Man from ministry bans Potter

[Brendan]

Dont you recal his motto was "rob from the rich and give to the poor.? Besides under the principal of the double effect harry was OK in robbing the vault as he intent was to free a blind Dragon and recover stolen property.

The Church’s teaching on the subject is pretty clear, that theft for the sake of survival is only permissable when all other means have been examined.

The stories are rather unclear as to what other means might have been available to a dispossessed landowner. There is clerical representation on the Earl of Locksley’s band, who would be familar with the Church’s teaching on the matter. (Which is a distinct difference to Harry)

So there is that matter of the lack of intrinsic evil that Robin enacts, with a case (abiet not proven) that the Church’s teaching on the Universal destinatiuon of goods is being followed (see CCC 2403 and 2408).

hary, on the other hand, DOES commit an intrinsicaly evil act, he tortures someone.

 

[estesbob]

The Church’s teaching on the subject is pretty clear, that theft for the sake of survival is only permissable when all other means have been examined.

The stories are rather unclear as to what other means might have been available to a dispossessed landowner. There is clerical representation on the Earl of Locksley’s band, who would be familar with the Church’s teaching on the matter. (Which is a distinct difference to Harry)

So there is that matter of the lack of intrinsic evil that Robin enacts, with a case (abiet not proven) that the Church’s teaching on the Universal destinatiuon of goods is being followed (see CCC 2403 and 2408).

hary, on the other hand, DOES commit an intrinsicaly evil act, he tortures someone.

As opposeed to a lion ripping a women to shreds and childeren commiting mass murder-all in a fantasy book you recommend(The Lion , the Witch and the Wardrobe). I guess if Rowling declares Harry was a Christ figure everything he did would be OK as you appear to accept killing in books only if its done by a deity

 

[Nohome]

I believe everything and every ones position is clear.

Can’t disagree with you there.

Could this book lead others to experiment with this stuff? I don’t know.

Based on my experience with my daughter and her friends, no. They like the books, but they clearly understand the difference between fact and fantasy.

One more incident in the series which surprisingly no one has mentioned, Mrs. Weasley upon learning her family is safe says “Thank God”. It strikes me that no one comments on it because this is regarded as a line we say all the time without really meaning it.

Sort of like when I say “holy mackeral” you all know I’m not into fish worship.

To sum it up. This is not a book for children. The priest was right in pulling it from the library. Parents should be vigilant in the education of their children.

To sum it up, I think they are great books for kids. The priest was within his rights to pull the books, but I disagree with his actions. I agree parents must be vigilant in their children’s education. The only reason I read the books is because I needed to know the content in advance of my child reading them. I enjoyed them and so did she.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

hary, on the other hand, DOES commit an intrinsicaly evil act, he tortures someone.

So, are you suggesting that children’s books must be void of all intrinsically evil acts? You seem to be hung up on this torture thing, if it were edited from the book would you allow kids to read them?

You are welcome to your own opinions, but your arguments here have been extremely weak. One objection, torture.

Nohome

 

[Nohome]

So Brendan, is it your belief that all children’s books need to be sanitized and void of reality?

Nohome

Brendan, I’m still waiting for your comments on this question.

Nohome

 

[estesbob]

Brendan, I’m still waiting for your comments on this question.

Nohome

As long past the one doing the intrinsically evil thing is supposed to represent Christ it appears to be okay. At least that’s my take on why he thinks the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe are great books for children and Harry Potter is not

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

The difference is that in the Lord of the Rings, the greatest strenght does not reside in magical creatures, but in the lowest of the low, hobbits.
LotR is simply a different story. I only used it as comparison because both stories contain magic.

The Harry Potter books fall for one of the oldest of the heresies, Gnosticism.

In Gnosticism, only those who were ‘in’ on the secret Knowledge (hence the name Gnosis - Greek for Knowledge) could lead or have power. One could not aquire this on their own, but had to be born into it.

Harry Potter is much the same, only those who were born or Wizards\Witches could weild true power. ‘Muggles’ are entirely outside the picture. “Squibs” are to be looked down upon.
No, wrong. The “good guys” all talk about how Muggles and Squibs should NOT be looked down upon. The people that look down upon them are the “bad guy” characters. The comparison to Gnosticism is laughable. Something that is, in this story, a biological thing (being born with magic) is not the same as keeping some secret knowledge and refusing to teach it to those who are not “worthy”. In HP, people that aren’t born with magic simply can’t do magic; it’s not that they’re kept out, they don’t have the capability to do it.

Power is something to advance to, even for Harry.

In the Lord of the Rings, power is completely secondary to being pure hearted. The powerful are undone simply by the hero being of pure heart and performing acts of Mercy.

Contrast this to H.P., where even Harry justifies using the Cruciatus Curse; indicating that the ends somehow justifiy the means, completely contrary to Christian morality.

Harry tried using that curse on Bellatrix Lestrange;. Does anyone think that inflicting torture on someone is somehow justified? Is that something that our children should be taught to sympathize with? “Well gee, Bellatrix is really bad, she killed my godfather, so it’s OK to try and torture her”
It shows that Harry let his anger get the best of him. Bellatrix even said that the reason it didn’t work was that he wasn’t committed to causing someone pain. How many times do we let our anger get the best of us? Are all “good guy” characters supposed to be perfect?

And then he used it again on Carrow, why? Because he spat at Professor McGonagall, ah yes, there’s a great example of when to torture a person

When exactly does one see Frodo or Samwise trying to torture someone? He had more reason to rake Wormtoungue over red hot coals after the cleansing of the Shire than Harry ever did to Cruciatiate Carrow. But did he?

Which is the greater example of Christian behavior? ( I’ll give you a hint, it was the one writtten by the father of a priest )

I never said that HP was a better example of Christian behavior. That last paragraph is a strawman because that wasn’t something that I was arguing.