J
jmcrae
Guest
Rapunzel was locked in a high tower, yet still managed to end up pregnant. (I guess the moral of that story is, “When locking your child away from the world, don’t forget about hair cuts.”)
- Status
M
Mirdath
Guest
Either that or ‘keep an eye out for royal rapists’.
E
estesbob
Guest
However Samson was done in by a haircut. The world is just so full of contradictions…
K
Kuryakyn
Guest
Hmm…somehow this is leading to very odd conclusions…Cut the girls’ hair but let the boys grow theirs long?
I
isaac.madsen
Guest
Just read Isaiah 24: 1 and all of this might begin to make more sense.Hmm…somehow this is leading to very odd conclusions…Cut the girls’ hair but let the boys grow theirs long?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Gee, Bob, that was rather a non-answer earlier.
Are you really seriously arguing that Hermione’s lie is to be EXCUSED --or even more, to be tacitly ‘applauded’ (since another poster found the idea itself ‘applaudable’), on the grounds that she ‘acted like a teenager’?
Is lying ‘normal’ for teens? If so, what does that mean? That we nod, wink, and expect that they’ll magically ‘stop’ when they’re adults? Why would they, if there are no consequences for them lying as (pre) teens (in the first book Hermione has just turned 12).
I’d like to compare The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, as the children are of the same ‘age range’.
What was the consequence of EDMUND’s acting like ‘a teenager’ by being angry at his siblings and casting in his lot with the White Witch? It was pretty severe, wasn’t it?
How about Lucy being, like a normal child, afraid of arguing with her siblings in the second book? Aslan approaches her and lets her know that even though she was afraid to ‘do the right thing’, it would have turned out for good, and because she didn’t, there will be consequences.
Eustace’s greed made him (temporarily) a dragon and the pain of losing that ‘skin’ was nearly unbearable.
Actions had consequences. Even if you might have ‘gotten off’ lightly, someone else could wind up suffering in your place. Showing the reality --and it’s a very “Catholic” reality, after all–made children THINK.
Are you really seriously arguing that Hermione’s lie is to be EXCUSED --or even more, to be tacitly ‘applauded’ (since another poster found the idea itself ‘applaudable’), on the grounds that she ‘acted like a teenager’?
Is lying ‘normal’ for teens? If so, what does that mean? That we nod, wink, and expect that they’ll magically ‘stop’ when they’re adults? Why would they, if there are no consequences for them lying as (pre) teens (in the first book Hermione has just turned 12).
I’d like to compare The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, as the children are of the same ‘age range’.
What was the consequence of EDMUND’s acting like ‘a teenager’ by being angry at his siblings and casting in his lot with the White Witch? It was pretty severe, wasn’t it?
How about Lucy being, like a normal child, afraid of arguing with her siblings in the second book? Aslan approaches her and lets her know that even though she was afraid to ‘do the right thing’, it would have turned out for good, and because she didn’t, there will be consequences.
Eustace’s greed made him (temporarily) a dragon and the pain of losing that ‘skin’ was nearly unbearable.
Actions had consequences. Even if you might have ‘gotten off’ lightly, someone else could wind up suffering in your place. Showing the reality --and it’s a very “Catholic” reality, after all–made children THINK.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Has anyone ever claimed that Harry Potter was supposed to be portraying Catholic values, or Christian values? I don’t recall it, if so. 
T
TheAwesomeOne
Guest
Oh no! More evil books and movies are coming to poison are children! Sound the Estesbob-Signal! :whacky:
I
infabilly
Guest
People whose opinions completely contradict yours will hate this post.
Though I completely agree. My sister would get upset at me watching movies with a sense of humor that she doesn’t like, or music that doesn’t praise the Lord’s name and all. It’s like she thinks it would invite demons/bad vibes in the house.
I like how all the posts get all joke-y after this guys’.
E
estesbob
Guest
Let us look at the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe usng Harry Potter is evil standards:
The book starts with gruesome scenes of the blitz in London.Fou children are caught up in this and are abandoned by their parents, that’s right their parents ship them off to strangers in the country. One can only imagine the terror this causes and children who are led to believe when the going gets rough your parents abandon you.
So the children end up in the country with a mean governess and the standoffish professor. The author fills us with stories about it is OK be disobedient . During one of their illicit games in the part of the house they are forbidden to go into they find a portal into a world of fantasy.
This world is harsh beyond belief. Magic rules. Brother betray their siblings for candy. One little girl is even kidnapped by a half man half horse and given a drug to knock her unconscious. Children can only imagine what happened to this poor child during the time she was unconscious.
In this world the author expresses his hatred of women. Women are either portrayed as young children to be abused or coldhearted witches. The role models in this world are animals. One can only imagine how many children have been killed and maimed approaching what they thought would be friendly animals.
The whole book is based on the premise that the end justifies the means. Accordingly the fact that children ultimately end up hacking characters to death with broadswords and/or beating them to them death with rocks is presented as something good. The lead Character in this bizarre land of magic rips the only adult women in this book to shreds-with his teeth! And as in Harry Potter there are undertones of homosexuality. Just why does the author had the children coming out of the closet at books end?
B
bones_IV
Guest
Our Holy Father was opposed Harry Potter for a reason.
D
deb1
Guest
Lion, Witch and the Wardrobe is from the Narnia series, not Harry Potter.Our Holy Father was opposed Harry Potter for a reason.
E
estesbob
Guest
He would have opposed that too if all he knew about it was a brief letter distorting what the book was about.
D
deb1
Guest
That is where parenting comes in. You read the books yourself and decide if it is good for your children. Parents can have different view on if certain books are good for their children. But in the end each parent has to decide. Not those of us on an internet forum.
E
estesbob
Guest
In my case my daughter recommended the books to me and then I read them. Of course since then i have joined a coven and practice black magic in my basement but that another story…That is where parenting comes in. You read the books yourself and decide if it is good for your children. Parents can have different view on if certain books are good for their children. But in the end each parent has to decide. Not those of us on an internet forum.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
You are MONEY.
D
deb1
Guest
Well, Harry Potter does have some Christian symbolism in them. For example Griffins symbolize that Christ is the incarnate. My oldest son did a report on this for his faith formation so that his group would pick Griffin as part of their name. I can’t remember the exact reason but you can google it. Such information could be given to your daughter on a 'Oh, isn’t this interesting manner." That way you are evangelizing her without her realizing it.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Bob, I’m really surprised at you.
It’s one thing to have a decent discussion. It’s another to take your defense of one book by mocking another author, another story and its characters, and a person who is disagreeing with one PARTICULAR THING which you have still not addressed:
Hermione’s lie to McGonagill and the other teachers in Book 1.
Now, without trying to libel another author whose works have stood the test of time about 6 times longer than Ms. Rowling. . .
Without attempting to use diversionary tactics and going ‘on the offensive’. . .
Without resorting to thinly veiled critiques about me or Mr. Lewis right now–meaning, please do not drag in OTHER PEOPLE’S POSTS to which I myself do not ascribe and never did. . .
Please, kindly address whether Hermione was:
a*. Correct to lie in the circumstance I gave (book 1). If so, why?*
Now, whether or not ‘teens act that way’ (because not just books but entire LIBRARIES could be written on whether that ‘defense’ is admissible for ANYBODY), please tell me:
Was her lying about the circumstances (in order to save Harry and Ron) compatible with any sort of acceptable moral code by which you would yourself live and expect others to abide by?
IOW, whether or not the ‘results’ were ‘good’, do the ‘ends’ (Harry and Ron not being expelled) JUSTIFY THE MEANS??
Totally aside from ANYTHING ELSE about the book–and Bob, I do not find Harry Potter ‘evil’, ‘demonic’, etc., merely a rather promising book done by a reasonably storyteller who unfortunately got too tangled up in minutiae and ultimately too caught up in her own publicity so that the whole series went into a decline and morass):
I feel this early incident with Hermione is an example of why the book will not be a ‘classic’ down the line. Any sort of ‘mythic’ literature, any sort of classic literature, obeys ‘classic’ constraints.
One classic constraint, both Catholic and ‘catholic’, is that the ends do NOT justify the means.
J.K., living in a ‘modern’ society, has both imbibed and put forward this modern, even post-modern, concept whereby the end DOES justify the means. It is a ‘tweaking’ of what is now thought the old, outdated, ‘impossible to live up to’ standards of that earlier age.
In ‘modern’ society, what matters isn’t lying–it’s being caught. If you aren’t caught- you’re golden.
What matters is ‘doing the right thing’ as judged not by some ‘absolute’ or God given standard, but doing the ‘right thing’ as judged by whatever or whoever ‘thinks’ is right for 'that relative time/place/situation/person.
Because this lie ‘saves’ Harry, therefore it is ‘good’. Because Hermione has ‘rejected’ the absolute, and done ‘good’, she is ‘rewarded’ with friendship.
And this ‘lie’ need never have been said --that is the biggest ‘jar’ of the scene.
What if Harry and Ron had come right out and said (Remember, they are only 11 year old boys and Harry in addition has almost no idea of the ‘wizarding’ part of his life as well), “Professor McGonagall, we hurt Hermione’s feelings earlier, we heard where she was, we knew she was in the bathroom and the troll was heading there, and we didn’t think we had time to contact anybody, and we just didn’t think about anything other than finding her and getting her away before the troll came”.
They’d have told the truth. Two panicked youngsters made a mistake by not getting ‘adults’ but the troll was under control and it is quite likely that mercy would have been shown. In any case, telling the truth was the right thing to do.
It’s one thing to have a decent discussion. It’s another to take your defense of one book by mocking another author, another story and its characters, and a person who is disagreeing with one PARTICULAR THING which you have still not addressed:
Hermione’s lie to McGonagill and the other teachers in Book 1.
Now, without trying to libel another author whose works have stood the test of time about 6 times longer than Ms. Rowling. . .
Without attempting to use diversionary tactics and going ‘on the offensive’. . .
Without resorting to thinly veiled critiques about me or Mr. Lewis right now–meaning, please do not drag in OTHER PEOPLE’S POSTS to which I myself do not ascribe and never did. . .
Please, kindly address whether Hermione was:
a*. Correct to lie in the circumstance I gave (book 1). If so, why?*
Now, whether or not ‘teens act that way’ (because not just books but entire LIBRARIES could be written on whether that ‘defense’ is admissible for ANYBODY), please tell me:
Was her lying about the circumstances (in order to save Harry and Ron) compatible with any sort of acceptable moral code by which you would yourself live and expect others to abide by?
IOW, whether or not the ‘results’ were ‘good’, do the ‘ends’ (Harry and Ron not being expelled) JUSTIFY THE MEANS??
Totally aside from ANYTHING ELSE about the book–and Bob, I do not find Harry Potter ‘evil’, ‘demonic’, etc., merely a rather promising book done by a reasonably storyteller who unfortunately got too tangled up in minutiae and ultimately too caught up in her own publicity so that the whole series went into a decline and morass):
I feel this early incident with Hermione is an example of why the book will not be a ‘classic’ down the line. Any sort of ‘mythic’ literature, any sort of classic literature, obeys ‘classic’ constraints.
One classic constraint, both Catholic and ‘catholic’, is that the ends do NOT justify the means.
J.K., living in a ‘modern’ society, has both imbibed and put forward this modern, even post-modern, concept whereby the end DOES justify the means. It is a ‘tweaking’ of what is now thought the old, outdated, ‘impossible to live up to’ standards of that earlier age.
In ‘modern’ society, what matters isn’t lying–it’s being caught. If you aren’t caught- you’re golden.
What matters is ‘doing the right thing’ as judged not by some ‘absolute’ or God given standard, but doing the ‘right thing’ as judged by whatever or whoever ‘thinks’ is right for 'that relative time/place/situation/person.
Because this lie ‘saves’ Harry, therefore it is ‘good’. Because Hermione has ‘rejected’ the absolute, and done ‘good’, she is ‘rewarded’ with friendship.
And this ‘lie’ need never have been said --that is the biggest ‘jar’ of the scene.
What if Harry and Ron had come right out and said (Remember, they are only 11 year old boys and Harry in addition has almost no idea of the ‘wizarding’ part of his life as well), “Professor McGonagall, we hurt Hermione’s feelings earlier, we heard where she was, we knew she was in the bathroom and the troll was heading there, and we didn’t think we had time to contact anybody, and we just didn’t think about anything other than finding her and getting her away before the troll came”.
They’d have told the truth. Two panicked youngsters made a mistake by not getting ‘adults’ but the troll was under control and it is quite likely that mercy would have been shown. In any case, telling the truth was the right thing to do.
E
estesbob
Guest
What you dont seem to understand is that your comments on Harry Potter come across to me the exact same way mine about the Lion , the Withch and the wardrobe do to you. Would you like me to post my Harry Potter standards critique of the Wizard of Oz?
As far as Hemoine goes yes she lied. So what? Did you think Rowling should have had her inflate and float down the block so kids would know they shouldnt lie?
I
infabilly
Guest
He also has a collection of Yu-Gi-Oh cards!
- Status