But in the Potter series, the line is not so clear. The "good" guys practice "white magic", while the bad guys practice the "Dark Arts". Readers become fascinated with the magic used (explained in remarkable detail). Yet God is clear in Scripture that any practice of magic is an "abomination" to him. God doesn't distinguish between "white" and "dark" magic since they both originate from the same source.
"There shall not be found among you anyone who …practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the LORD, and because of these abominations the LORD your God drives them out from before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For these nations which you will dispossess listened to soothsayers and diviners; but as for you, the LORD your God has not appointed such for you."
Deut. 18:10-14
Originally posted by Nemesio Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]I'm thinking "fundamentally" is much stronger than "influenced."
Tolkien was a craftsman of words. Fundamentally doesn't mean 'basically;' it means 'at its core,'
or 'stripped of its non-essential elements.'
This ties in with his notion that all mythologies testify to at least some truth, althou ...[text shortened]... contention, or are you just going to 'troll' somewhere else?
Nemesio[/b]
It's pretty evident that you're not here to "have discourse" - you're here to be confrontational. At every turn you've picked some phrases to pounce on while ignoring others that go against the point you're trying to prove. For example you pounce on the phrase "unconsciously so at first" as if he doesn't follow that with "but consciously in the revision." Either you have a problem being logical or you're purposely being confrontational. You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I have to assume it's the latter.
Originally posted by TheMountainLion But in the Potter series, the line is not so clear. The "good" guys practice "white magic", while the bad guys practice the "Dark Arts". Readers become fascinated with the magic used (explained in remarkable detail). Yet God is clear in Scripture that any practice of magic is an "abomination" to him. God doesn't distinguish between "white" and "dark" magic since they both originate from the same source.
Need I remind you that Dungeons and Dragons evolved specifically because of Tolkien? That generations
of role players exist because Gary Gygax thought that Tolkien opened up a whole new world of fantasy?
Gandalf practices magic. Saruman practices magic. The story is about a magic ring that makes you
invisible, for heaven's sake! There are good guys doing 'good magic' and bad guys doing 'bad magic.'
But you extol the Lord of the Rings.
Yes, Harry Potter has detail about magic because it's a school. But, just like Tolkien: it's make-believe.
Lord of the Ring has and will encourage more people to role play than Harry Potter ever will, and
will contribute to the study of Wicca more that Harry Potter ever will. Why? Because Rowling made
up her own stuff, devised her own pretend 'magic world' whereas Tolkien's were based on existing
ancient models -- the very ones that Wicca stems out of!
The real reason why you endorse one and not the other is not because of the content but because
of the author. Because Tolkien was a Christian, you extol his book and because Rowling is not
you malign it.
This is not about the books themselves, but about endorsing an author on the sole basis of faith.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne At every turn you've picked some phrases to pounce on while ignoring others that go against the point you're trying to prove.
The objection I raised (which was proven by MountainLion's subsequent post) was his claim that
Harry Potter teaches people about black magic. It doesn't any more than Lord of the Rings does
and probably less. Or that Harry Potter runs contrary to a Christian message and Lord of the Rings
encourages one. This is also not true.
I quoted this section because this is the section I disagreed with, that I thought testified to a
falsehood. I didn't quote other sections either because I agreed or because it was a matter of personal
taste and opinion.
For example you pounce on the phrase "unconsciously so at first" as if he doesn't follow that with "but consciously in the revision."
I've never disputed it. If I disagreed with that point, then I would have voiced my objection. Do I
need to verbally acknowledge every time I agree with someone in order to 'recognize' a common
point? Actually, the point I was making (which you missed) was that before Tolkien even realized
it, he admits that he was incorporating 'Christian Myth' into his text. I have no doubt that Rowling
was doing so as well (but entirely unconsciously).
Either you have a problem being logical or you're purposely being confrontational. You seem to be an intelligent guy, so I have to assume it's the latter.
You called me a troll when I'm not. You've totally ignored my objection (that Harry Potter encourages
Wiccans or discourages Christianity) which, obviously, MountainLion agrees with (see his second post). You claimed that I was objecting to a person's recommendation of a Christian movie for
Christians. I didn't object to this at all!
Whom do you really think is being confrontational here? It's you, bud.
This is not about the books themselves, but about endorsing an author on the sole basis of faith.
Nemesio
That's exactly correct. It's very easy to do a couple thought experiments to demonstrate it.
First, imagine that instead of being written by a modern atheist, the manuscripts for Harry Potter had been found in a box of unpublished material in C.S. Lewis's home. In this case would there still be fundamentalists getting all up in arms and keeping their children from Harry Potter because they believe it teaches evil?
Or similarly, imagine that Rowling herself was an avowed Christian, just as Lewis and Tolkein were. Given the same text, would fundamentalist parents still have a problem with it, or would they find the Christian aspects of it as they do in the former works, maybe even praising it as an "awesome Christian movie."
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Or similarly, imagine that Rowling herself was an avowed Christian, just as Lewis and Tolkein were.
Tolkien and especially Lewis were hardly Orthodox in their approaches to Christianity.
I firmly believe that if most fundamentalists knew how progressive and mystical they were in their
approach to Christianity, they would probably begin eschewing The Chronicles... and The Lord of the
Rings, too.
Originally posted by Nemesio Originally posted by ThinkOfOne [b]At every turn you've picked some phrases to pounce on while ignoring others that go against the point you're trying to prove.
The objection I raised (which was proven by MountainLion's subsequent post) was his claim that
Harry Potter teaches people about black magic. It doesn't any more than Lord of the Ri u really think is being confrontational here? It's you, bud.
Nemesio[/b]
I stand corrected. It's becoming increasingly clear that it's the former rather than the latter. You seem to get so lost in the details that you lose sight of the larger picture.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne I stand corrected. It's becoming increasingly clear that it's the former rather than the latter. You seem to get so lost in the details that you lose sight of the larger picture.
So, are you saying you agree with objection or disagree?
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne Never mind 🙂 Let's just move on.
I think you're showing who the troll really is.
I disagreed with his assertion about Harry Potter's influence on readers with respect to Christianity
or magic (either positively or negatively) and you jump all over me.
Originally posted by Nemesio I think you're showing who the troll really is.
I disagreed with his assertion about Harry Potter's influence on readers with respect to Christianity
or magic (either positively or negatively) and you jump all over me.
I accept your apology.
Nemesio
At best we're having a serious failure to communicate. Think what you'd like. I'm at a total loss. You seem to have a remarkable ability to make your own reality
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne At best we're having a serious failure to communicate. Think what you'd like. I'm at a total loss. You seem to have a remarkable ability to make your own reality
What precisely are you trying to communicate? My first post expresses precisely what I was trying
to communicate, and several posts on this page reiterate it (as well as TheMountainLion's response
which confirms the suspicions I had).
Can you sum up in a sentence or two what you were trying to communicate?
Originally posted by TheMountainLion Please, go watch The Chronicles of Narnia or at least read the books!
I have read the books and seen the movie. Since you claim that they are so good maybe you can answer a couple of questions about them.
1. Why did Aslan have to die to kill beat the white witch? He was clearly so much stronger that he could have killed her at any time he wanted.
2. Why does Aslan keep disappearing for long periods to let people suffer.
3. Why does Aslan keep playing games with everyone and acting in riddles etc instead of just helping out.
4. Do the books actually answer any question about Christianity or do they simply repeat Christian theology in the hope that when put in a children's story nobody will ask difficult questions.
I personally think the books would have been far better an have made far more sense if Aslan was taken out altogether.
Originally posted by twhitehead I have read the books and seen the movie. Since you claim that they are so good maybe you can answer a couple of questions about them.
1. Why did Aslan have to die to kill beat the white witch? He was clearly so much stronger that he could have killed her at any time he wanted.
2. Why does Aslan keep disappearing for long periods to let people suffer.
books would have been far better an have made far more sense if Aslan was taken out altogether.
1. Why did Aslan have to die to kill beat the white witch? He was clearly so much stronger that he could have killed her at any time he wanted.
Because of the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time - that is, a power greater than Aslan himself. He was able to handle the situation due to his greater knowledge of Magic using trickery, but he was still bound by the Deep Magic if the Witch had not accepted his offer.
Interesting how this comes from a Christian modelling Christ.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Because of the Deep Magic from the Dawn of Time - that is, a power greater than Aslan himself. He was able to handle the situation due to his greater knowledge of Magic using trickery, but he was still bound by the Deep Magic if the Witch had not accepted his offer.
Interesting how this comes from a Christian modelling Christ.
Thank you I had forgotten that bit.
The "Deep Magic" trick was used to cheat the witch out of Edmund's soul.
So when Christians say that Christ "payed for our sins" then it was the Devil that got paid? Or God? I'm confused. Does the story clarify anything or hide the details or does it get it all wrong?
And do any Christians actually understand all this or do they simply like the books (and movie) because they know that they were written with a Christian message in mind and it gives them a warm fuzzy feeling?
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch a...
29 Jul '07 10:52
Back to Top