I think that’s correct. The wand had to be won in a duel. Snape didn’t become master of the wand because Dumbledore had already been disarmed by Draco Malfoy. Even though Draco never actually posessed the wand, it switches its allegience to Harry when he disarms Draco of his own wand later in the story.
- The Potter books are not benign regarding “magic” as is the Narnia stories. In Narnia the magic belongs to Aslan and is subject to His authority. *
What about the magician in “The Magician’s Nephew” and the Witch in both that book and “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”? And just as a second point, I read those Narnia books between 8 and 11 years and I didn’t pick up on any of the “Christian” references. I picked up on the standard (Enid Blython type) messages - be honest, brave, don’t tell tales/sneak, bully others etc. And by the way, I was a very religious child also reading lives of saints and a comic style NT very often.
If you’re a parent or even a teacher (as I’m currently considering), then it’s your job to teach them that. If I ever get the guts to be the one lecturing in a classroom, I’d certainly would go to great lengths to place the capacity to read fiction into every child’s mind.
I was only 11-12 years old when I first read Harry Potter and even then I was starting to see a vast discrepancy between fiction and fact. Not just Harry Potter either. When I was even younger and watched the Disney movie Hercules, I was always puzzled by the difference between what I saw in that kiddie-flick and what I found when I began researching actual Greek myth.
I wonder if you’re fully aware of how what you deem ‘occult’ pure, fictionalized fantasy.
If it was an allusion, then it’s a poor one. Then again, I’m talking to an anti-fantasy fanatic. What else is new?
Literary criticism is not the same as morality. Please take a class in the subject like I did. You’re only embarrassing yourself.
The only problem is this isn’t moral relativism. We’re not discussing morality. We’re discussing literary criticism. Take a hike.
That depends on how slow you are in your studies. On the subject of simple, elementary school Theology and catechism, I’m certainly not. Heck the only reason why I’m still spending a little more time in college is cuz I have to clean up a Theology class on the Church and our Sacraments (how I missed taking that class is a long story).
Oh brother, is there any, any anti-Potter person here who is capable of NOT resorting to false dilemmas?
I’ve read the catechism. I can look it up any time as long as I’ve got internet. I have found nothing that opposes fantasy fiction. You think there is?
Of course he can’t. He falls under Entertainment, not Morality or Religion. That doesn’t mean they don’t ALL have a place in the wholeness of a human person. Here’s an excerpt from a book in my library about writing that shall to prove to you the value of fiction.
Words on a page? How about fear of just using the imagination? Honestly, I’d think these people would start burning books on anything from fantasy to ancient mythology and call for the excommunication of Catholic researchers on the subject if they had their way.
Narnia is full of spells too - turning people to stone and such. Personally, I think talking beavers are also much more frightening than talking snakes.What about the magician in “The Magician’s Nephew” and the Witch in both that book and “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”? And just as a second point, I read those Narnia books between 8 and 11 years and I didn’t pick up on any of the “Christian” references. I picked up on the standard (Enid Blython type) messages - be honest, brave, don’t tell tales/sneak, bully others etc. And by the way, I was a very religious child also reading lives of saints and a comic style NT very often.
I have a question:
That is a good point. I read those books as a child and I didn’t conciously pick up on the religious messages either. I didn’t realize them until much later, when they were basically pointed out to me. At any rate, I’m certain that little kids would not be able to pick up they kind of “symbolism” the likes of O’Brian and Wohlberg have fabricated unless they were already well verse in the occult in the first place. (I also wouldn’t recommend these books for children until middle school anyway. The first couple are okay but the others get a little too violent, have some questionable words in them, and once a kids starts reading them, they aren’t going to want to wait a few years to read the rest.)What about the magician in “The Magician’s Nephew” and the Witch in both that book and “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe”? And just as a second point, I read those Narnia books between 8 and 11 years and I didn’t pick up on any of the “Christian” references. I picked up on the standard (Enid Blython type) messages - be honest, brave, don’t tell tales/sneak, bully others etc. And by the way, I was a very religious child also reading lives of saints and a comic style NT very often.
What he said.
And ladies & gentlemen, THAT is how it’s supposed to be: parents/responsible adults making their own decisions – based on actual facts, BTW – as to what their children can read, and at what age. Because all children are different – what one child can safely read at 10, another should wait until 12 or 13.
Good point, in fact if you want to apply the really strict, no bad moral messages rule children couldn’t even read fiction like “Little House on the Praire” - the hero in that series is the BAD girl of the family
and there are lots of scenes where the older sister Mary does the “good thing” and Laura is angry because she is now obliged to do the good thing too. Such bad example!Very good link! I like that it had links to intelligent critiques of Harry Potter rather than essays that were based on untruths.
I just don’t like it because it represented a long-standing double standard in my home growing up and also because my mother loved the books and dressed me in calico jumpers until I was nine. If she’d had her way, I’d have gone around in a prairie bonnet as well. I haven’t any moral objection to it.Good point, in fact if you want to apply the really strict, no bad moral messages rule children couldn’t even read fiction like “Little House on the Praire” - the hero in that series is the BAD girl of the family
Doesn’t this guy realize that he’s the reason for the degeneration of such threads? Honestly, what discussion does not get ugly when one side only replies with really poor answers?Theo,
Please don’t. I am pretty sure this has been debated in at least 6 threads already, many of which were started by you. Maybe it’s time to let the subject go.
No, he doesn’t. By “degraded,” he means that people continue to disagree with him.
There aren’t many people who care to argue the matter who do have this critereia. However, I would also be interested in that discussion taking place. One person did try to post a reasonable objection in another one of these threads, but right before someone else got it shut down and no one got to answer it.Honestly, I don’t really care if people think they’re “bad for Christians”. Bully for them. However, I do get frustrated when they attack the series without-
A) Any knowledge of the books whatsoever
B) “Oh, Harry Potter is bad because it has witchcraft! But LOTR and Narnia are okay!”
If you’re going to go toe-to-toe with me using that issue, you better darn well be able to back it up; otherwise, its just a cop out.
Those are my thoughts, and I’m sticking to them. Of course, these is but my humble opinion. Besides, I’m a Lutheran, so what do I know anyways?
I would be more than happy to have this discussion.
Unfortunatly, I think you and I are on the same page of Harry Potter, so that mythical individual you described in your previous post would have to appear in order for such a discussion to take place. (By this, I mean a person who has read at least some of the story and would like to express concerns based on evidence from the series, not the fabrications of those who use a popular book to sell books of their own.)I would be more than happy to have this discussion.