Christianity and Harry Potter

[oscuridad]

I've heard and read some pretty wild statements from Christians about HP and what it means. Why is it so threatening to people? (I remember a debate on a UK Religious TV show about the corrupting influence of Star Wars because it espoused The Force...). What re people's views here. Genuinely very interested. I thought it was just a bunch of books for kids.

[Pat~]

I think you'll probably find a wide variance of views on HP within Christian circles. Personally, I don't have a problem with it; both my kids have read the books. But I've heard that some take issue with it due to the presence of scorcery in it. I don't know...Tolkein's books had wizards and evil characters as well...I think this is probably one of those many gray areas where you just need to follow your own spiritual and parental instincts.

[Roger J Carlson]

I don't have a problem with Harry Potter either, although many in my church do. Most of these, however, have never even read the books, and are taking the word of other people who have similarly never read the book. They'll point to the Biblical admonition against witchcraft while ignoring the fact that Harry Potter has as little to do with witchcraft as did the TV show Bewitched.

I honestly think it's just part of a trend throughout our country where we feel we have to be *Alarmed* by things. And I think it's a shame, because there are a much more pressing things to be alarmed about in today's world.

[Zonk]

Well, now that Book 7 is out, i think it's pretty much clear that HP is a Christian allegory in the C.S. Lewis mold.


Who woulda thunk it?

:d:D:D

[rugcat]

I think the main problem some Christians have with the books, apart from the depiction of magic in mostly positive terms, is the absence of Christ.

Harry Potter is quite a role model for kids--honest, moral, compassionate, loyal to his friends, (even to the point of putting their welfare ahead of his own) and although often terrified, dedicated to the fight of good against evil.

But nowhere in the books is the presence of Christ even hinted at--even allegorically. The implication is that if you're emotionally strong enough, and believe in yourself, you can be a moral figure and do all these things on your own, without the help of Christ. And some (not all) Christians believe this is a dangerous falsehood that children need to be protected from.

[Pat~]

The only problem with protecting children from that falsehood is that there are an infinite number of books out there that also do not mention Christ, and promote self-sufficiency. Rather than forbid your child to read them, it seems it'd be a whole lot more beneficial just to talk to them about that premise. That way, maybe they'll learn to recognize it for themselves when they read it later.

[Zonk]

I think the main problem some Christians have with the books, apart from the depiction of magic in mostly positive terms, is the absence of Christ.

Harry Potter is quite a role model for kids--honest, moral, compassionate, loyal to his friends, (even to the point of putting their welfare ahead of his own) and although often terrified, dedicated to the fight of good against evil.

But nowhere in the books is the presence of Christ even hinted at--even allegorically. The implication is that if you're emotionally strong enough, and believe in yourself, you can be a moral figure and do all these things on your own, without the help of Christ. And some (not all) Christians believe this is a dangerous falsehood that children need to be protected from.

The Narnia tales don't 'mention' Christ either...and the parallels between the Savior and Harry are numerous: some are obvious, some aren't, without specialized knowledge. See the following article about the parallels, it may surprise you (15 pages long, with 3-4 pages of footnotes).

Is Harry Potter Allegory? (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-beauseigneura01.shtml)

The only problem with protecting children from that falsehood is that there are an infinite number of books out there that also do not mention Christ, and promote self-sufficiency. Rather than forbid your child to read them, it seems it'd be a whole lot more beneficial just to talk to them about that premise. That way, maybe they'll learn to recognize it for themselves when they read it later.

See above.

Interesting quotes from the article:

"When asked whether she is Christian, author J.K. Rowling states: “Yes, I am, which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that [her Christianity] I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”(1)"
"Rowling maintains,“There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed, as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything...everything has been building up to it, and I’ve laid all my clues.”(245)She has laid her clues. She has said she couldn’t answer questions about the book’s religious content until the conclusion of book seven.(246) When questioned about her belief in God, Rowling avoids the question. “This is so frustrating. Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I’ve written book seven. But then maybe [I] won’t need to even say it ’cause you’ll have found it out anyway. You’ll have read it.”(247)She cautiously contradicts an interviewer’s assertion that her books are free of references to God. “Um. I don’t think they’re that secular,” she says, choosing her words slowly. “But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus.”(248) Of course he isn’t – Harry is."

Many Christians savaged C.S. Lewis when the Narnia tales came out, much as John Bunyan slammed Handel for his Messiah (What??? Putting the Sacred Words of Scripture to secular music??? Horrors!).

Read the article. The parallels are systematic, and far too many to ignore.

:D:D:D

[Pat~]

Yes, Zonk, I'm not saying HP necessarily promotes self-sufficiency; I was more just trying to point out the futility of trying to prevent your child from ever reading that type of premise.

[small axe]

It's just a fictional story. I'd be offended if it "mentioned" but misrepresented Jesus or Christianity to the fans (which is what I disdain about HIS DARK MATERIALS/THE GOLDEN COMPASS etc) ... but HP is just a big long Halloween lark, I suppose? Ooooh! Scary make-believe!

I mean, I'd dislike it more if in the last book someone burnt Harry as a witch, right? :)

[oscuridad]

Yes, Zonk, I'm not saying HP necessarily promotes self-sufficiency; I was more just trying to point out the futility of trying to prevent your child from ever reading that type of premise.

I hadn't even thought of that. As an athesit self sufficiency is at the core of things, promoting, I hasten to add, the very characteristics ascribed as admirable to HP earlier in the thread. In all truth I find the idea that parents are concerned at the idea of their child exploring the idea of self-sufficiency appalling. Shouldn't everyone come to their faith on their own terms, whatever that faith may be.

And another point, can anyone write a story about a hero setting themselves at risk against evil and NOT have someone say 'its a Christian Allegory'? Other considerations aside (I don't mean to denegrate them, but rather not discuss them in this context) isn't the story of Christ a pretty typical (in terms of structure only - again , I am not intending to insult or denegrate) example of the 'Hero's Journey' - other examples being The Iliad, Star Wars and so on? And so any hero's journey, by definition, is bound to be compared. I haven;t read them so for all I know, HP could be a powerful adn deliberate Christian Allegory for all Iknow. I certainly am aware of the charge being laid at the door of LotR, which was always refuted by the author, who despised allegory in all its forms (and the fact that Samwas the real hero of LotR kind of nixed that one anyway).

And as an aside, how do people feel about 'The Chroinicles of Ancient Darkness' which depicts a world full of spirits and powers that cut directly across the Christian canon? Set in the Ancient World, for sure, but most of the beliefs depicted still survive today.

And the witchcraft thing - does anyone still believe that stuff is real? Aren't we past all that, and wasn't all the possession stuff in the 17th Century in America put down to Ergot poisoning from mouldy rye? (Ergot contains Lysergic Acid, essentially LSD).

Still curious and confused.

[Inky]

Banning books should be a crime.
Christianity always has to have its foot in everything.
I don't recall there being anything in the bible stating: thou shalt not read fiction.

But I've been wrong before.

Harry Potter = fiction
Star Wars = fiction
LOTR = fiction

Fiction: stories about characters and events that are not real

So I have to wonder why Christians would want anything regarding their God in a book labeled FICTION? And why they get upset when He isn't.

[oscuridad]

Banning books should be a crime.
Christianity always has to have its foot in everything.
I don't recall there being anything in the bible stating: thou shalt not read fiction.

But I've been wrong before.

Harry Potter = fiction
Star Wars = fiction
LOTR = fiction

Fiction: stories about characters and events that are not real

So I have to wonder why Christians would want anything regarding their God in a book labeled FICTION? And why they get upset when He isn't.

that's kind of what I was thinking, really, but more eloquently put.

[Evaine]

A Church of England vicar, a few years ago, did a Harry Potter communion service. He dressed as Dumbledore, and other members of the church dressed as the other characters. I think it went down quite well as a one off service.

And if people want to ban books, they should at least have the decency to read them first, to see for themselves what the books are like.

[Inspiewriter]

What I've heard said is that while stories like LOTR have magic, it's not humans performing it. It's the fact that HP is the one who has these powers (instead of fighting bad guys who have it) that makes HP more threatening to some.

[chibeth]

I'm pretty firmly Christian, and I love the Harry Potter books. I think books can promote good morals without being explicitly Christian/religious in nature.

The lessons in the HP books are lessons all kids could stand to learn--the redeeming power of love, looking beyond people's outward appearances, standing up for what's right at all costs, etc., etc.

Just my opinion. :)

[Plot Device]

I honestly think it's just part of a trend throughout our country where we feel we have to be *Alarmed* by things.

It's only a trend? I thought it was a time-honored tradition here in America, immortalized by the Broadway musical "The Music Man."


Yes! We've got TROUBLE!
Right here in River City!

[Plot Device]

My whole take on Harry Potter is that Rowling was trying to recapture the glory days of Pre-WW II Britain and present it in a palatable manner to today's generation of British children.

-- the old locomotive trains
-- dragons
-- wizards
-- boarding schools
-- uniforms
-- decorum
-- ancient traditions
-- respect for one's edlers
-- respect for the past
-- the old suitcases
-- the old automobiles
-- fountain pens and/or quill pens
-- castles
-- witches

That laundry list represents some of the most treasured aspects of their history and their cultural identity--some of which are gone forever, or at the very least have been devalued and striped of a former dignity. They were all once important elements of what it once meant to be British. Today's generation of British (and American) children don't know about any of that except what they might glean passingly from books and old movies, and maybe the musings/grumblings of old people that they might come in contact with.

The whole Harry Potter series celebrates that and makes kids just marvel about it. J K Rowling is holding up those old traditions for the eyes of British children, and asking them to be proud of their past. AND she's asking them to emmulate the same degree of dignity and the respect toward authority and tradition that children of yesteryear employed.

One of the bitter and angry struggles Rowling had with Warner Brothers when they were in the early stages of developing the first film was her unbudging insistance that not one American actor was to be cast in any of the roles, most especially not the children's roles. That's because British people have for decades now seen so very many of their most beloved stories hijacked by American film studios and Americanized ("Winnie the Pooh" is a classic example. And look at Elijah Wood playing Frodo, and Sean Astin playing Sam). Their culture is being siphoned away from them via American cinema -- robbed from them. She wanted only British children playing those British roles for the sake of the millions of British children who would be greatly encouraged to see one of their own up on the screen for a change. In her mind, this story firmly belongs to the cultural identy of Britain and needs to stay there, even in its film versions.

Christians are focusing on the wrong issue here in the HP series of books and movies. They're up in arms over the magic and witchcraft. But they're overlooking the respect toward others and the dignity toward self and the reverence of tradition that the children in those stories exhibit.

[Inky]

I'm forever amused that magic falls under the label 'witchcraft' and looked upon as something sinister and evil by the Christian faith.

Bloody hell, I've yet to see magic as profound and HUGE as the parting of the Red Sea.

[oscuridad]

I'm forever amused that magic falls under the label 'witchcraft' and looked upon as something sinister and evil by the Christian faith.

Bloody hell, I've yet to see magic as profound and HUGE as the parting of the Red Sea.

I've yet to see magic of any kind whatsoever, apart from the everyday kind like the sun coming up and stuff like that, for which there are a number of other possible explanations...

[oscuridad]

My whole take on Harry Potter is that Rowling was trying to recapture the glory days of Pre-WW II Britain and present it in a palatable manner to today's generation of British children.

-- the old locomotive trains
-- dragons
-- wizards
-- boarding schools
-- uniforms
-- decorum
-- ancient traditions
-- respect for one's edlers
-- respect for the past
-- the old suitcases
-- the old automobiles
-- fountain pens and/or quill pens
-- castles
-- witches

That laundry list represents some of the most treasured aspects of their history and their cultural identity--some of which are gone forever, or at the very least have been devalued and striped of a former dignity. They were all once important elements of what it once meant to be British. Today's generation of British (and American) children don't know about any of that except what they might glean passingly from books and old movies, and maybe the musings/grumblings of old people that they might come in contact with.

The whole Harry Potter series celebrates that and makes kids just marvel about it. J K Rowling is holding up those old traditions for the eyes of British children, and asking them to be proud of their past. AND she's asking them to emmulate the same degree of dignity and the respect toward authority and tradition that children of yesteryear employed.

One of the bitter and angry struggles Rowling had with Warner Brothers when they were in the early stages of developing the first film was her unbudging insistance that not one American actor was to be cast in any of the roles, most especially not the children's roles. That's because British people have for decades now seen so very many of their most beloved stories hijacked by American film studios and Americanized ("Winnie the Pooh" is a classic example. And look at Elijah Wood playing Frodo, and Sean Astin playing Sam). Their culture is being siphoned away from them via American cinema -- robbed from them. She wanted only British children playing those British roles for the sake of the millions of British children who would be greatly encouraged to see one of their own up on the screen for a change. In her mind, this story firmly belongs to the cultural identy of Britain and needs to stay there, even in its film versions.

Christians are focusing on the wrong issue here in the HP series of books and movies. They're up in arms over the magic and witchcraft. But they're overlooking the respect toward others and the dignity toward self and the reverence of tradition that the children in those stories exhibit.

not sure about a lot of this. I agree with the last paragraph, but the rest? Most British Children never went to Boarding School, Britain between the Wars was a pretty difficult place - the Depression was bad here too, btw. Old suitcases?
Old cars? There is a Ford Anglia in HP and that is about it.
Steam trains - absolutely
Pens - well yeas...
Witchcraft - remember we were always far less hung up on this than Americans were generally - still goes on, mind.
Ancient traditions - yep
castles - check
respect for the past - yep
respect for elders - check
decorum - we still queue well, you know, but point taken, although most of the behaviour of the kids in HP is pretty undecorous
wizards - never had any of those for real
dragons - as above, although the welsh probably still think theirs was real... (bless)
uniforms - most british schoolkids wear uniform still

Tolkien did this better in creating his myth for Britian... did it pretty well, I think. I do not think HP will last as well, somehow.

I wonder how those Christians who railed at HP feel now he has been revealed as a Christ-like figure in the last book... your thoughts on this would be gratefully recieved.

[veinglory]

Of course it is just fiction but for people who see magic as coming from the devil it is no more acceptable than a child hero who is a gifted drug dealer. The thing is seen as inherently evil.

[Queen of Swords]

This reminds me of a fanfic called something like "Harry Potter meets the King of Kings". In it, Harry was rescued by a stranger who told him about Jesus (first time Harry had been exposed to Christianity, by the way), and Harry promptly repented of his witchcraft and his evil ways. And then, ladies and gentlemen, a miracle occurred. The lightning bolt on his forehead changed into a cross.

I also read one where Vernon Dursley and all his family become born-again Christians and ask Harry to forgive them for treating him so badly. Harry is so moved by this change in their character that he inquires into what caused it, and you can guess how that fic ends.

There's another one where Lucius Malfoy murders a young woman whose last act before dying is to give him her bible and ask him to read it. So he does, becomes a Christian and stops his practices of wife-beating, child-beating and Voldemort-obeying. This last does not please Voldemort, so he murders Lucius. But Lucius has left Draco the bible, so Draco reads it, rinse and repeat.

I love HP conversion fics. :)

[Zoombie]

Those are not quite as bad as the Snape/Malfoy slash...but they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Personally, I think the morals that are pushed in the Harry Potter books are good and great and very Christian. And if more people followed Christian morals, the world would be a better place.

And that's coming from an Atheist, folks.

[Queen of Swords]

Those are not quite as bad as the Snape/Malfoy slash...but they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

There was also a fic where Snape becomes a born-again Christian and the Death Eaters crucify him. Literally. But that does make me wonder if there are any fics where Hermione converts. Or any LotR conversion fics, for that matter.

[Zoombie]

I've also read some much less disturbing Hermione/Ginny fics...

Actually, this is kind of amusing, because I've been talking with Tamora Perice, who also writes popular YA novels with multiple gods, people with magic and so on. And no one seems to complain about those! An entire series of hers was about these robots that are run off the souls of murdured children, but I don't see any complaints.

Why I bring that up is because a good 1/5th of her talk today was her finding some of the "fanfic" about hers. Her facial expression was priceless. I can only repeat the words:

"And I opened the link. I read the whole thing, and...no! Just...no! I mean...George and Jonathan? No! I ran and told Dan (her husband) and he just shrugged and said 'It's the internet, honey.'"

So this adds to my conclusion that the Internet is for horny psychopathic writers. That and Absolute Write. :P

[Queen of Swords]

I've also read some much less disturbing Hermione/Ginny fics...

You ought to try the one where Snape impregnates himself. :)

[Zoombie]

"Augh! I can't know that!" -Malcolm Reynold, Serenity.

[Inky]

So this adds to my conclusion that the Internet is for horny psychopathic writers. That and Absolute Write. :P

Ah. See? I've found a home. :e2brows:

....but you're not supposed ta' be tellin' everyone 'bout those of us with issues...

[Plot Device]

*sigh*

I have to remove myself from this thread since people are posting spoilers (and making jokes about sham spoilers) and not labeling them as spoilers.

[Inky]

Those are not quite as bad as the Snape/Malfoy slash...but they still leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Personally, I think the morals that are pushed in the Harry Potter books are good and great and very Christian. And if more people followed Christian morals, the world would be a better place.

And that's coming from an Atheist, folks.
Following those morals is exactly why we're forever at war; the need to cram said religion down every cultures throat.

[oscuridad]

Of course it is just fiction but for people who see magic as coming from the devil

only issue with this is (pause for breath) MAGIC AIN'T REAL! so what's all the fuss about - there is a piece of inductive logic that I will not follow through here...

[Bartholomew]

I'd like to know why a book that encourages self-sufficiency is bad.

...and I'd also like to know how the hell anyone gets the impression that Harry Potter is a book that does this: every five steps, his scrawny arse is pulled out of the bacon grease by one of his friends.

[Roger J Carlson]

only issue with this is (pause for breath) MAGIC AIN'T REAL! so what's all the fuss about - there is a piece of inductive logic that I will not follow through here...Magic wouldn't need to be REAL to be used by the Devil to keep people from coming to God. All he would need to do is convince people that by doing certain things, they could have god-like powers. This is essentially what the story of the Garden of Eden is about.

[rugcat]

I'd like to know why a book that encourages self-sufficiency is bad.Because it implies that there is no need for God, or Christ, in one's life. That one can be a good and moral person on one's own, irrespective of religious beliefs or the lack of them.

[Roger J Carlson]

I'd like to know why a book that encourages self-sufficiency is bad.

...and I'd also like to know how the hell anyone gets the impression that Harry Potter is a book that does this: every five steps, his scrawny arse is pulled out of the bacon grease by one of his friends.People who are self-sufficient rarely seek God. God wants to be our sufficiency: My Grace is sufficient for you.

That said, I don't believe that's the reason most Christians who have a problem with Harry Potter dislike the books. Witchcraft is an easy thing to point to and dislike without having to think.

[Bartholomew]

That one can be a good and moral person on one's own, irrespective of religious beliefs or the lack of them.

People can be and are moral without being religious.

Because it implies that there is no need for God, or Christ, in one's life.

I fail to see such an implication. The need for God is a spiritual one, not a physical one.

[oscuridad]

Magic wouldn't need to be REAL to be used by the Devil to keep people from coming to God. All he would need to do is convince people that by doing certain things, they could have god-like powers. This is essentially what the story of the Garden of Eden is about.

is that why HP causes a stir in christian circles then - that this mere reading of a fictional phenomena might lead to running with the Devil? That is an extraordinary leap...

[rugcat]

These aren't my beliefs. I'm just commenting on the thinking processes of some very narrow minded Christians I’ve heard discussing it.

I know plenty of devout Christians who believe that kind of thinking is ridiculous. In fact, it upsets them, because it promotes a stereotype of Christian narrow-mindedness that is completely untrue.

[Roger J Carlson]

is that why HP causes a stir in christian circles then - that this mere reading of a fictional phenomena might lead to running with the Devil? That is an extraordinary leap...I agree. And extraordinary leap. But in any group of people, there will be those who latch on to easy fixes for complex problems. For instance, there are people who believe that simply hearing a prayer (which to them is a fictional phenomenon) in a public venue is somehow harmful to them or their children.

[rugcat]

I agree. And extraordinary leap. But in any group of people, there will be those who latch on to easy fixes for complex problems. For instance, there are people who believe that simply hearing a prayer (which to them is a fictional phenomenon) in a public venue is somehow harmful to them or their children.Well, you never know. I tried to enter a church the other day and I nearly burst into flames.

[Zoombie]

Following those morals is exactly why we're forever at war; the need to cram said religion down every cultures throat.

I meant...just the good morals.

[ned]

I've read them all, and can call myself something of a fan.

As a Christian, and as a person who wants to raise my son with morals, I do have some objections to the stories: namely, that the main characters often do "wrong" or sinful things, always justify their actions to themselves or to their friends, and often get away with it or are rewarded for it. They lie, steal, cheat, disobey, are disrespectful, and are never loving toward their enemies. If my son were still interested in Potter (and he's not) we'd probably discuss the books while we read.

While these books are not appropriate for very young readers, young adults who've had a Christian upbringing and who aren't obsessed will be able to see the difference between fantasy and reality.

Meanwhile, there are many admirable things in these books: Rowling's theme that love is the strongest of all forms of magic is endearing. Love protects Harry, and his love for his friends protects them. The stories are also about loyalty. Harry is rewarded for being loyal to the right side. Those who are loyal to evil are inevitably destroyed.

The stories are also realistic. Dumbledore states that "There will always be evil in the world" even after Harry's arch-enemy is gone. Constant Vigilance is encouraged by Moody. That's also a good moral.

There's a new book for sale; saw it in the Family Christian Store's catalog today, called "Revealing the Witchcraft in Harry Potter." I thought the title was absurd, since the "magic" isn't exactly hidden! But then, the magic in Potter is nothing like modern witchcraft.

Personally, I'd be more concerned about witchcraft in new-age philosophy and the recent popularity of some Eastern religions than I am with Harry Potter sneaking it in through the back door.

[veinglory]

only issue with this is (pause for breath) MAGIC AIN'T REAL! so what's all the fuss about - there is a piece of inductive logic that I will not follow through here...

People who think magic comes from the devil, think magic is real. That's why they care.

[Roger J Carlson]

MODERATOR'S NOTE: I have moved the "Morality" posts from this thread to another, brand new thread (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72236). This should not be seen as punitive, but as houskeeping.

[Roger J Carlson]

Although I generally don't point people toward "other" discussion boards, I noticed that there was a Google Ad on this page that asked if Harry Potter was evil. I clicked it and was sent here (http://wis.dm/questions/28063-do-you-think-harry-potter-books-are-un-godly-and-inspire-children-to-experiment-with-witchcraft?gclid=CLaP7suJ0o0CFQlQWAod-we5mQ):

The interesting thing that I saw was the vast majority of people who identified themselves as Christian didn't see anything wrong or evil about the Harry Potter books. If the sampling is anything representing reality (and it may not be as it certainly is not a scientific sampling) then it is safe to assume that the hue and cry about Harry Potter from Christians is really from a very small and vocal minority.

[BarbJ]

Our pastor went to a school (he coaches softball there) and saw some children kneeling around a tree, chanting. He asked them what they were doing, and was told they were trying to put a curse on a classmate.

Children are going to run into the idea of magic, period.
Should parents be worried? Of course, just as they should be worried about anything that may negatively impact the child morally and/or spiritually, including the daily news. They should talk to the child.

The Harry Potter series is simply fantasy, fun and adventurous. Any parent who approaches the conversation from that view will do fine. Outrage is only going to arouse interest; I didn't start reading the series until I heard some of the noise. I enjoyed it, and in no way did I connect it with my Christianity, positively or negatively, just viewing it as part of this world, one of the fun parts. Of course, I also read the news...

Rowling may be Christian, but this is not a Christian fantasy. Nor is it an anti-Christian fantasy. The only thing that has bothered me is when people compare Harry with Christ. They might want to actually study up on Jesus; they sound rather silly otherwise.

From inked09012: "Following those morals is exactly why we're forever at war; the need to cram said religion down every cultures throat."

Since Christianity is the religion being discussed, "said" religion must refer to ours. It may be a good idea to separate "religion" from "principles". Religion comes from people, each of us individuals - not some homogenous, faceless mass - each of us with our own thoughts, habits, virtues and sins.

Christian principles come from Christ, through His Bible. There are Christians who have thought, and some who do still think, although fewer than many non-Christians like to pretend, that forcing Christianity on others for their own good is acceptable. Christian principles forbid it, since a person can only become Christian by one's deliberate choice to accept Christ.

Christian morality is a mix of both, and is unfortunately affected by culture. Example, many Christians accept and participate in divorce, finding it morally acceptable. Christ, and therefore Christian principles, says no except in the case of adultery. There is a difference.

As for wars being caused by religion, get a grip, inked. Your postings show you're smarter than that. Religion is an excuse, and people have never been at peace with each other, whether they're religious or otherwise, no matter what their religion may be. There's been - what? Two hundred years of peace in six centuries? Gosh, was it all religion, even the killings started by atheists?

And was your comment a peaceable overture? If so, it fell a tad short... Sorry, that was snotty. But I'm leaving it in.

[MMcC]

Personally, I'd be more concerned about witchcraft in new-age philosophy and the recent popularity of some Eastern religions than I am with Harry Potter sneaking it in through the back door.

*sigh*

I've never in my life been concerned about somebody else's religion in something I read. My parents never once wigged out because there was a vein of Christianity in most of the books sent home with me by my public school system.

So I guess I'm not invited to dinner any time soon, eh?

Ah well. We have enough babies in the basement for the sacrifice this weekend anyhow.

[rugcat]

Religion is an excuse, and people have never been at peace with each other, whether they're religious or otherwise, no matter what their religion may be.That's mostly true. If you find a Christian preaching intolerance, you can be pretty sure that in another culture, they'd be a Muslim preaching intolerance, and in a completely secular world, they'd simply be a total a**hole.

But religion is extraordinarily powerful. People with twisted values often use it as an excuse to spread their own brand of violence and hatred, and people can be swept up in that tide.

Magic aside, who wouldn't want a son or daughter with the moral grounding and concern for others that Harry Potter embodies? Those who see the books as some sort of threat are sad, warped, and probably very unhappy people.

I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious. But if people focused on Jesus' teachings of love and compassion instead of searching the Bible for scriptural support for their own predudices, it would be a better world.

[Christine N.]

Heck, half the Christians can't get along with the other half, how can we expect them to get along with anyone else?

I'm serious. I know there's plenty of accepting Christian people, who love people as humans no matter their faith, but heck, Ireland's been at war with itself for 400 years over what KIND of Christianity is the 'right' one.

Even if the whole world was Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, there'd be arguments and fights over which segment or sect was the best.

I think we should all be Buddist :D and follow the path that speaks to us, accept things as they are and people for who they are and books for what they say, and stop trying to read meaning into them that isn't there.

I love you all for yourselves.

[MMcC]

The weird thing is, my mother was a witch. Her mother was a witch. Her mother's mother was a witch. Yet she named me Christine because she really admires Christ, has great respect for his teachings, and has always taught me to respect them, too.

I have great admiration for Jesus, the New Testament, Mary, and many Christian practices. I am the webmaster for a Catholic church, and the priest is a very close friend of mine.

I just don't get what about me scares the crap out of anyone. I mean, yeah... I eat cats... but doesn't everyone now and then.

Come on... I can see the kitty fur in your teeth... fess up!

[Christine N.]

Not me, lady! LOL.

I grew up in Catholic Church. Everything scares them.

Hey, it's all about faith. I personally believe that there's a vast chasm of difference between religion and spirituality. More people need to get in touch with their spiritual side, no matter what they call their deity, and think less about the trappings of religion. JMHO, of course.

Faith sure as heck isn't limited to one belief system, and what some call magic others call miracles. What some call spells others call prayers. After all a spell is just asking for what you want, right? You don't always get it either way, and sometimes you DO get it, and then you find it's not what you wanted in the first place.

[Pat~]

Faith sure as heck isn't limited to one belief system, and what some call magic others call miracles. What some call spells others call prayers. After all a spell is just asking for what you want, right? You don't always get it either way, and sometimes you DO get it, and then you find it's not what you wanted in the first place.

And yet, I rather think there is a significant difference between prayers and spells. Otherwise, I think King Saul would not have gotten into such much trouble by going to the witch of Endor to 'ask for what he wanted.'

[MMcC]

I think people who don't do spellwork see it as very different from prayer. That's because they don't know anything about it.

I see no difference between a spell and a prayer in the crux of intention, really. Nor any difference between my friend's rosary beads and my wand/athame.

We just don't go about it the same way. Father C always asks me to burn a candle for sick people. I do so gladly. And his prayers are always appreciated by me.

Religion is just a dirty word for the set of rules you like best. Granted, I am really attached to my rules because they work REALLY well for me.

[Pat~]

Probably the vital difference between a spell and prayer--apart from who it's directed to--is that a prayer is, in essence, admitting you have no control over a situation, and need God's help, but will submit to His sovereign designs. While you can voice your desires to Him, the essential feature of prayer is 'not my will, but Thine be done' (as in Christ's prayer in the garden). True prayer is not a 'magical' incantation designed to bring about your own wishes.

A spell, on the other hand, is designed to try to control a situation, to achieve your own desired end (eg. putting a curse on someone, etc.) There is no 'not my will, but Thine be done' type of submission to a higher authority.

[ned]

A spell, on the other hand, is designed to try to control a situation, to achieve your own desired end (eg. putting a curse on someone, etc.) There is no 'not my will, but Thine be done' type of submission to a higher authority.

Thanks, Pat, this is exactly right. A spell is not submission, but a pagan attempt to control what is percieved as uncontrollable. The caster of spells might be misled into believing he or she has achieved control, for what better way to draw men away from God than to decieve, to try to convince the spell-caster that he does not need God to achieve his desires? Deciet comes in so many forms, all of them so palatable at first, but eventually ending in hopelessness. I speak from experience.

Welcome, Pat,

ned

[ned]

*sigh*

I've never in my life been concerned about somebody else's religion in something I read. My parents never once wigged out because there was a vein of Christianity in most of the books sent home with me by my public school system.

So I guess I'm not invited to dinner any time soon, eh?

Ah well. We have enough babies in the basement for the sacrifice this weekend anyhow.


You can come to dinner any time you like, m'dear. We're just talking, y'know? My closest friend here is a witch, raised by another. We disagree often, but we talk. And we both listen.

My statement, that I'm concerned about the precepts of some religions and the lack of reliance on God brings the conversation around to other posts in this thread: I believe it is my duty to rely on God alone, not on self. Believe me, it's a constant battle. I always want to prove what I can do, what I can accomplish without help. Vanity is indeed my besetting sin. I want to do it on my own, without help from any man or from God. For a Christian, that's wrong.

Some religions that are gaining in popularity focus entirely on "self." Have you read "The Promise?" or "The Power of Positive Thinking, Remixed?" I'm concerned. Please don't read that as hatred.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think people who don't do spellwork see it as very different from prayer. That's because they don't know anything about it.

I see no difference between a spell and a prayer in the crux of intention, really. Nor any difference between my friend's rosary beads and my wand/athame.

We just don't go about it the same way. Father C always asks me to burn a candle for sick people. I do so gladly. And his prayers are always appreciated by me.

Religion is just a dirty word for the set of rules you like best. Granted, I am really attached to my rules because they work REALLY well for me.

Probably the vital difference between a spell and prayer--apart from who it's directed to--is that a prayer is, in essence, admitting you have no control over a situation, and need God's help, but will submit to His sovereign designs. While you can voice your desires to Him, the essential feature of prayer is 'not my will, but Thine be done' (as in Christ's prayer in the garden). True prayer is not a 'magical' incantation designed to bring about your own wishes.

A spell, on the other hand, is designed to try to control a situation, to achieve your own desired end (eg. putting a curse on someone, etc.) There is no 'not my will, but Thine be done' type of submission to a higher authority.I'm not qualified to speak about modern day Wiccan practices. Although, what little knowledge I have about it leads me to believe it's purpose is to force certain actions by the practitioner's will (healing, for instance). Whereas prayer is a sublimation of the person praying to will to God. In fact, one who prays is called a 'supplicant'.

(This is essentially what Pat said, though she said it better.)

However, this is not the "magic" we see in Harry Potter, nor in most fantasies. That sort of magic is much more like technology than prayer.

Someone wants to do something impossible: to fly, for instance. The magician attempts to create a spell that will levitate an object he or she can ride. A broom (apologies to the Wiccans for the reference), a carpet (ala Aladdin), or a car (in Harry Potter). Whereas, the technologist uses the physical fact that the partial pressure on top of an airfoil will tend to lift it, and he creates an airplane.

That's why I don't fear Harry Potter from a Christian perspective. One of the arguments I've heard against HP is that the books have sparked an increased interest in Wicca. Perhaps it has, but those children are not looking for Wiccan magic. They're looking for Harry Potter, technology-type magic, which they're not going to find in Wicca. They're not looking for spirituality. They're looking for flying cars.

[rugcat]

Some religions that are gaining in popularity focus entirely on "self." Have you read "The Promise?" or "The Power of Positive Thinking, Remixed?" I'm concerned. Please don't read that as hatred.The Promise is a good example of "magical thinking." I don't think it's a helpful way of looking at the world, esp. for young people.

[BarbJ]

pat, ned and rugrat - I agree. "Self" is a dangerous thing when carried to excess, and it certainly isn't the way to get along with others - their "self" tends to disagree with mine! Seriously, can you imagine everyone having control over the world, people and events? Complete chaos. We can't even agree on who has the right-of-way on a corner.

MMcC: "I mean, yeah... I eat cats... but doesn't everyone now and then."

Someday, when you least expect it, from out of the dark ... five kitties ... with unclipped claws... bwah-hah-hah! :tongue

[Christine N.]

Oh I agree there's a different path with it, but it takes you to the same place.

Catholics, as MMcC mentioned, light candles for people. I used to do it all the time. They also use incense and oils in their rituals, and pray to Mary the Mother.

Different faces for the same thing, IMO. Some spells you ARE asking for a Deity's help, not necessarily to control the situation. Personally I find a spell more empowering, because I'm not placing something completely on the shoulders of the Deity. While you may see it as 'submitting' to the Higher Power, which I have no problem with, I see it as assuming responsiblity. If it goes wrong or doesn't work out the way I want it to, I don't rail to the sky and blame God.

You say tomato, I say... :)

And it comes to the same thing, as far as this thread is concerned - Harry Potter is make believe and can't hurt you.

Whoever said they heard from their pastor that he saw a bunch of kids performing a curse - well, take heart in the fact that those kids, should they have accomplished said curse, would be run over by the Karma train, and received what they put out three times over again. I don't abide by people who curse other people. It can go horribly wrong, and usually on the person doing the cursing. It's not pretty.

You put out good, you get good back. That's the basic law of magic. And of most other religions I know.

[C.bronco]

I haven't been privy to any of the hub-ub, but imagine it comes from a small group of those who are slightly over the top, to be euphemistic.
I work with nuns- those who have read the books (one of my bosses included) like it a lot.
It's an epic saga, morality tale, coming of age story of heroism, good and evil whose tagline is "choosing what is right over choosing what is easy."
Anyone who has a real problem with the book being out there obviously
a. hasn't read it
or
b. does not have the mental capacity to understand what J.K. is saying.

[rugcat]

Whoever said they heard from their pastor that he saw a bunch of kids performing a curse - well, take heart in the fact that those kids, should they have accomplished said curse, would be run over by the Karma train, and received what they put out three times over againI think the idea of threefold backlash for those attempting curses is a comforting but simplified notion. If it were literally true, no one would ever try to do such a thing, nor would it ever be effective. Yet the notion has survived for millennia.

I believe it’s more a metaphorical truth– much like the idea that if you use anger and rage and cruelty in dealing with people, or to achieve your goals, it will poison your soul and ultimately result in your own emptiness and unhappiness. It doesn’t mean it won’t work, though.

[Christine N.]

They'd still do it...there are arseholes all over the world. The laws of Karma are clear :).

I get what you're saying, no not literally the same, but it'll bit 'em on the butt anyway.

[sassandgroove]

I think the main problem some Christians have with the books, apart from the depiction of magic in mostly positive terms, is the absence of Christ.

Harry Potter is quite a role model for kids--honest, moral, compassionate, loyal to his friends, (even to the point of putting their welfare ahead of his own) and although often terrified, dedicated to the fight of good against evil.

But nowhere in the books is the presence of Christ even hinted at--even allegorically. The implication is that if you're emotionally strong enough, and believe in yourself, you can be a moral figure and do all these things on your own, without the help of Christ. And some (not all) Christians believe this is a dangerous falsehood that children need to be protected from.They celebrate Christmas and Easter, not Winter Solstice and Spring - er what ever that would be. (Sorry) And in the last book there is a church mentioned. Not much, I know. I do remember someone thanking God at one point, and it wasn't a muggle. While I agree that God would be very helpful in fighting a dark wizard, I am not sure a fiction book like Harry Potter is the place to inject Christianity.

I'd like to know why a book that encourages self-sufficiency is bad.

...and I'd also like to know how the hell anyone gets the impression that Harry Potter is a book that does this: every five steps, his scrawny arse is pulled out of the bacon grease by one of his friends.
I would say HP doesn't espouse self suffiency, but rather that we are not alone and should rely on love and those who love us. Ultimately Harry had to face Voldemort on his own, but he was never alone. Even when he went, he took the knowledge of love with him.
is that why HP causes a stir in christian circles then - that this mere reading of a fictional phenomena might lead to running with the Devil? That is an extraordinary leap...Pattithewicked posted this article in another thread. I think he explains it well.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070729/OPINION0101/707280361/1012/OPINION

This disposition to ban and boycott reflects an attitude held by many in the Christian community that culture has some obligation to reflect a Christian world view. Anything in art or music, or even politics, which runs contrary to a certain prescribed orthodoxy must be eliminated from our view.
But why is culture responsible for delivering the Christian message? Isn't that the work of the church?

I've read them all, and can call myself something of a fan.

As a Christian, and as a person who wants to raise my son with morals, I do have some objections to the stories: namely, that the main characters often do "wrong" or sinful things, always justify their actions to themselves or to their friends, and often get away with it or are rewarded for it. They lie, steal, cheat, disobey, are disrespectful, and are never loving toward their enemies. If my son were still interested in Potter (and he's not) we'd probably discuss the books while we read. While I cannot deny that they lie and steal, I will point out that many times the children have gone to the adults in an attempt to solve the problems while following the rules and are spurned in some way. Dumbledore is absent, or they are told the adults have it under control, or the teacher turns out to be a self serving git. I think that breaking a school rule to save someone's life is more than justifiable.




Christian principles come from Christ, through His Bible. There are Christians who have thought, and some who do still think, although fewer than many non-Christians like to pretend, that forcing Christianity on others for their own good is acceptable. Christian principles forbid it, since a person can only become Christian by one's deliberate choice to accept Christ. I added the bold. Yes, I think you are right, but I think those few yell the loudest.


Er- whoever posted about the fanfic...

Those just sound WRONG. In many ways. Oh my. Firstly, how do we know Lucious beats his wife? I think he is a coward, personally, and serves the dark lord from a place of fear not loyalty. That doesn't necessarily equal wife beater.

And Snape? I think he is a redemption story as it stands in JKR's books.

No. As a Christian, I believe that the best testimony we can give is by living what we beleive. And I intend to let my children, should I have them, read HP. I want them to see how he puts his friends before him. Yes the characters are flawed, but they are people. It would be a rather boring book if he did everything perfectly from the start.

[sassandgroove]

Two things. *need I really warn for spoilers?*

For whomever said there is no example of "Love thine enemy." one of the things that sets Dumbledore and Harry apart from Voldemort and the Deatheaters. Harry disarms, Voldemort uses the killing curse. There is a great epiphany on Harry's part when Aberforth asks why he evacuated the Slytherins, some of the Deatheaters have children in slytherin house. Harry answers that Albus Dumbledore would never hold students hostage. Oh, and he saves Draco's life. So there.

Okay I said something earlier that didn't come out right.
I would say HP doesn't espouse self suffiency, but rather that we are not alone and should rely on love and those who love us. Ultimately Harry had to face Voldemort on his own, but he was never alone. Even when he went, he took the knowledge of love with him. I still don't know how to say it better. But the point his Harry is constantly having to learn that he is not alone. He learned with the Dursley's in his formative years that he was worthless and a bother. So when he goes to Hogwart's he not only has to learn the craft, he has to learn to trust those who love him. He has to learn to depend on other people.

[Pat~]

Oh I agree there's a different path with it, but it takes you to the same place.

Catholics, as MMcC mentioned, light candles for people. I used to do it all the time. They also use incense and oils in their rituals, and pray to Mary the Mother.

Different faces for the same thing, IMO. Some spells you ARE asking for a Deity's help, not necessarily to control the situation. Personally I find a spell more empowering, because I'm not placing something completely on the shoulders of the Deity. While you may see it as 'submitting' to the Higher Power, which I have no problem with, I see it as assuming responsiblity. If it goes wrong or doesn't work out the way I want it to, I don't rail to the sky and blame God.

I think, in actuality, the 2 paths lead to 2 very different places, as the rest of your post illustrates. But we can agree to disagree. :)

[MMcC]

It's a bit arrogant to tell someone how they cast a spell. I know MANY witches who even use the Lord's Prayer prior to doing spellwork (there is a large influx of CrossWitches in my area).

Spells come in as many varieties as the intention and caster. Plenty are no different than what you would call a prayer.

The real difference is nobody is cast out of a community for doing it differently.

I hate to be a killjoy, but there is a bit of a stench of bigotry filling the air, folks. I'm praying it's ignorance that's only close to turning.

[rugcat]

I think, in actuality, the 2 paths lead to 2 very different places, as the rest of your post illustrates. But we can agree to disagree. :)This is a very big difference in how different people view religion.

Some believe that all religious paths lead to the same ultimate truth. Protestant, Catholic, or even Christian and Jewish and Muslim beliefs are simply different human attempts to reach the place where the universal God, the God of all peoples resides.

Others believe there is only one true path, and all others are delusions and false teachings, paths that lead nowhere except away from God, and for some, to eternal damnation.

That belief has always seemed a bit harsh to me; others say it is nothing more than the unassailable truth.

[ned]

It's a bit arrogant to tell someone how they cast a spell. I know MANY witches who even use the Lord's Prayer prior to doing spellwork (there is a large influx of CrossWitches in my area).

Spells come in as many varieties as the intention and caster. Plenty are no different than what you would call a prayer.

The real difference is nobody is cast out of a community for doing it differently.

I hate to be a killjoy, but there is a bit of a stench of bigotry filling the air, folks. I'm praying it's ignorance that's only close to turning.


You might be right, and if it's hurtful to you, I apologize. As Mr. Carlson says in his intro post, "You cannot show Christ's love in an adversarial relationship, no matter how cordial. This is why I will not allow religious debates."

Unfortunately, Harry Potter and Christianity has become "Christian vs. Wiccan." It's become a religious debate. I had much rather go on discussing HP and the glorious redemption of Professor Snape (who I always knew was on Harry's side!)

Oh, to the person who mentioned my much earlier statement that Harry Potter doesn't teach readers to love their enemies, you brought up an excellent point. I don't believe Harry EVER uses the killing curse, even when it's kill or be killed. Good boy, Harry!

[Pat~]

It's a bit arrogant to tell someone how they cast a spell. I know MANY witches who even use the Lord's Prayer prior to doing spellwork (there is a large influx of CrossWitches in my area).

Spells come in as many varieties as the intention and caster. Plenty are no different than what you would call a prayer.

The real difference is nobody is cast out of a community for doing it differently.

I hate to be a killjoy, but there is a bit of a stench of bigotry filling the air, folks. I'm praying it's ignorance that's only close to turning.

MMcC, with all due respect, I don't think anyone's telling anyone how they cast a spell here. It doesn't matter what words/methods are used. The dictionary definition of a spell is:

1.
a. A word or formula believed to have magic power.
b. A bewitched state; a trance.

As Christine's post illustrated, this would make a spell very different from a prayer, in that the words of a prayer don't have magic power. The supplicant prays to a Deity who is all-powerful, and who may or may not freely choose to answer that prayer in a certain way. The words spoken do not exert power over that Deity. Whereas in a spell, the words are spoken to have power over (or to join in power with) a lesser deity--that's why Christine acknowledged that spells gave her more of a sense of empowerment.

(Oh, and please, MMcC, don't sling mud inside the house--reserve that for TIO. ;))

[ned]

They're looking for Harry Potter, technology-type magic, which they're not going to find in Wicca. They're not looking for spirituality. They're looking for flying cars.

Indeed, and indeed they are. Most of the kids I see regularly have outgrown HP, but back in the day, their fascination was not with the "power" these characters had. Instead, they liked the humor of the spells, the ability the characters had to punish wrong-doers and bullies with their wands. They loved the flying, the Quidditch scenes, and to this day my son wishes he could be a seeker and catch a snitch. (So do I, oh dear.)

For the first part, on punishing the bullies, there've been dozens of films and books that pursue this subject. Think of "The Goonies" and "Revenge of the Nerds." Harry and his friends, according to Harry's internal thoughts, are not "cool" people. They're all odd, from buck-toothed Hermione and peasant-stock Ron, to Looney Luna Lovegood and clumsy Neville Longbottom. They're all "losers" who stick together in the vast system of the British Public School. This may not be the overwhelming theme of the stories, but it's in there, and mentioned frequently.

Who doesn't want the underdog to win? Christopher Booker's book, The Seven Basic Plots, calls this one "overcoming the monster." Voldemort isn't the only monster in Hogwarts, after all. Harry Potter can easily be compared to Tom Brown's School Days, which, incidentally, contains some amazing spiritual conversion scenes in the Victorian style.

[Simple Living]

I recently posted this, to ned, in the Harry Potter w/o Religion thread. Then I saw this one and that the conversation was more active, so I'm copying it here.

I got the book at the midnight release and had it read by Sunday evening. So many people were out to ruin the ending for others that I didn't want to take a chance on someone spoiling it for me, so I read it quickly.

I'm new here and get the feeling people are tired of hearing about Harry Potter already. First, it's natural that there would be a lot of talk about it because it's the biggest phenomenon to hit the book world in a very long time. Secondly, I don't understand why people who want to be published would be tired of hearing about it. Writers read. Even books they don't like. Writer's should be reading Harry Potter to study and learn from it. Writers don't just read for entertainment.

Regarding the religious objections to the books, everything I've heard has been uneducated, ill-informed, rumor-based, bunk. The books do not teach or glorify witchcraft. Not wanting to get into yet another debate over the subject, I'll move on.

This last book did read and feel differently from the others. Especially the epilogue. In an interview sometime after the release of the last book, Rowling explained what people have been asking her for a long time. "Are you a Christian?" "Do you believe in God?" She's always answered, "Yes." There hasn't been any expounding on that, partially because people haven't asked her to and partially because she didn't want to alienate any of her readers. The other reason, as she's recently announced, was because she felt that if people fully understood her beliefs as a Christian, they would realize how the story would end.

Although Harry Potter is not wholly a Christian allegory, like The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry is a Christlike character in several ways. He didn't leave Malfoy to die in the fire. He showed mercy to Wormtail. He wasn't perfect, but he tried to always do what was right, no matter how hard it was. The list of similar traits goes on.

In the final scenes, she said she knew Harry had to knowingly, and willingly, sacrifice himself for everyone's sake. (Just like Christ did for us.) When Harry "came back," remember how Voldemorte couldn't hurt anyone at Hogwarts in the last battle? Remember when Harry explained that his sacrifice, out of his love for the others, was the reason Voldemorte's attacks weren't able to hurt anyone in that battle? This is why Harry didn't die. Rowling said in an interview that, even though she contemplated killing Harry off, she knew that he would have to live for these reasons. He, like Jesus, died willingly for everyone. Harry's sacrifice meant that Voldemorte couldn't hurt the others anymore, which mirrors Jesus's sacrifice so that Satan can't do anything to harm us eternally.

[sassandgroove]

Hi Simple Living, welcome to AW.

[Pat~]

Here's an article about the yay and nay of Harry Potter that might interest some of you--includes quotes from JKRowling and even a prof from my old alma mater (Wheaton):

http://www.abpnews.com/2682.article

[oscuridad]

so - given all the above - I still don't get the furore or the upset. It seems that if you want it be a Christian allegory then it is, of you want it to be about the ascendency of witchcraft then it can be that. This has been hugely informative, so thanks for that.

I thought it was just a story, but then I never got the Christian Allegory in the Narnia books until someone pointed it out to me, and I know that Tolkien NEVER intended LotR as Christian allegory (he 'despised allegory in all its forms') but as something else altogether.

Maybe it is about fear and uncertainty. It could be that those who are secure and confident in whatever faith they have do not feel threatened by it or afraid of it...

It certaintly goes to prove one thing, though - that narrative is one of the most powerful tools for shaping people's minds that we have - maybe we should all use it with care.

[ned]

so - given all the above - I still don't get the furore or the upset. It seems that if you want it be a Christian allegory then it is, of you want it to be about the ascendency of witchcraft then it can be that. This has been hugely informative, so thanks for that.

I thought it was just a story, but then I never got the Christian Allegory in the Narnia books until someone pointed it out to me, and I know that Tolkien NEVER intended LotR as Christian allegory (he 'despised allegory in all its forms') but as something else altogether.

Maybe it is about fear and uncertainty. It could be that those who are secure and confident in whatever faith they have do not feel threatened by it or afraid of it...

It certaintly goes to prove one thing, though - that narrative is one of the most powerful tools for shaping people's minds that we have - maybe we should all use it with care.


Excellently put, on all points. On the last: The old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword has been proven countless times throughout history, accomplishing both good and evil.

Strangely, I've never been made to read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" so I'm making up for it now. I began by reading the history of the book and what it accomplished, then learned a little about the context in which it was written. I just met the infamous Simon Legree an hour ago. There are things I dislike about the book; it's preachy and badly done as far as POV, and other elements of craft are quite overlooked, but even so, it's a work that accomplished something. I beleive it was the Lord's work. I hope readers will one day say the same of things I've written.

[MMcC]

Dictionary definitions have nothing to do with actual practice. They also differ depending on the dictionary.

I don't sling mud, thanks, but I seem to be covered in it. Which is cool... I work well with the earth element.

Prayer is a request of a deity. Spells can be the same thing, depending on how one practices. Trying to dig up dictionary definitions to tell me my way of worship is what somebody else wants it to be is insulting. If this suddenly belongs in the TIO board, I didn't drag it there.

But I do think it's telling that this thread simply couldn't resist doing so.

*shrug*

It would be nice if others simply sat in the pre-sized boxes we build for them, shut up, and did as we anticipate so that the world could be simple. Well, no... it would be scary. But it would be easy.

I'm not a huge fan of easy.

[Roger J Carlson]

Dictionary definitions have nothing to do with actual practice. They also differ depending on the dictionary.

I don't sling mud, thanks, but I seem to be covered in it. Which is cool... I work well with the earth element.

Prayer is a request of a deity. Spells can be the same thing, depending on how one practices. Trying to dig up dictionary definitions to tell me my way of worship is what somebody else wants it to be is insulting. If this suddenly belongs in the TIO board, I didn't drag it there.

But I do think it's telling that this thread simply couldn't resist doing so.

*shrug*

It would be nice if others simply sat in the pre-sized boxes we build for them, shut up, and did as we anticipate so that the world could be simple. Well, no... it would be scary. But it would be easy.

I'm not a huge fan of easy.Well, I had hoped this part of the conversation had died down, but apparently it hasn't. Pat is much nicer than I, and she hinted that the topic was straying into TIO territory. I'm much more direct. The discussion of Wicca vs. Christianity, spell vs. prayer is over.

You stated your belief that prayer and spell casting are similar. Others shared their belief that they are not. So far, all well and good. But when you claimed you smelled the "stench of bigotry filling the air" in this thread, that crossed the boundary of polite discussion.

People have politely disagreed with your beliefs. This is not "bigotry" and it is not "insulting". Frankly, it is insulting to Christians to claim that following the tenants of their own faith is bigotry. If that's the way you see it, however, you are not obliged to post here.

As with any moderator decision, please feel free to discuss this with me further in PM or take it up with Mac.

Thank you.

[MMcC]

I think telling somebody else what they believe, and even the intitial comments about what was "safe" were insulting and prejudiced.

Frankly, my own belief system and practice is not a matter of someone else's opinion.

I think I will have to assume that this section of AW has issues. Feel free to blame them on me. I don't do private conversations following public accusations, but YOU should feel free to follow up that way if you need to do so. I am perfectly happy to be mistreated, recognize inability to be fair, and walk away.

It's sad that the first negative moment I've encountered on this board was one of this nature.

[sassandgroove]

Okay....This is what I think.

1) I am a Christian and therefore am likely to read things from that perspective, and see Harry sacrificing himself as a parrallel to Christ.
2) I read that JKR wouldn't expand on her beliefs when asked if she was a Christian becuase she didn't want to give away the ending, which is a strong indication that if she didn't intend it to be an allegory, she at least saw the similarities.
3) A character and/or hero sacrificing themself for others and/or the greater good is a common theme in all literature and I agree that doesn't necessarlily mean it is a Christian allegory, but it could be. ANd I do think that as a Christian, that is a good theme to have my kids read.

[Simple Living]

Prayer is a request of a deity. Spells can be the same thing, depending on how one practices.

This is not in line with scripture. It's simply not in line with Christianity at all. It's an understandable explanation if it comes from someone who isn't a Christian, but it still isn't true. No matter what you call yourself or what religion you practice, it's factually not Christianity.

Spells are not prayers. Not even allegorically.

[sassandgroove]

I think ROger was trying to steer the thread back to HP and away from spells vs prayers. THat might make a good thread in TIO, though.

[MMcC]

Yeah, but he only slaps the witches around. We're used to it. :D

[sassandgroove]

I wouldn't describe Roger that way. I think it would be hard to be a moderator and try to keep threads on topic and at a low simmer. Trust me, Roger is equal opportunity. He's doing the best he can. I don't envy the mods.

[MMcC]

Which is why he edits everything I type. I've never once had an issue on this site, but I'm considering being an absolute bitch til I get banned.

Bigotry is probably my biggest hot button. Plus I kind of don't give a crap.

LOL

[rugcat]

I don't post often in the Christian thread. I'm not a Christian myself, so I don't have any Christian bias, but I haven't seen anything in this discussion that smacks of bigotry.

People of all faiths believe in their own religious precepts--that's all that the disagreements are about.

[MMcC]

No, the disagreements were about people telling others what they believed.

I would never be that arrogant.

Start counting backwards and read quickly.

[Medievalist]

I think people who don't do spellwork see it as very different from prayer. That's because they don't know anything about it.

You might wanna reconsider that--in particular, contemplating the difference between invocation, and evocation.

Spells invoke; prayers do not.

[Medievalist]

It's a bit arrogant to tell someone how they cast a spell. I know MANY witches who even use the Lord's Prayer prior to doing spellwork (there is a large influx of CrossWitches in my area).

Spells come in as many varieties as the intention and caster. Plenty are no different than what you would call a prayer.

The real difference is nobody is cast out of a community for doing it differently.

I hate to be a killjoy, but there is a bit of a stench of bigotry filling the air, folks. I'm praying it's ignorance that's only close to turning.

Umm . . .no, there really isn't. Not at all. I do, however, strongly urge you to step back and contemplate your own assertions.

You may believe that, for your personal path; it is not true of all Wiccans, nor is it, at all, true of Neo Pagans in general.

Moreover, it is not true of the meanings of the words spell, and prayer, as words.

[Medievalist]

MMcC is taking a short break.

Roger has been exceedingly patient, far more than I'm inclined to be.

[sassandgroove]

Erm...spoiler alert...


Back on topic, I was thinking too about Snape's story and how he was redeemed albeit after he died. This could be seen as Christian as well, but I think redemption is another common theme. Still a good theme for children, I think.




I'm adding another spoiler alert because someone just told me that if you are reading a thread backwards, spoiler warnings at the top of the post don't necessarily help. BUt geez people, if you don't want spoilers stay out of threads on the topic wich you don't want spoiled.

SPOILERS.

[Dancre]

I've heard and read some pretty wild statements from Christians about HP and what it means. Why is it so threatening to people? (I remember a debate on a UK Religious TV show about the corrupting influence of Star Wars because it espoused The Force...). What re people's views here. Genuinely very interested. I thought it was just a bunch of books for kids.

I'm jumping on the Topic Train and steering us back. I remember back in the 1970s (I'm aging myself) I was told Star wars would warp me as a child and I would grow up loving Satan. Well, I did grow up, but I love Jesus instead. :)

I think a lot of parents see HP as Star Wars, something that will make Satan seem lovely, instead of the snake and terd he really is. But the thing is God is stronger than the devil and God moves on our behalf. Parents are just frightened their kids will turn to the devil. But I think going to going to public school will have a more negative effect on kids than HP, imo. And it's not the witchcraft kids like, it's Rowling's imagination, something us Christian writers seem to have lost. ;) Take out the witchcraft and put in techo stuff. Have robots, transporting others to other dimensions, experiments, and all, use the same story lines, characters, school, games, relationships etc. and you'll have the same reaction as HP. It's her imagination that holds folks in, not the spells, the witches, etc. Just my two cents.

kim

kim

[Dancre]

The Narnia tales don't 'mention' Christ either...and the parallels between the Savior and Harry are numerous: some are obvious, some aren't, without specialized knowledge. See the following article about the parallels, it may surprise you (15 pages long, with 3-4 pages of footnotes).

Is Harry Potter Allegory? (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-beauseigneura01.shtml)



See above.

Interesting quotes from the article:


"When asked whether she is Christian, author J.K. Rowling states:“Yes, I am, which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I’ve been asked if I believe in God, I’ve said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that [her Christianity] I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what’s coming in the books.”(1)"

"Rowling maintains,“There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed, as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything...everything has been building up to it, and I’ve laid all my clues.”(245)She has laid her clues. She has said she couldn’t answer questions about the book’s religious content until the conclusion of book seven.(246) When questioned about her belief in God, Rowling avoids the question.“This is so frustrating. Again, there is so much I would like to say, and come back when I’ve written book seven. But then maybe [I]won’t need to even say it ’cause you’ll have found it out anyway. You’ll have read it.”(247)She cautiously contradicts an interviewer’s assertion that her books are free of references to God. “Um. I don’t think they’re that secular,” she says, choosing her words slowly. “But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus.”(248) Of course he isn’t – Harry is."

Many Christians savaged C.S. Lewis when the Narnia tales came out, much as John Bunyan slammed Handel for his Messiah (What??? Putting the Sacred Words of Scripture to secular music??? Horrors!).

Read the article. The parallels are systematic, and far too many to ignore.

:D:D:D

My novel series has a definate Christian undertone. But I do have an evil witch (but is she a witch?? I wonder. mmmm . . . ;) ) in it and a priest who worships the 'Ancients' who are the Father, the Son and the HS. (But I never say define them in my book.) I wonder if my book gets reallllyyyy big if folks will come out and say I'm of the devil? I wonder about that all the time. But I don't mention Christ, God, the Father, any of that, but you will see the Christian flavor. I used my relationship with Christ as the basis for my story.

kim

[III]

Back on topic, I was thinking too about Snape's story and how he was redeemed albeit after he died. This could be seen as Christian as well, but I think redemption is another common theme. Still a good theme for children, I think.

THANKS FOR THE SPOILER!

[sassandgroove]

Oh come on, it's a discussion about the stories, did you honestly think there wouldnt' be a spoiler.

[III]

Oh come on, it's a discussion about the stories, did you honestly think there wouldnt' be a spoiler.

You underestimate my sweet naiveté.

[sassandgroove]

*snort* sweet *snigger*

Okay okay I added a spoiler warning.

[III]

*snort* sweet *snigger*

Okay okay I added a spoiler warning.

Good, now I can go back and not read the post. And why did you laugh at my self-proclaimed sweetness and not my self-proclaimed naiveté? Was it a typo? Probably a typo.

[sassandgroove]

Yes, that was it, I'm sure.

[BarbJ]

Which is why he edits everything I type. I've never once had an issue on this site, but I'm considering being an absolute bitch til I get banned.

Bigotry is probably my biggest hot button. Plus I kind of don't give a crap.

LOL

Don't mean to be rude, but I'm confused why many non-Christians come on a Christian forum to post non-Christian - or at times anti-Christian - comments.
It tends to sound like the disrespect that's inherent in bigotry. Should I type in LOL to sound non-judgmental?

Questions and discussions are fine; it helps in strengthening our belief. But please, remember to not only respect us as fellow-writers, but also that this is a Christian forum and respect that.

Nothing against you personally, MMcC. You hit my hot button. Watch it, or I may start evangelizing at you.

[Roger J Carlson]

Don't mean to be rude, but I'm confused why many non-Christians come on a Christian forum to post non-Christian - or at times anti-Christian - comments.

It tends to sound like the disrespect that's inherent in bigotry. Should I type in LOL to sound non-judgmental?

Questions and discussions are fine; it helps in strengthening our belief. But please, remember to not only respect us as fellow-writers, but also that this is a Christian forum and respect that.

Nothing against you personally, MMcC. You hit my hot button. Watch it, or I may start evangelizing at you.MMcC was temporarily banned for her comments. It's not behavior that we allow here at AW -- anywhere.

I originally intended to delete them all as being off topic, but I think they're instructive for everybody, so I'm leaving them in. However, please no more. Since MMcC can't respond, it's unfair to direct comments to her.

Thanks all, for your cooperation.

[BarbJ]

Sorry, Roger and MMcC.

[Plot Device]

Erm...spoiler alert...

[highlight the below text if you want to read this spoiler for the last book] ...

... Back on topic, I was thinking too about Snape's story and how he was redeemed albeit after he died. This could be seen as Christian as well, but I think redemption is another common theme. Still a good theme for children, I think. ...

Part of me is mildly annoyed by the spoiler. But part of me is also relieved. I had always been very bothered by the fact that ...

...Snape is being positioned as a villain, feared and hated by the children who are all convinced he is in league with Voldemort. He's a school teacher fer cryin' out loud! School teachers can't be bad guys! To me that undermines everything that I presume Rowling is trying to achieve!...

... I was glad of the outcome of the first film where ... Snape turned out to be trying to protect the children at every turn -- especially the part where Snape was using his own spells during the Quidditch match to protect the kids. And with each successive film, Snape always was shown as creepy on the surface, and then shown as still somehow a good guy....

... I only read the first book, and I have been trying to spare msyelf any spoilers until the last film was shown. But I suppose I can't realistically expect to do that. Meanwhile the one and only thing that has been burning on my soul is whether or not ... it turns out that Snape is really a bad guy afterall. Yes! I have been agonizing about THAT notion since the very first film! Snape is someone I just can't bear to see be revealed as a bad guy by series end ONLY because of the fact that he is a teacher. ...

...

I am deeply relieved to hear via your spoiler that Snape will be somehow redeemed/exhonerated by the end of the last film. And at this point I couldn't care less about any other spoilers I might come across over the next two years. Just knowing Snape gets redeemed is enough for me.

...

[sassandgroove]

BUt I added a spoiler alert.

And honestly, if one really doesn't want spoilers, one should not look at Harry Potter threads/internet discussions/articles. That's what did before I read the book.

[III]

BUt I added a spoiler alert.

And honestly, if one really doesn't want spoilers, one should not look at Harry Potter threads/internet discussions/articles. That's what did before I read the book.

Yeah and you didn't shake your Christmas presents before Christmas morning and you didn't eat your boogers. You're better than us. We get it!

[sassandgroove]

Meanie Butt.

[III]

I'm pretty sure you're my little sister in real life so it's my responsibility to pick on you.

[sassandgroove]

I'm telling MOM!

[Dancre]

ALRIGHT YOU, TWO KNOCK IT OFF!! I SWEAR YOU KIDS DRIVE ME CRAZY. I SHOULD HAVE STOPPED WHEN I HAD ONE!!! THIS IS YOUR FATHER'S FAULT. HE'S NEVER AT HOME!!

tee hee.

[Roger J Carlson]

Is there a topic here? Ah yes, Harry Potter. I'd forgotten for a moment.

Kids these days!

[sassandgroove]

Not sure what else to say to bring it back to topic.

Wouldn't want to post more spoilers, no matter how vague.

I am curious about the fan fiction someone mentioned. I still don't get that. I highly doubt just handing a bible to Lucious Malfoy would cause him to read it and repent. NOt that I don't have faith that God can touch people in ways we don't understand, but that just sounds Pollyannish to me.

[Plot Device]

that just sounds Pollyannish to me.

You've just described:

a) most fan fiction

b) most Christian fiction

[III]

Alright. You'll all be happy to know I had my wife tell me the entire Deathly Hallows storyline last night. It took her an hour and a half just to describe the story to me. So spoil away!

[RLB]

What in the world's become of this thread?

[sassandgroove]

So you had your wife spoil it so you could read spoilers?
Did you think any of it sounded like Christian allegory?

[III]

So you had your wife spoil it so you could read spoilers?
Did you think any of it sounded like Christian allegory?

You got that right. I just don't have the emotional energy to invest in reading the whole series right now, so I have her spoil it for me. That's what we call "quality time".

***** SPOILERS BELOW ******

It sounds like Harry was definitely a Messiah-figure, in that he "gave his life" for his friends (although my wife couldn't really explain how he was able to come back to life). But other than that, it sounded more like a classic good vs. evil story with some well-developed characters and great battle scenes. Nothing that would make me think it was especially allegorical of Christianity.

[sassandgroove]

**********SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS*************









It sounds like Harry was definitely a Messiah-figure, in that he "gave his life" for his friends (although my wife couldn't really explain how he was able to come back to life). He didn't die. That was the whole point. I don't know how much she told you, but Voldemort had the Elder Wand, and thought Snape was the master of the wand becuase Snape killed Dumbledore in book 6. But Draco had disarmed Dumbledore, not Snape. SO the wand saw Draco as its master. BUt then Harry disarmed Draco in book 7, and was using his wand. So when Voldemort killed Snape, it didn't make him the master of the wand. Also, there is a peice of Voldemort's soul in Harry(from the attack when he was a baby), he is a Horcrux. The wand wouldn't kill its master. The killing curse, therefore, killed the peice of Voldemort that was in Harry. But Harry was willing to go to his death to save others. That act provided protection to those he loved just as his mother's sacrifice had saved Harry as a baby. I also like that at the end, Harry diarmed Voldemort rather than try to kill him. The wand, again, saw Harry as its master and reveresed the curse on Voldemort. Get it?
But other than that, it sounded more like a classic good vs. evil story with some well-developed characters and great battle scenes. Nothing that would make me think it was especially allegorical of Christianity. That's what I thought. One can see Christian themes, but as someone else pointed out, those themes are present in non-Christian stories as well.



I'm adding another spoiler alert because someone just told me that if you are reading a thread backwards, spoiler warnings at the top of the post don't necessarily help. BUt geez people, if you don't want spoilers stay out of threads on the topic wich you don't want spoiled.


Spoilers

[III]

I just repped you my reply :-)

[oscuridad]

I highly doubt just handing a bible to Lucious Malfoy would cause him to read it and repent.

reminds of the best bit of (alleged) Christian hysteria around HP I ever heard - that Malfoy was the Archangel Gabriel and Harry (when he shows Malfoy he has no sock on after slippng his sock into the book that Malfoy gives to Dobby) was showing him his ankle to tempt him into sin and that Dobby was a representation of Satan.

the really worrying thing is that somneone out there actually thought this up and a lot of others probably agree

[dclary]

**********SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS*************



He didn't die. That was the whole point. I don't know how much she told you, but Voldemort had the Elder Wand, and thought Snape was the master of the wand becuase Snape killed Dumbledore in book 6. But Draco had disarmed Dumbledore, not Snape. SO the wand saw Draco as its master. BUt then Harry disarmed Draco in book 7, and was using his wand. So when Voldemort killed Snape, it didn't make him the master of the wand. Also, there is a peice of Voldemort's soul in Harry(from the attack when he was a baby), he is a Horcrux. The wand wouldn't kill its master. The killing curse, therefore, killed the peice of Voldemort that was in Harry. But Harry was willing to go to his death to save others. That act provided protection to those he loved just as his mother's sacrifice had saved Harry as a baby. I also like that at the end, Harry diarmed Voldemort rather than try to kill him. The wand, again, saw Harry as its master and reveresed the curse on Voldemort. Get it?
That's what I thought. One can see Christian themes, but as someone else pointed out, those themes are present in non-Christian stories as well.



I'm adding another spoiler alert because someone just told me that if you are reading a thread backwards, spoiler warnings at the top of the post don't necessarily help. BUt geez people, if you don't want spoilers stay out of threads on the topic wich you don't want spoiled.


Spoilers

I disagree, sort of. Harry was at a point on his soul's journey where he could have gone into death or back to life, or, as Miracle Max once said "He's not dead, he's just mostly dead." Dumbledore made it clear that Harry had the option not to return.

[III]

I disagree, sort of. Harry was at a point on his soul's journey where he could have gone into death or back to life, or, as Miracle Max once said "He's not dead, he's just mostly dead." Dumbledore made it clear that Harry had the option not to return.

You just wiggled you finger! That's great!

I've always been a fast healer.

Oh Andre the Giant. We hardly knew ye.

[ned]

These last few comments make it clear to me that the ending of the book is a little unclear. I read it through twice, and it's a heap of mumbo-jumbo. Essentially, magic means the author could do whatever she liked with it. And what she liked was a scene in which Harry decides he will die for his friends. But she didn't want him all the way dead so she brought him back.

What I resented about this ending was that she created a bunch of new magic rules just for the last book, things that were never mentioned in previous books. Literary types call that deus ex machina. It's considered bad writing by most.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that was how I felt at the end.

Sorry, totally OT. Nothing to do with Christianity here. Tsk tsk.

[ned]

You just wiggled you finger! That's great!

I've always been a fast healer.

Oh Andre the Giant. We hardly knew ye.

Anybody want a peanut?

[III]

What I resented about this ending was that she created a bunch of new magic rules just for the last book, things that were never mentioned in previous books. Literary types call that deus ex machina. It's considered bad writing by most.


That was my big problem with Prisoner of Azkaban. If they could really go back in time and change things, there were literally thousands of ways they could have gone back and easily solved their problems, not to mention the fact that if that magic existed, the teachers could have used it every time a problem arose with Voldemort, or any problem for that matter. Maybe it was handled better in the book than the movie, but it pretty well ruined me on the story integrity.

Sass, quit poking me!

[oscuridad]

that's the problem with any of this sort of thing though, isn't it - if you could do this stuff - no problems. Pratchett dealt with this really well with his 'laws of the conservation of reality' essentially, no matter what the means, an action takes the same amount of effort, magical, physical, whatever - funny and clever.

[sassandgroove]

I disagree, sort of. Harry was at a point on his soul's journey where he could have gone into death or back to life, or, as Miracle Max once said "He's not dead, he's just mostly dead." Dumbledore made it clear that Harry had the option not to return.
True. But I think that the reason he had that choice was becuase the wand didn't want to kill its master. So we're both right.

[Jacob]

There many Christian authors who have written storylines similiar to Harry Potter. Cs Lewis, George McDonald, Tolkien to name a few. I just do not get why it is even an issue.

[sassandgroove]

Spoilers


These last few comments make it clear to me that the ending of the book is a little unclear. I read it through twice, and it's a heap of mumbo-jumbo. Essentially, magic means the author could do whatever she liked with it. And what she liked was a scene in which Harry decides he will die for his friends. But she didn't want him all the way dead so she brought him back.

What I resented about this ending was that she created a bunch of new magic rules just for the last book, things that were never mentioned in previous books. Literary types call that deus ex machina. It's considered bad writing by most.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that was how I felt at the end.

Sorry, totally OT. Nothing to do with Christianity here. Tsk tsk.I disagree. She introduces new things in every book. That is part of what is interesting. We discover along with Harry. It is believable he wouldn't know about the Elder Wand, or understand Wand lore. Even Voldemort didn't fully understand it. ANd it isn't new. In BOok 1, Ollivander tells Harry the wand chooses its master, and is intrigued that the wand that is for Harry is the "brother" of the one that chose Voldemort. Then, in Goblet of Fire when Harry and Voldemort duel, their wands lock. Voldemorts wand therefore doesn't work against Harry anymore, which is why he is searching for a new better one. So no, it isn't a deus ex machina.


That was my big problem with Prisoner of Azkaban. If they could really go back in time and change things, there were literally thousands of ways they could have gone back and easily solved their problems, not to mention the fact that if that magic existed, the teachers could have used it every time a problem arose with Voldemort, or any problem for that matter. Maybe it was handled better in the book than the movie, but it pretty well ruined me on the story integrity.

Sass, quit poking me!
POKE.

Yes, time travel is always tricky. But in the book, and even in the movie to a lesser degree, Hermione warns Harry that terrible things have happened to wizards who tinker with time travel, and to not be seen. She says that wizards have killed their past or future selves, not knowing it was really them, thinking they'd gone mad or the self was an evil imposter. Plus, they didn't do anything that hadn't already happened, did they? Like when Harry sent the Patronus. He knew he could do it becuase he'd already done it.


spoilers

[sassandgroove]

There many Christian authors who have written storylines similiar to Harry Potter. Cs Lewis, George McDonald, Tolkien to name a few. I just do not get why it is even an issue.
It is fun to discuss whether what we see as allegory really is.

[III]

POKE.

Yes, time travel is always tricky. But in the book, and even in the movie to a lesser degree, Hermione warns Harry that terrible things have happened to wizards who tinker with time travel, and to not be seen. She says that wizards have killed their past or future selves, not knowing it was really them, thinking they'd gone mad or the self was an evil imposter. Plus, they didn't do anything that hadn't already happened, did they? Like when Harry sent the Patronus. He knew he could do it becuase he'd already done it.


spoilers

I just kept thinking - okay they went through ALL THAT (in PoA) and barely made it work and Serious still looked like a bad guy, when all they needed to do was travel back in time and say "Ron, let me borrow Scabbers for a minute" then stomp on the rat - end of problem.

[sassandgroove]

But that would be changing things. They had to let everything play out or their past selves wouldn't have had the experiences that led to them going back in time. It is complicated.

[katiemac]

POKE.

Yes, time travel is always tricky. But in the book, and even in the movie to a lesser degree, Hermione warns Harry that terrible things have happened to wizards who tinker with time travel, and to not be seen. She says that wizards have killed their past or future selves, not knowing it was really them, thinking they'd gone mad or the self was an evil imposter. Plus, they didn't do anything that hadn't already happened, did they? Like when Harry sent the Patronus. He knew he could do it becuase he'd already done it.

Not to mention that the entire stock of Time Travelers has been destroyed, so no more time travel in the Potterverse. I think Rowling sufficiently stated in PoA that time travel was very peculiar and very specific events had to unleash. They needed Pettigrew alive to proove Sirius innocent, and they needed Harry (past Harry) to see Pettigrew to believe Lupin and Sirius's story. If they'd taken Pettigrew at any other point, that wouldn't have happened. And if you want to take Trelawney's prediction as rock-solid, Pettigrew would have found another way to escape.

I've heard a lot of things about the last book where people have mentioned she introduced a lot of new magic, out of nowhere -- even Stephen King mentioned it a review (he loved the book, despite). But we saw hundreds of spells and properties throughout the book, but only a handful were actually given names.

[Jacob]

It is fun to discuss whether what we see as allegory really is.
Allegory is in the mind of the beholder :)

[Jacob]

but not according to some Christians- it is strictly objective...hmmmm

[sassandgroove]

Well yes and no. SOmetimes authors intend their work to be allegorical, other times people find allegories that weren't intended.

[katiemac]

Well yes and no. SOmetimes authors intend their work to be allegorical, other times people find allegories that weren't intended.

This is what I find the interesting part. People began speculating the allegorical nature of Harry Potter BEFORE Rowling said anything of the sort. As far as I know, she hasn't commented solidly on the topic.

So the fact that people are seeing an allegory is an entirely personal observation, where others oppose it with the same observations. The HP books are so layered, there are thousands of ways one topic can be interpreted. I think the mass-theorizing that exploded after the sixth book debuted is proof that her setups are specific when necessary and vague (but still detailed) in others, so everyone can still have their own thinking process to make the book theirs.

[dclary]

True. But I think that the reason he had that choice was becuase the wand didn't want to kill its master. So we're both right.

No. He had the choice because he had the resurrection stone. And the resurrection stone would bring him back to life (instead of animate his dead corpse) because Voldemort had accidentally taken a portion of Harry with him when he'd reincorporated at the end of Goblet.

[katiemac]

No. He had the choice because he had the resurrection stone. And the resurrection stone would bring him back to life (instead of animate his dead corpse) because Voldemort had accidentally taken a portion of Harry with him when he'd reincorporated at the end of Goblet

Was it the stone, though? I'm almost to that chapter again, but I thought he had the choice simply because of his connection to Voldemort. I wasn't under the impression the stone could truly raise any dead, despite the connection. And now I can't remember when he dropped the stone, before or after Voldemort cursed him.

[sassandgroove]

No. He had the choice because he had the resurrection stone. And the resurrection stone would bring him back to life (instead of animate his dead corpse) because Voldemort had accidentally taken a portion of Harry with him when he'd reincorporated at the end of Goblet.
NO. The resurrection stone brought Harry his parents and Lupin and Sirius to walk with him on his death march. It says in the story of the Deathly Hallows that the brother with the resurrection stone brought back the woman he loved, but it was as though she were behind a veil (like when Sirius slipped past the veil in Order of the Phonix.) so that she was still dead. it drove him mad and he killed himself. The resurection stone didn't bring Harry back to life.

[III]

NO. The resurrection stone brought Harry his parents and Lupin and Sirius to walk with him on his death march. It says in the story of the Deathly Hallows that the brother with the resurrection stone brought back the woman he loved, but it was as though she were behind a veil (like when Sirius slipped past the veil in Order of the Phonix.) so that she was still dead. it drove him mad and he killed himself. The resurection stone didn't bring Harry back to life.

Typical leftist Hufflepuff propaganda.

[sassandgroove]

LOL.

[dclary]

LOL.

Well rebutted, III. You really are the brightest metalhead of your class.

[ned]

Typical leftist Hufflepuff propaganda.

Best laugh I've had all week.(I have a boring life, see.)

[oscuridad]

I came across something that makes me understand some of the reactions to HP and sort of agree (to an extent). I was in a shop when a boy of about eight asked his mum to buy him a 'Magic Wand' he had seen in the toys - followed by the question 'does it do real magic?'

I kind of see their point - although for reasons that are diametrically opposed to the Christian ones.

[sassandgroove]

Well see, as a parent (if I ever get to be one.) That is a teaching moment, not a moment to panic over and/or avoid like the plaugue.