F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Okay, this is just too fun now. Here’s another example. Start from 1:10 and once again ask yourselves if this is even remotely real.
- Status
)
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Oh, not at all, friend! In all honesty, it’s really I who am taking a leaf out of your book; the only difference being you’ve done this with pictures.
S
Samson33
Guest
I’m part Japanese so no disrespect with this question, but why is everything from japan totally insane?
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Hehe. It does tell you something these people expect us to take them seriously when they don’t do the same for our visual examples.Oh, not at all, friend! In all honesty, it’s really I who am taking a leaf out of your book; the only difference being you’ve done this with pictures.
It’s almost like they are so steeped in the whole ‘spiritual warfare’ mania that they’ve lost touch with how popular imagination works.
Insane? No, not insane.
Just imaginaaaaaation.
S
Samson33
Guest
Have you ever played Final Fantasy 7? That video reminds me of the Knights of the Round Table or supernova(move by sephiroth). They totally went overkill :clapping: very funny
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
Short jump? How so? Have you actually taken to measure?
Ouija boards involve asking something invisible (an imaginary one for all we know) to control our hands. You call that fun?
No, what’s fun is torching an entire mob of zombies with an outpour of flames. What’s fun is summoning a squadron of dragons to rain down on an army of trolls. What’s fun is destabilizing a magitek construct and watching it blow up all things in its vicinity.
That is fun. Not moving your hand like an idiot over some scribble board. Frankly, if ever have kids and they asked me to teach 'em a game, I would be more than happy to pass on the legacy that is my hobby.
I’d like to see superstitious gypsy ladies and bruhas beat that.
Would you like them to fly sacramentals as if they were action figures too? You do know that such is sacrilegious (particularly among the Traditionalist crowd that Portrait subscribes to)?
As for lives of the saints, I’ve read a few. I find their literary merit extremely lacking. The prose sounds either juvenile or insulting to my intelligence. There is so much moralizing but not enough spice. Blegh.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I wish!Have you ever played Final Fantasy 7? That video reminds me of the Knights of the Round Table or supernova(move by sephiroth). They totally went overkill :clapping: very funny
(And yes, I say this as someone who still drinks and eats the spin-offs despite that).I’m more of a Bahamut person though.
S
Samson33
Guest
Yeah I only played 1,7 and 10. I can’t imagine playing spin off for a game I have never even played. If you have a PS2 though you should spend the extra money one a 25 dollar greatest hits version. Its totally worth it. I can safely say FF7 is the best video game ever made. Best story, best characters, best music, best monsters, best limit breaks, just best everything.I wish!
I’m more of a Bahamut person though.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
???
(Sorry I’m late to the party…) In all these threads on HP, the focus seems to be on everything except what the books are about. Rowlings herself said death, that the end of this life isn’t our ultimate end but our entry into the next.
The whole point and climax of HP is the mangled soul of Tom Riddle. Anyone citing this being connected in any way to abortion has absolutely no understanding of the books. Rowlings point in the whole series is summarized by showing us Tom Riddle’s condition in the next life, the result of his fear of death and love of earthly life leading him to attach his soul— literally-- to things of this world. Each of them symbolic of things folks become too attached to, that they allow to lead them away from God and their ultimate condition in the next life as determined by their choices in this one. Rowlings also makes some points in how those items are destroyed and by whom. (Contemplate the tiara Riddle attaches a portion of his soul to, engraved with the phrase “Wit Beyond Measure is Man’s Greatest Treasure”, and is destroyed by a force unleashed by one of his allies that he can’t understand or control.)
And note, Rowlings indicates emphatically that no magic or ritual can save Tom Riddle. Only true and very painful remorse, a choice by him and only him to realize the enormity of his evil and regret it.
Didn’t Jesus Himself say, (sorry too lazy this morning to get the quotes).
I teach 7th and 8th grade CCD and have found the series useful in teaching because so many kids are familiar with it. Which goes back to much of what an audience gets out of a work is predicated by their disposition going into it. Parents, teach your children well.
(Sorry I’m late to the party…) In all these threads on HP, the focus seems to be on everything except what the books are about. Rowlings herself said death, that the end of this life isn’t our ultimate end but our entry into the next.
The whole point and climax of HP is the mangled soul of Tom Riddle. Anyone citing this being connected in any way to abortion has absolutely no understanding of the books. Rowlings point in the whole series is summarized by showing us Tom Riddle’s condition in the next life, the result of his fear of death and love of earthly life leading him to attach his soul— literally-- to things of this world. Each of them symbolic of things folks become too attached to, that they allow to lead them away from God and their ultimate condition in the next life as determined by their choices in this one. Rowlings also makes some points in how those items are destroyed and by whom. (Contemplate the tiara Riddle attaches a portion of his soul to, engraved with the phrase “Wit Beyond Measure is Man’s Greatest Treasure”, and is destroyed by a force unleashed by one of his allies that he can’t understand or control.)
And note, Rowlings indicates emphatically that no magic or ritual can save Tom Riddle. Only true and very painful remorse, a choice by him and only him to realize the enormity of his evil and regret it.
Didn’t Jesus Himself say, (sorry too lazy this morning to get the quotes).
- Whoever loves his life will lose it?
- What profits a man to gain the world if he loses his soul?
- No greater love has a man then to lay down his life for his friends.
I teach 7th and 8th grade CCD and have found the series useful in teaching because so many kids are familiar with it. Which goes back to much of what an audience gets out of a work is predicated by their disposition going into it. Parents, teach your children well.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Thanks for separating out the pagan god use, just was referring in general to the works which Portrait cites and the elements acceptable in them while objecting to similar things in HP. As you point out, Sauron and Morgoth (and if I remember correctly the elves) are similar to HP in that magic is not occult like (appeal to and use of powers from an external source) but a natural innate ability.
I do not recall either Narnia or LOTR showing us what any of the characters disposition will be after death. Which is why I think HP is more overt, but its been awhile since I read either LOTR or Narnia.
I do not recall either Narnia or LOTR showing us what any of the characters disposition will be after death. Which is why I think HP is more overt, but its been awhile since I read either LOTR or Narnia.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
From my own perspective, I would think that the concepts you cited are not easily perceived as “Christian” compared to being more universal to the modern reader. We all know that Voldemort’s flavor of killing is bad. We all know that what he did to his own soul was more or less gruesome. Such is a tenet of Christianity but surprisingly, it’s something even non-Christians can grasp and agree with.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Yes, many values are common across religions. The concept of a soul, the idea of justice being dispensed/achieved not in this life but the next, certain acts are evil, virtue in sacrifice for others, the nobility and power for good of love, etc. But I think the idea of showing damage to one’s soul becoming attached to things of this life is very christian.
I find the most interesting character in the book to be Snape. Although he allies himself with Dumbledore and is a foe of Tom Riddle, at the root of his motivations was his love for one woman. Is Snape truly remorseful over the evil he did while a death-eater? Or simply attaching himself to an enemy of his enemy. If Voldemort had heeded Snape’s request and not killed Lily, would Snape not have turned against Voldemort? Snape isn’t noble nor does he seem to show true affection to anyone. He certainly wasn’t above abusing his position of power to torment Harry, and he’s a master of deception. Supposedly, he’s helping Dumbledore protect HP out of his love for Lily. But, when he learns HP is to be killed anyway, he continues to do his part to oppose Voldemort. So, while his motivation was love towards Lily, and his chosen course to protect her child, he’s given a choice. Allegiance to her by continuing to protect Harry, or assist in arranging Harry’s self-sacrifice to destroy Voldemort. Why does Snape choose? Is it vengeance over love? Has he truly taken on the morality of those who oppose Voldemort, opposition to evil? Does doing good for the wrong reasons still count? (The parable of the two sons. Which one did his father’s will? The one who said yes father, but then didn’t go into the fields. Or the one who said no, but then thought better of it and went?)
He reminds me of this quote from another fantasy series (decidely not a christian allegory)
“In the mirrors of the many judgements, my hands are the color of blood. I am a part of the evil that exists in the world and in Shadow. I sometimes fancy myself an evil which exists to oppose other evils. I destroy Melkins when I find them, and on that Great Day of which prophets speak but in which they do not truly believe, on that day when the world is completely cleansed of evil, then I, too, will go down into darkness, swallowing curses. Perhaps even sooner that that, I now judge. But whatever…Until that time, I shall not wash my hands nor let them hang useless.”
Guns of Avalon, Roger Zelazny (ETA: second book in the Amber series)
What will Snape’s choices result in for eternity? A much more interesting question than over the result of Riddle or Potter’s choices.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Thanks, I need to re-read the series, it’s been a long time.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Well said, all of it. I never realized the irony that you point out of how the diadem horcrux is destroyed.
If Harry Potter has a “message” at all - not that I’m in favor of reducing literature to a message - it would most definitely be “What profits a man to gain the world if he loses his soul?”
G
Gift_from_God
Guest
Rowling isn’t Catholic, but Harry Potter is the most pro-Catholic piece of literature since Lord of the Rings. Harry Potter is a Christ like figure in the novels. There can be political critiques made (especially in Books 5 and 7) but this will focus on religion
I haven’t read the books in a couple of years, so I’m going based on memory
NO SPOILERS
In The Philosopher’s Stone, the main antagonist at the climax of the book takes a stance of moral relativism, believing that there is no good or evil. The series shows that this is not the case.
The Israeli’s thought that God was going to send a great warrior that vanquish their enemies and save them all. Instead, God sends Jesus to save humanity, who was not a warrior but someone who seemed like the everyman. Harry Potter is an everyman through the whole series and he is very humble
Voldemort in a way personifies sin. He shows what sin does to us. Voldemort was once a handsome young man but his sin has deformed him.
In the HP world, there are spells. However, some curses are known as “unforgivable curses” and people who conduct them are sent to prison. Unforgivable curses represent mortal sins. People who perform these curses are sent to Azkaban Prison, which is very much like hell.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
In the first book, Voldemort is defeated through physical contact with Harry Potter. This shows the power of goodness defeating evil
Jesus defeated violence through non-violence and defeated evil. In the final book, Voldemort unleashes his evil at Harry and he absorbs all of it and is killed. However, he comes back to life through the power of love. He then defeats evil by propelling all of its power back at itself, thereby saving everyone
I haven’t read the books in a couple of years, so I’m going based on memory
NO SPOILERS
In The Philosopher’s Stone, the main antagonist at the climax of the book takes a stance of moral relativism, believing that there is no good or evil. The series shows that this is not the case.
The Israeli’s thought that God was going to send a great warrior that vanquish their enemies and save them all. Instead, God sends Jesus to save humanity, who was not a warrior but someone who seemed like the everyman. Harry Potter is an everyman through the whole series and he is very humble
Voldemort in a way personifies sin. He shows what sin does to us. Voldemort was once a handsome young man but his sin has deformed him.
In the HP world, there are spells. However, some curses are known as “unforgivable curses” and people who conduct them are sent to prison. Unforgivable curses represent mortal sins. People who perform these curses are sent to Azkaban Prison, which is very much like hell.
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
In the first book, Voldemort is defeated through physical contact with Harry Potter. This shows the power of goodness defeating evil
Jesus defeated violence through non-violence and defeated evil. In the final book, Voldemort unleashes his evil at Harry and he absorbs all of it and is killed. However, he comes back to life through the power of love. He then defeats evil by propelling all of its power back at itself, thereby saving everyone
R
Razanir
Guest
This forum really needs spoiler tags 
Not really. In Goblet of Fire, Voldemort uses Harry’s blood, which contains Lily’s protection, to come back to life. When Harry turns 17, Lily’s protection IN HARRY expires, but not in Voldemort. So the Harry gets hit with the Killing Curse, which kills the Harrycrux, leaving Voldemort mortal again. But Harry himself survives because Lily’s protection still exists in Voldemort. Or at least that’s how I understood it
MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW
Not really. In Goblet of Fire, Voldemort uses Harry’s blood, which contains Lily’s protection, to come back to life. When Harry turns 17, Lily’s protection IN HARRY expires, but not in Voldemort. So the Harry gets hit with the Killing Curse, which kills the Harrycrux, leaving Voldemort mortal again. But Harry himself survives because Lily’s protection still exists in Voldemort. Or at least that’s how I understood it
I
iheartdance
Guest
I think it IS a bad influence. Even if the child is told that it is a fantasy, it is still harmful. You would not say ‘‘here’s a gun, but don’t shoot people.’’ or ‘‘here’s a drug, but don’t take it.’’ Then why give it to him? I see it just as a bad fantasy book with wizards and witchcraft.
L
Lost_Wanderer
Guest
I guess you must hate LotR and Narnia as well? If not, you are guilty of double standards and I am not sugarcoating that for you or anyone else.
Seriously, is it that hard for you to see the difference between conjuring fire with your bare hands and singing nature-worship songs while dancing in a circle?
I
iheartdance
Guest
Your statement does not make sense to me.
Let’s just say it’s not a very Catholic book and I am proud of my mom for not letting me and my siblings read or watch it. I see no values coming from it.
Let’s just say it’s not a very Catholic book and I am proud of my mom for not letting me and my siblings read or watch it. I see no values coming from it.
- Status