new harry potter book

[Ex Nihilo]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Honestly, yall are acting like I am sacrificing goats right now and drinking their blood. If you really want to get down to it, Star Wars has the potential to be ten times more dangerous. But no, nobody (or few, anyway) take offense at Star Wars just because (fill in blank). HOnestly, there is even a religion called "jediism". Only a few people got their feathers ruffled when Revenge of the Sith came out. Why the double standard? Force or magic? Half a dozen with one or six with the other?

Well, I don't know about ten times more dangerous--however, the Jedi religion in the Star Wars films very closely resembles Zen Buddhism. In fact, most practitioners of Jediism consider it a form of Zen Buddhism. All of these things are more dangerous for unbelievers, of course, because they don't have the truth to help them discern.

And, of course, Lucas doesn't claim to be a Christian at all, while Rowling (to many people's increased offense) does... But I think this is why Star Wars presents more of a relativistic ethic and HP is usually (though not as often as I'd like!!) better about portraying good and evil as real, distinct entities. If you'll notice, however, and this is part of the reason I do read the books, I immensely enjoy analyzing the underlying ideology of both series...

This question presents itself: Should we be willing to read books with pagan ideologies? As I've made clear in this thread, I am, but with certain limitations. After all, some pretty great stuff has been written from a pagan worldview. I imagine most people here are willing to read Homer and recognize their ability to do so without becoming polytheists. I see it as a matter of discerning the point at which one's own morals and beliefs would actually be negatively shaped by the literature, and this includes the point at which we become comfortable with a particular sin--even if we think we would never commit it. After all, comfort with the act precedes the act itself in most cases. And this is precisely what we have to be careful of in literature. Can you read Anna Karenina without becoming comfortable with adultery? If not, you should avoid it.

Don't forget that many, if not most, of the people who object to HP (such as Loriann) also object to Star Wars. And I appreciate the consistency in this stance.

 

[Abd_Yesua_alMasih]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo
I see it as a matter of discerning the point at which one's own morals and beliefs would actually be negatively shaped by the literature, and this includes the point at which we become comfortable with a particular sin--even if we think we would never commit it. After all, comfort with the act precedes the act itself in most cases. And this is precisely what we have to be careful of in literature. Can you read Anna Karenina without becoming comfortable with adultery? If not, you should avoid it.

 

[Ex Nihilo]

One more point to address: I notice that most of the HP objectors are placing a heavy emphasis on the potential impact of the books on society as a whole.

My stance on this is that the books may or may not have a negative impact on society as a whole. I think it will take some time and a lot of analysis to even begin to prove this point. As I've stated before, I have no doubt that they could be dangerous for some unbelievers.

However, even if this is true, what Jacob and Craig seem to be arguing is that HP may be safe for some believers to read.

So, essentially, we have two different debates going on... And even if the point is conceded that it's harmful to society, what, really, can we do about it? We don't have the power to ban it or prevent unbelievers from reading it, so how do we best deal with the situation? How do we engage a pagan society?

(And here, hopefully, is where Paul Manata steps in and does his thing.)

 

[default]

Originally posted by LawrenceU

Pharisees are not people to immitate.

Advocation of biblical discernment in lifestyle is not Phariseeism.

Loriann, I applaud your stance.

Fellows, drawing a connection between HP books and Moby Dick is ludicrous. The two do not even compare to one another. And, despite the statment of Evie, I know several wiccans who absolutely love the HP books for several reasons. Among them are: they make those who pracitce magick more palatable to the modern culture (Loriann's argument about wiccan chaplains falls here.) they although not perfectly do expose their world view, and (their words here) 'function as a great door into the reality of the unseen world'.

Please here me, the nature of my ministry has put me in contact with many people over the year who for a variety of reason have been damaged by occultic activities. Except of three people that I can recall, none of them began their involvement with a decided step. Deception opened the door. Funny thing about deception; you don't recognise it until it is too late.

Thank you Lawrance, But I'm not the one that was advocating the Wiccan chapplains!

 

[default]

Here is a sermon by Spurgeon on Presumption! PLEASE READ: http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0022.htm

 

[default]

If one is to spend time reading, why not read something like A.W. Pink, Spurgeon or my ALL TIME FAVORITE William Gurnall? No, I'm not saying we are to be so closed off that we are no eartlhy good, or we don't know whats going on in the world today, BUT why the need to follow the world, do as they do, read as they print, view as they show? Why can we not be SANCTIFIED? Afterall, we are told to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. Joshua 1:8 tells us to "meditate day and night."

Wether one wishes to acknowledge the fact, the truth remains that that which we allow into our minds does get into the very pores and cells of the being.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

However, even if this is true, what Jacob and Craig seem to be arguing is that HP may be safe for some believers to read.

If this is true, then what do we say about the fact that the books are directed/marketed toward 9-12 year olds? Would you let you 9-12 year old read a graphic account of a Vietnam firefight?

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Honestly, yall are acting like I am sacrificing goats right now and drinking their blood. If you really want to get down to it, Star Wars has the potential to be ten times more dangerous. But no, nobody (or few, anyway) take offense at Star Wars just because (fill in blank). HOnestly, there is even a religion called "jediism". Only a few people got their feathers ruffled when Revenge of the Sith came out. Why the double standard? Force or magic? Half a dozen with one or six with the other?

Well, I don't know about ten times more dangerous--however, the Jedi religion in the Star Wars films very closely resembles Zen Buddhism. In fact, most practitioners of Jediism consider it a form of Zen Buddhism. All of these things are more dangerous for unbelievers, of course, because they don't have the truth to help them discern.

And, of course, Lucas doesn't claim to be a Christian at all, while Rowling (to many people's increased offense) does... But I think this is why Star Wars presents more of a relativistic ethic and HP is usually (though not as often as I'd like!!) better about portraying good and evil as real, distinct entities. If you'll notice, however, and this is part of the reason I do read the books, I immensely enjoy analyzing the underlying ideology of both series...

This question presents itself: Should we be willing to read books with pagan ideologies? As I've made clear in this thread, I am, but with certain limitations. After all, some pretty great stuff has been written from a pagan worldview. I imagine most people here are willing to read Homer and recognize their ability to do so without becoming polytheists. I see it as a matter of discerning the point at which one's own morals and beliefs would actually be negatively shaped by the literature, and this includes the point at which we become comfortable with a particular sin--even if we think we would never commit it. After all, comfort with the act precedes the act itself in most cases. And this is precisely what we have to be careful of in literature. Can you read Anna Karenina without becoming comfortable with adultery? If not, you should avoid it.

Don't forget that many, if not most, of the people who object to HP (such as Loriann) also object to Star Wars. And I appreciate the consistency in this stance.

excellent analysis. I never read the books myself, but my impression of them, is that they are an expanded type of the Enid Blyton books that I enjoyed reading.

Besides fairytales have endless magic. The whole Eurocentric culture, and all cultures in the world for a matter of fact is undergirded by tales of magic and fantasy, thereby, if Snow White, and Cinderella are to be enjoyed as innocent fun, so too does Harry Potter. If Ali Baba and Alladin are to be enjoyed, so too does Harry Potter.

Now there is a difference between reading of magic and practicing such. A difference between reading about spells and actually casting such spells.

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by Slippery]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Honestly, yall are acting like I am sacrificing goats right now and drinking their blood.

Hmmmm do ya drink the blood of the first deer you kill in deer season?

If you really want to get down to it, Star Wars has the potential to be ten times more dangerous. But no, nobody (or few, anyway) take offense at Star Wars just because (fill in blank). HOnestly, there is even a religion called "jediism". Only a few people got their feathers ruffled when Revenge of the Sith came out. Why the double standard? Force or magic? Half a dozen with one or six with the other?

It is a double standard. Burrying our head in the sand and ignoring popular culture robs us of points of contact with the lost. "Spoiling the Egyptians" is a valid tool in engaging the world around us, something Paul did himself when he studied and used pagan literature. Obviously we could take it too far, but shouldn't be afraid of it. Evie mentioned Hamlet. From a literary standpoint there is no comparison between Shakespeare and Rowling, but consider the elements in Hamlet: murder, revengem deceit, witchcraft (!), communicating with the dead...Those elements aside, I would not discourage someone from reading it. I would, however, encourage them to read it with discernment.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Draught Horse
Honestly, yall are acting like I am sacrificing goats right now and drinking their blood.

Hmmmm do ya drink the blood of the first deer you kill in deer season?

Actually, they did ceremonially paint my face with blood. Kind of like a redneck rite of passage.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

you guys really live it up in Louisiana. The only rights of passage up north is using the subway by oneself.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Slippery
you guys really live it up in Louisiana. The only rights of passage up north is using the subway by oneself.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Slippery
you guys really live it up in Louisiana. The only rights of passage up north is using the subway by oneself.

That deer owed it to me to die. I spent too many hours in the stand that day. I nailed it right at dusk. I hit it in the neck and it was dead before it hit the ground. However, I was aiming for the shoulder.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

However, even if this is true, what Jacob and Craig seem to be arguing is that HP may be safe for some believers to read.

If this is true, then what do we say about the fact that the books are directed/marketed toward 9-12 year olds? Would you let you 9-12 year old read a graphic account of a Vietnam firefight?

And herein are the double (or at least inconsistent) standards exposed. Many parents who won't let their kids read HP will let them play violent video games or watch graphic movies. The eye gate is the eye gate but some don't see it that way.

Have you read the HP books, Fred? The first four were pretty innocent. I'm pretty sure I don't want my kids reading the fourth book (Order of Phoenix) for precisely the reasons you just mentioned. The issue is not so much content as age appropriateness. HP: OP, while written for 9-12 year olds is waaaaaaaaay to dark for that age group. There is no way I will let my 12 year old read Halfblood Prince before I screen it first, given the direction that OP was heading.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That deer owed it to me to die...I hit it in the neck and it was dead before it hit the ground. However, I was aiming for the shoulder.

And THAT is why the South lost The War!

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Draught Horse
That deer owed it to me to die...I hit it in the neck and it was dead before it hit the ground. However, I was aiming for the shoulder.

And THAT is why the South lost The War!

Touche. I renounce all previous arguments.

 

[default]

KEVIN, that is precisely what I've been saying. I've been reading this posts as well as many others on other sites and my heart grieves for the Body of Christ, that we so easily and readily conform to their standards, way of thinking by reasoning within ourselves "it's all innocent" by convincing ourselves that that book, or half hour tv show of friends (or was it an hour, I dunno) or that movie is all good and will not effect us. IT DOES. Same thing with music! it soaks into us!

So, if you think it's alright to take in things such as the puker series, may I ask then what it is you believe the passage "purify your hearts" means?

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll


And THAT is why the South lost The War!

when they aim wrong, they hit the perfect spot, when they aim at the perfect spot, they hit the wrong spot

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Loriann
KEVIN, that is precisely what I've been saying. I've been reading this posts as well as many others on other sites and my heart grieves for the Body of Christ, that we so easily and readily conform to their standards, way of thinking by reasoning within ourselves "it's all innocent" by convincing ourselves that that book, or half hour tv show of friends (or was it an hour, I dunno) or that movie is all good and will not effect us. IT DOES. Same thing with music! it soaks into us!

So, if you think it's alright to take in things such as the puker series, may I ask then what it is you believe the passage "purify your hearts" means?

No, you haven't been reading what I have been posting. If I were to conform to the world's standards on this, I would be sacrificing goats right now (deer don't count). I would be dressing up my brothers and sisters and vampires and warlocks and casting evil spells on mean neighbors, but I am not doing that.

And I realize that you have been more consistent on this point than most, but if we take the morality in HP and say, "we draw the line here," we end up proving too much. I know, and have never said, that Moby Dick or Hamlet are on the same quality level as HP. All I am saying is that if you compare what "goes on behind close doors" in all three books, HP is quite tame.

And quality? Let's go to movies. HP had much better acting than Stars Wars 2 and 3. Watching Anakin act was slightly better than getting kicked in a sensitive spot.

Lori, I know that you are more consistent on this than most on pB. Still, read what I say. I have never said that "it is just okay." There are dark and uncomfortable elements in it. But there are also dark and uncomfortable elements in real life as well. If we just shield ourselves and pretend that it doesn't exist, we paint a sentimental and utopian version of reality.

What about that great narrative of the Christian faith, Beowulf? That has monsters and slaughter galore, yet it is one of the finest poems in history?

What about Edmund Spenser, my personal favorite? CS Lewis claimed Spenser had more of an influence on him than any other. But read Spenser. You cannot read him without blushing, but this passes for "much needed ammo" in today's culture war, or so says World Mag columnist Gene Veith.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by Ex Nihilo

However, even if this is true, what Jacob and Craig seem to be arguing is that HP may be safe for some believers to read.

If this is true, then what do we say about the fact that the books are directed/marketed toward 9-12 year olds? Would you let you 9-12 year old read a graphic account of a Vietnam firefight?

And herein are the double (or at least inconsistent) standards exposed. Many parents who won't let their kids read HP will let them play violent video games or watch graphic movies. The eye gate is the eye gate but some don't see it that way.

Have you read the HP books, Fred? The first four were pretty innocent. I'm pretty sure I don't want my kids reading the fourth book (Order of Phoenix) for precisely the reasons you just mentioned. The issue is not so much content as age appropriateness. HP: OP, while written for 9-12 year olds is waaaaaaaaay to dark for that age group. There is no way I will let my 12 year old read Halfblood Prince before I screen it first, given the direction that OP was heading.

Kevin,

I agree that double standards are bad. That is why my kids do not do either.

Some of the first book was enough to convince me I was right that Rowling is just a bad writer with a good PR agent. The fact that I would have to read the books to screen them is enough to keep me from letting the kids read them. I'd rather write a paper on Frame.

[Edited on 7/21/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I'd rather write a paper on Frame.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Loriann
KEVIN, that is precisely what I've been saying. I've been reading this posts as well as many others on other sites and my heart grieves for the Body of Christ, that we so easily and readily conform to their standards, way of thinking by reasoning within ourselves "it's all innocent" by convincing ourselves that that book, or half hour tv show of friends (or was it an hour, I dunno) or that movie is all good and will not effect us. IT DOES. Same thing with music! it soaks into us!

So, if you think it's alright to take in things such as the puker series, may I ask then what it is you believe the passage "purify your hearts" means?

Let me counter by asking you why you think Paul studied and could quote pagan mythology/poetry?

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Some of the first book was enough to convince me I was right that Rowling is just a bad writer with a good PR agent. The fact that I would have to read the books to screen them is enough to keep me from letting the kids read them. I'd rather write a paper on Frame.

[Edited on 7/21/2005 by fredtgreco]

Ooooooo, I'd love to critique said paper! Fred, on a more serious note, I need to tell you what a stumbling block your smileys are to me. They constantly cause me to break the 10th Commandment. A more considerate brother would make them widely avaialable to the PB (or refrain from using them) so as not to be a stumbling block.

 

[default]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by Loriann
KEVIN, that is precisely what I've been saying. I've been reading this posts as well as many others on other sites and my heart grieves for the Body of Christ, that we so easily and readily conform to their standards, way of thinking by reasoning within ourselves "it's all innocent" by convincing ourselves that that book, or half hour tv show of friends (or was it an hour, I dunno) or that movie is all good and will not effect us. IT DOES. Same thing with music! it soaks into us!

So, if you think it's alright to take in things such as the puker series, may I ask then what it is you believe the passage "purify your hearts" means?

Let me counter by asking you why you think Paul studied and could quote pagan mythology/poetry?

I don't know that he did study them, rather he knew of them before his conversion, not to mention that he was kept informed of what was going on in the world around him. Either way, even if he did study them, that doesn't mean he read fantasy books to try and say "this is what they are up to." The HP books are just one way for satan to get his hooks into us and keep us fromdigging into what we ought to, a relationship with Christ.

Let me ask this also (Kevin, you avoided my question prior, please answer) those of you who DO read HPUKER, or Lord of the rings, or even the magicians nephew, do you also listen to what is considered "Christian Rock"?

 

[default]

I do have to say that as much as I despise H Puker, I much more despise Lord of the Rings and the Magicians Nephew series. REASON: HP does not pretend to be Christian literature as do the latter! What's more dangerous, out right worldism or that which has taken the Lord's name in vain? What I'm saying is that I'd rather someone know something is not scriptural than someone passing things off as parallels to scripture when what it does is draw them so convincingly into the story so as to deceive them!

 

[RamistThomist]

Technically speaking, Tolkien did not pretend to be Christian in the allegorical sense. I think you are robbing yourself of a very useful apologetic/evangelistic tool in rejecting those two narratives.

Actually, I think Paul did read fantasy books (the Iliad and the Odyssey; you want to talk about slaughter and physicality not to mention magic, let's go there). Paul knew them before his conversion? Keeping in mind that he was a strict Pharisee. Also, if they were bad before his conversion, why did he use them afterwards? Also, as for filling our minds with good things, Paul had pagan poetry memorized. That suggests that it is possible to read so-called pagan literature without sinning.

I do not listen to Christian rock. It is a joke that attempts to pass off as music. I like Celtic stuff (the Chieftains). Also, we can really lower our guns at Beethoven, Mozart, etc. using your standard of reasoning.

[Edited on 7--21-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[Anton Bruckner]

We know Beethoven was a Secular Humanist and Mozart a Catholic and Mason. oops

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Some of the first book was enough to convince me I was right that Rowling is just a bad writer with a good PR agent. The fact that I would have to read the books to screen them is enough to keep me from letting the kids read them. I'd rather write a paper on Frame.

[Edited on 7/21/2005 by fredtgreco]

Ooooooo, I'd love to critique said paper! Fred, on a more serious note, I need to tell you what a stumbling block your smileys are to me. They constantly cause me to break the 10th Commandment. A more considerate brother would make them widely avaialable to the PB (or refrain from using them) so as not to be a stumbling block.

Firefox 1.0.6 + Smiley Xtra 3.1

http://www.mozilla.org/

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=375


Both are free. Ye covet because ye download not.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

Hi Draught can you list me the references where Paul used references to Greek mythology? Much thanks.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Slippery
Hi Draught can you list me the references where Paul used references to Greek mythology? Much thanks.

Acts 17:28
The first quotation is sometimes attributed to Epimenides, the second quotation is from Aratus' Phaenomena. Cleanthes in his Hymn to Zeus is also somewhere in there.