M
Mumbles140
Guest
Enjoy the weekend, but please address those logical arguments (premise, facts, conclusion) I laid out several pages back concerning Father Amorth and Lucy Pevensie’s use of a spell book.
- Status
M
Mumbles140
Guest
- I presented three logical arguments in the classical format: Premise, Facts, Conclusion. Argue the logic of those if you really want to debate.
- You are again dodging questions. How did you determine that it is school children learning magic from adults that is condemned, but that the use of magic in other literature isn’t?
- You are free, but you should also respect the debates of others. Since you were not adding any reasoning, logic, or argument, you seemed to merely add banter, and that is precisely what we are trying to cut back on. Let’s take the emotions out of this and talk sensibly and logically. Providing one word answers to complex questions is somewhat childish, and not in the spirit of open-minded debate.
- I was not name calling. I had a premise, laid out the facts, and drew a conclusion. If you disagree with it, then show the error in one of those three parts to the argument. If you cannot, then the logic stands as valid.
M
mdrummer5
Guest
I see your point and yes there are definitely some weirdos.
I would also like to point out to Portrait since he initially jumped all over your original post that he has ignored your admission to having been uneducated in this regard and how that lack of education not the Potter books led to your interest in the occult.
Also, please understand that I don’t mean any offense at all when I say that you were uneducated. I am of the belief that we are all uneducated on a lot of things.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Portrait,
Welcome back, I trust your event went well.
There is a delicious irony in reading your comments on the moral decadance of the modern age at the same time you deride one of the few recent works aimed at children which quite unambiguously shows that the consequences of the evil one does in life are the eternal effects on the soul.
Again, I do respect your concern that children may be attracted to the occult, but that is an attraction from the reader and as the exorcists have said, there is no distinction from the occult perspective between good and bad magic.
Peace,
Welcome back, I trust your event went well.
There is a delicious irony in reading your comments on the moral decadance of the modern age at the same time you deride one of the few recent works aimed at children which quite unambiguously shows that the consequences of the evil one does in life are the eternal effects on the soul.
Again, I do respect your concern that children may be attracted to the occult, but that is an attraction from the reader and as the exorcists have said, there is no distinction from the occult perspective between good and bad magic.
Peace,
M
mdrummer5
Guest
I don’t agree with his view either but I don’t think he’s shared this opinion with Portrait. He seems more consistent with his beliefs. Which is at least respectable.
M
Mickey
Guest
My points are clear and concise. I have stated them repeatedly. I have given examples from the literature itself and teachings from Scripture. There are also many articles from clergy. I can add patristics if you like. If you do not accept it–I cannot help that.
I have answered everything.
It is child witches attending witch school learning spells from adult witches.
I think that my arguments are clear and reasoned. Again, if you cannot accept it–then stop responding.
Again, you may continue with your name calling–it does not affect me. It does not take a dissertation to answer simple questions.
Amongst other things, you have made reference to trolling and childishness. Perhaps you should stop responding to my posts.
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. Fone Bone
Dear Fone Bone,
Cordial greetings and hope all is well. A very good day to you.
Sorry old chap but the Potter series is very poblematic and culturally unhealthy, notwithstanding your remarks above.
There is a conspicuous absence of traditional Christian values in the Potter books and what virtues do exist are so viciously distorted that they virtually cease to be virtues at all.
For example, obedience in Potter is anything but “obeying ones lawful superiors”. On the contrary, it more about making it appear as if you are not doing anything wrong at all". Invariably, Potter and/or his chums are rewarded for their disobedience to a professor or a school rule, not reprimanded. If, they are reprimanded, it is usually by the professor that is law-abiding and supposedly has it in for them. Moreover, this is also the professor that is disobeyed, lied to and stolen from. The reason for this is quite simple. If you do not like a particular authority figure and consider that they are unfair to you, then your obligation to them no longer exists. We observe this time after time. The Potter boy is not obligated to obey his aunt and uncle because they are unpleasant towards him; he is no longer required to obey Professor Snape because Snape hates him; he is not obliged to obey the prefect, Percy Weasley, owing to the fact that he is just Ron’s older boring and uninteresting brother. When you just pause and think about all this you can clearly see the very distorted message that it semaphores to impressionable children. Interestingly, I have actually heard some children say that an individual teacher is “out to get them” when all this means is that the teacher in question is continually having to reprove them for their ungovernable and disruptive conduct. Perhaps they are taking their que from their role model Harry Potter! Be that as it may, this kind of fiction is not going to encourage them to be well-behaved children who render unquestioning obedience to their teachers and elders. Moreover, this muddled thinking all stems from Rowling’s unhealthy and rebellious mind and her liberal mindset in wanting to challenge authority if, in her opinion, it is deemed wrong.
The pro-Potter camp frequently speak about the courage, loyalty and justice that is to found within the pages of the Potter series. Courage, according to Potter and company, means looking for danger, usually after being told not to do so - more disobedience encouraged. Loyalty is breaking the rules for another - false notions of allegiance to one’s peers. Justice means that one can get away with almost anything if one is famous and temperance is that virtue whereby a man gets intoxicated only when he is really happy or really depressed - a worldly and godless manner of thinking if ever there was!
The characters in the novels continually act for their own self-interests. For example, Hermoine puts a full-body bind curse on her fellow class chum when he tries to prevent them from going into forbidden areas after curfew. Professors place memory charms upon students to whom they have revealed their innermost secrets. Potter and his friends make a potion that will turn them into other people when they want to find out information from someone else.
Alas, these exceedingly troublesome aspects of the Potter series still fail to put men on enquiry, including some orthodox Catholics. They ought to flash up the warning cones but they sadly do not and many fail to identify the problems that are to be found in these dreadful books. Fone Bone, please revisit the Potter novels again and give them an honest appraisal in the light of the remarks I have made above and I am certain that you will discover that my grave misgivings are not without foundation and neither are they unsubstantiated.
Harry Potter and friends (the ‘hero’s’) are decidedly not the types of role models our precious children should have. Be under no delusions, what young impressionable readers see attractive and ‘cool’ fictitious characters doing, they will want to do also. They begin to think that since this character acts this way, it’s normal, or at least perfectly acceptable to do likewise. It is a well established fact, as I am sure are psychologist contributor will confirm, that the young derive many ideas, good and bad, from the books that they read. Now whether these ideas are constructive or detrimental will depend largely upon the book in question and the message it conveys. The Potter boy lies routinely and escapes punishment; does it seem probable that a youngster will conclude that it is most unfair when he cannot get away with something that Potter did?
This is my final posting until Monday and so my I wish all contributors a splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless you all my beloved friends and thankyou for a lively debate.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
Dear Fone Bone,
Cordial greetings and hope all is well. A very good day to you.
Sorry old chap but the Potter series is very poblematic and culturally unhealthy, notwithstanding your remarks above.
There is a conspicuous absence of traditional Christian values in the Potter books and what virtues do exist are so viciously distorted that they virtually cease to be virtues at all.
For example, obedience in Potter is anything but “obeying ones lawful superiors”. On the contrary, it more about making it appear as if you are not doing anything wrong at all". Invariably, Potter and/or his chums are rewarded for their disobedience to a professor or a school rule, not reprimanded. If, they are reprimanded, it is usually by the professor that is law-abiding and supposedly has it in for them. Moreover, this is also the professor that is disobeyed, lied to and stolen from. The reason for this is quite simple. If you do not like a particular authority figure and consider that they are unfair to you, then your obligation to them no longer exists. We observe this time after time. The Potter boy is not obligated to obey his aunt and uncle because they are unpleasant towards him; he is no longer required to obey Professor Snape because Snape hates him; he is not obliged to obey the prefect, Percy Weasley, owing to the fact that he is just Ron’s older boring and uninteresting brother. When you just pause and think about all this you can clearly see the very distorted message that it semaphores to impressionable children. Interestingly, I have actually heard some children say that an individual teacher is “out to get them” when all this means is that the teacher in question is continually having to reprove them for their ungovernable and disruptive conduct. Perhaps they are taking their que from their role model Harry Potter! Be that as it may, this kind of fiction is not going to encourage them to be well-behaved children who render unquestioning obedience to their teachers and elders. Moreover, this muddled thinking all stems from Rowling’s unhealthy and rebellious mind and her liberal mindset in wanting to challenge authority if, in her opinion, it is deemed wrong.
The pro-Potter camp frequently speak about the courage, loyalty and justice that is to found within the pages of the Potter series. Courage, according to Potter and company, means looking for danger, usually after being told not to do so - more disobedience encouraged. Loyalty is breaking the rules for another - false notions of allegiance to one’s peers. Justice means that one can get away with almost anything if one is famous and temperance is that virtue whereby a man gets intoxicated only when he is really happy or really depressed - a worldly and godless manner of thinking if ever there was!
The characters in the novels continually act for their own self-interests. For example, Hermoine puts a full-body bind curse on her fellow class chum when he tries to prevent them from going into forbidden areas after curfew. Professors place memory charms upon students to whom they have revealed their innermost secrets. Potter and his friends make a potion that will turn them into other people when they want to find out information from someone else.
Alas, these exceedingly troublesome aspects of the Potter series still fail to put men on enquiry, including some orthodox Catholics. They ought to flash up the warning cones but they sadly do not and many fail to identify the problems that are to be found in these dreadful books. Fone Bone, please revisit the Potter novels again and give them an honest appraisal in the light of the remarks I have made above and I am certain that you will discover that my grave misgivings are not without foundation and neither are they unsubstantiated.
Harry Potter and friends (the ‘hero’s’) are decidedly not the types of role models our precious children should have. Be under no delusions, what young impressionable readers see attractive and ‘cool’ fictitious characters doing, they will want to do also. They begin to think that since this character acts this way, it’s normal, or at least perfectly acceptable to do likewise. It is a well established fact, as I am sure are psychologist contributor will confirm, that the young derive many ideas, good and bad, from the books that they read. Now whether these ideas are constructive or detrimental will depend largely upon the book in question and the message it conveys. The Potter boy lies routinely and escapes punishment; does it seem probable that a youngster will conclude that it is most unfair when he cannot get away with something that Potter did?
This is my final posting until Monday and so my I wish all contributors a splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do. God bless you all my beloved friends and thankyou for a lively debate.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
M
Mumbles140
Guest
So where in Scripture or anywhere else is that the moral tenet? It is the application of the moral tenets you have provided that has brought us to this point. I understand your problems with witch craft and the Occult, but what moral truths are you using to so narrowly specify it down to the school and the instruction?
M
Mickey
Guest
In a nut shell…yes!
Have a great weekend my good friend. I too, will soon be leaving the forum until Monday.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Mickey,
Cordial greetings and hope all is well. Superb post old chap. Did not intend any further posts today but felt that I had to respond to your fine comments. My sentiments entirely - jolly good show.
It is heartwarming read the above and my prayer is that all Catholics who read it will duly take note. How we could do with men of your stamp in the Catholic Church - you are a credit to the Orthodox Church and the religion of our Blessed Saviour.
God bless you.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
M
Mickey
Guest
Are you asking me to show you, (in Sacred Scripture,) where we are called to flee from materials which sensationilize witchcraft?
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
In the words of Lost Wanderer (sigh), now that the posts are nearing 1,000 I will provide for the anti-Potter folks what I see as the biggest moral weakness in HP, which has nothing to do with use of magic as a device:
2265 **Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.** Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.**
I dislike and find morally objectionable the post-climax scene where HP finally confronts Voldemort for the final time (I consider the climax as the scene while Harry is unconscious and we see what eternal consequences result from the paths chosen by the two main characters good/evil).
The Ministry of Magic has been taken over by evil forces and is involved in genocide and oppression of the people it is responsible for and therefore illegitimate. HP since he has accepted becoming the defacto leader of the opposition has now taken on, in my view, the grave duty to protect the people as his responsibility. How does he execute it?
I don’t know what Rowlings was thinking, that HP acting in that way would appear cowardly, or that she wanted to stress the remorse angle, whatever. But I have this objection in numerous cases in pop-culture. People responsible for the lives of others appear to abdicate that responsibility by accepting higher risks to others than necessary in fulfilling the duties justifying their actions in the first place.
The other weakness, as I see it, in the series is in fact it’s a series. Many of Rowlings points are not made until the final book, so they are never communicated to folks who only read part of the series.
2265 **Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. **The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm.** Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.**
I dislike and find morally objectionable the post-climax scene where HP finally confronts Voldemort for the final time (I consider the climax as the scene while Harry is unconscious and we see what eternal consequences result from the paths chosen by the two main characters good/evil).
The Ministry of Magic has been taken over by evil forces and is involved in genocide and oppression of the people it is responsible for and therefore illegitimate. HP since he has accepted becoming the defacto leader of the opposition has now taken on, in my view, the grave duty to protect the people as his responsibility. How does he execute it?
- He confronts Voldemort man to man, face to face, even giving him the opportunity to show his remorse and repent despite it being an extremely low likelihood by this point.
- This accepts a much higher risk of HP losing, and the consequences if he loses could be the full restoration of Voldemort’s powers and true ownership of the wand of destiny with all it’s powers. (Dumbledore did defeat Grinewald (sp?) despite G having it, so HP’s victory certainly isn’t assured by owning it)
- HP is now risking (gambling) not just his own/life future but the lives and futures of a great many people on a lot of things. That he is faster than Voldemort, has correctly assessed the effect of HP’s attempted sacrifice of his life on V’s powers, that HP won’t mispronounce, miscast, or just plain miss with his spell, that his disarming spell will be sufficient etc.
- Consider that moments before he was under a cloak of invisibility and could have taken his shot at an almost completely unaware Voldemort.
- Does HP have the right to accept this higher risk, again not just to himself but to many others, considering his ‘grave duty’ under the above?
I don’t know what Rowlings was thinking, that HP acting in that way would appear cowardly, or that she wanted to stress the remorse angle, whatever. But I have this objection in numerous cases in pop-culture. People responsible for the lives of others appear to abdicate that responsibility by accepting higher risks to others than necessary in fulfilling the duties justifying their actions in the first place.
The other weakness, as I see it, in the series is in fact it’s a series. Many of Rowlings points are not made until the final book, so they are never communicated to folks who only read part of the series.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
No. Absolutely not - I see that as clear as daylight. My point is that there is no universal moral truth saying that fictional literature about children with innate magical abilities learning magic from adults with innate magical abilities should be avoided at all costs. The moral truth is that we should avoid that which may lead us to the Occult because it is the trap of the Devil.
What I am driving at is your logic process for taking this avoidance of witch craft and applying it to some works of literature (such as Harry Potter) but not to other pieces of literature. You have noted that it is in a school that this occurs - it seems to be a significant point to you. I asked you is it because they are in a school, or is it the idea of an adult teaching magic to a child?
M
Mickey
Guest
You are too kind, my friend. But I have learned much from your eloquent posts. I also could not help but notice the post about your former music collection. I experienced something similar. After, I was exposed to the (a cappella) Divine Liturgy as an Eastern Catholic, I was no longer impressed with anything from my vast rock n’ roll collection. Once you hear the angels sing…nothing else matters.
M
Mickey
Guest
And I believe Potterism is such a doorway.
And I have asked you before if these other works of literature have story lines revolving around witch children attending witch school learning how to cast spells from adult witch teachers. You answered negative. Furthermore, your comaparison tactic does not work for me because I am not familiar with the material of which you are attempting to compare it. And if I was familiar, it still would not apply, because we are talking about Potterism—not Narnia—not Tolkein—not Disney. So your argument with me continues to be circular and unconvincing.
Huh??? It is a witch school…with witch children…learning how to cast spells…being taught by adult witches. Do you understand this?
Here is another quote for you:
In The Sorcerer’s Stone, Professor Quirrell told Harry, “There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it .” [p. 291]
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Because it’s so hard for me to resist getting sucked into the discussion… 
I do understand (though I don’t agree with) why some (like Portrait, Michael O’Brien, and others I have read) draw a distinction between magic in HP and magic in Narnia and LotR. Magic is more peripheral and relegated to a few mentor-type characters in Narnia and LotR. In HP, it takes center stage for all the main characters.
I think that’s a fair enough observation, even if I disagree (though I didn’t always) with the conclusions drawn from it.
Once I actually took a look at the HP books/movies themselves, I came to understand why the “Potterites” (
) were so adamant that the magic in HP is nothing like real-life occult and why they kept making the comparisons with Narnia and LotR. The three certainly don’t use magic identically, but I really think it’s all in the same ballpark.
By contrast, I would say to take a look at something like the “Secret Circle” trilogy by L.J. Smith. That is a series that uses magic in more of an occultish way. It’s about a seemingly normal teenage girl in the New England area getting involved with witchcraft and meeting other teenage witches. They use crystals and all that other type of stuff.
Now, for those who haven’t read either, it can seem like a similar setup to HP. However, HP contains so many fantastical elements (trolls, unicorns, a host of bizarre creatures, cars that fly, trees that move, flying on brooms, etc. ,etc.) that when you actually read both of them, there is simply no comparison.
I do understand (though I don’t agree with) why some (like Portrait, Michael O’Brien, and others I have read) draw a distinction between magic in HP and magic in Narnia and LotR. Magic is more peripheral and relegated to a few mentor-type characters in Narnia and LotR. In HP, it takes center stage for all the main characters.
I think that’s a fair enough observation, even if I disagree (though I didn’t always) with the conclusions drawn from it.
Once I actually took a look at the HP books/movies themselves, I came to understand why the “Potterites” (
) were so adamant that the magic in HP is nothing like real-life occult and why they kept making the comparisons with Narnia and LotR. The three certainly don’t use magic identically, but I really think it’s all in the same ballpark.By contrast, I would say to take a look at something like the “Secret Circle” trilogy by L.J. Smith. That is a series that uses magic in more of an occultish way. It’s about a seemingly normal teenage girl in the New England area getting involved with witchcraft and meeting other teenage witches. They use crystals and all that other type of stuff.
Now, for those who haven’t read either, it can seem like a similar setup to HP. However, HP contains so many fantastical elements (trolls, unicorns, a host of bizarre creatures, cars that fly, trees that move, flying on brooms, etc. ,etc.) that when you actually read both of them, there is simply no comparison.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Mickey, you do realize that Professor Quirrell was the bad guy in the first book, don’t you? Thus his statement serves as a “what not to do” for the reader more than anything else.
M
Mickey
Guest
Yes. It is but one example of a series riddled with occultic references (from the good and the bad characters).
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Mickey,
The idea that '“There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it .” Is uttered in one form or another by countless ‘bad guy’s’ in literature and movies, it’s a pretty standard device whether they’re referring to military, political or extranormal powers. Heck, Voldemort says pretty much the same thing in the showdown about Dumbledore not taking the actions V did out of weakness.
The idea that '“There is no good or evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it .” Is uttered in one form or another by countless ‘bad guy’s’ in literature and movies, it’s a pretty standard device whether they’re referring to military, political or extranormal powers. Heck, Voldemort says pretty much the same thing in the showdown about Dumbledore not taking the actions V did out of weakness.
M
Mumbles140
Guest
- Status