragnged.

5) Snape's revulsion is to be required to administer release into healing from the overwhelming action of the Dark Magic that Dumbledore KNOWINGLY undertook that it may prove fatal (see all those requirements that D placed on Harry about the possibilities of his failing and the consequences?). Healing in this case is release into the next adventure for which D certainly had a well-prepared mind and spirit (entire series, throughout).

6) Harry has repeatedly misunderstood Snape's actions in the past and has not learned from his mistakes. Yet note that it is emphasized over and over again that he is D's man through and through. He withheld judgment on Sirius against all the dat he had and learned something very valuable. He refused to have Pettigrew killed out of vengeance but trusted P to judgment. He mediates between Ron and Hermione and captains the Quidditch team through trials. Harry has become very like Dumbledore.

7) I predict that Snape has only apparently betrayed D and the OotP and that Harry has once again seen but not understood Snape's actions. The next book will begin with the realization of these factors above, the continued spying of Snape for the good of the order (probably at the cost of his life), and Harry's death to rid the world of Voldemort.

8) So much of Dumbledore's work has been to prepare Harry for his role as Gryffindor's heir (which I believe him to be through James' side) and to take over after Dumbledore's limits had been reached, and how to LIVE and DIE victoriously, that I think he knew that "being too noble to use the Dark Arts" to paraphrase McGonagall, he would be overcome by sheer power before defeating Voldemort. Yet, he did not die an ignominious death nor a useless one, as Harry misbelieves at present. He found the means by which Voldemort may be defeated, gave his life in the attempt to further that process, and gave the means to Harry so the job may be completed. Harry is now prepared to do WHAT DUMBLEDORE KNEW HE COULD NOT DO HIMSELF.

9) D emphasises repeatedly to Harry whilst obtaining the Horcrux locket and returning to Hogwarts that HARRY'S BLOOD and his person are precious and worth more than D's because of Harry's person having been marked by the Dark Lord and Harry's unfaltering ultimate choice of the GOOD and RIGHT (though not unspotted, inhesitant, or errant at times!)

10) For those of us who believe HP to be ultimately Christian in content and meaning, Dumbledore has completed his function as John the Baptist and passed the baton to "the Chosen One" in the Potterverse. But that's another topic altogether...."

more, later. :D

edit: and try here http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com/home.php?page=docs/BaptismIntoDeath&PHPSESSID=66aad58d21a18d3a8860ab22168ec03e

[inkspot]

Oh, very good, Inked! Very good for a start. :) I am thinking Dumbledore must have planned his final scene ahead of time with Snape, too.

[pegasus62]

I'll agree and quote myself ...

The language just isn't that bad.

And while Harry has had his days of being angry and short-tempered, I think other kids are allowed that -- Peter isn't always so sweet to Edmund in our beloved LWW.


No, you don't, but if you are going to bar books on the grounds of being gruesome, LOTR has to fly out the window, too. To capture the attention, books must have conflict and tension. Unless you want your kids to read nothing but "Chicken Soup" books all their life, they're going to read scary books and books with harrowing conflicts and narrow escapes ... the Bible is full of them, too!

Of course Peter isn't 'sweet' to Edmund! But Peter does not curse (Harry), lie, (also Harry), AND say rude things. How could you compare Peter, a much better person all around then Harry ever was or ever will be, to Harry? It's a horrible comparison. Peter 'repairs' his relationship with Edmund, but in Harry's case he'll continue to argue. He might even 'repair' one arguement, and get into another soon afterwards! Peter only has one, ongoing problem with Edmund.

Anyway, no one has to let their kids read or view HP if they think it's too violent or scary. I wouldn't let little ones read any after book 2 or 3 for sure -- just as Harry grows up, the plots become more grown up, too. But this in itself doesn't suggest the books are anti-Christian or incompatible with Christianity, especially because they are just fantasy literature.

In the argument above, the strikes againt Harry seem to be:
He's rude
He lies
He curses (does spells)

The rudeness is realistic in a teenaged boy in his position, and it certainly is not his continual way of life.

Hmmm...I'll think about that one. I don't think Harry will turn from his bad langauge and rudeness/crudeness as an adult. Wouldn't it simply amplify? Why is it 'certain' he won't continue his rudeness? You can't be sure of that. J.K.Rowling, obviously, enjoys him that way, or else she wouldn't continue it.

He lies. A boy at war with an evil enemy is allowed this, isn't he? For instance, Frodo Baggins goes by the name Underhill in LOTR ... it's a lie. But it's also a subterfuge in warfare. And again, stories with notorious lliars such as Huck Finn are not seen as somehow incompatible with Christian readers.

He curses -- does spells. Yes, and so did Lucy in VDT and Dr. Cornelius in PC. In a fantasy world, magic is not automatically evil. In HP, it is more or less like "The Force" in Star Wars, and those who are able to wield it may do so for good or evil.

Frodo NEEDED his coverup. Harry, on the other hand, lies to get out of his punishments, slipping underhandlly from his teachers' supposedly 'evil' clutchs. Oh, and another edition to Harry's already long list of ' bad doings' is he cheats.
You said Lucy did spells. C.S.Lewis CLEARLY defines it was bad for her to fool with the magic book. Aslan was, in obvious, angry at her for trying to use it, and Lucy was not being wise. It wasn't even her book! She became angry, also, for using it, discontented that she wasn't as beautiful as Susan. Harry uses his magick badly, and no, unless it's the 'play' type of magic, fooling with magick, spirits, and demons in an offhand way is horrible. Children, even at an older age, (4-teenager, or younger) don't mind what their doing. "Harry does it, right? I won't get any deeper into this anyway, right?"

And Inked:I've read your posts to this 'goldenrod' and I find they are especially nasty and sarcastic. (You just said 'goldenrod is still at it from six months ago!' Why did you back away in the first place? Goldenrod was doing an excellent job while you were gone, by the way. ) Why don't you just say things kindly? You don't have to get angry about it just because you love Harry.
-pegasus62

[Tsukiko]

no i dont think harry potter has asbolutely nothing to do with the Bible...my parents said that harry potter is wrong and bad, im not allowed to read the books or see the movies, which is fine by me.

[inkspot]

Inked is my acerbic friend. He can't be nice. :p
Inkspot is the nice one.

* Peter and Harry -- the characters are allowed to be different, because their in different books. Yes, Peter is a noble boy, but please consider all the advantages he has had: raised by two loving parents and a personal relationship with Aslan/Jesus. HP is the only survivor at the massacre of his parents and was raised by people who despised him. Considering the difference in circumstances, HP is actually quite well adjusted. The point is: each boy had his trials, and each one bore it as bravely as he could with the foundation he was given.

* The language. For today's time, it is no worse than the language of CON. Uncle Andrew calls Jadis a **** fine woman, the kids encourage each other not to be asses. It's schoolboy talk and it is not that bad. As I said, watching GOF, the only thing I heard which I wouldn't want my kids saying was "bloody h**l," but I don't want them calling each other an ass, either! And remember Babe the pig? His move was G-rated, and he said "butt-head." The language is just not a viable complaint against HP.

* The lies. I can't think of any big pack of lies HP told, but you're saying he lies to escape the supposedly-evil clutches of the teachers, but sometimes they are evil, like Ms Umbridge and the Dark Arts teacher who had Voldemort in his head, I can't remember his name. If Frodo is allowed to lie in his struggle against Sauron, I don't still see what HP is not allowed to lie in his struggle against Voldemort? And what about other books with notoriously lying children -- Mark Twain's works come to mind. Why is the lying in them not bad enough to condemn them? For that matter, there's the little trickster Jacob in the Bible. We should realize that book is evil, too?

* The spells. Everyone agreed Lucy's saying the visibility spell was a noble thing, and she was richly rewarded in the gratitude of the duffers. Dr. Cornelius was rewarded for his magic with discovery and possession of Lucy's horn. These are good folks who did magic. Why cannot HP be the same? And the fact that one spell Lucy did brought her grief, and one brought her praise is very much like the idea in HP there is a good way to use magic, and a bad way.

* The slipppery slope. If you think magic in a book will turn kids into Satanists, then CON, LOTR, Shakespeare and a bunch of others have to go out the window. I don't see any way around it.

[Siren]

I think a lot of Harry's problem stems from his family life.

Peter has a family that he knows loves him. He has the support of his brothers and sisters. Despite his arguments with his brother, he knows he still loves him. Peter has always been raised with love. Peter's attitude and deeds are a direct result of his parents.

Harry's parents were killed when he was an infant. He was sent to live with abusive and neglectful family members who treat him like a slave or a dog. Who treat him like he has no self-worth. Harry's attitude and deeds are the direct result of being an orphan and abused. Its not an excuse for his behaviour, but its the root of it. He is not unlike abused and neglects kids in reality. They often have a hard time seperating reality and fantasy because abused kids often make fantasy worlds and eventually those two meld together...thus many become good liars by accident, not design.

[ruffian.14]

Just curious...how many people like Wizard of Oz and are Christian?

Wizard of Oz contained a Wizard, and 3 witches (least accoriding to the movie)....
Glinda the Good Witch of the North
The Wicked Witch of the West
and the deceased Wicked Witch of the East

If you read the books, you'd also know there is a Good Witch of the South.

I see HP as a mixture or Oz and LOTR. HP contains good and bad witches/wizards. Just like those book/movie series do.

If kids and parents really think real witchcraft is like HP...they need a reality check. Real witchcraft isn't like Oz or HP. Real Wiccans don't come down in bubbles or fly on broom sticks. They can't turn a rat into a cup or make ruby slippers appear on your feet. This is why I see no problem with letting kids watch or read LOTR, Oz, or HP. If you raise your kids within this reality, then they can read/watch them and not go "Wow! I want to do that!" and then try and get a book on witchcraft. Because believe me, if a bunch of kids saw HP and then went and bought a book on the subject, they would be severly disappointed. They'll find out its not making books float and palor tricks. Its a lot of preperation, meditation, and prayer. I find it spectacular, most find it a bit boring and too much tree-hugging.

I certainly understand that Christians have a problem with it. But their problems with it aren't founded. HP is fantasy. Nothing more, nothing less. If it was suppost to be a realistic portrayl of witchcraft, it fell flat on its face.

wow. Thank you. So much.

*gives the biggest 'ditto' ever*

[inked]

Inkspot! I'm hurt! Even the acerbic have feelings!!!! :rolleyes: What do you mean I can't be nice? I am nicely acerbic. :p Just because irony and sarcasm and twitting the opposition are employed in dialogue doesn't mean I'm not nice!!! I do it very gently with great emoticons to indicate the playful aspect of the twitting.

Now, as to deserved skewering......well, if you want argument, you do get the occasional demolition of a poorly held line of reasoning or the bald contradiction of the assertion of unsubstantiated alleged facts or rumor or sometimes just plain inaccuracies. But that can't be accounted not nice. To allow persistence in unsubstantiated alleged facts or rumor or inaccuracies to just "play nice" is the very essence of un-niceness. One may not like the facts, but they remain the facts. To advise the drivers that the bridge is out may interrupt their journey and force them to rethink their route, but it is really not nice to let them drive off the bridge so as to not hurt their feelings!

One is not under the compulsion to pretend that error isn't error. One may say it nicely, even kindly with great emoticons, but the controverted seldom like it no matter how much sugar one applies. So, why waste the sugar? :eek:

(and, to be honest, my one and only reputation is for this thread where a reader said, - and I modestly and humbly give the exact quotation- "Bravo Bravo :) This guy rocks!". Bet he or she thought I was nice!)

[inkspot]

Oh, right, right, right. Inked is not so much acerbic as painfully witty. :)

[xx_Williamgirly_xx]

hey, i think it could be, that harry potter can have to do anithink with the bible, but is the writer of the books christiany? i don't know...

[inkspot]

JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which would be similar to the Anglican church of which CS Lewis was a member, I believe.
:)

[she-elfwarrior19]

Heh heh heh :p

[polly&digory]

I have heard that JK Rowling is a christian herself so why would she write something inappropriate? My uncle has never let my cousin read them (she has without his knowlage) because of the whole idea behind it. I never read them either because my dad had a problem untill he read one of the books. Myself as a christian would take caution when letting my daughter read them before a certain age. They get darker but i wouldn't say they get evil.

[Siren]

L. Frank Baum was Christian and he wrote Wizard of Oz. A story full of magic and good and bad witches. And yet, he was a man who could never swear or spank his children. He never told a dirty joke and prefered to create wonderful stories to amuse children...especially the ones who were ill and dying. He wrote a story about magic and witches. A good story. A timeless one. And he was a good Christian man.

[pegasus62]

Inked is my acerbic friend. He can't be nice. :p
Inkspot is the nice one.

You can be witty but at the same time be preceived as sarcastic. Inked is getting this point across, despite the fact that you (Inkspot) are trying to say he's simply trying to be 'witty'. I'm sorry, Inked, but that is how you are making yourself out as. (You never answered my question, Inked. Where were you while Inkspot, me, and Goldenrod talked on the Potter thread? Decided you were bored?)

* Peter and Harry -- the characters are allowed to be different, because their in different books. Yes, Peter is a noble boy, but please consider all the advantages he has had: raised by two loving parents and a personal relationship with Aslan/Jesus. HP is the only survivor at the massacre of his parents and was raised by people who despised him. Considering the difference in circumstances, HP is actually quite well adjusted. The point is: each boy had his trials, and each one bore it as bravely as he could with the foundation he was given.

I wouldn't say he was quite well adjusted at all! Just because you are raised in a horrid, disgusting home does not mean you have to copy this example. Harry bluntly does so without struggling to find a different outlet for his defiant and angry temper. Otherwise, Harry doesn't look at his situation and calmly think:"These people are hurting me, and I don't want to be like them." Instead it's: "These people are hurting me so I'll take revenge on them and hurt them back."

* The language. For today's time, it is no worse than the language of CON. Uncle Andrew calls Jadis a **** fine woman, the kids encourage each other not to be asses. It's schoolboy talk and it is not that bad. As I said, watching GOF, the only thing I heard which I wouldn't want my kids saying was "bloody h**l," but I don't want them calling each other an ass, either! And remember Babe the pig? His move was G-rated, and he said "butt-head." The language is just not a viable complaint against HP.

Uncle Andrew is supposed to be a bad character in the book! Using his example is not the right one, rather a horrible choice because he drinks, becomes violently angry, and says curse words, as you yourself stated! As far as the kids' encouragement, that is a thing they themselves should not be doing, not C.S.Lewis's personal push to become that way. Why is 'not that bad?' Obviously, God doesn't enjoy taking His name in vain. And why use it AT ALL? It IS a viable complaint, mixed so innocently with the other 'hurts' of the Potter movie. (Babe isn't cursing the whole while, by the way, in book or movie, and the movie decided to plug that in to get 'teenage' audiances.)

*The lies. I can't think of any big pack of lies HP told, but you're saying he lies to escape the supposedly-evil clutches of the teachers, but sometimes they are evil, like Ms Umbridge and the Dark Arts teacher who had Voldemort in his head, I can't remember his name. If Frodo is allowed to lie in his struggle against Sauron, I don't still see what HP is not allowed to lie in his struggle against Voldemort? And what about other books with notoriously lying children -- Mark Twain's works come to mind. Why is the lying in them not bad enough to condemn them? For that matter, there's the little trickster Jacob in the Bible. We should realize that book is evil, too?


I made the point with Frodo earlier, but you didn't read that, obviously. Please see it. :) Lying-this is in the Ten Commandments, if you know. Lying is the child's fault and should be dwelt with before it blossoms into more then white lies. Harry is smart, however, correct? Why, then, does he have to lie to get through the loopholes instead of using his wits? Jacob was not Jesus. 'All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. So, yes, some Bible people do make mistakes, so you can't use Jacob's example.

* The spells. Everyone agreed Lucy's saying the visibility spell was a noble thing, and she was richly rewarded in the gratitude of the duffers. Dr. Cornelius was rewarded for his magic with discovery and possession of Lucy's horn. These are good folks who did magic. Why cannot HP be the same? And the fact that one spell Lucy did brought her grief, and one brought her praise is very much like the idea in HP there is a good way to use magic, and a bad way.

He doesn't use his magick to do good! And, he is doing cruel things, watching his teachers doing bad things, and enjoying the cruel rewards of his magick that goes with it! (Blowing up his subsitute parents and brother, etc.) Why do people love this? Because he's getting revenge! "..let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or socery, who engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spirtist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord..."-Deuteronomy 18:10-12


* The slipppery slope. If you think magic in a book will turn kids into Satanists, then CON, LOTR, Shakespeare and a bunch of others have to go out the window. I don't see any way around it.

One last thing. Like my post above, the Bible states why the Lord doesn't like these things. In another passage, He even says it's a sin! "...for rebellion is like the SIN of divination..."-1 Samuel 15:23 so, you can see why Harry is not following a very good path! this is why I don't want any child to take on Harry's example. :(
-pegasus62

[Goldenrod22]

One may not like the facts, but they remain the facts.
One is not under the compulsion to pretend that error isn't error.


Hi! :)
I agree wholeheartedly! I've tried for a while to show you the direct quotes from Harry Potter that prove my points. But, one may not like the facts, you know. :D

[Goldenrod22]

I take issue with Harry for another great reason. If you are a fan, I want you to answer these questions.

1. Why do you read the books?
Is it because:
A. I Want To Be Entertained
B. I Want To be Educated in the Fun World of Sorcery
C. Because I Get Bored Reading Classics
D. J.K. Rowling Is the Greatest Thing Since Narnia, Despite Her Skewed Morals
E. I Want to Fit in With All of the Other People Who Read It (or let their kids read it)
F. I'm Reading, Are'nt I?
G. The Reality of sorcery and Witchcraft Should be Embraced

Now, I get to say something.
If you answered A, than you have a problem. Anything can be entertaining, but as the old saying goes: "Garbage in,garbage out." I could use 'A' for anything, including watching immoral T.V. shows without any guilt.
I'll get to the other issues next time!

If you answered B, you have a problem. God condemns sorcery in His word, as well as witchcraft and divination (check out my old post for verses).

More later!

[inkspot]

I wouldn't say he was quite well adjusted at all! Just because you are raised in a horrid, disgusting home does not mean you have to copy this example. Harry bluntly does so without struggling to find a different outlet for his defiant and angry temper. Otherwise, Harry doesn't look at his situation and calmly think:"These people are hurting me, and I don't want to be like them." Instead it's: "These people are hurting me so I'll take revenge on them and hurt them back."
Here then, you disagree with CS Lewis. In Mere Christianity, he makes the case that a poor abused blighter with the worst possible family background who nevertheless brings himself up to a point of nominally good behavior has progressed far more toward godliness than someone brought up with every advantage who remains only as "nice and noble" or what have you as his forbears. For HP to have made the stunning strides of knowing the power of love, of obtaining the courage he has in defense of his friends, of realizing the difference between good aand evil and placing himself clearly on the good side -- he has progressed and grown in a tremendous way.

Uncle Andrew is supposed to be a bad character in the book! Using his example is not the right one, rather a horrible choice because he drinks, becomes violently angry, and says curse words, as you yourself stated!
And yet, the language is there, I thought it was the language you objected to?

As far as the kids' encouragement, that is a thing they themselves should not be doing, not C.S.Lewis's personal push to become that way.
Could you clarify this? I am not sure I understand. Are you saying it was CS Lewis cussing and not the kids? But he wrote their dialog ... :confused:

Why is 'not that bad?' Obviously, God doesn't enjoy taking His name in vain. And why use it AT ALL? It IS a viable complaint, mixed so innocently with the other 'hurts' of the Potter movie. (Babe isn't cursing the whole while, by the way, in book or movie, and the movie decided to plug that in to get 'teenage' audiances.)
But nobody in HP cusses "the whole while," either. As I mentioned, in GoF, Ron said bloody h**l once or twice. And if it's okay for Babe to use language once to get the "teenage audience" as you say, why not Ron?

I made the point with Frodo earlier, but you didn't read that, obviously. Please see it. :)
I did see it, but I did not see, still, why Frodo was allowed to lie and HP not, as long as they were both engaged in fighting evil? you said:
Frodo NEEDED his coverup. Harry, on the other hand, lies to get out of his punishments, slipping underhandlly from his teachers' supposedly 'evil' clutchs. and I reported how some of HP's teachers are evil, and in fighting evil, he, too, NEEDED the cover-up of the lie, as you say Frodo did. So how is Harry's lie different from Frodo's?

Lying-this is in the Ten Commandments, if you know. Lying is the child's fault and should be dwelt with before it blossoms into more then white lies. Harry is smart, however, correct? Why, then, does he have to lie to get through the loopholes instead of using his wits?
HP certainly does not teach children to lie, and the same question applies here: why did Frodo need to lie about his name (Underhill) if he were so smart? You're making it out as if HP tells lies every minute of the day, but he doesn't.

Jacob was not Jesus. 'All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. So, yes, some Bible people do make mistakes, so you can't use Jacob's example.
How's this then: HP is not Jesus. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So, yes, some HP characters do make mistakes, so you can't use Harry's example. Your point, I thought, was that it was bad to show the hero of a book lying, but Jacob is certainly a hero of the Bible (the Lord is often called the God of Jacob) and yet the book shows him lying. How is this an example which cannot be used?

He doesn't use his magick to do good! And, he is doing cruel things, watching his teachers doing bad things, and enjoying the cruel rewards of his magick that goes with it! (Blowing up his subsitute parents and brother, etc.) Why do people love this? Because he's getting revenge!
If you have read the books, you will recall when he "accidentally" wreaks revenge on someone -- such as blowing up his aunt -- there are horrible consequences to Harry himself; he is very nearly kicked out of school and made homeless ... the worst thing he can imagine would be having to leave Hogwarts, and after he blows up the aunt, he knows this is about to happen to him. He gets no enjoyment from his "revenge" because it puts him in such a dreadful position. He is very punished in his plight, and I thought that's what anti-Potter people wanted, for Harry to have to pay for his misdeeds? And indeed, he does.

He doesn't use his magick to do good!As for his not doing good with his magic, he is engaged in saving the world from an evil power about to engulf it -- much as Frodo was. How is this not "doing good" with his magic?

I agree with you: witchcraft and divination are condemned in the Bible, for us humans in this world. For fictional characters in a magical world, magic is alive and well and has been practiced from CON to LOTR with no one the worse for it. HP is a fantasy world, with fantasy people doing fantasy magic.

[echoscot]

Originally Posted by Goldenrod22
I take issue with Harry for another great reason. If you are a fan, I want you to answer these questions.

1. Why do you read the books?
Is it because:
A. I Want To Be Entertained
B. I Want To be Educated in the Fun World of Sorcery
C. Because I Get Bored Reading Classics
D. J.K. Rowling Is the Greatest Thing Since Narnia, Despite Her Skewed Morals
E. I Want to Fit in With All of the Other People Who Read It (or let their kids read it)
F. I'm Reading, Are'nt I?
G. The Reality of sorcery and Witchcraft Should be Embraced

Now, I get to say something.
If you answered A, than you have a problem. Anything can be entertaining, but as the old saying goes: "Garbage in,garbage out." I could use 'A' for anything, including watching immoral T.V. shows without any guilt.
I'll get to the other issues next time!
More later!


Uhhhmmm what about H none of the above. A question like this is simply forcing the argument onto YOUR grounds, not seeking to understand. This presents a closed-minded and rather arrogant approach. So the responses usually are closed-minded as well.

You put blatant qualifiers onto all of the choices which some may not accept. So the response usually is very negative. If you wish to present some viable comment then do so, but I think you won't get a good reaction from this kind of positioning. And you run the risk of being wrong and never being able to realize it. Therefore you could miss out on many blessings that God may be willing to give you, not just in this situation, but in life as well, being that you probably use this approach in more than one area.

So try rephrasing this and giving opportunity to prayerfully consider the people here, :D and see how your heart might be changed and you might be of use to Him to help change the hearts of others. :D

[echoscot]

He doesn't use his magick to do good!


You may have answered this earlier. Why do you spell magic with a k. You do realize that the only groups that do this are the real practitioners of magic. Wicca and neopaganists use this to delineate what they do from the fairytale stuff. If you have read the HP books, you realize even Ms Rowling doesn't do this.

So I was just curious why????? :confused:

[inked]

Hi, Pegasus62 and Goldenrod22,

Are you related? Last name of 2 and all?

I have elucidated on many threads why HP is a Christian work and how wrong folks can be about this (a)banes(ful) presence. I see no need to re-iterate all that.

Can't you guys learn to spell? There is an alleged difference between magic and magick. It's a "k". One is used in HP. The other is attributable to Richard Abanes. Those are two different authors, guys.

[inkspot]

Inked is so mean! ;)

Okay, I just re-read HP book 6, Half Blood Prince. And Pegasus, just so you know, in ever how many hundred pages, I noted only three cuss words:
Rob said H**l once
Ginny said H**l once, and she also said D**n once.

So we can conclude:
* Language is not an issue (CS Lewis used ass and dem) and it isn't as if you read cuss word after cuss word in the HP books!
* And Harry, the hero, didn't cuss at all! This is one-up on CS Lewis, cuz if I remember it was Jill and Eustace, the heroes of their story, who said ass.

So, I think we can lay that complaint to rest. :)

[echoscot]

Inked is so mean! ;)

Okay, I just re-read HP book 6, Half Blood Prince. And Pegasus, just so you know, in ever how many hundred pages, I noted only three cuss words:
Rob said H**l once
Ginny said H**l once, and she also said D**n once.

So we can conclude:
* Language is not an issue (CS Lewis used ass and dem) and it isn't as if you read cuss word after cuss word in the HP books!
* And Harry, the hero, didn't cuss at all! This is one-up on CS Lewis, cuz if I remember it was Jill and Eustace, the heroes of their story, who said ass.

So, I think we can lay that complaint to rest. :)


Although as a HP fan I must still point out that Ron uses inappropriate hand gestures, which I'm sure we all know what those are. Even once, to his embarrassment getting caught by his mom. :rolleyes:

[inked]

Mean? Me? Nah! Just observant.

Hand gestures? Like the fig given to God in THE INFERNO by one of the denizens of H (that place which is not heaven and not limbo)?

Come on, these stories are about things children do in the process of growing up. Virtually every child I knew (yeah, verily those many years ago!) did both. Especially at around the 4th grade. So one could argue that the kids at Hogwarts are rather slow.

And compared to the kids I knew at the age of our heroes, our heroes do it very little. LORD OF THE FLIES was more realistic, as I recall.

How can you have a coming of age story is no one actually makes the mistakes all people do?

Oh, vey! Where in the world can you find a story that doesn't involve human error and fault? Why even that whole bit about David in the Old Testament is rather risque by these standards. Saul and the witch, David as bandit, adultery, murder, and ignoring of justice (Absolam and his sister Tamar's assault by a half-brother), and rebellion. In fact, by these standards, Peter gets cut out because of foul language (he swore with an oath he didn't know him).

We know for a fact that Paul knew a lot folks who did these sort of things even after becoming Christians because he wrote for them not to do it more than once in his letters.

See what trouble spelling errors lead to? ;)

[tumnus_luver15]

Do ya'll think that Harry Potter can relate to the Bible at all? I know it was not writen to be about the Bible, but could it have anything to do with it???

if you look back it accually i srelated to the bible(i have studied in to this a lot)
1. good vs. evil - harry is on the good side and he is trying to kill voldemort who is evil.
2. dumbledore is like jesus - teaching kids to do the right thing, and he gets killed be evil people like jesus.
3. there are 7 books - just like the 7 days it took god to make the world.
4. the phonix in the 2nd book is called jesus bird - because it dies and rises again.
5. snape(to an extent) is like a sinner who came back to jesus but then turns back to the evil side.

i have more but i am sure you are getting tired of reading this so i will post it later.


i had a disscussion about this at my church so i know what i am talking about.

Mandy

[tumnus_luver15]

Inked is so mean! ;)

Okay, I just re-read HP book 6, Half Blood Prince. And Pegasus, just so you know, in ever how many hundred pages, I noted only three cuss words:
Rob said H**l once
Ginny said H**l once, and she also said D**n once.

So we can conclude:
* Language is not an issue (CS Lewis used ass and dem) and it isn't as if you read cuss word after cuss word in the HP books!
* And Harry, the hero, didn't cuss at all! This is one-up on CS Lewis, cuz if I remember it was Jill and Eustace, the heroes of their story, who said ass.

So, I think we can lay that complaint to rest. :)

yea they cuss but over there (may i be corrected if i am wrong) d**n is not a cuss word. nor is he11 ( over there ) in england

[tumnus_luver15]

I take issue with Harry for another great reason. If you are a fan, I want you to answer these questions.

1. Why do you read the books?
Is it because:
A. I Want To Be Entertained
B. I Want To be Educated in the Fun World of Sorcery
C. Because I Get Bored Reading Classics
D. J.K. Rowling Is the Greatest Thing Since Narnia, Despite Her Skewed Morals
E. I Want to Fit in With All of the Other People Who Read It (or let their kids read it)
F. I'm Reading, Are'nt I?
G. The Reality of sorcery and Witchcraft Should be Embraced

Now, I get to say something.
If you answered A, than you have a problem. Anything can be entertaining, but as the old saying goes: "Garbage in,garbage out." I could use 'A' for anything, including watching immoral T.V. shows without any guilt.
I'll get to the other issues next time!

look if you don't agree with it then that is you
and yes i read it because if A
so if you think that i have a problem then say it to my face. :mad:

Mandy

[tumnus_luver15]

Here then, you disagree with CS Lewis. In Mere Christianity, he makes the case that a poor abused blighter with the worst possible family background who nevertheless brings himself up to a point of nominally good behavior has progressed far more toward godliness than someone brought up with every advantage who remains only as "nice and noble" or what have you as his forbears. For HP to have made the stunning strides of knowing the power of love, of obtaining the courage he has in defense of his friends, of realizing the difference between good aand evil and placing himself clearly on the good side -- he has progressed and grown in a tremendous way.


And yet, the language is there, I thought it was the language you objected to?


Could you clarify this? I am not sure I understand. Are you saying it was CS Lewis cussing and not the kids? But he wrote their dialog ... :confused:


But nobody in HP cusses "the whole while," either. As I mentioned, in GoF, Ron said bloody h**l once or twice. And if it's okay for Babe to use language once to get the "teenage audience" as you say, why not Ron?


I did see it, but I did not see, still, why Frodo was allowed to lie and HP not, as long as they were both engaged in fighting evil? you said:
and I reported how some of HP's teachers are evil, and in fighting evil, he, too, NEEDED the cover-up of the lie, as you say Frodo did. So how is Harry's lie different from Frodo's?


HP certainly does not teach children to lie, and the same question applies here: why did Frodo need to lie about his name (Underhill) if he were so smart? You're making it out as if HP tells lies every minute of the day, but he doesn't.


How's this then: HP is not Jesus. All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So, yes, some HP characters do make mistakes, so you can't use Harry's example. Your point, I thought, was that it was bad to show the hero of a book lying, but Jacob is certainly a hero of the Bible (the Lord is often called the God of Jacob) and yet the book shows him lying. How is this an example which cannot be used?


If you have read the books, you will recall when he "accidentally" wreaks revenge on someone -- such as blowing up his aunt -- there are horrible consequences to Harry himself; he is very nearly kicked out of school and made homeless ... the worst thing he can imagine would be having to leave Hogwarts, and after he blows up the aunt, he knows this is about to happen to him. He gets no enjoyment from his "revenge" because it puts him in such a dreadful position. He is very punished in his plight, and I thought that's what anti-Potter people wanted, for Harry to have to pay for his misdeeds? And indeed, he does.

As for his not doing good with his magic, he is engaged in saving the world from an evil power about to engulf it -- much as Frodo was. How is this not "doing good" with his magic?

I agree with you: witchcraft and divination are condemned in the Bible, for us humans in this world. For fictional characters in a magical world, magic is alive and well and has been practiced from CON to LOTR with no one the worse for it. HP is a fantasy world, with fantasy people doing fantasy magic.


well said......well said i agree with you.

[tumnus_luver15]

Hello everybody! :)
Just wanted to say that I think that some of you are a teeny bit mislead (in my opinion). To compare the three characters in HP to the Holy Trinity is rather far-fetched. If there are those who believe in Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and God as being like Ron, Hermione, and Harry...that is kind of strange. I think the reason for this is that since there is no God present in the books, it is like grasping at straws to find a different one. Is Harry the god? No, too imperfect. Is it Dumbledore? Same here. Aslan, in Narnia, was perfect...even sacrificial.
I believe that if there was to be a 'God' in HP, it would exist in the minds of all of the characters. Have you all heard of the atheistic saying (that Disney frequently uses) 'Believe in yourself'? How about 'Believe in your heart'?
Sorry, but I refuse to believe that YOU are your own God.
SPOILER*****There is NO God in the Harry Potter books*****. ;)

LOOK NOW I AM GETTING TIRED OF YOU
DUMBLEDORE SACRIFICED HIMSELF TO HELP HARRY. JUST LIKE ASLAN DID IN LWW. SO DON'T YOU EVEN START WITH ME.

[tumnus_luver15]

My mum says Harry Potter is evil. So, i'm not aloud to watch it. But, it is full of witch-craft. And that is part of the Devils work. So, harry Potter is a Devil movie. Thats what my mum says. She says it goes hand and hand with the devil.

BUT IT DON'T - LOOK BACK AT WHAT I SAID WHEN I FIRST POSTED - FIND IT AND EVEN SHOW YOUR MUM!

P.S. THE WITCHCRAFT WAS USED TO BRING IN TEEN-AGED KIDS.

[tumnus_luver15]

Wait-slow down a little. PLEASE don't think I'm not reading the posts, bcause I am. I'm NOT trying to say that you're not responding. It's just you always argue back, and never look closely at what the person just said. Case and point with what I said in my earlier post you just answered. And by the way, I don't think that was every nice of you to say to me-'I think it's very funny' as if you were scoffing at my point. :( Please tell me if I'm being too harsh, because I think that you can get pretty fired up on the point you are trying to make. Listen, I'm just trying to say that Potter fans, it's not just the magick involved. It's the langauge, the so-called 'humor', the bad content, and the violence. Sure, other movies have these things too, so why fill your mind with it? Even LOTR included violence, but overall Potter is just...harsh, especially to young children. Please try and understand. :)


SO YOU R SAYING THAT IT IS NOT ALL BECAUSE OF THE WITCH CRAFT THE REASON Y U DON'T LIKE THE MOVIE. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE.
SO IF I SAID HELL YOU WOULD NOT LIKE IT.

P.S. THAT IS NOT A CUSS WORD AS LONG AS YOU ARE SAYING IT AS A PLACE AND I CONSIDER HOW RON SAYS IT AS A PLACE.

AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS HOW MANY MOVIES DO YOU SEE NOW THAT DO NOT HAVE CUSSING IN THEM?
ME - NOT THAT MANY
SO BECAUSE OF THAT REASON THAT YOU STATED I GUESS YOU DON'T LIKE MUCH OF NOTHING(ESPICALLY ME)

[tumnus_luver15]

Okay, I have a lot of things to say about this.
First of all, Harry is not a rude character. I mean, come on! He's a teenager for a goodness sakes dealing with the issue of an evil lord plotting to kill him and he has all these hormones raging inside of him. lol
I agree with inkspot. Harry is a very selfless character who puts himself before others and always worries about others' safety.

The magic in Harry Potter is only a fraction of the story. It doesn't even play a major role in the story. All it does is protect the kids from harm and in the story, theres a difference between good magic and bad magic. It's just a fantasy series and therefore should never be taken seriously, but I think it has some very good Christian symbolism in it and that's one of the reasons I read it, so I can look for it all. :D

For example, I was reading Finding God in Harry Potter and the author was saying that there's a pattern in each of the books. Harry descends down into the earth, dies a figurative death, gets saved by a Christ-like figure, and rises from the dead to conquer evil. Like in the Chamber of Secrets, he gets saved by Fawkes the Phoenix (which is a perfect symbol for Christ) and in Prisoner of Azkaban he gets saved by a Patronus in the form of a white stag (again, another Christ figure). So, as you can see, the magic in Harry Potter is not the spells they cast, but there's more to it than that.
And the theme of the whole series is that Harry is rescued from Voldemort's curse by his mother's love and that is powerful than any magic spell. Dumbledore himself says so in Sorcerer's Stone. :)


THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU

[echoscot]

Tumnus Lover, your input is appreciated but all caps is considered shouting and a bit rude. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I am very glad you enjoy the books. I do as well, but don't feel defensive.

[echoscot]

Mean? Me? Nah! Just observant.

Hand gestures? Like the fig given to God in THE INFERNO by one of the denizens of H (that place which is not heaven and not limbo)?

Come on, these stories are about things children do in the process of growing up. Virtually every child I knew (yeah, verily those many years ago!) did both. Especially at around the 4th grade. So one could argue that the kids at Hogwarts are rather slow.

And compared to the kids I knew at the age of our heroes, our heroes do it very little. LORD OF THE FLIES was more realistic, as I recall.

How can you have a coming of age story is no one actually makes the mistakes all people do?

Oh, vey! Where in the world can you find a story that doesn't involve human error and fault? Why even that whole bit about David in the Old Testament is rather risque by these standards. Saul and the witch, David as bandit, adultery, murder, and ignoring of justice (Absolam and his sister Tamar's assault by a half-brother), and rebellion. In fact, by these standards, Peter gets cut out because of foul language (he swore with an oath he didn't know him).

We know for a fact that Paul knew a lot folks who did these sort of things even after becoming Christians because he wrote for them not to do it more than once in his letters.

See what trouble spelling errors lead to? ;)


I think you misunderstood me. I was not in any way bashing the books, I have read them too many times and bought all the audio books with Jim Dale. But it is a valid point if someone is bringing up the cursing. The rude hand gestures may or may not be like Dante's Inferno, which also was hardly billed as a childrens' story.

The only concern I have is labelling them children's stories. I find them very dark and dealing with difficult subjects, death and despair. Some children are not mature enough, emotionally, to deal with that. I believe that a parent should read them with their children, and actually I would put these books at a preteen level, at the earliest.

I also would not want my kids thinking it is funny or acceptable to curse or make rude hand gestures and would probably threaten to jinx their fingers together just like Mrs. Weasley did. Sometimes it is played off that way, and children will imitate their mentors, even fictional. I know, because I did and so did my friends, growing up.

That said, I love the books and can hardly wait for the 7th one to come out and prove me correct that Snape is really good! :cool:

[inkspot]

Oh, I think Snape will turn out to be good, too. I love Snape.

I agree that the latter books are much to darkforyoung children! This is my only complaint. Our kids grew up with the books as Harry was growing up, so they were big teens by the time the latest one came out, but a 10-year-old who started reading them now would get to some very scary and emotionally wrenching stuff by next month when the had finished book 6.

I do think the later books are only for the older kids.

[CSLewisFan]

Oh, I think Snape will turn out to be good, too. I love Snape.

I agree that the latter books are much to darkforyoung children! This is my only complaint. Our kids grew up with the books as Harry was growing up, so they were big teens by the time the latest one came out, but a 10-year-old who started reading them now would get to some very scary and emotionally wrenching stuff by next month when the had finished book 6.

I do think the later books are only for the older kids.

I agree on both accounts.

1. Snape is a wonderful (and probably the most interesting) character.
He is probably my favorite. (I have strong theories for him turning out good, but even if he doesn’t he is still my favorite.:))

2. If I had kids, I would definitely encourage them to read fantasy.
I would stuff them full of all my favorite fantasy books as a child and now.

But Harry Potter, His Dark Materials and The Inheritance Trilogy, I would save until much later, when I was positive that they understood the difference between the real world and fantasy and that they were mentally mature enough to handle some of the "stress" complex novels can cause.

My thoughts on your thoughts :)

-Austin

[echoscot]

I agree on both accounts.

1. Snape is a wonderful (and probably the most interesting) character.
He is probably my favorite. (I have strong theories for him turning out good, but even if he doesn’t he is still my favorite.:))

2. If I had kids, I would definitely encourage them to read fantasy.
I would stuff them full of all my favorite fantasy books as a child and now.

But Harry Potter, His Dark Materials and The Inheritance Trilogy, I would save until much later, when I was positive that they understood the difference between the real world and fantasy and that they were mentally mature enough to handle some of the "stress" complex novels can cause.

My thoughts on your thoughts :)

-Austin

Hmmm, I've never read His Dark Materials, but I guess that is fodder for another thread....

[Goldenrod22]

Hi! :)
I go away for a week and look what happens! A completely one-sided debate takes over for several pages ("I just LOVE Harry! What about you, Inked?" "I have to say, I just LOVE Harry! What about you, Inkspot?" Etc. etc. etc.)
Sometimes it seems as if there is next to no one else standing up for what actual bad issues these books raise. Ah, well, I've got to get down now to what I need to say instead of harping on the lack of more people standing up and speaking up. ;)
First of all, I've been gone so long that quite a bit of stuff has begun to pile up as far as accusations go. I'll try to clear up some of the clutter and debris that has accumulated over the last few weeks...there are a good number of pages that have been taken up with Inky's conversations, though.

[CSLewisFan]

Hi! :)
I go away for a week and look what happens! A completely one-sided debate takes over for several pages ("I just LOVE Harry! What about you, Inked?" "I have to say, I just LOVE Harry! What about you, Inkspot?" Etc. etc. etc.)
Sometimes it seems as if there is next to no one else standing up for what actual bad issues these books raise. Ah, well, I've got to get down now to what I need to say instead of harping on the lack of more people standing up and speaking up. ;)
First of all, I've been gone so long that quite a bit of stuff has begun to pile up as far as accusations go. I'll try to clear up some of the clutter and debris that has accumulated over the last few weeks...there are a good number of pages that have been taken up with Inky's conversations, though.


If you think there are issues with Christians reading Harry Potter, come with me, we will take a walk :)
Seriously, I'm in deep anticipation of what this newly constructed argument could be :)

-Austin

[inked]

HI, GR22, the accusations were surprisingly absent while you were vacationing, IMHO. What new allegations or rumours are there for you to sport? :p

Hope you had a great vacation!

[Goldenrod22]

[QUOTE=inkspot]
But nobody in HP cusses "the whole while," either.
QUOTE]

Whoa. This is quite a statement that could be accepted for fact if it were true. Let's look at what is really true...
Did you even read my previous post about where each of the characters (good) curses in the book? The exact page number where it occurs? Or did this slip past you? They may not curse the 'whole while' but it seems as if you wish to ignore completely all of the times they do!
While the movie 'Crash' contains some of the most language of any film, it does not have cursing as the only dialogue (as in a steady stream of expletives without any other verbs). Does this mean 'Crash' is acceptable to watch? It doesnt have cursing the 'whole while', you might say innocently.
Uncle Andrew in the Narnia books does say the words you stated. They are coming from the mouth of a character that is despised, not like your Harry who is the role model for kids reading the book (you don't think that while a seven year old is reading about and modeling Harry's 'bravery' they are also modeling his language?).
If you want to get very particular, Uncle Andrew is looked at not only as a fallen character (like Harry) but as one who never gains salvation. I would say that the HP books share a lot more words with our kids than are neccesary, much more than the Narnia books ever do.
And besides, have you ever found another book in the CON series that even comes close to saying things as 'bad' as what Uncle Andrew says in the first book?
You have next to nothing to stand on with Narnia.

[pegasus62]

Before I answer any of your posts, I would like to say this to both you and Inked: Obviously, you both refuse to listen to any other point of view. I, also, am the same. I base my values and points, though, off of God's commands, the Bible, and my own Christianity. I see your stubborness clearly and know the two of you, (Are YOU related? Inked and Inkspot and all? Inked...lots of numbers members add to their names...You puzzle it out. ) will always turn your faces in your own defiant pride and continue to say what you've been saying all these days. "Harry is great and I will let my children see it no matter what the costs." So, though I may address you from time to time, you've shown you're 'true colors' well enough. Thank you for your insight, anyway...("Review the past for me, let us argue the matter together;state the case for your innocence."-Isaiah 43:26)
Here then, you disagree with CS Lewis. In Mere Christianity, he makes the case that a poor abused blighter with the worst possible family background who nevertheless brings himself up to a point of nominally good behavior has progressed far more toward godliness than someone brought up with every advantage who remains only as "nice and noble" or what have you as his forbears. For HP to have made the stunning strides of knowing the power of love, of obtaining the courage he has in defense of his friends, of realizing the difference between good aand evil and placing himself clearly on the good side -- he has progressed and grown in a tremendous way.

I, too, am confused by this paragraph...could you make yourself clearer?


Could you clarify this? I am not sure I understand. Are you saying it was CS Lewis cussing and not the kids? But he wrote their dialog ... :confused:

I'm saying, he's not ENCOURAGING the kids to continue in bad langauge. He's not pressing the point. "It's great to curse!" Rowling is littering her pages so, however. Did you see GR's post a while back-quite interesting. She/he? listed the various times cuss words appeared in Rowling's singe beginning Harry book.

But nobody in HP cusses "the whole while," either. As I mentioned, in GoF, Ron said bloody h**l once or twice. And if it's okay for Babe to use language once to get the "teenage audience" as you say, why not Ron?

I didn't say this was good. I was tring to push that I didn't enjoy the director's cut of this part of 'Babe', and despised the langauge.

I did see it, but I did not see, still, why Frodo was allowed to lie and HP not, as long as they were both engaged in fighting evil? you said:
and I reported how some of HP's teachers are evil, and in fighting evil, he, too, NEEDED the cover-up of the lie, as you say Frodo did. So how is Harry's lie different from Frodo's?HP certainly does not teach children to lie, and the same question applies here: why did Frodo need to lie about his name (Underhill) if he were so smart? You're making it out as if HP tells lies every minute of the day, but he doesn't.

He lies to his friends, correct? Not only his enemies and teachers. What type of relationship is that? He DOES teach children to lie by his example...and you never responded to my question on Harry's cleverness.

As for his not doing good with his magic, he is engaged in saving the world from an evil power about to engulf it -- much as Frodo was. How is this not "doing good" with his magic?I agree with you: witchcraft and divination are condemned in the Bible, for us humans in this world. For fictional characters in a magical world, magic is alive and well and has been practiced from CON to LOTR with no one the worse for it. HP is a fantasy world, with fantasy people doing fantasy magic.

Whether be fiction or truth, HP encourages children, more then any best-selling book on the young fiction market, to do magick.

I will answer your other questions shortly. Thank you.

[inkspot]

his is quite a statement that could be accepted for fact if it were true. Let's look at what is really true...
Did you even read my previous post about where each of the characters (good) curses in the book? The exact page number where it occurs? Or did this slip past you? They may not curse the 'whole while' but it seems as if you wish to ignore completely all of the times they do!
I did miss this post you refer to, but I just read HP Book 6 over the weekend, and I was paying special attention to the language. Maybe you missed my post:
Ginny said "d**n" and "h**l" once each,
Ron said "h**l" once,
and Harry said no cuss words!

i do not see a cussing problem in the books. I don't want my girls saying "d**m" or "h**l" but I don't want them saying "ass" either, and CS Lewis' characters use this word ... so I do not see how horribly different the words in HP are from the words in CON?

it seems like when people who dislike HP can't make their magick argument work, they go to secondary issues, but the language simply isn't one.

Before I answer any of your posts, I would like to say this to both you and Inked: Obviously, you both refuse to listen to any other point of view. I, also, am the same. I base my values and points, though, off of God's commands, the Bible, and my own Christianity. I see your stubborness clearly and know the two of you, will always turn your faces in your own defiant pride and continue to say what you've been saying all these days.
Dear Pegasus, dear friend, this grieves me! I am a follower of Jesus Christ, have tried to base my life on His foundation, have a 30+-year relationship with Him. If I have done or said something to make you think I am filled with pride and defiance, I have failed miserably in my chief occupation in life: to allow Jesus to express His life through mine. Please forgive me.

I did not think there was a pride or defiance issue here; I happen to think HP is good reading, and it makes me sad when Christians jump it based on this idea that he encourage people to practice real-world magic, which I don't see.

Now as for not being able to see your side of the issue ... if you go way back in this Thread, you will see, I started out, as a person who had not read the books, tending to agree with your viewpoint, that the books were bad, because this is what I heard Christians saying. Then i read the books myself, and my viewpoint began to change. This to me doesn't seem the earmark of a person who won't consider another's point of view. Check it out.

(Are YOU related? Inked and Inkspot and all? Inked...lots of numbers members add to their names...You puzzle it out. )
Yes, as a matter of fact, Inked is my brother in Christ!!! :)

I, too, am confused by this paragraph...could you make yourself clearer?
If I understood your previous post, you were discounting my idea that harry had done quite as well for himself as Peter from CON, considering the background each came from. Peter had two parents who loved him and raised him in a Christian home, and HP had two parents violently murdered and was raised by a dysfucntional foster family who treated him abominably. I said that considering their backgrounds, Harry had done quite well. You said:
I wouldn't say he was quite well adjusted at all! Just because you are raised in a horrid, disgusting home does not mean you have to copy this example. Harry bluntly does so without struggling to find a different outlet for his defiant and angry temper. Otherwise, Harry doesn't look at his situation and calmly think:"These people are hurting me, and I don't want to be like them." Instead it's: "These people are hurting me so I'll take revenge on them and hurt them back."
I was trying to explain, that when someone from such a horrible background as Harry learns the value of love, the courage to stand up for his friends, the difference between right and wrong -- and even chooses to stake his life on the right as harry does -- then he has made quite good use of the poor base material he was given to work with.

Some of us who seem quite nice may, in fact, have made so little use of a good heredity and a good upbringing tht we are really worse than those whom we regard as fiends. Can we be quite certain how we would have behaved if we had been saddled with the psychological outfit, and then with the bad upbringing, and then with the power of, say, Himmler? That is why Christians are told not to judge. We see only the results which a man's choices make out of his raw material. but God does not judge him on the raw material at all, but on what he has done with it.

This is what I was trying to say: in Lewis' view, Harry's conduct, considering his background, is quite laudable.

He lies to his friends, correct? Not only his enemies and teachers. What type of relationship is that? He DOES teach children to lie by his example...
Then, as Inked as pointed out, we need to keep kids away from the Bible, too. Look what King David did to his friend Uriah. I can't remember, just in my head, Harry telling a lie to his friends -- and his not being punished for it in some way if he did. Usually when his willful disobedience leads him astray, he is very hideously punished, such as his refusal to learn occlumency which led to a dear friend's death. HP's misbehaviors are punished.

and you never responded to my question on Harry's cleverness.
If he is so clever, why does he need to lie? Is that what you were referring to? I don't think he's so clever, that's kind of the point about Harry: he's an ordinary boy thrust into extraordinary circumstances. And I also asked you: if ol Frodo was so clever, why did he lie? It's a silly question from you or me! :)

[CSLewisFan]

I'm saying, he's not ENCOURAGING the kids to continue in bad langauge. He's not pressing the point. "It's great to curse!" Rowling is littering her pages so, however. Did you see GR's post a while back-quite interesting. She/he? listed the various times cuss words appeared in Rowling's singe beginning Harry book.



I didn't say this was good. I was tring to push that I didn't enjoy the director's cut of this part of 'Babe', and despised the langauge.



He lies to his friends, correct? Not only his enemies and teachers. What type of relationship is that? He DOES teach children to lie by his example...and you never responded to my question on Harry's cleverness.

If I read a murder mystery story, just because I read that someone is murdered, doesn’t make me more inclined to do so. Just because there is a lie in a book, doesn’t make me more inclined to lie OR think that lying is ok.
Same with swearing. If I hear someone swear (or a less than attractive word) it doesn’t make me more inclined to swear. No does it change my views on whether or not it's ok to swear.



Whether be fiction or truth, HP encourages children, more then any best-selling book on the young fiction market, to do magick.


What poll is that from? Which survey presented these results?
Or is this your ideology?

Have you read the books?

Have you ever tried to point a stick and prompt with Latin? Did anything happen?
Was it dark and evil? Did Satan and Harry show up?

-Austin

[inked]

Pegasus22,

If you mean I am proud and defiant because I don't accept invalid arguments from faulty premises and poor spellers, well,

I guess I could be guilty of the latter. But that doesn't make me the former.

I've actually read Abanes faulty little critique from cover to cover. Aside from making an arguement that perhaps Screwtape needs to get him to "Christianity and Spelling Reform" in addition to "Moneymaking by Duping the Publick" and selling it 3 times with different titles, I think there is a difference between magic and magick. The former is spelled correctly, for one. Secondly, there is not one whit of evidence outside some fevered imaginations kindled by false attributions that any one person in the world has countenanced a Faustian relationship with Ol' Nick on the basis of Harry Potter. You might as well say the White Witch encourages the same. Certainly Nickabrik seemed to go that way. Oops, magick in Narnia? Yep. By the lurid definitions proposed, you have to admit it. Charn to Narnia's creation to the Silver Chair to the Last Battle (remember Tash - he had a whole culture devoted to his evil magick).

On your own showing, if you were consistent, you'd better keep the kids off the Bible. Or give the very expurgated version referred to as Bible stories and never let them read the real thing. They are very likely to discover that some very unsavory characters were changed by God to do very remarkable things. And they are sure to discover that some good-starts ended up fumbling the ball really badly.

Moses was a murderer. Cain beat him to it.
Saul was a king, then a rebellious soveriegn, then an attempted assassin.
Seven hundred prophets of Baal led the people astray. Watch your prophets!
David was an adulterer, a murderer, a liar (lovely lunatic episode, though), and a poor father (Remember Absolam!) who plotted his revenge after his death so as to "not break a promise" to a truly unforgiven political enemy.

Shall we go on, or do you concede reality?

Then there is the solidly worldly advice in Ecclesiastes - secular wisdom of its day - incorporated in the Bible. And the lovely erotic manual of Song of Solomon.

So, coupled with the various curses pronounced in the OT stories, I'd say that as a story of humanity, I'm not sure the Bible comes up to your rigid criteria of "free from magick or cursing or lying or inducement to bad things" at all. In fact, Scripture is positively replete with much worse than HP. Scripture even goes so far as to tell the truth that "sin has its pleasure for a season" rather like Voldemort portrays. But V ends poorly and less than human and certainly damned just like any proud, unrepentant, egocentric human, for he cannot escape death and after that is appointed the judgment.

Golly, HP does sound like the Bible in disguise, come to think of it! :cool:
He that ears, let him hear! :D

[echoscot]

Maybe it got missed, but I asked a question a couple of pages back. How come magic is being spelled with a K? Rowling never spells it that way. As a matter of fact the only times I have seen that variant is when dealing with real Wicca, or NeoPaganism.

As far as Narnia not having Magic or encouraging it:

Not only that bad characters, Inked, but let us recall the visit to the Island of Duffers in Voyage of the Dawn Treader.

Lucy is called upon to sneak upstairs and read a spell from a Magic Book that will make the Duffers Visible again.

She also gets drawn in by a number of other spells that are written in the book, including one that allows her to overhear what her friends think of her. She even reads a spell that tells a wonderful story that she cannot quite remember.

Aslan NEVER reprimands her for the use of Magic, only for eavesdropping. And he is under the obedience of the spell, Lucy causes him to appear when she reads the right spell. She asks him about the wonderful story, and he assures her that he will keep telling it to her the rest of her life.

That is pretty serious and if you use the same standard as Harry Potter, you must discard this book at least of the Narnia series.

Also we must not forget Roonwit the Centaur in the Last Battle, noble good guy and resident Astrologer, clearly spoken against in the Bible. So we must discard that book too. Roonwit is able to foretell evil tidings in the stars and reports such to King Tirian, the last king of Narnia.

It amazes me that people will be so biased in their arguments.

As far as lying goes, quite a few people in the Bible do it AND get away with it. Abraham and Jacob to name a few. I'm sure someone will concoct an excuse about how that doesn't count, but let's see. They were never punished and actually rewarded for their faithfulness IN SPITE of lying.

And actually Inked, I did run into several children who were running around waving sticks yelling "Levicorpus". My gosh, we had cats and dogs and people hovering upside down all over the street. It's a good thing I had read the books, so I knew the Counter spell that Ms. Rowling so carefully instructed us on, otherwise there would have been utter chaos. LOL

It's very funny to me that the very people who seem to be complaining about stiff-necked arrogance are the very ones who are displaying it. Oh well, their loss. They will never know the joy of a good story. Maybe God can use them in some other capacity. Who knows.

[inkspot]

It's very funny to me that the very people who seem to be complaining about stiff-necked arrogance are the very ones who are displaying it. Oh well, their loss. They will never know the joy of a good story. Maybe God can use them in some other capacity. Who knows.
Now, EchoScot, it's not for us to cast the first stone. Or the second, as it were. :) Not every Christian is called to enjoy HP books, and God uses all of us as He sees fit, praise His name!

I think Scot made the point I was thinking of today: if you are against magic in any fantasy world because magic is forbidden in the Bible, that's a stance I can respect, and if you then are faithful to it by rejecting all magical tales, I respect that.

I think it was Ephinie who said her mum believed all fantasy magic was evil, and never let her have Cinderella even in the house. Although I find it odd, I think she was being faithful to what she believed, and I respect it.

What I do not understand is why HP is singled out by people who apparently hold the same feelings Ephinie's mom holds (magic is bad), and yet other magic is acceptable. EchoScot pointed out the CON magic clearly, but there's also fairy tale magic, and the anti-HP folks never seem to condemn it, or the Wizard of Oz with the good witch Glenda. I think it is a double standard to say only HP magic is bad in a fantasy story. Why should it be good in these other stories and bad in HP?

That's like saying the romance in a Janette Oke novel is okay because you know she was a Christian, but the romance in Gone with the Wind was bad because you're not so sure whether Mitchell was a believer or not.

And Scot, the reason they say magick is, this is how they have chosen to distinguish the "bad" magick in HP from the "good" magic in CON, but you see it doesn't hold water, as both are the same.

[CSLewisFan]

Uncle Andrew in the Narnia books does say the words you stated. They are coming from the mouth of a character that is despised, not like your Harry who is the role model for kids reading the book (you don't think that while a seven year old is reading about and modeling Harry's 'bravery' they are also modeling his language?).

I do agree with you here, Goldenrod.

I wouldn't recommend the Harry Potter books to people who mild profanity is offensive to.
But the reality is, mild profanity is real life.
I think that the story would be completely stripped of its authenticity if all of the "good" characters were perfect.
I think that every story would be a little boring if the hero were perfect.

But seriously, if you have a problem with mild profanity such as bloody h--- or d----, just don't read the books.

-Austin

[echoscot]

Now, EchoScot, it's not for us to cast the first stone. Or the second, as it were. :) Not every Christian is called to enjoy HP books, and God uses all of us as He sees fit, praise His name!

I think Scot made the point I was thinking of today: if you are against magic in any fantasy world because magic is forbidden in the Bible, that's a stance I can respect, and if you then are faithful to it by rejecting all magical tales, I respect that.

I think it was Ephinie who said her mum believed all fantasy magic was evil, and never let her have Cinderella even in the house. Although I find it odd, I think she was being faithful to what she believed, and I respect it.

What I do not understand is why HP is singled out by people who apparently hold the same feelings Ephinie's mom holds (magic is bad), and yet other magic is acceptable. EchoScot pointed out the CON magic clearly, but there's also fairy tale magic, and the anti-HP folks never seem to condemn it, or the Wizard of Oz with the good witch Glenda. I think it is a double standard to say only HP magic is bad in a fantasy story. Why should it be good in these other stories and bad in HP?

That's like saying the romance in a Janette Oke novel is okay because you know she was a Christian, but the romance in Gone with the Wind was bad because you're not so sure whether Mitchell was a believer or not.

And Scot, the reason they say magick is, this is how they have chosen to distinguish the "bad" magick in HP from the "good" magic in CON, but you see it doesn't hold water, as both are the same.

Well, thank you for responding to that. I did find an HP website, that was citing it as wrong for use of magic, however they also disapproved of Narnia, LOTR, the Disney films etc. I wrote the guy and told him that while we disagreed on the discrimination between fairytales and real magic, I throughly respected the consistency of his stand. Many seem to take a double standard and rationalize the things they like while applying their strict standard to the ones they don't. This guy did a very good job of being consistent. He also made some other points that were easier to swallow because of his consistency. :rolleyes:

[pegasus62]

Dear Pegasus, dear friend, this grieves me! I am a follower of Jesus Christ, have tried to base my life on His foundation, have a 30+-year relationship with Him. If I have done or said something to make you think I am filled with pride and defiance, I have failed miserably in my chief occupation in life: to allow Jesus to express His life through mine. Please forgive me.

I want to apologize for any offense I have given either you, inkspot, or Inked, (despite the fact of Inked's hurtful sentence to me, I'll take this as anger and forgive and forget.) because I feel I was being too harsh and cruel about your 'pride' and 'stubborness'. I am also sorry if I offended inkspot's years with Christ...I never intended to place you in that way. The reason, though, of my thoughts of your pride is due to the fact that I saw you, in some of your posts, as arrogent to anything I was saying. I realize, now, that it shouldn't have been mentioned and I said this in a very offensive way. Forgive me, and take my apology as sincere.

Now as for not being able to see your side of the issue ... if you go way back in this Thread, you will see, I started out, as a person who had not read the books, tending to agree with your viewpoint, that the books were bad, because this is what I heard Christians saying. Then i read the books myself, and my viewpoint began to change. This to me doesn't seem the earmark of a person who won't consider another's point of view. Check it out.

I don't see reading the books as any way to make my point differently. If anything, I would strongly think myself a hyprocrite turning my back right around and simply picking up the one thing I opposed in the first place! And if I DID read the books, (which I won't) I would take the material seriously and line it up with what it states in the Bible, praying and waiting before ever making a blind assesment.

If I understood your previous post, you were discounting my idea that harry had done quite as well for himself as Peter from CON, considering the background each came from. Peter had two parents who loved him and raised him in a Christian home, and HP had two parents violently murdered and was raised by a dysfucntional foster family who treated him abominably. I said that considering their backgrounds, Harry had done quite well.

Is it 'quite well' to obey witchcraft? Take revenge? Lie? Curse?
We've already discussed these terms hundreds of times. I've pointed out verses...he doesn't seem like such a nice boy to me, far from a role model for children and teenagers. Even if Harry is 'good', what about all the other things in the movies and books that you WOULDN'T want your children to see? I think, basically, your trying to say "Well, at least my children will look at Harry and take from his good points." All you're doing is simply gleaning from the bad and picking out the needle in the haystack.

Then, as Inked as pointed out, we need to keep kids away from the Bible, too. Look what King David did to his friend Uriah. I can't remember, just in my head, Harry telling a lie to his friends -- and his not being punished for it in some way if he did. Usually when his willful disobedience leads him astray, he is very hideously punished, such as his refusal to learn occlumency which led to a dear friend's death. HP's misbehaviors are punished.

I'm sorry, I usually miss some of Inked's points...Is he trying to say keep children away from the violence of the Bible and just show them the 'fun' stories, basing that on the whole Harry concept? Well, in that case, Potter's not the Bible. And yes, we should keep our children away from things that could otherwise scar them, maybe even for life. Another fact is that children are more easily hurt by mental images, because their development is still underway. Exposing a child, as old as, say, 7 or 8, or older, to a movie with cruel and unneeded violence can be forever printed in their memory. Later, they could use this image as a faint idea for future acts involving the same sort of violence. Not to mention the child may even get hooked to such material and quickly find it suitable.

If he is so clever, why does he need to lie? Is that what you were referring to? I don't think he's so clever, that's kind of the point about Harry: he's an ordinary boy thrust into extraordinary circumstances. And I also asked you: if ol Frodo was so clever, why did he lie? It's a silly question from you or me! :)

Frodo's no angel either. He lied only once. Frodo may have found other ways to go about placing his name as Underhill, but he didn't. What would you do then? :confused:
-pegasus62

[pegasus62]

If I read a murder mystery story, just because I read that someone is murdered, doesn’t make me more inclined to do so. Just because there is a lie in a book, doesn’t make me more inclined to lie OR think that lying is ok.
Same with swearing. If I hear someone swear (or a less than attractive word) it doesn’t make me more inclined to swear. No does it change my views on whether or not it's ok to swear.

Maybe not you. Maybe others. Different people think differently, do differently, make points and views differently. If you live with a family of swearing, crude people you may eventually take it as fine and place this in your life as well. (They do it, right? concept) You may feel, over time, your views change. Time passes, and you may or may not feel inclined to turn into a different side of an issue, whether be major or minor.

What poll is that from? Which survey presented these results?
Or is this your ideology?

Have you read the books?

Have you ever tried to point a stick and prompt with Latin? Did anything happen?
Was it dark and evil? Did Satan and Harry show up?

-Austin

It's from no poll. I've seen and heard, however, the effects of Potter on people. Once, a teacher called into a show and told a shocking and surprising story. A toddler came into class waving a wand and saying to the teacher he was going to cast spells and curses on some of the children in class! :eek:
The teacher found he had been throughly engaged in the Potter books...how revolting.
The Latin question...you didn't really expect an answer, correct? Latin isn't evil, anyway. Latin's a langauge. Latin's a thing to learn. Harry's a thing you WANT.

[Goldenrod22]

If you mean I am proud and defiant because I don't accept invalid arguments from faulty premises and poor spellers, well,
I guess I could be guilty of the latter...

He that ears, let him hear!

Hi! :)

I started laughing when I saw the two above quotes! On the one hand, you dissaprove of 'poor spellers',and then go on at the end of your post to misquote Scripture by spelling (or is that speling with only one 'l'? ;) ) it incorrectly! He that ears, let him hear. He that 'ears?'
Anyway, I'm getting off the subject.
What I want to do from now on is get back to the basics with my argument against Potter.
I'll try to do this by figuring out what exactly it is that YOU all take for being 'bad' and 'good', your core beliefs on simple things from saying bad language (and whether that is permissible to you) to how much witchcraft is too much.
We need to find out where it is we all stand on these things, in specific. We are going around in circles trying to cite all the things we disagree on, when we need to see where each takes a stand.
For example, it appears as if echoscot (do I have that right?) does not think it is inappropriate to say bad language, becuase he believes that saying bad language is part of 'real life'. Okay, that is his opinion.
We know now from that statement that echoscot will not share the same opinion that HP has language as an issue. at this point, delving into a complicated discussion of where the language is in the books, what it is, or who said it WILL NOT MATTER, at least to him. He believes that language is not a problem, whether it be in Narnia, HP, or a cookbook. Remember, I'm not criticizing that! If he believes that, it is his opinion. I can show him verses in the Bible that warn against 'foul language', but he is free to decide what he will about it. We will only go in circles if we do not see from the start that echoscot and I have different standards.
I, on the other hand, could argue until I'm blue in the face (see the smiley> :eek: ) and still be riding the merry-go-round of the 'language' issue with echoscot (Sorry I'm picking on you in particular, Echo, this is just for example's sake). I believe the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and try to live according to it.
If C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book filled with bad language, he is not the source of my doctrine. He is a Christian, yes. A great writer, yes. But I disagree with his view (Catholic) of heaven (Yes, Inked, I have read 'The Great Divorce' :rolleyes: ). Yet if he did, I would not read his book, no matter whether he is a great author (and man) or not! This is where I swerve off from a lot of you.
When it comes to clear cut commands in the Bible, there is oftentimes no waffling. When I read 'Thou shalt not steal' in the Bible, I believe that God means what he says. You can justify (by using secular or Christian books, it does not matter) the act of stealing by using works of authors that justify stealing as part of a plot. You say that "stealing is all right, because Tolkien says it was in LOTR", or use a similiar excuse.
What I want to see is the fundamental belief of the people on this thread! I don't want you to say 'Well, because C.S. Lewis says..." I want to see you say (if you are a Christian) "Well, because the Bible says...it is wrong to lie. It is wrong to commit adultery. It is wrong to act as the world does and let a curse against God fly out of your mouth." Quote were you found that verse! Stand up for what you see as your opinion (shaped by your interpretation of the Bible)!
This post may have been long-winded, and I apologize for that. I don't apologize for taking a stand on these issues, though I am trying very hard to stay humble while I do so. It is very hard!
Please, let's get back to the basics. I really do want to hear from you guys, not just to criticize.
God Bless!



In the same way, I believe (in my opinion) that

[inkspot]

Now we are getting somewhere.

Pegasus, no offense taken, and I am sorry if my reponses to you seem arrogant. I will try to add more smileys to them ... :)

GR22, you say we should only take what the Bible says as our doctrine, and the Bible says to lie is wrong.

As I understand it, you say, we should therefore not read anything in which the hero lies, because lying is bad, and only the villains should lie in the stories we read.

Following this logic then, we cannot read the Bible, because Jacob, David, Peter and other real Bible heroes do in fact lie (and worse!). If we cannot read any stories where the heroes lie, then we cannot read the Bible. Of course, the main hero Jesus didn't lie, but there are only four books on Him, and in one of His books, Peter lies, so we have to throw that part out, anyway.

So I do not think this criticism of HP works, unless you are also saying you will not read or allow your children to read the parts of the Bible in which the heroes show themselves human.

As I mentioned, when HP transgresses the moral law needlessly, he is usually punished for it. Is this not a good enough moral lesson? When King David in the OT lied by pretending to be mad before an enemy king, he was never punished for it -- in fact, he was rewarded for it by escaping with his life. Should we not let kids read that story from the Bible?

Is this making sense? Or am I just not getting your argument about the lying correctly.

As for the cussing ... it is very rare in HP! As I mentioned, I was trying to note it as I re-read book 6, and found only 3 circumstances, and Harry himself never cussed at all. This is comparable, I have said, the to bad words in CON, the kids calling each other ass and Uncle Andrew saying "dem." It's just the vernacular, and although I don't cuss or allow our girls to cuss, I know some people do, even some Christians, and I don't think you should discount CON or HP on account of the language.

If you think the language is an issue, then I don't understand why you don't discount CON along with HP.

When it comes to clear cut commands in the Bible, there is oftentimes no waffling. When I read 'Thou shalt not steal' in the Bible, I believe that God means what he says. You can justify (by using secular or Christian books, it does not matter) the act of stealing by using works of authors that justify stealing as part of a plot. You say that "stealing is all right, because Tolkien says it was in LOTR", or use a similiar excuse.
What I want to see is the fundamental belief of the people on this thread! I don't want you to say 'Well, because C.S. Lewis says..." I want to see you say (if you are a Christian) "Well, because the Bible says...it is wrong to lie. It is wrong to commit adultery.

No one is saying "because Lewis did it, it's OK," GR -- what we are saying is: if Lewis did it in CON, why don't you condemn it there, as you do in HP? Lucy did spells in CON, Dr. Cornelius was a magician in CON, they were not magical creatures. Why do you not condemn the magic in CON as you do in HP? This is what we are asking. We're not saying "cuz CS Lewis did it, it's OK," we're asking you, "If CS Lewis did it, why don't you condemn it in his writings as you do in JKR's?

Does this make sense?

[echoscot]

Hi! :)

I started laughing when I saw the two above quotes! On the one hand, you dissaprove of 'poor spellers',and then go on at the end of your post to misquote Scripture by spelling (or is that speling with only one 'l'? ;) ) it incorrectly! He that ears, let him hear. He that 'ears?'
Anyway, I'm getting off the subject.
What I want to do from now on is get back to the basics with my argument against Potter.
I'll try to do this by figuring out what exactly it is that YOU all take for being 'bad' and 'good', your core beliefs on simple things from saying bad language (and whether that is permissible to you) to how much witchcraft is too much.
We need to find out where it is we all stand on these things, in specific. We are going around in circles trying to cite all the things we disagree on, when we need to see where each takes a stand.
For example, it appears as if echoscot (do I have that right?) does not think it is inappropriate to say bad language, becuase he believes that saying bad language is part of 'real life'. Okay, that is his opinion.

Actually I never said anything remotely like this. Allow me to clarify with the following:


I also would not want my kids thinking it is funny or acceptable to curse or make rude hand gestures and would probably threaten to jinx their fingers together just like Mrs. Weasley did. Sometimes it is played off that way, and children will imitate their mentors, even fictional. I know, because I did and so did my friends, growing up.


I gave that argument in SUPPORT of your stand on foul language. I was using it to state my belief that the HP books are clearly not for small children, but deserving of the equivalent to a PG-13 rating. Continue...


We know now from that statement that echoscot will not share the same opinion that HP has language as an issue. at this point, delving into a complicated discussion of where the language is in the books, what it is, or who said it WILL NOT MATTER, at least to him. He believes that language is not a problem, whether it be in Narnia, HP, or a cookbook. Remember, I'm not criticizing that! If he believes that, it is his opinion. I can show him verses in the Bible that warn against 'foul language', but he is free to decide what he will about it. We will only go in circles if we do not see from the start that echoscot and I have different standards.
I, on the other hand, could argue until I'm blue in the face (see the smiley> :eek: ) and still be riding the merry-go-round of the 'language' issue with echoscot (Sorry I'm picking on you in particular, Echo, this is just for example's sake). I believe the Bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and try to live according to it.

Okay, this is where it gets ugly. I had an earlier post that did not go through, I will try to remember what I put here. I am glad the you believe the Bible to be the Truth, so do I. Your implication is that the rest of us do not think so.

First I have read the Bible in at least 3 translations and have found no such command or directive against the use of foul language. I have on the other hand found that there is a command against using the Lord's name in vain, and against the bringing of curses on another person. I have also found where Paul advises that it is not becoming to a child of God.

Clarification, I am not condoning foul language, just wondering what part of the Bible you use to act on it as a sin. On we go...


If C.S. Lewis wrote a whole book filled with bad language, he is not the source of my doctrine. He is a Christian, yes. A great writer, yes. But I disagree with his view (Catholic)

point of clarification. He is Anglican,not Catholic, and even if he were what of it? Anyway, continue

of heaven (Yes, Inked, I have read 'The Great Divorce' :rolleyes: ). Yet if he did, I would not read his book, no matter whether he is a great author (and man) or not! This is where I swerve off from a lot of you.

Must advise all readers that a non-sequiter is approaching.


When it comes to clear cut commands in the Bible, there is oftentimes no waffling.

Wait, oftentimes???? I thought you were one of those ALWAYS people. Still I think I know what you mean, continue...


When I read 'Thou shalt not steal' in the Bible, I believe that God means what he says. You can justify (by using secular or Christian books, it does not matter) the act of stealing by using works of authors that justify stealing as part of a plot. You say that "stealing is all right, because Tolkien says it was in LOTR", or use a similiar excuse.
What I want to see is the fundamental belief of the people on this thread! I don't want you to say 'Well, because C.S. Lewis says..." I want to see you say (if you are a Christian) "Well, because the Bible says...it is wrong to lie. It is wrong to commit adultery. It is wrong to act as the world does and let a curse against God fly out of your mouth." Quote were you found that verse! Stand up for what you see as your opinion (shaped by your interpretation of the Bible)!

Hear! Hear! We definitely agree on at least one point. Let me show you what I have found in my walk through the Bible, because you are correct in that without agreement on the basics, we certainly cannot begin to criticize a work of fiction.

I still have not found the "Thou shalt not use foul language thing" or whatever, but let me show you what I have found.

Ezekiel 23:20 for starters. Blatantly pornographic remarks. Most translations water them down, but the implication is QUITE clear. You can read it for your self, I will not recopy that verse here, this is a family forum.

Then we can also look at 1Samuel 20:30. This, interestingly enough, touches on several HP issues as well. Let me set the stage, David fears for his life from Saul, and Jonathon agrees to go find out his father's mindset. I hope we are all on the same page here....

Jonathon goes in to dinner. Saul asks him where David is and Jonathon LIES, and says " He asked permission to go back to Bethlehem" (Issue #1) (1 Samuel 20:28) Saul then flares up at him and in verse 30, in the NIV it is translated as "You son of a perverse rebellious woman" The actual Hebrew phrase used here is more the equivalent of "you son of a ..." You get the picture, I don't need to write it out.

Issue 1: Jonathon lies, David condones it. Neither one are corrected or ever appear to suffer any consequences for this lie. The Bible commands, and no waffling on this, "Thou shalt not lie" So it becomes clear that neither Jonathon or David are good role models.

Issue 2: Saul's words. Though we can rationalize it as real behavior it is in there. By your own admission, you would not read books that contain foul language, yet I have given you two examples where the Bible would violate your standard.

Clarification again, I am in NO WAY CONDONING the use of foul language. I believe God put it there for us to know that we are dealing with real people, not some make-believe fairytale God myth thing. What this clarifies for me is that you hold the Harry Potter books, on at least these two issues, to a much higher standard than you hold the Bible itself. You can make all the rationalizations you want, but what I want to see is a consistent standard. I pointed out in another post that there was a web site that categorically condemned all forms of fictional witchcraft from Disney films to fairytales to CON and LOTR. I applauded them for using a consistent standard. I also pointed out that I disagreed with that standard, because I believe there is a discrimination between fairytale and real life.


This post may have been long-winded, and I apologize for that. I don't apologize for taking a stand on these issues, though I am trying very hard to stay humble while I do so. It is very hard!
Please, let's get back to the basics. I really do want to hear from you guys, not just to criticize.
God Bless!



In the same way, I believe (in my opinion) that

I am glad that you have made your point clear, but I am still in disagreement with your stand on this. I can respect the fact that you choose not to read the HP books or see the films, but I don't believe you are on solid ground for criticizing those who do.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I have recently been infuriated to see so many remarks against the morality of Harry Potter. I would very much like to see why people think it is immoral, and where they come from when they state that idea.

[-Princess of the Bow-]

Who here is against Harry Potter and everything it stands for. It stands for satan. I am a Christian and i know that stuff is wrong.

[inked]

You should check out this existing thread: http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=797

I am pro-Potter, by the way. :D

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Hey, Fawkes - hope you don't mind if I shuffle this over to The Socratic Club, which is a more general place for discussing such things.

My personal take: the Potter books are drawn from the classic English public school genre, with a bit of fantasy and English mystery thrown in. As such, they uphold ideals like honesty, fair play, decency, and chivalry. They're more modern than Tom Brown's Schooldays or Stalky & Company, but follow the same pattern. As such, the protagonists have the expectable amount of shortcomings and commit the expectable amount of transgressions - and suffer the consequences for their sins, which are sometimes quite severe.

From a Christian perspective, I think the criticism of the spellcasting is a non-starter. As presented in Rowling's universe, the ability to do magic is an innate ability, and the learning of it is more like honing a skill or learning a trade. The real moral challenge, which I think Rowling presents well, is the proper and appropriate use of that extraordinary ability. My only criticism of Rowling is that she presents no moral framework to act as a foundation for the morality of the wizards. The nobility of great wizards like Albus Dumbledore stands as an example, but that level of excellence seems well above normal wizards. In Rowling's world, good wizards restrain the use of their powers just because that's what good wizards do, while evil ones fly off the handle. As her characterizations get more complex and believable (e.g. Horace Slughorn in Half Blood Prince), it gets harder and harder to believe that such beings would simply restrain their hands out of the goodness of their hearts.

[-Princess of the Bow-]

I still think that stuff is wrong.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

iMerged by your friendly moderator.

And, for that matter, I'm making a judgement call and moving this over to the Socratic Club. It involves Christianity, but not Narnia.

[The Valiant]

I dont see anything immoral about Harry Potter.
If they think it's so immoral, then just dont read/watch them.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, I think the concern is how the books might influence those who read them.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I don't understand what you mean, exactly, PoTW. The example of Horace Slughorn, I think, simply displays a person who has given in to the things they enjoy to do, even if they cast away others in order to do it. I don't think that has anything to do with being a moral person. I agree, people like that make it harder to believe that they have the ability to truly do good, or whether they are being put in the right spotlight. But, to me, it seems as though Rowling does not put Slughorn in a good spotlight at all. In fact, I think it yields the opposite results. I think Rowling introduced this character simply to demonstrate the flaws that many humans possess, and what can result from giving in to their temptations--in this case, getting a bit of limelight for helping and dwindling with celebrities. Now, the reason Dumbledore likes this man is because he realizes Slughorn's flaws and accepts them. They can definitely change a person, but I do not think it automatically makes them bad.

I also don't understand what the framework should be for a person's moral growth. Dumbledore is the essence of good, Voldemort is the essence of evil, and that is a point Rowling strongly stresses in her novels. Dumbledore does seem as though he is very high over the children's head, almost as though he is unreachable in goodness--but what about Aslan? Do people feel bad in his presence because they realize that he is so much better than them? I know that Aslan is portrayed more of as a God in the Narnia series rather than a powerful human, but I think the fact that Dumbledore is human shows us how much we can do with our lives if we make the right decisions. And there are so many other witches and wizards like Professor McGonagall, Mr. Weasley, Mrs. Weasley, Remus Lupin, Sirius Black--the list goes on and on--who clearly display a good moral foundation that a child can follow. Dumbledore's level of excellence lies not alone in the things he has achieved, but the decisions he has made throughout the course of his life. Saints such as Mother Teresa remind us of the same, don't they? Should we feel that they are way above our heads because they have done something that we have not, something that we could have done if we had only made the decisions to do so?

[The Valiant]

Well, I think the concern is how the books might influence those who read them.
Well what would the readers do?
Become witches/wizards?O.O

[-Princess of the Bow-]

I don't agree on the books or movie because of what it stands for. Satan and demon worship. It's wrong.

[-Princess of the Bow-]

Do ya'll think that Harry Potter can relate to the Bible at all? I know it was not writen to be about the Bible, but could it have anything to do with it???

No. I don't think there is anything good that has to do with the Bible.

[Tootsie]

Harry Potter has nothing to do with the Bible, in my opinion. It's about magic and stuff that has no relation to the Bible. Narnia has Bible-related instances, but in my opinion, nothing in Harry Potter.

[Tootsie]

Well, I believe that what PotW is trying to say is we don't think (as Christians) that Harry Potter is morally wrong, persay, but it just doesn't have a good influence on the kids- and that's not because we think they'll become witches and wizards, TheValiant. The only type of magic I believe in is the power of God and miracles...and I still like Harry Potter, but at first I wasn't allowed to see it because everyone thought, "Oh no it's Satanic."

But really it's not. Now, I'm neutral on this discussion, but I have an opinion on Harry Potter and Christianity. I think the Christian parents automatically think, "Oh no, they're encouraging magic and Satanism." And really, they have a right to. Magic and different types of it are not encouraged in some Christians because they don't believe that magic is righteous, and that nobody should be allowed to do magic except God. However, I think differently. I think that the actual practicing of magic is wrong, but I think that watching it and reading about it won't hurt unless you stray from actually believing in it.

I'm a Christian and these are my views. I don't think it's wrong to a point, but after that you need to watch yourself...especially if you get too involved.

[Gryphon]

I don't agree on the books or movie because of what it stands for. Satan and demon worship. It's wrong.
Question, have you ever seen the movie Robin Hood by any chance?

[Gryphon]

There are many things in this world that dont mean to relate to biblical principals that actually do.

I dont see why not Harry Potter. There have been many things that Dumbledore has said in the stories or in the movies that have struck me pretty hard or have given me a sort of inspiration.

For example he said "Soon we will have to choose between what is right and what is easy." this describes sin so well. :D

[onlymystory]

I like the opening of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. You have a tiny baby sleeping alone and cold in the middle of nowhere with no one paying attention to him or caring about him. Yet all around there are people celebrating what his life means and this little baby is so amazing and it is so wonderful that the wizards (people of a separate world) are breaking through to the muggle world because they can't contain the excitement.

I seem to remember reading a story about a baby boy born in a stable in the middle of nowhere on a cold and lonely night. And yet on that night and because of his birth, the angels of another realm broke through into our world in celebration. They couldn't contain their joy over what this baby meant for the world. Seems like a pretty big similarity to me.

[Aslan's Son]

I don't agree on the books or movie because of what it stands for. Satan and demon worship. It's wrong.

Yes, Satanic worship is wrong. However, I can't find any evidence that Harry Potter stands for that anywhere. The magic in Harry Potter is fantasy, meaning it doesn't exist. I agree with Tootsie completely on the subject. I don't see people in Harry Potter making sacrifices and worshipping demons and/or nature. J. K. Rowling herself has proclaimed herself to be a Christian in the Church of Scotland, and is very devoted to her faith. She doesn't reveal much though about her faith though, because she's said that would spoil the ending of the final book or something like that (I've been reading over other threads on the subject of Harry Potter on here).

All in all, I don't think the supposed "magic" in Harry Potter--or any other fantasy based book, is evil or such, or could lead a child to practicing witchcraft. I do, however, believe that children should be a certain age before they should be allowed to read HP. I first read it at 8 years old, and already knew that magic was wrong, and that the magic in the books wasn't real. But other children aren't like I was, and could have trouble distinguishing between real and fiction. So yeah, I believe in an age restriction to the books.

But overall, I find Christian values in HP (not just the "good vs. evil concept all religions share) and that they are not only but a good read, but can help strengthen one's faith.

[onlymystory]

As far as other examples of God and Harry Potter I’ve got a few.
Platform 9 3/4—Harry is told that if he believes the platform is there and he believes in the wizard world then he has to have enough faith to walk straight into the wall and its only after he does he sees. The Bible teaches us the same thing. We have to choose to believe in Christ and that if we go through Jesus and have faith that another world exists, we will see it someday.

Hermione—she shows us the concept of original sin and how all have fallen. Even though Hermione knows what is right better than most anyone she still slips up.

Professor Snape teaches us about redemption. Snape was a deatheater but he severed (severus) his ties with Voldemort and moved to the side of good. And yet he still isn’t perfect. There are people who have been totally evil and became Christians but they don’t change overnight. Just as Dumbledore has faith in Snape and keeps working with him, so does God look at the heart and keep working patiently with us.

Quidditch is like the kingdom of heaven. If you’re going to win the game you have to get the snitch. And to get the snitch you have to be a seeker and to put all your efforts into finding that snitch. As Christians we are to seek the kingdom of heaven and be willing to risk everything for that prize in order to win the game.

You have Scabbers as the image of Judas in the betrayal of his friends.

And I could go on. Rowling has tons of things that are symbolic of biblical truths some possibly intended and others not intended. But Lewis and Tolkien did the same thing. There were a few things they meant to include but a lot of the biblical symbols were not meant to be there. They just were. And as she has said in numerous interviews, she believes in God, she attends church. But she won't say anything more about her faith because she says if readers knew what she believed they could figure out the ending to her story.

[imnotobsessedohno]

I don't agree on the books or movie because of what it stands for. Satan and demon worship. It's wrong.

I know a number of people have already picked up on this, but I've got to point out again that there is no reference in HP anywhere to Satan and/or demon worship. Infact, the nearest representation of this in the entire series is of course that Voldemort is the embodiment off all evil (ie. Satan) and the Death Eaters worship him (ie. the demon worship). But it's rediculous to say that the books 'stand for' these principles, as the whole point of their inclusion is to show that they are wrong and that they can be defeated and should be fought against. I'm not saying that J.K.Rowling is trying to make a direct statement in the terms of Christianity that Satanism is wrong, but that the Harry Potter books show that evil is bad, and good is good. This surely meets with Christian philosophy perfectly? I find it hard to comprehend how that fundimental message could be interpreted as anything but complementary to the Christian faith (and of course most others).

Of course, the problem lies in the magic thing; but I would have thought that people on Narnia fans wouldn't have a problem with that, as Narnia, which was created by Aslan, who C.S.Lewis specifically states is the same as 'God' in our world (though of course, is fictional) has fantastical magic in it which is used for no different purpose. Magic in both 'worlds' can be used for good or for evil, and one of the fundamental messages of both series is that we should use whatever power we have for good, which is surely (from a Christian or generally moral perspective) is a message which must be difficult to argue with while keeping your ground on faith/morals. On this (for once :D ), I agree with PotW.

My biggest qualm with HP is that Rowling has become so successful that editors evidently can't bring themselves to argue with her - no other author in existance would be allowed to produce an 800-page book, full of some really dark themes, aimed at 9+. It's not so much the thematic thing I have a problem with - I don't think it's damaging in any way and instead probably goes some way to build a proper understanding of the world to be exposed to some of the things in HP, and there is much darker stuff out there available to children; but noone else would be allowed to do it.

Ah, me, I should be revising...

[Lucy_QueenofNarnia]

While I agree that as the Harry Potter books have progressed they have gotten darker, and should probably not be read by younger children, I don't see how people can criticize the books, saying things like demon worship and magic. As it has already been pointed out in many posts already, I won't go in to the demon worship thing. But when it comes to magic, I think people need to think about what they are saying.

For one thing, there are so many books (especially children's books) out there that have some magical element in it, and none of it is bad in any way. If people want to say Harry Potter is bad for having magic in it, they might as well be saying "Lets just remove all the books in the entire genre of fantasy". And that is just what HP is- fantasy. It is a made up story to entertain readers, and if JKR is trying to send messages through it, they are all good ones, because any of the evil characters in it are portrayed in a dark light that makes them immediately spited by readers, and eventually, you know good will prevail. But come on, there has to be a bad character. Thats the only way to have a truly interesting story, to have a main plot revolving around the age-old theme of good vs. evil.

People say that children shouldn't read HP because it may influence them in a bad way. Like a few other readers who have posted here, I read the first book when I was eight years old, knowing that what I read was not a real story, and knowing that I could not "do magic like Harry", and I never tried. As I grew older, I read every HP book as it came out and noticed that it delved deeper into the plot and even got a bit scary/depressing in some parts. That is why I say children should be a certain age before they read these books, so by the time they do, they have strong moral values already and can understand that the story in a fictional one. If anything, HP has influenced me in a good way- I grew up on these books, learning the values of friendship, loyalty, bravery, and faith. And the fact that so many people are worried that their children will be badly influenced makes it even clearer that these books do influence kids, but I honestly cannot believe that any child who already has strong moral values (and if he/she grows up in a Christian household, surely he/she already does) could be badly influenced by them.

Even after reading the entire series (all 6 published so far) I still have a strong belief in God and my faith, and have never once been influenced by any Satanic element that people are claiming to have found in them. (Of course, people who do claim this are those who have never read the books anyways, and wouldn't know) So I suggest to all the people out there who are shooting down the books for that reason actually pick one up and read it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I don't understand what you mean, exactly, PoTW. The example of Horace Slughorn, I think, simply displays a person who has given in to the things they enjoy to do, even if they cast away others in order to do it. I don't think that has anything to do with being a moral person. I agree, people like that make it harder to believe that they have the ability to truly do good, or whether they are being put in the right spotlight. But, to me, it seems as though Rowling does not put Slughorn in a good spotlight at all. In fact, I think it yields the opposite results. I think Rowling introduced this character simply to demonstrate the flaws that many humans possess, and what can result from giving in to their temptations--in this case, getting a bit of limelight for helping and dwindling with celebrities. Now, the reason Dumbledore likes this man is because he realizes Slughorn's flaws and accepts them. They can definitely change a person, but I do not think it automatically makes them bad.In this, I think you're missing Rowling's point - and Lewis', for that matter, who makes the same point all through his works. There's no such thing as a "bad person" or a "good person". All people have the potential for tremendous goodness and evil within them, and how they end up depends on how they make the little day-to-day decisions that both form and express our character. To me, the introduction of a complex character like Slughorn was a mark of literary maturity on Rowling's part. Here was someone who wasn't strictly evil (such as Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy, or Dolores Umbridge). He was good enough to be asked by Dumbledore to come and teach at Hogwarts, but he was slothful and selfish. Because of that, he was able to be manipulated into doing a wicked thing (informing Tom Riddle about horcruxes) through appeals to his vanity. To his credit, he was ashamed of what he'd done, but his cowardice prevented him from taking action to admit and correct his sin. Harry had to get him totally drunk, so his defences were down, to apply enough pressure to get him to reveal the secret - but again, Harry appealed to what good could be found in him (his honor, and his respect for the memory of what Lily and James had died for) to finally "crack" him. I give Rowling credit for introducing characters like Slughorn, and also for revealing less-than-savory aspects of favorite characters like James Potter. His inexcusable treatment of Snape which Harry saw in the pensieve revealed that even Harry's revered father had a bad side. Sirius' attempt to dismiss it as youthful folly didn't assuage Harry's dismay, as it shouldn't have - Harry was 15 at the time, and he knew that treating even your enemies like that was out of bounds.

I also don't understand what the framework should be for a person's moral growth. Dumbledore is the essence of good, Voldemort is the essence of evil, and that is a point Rowling strongly stresses in her novels. Dumbledore does seem as though he is very high over the children's head, almost as though he is unreachable in goodness--but what about Aslan? Do people feel bad in his presence because they realize that he is so much better than them? I know that Aslan is portrayed more of as a God in the Narnia series rather than a powerful human, but I think the fact that Dumbledore is human shows us how much we can do with our lives if we make the right decisions. And there are so many other witches and wizards like Professor McGonagall, Mr. Weasley, Mrs. Weasley, Remus Lupin, Sirius Black--the list goes on and on--who clearly display a good moral foundation that a child can follow. Dumbledore's level of excellence lies not alone in the things he has achieved, but the decisions he has made throughout the course of his life. Saints such as Mother Teresa remind us of the same, don't they? Should we feel that they are way above our heads because they have done something that we have not, something that we could have done if we had only made the decisions to do so?I think you're getting part of the message, but not all of it. Dumbledore himself would reject the notion that he represents the "essence of good" - in fact, he admits several times to severe failings. He is of the same stuff as Voldemort, but as you point out, it's their life choices that make them the people they are. Where you make the mistake is thinking that Voldemort represents the essence of evil. From Voldemort's perspective, what he's doing is reasonable, appropriate, and even beneficial to the world. His actions, interpreted from his perspective, were good actions.

But wait, you may say, his perspective was wrong. That's my point: says who? Rowling's world lacks a moral foundation, an absolute right and wrong against which all actions can be measured. The closest she comes is that good deeds are the sort of thing Dumbledore would do while bad ones are the sort of thing Voldemort would do. But no matter how useful personal examples may be to us, morality has to be something more than just following a given person. There has to be something "beyond" or "behind" the person, some standard they themselves use as a yardstick for their actions.

I recommend you read Lewis' The Great Divorce. It's a short book, an easy read, full of vignettes that illustrate a lot of these points.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Okay, PoTW, I would like you to answer me one question. When it comes down to it, do you think that the White Witch is a good person or a bad person? For this, it is necessary to bring in what you believe in, and what you think is right. Just because the White Witch thinks she is doing good, does that make it right? I really can't understand why the point of Voldemort perhaps not being a good person came up. Please, let's face it. There are GOOD people in the world, and BAD people in it too. As you said, people have the potential to make themselves either--it is these decisions that MAKE them good or bad. I don't understand how you could possibly say there is no such thing as a good or bad person. If that is the case, then OUR WORLD lacks an appropriate moral foundation! Come on! Please explain what more people need to have the ability to live up to a level of morality! There are people in our lives that we want to be like, like our mothers and fathers, and in the Harry Potter world, you find that all over the place. I believe you are mistaking the vastness of this world. There is more than Hogwarts, there is more than Dumbledore, there are families and friends who help each other grow and form morally-grounded lives.

I just have one more comment. The fact that Dumbledore recognizes and admits his faults shows what a good person he truly is. Now let's think for a second how Voldemort would respond to doing something wrong. Perhaps he'd point the finger of blame at someone else, maybe one of his Death Eaters? Maybe he'd torture them, maybe he'd take away their lives? The comparison between these two people is just so distinct, I can't possibly imagine for one second that Voldemort could look at what he is doing and think it is right. And Voldemort can never show that he believes what he is doing is wrong, because he has made such countless decisions to get to his enigmatic, unfeeling state that he is just, as I said, the essence of evil, whether or not he believes it. What he represents is utter evil, what Dumbledore represents is utter good, and I do not understand how anyone can debate that.

[echoscot]

Okay, PoTW, I would like you to answer me one question. When it comes down to it, do you think that the White Witch is a good person or a bad person? For this, it is necessary to bring in what you believe in, and what you think is right. Just because the White Witch thinks she is doing good, does that make it right? I really can't understand why the point of Voldemort perhaps not being a good person came up. Please, let's face it. There are GOOD people in the world, and BAD people in it too. As you said, people have the potential to make themselves either--it is these decisions that MAKE them good or bad. I don't understand how you could possibly say there is no such thing as a good or bad person. If that is the case, then OUR WORLD lacks an appropriate moral foundation! Come on! Please explain what more people need to have the ability to live up to a level of morality! There are people in our lives that we want to be like, like our mothers and fathers, and in the Harry Potter world, you find that all over the place. I believe you are mistaking the vastness of this world. There is more than Hogwarts, there is more than Dumbledore, there are families and friends who help each other grow and form morally-grounded lives.

I just have one more comment. The fact that Dumbledore recognizes and admits his faults shows what a good person he truly is. Now let's think for a second how Voldemort would respond to doing something wrong. Perhaps he'd point the finger of blame at someone else, maybe one of his Death Eaters? Maybe he'd torture them, maybe he'd take away their lives? The comparison between these two people is just so distinct, I can't possibly imagine for one second that Voldemort could look at what he is doing and think it is right. And Voldemort can never show that he believes what he is doing is wrong, because he has made such countless decisions to get to his enigmatic, unfeeling state that he is just, as I said, the essence of evil, whether or not he believes it. What he represents is utter evil, what Dumbledore represents is utter good, and I do not understand how anyone can debate that.


I would like to see POTW interpretation of this. He is usually so eloquent and well read.

My own interpretation is that a character analysis between the two is difficult because Lewis characters do not have the depth that Rowling's characters do. Please do not flame me, I love the Lewis books, just stating a fact.

But

[echoscot]

As far as other examples of God and Harry Potter I’ve got a few.
Platform 9 3/4—Harry is told that if he believes the platform is there and he believes in the wizard world then he has to have enough faith to walk straight into the wall and its only after he does he sees. The Bible teaches us the same thing. We have to choose to believe in Christ and that if we go through Jesus and have faith that another world exists, we will see it someday.

Hermione—she shows us the concept of original sin and how all have fallen. Even though Hermione knows what is right better than most anyone she still slips up.

Professor Snape teaches us about redemption. Snape was a deatheater but he severed (severus) his ties with Voldemort and moved to the side of good. And yet he still isn’t perfect. There are people who have been totally evil and became Christians but they don’t change overnight. Just as Dumbledore has faith in Snape and keeps working with him, so does God look at the heart and keep working patiently with us.

Quidditch is like the kingdom of heaven. If you’re going to win the game you have to get the snitch. And to get the snitch you have to be a seeker and to put all your efforts into finding that snitch. As Christians we are to seek the kingdom of heaven and be willing to risk everything for that prize in order to win the game.

You have Scabbers as the image of Judas in the betrayal of his friends.

And I could go on. Rowling has tons of things that are symbolic of biblical truths some possibly intended and others not intended. But Lewis and Tolkien did the same thing. There were a few things they meant to include but a lot of the biblical symbols were not meant to be there. They just were. And as she has said in numerous interviews, she believes in God, she attends church. But she won't say anything more about her faith because she says if readers knew what she believed they could figure out the ending to her story.

Wow, what a tremendous insight. That sent chills down my spine.

[echoscot]

No. I don't think there is anything good that has to do with the Bible.


So have you actually read them and can show us where from the context of the books compared to the Bible?

If not then I am afraid all you have to go on is hear-say. And that burned a lot of witches in the middle ages.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Wait, wait, wait. The depth and characterizations of Rowling's and Lewis's characters is not what I'm talking about at all. AT ALL. The fact is that the White Witch made bad decisions to get where she was, and Voldemort made bad decisions to get where he was. The evil intent is the same, even if the character is not explored too deeply because of the different styles of writing of a pair of authors.

Now, Princess of the Bow, have you read the HP books?

[echoscot]

Wait, wait, wait. The depth and characterizations of Rowling's and Lewis's characters is not what I'm talking about at all. AT ALL. The fact is that the White Witch made bad decisions to get where she was, and Voldemort made bad decisions to get where he was. The evil intent is the same, even if the character is not explored too deeply because of the different styles of writing of a pair of authors.

Now, Princess of the Bow, have you read the HP books?


Ahh, I understand what you are saying. My only point is that the depth of characterizations makes it more difficult to draw analogies, not that they cannot be drawn.

I posed the same question to Princess in the other Harry Potter thread.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Ahh, I understand what you are saying. My only point is that the depth of characterizations makes it more difficult to draw analogies, not that they cannot be drawn.

I posed the same question to Princess in the other Harry Potter thread.

Do you know if she responded? I'm guessing she hasn't, though.

Here's an article that I hope can help to change your viewpoint, SusanoftheBow.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/vatican_approves_witchcraft.htm

[Narborg]

Intersting desaction. Someone mentined the fact that there is magic in NArnia and noone compolanse about that. I think this is fear enoght, but I have herd it argued that the difrence is that the magic in Narnia is outside our world, whereas the magic in Harry Potter is inside it.
My main concern is that some of the books, the Camber Of Secrest inpartucler glorify rule braking. I know that this is done to ke the books more exiting, but I think it could have bean done in a way which glorifed the rule braking less.

[umbrellaxscenexcore]

harry potter isn't immoral! i would argue with u ppl( :eek: ) but ur posts r TOO long for me to read. lol! :eek:

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I don't see why it would matter if it was written that magic was in this world or another. Isn't the topic about witchcraft in general? I don't see why people would accept Narnia and wouldn't accept Harry Potter if they were coming from that viewpoint.

[echoscot]

I don't see why it would matter if it was written that magic was in this world or another. Isn't the topic about witchcraft in general? I don't see why people would accept Narnia and wouldn't accept Harry Potter if they were coming from that viewpoint.


I agree with you here. I think people are raising a double standard and rationalizing the one that they like.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Sorry for taking so long to get back - busy day.

In answer to this question: When it comes down to it, do you think that the White Witch is a good person or a bad person?I wouldn't use that terminology at all. (I'm setting aside for a minute the complexity introduced by the fact that Jadis wasn't human.) I would say that she had done objectively evil things, and that these actions and choices had corrupted her personality greatly, as evil actions will do to any being with free will. But when you state this:There are GOOD people in the world, and BAD people in it too.I think you are vastly oversimplifying an extremely complex reality. I contend that all of us have the potential for great good and the potential for great evil, and that our actions in either direction make it easier to continue in that direction. But when you say someone is "a bad person", to me that sounds like a statement about their identity; i.e. they just are that way.

Let me pose two scenarios, one that actually happened and one that conceivably could have happened. The first is Mother Theresa - a "good person" by anybody's measure, right? Did you know that she had a confessor? Yup - a priest to whom she went to confess her sins as long as she was able. Apparently she didn't think she was a "good person" - she thought she was a sinner who needed forgiveness. You may suggest that this is another indication of her goodness, but if you had been able to suggest that to her, she'd probably have given you the charitable equivalent of "get thee behind me, satan." That she was capable of great - even heroic - goodness was evident by her life. That her personality was purified of all stain and sealed in that goodness upon her death, I have no doubt. But as long as she drew breath on earth, she still had the potential for as much evil as any other human - she was just more on guard against it.

The other scenario didn't happen, but could have. Let's say Hitler, in his bunker in Berlin as the Red Army closed in, yielded to the grace that was being offered him (even then!) and repented of his sins. He knelt on the concrete floor and prayed for forgiveness for all he had done, just before a shell came crashing in and killed everyone. Would Christ have forgiven him? I think every Christian would contend that yes, Christ's blood would cover even sins of Hitler's magnitude, were he to ask for that forgiveness (though my tradition would contend that he'd have a long stay in Purgatory to satisfy the requirements of justice.) Here's my question: if that scenario had unfolded, would Hitler have been a "bad person" or a "good person"?

Now, I want to make something clear: I fully understand that in a work of literature, a character can play a role that is meant to represent clear evil. I think Lewis intended to that Jadis portray such a role in Lion, so in that literary context it is possible to speak of her being "a bad character" in the sense that the badness belongs to her very identity. It may even be that in the Potter books, Rowling started out envisioning Voldemort, and Dumbledore for that matter, as being such characters - representative roles, as it were. I think it to her credit that she has moved away from that, and has been fleshing out both characters as real people while not detracting from their positions as "poles" of good and evil. This is both more true-to-life fiction and more sophisticated writing. You see Lewis moving into this in the later Narnia Chronicles - he doesn't rely on "bad guys" or "evil overlords" as plot engines; most of the conflict is between the characters (Dawn Treader and Horse are really good this way.)

I am most certainly not saying that just because somebody believes their action to be good makes that action objectively good. I am saying that part of the blindness that evil choices brings with it is the belief that a bad action is "actually good" as far as your interests are concerned. This is called "rationalization", and if you want some examples, go look at some of the posts in the abortion thread.

To summarize: I am indeed saying there is no such thing as a "good person" or a "bad person", in the sense that "goodness" or "badness" is defined as part of their very identity. I will acknowledge all you like that good choices and actions tend to purify while bad ones tend to corrupt. I will freely grant that the more good is chosen, the easier it will be to choose good, and the same effect holds true for evil choices. But as long as any human draws breath, he holds within him both the seed of incredible glory and the seed of despicable depravity, and until that choice is sealed by the end of this life, it is impossible to say a person "is" one or the other.

I'd really recommend The Great Divorce, as well as Lewis' Interplanetary trilogy, particularly That Hideous Strength. He says it so much better than I.

[IAMAWOMANHEARMEROAR]

Hey man. Nice writing. You should get a book published or something, Fawkes. Aren't you almost done with one? I was looking at the Professor's Writing Club, good job, man.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Oh, yeah, I am. Hopefully I'll get it out pretty soon. I'm hoping!

I have to go to a barbecue, I'll post when I get back. This debate is getting good! And i've read the Great Divorce, actually, I don't entirely agree with everything Lewis tries to get across in it. I haven't read the other one, though, maybe I'll give it a try.

But all I can say right now is that I completely disagree. I believe there are good and bad people in the world, and the difference between the two is when a person knows the decisions they are making are wrong or right. I think this is way too much of a vast analysis of the idea. I definitely agree this is a complex thing, but this is also a fiction book, and some characters are meant to be "bad", and some are meant to be "good". It really is just the way things are when it comes to that.

Okay, I'm running out of time. Real quick: I know this is a little personal, but I can tell that you believe in heaven and hell, don't you, PoTW? If so, what defines where the person will go? Their decisions, and that is what shapes their identity.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Took the words right out of my mouth, echoscot. Have you read the books, PrincessoftheBow? If you haven't, then please don't continue to make generalizations grounded on nothing but what others have said.

[Gryphon]

Okay, I'm running out of time. Real quick: I know this is a little personal, but I can tell that you believe in heaven and hell, don't you, PoTW? If so, what defines where the person will go? Their decisions, and that is what shapes their identity.
Okay, I'm not PoTW but he might agree with me when I say that you decide. There have been many discussions and arguments about whether its Man or God who chooses but I really think that both Man AND God choose and that it takes someone as big as God to have both realities.

Your identity is shaped in your situations and what you do in them. Your identity is something that people recognise you as. When you truly you find your identity in something, thats what people are going to most recognize you for.

People are evil when they do everything for themselves. The White Witch was evil because she wanted Narnia for herself, the Pevensies were good because they wanted to give Narnia back the way it was to its inhabitants. There are good people and bad people in this world, what makes them good or bad is how they react to good and bad situations, the choices they make because of them and how they see themselves and where they find their identities.

[echoscot]

I am most certainly [i]not saying that just because somebody believes their action to be good makes that action objectively good. I am saying that part of the blindness that evil choices brings with it is the belief that a bad action is "actually good" as far as your interests are concerned. This is called "rationalization", and if you want some examples, go look at some of the posts in the abortion thread.



Oh my gosh, I was reading so eloquently then nearly laughed myself silly at this statement. The blunt reality of it was hysterical.

Your usual eloquent prose, though, Prince.

[Elf Of The Grey Havens]

I don't agree on the books or movie because of what it stands for. Satan and demon worship. It's wrong.
But see, how is all magic demon worship? Even in Narnia, there are examples or magic. Are you calling Doctor Cornelius, or the Hermit of the Southern March, satanists? Being given the power to do magic is ok, even though I bet that even in the Harry Potter universe, there would be a few people who appealed to Satan to give themm powers. However, not all magic is from Satan.

[echoscot]

But see, how is all magic demon worship? Even in Narnia, there are examples or magic. Are you calling Doctor Cornelius, or the Hermit of the Southern March, satanists? Being given the power to do magic is ok, even though I bet that even in the Harry Potter universe, there would be a few people who appealed to Satan to give themm powers. However, not all magic is from Satan.


As a Christian, in the real world, God makes it clear how we are to treat magic. The difficulty lies in that some people, like Princess, here have difficulty differentiating Reality from fairy tales. And, as you have so aptly pointed out, setting a double standard, so the books they like can pass the test.

I recently found another young adult novel, called "witches", I'm a little sketchy on the title. But I read the introduction at Barnes and Noble, the author tells the story of a young orphaned girl who goes to live in another state and learns the wonders of witchcraft. The author wanted to acknowledge her study under several senior Wiccan for the authenticity of her story, and she hoped to inspire people to find how wonderful their lives can be from the common book of spells.

People going on the attack against Harry Potter don't know what's really out there.

[Sunrise]

But all I can say right now is that I completely disagree. I believe there are good and bad people in the world, and the difference between the two is when a person knows the decisions they are making are wrong or right. I think this is way too much of a vast analysis of the idea. I definitely agree this is a complex thing, but this is also a fiction book, and some characters are meant to be "bad", and some are meant to be "good". It really is just the way things are when it comes to that.


Fawkes, by your very argument, you're proving PotW's original point about moral frameworks. What is it in you that tells you that some characters are good and some are bad? How do you know the difference? What shaped your conscience to innately recognize that some actions are evil and some are good?

The whole point of PotW's argument (I think) was that there is no absolute moral framework in Potter, nothing comparable to, say, the Ten Commandments or the laws of God, which is where most of us get our moral framework today, whether we want to admit it or not. God isn't mentioned in Potter - not a big deal; religion is not a subject Rowling cared to inject, and that's fine. But without something equivalent to the standard of morality set by religion, how do we know what the standard of morality is?

You can say that well, some actions have good results and some have bad - but we see many examples of well-intentioned actions having messy consequences, and ill-intentioned actions having good outcomes. So you can't judge them on "ends-justify-the-means" grounds.

You can say that "good" characters perform good actions, while "bad" characters perform bad ones - but this comes back to the point about complexity of characterization, and once again begs the question - how do we know whether the character is good or bad? A bad character justifies his actions by his own moral framework - and without a supreme, or absolute moral framework to compare it to, who is to say whether that character is right or wrong? The judgement call we, the readers, make is based upon our own supreme moral framework (for most of us, religion-based), so WE can call the characters good or bad - but the folks actually living in Potter's world do not have this standard of comparison, so what gives THEM the authority or ability to call anyone, or any action, good or bad?

I think that's the central point of the argument, unless I have vastly misunderstood it. And nowhere was it suggested that this is a fatal flaw in the books. It is simply a point of criticism.

[IAMAWOMANHEARMEROAR]

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with both Sunrise and Prince of the West. You guys are making this SO COMPLEX!!! Like Fawkes said, then what do we have to make that moral framework in our own world??? Answer that for me!!! This is insane!!!

And I know that you apparently enjoy writing with so many big words, but please keep in mind the younger generation on here who may want to participate but cannot because you want to sound unnecessarily intelligent.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

*shakes head to clear ears of ringing following roar*

Um - hi, IAW, welcome to our discussion. *shakes head again*

To answer your immediate question, the moral framework in this world is what Lewis called Tao - the universally recognized moral law that is the foundation of all civilization. Don't confuse this with Taoism, the eastern philosophy. Though the base term is the same, Lewis uses Tao more in the Confucian sense than the Taoist sense. Roughly translated, Tao means "way", as in "the way to walk in". The best summary of Tao is the Ten Commandments, and the pinnacle are the two "golden rules" proclaimed by Jesus: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself.

By nature, the answer to difficult questions will be complex, but with patience and careful definition, we can come to understanding. For instance, reading through fawkes777's responses, I'm coming to think that he and I are in much more agreement than it would seem - we just need to clarify our terms. I'll begin with mine.

I'm going to set aside for a minute the term "identity", since I think that's part of the confusion. Let me clarify what I mean when I use two terms: "nature" and "character".

Are humans by nature good or evil? This was a favorite debate topic of the Greeks and many others. Evidence could be found to support both stands. Fortunately, if the Jewish people are to be believed, God Himself supplied the answer. As could be expected, it was complex. Mankind was created good, in the image of God, but he sinned and lost the grace that God had given him. His nature was damaged, though not completely corrupted - he was still capable of being redeemed. But even when he was redeemed, the damage of sin remained, and as long as he lived on this earth, his existence was a struggle between the call to holiness and the persistent tug of sin. At times he is capable of works of great nobility and sacrifice, as befits one who bears the image of God. At other times he can do things so cruel and depraved that even animals wouldn't touch them. That is what man is in his nature.

Character I define as "the kind of person we are". This is not a static thing, but is formed both by things that act on us and the choices we make. How we respond to adversity, what we do when things go well with us, how we treat those around us, how we expect others to treat us - all these are things that form and shape our character. I want to be a man of strong character, that is, I want my outlook and my actions to conform to Tao. I want my children to be men and women of strong character, so I do not automatically give them everything they wish - some things they must work for. They must live with the consequences of their decisions. When I want to stay in bed and sleep the morning away, that is an expression of the weaker parts of my character. What helps me override that is the stronger parts which have been developed by good habits and a sense of responsibility - furthermore, every time I do override that weaker part, the stronger part gets stronger.

In my view, these two come together to form our "identity". Who we are is made up of both what we are (by nature) and what we have made ourselves by our choices and actions (our character). This is where I fear I've muddied the waters by using "identity" when I should have been using "nature". But I do not regret avoiding the use of the terms "bad person" and "good person", for two reasons.

The first reason I don't use the term "bad person" is to avoid perpetuating a common error of our time; i.e. that "badness" is somehow innate to a person, part of their nature - as if there were a "bad gene". To think this way is comic book morality. I've had a slothful, selfish, gluttonous, lying oathbreaker look me right in the eye and say, "I'm not a bad person." The reason he was able to maintain this illusion was that the books he'd read and the movies he'd seen had created an image of "a bad person" as someone who got out of bed in the morning and said to himself, "Ah, let's see how wicked I can be today." Since he didn't do that, he thought he wasn't bad - in fact, from his point of view all his negative traits were perfectly justifiable. The truth was that by nature he was both good (made in God's image) and bad (touched by sin), and his choices were forming his character.

The second reason I don't use the term "bad person" is that as a Christian, I've been forbidden to judge a person. I am permitted - in fact, commanded - to judge actions. I may even be able to judge character, to recognize that some aspect of a person's character is not in accord with Tao (though I'll be much safer if I remember that the first and foremost character I should be judging is my own.) But for me to say that another person "is" bad would be to presume that I know things that I don't know. God has told me what another man's nature is like - good, but sin-damaged, just like mine. He has warned me about the consequences of bad character. But for me to say, "that man has crossed some line, he has reached the point where he is bad at the core of his identity." - well, that's judging something I have no way to judge. That call is for God alone.

To return to the examples of Dumbledore and Voldemort: since Rowling seems to be trying to paint them as humans, albeit with special powers, I'll presume that their nature is no different than ours. Since the introduction of the magical element doesn't seem to bring in an alien moral framework, I'll presume that Tao is their measurement as well. In light of that, I think she's doing an admirable job of painting both Albus Dumbledore and Tom Riddle as humans making choices, and those choices are both expressing and forming their character. I will say Dumbledore is noble, generous, self-sacrificing, and a superb moral example - but that he could fall into evil, and he'd be the first to tell you that. I will say Riddle is cowardly, selfish, grasping, and a person of mean character - but still within reach of redemption, unlikely though it is that he will ever reach for it. Thus I would not say one is "a good person" and the other is "a bad person". Comments about their behaviour and character are as far as I will go.

Does that clarify things?

[Asphodel]

Wow, I think you're making it realy complex, PoTW! ! ! I think the fact that Harry and his friends are growing morally strong overides the fact that there isn't a basis for it. J K Rowling doesn't need to form a moral foundaton, caus it is just a fiction story. Harry and his freinds find a basis of morality through peple like the people in the Order, right? Like was said, there's alot more than Dumbledore to be set as a moral standard.

[echoscot]

I think it is a great analysis. That's what this thread is for, analyzing the books for the morality or immorality. I also believe JKR has put a lot of depth into the characters so it requires some in depth analysis to understand what is going on in the story. Each character in the books has grown and shown many more layers as the stories progress.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Wow, I think you're making it realy complex, PoTW! ! ! I think the fact that Harry and his friends are growing morally strong overides the fact that there isn't a basis for it. J K Rowling doesn't need to form a moral foundaton, caus it is just a fiction story. Harry and his freinds find a basis of morality through peple like the people in the Order, right? Like was said, there's alot more than Dumbledore to be set as a moral standard.I think I'm just unpacking the complexity that's inherent in the story. And you're missing a critical point - when you say that "Harry and his friends are growing morally strong", you're implying a moral foundation (or standard - same thing). How do you know if they're growing "stronger" if you can't say what "stronger" is? That's what I consider the weakness of the stories - the moral foundation is implicit - everybody's just "supposed to know" what right and wrong are. Even the people in the Order don't have a creed or standard to which they appeal - they best they can do is follow Dumbledore's example (which they don't always do - witness Mundungus.) It's certainly true that in times of crisis a heroic leader is a good thing to have, but times of crisis are also when people turn to their standards - sometimes to consult them, sometimes to question them. Rowling's only moral standard seems to be "being decent", which is nowhere near strong enough to hold up in a life-and-death battle with ruthless enemies.

Moral standards can be upheld by personalities, but they cannot be based upon them. Look at human history and you'll see the greatest of human heroes are the ones who based their lives on a moral standard and referred others to that standard, not to themselves (with One notable exception). An objective, consistently applied standard of right and wrong is the only thing that can act as a compass during times of crisis - "niceness" and "decent behaviour" just aren't strong enough by themselves.

[Aitoren]

Well, I think that those who say they dissagree with the books say so because of the magic present in the series, and don't have a thought about moral frameworks. The problem of course is that the magic present in the books is fictional (at least I think most people can agree that magic, at least like that is fictional :) ) so we are not given a source for it. Someone could assume that the magic is a natural part of the world of HP, like sciences in our own. In this case, magic wouldn't be evil, would it? Or, yes, the magic Rowlings describes could be the evil witchcraft and sorcery mentioned in the Bible that flows from Satan. Yet this evil sorcery, as portrayed in the Bible, is used by those who follow the evil one, or who reject God. Now, I hardly think that Rowlings intended for most of her characters to be Satanic people, correct? In which case her magic is not based off of the sorcery the Bible describes, but is a completely new (well, putting aside the fact that it's been mentioned in literature countless times before), completely fictional, kind of magic, based neither on God's works and miracles, nor on Satanic witchcraft. Also, she never even mentions God or Satan once, to my recollection, so this is nowhere near what she intended for the reader to focus on.

BTW anybody ever meet someone who thought Pokémon were evil because Pokémon 'evolved', and were quite creationalist? It's similar, in a sense.

[inkspot]

Welcome, Aitoren. Yes, I knew Christians who were opposed to Pokemon, but because you had to "summon" him, and I think they were afraid their children would summon demons.

[Asphodel]

Wait, wait, wait--what do you mean how do we know what "stronger" is? I would have thought that to be the most apparent thing in the world. It's the way they make decisions for themselves throughout the books that decides their strength, there's no set-in-stone definition for it.

Can you please explain your definition of a moral standard, PoTW, because I don't think that's very clear in this thread as of yet.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I thought I had, but here I go again: the Ten Commandments are a moral standard. Here's the quick rundown if you haven't seen them:



You shall worship God alone
You shall not swear falsely using God's Name
You shall set aside the Lord's day to worship Him
Honor your father and mother
Do not murder
Do not commit adultery
Do not steal
Do not lie
Do not covet another's wife
Do not covet another's goods
(the numbering may vary)

There's a sense in which you're correct in saying "this should be very obvious." C.S. Lewis noted that most people in most cultures in most times in history recognized the validity of these standards and valued them as good.

But then comes human nature. These are great standards as long as they're on paper, and we certainly want others to apply them to us (that is, we don't want others lying to us, or stealing from us.) But keeping them ourselves - that's where it becomes more difficult. Of course we don't want to lie - but then there was that case where the truth would have been dreadfully embarassing. And stealing? Well, that band's made lots of money over the years - they won't miss the income from one copied CD. And committing adultery? But we really, really care for one another...

My point is this: without a moral standard from a recognized authority, morals can quickly deteriorate into "roll your own" - i.e. I decide what right and wrong mean for me. This is called relativism, and when it is combined with another distressing human trait - the tendency to rationalize - it makes a dangerous combination. We humans (and, presumably, wizards) are masters at self-deception. For example, Voldemort thinks he's doing the wizarding world a favor by keeping wizarding blood pure of pollution. Of course, he's being hindered by those weak, waffle-brained idiots at the Ministry who really need to step aside. From his perspective, the fact that he can out-wizard them is proof that his standards are valid. See the point? Unless you can point to an objective standard that applies to all parties, all the time, I can argue that the actions of any of Rowling's characters is perfectly reasonable from their point of view. Do you want to say their point of view is wrong? Okay - to what standard are you going to appeal? What yardstick are you going to apply to their point of view to say it comes short? This is my point with Rowling's world - there's no authoritative standard to which everyone appeals, not even a "Wizarding Book of Ethics."

If there is a moral standard to which you can appeal, then "stronger" and "weaker" makes sense. Someone who learns (probably the hard way) that lying doesn't pay in the long run and therefore tells the truth more often is becoming morally stronger by the standards of the Ten Commandments. But if I'm just making up my moral standard as I go along, then maybe I'll define "getting stronger" as "getting my own way more often" - which probably won't be "stronger" as the Ten Commandments define strength. In fact, making up my own morals will almost certainly make me a morally weaker person, since the predominant value will be selfishness.

Does this make sense?

[susanpevensie424]

I just want to let everyone know right off the bat that I am a Christian and I still read these books. I also want to say that this is an intelligent debate thread, so if you post you better have something to say. Thirdly, I respect all opinions and will not hate you if you don't agree, so I will not tolerate unnecessary hate towards people of opinions that differ from yours. Now let the debate begin

[echoscot]

I find that I have to agree with you here POTW, difficult confession from an avid HP fan.

I have also read Looking For God in Harry Potter by John Grainger. And I have enjoyed his analogies and allusions, though I find some to be a bit stretched. This is more the moral framework of any fairy tale. Within the tale the "good" and "bad" are all relevant to who is telling the tale. There is no concise guideline or rule. Tales such as Cinderella, Snow White and other classics contain a relative morality within the story. It has even been demonstrated by the numerous offshoots of those stories, Wicked, for example as a parallel story to The Wizard Of Oz.

In Real Life, however, God has provided an objective standard to which we will ultimately be compared. And, according to Paul, none of us have a hope of measuring up. But that is no excuse not to try. Lewis even contends, as you have already suggested, that each of us has an internal moral compass. That we inherently do know right from wrong.

Well, I've rambled a bit and am not as eloquent as Prince.

Still, Rowling weaves a fantastic tale, and I can hardly wait for Book 7 :D

[Asphodel]

Look, you've provided some excellent points, but if you're so bothered that there is no moral standard in the Harry Potter books, then are you affected by most of the fantasy books on the market? Because things like the Ten Commandments seem to be left out for the purpose of not muddling an already very thick and fast-paced plotline. I don't see how J. K. Rowling would even go about inserting some sort of moral standard. How would you have done it?

[echoscot]

Look, you've provided some excellent points, but if you're so bothered that there is no moral standard in the Harry Potter books, then are you affected by most of the fantasy books on the market? Because things like the Ten Commandments seem to be left out for the purpose of not muddling an already very thick and fast-paced plotline. I don't see how J. K. Rowling would even go about inserting some sort of moral standard. How would you have done it?

I think you are missing the point of Prince's quote. He is not bashing the quality of the story, but in a thread where the morality of Harry Potter is debated there must be some grounds for determining what that morality is based upon.

In addition, I think he is just clarifying the case in response to specific questions. In other threads, I have found Prince to be very deeply thoughtful about many things. Further up in the thread, he commented about how clever the introduction of a morally complex character like Slughorn is. That really puts things into a grand scale.

When you state that the morality "is obvious" that is because you have compared it to your standard, which may not be everyone elses.

He is correct that there is an inherent danger in relativism, and without proper guidance, some youngsters could read that into their own lives. Not necessarily you or I, but many who use Harry Potter as an escape from an otherwise very Dursleyish real world situation that they find themselves in.

[Asphodel]

echoscot, who said anything about bashing? And I don't think this thread was developed with the hopes of discussing the morality INSIDE of the Harry Potter books--it was developed to discuss its moral impact on the outside world.

And was PoTW even talking about relating this story into our lives? There'll be that danger with pretty much everything you read, it is up to the person reading it to decide for themselves whether they will accept it for what it is, a fictional tale, or reality.

[Sunrise]

The thread was started to discuss the morality of the Potter books, based on one fan's frustration with the way some have criticized said morality. How it impacts the outside world morally is certainly relevant, but not the exclusive or primary discussion in the thread.

Cool off, my Potter-maniac friends. Most of us that have posted are FANS of Harry Potter - including PotW - and the fact that we have read and enjoyed the books qualifies us to make certain criticisms. We get as steamed as you do when people who have never read the books start mouthing off about how evil they are. But some of you rabid fans need to stop treating Rowling's work like some kind of sacred cow that nobody is allowed to say anything negative about. Only good literature is even worth critiquing in the first place.

So, Asphodel, you ask "how would you have done it?" More appropriately the question would be "how could J.K. have done it?" She could have incorporated some kind of "Wizarding Code" referenced and enforced by the Ministry of Magic, something originally penned by Merlin or someone of great moral authority, that could be similar to say, the Ten Commandments. It still wouldn't have the punch of a moral code established by a Supreme Being, but it would at least have provided us with some sort of framework.

[echoscot]

echoscot, who said anything about bashing? And I don't think this thread was developed with the hopes of discussing the morality INSIDE of the Harry Potter books--it was developed to discuss its moral impact on the outside world.

And was PoTW even talking about relating this story into our lives? There'll be that danger with pretty much everything you read, it is up to the person reading it to decide for themselves whether they will accept it for what it is, a fictional tale, or reality.


Woah, there. Perhaps I misunderstood your other post, but it certainly seemed like you thought that Prince did not like the books and was being hyper-critical. Bashing was a slang word I used to sum all of that up.

How you drew that conclusion about what this thread was started for I'm not really sure. The title is simply, The morality/immorality of Harry Potter, that seems pretty broad to me. I think it also gives, and has given if you read through it, the opportunity to broach many aspects of the stories, from the witchcraft to the use of foul language. I may be confusing this with the other Harry Potter thread, they are both so similar.

As far as your last paragraph, I agree with you. But we are discussing Harry Potter in this thread and its relative morality, inside and out.

I love the Harry Potter stories, so does just about everyone on this thread. The ones that don't have not exactly been subtle about it.LOL

So ease up there, that's all I'm asking.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

No, Sunrise, Asphodel asked "how would you have done it?" because J. K. Rowling doesn't seem to have done it from this standpoint. I think the reason JKR did that was because the Ministry doesn't have a right to say who practices or believes what. There is still a connection between the Muggle and wizarding world--someone could follow the Catholic faith, but I think JKR didn't introduce that because it would only confuse the thick plotline, as Asphodel said.

And Sunrise, just because someone disagrees with another about their viewpoints doesn't mean they treat the discussed literature like a sacred cow. This is precisely why this thread was opened; to debate our opinions.

I think this particular topic on moral standards has been beaten within an inch of its life--does anyone want to start a debate on a different aspect?

[echoscot]

Do you know if she responded? I'm guessing she hasn't, though.

Here's an article that I hope can help to change your viewpoint, SusanoftheBow.
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/vatican_approves_witchcraft.htm


Fawkes, quick question. I finally looked at that link. How was that supposed to change Princess view? It was a pretty freaky site, that pretty much bashed anything to do with Harry Potter. maybe you meant a different site?

[The Half-Blood Prince]

No, no, no. Didn't you read the article? Princess of the Bow is obviously very religious and devoted to the church--I posted an article saying that the church accepted it for what it was. Why, what article did you see?

Sorry about the freakiness of the site itself, if that's what you mean. I just couldn't find that particular article anywhere else. I was hoping no one would notice!

[Aitoren]

The real moral challenge, which I think Rowling presents well, is the proper and appropriate use of that extraordinary ability. My only criticism of Rowling is that she presents no moral framework to act as a foundation for the morality of the wizards. The nobility of great wizards like Albus Dumbledore stands as an example, but that level of excellence seems well above normal wizards.

This is from a while back, but just something that caught my eye. You say that Rowling needed to explicitely present a moral framework? Wouldn't that be a bit out of the way, really? Part of the book is about the moral choices, etc. the characters make, but I don't see there really to be a need to come up and dictate some new standard. I think that it's just implied that their standard is pretty much our own, or close to it. (the standards human readers see)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Just a quick word on these two points (which are essentially the same), and then I'll leave the topic:
I don't see how J. K. Rowling would even go about inserting some sort of moral standard. How would you have done it?
You say that Rowling needed to explicitely present a moral framework? Wouldn't that be a bit out of the way, really?
These are good questions, and as a fiction writer myself, I think I can say that Rowling could have done this without difficulty - in fact, it could have enhanced her story line without encumbering it. Katherine Kurtz did it in her classic Deryni books. These were set in a mythical world modeled after the Middle Ages, which was much like our world except that along with humans existed a human-like magical race called the Deryni. Like Potter's wizards, they had enhanced powers, but other than that they were just like humans, with the same flaws, weaknesses, strengths, and nobility. Kurtz made good use of these enhanced abilities to highlight the moral dilemmas that the presence of such powers would bring about. Being a Middle Ages type setting, the church figured prominently in the story, as did the Scriptures and God's law, which was no different between human and Deryni.

But even without a religious element, it can be done, and was - in the greatest fantasy classic of all time, The Lord of the Rings. Notice that there were only scant allusions to anything like religion in that work, though Tolkien was a devout Christian. All the appeal is to the traditions of the Wise and the memory of Numenor (you have to read the books to get this - the movies just will not do.) There are glancing references to Illuvatar, but other than that, the entire appeal is to the ancient ways and the valor of those who came before. The standard is there.

Personally, I think Rowling missed a great bet in leaving the issue of moral authority unaddressed, particularly in light of the serious moral dilemmas she's grappling with. If I were writing it, I might make a plot point in one of the early books about Harry relishing all this power he now has and how it's going to enable him to "get back" at those who'd caused him such suffering. Then you could have Dumbledore (or somebody - maybe Lupin?) explain how all the moral laws of humans also apply to wizards, but they have extra laws that apply to them because of their greater powers. The source of these laws wouldn't have to be religious, though there would be no harm in introducing a religious component - you could have an appeal to the Ancient Morals of Wizardry, or whatever. You could have Harry grappling with the question of whether he'd take the immediately gratifying route of personal vengance - which ran the risk of turning him into the same type of person Voldemort was - or whether he'd follow the Ancient Laws as his parents would have wished.

Heck, if I'm letting my imagination run wild, what about a Hogwarts course in Wizarding Ethics and Morality? The instructor of that one could be a real character. Again, you could have all manner of discussions and situations about what is right and wrong, and what makes the Dark Arts dark, and all sorts of things like that. I don't think it would ruin the stories, I think it would enhance it.

But that's just my thoughts. I agree with fawkes - unless someone else has something to add that hasn't already been said, I've said my peace. Please understand, I am a big fan of the Potter books and have read them several times. I think Rowling a skilled author and I enjoy her work. I just think that the question of moral authority is a small weakness in her books that could be done a little better.

[echoscot]

No, no, no. Didn't you read the article? Princess of the Bow is obviously very religious and devoted to the church--I posted an article saying that the church accepted it for what it was. Why, what article did you see?

Sorry about the freakiness of the site itself, if that's what you mean. I just couldn't find that particular article anywhere else. I was hoping no one would notice!


I understand the article you wanted. A better site might be Hogwartsprofessor.com He has a whole essay on the Popes view of Harry Potter. And the site is done from an entirely Christian perspective.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Yes, I hadn't seen what the site was really about. I just googled the idea and the article came up, I had no idea that the site itself was so anti-HP. But anyway, yes, PoTW, I think that it would be a good idea to introduce some sort of class that taught morality. I think that might have leveled the standards of what the kids live up to a bit more.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I find it fascinating that the link that echoscot gave includes that extensive article that quotes Michael O'Brien so heavily. I appreciate him as a brother Catholic and fellow fiction author, but when he strays into cultural criticism, he goes off his nut. It read his book Landscape with Dragons, supposedly his critique of modern children's fantasy literature, wherein he criticizes Narnia for being morally ambiguous! I about threw the book away when I read that (in fact, I might have - I certainly don't have it around any more.) Of course, I view O'Brien's literature as being unnecessarily heavy-handed and overbearing.

I did read the Pope's comments carefully (and he's nothing if not a careful commentor), and my best understanding of them is that his critique is similar to mine - that Rowling missed a golden opportunity to make the presence and applicablity of an explicit moral standard a part of her stories. I did not see him making the point that the moral questions addressed in the books were handled badly, or that they led children in a wrong moral direction. In fact, I agree with Joseph Pearce (another Catholic author) that the stories glorify heroism, duty, honor, and justice.

[echoscot]

I find it fascinating that the link that echoscot gave includes that extensive article that quotes Michael O'Brien so heavily. I appreciate him as a brother Catholic and fellow fiction author, but when he strays into cultural criticism, he goes off his nut. It read his book Landscape with Dragons, supposedly his critique of modern children's fantasy literature, wherein he criticizes Narnia for being morally ambiguous! I about threw the book away when I read that (in fact, I might have - I certainly don't have it around any more.) Of course, I view O'Brien's literature as being unnecessarily heavy-handed and overbearing.

I did read the Pope's comments carefully (and he's nothing if not a careful commentor), and my best understanding of them is that his critique is similar to mine - that Rowling missed a golden opportunity to make the presence and applicablity of an explicit moral standard a part of her stories. I did not see him making the point that the moral questions addressed in the books were handled badly, or that they led children in a wrong moral direction. In fact, I agree with Joseph Pearce (another Catholic author) that the stories glorify heroism, duty, honor, and justice.


I assume you are referring to Hogwartsprofessor.com?

Not the one I quoted from Fawkes.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I assume you are referring to Hogwartsprofessor.com?Yes - that one.

[Sunrise]

And Sunrise, just because someone disagrees with another about their viewpoints doesn't mean they treat the discussed literature like a sacred cow. This is precisely why this thread was opened; to debate our opinions.


Of course we can disagree. It was just my way of saying "ease up!" ;) I was getting the feeling that there were a few posters who thought the debate was bashing Harry Potter, and I just wanted to point out that one can be a fan of the books and still find points of criticism. Whether other people agree on whether a point is a detriment to the story is up to them, naturally.

[Tsukiko]

Who likes Harry Potter?

I DO NOT Like Harry Potter. I have never read the books or seen the movies becuz I am not allowed. My Parents..says it bad with the Witchcraft or something like that..but i dont care, I like more Medevial stuff like Narnia & LOTR. Thank goodness I can like those!!

I was just wondering how many ppl on this site are HP fans

[.:~NikkitaTheJust~:.]

i am.. obviously.. my sig.. lol yeah my friend's religion doesn't allow her to watch or read harry potter...

[~The Narnia Addict~]

DUH

Everyone is suppose to :p

[tottyfruitty]

Who likes Harry Potter?

I DO NOT Like Harry Potter. I have never read the books or seen the movies becuz I am not allowed. My Parents..says it bad with the Witchcraft or something like that..but i dont care, I like more Medevial stuff like Narnia & LOTR. Thank goodness I can like those!!

me too
it seems like an okay movie but i wouldbt personally go and watch it :D

[inkspot]

iMerge with an older Thread on this subject.
I personally am a Christian, and I like the books and films.
However, if your parents tell you not to read the books or watch the films, you should not read or watch them. Your parents know best.
:)

[The Half-Blood Prince]

Of course we can disagree. It was just my way of saying "ease up!" ;) I was getting the feeling that there were a few posters who thought the debate was bashing Harry Potter, and I just wanted to point out that one can be a fan of the books and still find points of criticism. Whether other people agree on whether a point is a detriment to the story is up to them, naturally.

Yeah, I definitely agree with that! I know you guys aren't bashing HP, I realize there's things to be criticized, I just don't entirely agree with this topic :). I think the debate of a moral standard has been chewed out to its fullest extent, so does someone want to introduce a new topic?

[echoscot]

In my experience with the books, that moral standard is about the only real criticism I can come up with. I have all the audio books by Jim Dale, the 4 movies on DVD and have read the books at least 5 times now. So some just might possible LOL question my objectivity.

Yet, I feel the heavy subject matter, the death and darkness and evil, the way it is portrayed definitely should be read by a more mature audience than young children.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

In my experience with the books, that moral standard is about the only real criticism I can come up with. I have all the audio books by Jim Dale, the 4 movies on DVD and have read the books at least 5 times now. So some just might possible LOL question my objectivity.

Yet, I feel the heavy subject matter, the death and darkness and evil, the way it is portrayed definitely should be read by a more mature audience than young children.

I definitely agree with you there, echoscot. It is difficult for many children to distinguish the difference between reality and fiction. If the child has proven themselves responsible enough to recognize this difference, then I think they are entitled to read the books, but otherwise I think they should avoid them until they reach a more mature level of thinking.

[tgraveline]

Correctomundo. Obey your parents. But when you get to be a parent or your parents give you the permission, then it is ok. It is an issue of honoring them then. If you have questions or your parents do, have them come and ask us or better yet do some research on it by looking at both arguements and not one. Or just have them watch a movie or better yet, read the books.

tg

[Narborg]

I sooooooooo wanted to vote that Id never herd of it lol, as if anyone could have not hered of it

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Things to do:

1. Take my shower
2. Fall asleep (or maybe read until 1 am instead!)
3. Wake up in the morning (I really want to.)
4. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
5. Eat breakfast
6. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
7. Make SURE that Ron and Hermione get together
8. Kill Snape
9. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
10. Make sure that they (Harry & Ginny) get together @ Bill/Fleur's wedding in B7
11. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
12. Go to The Dancing Lawn.

[Narborg]

Things to do:

1. Take my shower
2. Fall asleep (or maybe read until 1 am instead!)
3. Wake up in the morning (I really want to.)
4. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
5. Eat breakfast
6. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
7. Make SURE that Ron and Hermione get together
8. Kill Snape
9. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
10. Make sure that they (Harry & Ginny) get together @ Bill/Fleur's wedding in B7
11. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
12. Go to The Dancing Lawn.

You cant kill harry, even for that!!!!!!!!!!!

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I do see evil in HP: Voldemort and the Death Eaters...

LOL, but I don't see evil meaning like HP is terrible and is completly awful and should not even exist b/c of the magic and things portrayed.
NO! HP Is awsome. If someone (and I am christian, too.half catholic, also) doesn't like the views of JKR and the themes she portrays in fabulous novels, then to crap w/ them. They don't HAVE to read it. No one is FORCING ANYBODY to read HP. If you don't like the themes, don't read it. Just don't make sure that others (who do not see anything wrong in the themes) can't enjoy them.
Because I will Bring on the Turtles.

[Narborg]

Isent there alrady a thred for this???
Ill go have a look....

[.:~NikkitaTheJust~:.]

I do see evil in HP: Voldemort and the Death Eaters...

LOL, but I don't see evil meaning like HP is terrible and is completly awful and should not even exist b/c of the magic and things portrayed.
NO! HP Is awsome. If someone (and I am christian, too.half catholic, also) doesn't like the views of JKR and the themes she portrays in fabulous novels, then to crap w/ them. They don't HAVE to read it. No one is FORCING ANYBODY to read HP. If you don't like the themes, don't read it. Just don't make sure that others (who do not see anything wrong in the themes) can't enjoy them.
Because I will Bring on the Turtles.


lol since when did u bring on the turtles..? oh you prolly collected 1 from that 1 i chucked at you a while back. lol funny... oh im a christian..i see a lil evil..like you said. Voldy.. lol ....yes.. what u said is what i would say

[susanpevensie424]

Thanks guys.

[Narborg]

Yes, theres a thred under The Socratic Club called Debate on Morality/Immorality of Harry Potter, wheich is prity much the same as this thred here.

[echoscot]

there actually are a couple of threads in both the Socratic Club and Christianity and Narnia.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I started that! :) But yeah, if you read that, you'll find all my opinions there. I think there's only an evil in Harry Potter in a misinterpreting reader's head.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

lol since when did u bring on the turtles..? oh you prolly collected 1 from that 1 i chucked at you a while back. lol funny... oh im a christian..i see a lil evil..like you said. Voldy.. lol ....yes.. what u said is what i would say


Yeah, I collected the turtle you chucked at me for the Skandar/Bonnie thing...Anyways: that's really just what i say when peeps @ my church ask me about mi views on HP...they all know i'm the #1 hp fan...:)

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Here is something I said in susanpevenise424's HP/Bible/Christianity thread:


Originally Posted by QueenSusanofNarnia
I do see evil in HP: Voldemort and the Death Eaters...

LOL, but I don't see evil meaning like HP is terrible and is completly awful and should not even exist b/c of the magic and things portrayed.
NO! HP Is awsome. If someone (and I am christian, too.half catholic, also) doesn't like the views of JKR and the themes she portrays in fabulous novels, then to crap w/ them. They don't HAVE to read it. No one is FORCING ANYBODY to read HP. If you don't like the themes, don't read it. Just don't make sure that others (who do not see anything wrong in the themes) can't enjoy them.
Because I will Bring on the Turtles.

[jesuschick]

i have never read the books or seen the movies i am not allowed and i am quite sure that i can survive without any of that.

[echoscot]

I thought that was pretty good. I just asked one of the mods to move that other thread either here or to the Christianity forum. I thought it would make more sense.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I was just reading that post! I agree 110% with everything you said.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Not ALLOWED?Who in their freakin' right mind would NOT ALLOW someone to have anything to do w/ HP??????????? it's terrible.

Originally Posted by QueenSusanofNarnia
Things to do:

1. Take my shower
2. Fall asleep (or maybe read until 1 am instead!)
3. Wake up in the morning (I really want to.)
4. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
5. Eat breakfast
6. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
7. Make SURE that Ron and Hermione get together
8. Kill Snape
9. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
10. Make sure that they (Harry & Ginny) get together @ Bill/Fleur's wedding in B7
11. Kill Harry for breaking up w/ Ginny
12. Go to The Dancing Lawn.


(Narborg):
You cant kill harry, even for that!!!!!!!!!!!

i know, but i just like saying that--it makes me feel as though harry is not such a bum after all for dumping ginny...:)

[echoscot]

You are absolutely right, life will still function and go on without Harry Potter...I'm not really sure how....but somehow...we will....survive :(

But seriously it is far more important to obey your parents than to read a book or see a movie that they have forbidden. After all that is the first commandment that comes with a promise. ;)

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I hate that people get the idea that all Christians hate the books. I don't even want to get into the concept of my obsession, and I'm Christian. I think that most Christians who don't like Harry Potter have a problem with the "satanic arts" it teaches (which I do not agree AT ALL with).

[jesuschick]

You are absolutely right, life will still function and go on without Harry Potter...I'm not really sure how....but somehow...we will....survive :(

But seriously it is far more important to obey your parents than to read a book or see a movie that they have forbidden. After all that is the first commandment that comes with a promise. ;)
thank you, at least someone who understands me!
(PM me :) )

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

I was just reading that post! I agree 110% with everything you said.
you mean w/ what i siad? if so, thanks..:)

[The Half-Blood Prince]

QueenSusanofNarnia, I know this isn't HP related, but real quick--are you a fan of the Thief Lord? Cause I remember Hornet and Prosper. Hey is there a movie coming out?

[inkspot]

iMerge two similar threads and place back in Socratic Club Forum for philosophical discussion.

Please keep in mind: some parents find HP inappropriate for their children, and if your parents do not want you to read the books or see the films, you certainly should not. Obey your parents, they know what's best for you.
:)

[inked]

Here is an absolutely scrumptious interview worth every second of reading time:

http://www.swcp.com/christian-fandom/oli-jg.html


Let me know what ya'll think! :D

[Siren]

So have you actually read them and can show us where from the context of the books compared to the Bible?

If not then I am afraid all you have to go on is hear-say. And that burned a lot of witches in the middle ages.

Actually, few "real" witches were killed in the middle ages. And there are very few accounts of people chastizing the church and then being killed. There is much evidence to state that many Christians were falsly accused and deemed witches. So please, don't throw myth around as fact.

On HP, I found this interesting website/essay, not sure if it was listed before. http://www.religioustolerance.org/potter.htm

[echoscot]

Actually, few "real" witches were killed in the middle ages. And there are very few accounts of people chastizing the church and then being killed. There is much evidence to state that many Christians were falsly accused and deemed witches. So please, don't throw myth around as fact.

On HP, I found this interesting website/essay, not sure if it was listed before. http://www.religioustolerance.org/potter.htm


You seem to have missed the entire point of the statement. The other person was throwing myth around as fact, and I set up the sentence to be an example of that. "So and so is a witch burn him/her." And during the middle ages, there were people arrested and executed, sometimes by burning. Usually false.

[ruffian.14]

I just kind of have to say this.

IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, GET OVER IT. GO ON TO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE, NOT COMING UP WITH STUPID REASONS FOR WHY IT'S 'EVIL'.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

QueenSusanofNarnia, I know this isn't HP related, but real quick--are you a fan of the Thief Lord? Cause I remember Hornet and Prosper. Hey is there a movie coming out?

yes i am a fan!! also, the movie is already out on DVD..it's very good..:I

[Siren]

You seem to have missed the entire point of the statement. The other person was throwing myth around as fact, and I set up the sentence to be an example of that. "So and so is a witch burn him/her." And during the middle ages, there were people arrested and executed, sometimes by burning. Usually false.

I misunderstood you, sorry about that :)

ruffian, simply stating people should get over it won't make them get over it. Some people wish to discuss it.

[Yahtzee]

fawkes thats the were things get complicated about arguments of the book i go to a christian school and at my school they believe since harry potter uses magic and doesnt really focus on god they thinks that the book is evil i mean they wont let you do book reports if it has anything to do with magic and when the non-christian community hears their arguments about the book being evil or not moral they jump to the conclusion that all-christians hate harry potter but thats just not true alot of people say that christians think magic is evil(note some magic is evil:voodo:ouji boards:ect.) but its just not true

[Queen Rocco]

Do ya'll think that Harry Potter can relate to the Bible at all? I know it was not writen to be about the Bible, but could it have anything to do with it???
to me harry potter IS the bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Asphodel]

The Thief Lord movie came out? Did it only come out in the United Kingdom, or is it in the US, cause I never saw or heard of it.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

The Thief Lord movie came out? Did it only come out in the United Kingdom, or is it in the US, cause I never saw or heard of it.

Well, I am not entirely sure about the UK, but in the US it is out on DVD.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Does Thief Lord have anything to do with Harry Potter?

(i.e. is this wandering off topic a bit?)

I'd like to make a quick comment about a criticism that I often hear levelled against the Potter series: that Harry & chums are rule-benders if not rule-breakers and seem to get rewarded for it. In my opinion, people who contend this aren't really reading the stories, and certainly not understanding the English Public School Story genre. These are coming-of-age stories, and it's understood that the protagonists can be everything from decent chaps to scoundrels, but all of them are immature. Part of the story is that everyone bends and occasionally breaks the rules, and another part of the story is that they almost inevitably pay the price for it. In the crudest stories of these types, morality tales, the reader is intended to "get the message" that rulebreaking doesn't pay. In the more sophisticated ones, such as Kipling's Stalky & Company, the message is more subtle and realistic: minor rules can be bent, especially for a good reason, but the important thing is to learn the morality behind the rules and hew to that.

An interesting example: Stalky & Company is a series of vignettes about school life, and in one of the stories the chaplain of the school finds himself in a bind: he knows that one of the younger boys is essentially being bullied into slavery by a couple of the crueler older ones. Of course, the lad won't testify out of terror, so the chaplain's hands are almost tied. In desperation he turns to Stalky and his friends, who step in with some "lower deck justice". What they mete out to the bullies is strictly against the rules, but the deeper theme - that of protecting the oppressed and using strength for good - is of deeper morality.

I think the Potter stories follow the same pattern. When Harry and friends mess with the rules carelessly, they often pay a price and learn a lesson. When they break lesser rules (such as the one forbidding students to wander around the school grounds at night), it is usually for a greater good (such as ministering to Hagrid.) And don't forget - the circumstances of the latter books (Goblet & following) are in the shadow of war, when often niceties like minor rules must give way to immediate considerations of life and death. Thus when the felix potion tells Harry to head out to Hagrid's hut despite the rules, it is for the ultimately greater good of getting the memory that Dumbledore wanted.

[Asphodel]

Well, I am not entirely sure about the UK, but in the US it is out on DVD.
Has it even come out in theaters?

[onlymystory]

Hey gang, I know POTW already said this and he said it nicely but you don't seem to be listening. If you would like to talk about The Thief Lord start a thread in the wood between the worlds section or keep it to pms. This thread is for a serious Harry Potter discussion. So the mean mod is going to put her foot down. Any discussion not pertaining to Harry Potter will be deleted and the poster issued a warning. Its rude to the people who do want to talk about Harry Potter.

[The Half-Blood Prince]

I agree. People seem to think that because JKR writes about children breaking rules she is sending out the wrong message, when in actuality she is sending out an accurate message. That is what children do, and it's through those experiences that they grow and become more mature.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

(see what you get when you don't listen to the nice mod?)


:D

[MRS._William_Moseley]

Harry Potter's kool...... :rolleyes: :D

[Tootsie]

As a Christian, I don't think it gives us the inclination to practice witchcraft, but the art of doing it is wrong. Reading and watching it on TV isn't wrong, but the actual practicing is wrong. I personally love Harry Potter. I think it's the classic good/evil story. However I don't appreciate people who aren't Christians thinking that it's morally wrong in our eyes to watch Harry Potter, because they have no idea what is right and what is wrong in Christianity. Talk about stereotyping when they say 'You can watch Harry Potter?' when you're raving about the latest book.

'Yes...I don't live with the Quakers; I watch Harry Potter. I also saw 'Wedding Crashers', do you want to condemn me now?'

*sigh*

Hint: If you're not Christian, don't act like you KNOW how we live, because it's not like we're aliens- we just believe in different things. And it doesn't concern movies or books, thank you. :mad:

[onlymystory]

I definitely understand what you mean about stereotyping. I get the bad Christian stereotype from a lot of people in my college group for reading Harry Potter (actually one thought I was bad for reading Narnia and no I don't understand that concept.) And I get asked often why I'm different by people who aren't Christians and when I say its because I'm a Christian i get told that there's no way I can be a Christian because Christians are boring, rude, and narrow minded. Stereotypes are annoying. I can't wait until the seventh book comes out to see what she does with the series. I do find it interesting though that a lot of the people who condemn Harry Potter for being evil and satanic are the same ones who try to find God in nearly everything but they refuse to try in this despite how obvious a lot of it is.

[echoscot]

Hint: If you're not Christian, don't act like you KNOW how we live, because it's not like we're aliens- we just believe in different things. And it doesn't concern movies or books, thank you. :mad: [/B]

1 Peter 2:11 says that we are aliens. That's why you're non-Christian friends don't understand.

[tugce_lucy]

I really very very very :p like harry potter(dan) and cho chang...(katie leung)
she is very pretty
harry potter he is good actors.I love katie and dan :)

[pegasus62]

to me harry potter IS the bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slow down, there!!!! :eek: What a horrible thing to say! Do you realize that Harry Potter is FAR from the Bible in every aspect?!!!! If you've ever read the Bible you should understand that there is only one Holy Word and that it's not like Harry at all.

Inkspot, I haven't been here for quite a while and I want to thank you for adding 'extra smilies'. :) I, too, should be less rigid about the whole thing and appreciate the fact that I have a say in all this Harry Potter madness. I'll list some things I've taken some time to think over, and a question you and various others have risen several times.
The question is this:"If children can(and adults for that matter, too.) have the discretion to pick and choose the good from the evil, the right from the wrong, then why bother to argue over the matter of Harry and if the books and movies can be gleaned from?"
Basiclly, saying that you (and I'm just saying 'you in general and those who are reading this') are smart enough to be able to avoid the bad in Harry.
Well, consider this:
A nurse is caring for an ill patient with a passing virus. She takes in the facts of his condition and weighs the threat of his sickness in her own knowledge. The good side is, the man has a lot of interesting stories to tell from his earlier ife experiances. The bad side is, she could catch the illness herself.
Now what do you think she would do? Choose the foolish route, even though she knows the long term effect of the virus.
My point is this: Harry may be entertaining. He may be 'funny'. He may be intresting and have some, if not all, good moral standards. Does that make his bad side disappear? Does that make you be able to avoid his mistakes by seeing him do these things (curse, lie, cheat, etc.)? Why read(or watch) just to have to sift as you go along?

[Ephinie]

Well, consider this:
A nurse is caring for an ill patient with a passing virus. She takes in the facts of his condition and weighs the threat of his sickness in her own knowledge. The good side is, the man has a lot of interesting stories to tell from his earlier ife experiances. The bad side is, she could catch the illness herself.
Now what do you think she would do? Choose the foolish route, even though she knows the long term effect of the virus.
My point is this: Harry may be entertaining. He may be 'funny'. He may be intresting and have some, if not all, good moral standards. Does that make his bad side disappear? Does that make you be able to avoid his mistakes by seeing him do these things (curse, lie, cheat, etc.)? Why read(or watch) just to have to sift as you go along?I hope you don't mind that I bolded the very last sentence.

By this logic, why read or watch ANYTHING? We have to assimilate, digest, and sift through everything that we take in - and that includes when we read the Bible. David, for example, committed adultery and murdered the woman's husband to cover it up. That's hardly an admirable action, yet he is clearly the "hero" of that story. There are all kinds of examples. The point is, we have to use our good common sense to filter through every piece of literature or tv show we watch and decide what to take away from it. Harry Potter, compared with other books, is not all that objectionable.

[inkspot]

Yes. Ephinie has answered as I would have. For the stories to carry any emotional weight making them worth reading, there has to be conflict. If Harry were an angel, who could relate to him or care to know what becomes of him? I think maybe one reason God allowed the "heroes" in His story (the Bible) to be shown "warts and all" is that He wants us to see: they weren't perfect, and yet He used them! There is hope for us! It's a bit the same with HP, I would say. He is in many respects a normal teenager (despite the fact he was raised in such a hideous environment) so the fact he can be the hero that he is is pretty inspirational, despite his flaws.

A work of literature (or movie, or short story) which had no dark side would hardly make compelling reading, whether it's the Bible or HP. In either case, we teach our kids to recognize the difference between good and evil, and go from there.

[Wendygirljp]

I guess there can be parallels to many books - "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran - "The Warm Fuzzy Tale" by Claude Steiner - "Illusions" by Richard Bach - "Love" by Leo Buscaglia. The difficulty, I believe, is that most people have not read these books and are not popular, let alone known, among the younger generation, of which most of these chat rooms seem to be comprised.

Maybe we should include "Wizard of Oz" in comparing it to the Bible? After all, it does talk about many things of good and evil, yet from another angle, Dorothy was no "saint", by any means, but, imho, a spoiled, whining little girl.

[inkspot]

That's very true, WendyGirl.

I came across something in 1 Samuel 16 today for people who think HP is bad because he lies: God told Samuel to go and anoint a new king from among Jesse's sons, and Samuel said, "How can I do that?! Saul (the current king) will kill me!" God told him just to tell people he was going to offer sacrifices with Jesse's clan -- not to mention the king thing at all! That was pretty deceptive, wouldn't you say? And yet God was the one who told him to do it. If we want to protect our children from all literature in which the heroes are deceptive, we better cross out the Bible.
:) :) :)

[pegasus62]

I think we have to keep into perspective, though, the fact that Harry has content that is actually shown to children with the intent of simply its entertainment. The Bible isn't made to just look at, laugh at, and toss away. It has morality and things to take in, not so with Harry Potter where the sifting is done just so you can 'join the fun'. Potter is so far from the Bible in its truth and the points it raises that it's almost funny to say that they should be used in the same way. You say, "Well, the Bible has violence, etc, etc, so if it's fine to show that to my children, why not Harry?" There's a major difference in these. Harry Potter was not written by God or any god-like figure. Harry Potter is not needed, and the Bible is to shape spiritual lives and to perfect your walk towards Christ. A member mentioned Harry Potter 'was her Bible'. If this was really so, or if it was only for the shocked posts in reply I don't know, but it seems rather pitiful if someone turns toward Potter and thinks it's as great as the Bible.
Thanks for listening,
-pegasus62 :)

[inkspot]

There's a major difference in these. Harry Potter was not written by God or any god-like figure. Harry Potter is not needed, and the Bible is to shape spiritual lives and to perfect your walk towards Christ.
By this standard, then no one should write a book, because no other book but the Bible is needed.

Further, it seems to me as if you are saying: it is all right for God to expose our children to objectionable content because He is God, but it is wrong for JKR to expose our children to objectionable content because she is not God -- as if God can break all the rules He wants because He is God. But the point of the Christian God is that He is just, which means, He won't do a bunch of wrong He told us not to do just because He is able to. His ideas of justice, truth, mercy, compassion, etc are much stronger than ours, so He won't turn around and transgress them just because He can. That is not His nature.

Or are you saying that because the Bible is there to teach us things, and HP is only there to entertain us, then the Bible should be able to have the objectionable content and HP shouldn't? But surely, if the Bible is "required reading," it should be the one which leaves out the objectionable content?

I don't think I am getting the point here ...

[echoscot]

Ink,

I haven't been here ina while, but I think the post about "to me Harry Potter is the Bible" is what kind of got Pegasus fired up a bit. I sensed that at least from the last post. And, Pegasus, to be fair I think it kind of alarmed most of us. So, to your point, that is something that needs to be addressed. As to the rest of what you are saying, it sounds like you are raising up a standard for which we should compare Harry Potter, and if it doesn't meet that standard then it should be avoided, at least by Christians. But the problem, as several people have pointed out, is that the standard you have raised, if applied fairly, eliminates all literature, movies, and any entertainment or literary medium whatsoever. It also seems that you are discounting the content of Harry Potter, without ever having read it. You say that it is laughable to compare the moralities and virtues of the stories to the Bible, becuase that would be beneath our standards, and yet if you read the New Testament, you find that that is exactly the kind of evangelism that Paul used in reaching the gentiles, particularly in Rome. He appealed to their worship of other gods and drew on what they understood to point out the heart of Christianity. The appeal of Harry Potter is not actually the witchcraft or desire to learn it. And yes I am addressing all those letters and rumors of children wanting to go to Hogwarts. Hogwarts does not even teach real witchcraft, they teach how to fly on broomsticks, defeat bogarts and dementors, create love potions and even stopper death and learn the "history of magic" which is a dull series of lectures on goblin wars and the vampire councils. Fantasy stuff and make-believe. The real appeal of Hogwarts, that draws on nearly every child's heart strings is the desire to go to a fantastic place, (like Narnia, Middle Earth or Pern), and make fast friends for life in the boarding school, to be able to put on the Sorting Hat and find out what house you will be in, and sneak out at night under an invisibility cloak to have exciting adventures with your best friend and swap chocolate frog cards. No child is ever excited about studying, and the studying aspects of Hogwarts are played up as just as dull as any other school where we might learn Algebra and Calculus. The appeal is the bonds of friendship that are formed and the ability to believe that you might be one of the good guys and punch Draco Malfoy in the face or try to defend Hagrid's honor when the other students and faculty disgrace him.

So the only request here is that you read the books to comment knowledgeably about them. JKR has made multiple statements that she has not set out to teach anyone witchcraft or try to make it appealing, this is fairytale stuff of imagination. Now, you are correct that if we call ourselves Christian, then the Bible should be our ultimate standard. But if you expect Harry Potter to live up to the standard of the Bible, then so should Wizard of Oz, the Brothers Grimm(Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, and what not, and these stories are actually a lot more gruesome than Harry Potter), Lord of the Rings etc. So if you have rid your home of all non-Biblical books and films. And only read the Bible and don't go out to the theater, 90% of movies and plays are predominantly secular and some say some outright awful things. Then you have fairly applied your standard, otherwise you are just prejudiced because of all the hearsay that is circulating. Do yourself a favor and look fairly at both sides of the argument. There are many, many Christians who have found value, both as entertainment and insight to unconditional love that come from the Harry Potter stories.

[pegasus62]

Ink,
But the problem, as several people have pointed out, is that the standard you have raised, if applied fairly, eliminates all literature, movies, and any entertainment or literary medium whatsoever. It also seems that you are discounting the content of Harry Potter, without ever having read it.

Why do you think I'm not reading it? As I've said earlier, it would make me a complete hyprocrite to read something that I have already said is not needed, not wanted, and not up to my morals.
The appeal of Harry Potter is not actually the witchcraft or desire to learn it. And yes I am addressing all those letters and rumors of children wanting to go to Hogwarts. Hogwarts does not even teach real witchcraft, they teach how to fly on broomsticks, defeat bogarts and dementors, create love potions and even stopper death and learn the "history of magic" which is a dull series of lectures on goblin wars and the vampire councils. Fantasy stuff and make-believe.

No, actually, no. If you've read Harry (which you have?), or watched the movies, you'll see underlying witchcraft, divination, etc, etc. Harry doesn't just 'fly around on broomsticks', as you say. He consults spirits, has familiars, and talks to wizards into 'the deep magick'. J.K.Rowling's words don't always match her actions. She wrote these things with the interest and intent of showing children 'new insights', obvious in her books.

Now, you are correct that if we call ourselves Christian, then the Bible should be our ultimate standard. But if you expect Harry Potter to live up to the standard of the Bible, then so should Wizard of Oz, the Brothers Grimm(Snow White, Hansel and Gretel, and what not, and these stories are actually a lot more gruesome than Harry Potter), Lord of the Rings etc. So if you have rid your home of all non-Biblical books and films.

It's far from the same to compare these books to Potter. You have to consider though, there is an extent to where you can't show children even books like the Brothers Grimm, especially if they're very young. Children shouldn't be shown such violence at an early age, no matter what the book.
Getting back to comparing Potter, it's far worse.Why? Because it not only includes things LOTR, etc, include, but more! Added to its violence is immorality (Harry & Hermonie in later books) , cursing (Do Brothers Grimm curse profusely?), lying, cheating, and on and on! :eek: I'm shocked to see children and teenagers shown this waste.
Do yourself a favor and look fairly at both sides of the argument. There are many, many Christians who have found value, both as entertainment and insight to unconditional love that come from the Harry Potter stories.

I'm here for a reason, echoscot. To look not only at my own arguments, but others as well. I'm listening but we're going in circles at each other. 'Many Christians' don't understand the damage Harry's doing to themselves and their children just for a little 'unconditional love' shown in Harry Potter. The value their getting is becoming clouded by the bad. I'm ashamed to see many magick books coming up for children, even in picture books, skyrocketing since the Harry Potter books. J.K.Rowling's not writing for the Christian family's welfare.
-pegasus62

[Solya]

I see no underlying witchcraft in Harry Potter, and I sincerely doubt that it is there. I have studied witchcraft into quite a lot of detail and after that it is not so hard to come to the conclusion that Harry Potter has nothing to do with it whatsoever. The creatures that pop up in the series are largely mythological, the use of magic as described in the books simply does not work in such a way, and the consulting of spirits is something which works totally different in real life as well. Furthermore, Rowling clearly states in the books that divination such as reading tealeaves is completely and utterly ridiculous. And if having a familiar is the same as having a pet, I think that many of us are guilty of having one!

Also, Harry and Hermione are not immoral. In the latest book there's romance between Harry and Ginny and a strong attraction between Ron and Hermione. Whereas some Christians do see this as immoral... it certainly isn't worse than any of the movies you can see on TV here! And cursing? Hah, Rowling's form of cursing is far more likeable than the curses I hear when I am in town and walk past a group of youngsters.

Harry's story is a story of the battle between good and evil. It is about standing up for yourself and what you believe in. It is about the pure and utter power of unconditional love. I think it has inspired many youngsters to stand up for their own ideals (I know it has given me a nudge into the right direction) and I see the comfort and hope it brings to those who are outsiders and to those who want to do good. :) I love Harry for bringing so many young people back to reading books.

Take it from one who has delved into witchcraft that Harry is not, nor will this series ever be, immoral and filled with underlying ideas of magic. Rowling's story simply tells an amazing tale and I don't think that it is fair or just to compare her story to the deeper uses of magic. This is a children's series, for crying out loud, and it is something you should not judge unless you've read the novels and formed your own opinion about it. I've read them all and I am deeply touched by the way in which Rowling has created this world. It is a story which doesn't exclude God out of anything... it is merely a fictional tale about witchcraft which isn't even real to begin with... so why worry so much about it?

[Narniafan357]

J.K. Rowling is a Christian.Harry Potter is an amazing story.I don't see why people think it's so bad.I'm a Christian and I love Harry Potter!!!It's not like it's saying anything bad about the Bible.It's just entertainment,and it teaches us lessons about friendship and not being afraid to stand out.And with that I say this-Harry Potter Rules!!!

[echoscot]

Why do you think I'm not reading it? As I've said earlier, it would make me a complete hyprocrite to read something that I have already said is not needed, not wanted, and not up to my morals.

Well, I am glad that you have done that. I appreciate your honesty in at least reading. I guess I assumed because so many do bash it only on the hearsay of others.


If you've read Harry (which you have?), or watched the movies, you'll see underlying witchcraft, divination, etc, etc. Harry doesn't just 'fly around on broomsticks', as you say. He consults spirits, has familiars, and talks to wizards into 'the deep magick'. J.K.Rowling's words don't always match her actions. She wrote these things with the interest and intent of showing children 'new insights', obvious in her books.

Actually, I have read them several times and seen the films, which I believe do not really do credit to the books, but that is personal opinion. Anyway to the subject at hand, I know many people who are Wicca and have seen and read many fantasy books, the topics you bring up bear no semblance to the real counterparts. They are more strikingly similar to other myths and fantasies that I have read. I can see no other intent than an author who likes fantasy and wants to sell a book and hopefully make money(which she accomplished quite well). Magick and Magic are two very different things for those able to discern. Divination is played up as ludicrous and silly, the kingdoms of the spiritual realms are not dealt with in real ways. The witch or wizard who has a cat or a toad as a familiar is the stuff of folklore and legends. Real familiars operate in a much different way, though no doubt they have experience in multitudes of deception. As far as insights, there are none that compare to real magic. If I may, could I direct your attention to another book directed at young adults, which very clearly states its intent. It is entitled, "Wicked". This is NOT the book version of the popular stage play, but a story about a young girl who is orphaned and sent to upstate New York to live with some cousins and Aunts. The Aunts turn out to be witches and teach her how to live in magick. In the dedication of the book, the author states that she is grateful to the number of Wiccan leaders who have helped guide her in the appropriate directions and acknowledges that there are many variants of Wiccan and writes her book in the hopes that all young people will gain an appreciation for what a book of spells can bring in their lives. The book itself does actually describe the life of real witches or Wiccan and the spells required.

Another example, I am a big fan of Scooby Doo. I used to watch it back in the '70's. A recent movie made, however, gave me some concern. "The Witch's Ghost". The gang tracks down the appearance of an apparition of a witch and "those darn kids" uncover a criminal mastermind. But the grateful victim of the ghost then goes on to point out that there were real witches who were good and peaceful and a basic diversity and tolerance message was preached using kids tv characters. I was a bit appalled.



It's far from the same to compare these books to Potter. You have to consider though, there is an extent to where you can't show children even books like the Brothers Grimm, especially if they're very young. Children shouldn't be shown such violence at an early age, no matter what the book.
Getting back to comparing Potter, it's far worse.Why? Because it not only includes things LOTR, etc, include, but more! Added to its violence is immorality (Harry & Hermonie in later books) , cursing (Do Brothers Grimm curse profusely?), lying, cheating, and on and on! :eek: I'm shocked to see children and teenagers shown this waste.

I have some difficulty here. I have read all of the books I listed for you. Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn lie, swear and get away with all kinds of things. Those books are directed at young kids. I am not really sure what "immorality" goes on between Harry and Hermione or any of the kids. I have yet to find any reference to sexual lewdness or licensiousness(sp?). Some of the characters "snog" or "make-out" as we say in America. But that is in a simplistic fashion, of "Saved By the Bell" kind of high school thing. However, I agree that these books should not be directed at young children for the more mature things they deal with and the graphic nature of the dark side of the story, Lord Thingy and what-not. LOTR and Narnia both deal in witchcraft with strong underlying currents. I have read many rationalizations of that, but it is quite simple. In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Lucy is asked to read a spell from a book of spells to make the Duffers unuglified. She finds the spell book and reads not only the correct spell, but is tempted by many others and actually tries one other to shameful results. When Aslan appears, he does not scold her for trying the spells, but for eavesdropping on her friend. Aslan admits that he is actually friends with the wizard who takes care of the island, and to Lucy's horror, finds that Aslan was bound by the same invisibility spell that bound the rest of the islands inhabitants and remained invisible until Lucy read the spell to make it right. Underlying magic, encouraged as a "good" form of magic. So I do see a need to draw a comparison. I had to edit, because I remembered why I included Cinderella in the list, I am most familiar with the Disney film so let me go there. Cinderella is crying in the garden after the horrible abuse by the Dursleys (oops I mean her step mother and sisters) and suddenly this witch apparates (Darn it I mean the Fairy Godmother appears) announces who she is, waves around her magic wand, and starts singing a little ditty called "Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo". A pumpkin changes into a coach, a dog becomes a footman, mice become lavish horses and rags become a beautiful ballgown. Transfiguration at its finest, with a 10" willow wand that has a unicorn hair core.(I made that up, but hope you see the similarity). Christian children everywhere sing this song as do their parents. Yet it is a magic or magick if you will spell, no different than Hermione Grainger waving her wand and yelling "Leviosa!" Maybe if she sang it in a cute rhyme it wouldn't be so bad. Do you see why I make the comparison. They are exactly the same thing. If Harry Potter is evil because of its use of magic, made-up or not, then so is Cinderella. They both glorify the use of magic, according to your standard of magic use. That is why I brought them up.


I'm here for a reason, echoscot. To look not only at my own arguments, but others as well. I'm listening but we're going in circles at each other. 'Many Christians' don't understand the damage Harry's doing to themselves and their children just for a little 'unconditional love' shown in Harry Potter. The value their getting is becoming clouded by the bad. I'm ashamed to see many magick books coming up for children, even in picture books, skyrocketing since the Harry Potter books. J.K.Rowling's not writing for the Christian family's welfare.
-pegasus62

I am glad that you are "here for a reason" but I am very discerning and sometimes get quite angry when I find "agendas" in otherwise enjoyable stories. Like the Scooby-Doo example, and the "Wicked" example listed above. I have yet to find anything even remotely like that in the HP series. I have some experience and familiarity with real witchcraft, with real moral degradation. I had several friends who were a drug addicts, one of whom lived with me for nearly 3 years until he died of an overdose. I have seen many dark and dangerous things. HP is NOT one of them. I do believe that young children should not read them, at least without the guidance of a well balanced parent, because some of her descriptions are the stuff of nightmares. But I do believe it is a well woven tale, with suspense, intrigue and excellent character development. Just from a literary standpoint. I have not seen any harm, temporary or lasting in the lives of those that have read it. The only things I have ever seen, came from the spoof write up of the on-line magazine known as the Onion. They made up ridiculous facts to poke fun at the criticisms being directed at Harry Potter, then some of the critics mistook them for real facts and started quoting them back. If you are seriously interested in looking at some well phrased counter arguments may I suggest the Hogwarts Professor (http://www.hogwartsprofessor.com) . He is Anglican, but I have read his book. I do not agree with everything he states, but he has some compelling discussion points and insights.

[inkspot]

Thanks, Scot, you did a great job there, and thanks Solya for your input.

Let me just say, Scot, I think you misunderstood Pegasus when she said:Why do you think I'm not reading it? As I've said earlier, it would make me a complete hyprocrite to read something that I have already said is not needed, not wanted, and not up to my morals.
You interpreted this as "What makes you think I am not reading it?" But in fact, I think it was meant to read more like this: "Didn't you ever realize why I am not reading it? It would make me a hypocrite to read something I have already said is evil." I do not believe Pegasus has, in fact, read any HP book. (For one thing, if she had, I doubt she would have such a low opinion of them.)

Pegasus, I was sad you did not answer my question from my previous:
"There's a major difference in these. Harry Potter was not written by God or any god-like figure. Harry Potter is not needed, and the Bible is to shape spiritual lives and to perfect your walk towards Christ." — Pegasus

By this standard, then no one should write a book, because no other book but the Bible is needed.

Further, it seems to me as if you are saying: it is all right for God to expose our children to objectionable content because He is God, but it is wrong for JKR to expose our children to objectionable content because she is not God -- as if God can break all the rules He wants because He is God. But the point of the Christian God is that He is just, which means, He won't do a bunch of wrong He told us not to do just because He is able to. His ideas of justice, truth, mercy, compassion, etc are much stronger than ours, so He won't turn around and transgress them just because He can. That is not His nature.

Or are you saying that because the Bible is there to teach us things, and HP is only there to entertain us, then the Bible should be able to have the objectionable content and HP shouldn't? But surely, if the Bible is "required reading," it should be the one which leaves out the objectionable content?

I don't think I am getting the point here ...
Did you have further explanation of your statement for me?

[anna.the.gentle]

Do ya'll think that Harry Potter can relate to the Bible at all? I know it was not writen to be about the Bible, but could it have anything to do with it???
im not really sure. perhaps narnia has a better conection w/ the bible.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Narnia certainly has better correlations to Scripture. In my opinion, the Potter books are nice stories, but not in the class of Narnia or Lord of the Rings.

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Narnia certainly has better correlations to Scripture. In my opinion, the Potter books are nice stories, but not in the class of Narnia or Lord of the Rings.
I am offended.

[echoscot]

I am offended.


LOL is that along the lines of Potter blasphemy????

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

LOL is that along the lines of Potter blasphemy????

Depends what you mean.
Possibly.

[Tsukiko]

Nope--Harry Potter has nothing to do with the Bible

[SacredSpirit]

nein, non, não, لا ,いいえ ,아니다 , 无 , nada, NO

[Lady Chloe]

Shrugs... Lots of people make a big deal out of Harry Potter calling it satanic ect. But I think that it's just got something to with witchcraft and reading it might cause people to stray from God's path and sin... So that's why they over react...

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Shrugs... Lots of people make a big deal out of Harry Potter calling it satanic ect. But I think that it's just got something to with witchcraft and reading it might cause people to stray from God's path and sin... So that's why they over react...
I have not stryaed from God's path, and have not known someone to do so after reading HP.
And everyone - even good, good, good Christians - sins.

[echoscot]

I have not stryaed from God's path, and have not known someone to do so after reading HP.
And everyone - even good, good, good Christians - sins.

Nor have I. They are very fun stories, some people see parallels to Christian life and morals in them, others do not. Rowling, herself, said that she didn't publicly talk about her faith (Presbyterian/Church of Scotland) because "readers of all ages from 6 to 60 would be able to figure out her stories".

I gave a friend of mine from church a ride the other day and he saw my GOF CD set I was listening to for long drives, boy did I get the 20 questions.....LOL, me a Sunday School teacher and well respected person who people ask spiritual advice about likes Harry Potter????? Some one who has read the Bible through several times and is frequently sought out for insight likes this awful fantasy trash? I simply said "Yes, would you like to borrow it, they are terrifically fun to listen to and Jim Dale does an excellent job!" :cool:

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

Nor have I. They are very fun stories, some people see parallels to Christian life and morals in them, others do not. Rowling, herself, said that she didn't publicly talk about her faith (Presbyterian/Church of Scotland) because "readers of all ages from 6 to 60 would be able to figure out her stories".

I gave a friend of mine from church a ride the other day and he saw my GOF CD set I was listening to for long drives, boy did I get the 20 questions.....LOL, me a Sunday School teacher and well respected person who people ask spiritual advice about likes Harry Potter????? Some one who has read the Bible through several times and is frequently sought out for insight likes this awful fantasy trash? I simply said "Yes, would you like to borrow it, they are terrifically fun to listen to and Jim Dale does an excellent job!" :cool:
LOL yeah. One of my best friends Lily is a terribly good Christian - going to church each sunday (unless she cannot due to special circumstances), etc - and is as big a fan of HP as I am. And a lot of people are like, "How does that work out?"

[inkspot]

Nope--Harry Potter has nothing to do with the Bible
On what do you justify this statement, considering:

* When Jesus was born, angels burst through from the other side to sing the good news! When baby Harry defeated Voldemort, magic people were rejoicing and even embracing muggles in celebration.
* When Jesus went to the temple at age 13 and remained there with the holy men, we have the first record of his embracing the business of His Father -- up to that point, He was seemingly a normal child. When Harry received his summons to Hogwarts, it was the first he was told of his real parentage and introduced to his father's business.
* Jesus said He had seen Satan fall like lightning from heaven -- and the evil mark which Voldemort left upon Harry was a scar shaped like a lightning bolt, the symbol of Satan.
* The stag is a symbol of Jesus, from the time St. Eustace met a stag with the crucified Savior in its horns -- and Harry's father was able to transform into a stag, and Harry's patronus takes the shape of a stag.
* Jesus said great love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends, and we are told that the reason Harry was able to defeat Voldemort as a baby was the great power he received when his mother laid down her life for him.

These are just a few of the parallels and symbolism in HP which certainly could relate it to the Bible ...

[QueenSusanofNarnia]

On what do you justify this statement, considering:

* When Jesus was born, angels burst through from the other side to sing the good news! When baby Harry defeated Voldemort, magic people were rejoicing and even embracing muggles in celebration.
* When Jesus went to the temple at age 13 and remained there with the holy men, we have the first record of his embracing the business of His Father -- up to that point, He was seemingly a normal child. When Harry received his summons to Hogwarts, it was the first he was told of his real parentage and introduced to his father's business.
* Jesus said He had seen Satan fall like lightning from heaven -- and the evil mark which Voldemort left upon Harry was a scar shaped like a lightning bolt, the symbol of Satan.
* The stag is a symbol of Jesus, from the time St. Eustace met a stag with the crucified Savior in its horns -- and Harry's father was able to transform into a stag, and Harry's patronus takes the shape of a stag.
* Jesus said great love has no man than to lay down his life for his friends, and we are told that the reason Harry was able to defeat Voldemort as a baby was the great power he received when his mother laid down her life for him.

These are just a few of the parallels and symbolism in HP which certainly could relate it to the Bible ...
Yes, but it isn't bad that those are similar.

[onlymystory]

I think Inkspot was trying to point out to TrueNarnian the similarities in an effort to get her to realize that there can be benefits to Harry Potter. I have the feeling that when the seventh book comes out people will start finding a lot more connections between the Bible and Harry Potter.

[echoscot]

I think Inkspot was trying to point out to TrueNarnian the similarities in an effort to get her to realize that there can be benefits to Harry Potter. I have the feeling that when the seventh book comes out people will start finding a lot more connections between the Bible and Harry Potter.


I think so as well. I believe Ms. Rowling is quite clever at disguising her substance in a fantasy setting. ;)

[Wylla]

Who agrees with me that all the Harry Potter books and movies have witch craft in them? They are teaching kids that disobeying teachers and those in authority is ok, and that magic and witch craft are fine. Those kind of things can lead to people worshipping Satan and doing horrible things.
If you are a sincere Christian and have Jesus in your heart then I would advise you to stay away form Harry Potter and things like it.

[Miss.SunFlower]

I disagree....I LOVE harry potter and not once in my life have any of those movies brought me further from god, NEVER.

[Afton]

well im not a hp fan....actually...i hate them!!!!.....im not sure about them....ive only seen the 1st and 2nd one...and i hated then(duh!).....so im not sure...iv heard lots of my friends say it was teaching bad stuff....and i dont think young kinds should see it.....my brother went to see one and he saw a 4 year old in there...also my cousin has seen creatures in her dreams because she saw it....there more like devils from her opinion

[Lady Chloe]

I have to disagree with some of that. I agree that it has witch craft in it, and even I have found my self role playing with magic scenes, but I do not believe that you have to stay away from it completly.

[Wylla]

Thank you for agreeing with me Lady Tyrna.
As for SF_94, and Lady Chloe I am sorry I cannot convince you further. HP May not be like worshipping Satan and stuff, but it's a tool Satan uses to get a foothold in your mind and heart, then you start thinking bad thoughts and doing little things. He uses HP to root little thoughts in your head that can lead to falling away form God and before you know it you can be a slave to Satan's power.

[Neevil]

I've never read or watched them, so I can't really give an opinion. But aren't there already some threads about this?

[office]

Well I am not a big fan of Harry Potter but I don`t think it`s very evil. (I`m a christian by the way) Partly because the author is a christian. And the books are fantasy there not meant to be taken that seriously.

[Afton]

Well I am not a big fan of Harry Potter but I don`t think it`s very evil. (I`m a christian by the way) Partly because the author is a christian. And the books are fantasy there not meant to be taken that seriously.
yea..i dont watch them....and dont have a clue of the arguments that people have about witch craft stuff so.....