Yes, I'm going there. Nyagahaga *snork*. Guys, this is how I get my thrills. I'm such a dork.
Okay. Harry Potter. I love HP to death. I really do. I am also told I'm going to hell nearly every time I express this view, and it gets quite old. So please, if you're going to respond, don't tell me I'm going to hell.
First off, the most important thing people miss is the themes. The main theme is.........Love Conquers Magic. The Dark Lord was unable to kill Harry because his mother threw himself in the way of the spell, and when said Dark Lord tried to kill Harry, he was destroyed because of the love Harry's mother had for him. This love protects Harry throughout the series. Love was able to beat the most powerful wizard of the age. Harry's biggest strength lies in love, in fact, he's disappointed when he finds out that this is his strength, rather than any special power in magic, but later realizes the value of it. Love gave him courage, love protected him from the Dark Lord, love ended up saving his life many times over. Love. Not magic. How is this bad?
Next up, this belief that Harry is somehow "evil." I don't understand this. If someone could explain, I could address this, but I don't understand. Again, his power lies in love, courage, selflessness, and innocence. He puts his life at risk for his friends, even for his enemies, such as the school bully. He is not evil just because he has magic. "It is our choices that determine who we are, far more than our abilities." If you're going to say that magic is inherently evil, you have to say Gandalf is evil, that Dr. Cornelius from Narnia is evil, that hobbits are evil.
Next, the fact of magic in general. I wrote a pretty long essay about this on the magic forum, so I won't go much into that now. But my deal is, there is no God in the HP world, it's an alternate universe, therefore everything changes. Harry does not use his magic for the glory of God because there is no God, Harry does not use his magic against God because again, there is no God.
Now, this is a lesser objection people have, but one still there. The fact that Dumbledore, the wise old mentor of Harry, is indeed homosexual. Oh Rowling. Why did you have to say this? The fact remains that there is almost no evidence of any homosexuality in the actual books, which is what really matters. The only shred of evidence that Dumbledore had a friendship that was more than just friendship was presented in the most unreliable source imaginable, a reporter named Rita Skeeter. She has, throughout the series, written without even a shred of truth in her words, therefore in the books you can't take it seriously. The actual evidence is basically "Dumbledore had a really close best friend, and later didn't want to kill him." Does that sound like homosexuality to you? There is much more in LotR, in the very close relationship between Sam and Frodo. Now, I am not saying Sam and Frodo are, in fact, gay, I know that way back when men had much closer relationships than now. But if people object to HP because of this, they have to object to LotR.
Now, many people object to HP because they feel that it does not obviously "glorify God," and I agree with that. It doesn't, directly. But it glorifies what God stands for, Love. Courage. Selflessness. Family. Friendship. Rising up against evil, rather than just letting it be. Caring about others. The best moment of the series is when a mother who's had to watch her children die off/be hurt gets to let all that grief and anger out against one of the most evil characters in the series. Love, love, love. Like the Beetles.
One last thing, on a literary standpoint they are just really lovely books. It is very much a classic coming of age story, with awkwardness and dances. It is very into unlikely heroes, in fact, one of the biggest heroes of the series is the classic outcast. The classic "mean teacher" turns out to be one of the most complex characters I have ever read about. While the minor characters don't have the same feel that they do in LotR, they are still very much flesh and blood and some of my favorite characters are minor. The emotion is very real, I find myself with tears in my eyes at some points. They are not as wonderful as LotR, what can be? but they are very well written with lovely characters, and from 2nd grade have been one of my favorite series.
I hope I didn't offend anyone, I wasn't trying to. I just feel strongly on this subject. But please, don't tell me I'm going to hell. It really does get old.

I won't tell you you're going to hell, just because you've read Harry Potter, but I do disagree with some of what you're saying, and (respectfully) I'd like to debate some of it.

Where is God?
First of all, doesn't the fact that there is no God in Harry Potter bother you? I mean, love and goodness and all that are great but when they don't point directly to God then He is not glorified. There are non-Christians all throughout this world that have love and are 'good' people, but if they don't believe in God they will go to hell, the Bible is very clear about this. Also, our biggest aim is to glorify God, not the good things that come from God. If we elevate love above God because it's a good thing that he gave us, then that's idolatry.

One more thing about God in HP. Not only is J.K. Rowling focusing the reader on the qualities of God's blessings instead of God, she is also being very prideful of the human race. By eliminating God, she is in effect stating that humans alone are good enough to solve problems, that they can do it on their own. This is a falsehood. There is no good in humans. We are completely and totally sinful. After the fall, we became sinful beings, to the core. It is only by God's grace that we are saved.

And you might ask me about the 'good people' who aren't believers and who aren't saved...why do they have such good, normal lives. The only answer I can give is the common grace which God gives all of us, but that is a very confusing concept that I haven't studied in-depth and I'm sort of going in over my head here; so I won't argue this point.

Magic is Not a Good Thing
Edit: I did get into this in-depth, more so than the God part...but I feel strongly about it as you'll see.
About the magic part. I'm not going to get into this in-depth, because I haven't read these books and I know less about magic then other people. But, I will venture a few claims that I think are solid. First of all, we both agree that there isn't a God in HP. We are agreed about this, because it is a fantasy world. But let's look at the Bible. What are the only places where you can see people doing 'magic' or miracles? In the New Testament, there's the disciples, and the false prophets. The disciples do this through the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is God. By your own reasoning, if the Holy Spirit is God, and there is no God in HP, then the magic in HP can not come from God.

What are the other assumptions that we can make. There are only two left: that it is either a human ability in HP or it is from the devil. But it is not a human ability, he learned it. Additionally, because humans are fallen and sinful, and there is no God in HP to redeem them, it stands to reason that the magic they practice will be flawed and not always used for the best reasons, unless they are perfect beings (and it is clear they are not).

One could make the argument that HP is a fantasy world, therefore maybe the humans aren't fallen, but it is clear throughout the books that the MC's make mistakes like everyone else. Because the books were written by a fallen human, they cannot capture perfection because we as 'real' humans are fallen, therefore we cannot envision (or write about) what a perfect human would look like.

So we are left with the assumption that it is a natural thing in their world, yet imperfect, or that it is directly from the devil (since there clearly is evil in HP, it's part of the story). I won't go into this, mainly because I haven't read the books, but I personally think that it might be a mix of both, subtly. But, like I said, I'm not one to go into this. But we have established that the magic is fallen, just like humans, and therefore is used for good only because of the common grace that God has given us.


Paul is very quick to call out the things that are not from god. We see impurity and jealousy and all these others as sin...why is magic a 'gray area' that Christians frequently gloss over?

Lastly, I will say that magic in any writing makes me uncomfortable. It's clear throughout the Bible that unless power is given through the Holy Spirit (as in the case of the apostles; which isn't even magic), it is given from the devil. Magic is basically power that the user does not normally have but is accessing. The frightening thing about magic is that it elevates ourselves and gives faith in ourselves. Instead of turning to God for help magic is sort of a 'back door', a way to elevate our own abilities, which is exactly why most magic comes from Satan. Just look at these verses from the Bible with me:




This is exactly what I mean: magic exalts the user, not God.


These believers came and confessed their practices, which were clearly not worth keeping around.


The Lord was angry at this man's 'magic'. Again, I can't argue the books since I haven't read them (HP) but mediums, necromancers, it all sounds like HP to me.


This verse goes so far as to condemn even 'innocent' magic such as fortune-telling.


In my mind, demon possession is equal to the magic. In humans, the only way 'magic' or 'sorcery' can be practiced is through demon possession. Both can augment the powers of the human. And both can oppress them.

Like I said, I haven't read the books, these things here are just things that have influenced me against reading Harry Potter and things that I believe in. And hopefully I didn't offend you, and no, I don't think you're going to hell for reading HP.

eruheran

Thanks for being so respectful!
I agree that they're not (and shouldn't) going to be put into any church library, and sunday schools aren't (and shouldn't) recommend them as great Christian books. But in my view, it's fiction, and as long as people realize that I think you can learn things from anywhere.
But I beg to differ on the human ability reason, magic is a genetic trait in the HP world. It is passed down from parents to children, they only go to school to learn how to focus the magic. Magic cannot be learned, there are people called Squibs who have magical parents but, for some reason, don't have magic. In that world, magic is an ability for a certain type of people. There is no devil, so they cannot get the magic from any demonic power.
Thanks again for being so respectful! Your response was really refreshing.

Firstly, I don't think that reading Harry Potter sends you to hell, anymore than I believe drinking, or dancing, or listening to rock music sends you there.

Secondly, though. I disagree with you very strongly.

The Bible is anti-witch. Extremely so. And I don't believe that we as Christians should have any part of witches, wizards, or warlocks. Simply because something is a fantasy world, does not mean that it suddenly becomes fine to do. I get that magic in these books is a "physical" trait. But... maybe she shouldn't have called these people witches. The word witch in Merriam Webster is "Someone with supernatural powers because of a pact with the devil."

Also,

I'm not sure if you have researched what J.K. Rowling based her magic off of, but largely it was based off of druidic practices, pagan rituals, etc... That makes me uneasy.

Another thing that bothers me is the easy access of these books to children. Magic aside, some of the content just isn't appropriate for children on up through middle school. This PLUS the fact that J.K. is an AMAZING writer, and her world building is exceptional, make kind of a deadly combination.

Lastly, 1 Samuel says that "Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft." Whether it is executed through a pact with Satan or not, Mrs. Rowling has based her books around the occult, and pracitces that in the real world ARE done with dark power. The last thing I want is to come even close to rebelling against God.

Perhaps, other Christians, with different consciences will be fine reading the books, but I know that I am not. We are (Eph. 5:11) to have no partnership with the "unfruitful works of darkness". And this is just cutting it way too close.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

In Christ,

Mindy

Even if there isn't a God in HP, there's still a God in our world. And He is opposed to witchcraft, as is stated in His Word.

However, it is fiction... I'm not sure that this is actually true, but I think it's okay to read it *if* you keep in mind that it's just a story. But I'm most likely wrong on that point.

Maybe we could go as close to sinning as possible, but why? So it's that much easier for Satan to tempt us into sinning? We can't trust our own selves, as Genesis 6:5 says:



We are saved by Christ, and yet we still are carnal beings. We're not perfect. So why tempt ourselves?

eruheran

Hm...this is much the same idea that has centered around discussion of Avatar (Pandora Avatar). We know it's wrong, can we watch it anyway?

If you're watching it to learn something, then no, you certainly can't. That's like saying "as long as you remember he's Satan, you can still learn from him". The only thing you'll learn is how to lie well.

That's a strong statement, of course, but it makes sense.

You admit that it doesn't belong in church. I ask, if the church as an institution shouldn't have anything to do with it, and it shouldn't have anything to do with the church, then why should you have anything to do with it?

It won't benefit you anything that you couldn't gain from somewhere else. If it's untrue, and it's therefore incompatible with Christianity, then it won't do me an good unless God miraculously makes it useful to me.

What I'm saying is that it has nothing to do with God. I see this as akin to fairy tales and fables, they have nothing to do whatsoever with God or Jesus, but kids still learn tons from them, about kindness, bravery, etc. It's a bit different, but not that much. Fables have magic in them too! But you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who is opposed to them.

And, what I'm saying is that, if it has nothing to do with God, then what use can it serve me?

But then, even the pagan myths have something to do with God: they show what happens without Him.

In the same way, if you look to HP to see the consequences of removing Him, then you will learn. But if you look to it to learn lessons of virtue, while God is absent, then it is pointless!

Virtues without Christ are, as you know, useless. So, how can you look to learn virtues or beautiful things from a story in which God and our Faith is absent?

Neil of Erk, to drag this slightly offtopic for a moment...

What about Lord of the Rings, which while the elves/etc are obviously theistic, no one expresses their specific theology?



On topic:

I would never advocate reading HP... DragonSpell even bothers me a bit and that's pretty obviously not witchcraft-magic. :P It just makes me feel really odd, and I have other books I could read that are much better for me.

But, just remember that every book is imperfect; and it's up to the individual to find out (through spiritual growth in a relationship with God) what is an appropriate level of imperfectness for him/herself.

For example, my parents watch films that I should not watch....but they're fine with them.

I don't think it's possible to hit a specific nail and say for certain if it's right or wrong to read HP or other controversial books, each of us as an individual has to listen to what God is telling us. And if you can read it with a clear conscience, than read it. But since others can't, you can't try and convince them to read it, and they certainly can't tell you you're going to hell, as long as you're sure that whatever you're doing (reading or not) is OK with God.

Actually, in the Silmarillion, a clearly Judeo-Christian view of God is expressed. And, the apparent absence of God in LoTR is explained in the Silmarillion: He works in mysterious ways.

Oh, I've read (and agree with you) the Silmarillion but I meant just LotR. Most people never get to the Sil.

If the Silmarillion did not exist (as it did not for about 20-25 years after LotR was published) then would LotR still be considered a Christian masterpiece?

See, though, Tolkien never wrote allegory. He hated it. Iluvatar is so obviously not God, and it kind of baffles me when people insist he is. I think he has elements of God, but again with Tolkien's hatred of allegory he wouldn't have even set out to make Iluvatar exactly like God. His beliefs came through, like the purgatory-like House of Mandos, but again even that's not exactly purgatory. There are very few things in LotR that you could point a finger to and say "That's _______!"
Just my two cents! Dang, I'm off topic on my own thread.

Um, obviously?

I beg to differ.

If you dig into Tolkien's works - Unfinished Tales, The History of Middle-earth, etc - you can see that the Ainulindale is meant to be the elvish legend of Creation, and Illuvatar is the word that the elves use for God, etc... I think Tolkien actually came right out and said it in a letter or notes that were copied down into one of the HoME books - he confirmed that he did not like allegory, but he wrote it like that because he was a Christian - it was his Christian viewpoint coming through.

(But I don't have those books in front of me; they're at the library.)

When I said "obviously not God," I ment that Iluvatar isn't the God of here. He is, of course, the God of ME, but I ment he's not symonimous with the God we know. Sorry if that didn't translate.
Again, Iluvatar has elements of God, but he's not exactly like Yaweh. The creation story was totally different, it was more the Ainur creating, the vision was Iluvatar's but he didn't really create much. And I love that. I don't like allegory because the story's already been told, and for Tolkien to have basically retold everything would've, I think, taken away from the story. Even Aslan is different from God, and again, I love that. I think the point of fantasy is not to retell, but to change, and through the change maybe uncover some new truths.

It didn't really clarify exactly who created what and how.

What Tolkien created was mythology. He wondered what if the elves existed and they had their own legends about creation (with a very high accuracy rate because they had stayed mostly in touch with Illuvatar and the Valar (the latter of which are either fictional or a strange carryover from Tolkien's Catholic beliefs)) - so therefore he wasn't writing history, he was writing mythology. He didn't say 'this is what happened' but 'this is what the elves believe about their past'. IIRC, he also said that their history was slanted towards the Valar because the Valar were set in direct authority over the elves and so had the most contact with them. But I can't recall if/where I read that...

Interestingly, Tolkien began to write a story of the fall of Man, but abandoned it because he felt that in order to do it appropriately he'd need to do it allegorically, and he didn't want to write allegory. (it's in the HoME book Morgoth's Ring, if you want to read it. Really quite fascinating; it elaborates on much that had intrigued me about the mortality of elves. And there were a number of quotes from letters by Tolkien on the allegory subject.)

Actually, I'm well aware that Iluvatar is not allegorical.

However, neither is Aslan.

C.S. Lewis said that rather than representing Christ, Aslan actually is Christ: That is, Aslan is Christ as He chooses to appear in Narnia.

Allegories are like metaphors: they take apples and turn them into oranges.

Aslan, and, as far as Tolkien would reveal, Iluvatar, are not metaphors but an artist's conception of how God might appear in and interact with a different world.

Besides that, Iluvatar himself sets a Valar, Melkor, straight, informing him that no being can create apart from Iluvatar. That is to say, even Melkor was bound to Iluvatar's will. So, even if Iluvatar didn't appear to take an active role in creation, Sovereign Will was guiding all events.

In addition, Tolkien himself explains that the Valar practice sub-creation, not creation. They merely took something already created and added their own touch to it, therefore, they made, but they did not create. Creation was impossible for them.

A point that I don't think anyone else has brought up yet about HP: despite your claims, it's not set in a wholly fictional universe. The basic premise/cobha is that in our world there really are wizards and witches and they live in this underground society that's hidden from normal people. And THAT is where the danger lies, it's not saying in Aglorendia there are wizards and witches born with magic that's a part of them. It's saying "what if there really were wizards and witches that lived among us without our knowing it?" True it's fiction, and true it probably wasn't penned by Satan himself. However, to deny that this series has the potential to lead people astray is like staring at the sun and denying that it has the potential to blind you. I'm not saying that the books lead everyone astray or even that many Christians haven't gone overboard in their opposition of the series. What I am saying is that there are quotes and cases of kids saying they wish they could do magic like Harry Potter, and there are wiccans and occultists out there saying "you can". Doesn't mean that everyone who reads them will become a wiccan. Doesn't necessarily mean that the books are inherently evil (only God can truly make that call). But the books have posed a danger to some and for that reason people should be cautious of their decisions. If they in clean conscience can read the HP series without conviction or concern, that's between them and God. If they feel like they shouldn't, then they shouldn't (check out Romans ch. 14). I however choose not to read it for 3 main reasons

1. "Honor your father and mother"/"Children obey your parents in the Lord". My parents out of their concern told me when the books first came out that they didn't want me reading them (at the time I was in a bit of a rebellious stint and read the first half or so of a friend's copy of the first book). I am now twenty years old and free to make my own decisions, but I still haven't read them.
2. Scriptures also say to not let your freedom become a stumbling block. This is similar to why many Christians who don't condemn drinking don't drink, because their drinking could influence someone else to drink that could turn into sin (pm me to reply to this idea, leave it out of this thread). I don't want kids and parents of kids to look at me and think "why is that "Christian" reading these controversial/evil books?" If someone who has an issue with the books learns that I read them, it could damage my witness.
3. I've heard one-too-many connections made between HP and wicca, including a few different sources quoting Rowling saying things to the effect of her having researched into wicca for inspiration. Now these claims may be exaggerations, they may be mistaken, they may even be simply untrue; I have no ability or authority to say, such judgments are left to the Almighty. In my own life, I've seen how my fascination with the supernatural can be a bad thing if left unchecked. And I've looked too closely into wicca in the past to feel comfortable reading something that might have adapted some of its ideas. This is my personal belief that I do not force upon others, in return I ask that others not force their beliefs and opinions on me by crusading HP's innocence. I have the right to choose for myself based on my own opinions as much as they have their right. I do not ask that they defend their stance, merely that they allow me to possess mine.

Also, let's try to leave Gandalf, Tolkien and the Silmarillion out of this thread if we can. I understand that they were brought in as examples to support a point, but now the thread is drifting towards yet another Tolkien discussion when it's supposed to be a Harry Potter discussion.
Grace and Peace be with you all,
Jordan

Truly, though, anything has the potential to lead people astray. Going to the pool can cause people to lust, going to a friend's house can cause you to covet. Just because something has the potential to lead someone astray doesn't mean it will. Kids who think they're going to get their Hogwarts letter are just being imaginative kids, it's totally natural, and it doesn't mean they're going to grow up to be Wiccans. I confess when I first read HP I really, really wanted to get my Hogwarts letter, but now all that all is gone. No one that believes in Narnia at 10 still knocks on the back of closets at 20. I actually hold HP to be an adult book, indeed, Rowling wrote it for herself, as what she would like to read, but people assume since it has a child protagonist it must be a children's book.
I don't know about Rowling getting her inspiration from Wicca, but truly even if that's true it doesn't really alarm me. Her magic is the magic we've all heard in fairy tales, wave a wand, say a few words. What makes her stories interesting is the people in them, not so much the magic. Magic always takes a backseat to people. And anything on earth is written by sinful people, so it all has roots in sin.
A last thing, on a purely literary standpoint had Rowling written in Fantasia her books simply would not have worked. One of the reasons everything feels so real to me is that it all takes place in our world, and I care more about it that I would about Fantastica. Rowling's talent lies in characters and themes, and while her worldbuilding is excellent her talent is building a culture. I'm personally pretty tired of Fantasia.
That all being said, looking back I'm questioning my own wisdom in opening up this spectacular can of worms. It was late, I was "drunk on tired," as well as frustrated after reading a essay critisizing HP written by a man who clearly had no grasp of even the basic plotline of HP, and had most likely read a summary of the summary of the cliff notes. I just may out of this, as defending HP from faceless internet people honestly no longer matters to me, and doesn't really help further the goal of this site. I've also found I'm rather better at critique rather than defense

Holy Worlders,

I am from a ravenously conservative family. Any form of magic or spiritualism was (and is) frowned upon to such extremes that I was not allowed to read The Chronicles of Narnia until I was thirteen, and only then it was because my pastor referred them. There were a number of movies and books denied passage at the door (among them Disney's Mary Poppins and The Lion King). To this day the vice holds.

I'm a college student now and free to watch and read what I like. However, call it upbringing, call it dogmatism, whatever, I still have reserves about magic in any form (if you read my work, it wouldn't take much to convince you that what I portray as "magic" isn't magic at all). However, I go to Patrick Henry College - among the most conservative Christian schools in America - and my literature professors are in a buzz over the recently-completed Harry Potter series. They love it! And when they heard I was writing fantasy, they sold it to me outright. "You must read it, Blake!" they command in unison.

So now there's a dilemma. I won't lie: I'm intensely curious about the books. Doubtless all of you are familiar with the debate and have considered it yourselves. So please, tell my why I should or should not read Harry Potter.

Deo Volente,
Pavalini

Okay... I'm going to give my honest opinion of Harry Potter. I haven't read all of the books, but I've listened to the first three on audiobook.

I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone makes it out to be. The writing itself is excellent, and the characters are incredibly well-rounded. And I honestly don't think the magic is demonic.

Here's my reasoning: The Bible says magic is wrong, because it is people trying to get more power for themselves. So they meddle in very evil things to get it. In Harry Potter, that's what the villains do, but not the good guys.

Magic itself, in the Harry Potter universe, is, as far as I can tell, a genetic thing. Cobha. Harry can use magic because of his DNA, not because he meddled in horrible, evil things.

On the other hand, the big bad guy Voldemort wanted more power than he had, so he did everything he could to get it, including murder.

So... Harry, according to the Cobha of the HP universe, is not doing anything wrong. He is simply learning more about a gift that has been given him, so that he can defeat the forces of evil.

Also, there are some very good themes throughout the story. Sacrifice, friendship, love... they're all there. Everything that I would want in any story I wrote.

Now, that said, there were a few things that made me a little uneasy. It might have just because I was a little worried about reading HP in the first place, but anyway... The fact that he has classes called 'divination' and 'sorcery' and the like did throw me off a little bit. But it is interesting to note that the divination teacher is a little bit of a nut, and no one really respects her or what she teaches, calling it imprecise, at best.

But, really, that was all that bothered me.

I would never compare HP to LotR or Narnia, but I am enjoying it. And it is a good example of excellent writing and character development. But when it comes to whether or not you should read the books, it's up to you.

So that's my opinion.

I don't know much of Harry Potter and I have not studied this subject, but Bushmaid has. She covers Harry Potter in this blog post. I suggest all should read it!

Like Pavalini, I have had very little experience with any magical writings. I only went as far as The Chronicles of Narnia when my parents judged I was of age to discern where reality ended and fantasy began etc. I have never read or watched any of Harry Potter, because my parents have put a taboo on them and consequently, if I wasn't at home anymore, I probably wouldn't want to read/watch them. So the points I'm going to make are merely respectful observations.



Problem I have with this, is that if there was no God, there can be neither morals or significance, and consequently no love, courage, evil, selflessness, or friendship. A book that dwells on the reality of these things and doesn't show the consequent necessity of there being a God, is only encouraging blindness to His existence.




The problem that I have with magic is that it's not of God... it is not integral to His character. God's character that determines good and evil. So why do we suffer something that certainly does not correspond with His character... is certainly evil?

Also, we live in the real world, and the 'magic' exalted in these books makes magic in general seem no big deal to those reading them. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)



With this I seem to see the same problem as above. If there is no God and no devil the world in which Harry lives, there should be no human significance, morals --no magic, in fact, because magic contains information, and information (whether in DNA, a novel, or a computer) must come from a source higher, wiser, and greater than itself.



Yeah... I see what you're saying. And, actually I'm uncomfortable with magical ones. I tend to go more for fairy-tales that are simply pure fun with no magic. Can't name one at the moment. Having said that, I love Tangled. Formerly I've justified cartoons like Cinderella with the fact that they are cartoons, which in itself gives an element of proper unreality... they're not so intense as Harry Potter and Narnia. You can see I haven't quite figured out where to place fairy-tales yet. However, I tend not to think of fairytales as learning things about courage or love (which are often idealized anyway) but just chilling out. Yes, I will still automatically be learning from them because that's how things work, but that's not why I'm watching it.

I'm loosing myself on that. Better move on.



This reminds me of something my mum said. She said that she couldn't justify paying money to watch sins Christ died to forgive. So true, huh?

Thanks for reading!

In Christ,
Cass.

You know, people who haven't seen HP shouldn't make sweeping judgements and recommendations to read it or not to read it.

(Not addressing anyone in particular. But I know it's pretty popular on the internet to do the above, therefore I'm warning anyone who's thinking about posting. XD)

About the whole 'no God' thing...

That's almost a subject for another thread.

But a quick note - just because there's 'no God' doesn't mean there is no God, just that it's not the type of story that is going to discuss that subject. There's nothing wrong with that.

*concernedly* I wasn't--but did it come across that way.



*confused* Could you clarify, Melody? In a pm if it would distract the thread too much.

I know what she's talking about. Most of my stories have no god. But just because they have no god doesn't mean they don't have God. (Perhaps we should betake ourselves to theology? Or has this topic already been discussed?)

Ahhhh... get you. I think.

You're saying no real, personal, almighty beings outside the physical govern that particular world. And yet God is still over all the universe, including that world. *brain turns to mush*

Sorry, I'm new to this kind of thought, and if that's what you're saying, I can't see how it works.

(Perhaps this should be discussed elsewhere?)

I haven't read Harry Potter, although I have read a lot of articles on it. Personally I wouldn't read it but I know other Christians who have. I once saw a clipping from the film and I thought it was very dark, very weird and yea, it really put me off it. Personally I don't feel I'm missing out on anything. I have an interesting site which speaks about Harry Potter but it is more for Tricky Subjects so if you're intersted in reading it let me know and I will PM it to you, Pav.

I'll just mention that as far as writing and storyline goes, they're very well done. J. K. Rowling is a very good writer.

When I was younger, I was under the impression that I couldn't read them. My mother said I could, but we would have to talk first.

I have company, so I'll be back to express my full views.

High-five fellow logical-Christian Harry Potter fan!

I wasn't aware that Rowling intended Dumbledore to be... yeah. So that may change the depth of what I'm about to say. Rowling considers herself a Christian. From a young age she was considered a freak in her family because of her faith (sound familiar?). There are actually at least three difference places in the books that she directly quotes Scripture. Now after hearing her opinions on homosexuality I'll be doing a good deal of praying for her but since it's not openly shown in the books I will say this (for those of you who aren't allowed to read the series, don't. It's good, but you still obey your parents) how can you dislike something like Harry Potter but approve of something like Eragon? Seriously, I've known people who thought like that. I've been meaning to write a blog post comparing the two but in the meantime I've said my piece.

Oh, and Elanor? Don't judge the books by the movies, I wasn't a huge fan of them.

Ok, Rin. Thanks for that; I'll try not to then, but I still won't read them, hehe.

Eragon does not try to parallel our world, as a side note. Not that it doesn't have its own issues.

It's how casually human life is treated, and how important animal life becomes, and Roran's jumping the gun with his girl, and-all this is for another time and another post.

Like I said, it has its own issues. However, from a magic standpoint, they are very different. I'm not defending Eragon, I'm pointing out the difference in the magic aspect.

Magically I found it more similar to the occultism I studied in high school. Man, I need to write that blog post.

I have done lots of occult studies. Eragon is harmless, magically, for multiple reasons, especially because of the other issues with the book. HP packages magic in a "harmless" way that is far more deadly.

We've had vastly different occultist educations my friend.

I'm sure we have. In fact, I can guarantee we have.

When you write that blog post, Rin, I want to read it. Having read part of the Eragon series I'm very interested in your comparison.

I'm going to do something dangerous here... actually make a comment on the series.

I have never read them. But I was talking to my dad a few weeks ago, and now I am considering it. Because as a result of our conversation, I don't think they're much worse than Eragon or Shannara or any other popular fantasy series. I told my dad I might, and he wasn't opposed to it. My reason to read them is simple: to know what in the world people are talking about when this debate comes up. The danger is minimal. I know my own mind, I know right from wrong, I know how to tell if a book is bad enough not to go on, and I know how to disregard any magic that's badly portrayed. I'll simply learn from them. So what then, makes them so dangerous? They're written for children.

I did not know this when they came out, when I wasn't allowed to read them. I was too small then to have understood the differentiation. I do know now. What is harmless for me is not harmless for my younger siblings. If it is true that I can read Harry Potter without stumbling it may be equally true that it would knock my 12-year-old brother clean over. There are very, very few Fantasy books written for children. That is why they are successful. And that is why they are so potentially dangerous.

I'm back.
In any case, my mother sat down with me and explained that, no matter how magic is portrayed in Harry Potter, in truth, witchcraft isn't something to be taken lightly. I was told I could read them as long as I realised that it wasn't to be tried.
The way magic was portrayed in the books was as a genetic trait. Princess of the King said it well. That is, to me, a fairly reasonable way of portaying extra powers. Something one is born with, like being an absolute genius who finishes school at the age of 12. A gift, just a more spectacular one than usual.
If you don't listen to the interviews and read the books, you would never know that anything was off about Dumbledore. I thought Dumbledore was a cool character, kind of like Gandalf.
They may not be the best books ever as far as morals go, but it's better than some things like Twilight, or the romance novels some teenage girls read. I enjoyed them; they were very well-written and the plot and characters are amazing.

Riniel, I'm really interested in reading that comparison now.

eru

I'm on book 5, so please, no spoilers.

I won't say it's harmless, because harm depends on the reader. For me it is, concerning the magic, because I've never had any interest in actually doing real magic. Stage magic is different though. (I've always wanted to know how they do the ring trick...)

The magic in HP, as mentioned, is genetic, as well as studied and harnessed. It's done by using a wand and saying a word that sounds Latin. It takes lots of practice, much like learning how to play baseball. As a student, I can definitely sympathize with him when it comes to homework.

The end of the 4th book does bring a definite turn to a darker side with Voldemort coming back. The ceremony he does is evil, I am sure.

That's actually all I can say, since I haven't got any farther.

So far, it's a good series.

See, this is my stance for why I can read the books for research purposes. I'm grounded; I'm firm in my beliefs. I understand that magic is no joke. It's serious. However, this is also why I disagree when people say it is harmless. I have seen more than one person, especially impressionable young people whom the books are vastly read by, affected negatively by the books.

Not all readers are the same.

I agree. I really liked the books, but I'm glad my mom wouldn't let me or my siblings read them when all my friends did. I could definitely see them having a negative impression on a nine or ten year old. For someone more mature, though, I don't think they're a problem.

Right.

I plan on writing a blog post after I've finished the last book, but maybe I've at least got a good enough grasp of what's going on to comment here.

I originally began the series because I wanted to form my own opinion of the books. One of my best friends absolutely loves the series, but I had heard from other people I trusted how horrible it was because it was about magic.
So being the person I am, I borrowed the first book from said friend.

Even if I find evidence that these books are as bad as some people say, my opinion on one thing will never change: Rowling is an excellent writer. I could love the series based on her style alone.

Overall, I didn't have a problem with the books. I can understand how some people would, of course --I did, before reading the series, though that was only a repetition of what I had been told about it. The main characters are witches and wizards! While I still cringe at the word "witch", I am curious if that just has to do with my mental association of the word. I found right off that the wizards in HP reminded me more of the Elves in LOTR than in what few Wiccan things I had heard of.
It's really hard to explain, to anyone who doesn't understand the concept of "cobha" (thank goodness for that term! XD). But I didn't find it evil, nor did it make me want to delve into magic.

I can understand where a danger may lie. The first few books, at least, are written for children. I'm not tempted by fairytale-like magic (I think I remember reading somewhere that Rowling based the charms in HP on Latin), but some younger kids may be.
Then, of course, the books get a little darker. That is great, since the readers would grow with the characters, but then you may have kids that pick the books up now and have the entire story all ready to read.

As for morality, I would say that HP is better than most secular books I've read. Sure, it has it's minor issues, but I don't even remember them. I knew Dumbledore was supposedly gay before I started the series, but even with that knowledge I found nothing to suggest to readers that he was. The fandom is probably more dangerous than the books, and that's always the case when you let fangirls/boys run wild.


In the end, I think HP will be one of those series that will be popular for a long long time.

Yes, I believe it will be. And no one can argue the merits of Rowling as a writer. She is very clever, and understands her audience. That's part of why her books are so successful.

I won't say what it is, but the Christian symbolism in the last book falls under my definition of preachy/hitting readers on the head with the Bible. I wonder why I didn't see it coming.

This whole thread has been so interesting. Especially this concept:I will soon start a thread on this.