Your inference…
It wasn’t an actual inference - it was hyperbole. I was trying to show the absurdity of dismissing a book solely because it wasn’t written from a Christian viewpoint. You see, the only claim you have to refute the magic is that the magic is from a Christian viewpoint. It would then follow that this, and not magic itself, is the deciding factor. I just applied it universally to show you the effects of your statements.
…The Potter series of books is exactly this - evil that has the appearance of good. Moreover, the very fact that many men, including Christians of all hues, are embracing it makes it look very good. Then we listen to the defective and fallacious reasoning of a John Granger who says that Potter is just fine, and we begin to think that we are joyless priggs or Puritan prudes because of our disquietude with the series…
**You have yet to prove Potter as insidiously dangerous, culturally unwholesome, or even related to the Occult. The fact that you call this series ‘evil’ while producing no evidence supporting that claim is ludicrous.
I made my decision independent of Granger, and only read about him when he came up in discussion. However, if you find flaws in his arguments, as we have found in those of O’Brien and Fr. Amorth, by all means share them. In fact, I insist, because if not, I consider your description of him to be quite slanderous.
Also, I have never used the terms ‘Puritan’, ‘prude’, ‘prigg’, or ‘scrupulous’ in terms of those against Potter. My argument has been, however, that it can be easy to see the Devil in everything when we are overly cautious, and this can hinder the joys God has allowed man to create. I mean, should we turn away from the statue of David because he is naked? Now, staring at certain magazines with naked people in them is dangerous, but what about paintings or sculptures containing nudity? Surely, God has given us logic and reason to discern from that which is good in the right context and that which isn’t. Your views on magic ‘not written from a Christian standpoint’ (which isn’t really a claim at all) are similar to those who see David as pornographic, and it is a little disconcerting.**
It is high time…
You have yet to prove that Potter is related to the secularism in the world. Granted, the world is extremely secular and getting worse, and there are non-Christians who have read and enjoyed Potter, but you have no evidence drawing the two together. And at a time when the only use of ‘God’ or ‘Jesus’ you hear in popular media these days is in the use of profanity, it is refreshing to see a very popular work quote the Bible (and this was written AFTER the series became a hit) while maintaining such strong Christian themes, and even having Christ-like figures and events.
Magic in the Potter tales is both innate and learned, hence the Potter boy is a wizard in training at the Hogwarts academy. Thus magic may well be presented as an inherent faculty, but it is, nevertheless, an inherent faculty that requires awakening and formation through the pursuit of esoteric knowledge and power, hence the training.
But such is the case with any use of magic in any work of literature whenever it is confronted. There is always the idea that the ability must be honed, crafted, etc. This is usually done under apprenticeship or magical books/items. I repeat from my last post - a human child reads a spellbook and performs ‘good magic’. I cannot see how, based on all of your arguments, this is acceptable, but you seem to think so because the author was Tolkien and not Rowling. Please answer the “Lucy” problem.
There is no doubt whatsoever about Father Amorth’s opinion…
But his stern warning, without adding to or taking away from what the Father actually said, should also apply to Narnia and Middle Earth. I heed his warning, and though I disagree with it particularly with Potter, I think it is important to be wary of that which draws us to evil. However, by maintaining education about the faith with our children and ourselves, the book can be enjoyed without the threat of danger.
Finally, as regards Rowling’s bolt out of the blue anouncement respecting the Dumbledore character at Carnegie Hall…
**Seriously, you made your claim. It was refuted, because the Dumbledore character as a homosexual is even more virtuous now than had been previously, to which your reply was that Rowling never intended that. We cannot just make claims on other’s opinions without some sort of backing. Yours is that she ‘comes from a liberal Church, and thus must be pushing her liberal agenda of tolerance and acceptance.’ Mine is that the character is asexual in the novels. If her inspiration for him was as a homosexual, as is the seemingly most accurate interpretation based on her wording, her point could be seen that homosexuals can still lead lives of virtue, which is in line with Church teaching. Unless you have anything else to add to this part of the debate, I no longer wish to hear your baseless banter concerning the matter. Whether it was proper for her or not, good parents would use it as a teaching example.
Do you not realize that you are trying to do the same here that you did with Father Amorth, but in the opposite direction? Father said very clearly** that there is no distinction between good magic and evil magic, for all magic bears the signature of the devil. You say what he ‘really’ meant though, which is that he must not have meant ‘all magic’ even though he said ‘all magic’. Now, with Rowling, you again take a direct statement, add your own spin (in your direction of course), and yet can provide no backing to support such a conclusion. If you want to convince me, create an agreed upon premise, lay out the facts, and then present the inevitable conclusion.
My apologies.