Harry Potter books

[Dan_Daly]

Dan, don’t blatantly lie !!!

What I SAID to you was that the info has been discussed in the MULTIPLE threads about HP in the past and YOU were to search for them and re-read them. I am not going to do your homework for you.

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

First off, my apologies for missing your signature. You’re right, I generally don’t read them. I guess sometimes there is useful stuff in there.

I did read through some of the threads you linked to. I didn’t read every post in the history of CAF about Harry Potter. I believe I read enough to evaluate your charge that OBrien’s use of the Kuby-Ratzinger letters was discredited. I found the charge unfounded. Nothing I read in anything you linked to or anything you said even alleged that the letters are fakes. In fact, almost everyone readily concedes that they are authentic.

What results is 3 contradictory but simultatenous arguments being put forth:

1. The Pope has never in his lifetime been critical of the Harry Potter books.

This charge is easily dismissed by simply reading the letters, which as I said no one has produced any evidence or even claimed they are fake.

1. The Pope said stuff that looked critical but that’s not what he really meant.

This charge requires the accuser to jump into Cardinal Ratzinger’s head and gain special knowledge of his intentions which seem to be clearly contradicted by his choice of words.

1. The Pope was critical of the books, but he was a Cardinal not a professional literary critic so who cares what he thinks.

This charge probably has the most going for it and is the most honest. However there are a few problems. First, one doesn’t have to be a “professional” to have an opinion worth considering on a topic. Secondly, Cardinal Ratzinger wasn’t commenting on the quality of the writing in the books, he was commenting on the moral implications and influence on the faith…exactly his area of professional expertise.

The opinions expressed in the letters are just that, opinions, expressed by a Cardinal. A Catholic is not bound by them. If someone wants to disagree, they may do so, and I welcome substantive debate on why they would or would not disagree.

However, claiming someone didn’t say what they clearly did say, is not honest debate. Claiming OBrien is “debunked” or “discredited” without evidence to back the charges is unfair. I don’t know Mr. OBrien personally, but like all of us, he deserves honest critiques, not false allegations against his integrity.

Pax Christi and God bless

 

[styrgwillidar]

The story is secular humanist to the core, and even those three things mentioned above could just as easily be attributed to pagan mythology, etc.

??? Sorry, but I disagree. The books specifically show the evil character’s excessive love of the material world and earthly life through his literal attachment of portions of his soul to things of this world. Each of those things representing something people over value-- for example the diary with unwritten pages being those who foolishly concentrate on the possible future life in this world instead of their eternal life, a snake representing those who over emphasize nature, a tiara inscribed with ‘wit beyond measure is man’s greatest treasure’ those who over-value human wisdom. How each is destroyed and by who is also symbolic.

Note, whether the hero wins or loses in this world is shown to be irrelevant. The real loss is that of the evil character’s fate in the next.

Again, I fail to see how a children’s story which shows the folly of attachment to things of this world is primarily secular.

I do agree that any material needs to be reviewed by the parents. There is plenty of literature, so no real reason to have your child reading something you are uncomfortable with. I read everything I could get my hands on as a kid. I don’t think I got into fantasy/sci-fi until late elementary/middle school.

 

[Dan_Daly]

??? Sorry, but I disagree. The books specifically show the evil character’s excessive love of the material world and earthly life through his literal attachment of portions of his soul to things of this world. Each of those things representing something people over value-- for example the diary with unwritten pages being those who foolishly concentrate on the possible future life in this world instead of their eternal life, a snake representing those who over emphasize nature, a tiara inscribed with ‘wit beyond measure is man’s greatest treasure’ those who over-value human wisdom. How each is destroyed and by who is also symbolic.

Note, whether the hero wins or loses in this world is shown to be irrelevant. The real loss is that of the evil character’s fate in the next.

Again, I fail to see how a children’s story which shows the folly of attachment to things of this world is primarily secular.

I do agree that any material needs to be reviewed by the parents. There is plenty of literature, so no real reason to have your child reading something you are uncomfortable with. I read everything I could get my hands on as a kid. I don’t think I got into fantasy/sci-fi until late elementary/middle school.

I think the problem is how we classify “good guys” and “bad guys”. Are the protagonists of a book “good guys” simply because that is how the author wants them portrayed?

In the Harry Potter books, the “good guys” lives are centered around witchcraft, which is an evil pursuit. Now, all “good guys” can have faults, but they should succeed inspite of faults, not because of them. The “good” magic isn’t even considered a fault, it’s an asset.

If “there is some good in it” is the standard for what we accept, then we will accept everything and anything. Hitler was a good speaker. Attila the Hun was a good strategist. Margaret Sanger knew how to organize. So? Are they role models for our children?

In Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture Michael D. OBrien makes the point would parents allow their children to read a series of books about “good fornicators” battling against “bad fornicators” as long as the “good” ones had some redeeming qualities?

OBrien concludes that they would not. Unfortunately, I would have to disagree. Parents allow their children to induldge in exactly that type of fantasy. What else is Beverly Hills 90210, Melrose Place, Dawson’s Creek, the OC, Friends, etc, etc, etc. It is exactly good fornicators vs bad fornicators, and the fornication itself is never condemned, only if you do it the “bad” way.

As a culture we are obsessed with physical danger and indifferent to spiritual danger. The spiritual dangers of life are just as real and in fact more dangerous.

Pax Christi

 

[Baelor]

There are a LOT of good vs. evil stories out there… but good vs. evil as a theme does NOT equate to a Christian allegory. In fact, a lot of the themes therein are secular humanist in nature (and, I argue, so is Harry Potter).

Harry Potter’s status aside, when did it become necessary for literature to be Christian allegory? When did it even become beneficial? Perhaps for children this would be appropriate if a discussion of Jesus’ sacrifice ensued, but I do not see why some literature should be dismissed simply because it is not Christian allegory.

As to there not being anything of the occult in it, yes there is… you just aren’t aware of the proper idea of what the occult is.

Read what the Church has to say about the occult in Her official teaching. It is clear that Harry Potter does not apply. It is clear that

The occult is the idea that there is a neutral power source other than God’s grace or the demons, and that one can tap into this neutral power source to activate power for onesself.

That is not true, and far too broad (the second leads to the first). Wind is a natural power source that we tap into to active power for ourselves. You will need to be far more specific.

That, at it’s root core, is the falsity of the occult… because there is ONLY God’s grace, or evil. The idea that the hero and the villain both draw from the same power, and it is only how we choose to use that power is objectively wrong because there is no such thing.

God does not make kitchen knives, or buildings, or books. We do, one hopes with His help. But regardless, they are neutral objects that can be used for good or evil. Similarly, we can use wind power for good or evil. Again, more specificity is needed.

In the Harry Potter books, the “good guys” lives are centered around witchcraft, which is an evil pursuit.

Do not call it witchcraft and then say that it compares to witchcraft in the real world. It is as comparable as faster-than-light travel in Battlestar Galactica is to witchcraft in this world – it is an inherent part of the nature and physics of Rowling’s creation.

In Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture Michael D. OBrien makes the point would parents allow their children to read a series of books about “good fornicators” battling against “bad fornicators” as long as the “good” ones had some redeeming qualities?

Would you rather the bad fornicators win?

 

[Dan_Daly]

The point is fornication is bad. Period. There is no such thing as “good fornication”, just as there is no such thing as “good witchcraft”. Asking “would you rather the bad fornicators win?” puts forward a false choice along the lines of “what? Do you want abortion to be illegal and women get hurt in the back alley?”

The main problem with Harry Potter is not the portrayal of the villians. It is the so-called heroes.

Heroes don’t have to be perfect. However, a “good guy” can’t be good if the means of his triumph are evil. This reality is one of the central themes of Lord of the Rings: attempting to fight evil with evil only leads to self destruction.

Pax

 

[Baelor]

The point is fornication is bad. Period. There is no such thing as “good fornication”, just as there is no such thing as “good witchcraft”

Then you are not describing the witchcraft in HP, period. It is not real-life witchcraft. It is like gravity, or the sun, or the ocean – part of the fabric of the world. Saying that it is occult witchcraft does not even make sense as a concept. It would be like saying that air in HP is bad.

Asking “would you rather the bad fornicators win?” puts forward a false choice along the lines of “what? Do you want abortion to be illegal and women get hurt in the back alley?”

Not at all. The author is not obligated to present any particular character in any particular way for the book to be good or worth reading. So the above situation is not loaded – you must make a decision based on what the author provides.

Heroes don’t have to be perfect. However, a “good guy” can’t be good if the means of his triumph are evil. This reality is one of the central themes of Lord of the Rings: attempting to fight evil with evil only leads to self destruction.

HP’s triumph is not evil, see above. And there need not be good guys in a book for it to be a good book.

 

[Catholic90]

Some people have a difficult time telling fantasy fIction from reality. Most kids handle telling the difference just fine.

HP witchcraft has as much in common with the occult and real witchcraft as a dog’s eyelash has in common with freezing peas.

 

[styrgwillidar]

In the Harry Potter books, the “good guys” lives are centered around witchcraft, which is an evil pursuit.

No. Rowlings story is an alternate universe where some people have the ability to perform magic. It is innate, not from some outside power source or entity.

Now, all “good guys” can have faults, but they should succeed inspite of faults, not because of them. The “good” magic isn’t even considered a fault, it’s an asset.

The magic is good or bad in terms of how the person chooses to use magic. It is the moral choice made of the use of their innate ability.

If “there is some good in it” is the standard for what we accept, then we will accept everything and anything. Hitler was a good speaker. Attila the Hun was a good strategist. Margaret Sanger knew how to organize. As well as being an opponent of abortion. So? Are they role models for our children?

In Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture Michael D. OBrien makes the point would parents allow their children to read a series of books about “good fornicators” battling against “bad fornicators” as long as the “good” ones had some redeeming qualities?

Which is quite silly actually. Because Rowlings has set up magic as an innate ability, similar to the ability to have sex. So the analogy is actually more akin to people who choose to exercise their ability to have sex morally within the confines of marriage battling against fornicators.

As a culture we are obsessed with physical danger and indifferent to spiritual danger. The spiritual dangers of life are just as real and in fact more dangerous.
Which is why I find it fascinating that people can be so opposed to a children’s book which does in fact make the point that spiritual dangers or far more significant than physical. That the damage one does to the soul in this life is far more devastating than anything else. Again, that whether a person wins or loses, succeeds or fails in this life is inconsequential, that what is actually important is our eternal fate.

Pax Christi

Pax Christi to you as well. I’m going to duck out of the conversation now as this has all been hashed out many times before in prior threads. Some of them are quite a good read. You can even find where I see the major moral flaw-- which has nothing to do with magic or witchcraft but with the responsibility of a leader for the safety of those he is responsible for, and modern misconceptions of combat.

As to the OP, if you have concerns- read the books with your children. I don’t recommend the movies as I don’t see some of the points coming out as strongly.

 

[Luna_Lovecraft]

And yet another CAF thread has proven Godwin’s Law. :extrahappy:

Luna

 

[angierabbit2012]

Can I share your popcorn while we watch this together?! hehehe!!!

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m sorry, outside of the themes of good vs evil, someone dying and coming back, and look out for your friends, there’s not much Christian here. The story is secular humanist to the core, and even those three things mentioned above could just as easily be attributed to pagan mythology, etc.

Nope, you’re mistaken; I promise. Here are some examples why:

Structure and Imagery: Every novel’s plot is structured around the Paschal Mystery, and the climax of each book, in terms of imagery, contains at least one Christ symbol. Now, you might say that surrender to death leading to resurrection could be pagan as well as Christian, but let’s be honest: these are very British books (British boarding school type of genre, etc.), and thus their inherent Christianity does indeed shine out conspicuously: from the fact that Christmas and Easter are celebrated at Hogwarts, to the fact that Harry has godparents, to the fact that these themes of death and goodness are expressed in the final book as Biblical quotes on tombstones…

Furthermore, many structures borrowed from Christian literature or theology pervade the series. The end of Chamber of Secrets, for instance, is a medieval morality play. Voldemort’s evil rejuvenation ceremony at the climax of Goblet of Fire specifically inverts Christian Sacraments - not made-up pagan rituals - to aesthetically establish its evil (i.e. reverse baptism (new–>old), flesh and blood unwillingly given, etc.)

Thematically: This is sort of intrinsic to what I said above, but the theme of death, the series’ most prominent, is often overlooked, and the way it plays out, especially in Deathly Hallows, is conspicuously Christian.

For a more detailed outline of the Christian structure and imagery of each novel, please see this post of mine from a previous Harry Potter thread.

As to there not being anything of the occult in it, yes there is… you just aren’t aware of the proper idea of what the occult is. The occult is the idea that there is a neutral power source other than God’s grace or the demons, and that one can tap into this neutral power source to activate power for onesself. That, at it’s root core, is the falsity of the occult… because there is ONLY God’s grace, or evil. The idea that the hero and the villain both draw from the same power, and it is only how we choose to use that power is objectively wrong because there is no such thing.

The reason it’s wrong is because, as you say, in real life any occult power must be obtained supernaturally - and only evil spirits would grant such powers, since God has forbidden them.

But the “magical” powers in Harry Potter aren’t supernatural or preternatural at all. They are not even “obtained” - so there is no “neutral power source.” Rowling’s “magic” takes the form of purely natural - and therefore inherently non-occultic - inborn abilities of a subspecies of the human race. It’s literally no more “magic” than the supposed “magic” of Tolkien’s elves, whose abilities that seem like magic to non-elves are actually purely natural inborn abilities.

If they obtained their power from some kind of source (“neutral” or not), Muggles would be able to do so as well. They categorically cannot.

Add to that the fact that Harry Potter magic is also aesthetically distinct from real occult practices in how overtly, over-the-top fantastical it is, and you’ve got no danger whatsoever of luring someone into the occult.

This is why I advocate DISCUSSING with children while they read it… so that they understand that there is ONLY grace and nothing else that can righteously afford us anything, and that the idea of magic as a neutral “third source” is fiction.

Oh, I’m all for discussing it with children when they read it. But an eleven-year-old is not going to need help to understand that there is no actual subspecies of the human race with these kind of natural abilities. That’s clearly made up and has no structural or aesthetic similarity to the kind of practices the Church warns us against.

I don’t think that one should let a child read Narnia without discussing it closely as well, and I’m not opposed to them reading pagan mythology or Harry Potter as well, provided that there is discussion and guidance involved.

I’m all for discussing with one’s children what they read as well.

if you’d read the whole chronicles, you would know this

There’s no need to be snide. I have read them.

HOWEVER, if your objection were sound, then we would have a problem with calling the days of the week what we do as well…

I agree. That’s why I find my position most consistent: I don’t have a problem with Harry Potter, Narnia, their use of pagan mythology, or our names for the days of the week.

The only appearance of the ACTUAL occult in the series is on an island, where special warning is given NOT to engage in trying to use “third party powers” and when the child does, the result is bad news for them.

Lucy in Dawn Treader, right?

If you’ll remember, she actually does cast two spells from the star-magician’s spell book: one to reveal the dufflypod thingies (I forget what they’re called), and one to eavesdrop on her friends.

The former use of the book’s magic is portrayed as unequivocally praiseworthy (Aslan even states that some of this magic binds him). The latter (the eavesdropping spell) is portrayed as immoral for Lucy to have done, but only because it constitutes an unjust invasion of her friends’ privacy.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You’ll kindly note that the Pevensies salvation from situations CONSTANTLY relies on the God character in the book… and before you say it, Harry Potter is NOT a christian “God character”

Once again permit me to direct you to this little outline I put together.** Harry’s victories never come from his own magical skill or power - which is inferior to most of the bad guys’ - but rather from the fact that his heroic virtues supernaturally call to his assistance various Christ figures that strengthen him to overcome evil.**

Any attempt to obtain superior power from an outside source is portrayed throughout the series as a dangerous temptation or downright evil.

Great point.

I would also quibble about the phrase “neutral power source.” This phrase could also let people reject science and technology as a neutral power source. The thing with the occult is that power either comes from God or from Satan, thus occult power is not a neutral power source but rather an evil source.

Well said.

The books specifically show the evil character’s excessive love of the material world and earthly life through his literal attachment of portions of his soul to things of this world. Each of those things representing something people over value-- for example the diary with unwritten pages being those who foolishly concentrate on the possible future life in this world instead of their eternal life, a snake representing those who over emphasize nature, a tiara inscribed with ‘wit beyond measure is man’s greatest treasure’ those who over-value human wisdom. How each is destroyed and by who is also symbolic.

Note, whether the hero wins or loses in this world is shown to be irrelevant. The real loss is that of the evil character’s fate in the next.

Again, I fail to see how a children’s story which shows the folly of attachment to things of this world is primarily secular.

Excellent points!

In the Harry Potter books, the “good guys” lives are centered around witchcraft, which is an evil pursuit.

No, they’re not centered around witchcraft. The series portrays no witchcraft whatsoever.

As Baelor said a few posts ago:

"Do not call it witchcraft and then say that it compares to witchcraft in the real world. It is as comparable as faster-than-light travel in Battlestar Galactica is to witchcraft in this world – it is an inherent part of the nature and physics of Rowling’s creation."

The last several replies on the previous page identify quite clearly why Rowling’s “magic” is totally dissimilar, qualitatively and aesthetically, to any real occult practices.

In Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture Michael D. OBrien makes the point would parents allow their children to read a series of books about “good fornicators” battling against “bad fornicators” as long as the “good” ones had some redeeming qualities?

And the flaw in this point is that the good and bad guys in Harry Potter do not practice witchcraft; what they call magic is a set of purely natural inborn abilities of their subspecies, abilities which are intrinsically non-transferable to the non-magical population (us).

 

[Luvz2travel]

We have not had one on here for what…a month maybe?

I guess she thought it was time.

Why, I don’t know.

Just how many times can the horse be beaten to death? In fact, I think this is all that is left of the horse:

http://images-en.busytrade.com/62691600/HORSE-HIDE-.jpg

It is almost ready to be made into this:

http://hondoboots.com/hondo/catalog/medium/08.jpg

and this:

http://images-cdn.ecwid.com/images/362020/9863641.jpg

Right on…

 

[promethius]

Oh, I’m all for discussing it with children when they read it. But an eleven-year-old is not going to need help to understand that there is no actual subspecies of the human race with these kind of natural abilities. That’s clearly made up and has no structural or aesthetic similarity to the kind of practices the Church warns us against.

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry, it’s these reasons that I can never take these sorts of conversations seriously. HP fanatics are so fanatical that you can’t even suggest that the series is good but warrants discussion without them going overboard.

And then they do things like assert that eleven year olds are not going to need help to understand a subject like some of the complex issues that books like HP, Chronicles, etc are going to bring up… yeah… right…

News flash, eleven year olds don’t even BEGIN to understand the complex theological issues we’re touching on here, and they shouldn’t be abandoned at such a young age to a lack of parental guidance in media. In fact, the conversation to go with HP should be DUMBED DOWN for an eleven year old, and I would say warrants continuing discussion for children even through their teens.

So, rehash:

1. I like Harry Potter, I think it’s a good read, and I think that children who have reached the age of reason should be allowed to read it
2. I think parents should discuss the HP series, as they should discuss ANY book their child reads, with these children.
3. There ARE themes to warn children away from in HP, just as there are in almost ANY book to be read (even the bible can be taken the wrong way, just ask the heretics of years past!)
4. I’m done with this conversation, because obviously people take their fandom too far.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Emphasis mine.

I’m sorry, it’s these reasons that I can never take these sorts of conversations seriously. HP fanatics are so fanatical that you can’t even suggest that the series is good but warrants discussion without them going overboard.

Take a deep breath. Relax. There’s no reason to spaz. I think there’s at least one morally dubious portrayal in the series - the euthanizing of Albus Dumbledore. It at least “warrants discussion,” so I promise you I don’t view this series through rose-tinted glasses.

What I said is not fanatical in the slightest - it’s simply true. An eleven-year-old is not going to believe there is anything real about, say, a half-giant hiding a broken stick with unicorn hair or dragon heartstring in it in an umbrella, pointing it at an obnoxious bully’s pants, and causing him to instantaneously grow a pig’s tail. Or evading a dragon on a flying broomstick. Or growing magic gills temporarily from eating a weird plant.

And that is what magic in Harry Potter is consistently like, as you well know. To argue that portrayals of these things might “confuse” a child or desensitize them to witchcraft is a patently absurd argument, and it receives consistent ridicule not because HP fans are “fanatics” but because of the tenacious absurdity of the very suggestion.

News flash, eleven year olds don’t even BEGIN to understand the complex theological issues we’re touching on here, and they shouldn’t be abandoned at such a young age to a lack of parental guidance in media.

I’m not advocating any such abandonment. That would be a bad thing indeed. In fact, a series like Harry Potter is a great one with which to discuss serious spiritual and moral issues with children.

1. I like Harry Potter, I think it’s a good read, and I think that children who have reached the age of reason should be allowed to read it
2. I think parents should discuss the HP series, as they should discuss ANY book their child reads, with these children.

No argument from me on those.

1. There ARE themes to warn children away from in HP, just as there are in almost ANY book to be read (even the bible can be taken the wrong way, just ask the heretics of years past!)

I suppose, but that just shows how absolutely goofy it is the way Harry Potter is singled out.

1. I’m done with this conversation, because obviously people take their fandom too far.

Nothing we have said is reducible to or displays signs of rabid fandom.

 

[Cassie26]

The first books of the Cherub series are good. There is some strong language in the later books, though, but mostly used for teasing amongst friends, which I think is MUCH more acceptable than Dobby hitting himself in Harry Potter, which scarred me when I read it.
I wouldn’t show the Harry Potter movies to an adult, let alone a child. Cherub talks about young orphans being rescued by a secret organization who fights traffickers and even a sect in one of the latest books. It doesn’t contain Christian themes per se, but it opposes sects (obviously), animal cruelty, and evil in general. Sex is also forbidden inside the Cherub camp.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

As to there not being anything of the occult in it, yes there is… you just aren’t aware of the proper idea of what the occult is. The occult is the idea that there is a neutral power source other than God’s grace or the demons, and that one can tap into this neutral power source to activate power for onesself. That, at it’s root core, is the falsity of the occult… because there is ONLY God’s grace, or evil. The idea that the hero and the villain both draw from the same power, and it is only how we choose to use that power is objectively wrong because there is no such thing.

I’m sorry but by following this logic, using electricity is wrong/occult (electrical power easily qualifies as a neutral power). Both good people and bad people use it and its applications to wondrous effect.

The same could also be said for… nuclear energy, solar energy, and even steam energy.

The same erroneous logic could also enable one to accuse mutants in superhero fiction of being occult because they draw their power from something neutral as well.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Oh gosh not another HP thread! :nope:

I swear, when I read the thread title, I was going “Naw, naw, naw, oh HECK NAW!!! DX I am NOT tolerating another thread on this subject again unless from the start, I will barrage/overload it with my own fantasy geekiness!!! Thread, prepare for a full taste of a dragon’s rage!!! D8< breathes multi-elemental fire”

There is very good reason to be concerned.

Seeing as how the anti-Potter camp has never much reason to begin with, that statement is not as reassuring as you imply.

I’ll second the suggestion to read “A Landcape with Dragons” by Michael D. O’Brien. He also has a newer book out called “Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture” that touches directly on Potter, Twilight, Golden Compass, and some other more current books with occult, anti-Christian messages.

O’Brien’s a quack literary analyst who’d fire upon even superheroes for practicing witchcraft purely on the grounds that they draw power that was ‘reserved’ for God. I don’t need to waste my time reading his books. Just his commentary on that anti-Potter episode of Women of Grace disgusted me as a graduate of literature, a Catholic, and a person with a decent amount of down-to-earth common sense.

It is hard to find good fiction. A suggestion I’d give would be to get some more books on lives of the saints. There is excitement, peril, miracles, and the best part…it’s true!

I’ve read those books. They’re an eye-rolling read read comparable to Twilight actually. They’re good for informing children about the faith.

As literature, they fail absolutely.

Excitement?
Peril?

HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! XD

Oh yes, hiding from French revolutionaries and soldiers is very perilous. Not exciting though.

On the other hand, fighting a boss-sized monster alongside quirky allies is not only perilous and exciting, it’s an excellent way to bond.

In the Harry Potter books, the “good guys” lives are centered around witchcraft, which is an evil pursuit.

The point is fornication is bad. Period. There is no such thing as “good fornication”, just as there is no such thing as “good witchcraft”.

Real witchcraft =/= Fantasy magic.

How many times must we all go over this so simple formula? -_-;;

As a culture we are obsessed with physical danger and indifferent to spiritual danger. The spiritual dangers of life are just as real and in fact more dangerous.

I have yet to experience ANY danger (spiritual or physical) from pretending to send armies of undead to my opponent via trading cards.

I have yet to experience ANY danger (spiritual or physical) from pretending to enlighten my sister in the ways of spell replication via teaching her some mechanics on how to copy a cast card against me.

on a kitchen table in the suburbs

Me: You don’t know why people are afraid of that card? It copies instants and sorceries! Twice! >_>

Sister: Bu-but I don’t know how to use it. D:

Me: sighs Okay, it’s like this. I’ll cast this little sorcery and you activate the card’s mmkay? puts card on table There, I know have two 2/2 zombie tokens.

Sister: activates copy card’s effect twice There, now what?

Me: Congratulations, you know have four zombie tokens.

Sister: Oh! then realizes that she’s got walking corpses on her side Ew. -.-

Anyone see any danger?

Me neither.

The first books of the Cherub series are good. There is some strong language in the later books, though, but mostly used for teasing amongst friends, which I think is MUCH more acceptable than Dobby hitting himself in Harry Potter, which scarred me when I read it.
I wouldn’t show the Harry Potter movies to an adult, let alone a child. Cherub talks about young orphans being rescued by a secret organization who fights traffickers and even a sect in one of the latest books. It doesn’t contain Christian themes per se, but it opposes sects (obviously), animal cruelty, and evil in general. Sex is also forbidden inside the Cherub camp.

googles

Super spy orphans? Meh, definitely not my favorite genre. Give me elves, medieval landscapes, and big boom spells any day.

elf-obsessed brother comes in

Brother: Hmph! We elves are not so easily drawn to lesser races. :dts:

holds fist full of dragonfire to his face I’m sorry, what did you say? -_-

Brother: Your threats don’t intimidate me dragon mage! D8<

tentacle-like hair wraps around Brother’s neck

Sister: Sea-folk aren’t one of those ‘lesser races’ are they? ):<

Brother: Ah, the joys of having a sea-witch for a sister and dragon mage for a brother. Some fantasy family we make huh? -.-

 

[promethius]

I’m sorry but by following this logic, using electricity is wrong/occult (electrical power easily qualifies as a neutral power). Both good people and bad people use it and its applications to wondrous effect.

The same could also be said for… nuclear energy, solar energy, and even steam energy.

The same erroneous logic could also enable one to accuse mutants in superhero fiction of being occult because they draw their power from something neutral as well.

Not my definition:

Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion

But I should have figured that HP fans and the internet would combine to twist even Catholic definitions to something they obviously don’t mean. Again, this is why I am exiting this conversation… because it’s impossible to carry on a proper discourse on the subject when these sorts of tactics are used.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

But I should have figured that HP fans and the internet would combine to twist even Catholic definitions to something they obviously don’t mean. Again, this is why I am exiting this conversation… because it’s impossible to carry on a proper discourse on the subject when these sorts of tactics are used.

You’re the one twisting the Catholic church’s teachings into saying things that it doesn’t say. Again, following your twist, the Church should be condemning the use of electricity as ‘magic’.

Why aren’t you Amish?

You cry foul and dishonesty yet can’t see it in yourself?