Silly Christofacsists on CNN burning Harry Potter books

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BVS,

Actually I think the witchcraft paul spoke of is very much a similar witchcraft that the pagans practice today.

It's a very old practice.

But, I give you the whole broom/quidditch thing, etc... obviously is potter specific. ;)
 
MadelynIris said:


True. And I FULLY support you here. But, I am bringing about the point of the original post - care to take a crack at the difference between JKR and JRR?

No, I don't care to take a stab at it, because that would be the equivalent of me trying to talking about rocket science. If you'd like to tell me, that's fine.

In fact, I'll even back off the assumption that Harry Potter promotes sorcery and witchcraft. I am not easy about the protagonists using it at all, and I wouldn't feel comfortable reading it or letting my kids read it.

To call my faith "weak" for that is absurd. I know you didn't say that, but someone did.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:
80's I just read Galations 5 and also did a little internet research.

I found some interesting things.



One interpretation I found which I thought was interesting:


But another thing one has to consider is terminology. Witchcraft at the time was probably something applied to something they couldn't explain by their very limited knowledge of science.

Terminology is very important, which is why I have a lexicon, a greek dictionary for use with the Bible.

The terms witchcraft and sorcery in that verse refer specifically to "the using of any kinds of drugs, potions, or spells".
 
Right - understood. No, not weak, not strong, but definitely not fair to a neat piece of fiction, that is equal in fantasy to other make-believe works that you are ok with.

That's the dilemma.

80's, it is a bit of a joke, flying cars, three headed dogs, owls that deliver the mail. If she never called them witches and called them bogeys, and if they didn't ride brooms but they rode floating hovercraft, and this all took place in the distant future, I'm afraid it would be ok with these book burners.

And that I just don't get.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Terminology is very important, which is why I have a lexicon, a greek dictionary for use with the Bible.

The terms witchcraft and sorcery in that verse refer specifically to "the using of any kinds of drugs, potions, or spells".

Ok so what are spells? Because the "use of drugs, potions, or spells" can actually refer to any pharmasists that also prays if defintion allows.

Drugs and "potions" are used by modern medicine everyday.

Is Scientology right after all?
 
MadelynIris said:

80's, it is a bit of a joke, flying cars, three headed dogs, owls that deliver the mail. If she never called them witches and called them bogeys, and if they didn't ride brooms but they rode floating hovercraft, and this all took place in the distant future, I'm afraid it would be ok with these book burners.

And that I just don't get.

Wow we agree on something.:wink:
 
Last edited:
MadelynIris said:
Right - understood. No, not weak, not strong

Right - the fact is that this has nothing to do with level of faith whatsoever.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Ok so what are spells? Because the "use of drugs, potions, or spells" can actually refer to any pharmasists that also prays if defintion allows.

Medicine is not a "potion", and prayers are not "spells".

Luke, the writer of the Book of Luke, was a physician, so I would say that means God is A-OK with doctors and their craft.

Also, the other meaning of sorcery and witchcraft refers specifically to the "magic arts", so I would say that also supports my argument that the meaning of the term sorcery in Galatians 5 does not refer to physicians.
 
Goodnight everyone. I still have about an hour of work I need to do before I go to bed, so I must leave.

It's been interesting to say the least. At least no one called me brainwashed tonight.:wink:
 
80sU2isBest said:
You see, I believe that the Bible we have today is the accurate Bible

But (what I believe as a Roman Catholic is that) the Bible we have today is the direct result of many changes, made by men, not by God. The version of Luther differs a lot from the original version. Well I guess we would have to study theology in order to discuss this..

I do agree with you that sorcery and witchcraft exist. I am all for them as long as they are positive forces. To those familiar with witchcraft it ain´t necessarily a bad thing. For example, an Obeahman (Obeah - see Carribean) can use any system and fuel it with the power of Obeah without the danger of disrespect for the gods, but, depending on circumstances, not necessarily without repercussions from the gods and the natural order of things. Obeah is potent, compelling and in the wrong hands, both deadly and dangerous (credit to The Wanderling for that one).

The ones who seriously practise magic know all things must return to a balance. If you create any movement in the normal flow of events somehow somewhere there must be a return to the equalibrium. Simply put, if you act as the medium between the person wanting a spell given and the person receiving the spell, the person wanting the spell is responsible for the consequences. If, on the otherhand, you are the perpetrator of the spell for your own reasons on your own behalf, then you must accept and bear the consequences. Nothing is free, there is always a payoff somewhere.
 
80sU2isBest said:


Medicine is not a "potion", and prayers are not "spells".

Luke, the writer of the Book of Luke, was a physician, so I would say that means God is A-OK with doctors and their craft.

Also, the other meaning of sorcery and witchcraft refers specifically to the "magic arts", so I would say that also supports my argument that the meaning of the term sorcery in Galatians 5 does not refer to physicians.

Well I know spells was a stretch but I wanted a true definition, because out of the preconcieved notion of witchcraft it loses any context. Therefore I'm trying to find some true defintion. Not the preconcieved lump of sums.

Now the potion part is very resonable because medication is just a mixture of ingredients, so I'm not sure what makes the differentiation, that's why I'm asking.

But even "magic arts" is vague. Magic can mean many things to many people...con-artist, illusionist, etc...

I guess what it comes down to is that I haven't been shown anything that leads to these people's fear of witchcraft, or at the very least their fear of this book.

We're equating vague terms of "witchcraft" which no one's shown me what it truly means to the modern fantasy version of it. To me it's like equating Goliath to the "giants" of fairy tales. The real "Goliath" probably was a large man, but the fairy tale giants stand several stories tall.
 
nbcrusader said:

It is more a matter of what you are willing to expose to your child and the example one sets for their children.



yes, exactly.


in this case, what i think im going to do is either

a: watch the movie by myself, or read book by myself. if i dont like it...no harm done to daisy. i've exercised my right as her mother to not let her read the harry potter books.

b: rent the harry potter movies/read the book and watch/read it with my daughter. if she shows an interest, we discuss it.

if she likes the movie, and i dont ...then there's a problem. i would have to deal with that if/when the time comes.

when she is old enough to make her own decisions, which i hope are good ones, she then, can make her own choices as to which book she reads, what movies she watches.

daisy is 9 years old. still at a very impressionable age.

i am exercising my right as a mother, to not let her read certain books, or watch certain movies.

call me ignorant, blind, whatever...but the fear of the unknown...i'd rather be safe than sorry.
 
icelle said:
i am exercising my right as a mother, to not let her read certain books, or watch certain movies.

thats what i would do too

but not with a harry potter book, rather with a flic that advocates violence

thats a personal decision of every parent, and i wouldn´t be afraid of my kids asking me about witchcraft (especially based on a harry potter book, not based on some heavier stuff). i´d rather be worried if they watched sylvester stallone´s rocky and thought its cool.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I say that as long as you're teaching your child to be a good, upstanding citizen who shows respect for their fellow man, then you shouldn't have to worry at all about what some show or book or song talks about. Your kid will know that just because some show uses violence, it doesn't mean they have to do the same. But that's just me.

And while we're on the subject of the media, am I alone in thinking that music/books/movies/TV are actually not promoting/endorsing/supporting certain actions or thoughts, but instead are simply reflecting what a lot of people in society do or say? Because if the media were truly promoting violence or adultery or other various things of that nature, then how did people get the ideas to commit any of that stuff back in the days when TV and radio and that didn't exist, and when it took ages sometimes for the written word to travel in various forms to people (also keep in mind that there were people back then who couldn't read for various reasons)? All that stuff happened back then, too, with little to no media influence involved. So how does that work?

Angela
 
I honestly don't understand this. 80s, you're ok with Lord of The Rings? You've read the books/seen the movies?

But you're NOT ok with protagonists using "sorcery" in a book you haven't even read?? :confused:
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Well I'm glad you did because those show absolutely sucked.:wink:
Hey; Buffy was and is one of the best shows on TV, good writers, themes of honour, sacrifice and morality, elements of existentialism dropped in there.

The buffyverse of demons and magic was just backdrop for the very human aspects of the shows. It's drama for goodness sake, and it has some damn fine ones at that.

And if you were being sarcastic; I stand by what I said.
 
Many historical myths, legends, and fables involve magic or sorcery of some description. We have traditional stories based on truth but which has had bits added; traditional stories of gods or heroes which tries to explain why people or things are like they are; and
tales written to convey a message (didactic or otherwise) to the reader. These come into childrens historical education, and form part of the backbone of our modern society. Are we supposed to wipe these out, on account of them being related to some form of sorcery, and if so, how?

With all due respect to those who don't wish their children to read certain books; if your son/daughter really wants to read them, (s)he will find a way to do so. I'm assuming (s)he has classmates, friends and access to a local library, school library, or bookstore?

Just a point.

Originally posted by Diemen I'd prefer to look at it like this: If you let your daughter read Harry Potter, you expose her to a world of imagination - to a world that isn't real but that teaches good lessons about friendship and good vs. evil. The sorcery and witchcraft is incidental.

It'd be a shame to not allow your daughter to read a well crafted book (of fiction) that could teach good lessons and also spark her imagination simply because it's got magic in it.

How about this: Read the book yourself and then determine if it would be suitable for your child, rather than making a determination based on your gut when you don't actually know the contents of the book. Seems to make a little more sense to me. :shrug:


Couldn't agree more - that's quite possibly the most sensible post here so far, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Yep. Easter, supposedly, comes from 'Eostre'. It's a possibility.... I did some research on this, it's quite interesting.

Possible pagan influences on Easter:

In his 'De Temporum Ratione' the Venerable Bede wrote that the month Eostremonat was so named because of a goddess, Eostre, who had formerly been worshipped in that month. In recent years some scholars (Ronald Hutton, P.D. Chantepie de la Saussaye, Elizabeth Freeman) have suggested that a lack of supporting documentation for this goddess might indicate that Bede assumed her existence based on the name of the month. Others note that Bede's status as "the Father of English History", having been the author of the first substantial history of England ever written, might make the lack of additional mention for a goddess whose worship had already died out by Bede's time unsurprising. The debate receives considerable attention because the name 'Easter' is derived from Eostremonat, and thus, according to Bede, from the pagan goddess Eostre.

Jakob Grimm took up the question of Eostre in his Deutsche Mythologie of 1835, noting that Ostaramanoth was etymologically related to Eostremonat and writing of various landmarks and customs related to the goddess Ostara in Germany. Again, because of a lack of written documentation, critics suggest that Grimm took Bede's mention of a goddess Eostre at face value and constructed the goddess Ostara around existing Germanic customs which may have arisen independantly. Others point to Grimm's stated intent to gather and record oral traditions which might otherwise be lost as explanation for the lack of further documentation. Amongst other traditions, Grimm connected the 'Ostern Hare' (Easter Bunny) and Easter Eggs to the goddess Ostara/Eostre. He also cites various place names in Germany as being evidence of Ostara, but critics contend that the close etymological relationship between Ostara and the words for 'east' and 'dawn' could mean that these place names referred to either of those two things rather than a goddess.

Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum ("Ecclesiastic History of the English People") contains a letter from Pope Gregory I to Saint Mellitus, who was then on his way to England to conduct missionary work among the heathen Anglo-Saxons. The Pope suggests that converting heathens is easier if they are allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditional pagan practices and traditions, while recasting those traditions spiritually towards the one true God instead of to their pagan gods (whom the Pope refers to as "devils"), "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". The Pope sanctions such conversion tactics as biblically acceptable, pointing out that God did much the same thing with the ancient Israelites and their pagan sacrifices. This practice might explain the incorporation of Eostre traditions into the Christian holiday.

However, the giving of eggs at spring festivals was not restricted to Germanic peoples and could be found among the Persians, Romans, Jews and the Armenians. They were a widespread symbol of rebirth and resurrection and thus might have been adopted from any number of sources.
 
I mistakenly didn't quote the comment I was answering in the post above - it was a response to someone's point about Easter festival having pagan origins...

Just to add: I found this article which I think follows on quite well. It's from http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

Pagan origins of Easter:

Many, perhaps most, Pagan religions in the Mediterranean area had a major seasonal day of religious celebration at or following the Spring Equinox. Cybele, the Phrygian fertility goddess, had a fictional consort who was believed to have been born via a virgin birth. He was Attis, who was believed to have died and been resurrected each year during the period MAR-22 to MAR-25. "About 200 B.C. mystery cults began to appear in Rome just as they had earlier in Greece. Most notable was the Cybele cult centered on Vatican hill ...Associated with the Cybele cult was that of her lover, Attis (the older Tammuz, Osiris, Dionysus, or Orpheus under a new name). He was a god of ever-reviving vegetation. Born of a virgin, he died and was reborn annually. The festival began as a day of blood on Black Friday and culminated after three days in a day of rejoicing over the resurrection." 3

Wherever Christian worship of Jesus and Pagan worship of Attis were active in the same geographical area in ancient times, Christians "used to celebrate the death and resurrection of Jesus on the same date; and pagans and Christians used to quarrel bitterly about which of their gods was the true prototype and which the imitation."

Many religious historians believe that the death and resurrection legends were first associated with Attis, many centuries before the birth of Jesus. They were simply grafted onto stories of Jesus' life in order to make Christian theology more acceptable to Pagans. Others suggest that many of the events in Jesus' life that were recorded in the gospels were lifted from the life of Krishna, the second person of the Hindu Trinity. Ancient Christians had an alternate explanation; they claimed that Satan had created counterfeit deities in advance of the coming of Christ in order to confuse humanity. 4 Modern-day Christians generally regard the Attis legend as being a Pagan myth of little value. They regard Jesus' death and resurrection account as being true, and unrelated to the earlier tradition.

Wiccans and other modern-day Neopagans continue to celebrate the Spring Equinox as one of their 8 yearly Sabbats (holy days of celebration). Near the Mediterranean, this is a time of sprouting of the summer's crop; farther north, it is the time for seeding. Their rituals at the Spring Equinox are related primarily to the fertility of the crops and to the balance of the day and night times. Where Wiccans can safely celebrate the Sabbat out of doors without threat of religious persecution, they often incorporate a bonfire into their rituals, jumping over the dying embers is believed to assure fertility of people and crops.
 
Last edited:
I am cracking up tonight....

I have been away from church for about a month because of vacations and surgery.....

Who calls tonight but my Priest. Why is she calling me? To talk about the Harry Potter Book....she wanted to know if I finished it. I have, and she wanted to add me to the parish email curculating about the book.

Made me think of this thread.

LOL
 
Dreadsox said:
Who calls tonight but my Priest. Why is she calling me? To talk about the Harry Potter Book....she wanted to know if I finished it. I have, and she wanted to add me to the parish email curculating about the book.

For a moment there I thought you were going to say, "She wanted to know if there was a connection between my absence from church and Harry Potter..."

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Tolkein was a Christian, and his books were largely allegorically Christian in nature.

80s, have you ever seen the site www.the-patronus.com? It is a Christian Harry Potter site by the same people who do the Christian LOR site, www.angelsandelves.com. (It has not been updated to cover the new book yet, unfortunately.)
 
I just started reading The Silmarillion straight through for the first time. The forwards were really very illuminating about Tolkein's conception of LOTR and the Christian allegory.

In a letter to his publisher, Tolkien talked about the King Arthur myths and why he felt they weren't the right mythology for Britain. "For another and more important thing: it is involved in, and explicitly contains the Christian religion. For reasons which I will not elaborate, that seems to me fatal. Myth and fairy-story must, as all art, reflect and contain in solution elements of moral and religious truth (or error) but not explicit, not in the known form of the primary "real" world."

Now, later in his life, Tolkien's work took a more religious turn as his son found out when he tried to edit it together. "In his later writing mythology and poetry sank down behind his theological and philosophical preoccupations: from which arose incompatibilities of tone."

People can read books however they want to, and if these two websites allow more Christians to accept fantasy literature, so much the better. I only hope they're read more as extended literary criticism than religious truth--but there's no harm in either, I suppose. But I can't help but wince when angelsandelves.com describes Arwen as symbolic of the church and the sacrifice of Jesus. Tolkein is so much more than that. It seems a shame to dissect his work that way rather than to admire his own originality and stories of good and evil, and love and fellowship.

But that's my own private two cents.
:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom