My neice is playing online games with occult themes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Misguidedyouth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lost_Wanderer said:
As what others said, methinks your daughter needs to realize the big difference between fantasy and reality.

…] I think it would serve you to start first with a down-to-earth perspective. Use science instead and show her why “real” occult for the most part is purely a New Age sham (of course, this is under the assumption that this is what you mean when you said she was getting interested in real occult).
Click to expand...
I agree with LW here, although I do strongly believe you should gently introduce a few Catholic topics into your contact with her. I think talking about the saints might be a good start - they’re great role models for everyone! Best wishes! 👍
 
nahbios said:
I agree with LW here, although I do strongly believe you should gently introduce a few Catholic topics into your contact with her. I think talking about the saints might be a good start - they’re great role models for everyone! Best wishes! 👍
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s that hard to show the difference between fantasy and reality when it comes to the occult.

Seeing as I’m running out of time and need to get ready for school, I hope the differences between these two videos will highlight that great difference.

Fantasy VS Reality
 
 
If her parents are not bothered by it then you need to let it go. She is their daughter and their responsability not yours.
 
brgregmack said:
well… in any case, there’s certainly the possibility of becoming a source of scandal when playing a game like this. Especially when there’s this: google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__5YnNY9i2RU/S-bO-2hnagI/AAAAAAAAACc/CSBk7VopKWE/S1600-R/Picture%2B2010-05-08%2B13-03-23%2Bcopy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thedivinediviner.blogspot.com/2010/09/upcoming-wizard101-movie.html&usg=__Kp6hxPghfmqp5JDJhUXcuIl3w7E=&h=768&w=1024&sz=151&hl=en&start=146&zoom=1&tbnid=-NS8ZLwoWRiggM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=189&ei=r9MDToaXHKvTiALY_ID2DQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwizard101%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1245%26bih%3D784%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=134&vpy=324&dur=220&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=116&ty=81&page=8&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:146
Divination is forbidden.
Click to expand...
YOU do realize the difference between make-believe and fantasy play and the real world, right?

I’ve read all the HP books, seen all the movies, and even played a few of the games. I’m still devoutly Catholic…
 
Catholic90 said:
YOU do realize the difference between make-believe and fantasy play and the real world, right?

I’ve read all the HP books, seen all the movies, and even played a few of the games. I’m still devoutly Catholic…
Click to expand...
I do. Even though WE might be able to separate ourselves from it since we are solid in our faith, there is a possibility that others who are weaker could, as a result of seeing us read HP etc., start sliding into syncretism and religious indifference. This is what St. Paul was talking about when he said that we should not eat meat sacrificed to idols so as not to become a stumbling block for others. We are called to higher standards, and our culture has desensitized us to a lot.
 
brgregmack said:
I do. Even though WE might be able to separate ourselves from it since we are solid in our faith, there is a possibility that others who are weaker could, as a result of seeing us read HP etc., start sliding into syncretism and religious indifference. This is what St. Paul was talking about when he said that we should not eat meat sacrificed to idols so as not to become a stumbling block for others. We are called to higher standards, and our culture has desensitized us to a lot.
Click to expand...
My husband and not only read the entire HP series, we read them to our daughters beginning when the were six, and even then they knew Hogwarts wasn’t real. Poor Little Witch Girl and Neil Gaiman’s The Graveyard Book were next, along with the Narnia series. And now we’re reading them TLOTR. And we play a massive boardgame based on the lore of HP Lovecraft. I don’t think anyone except for some of the fringe around here would consider us religiously indifferent or scandalous.😛

I think there’s long been an adolescent fascination with witchcraft, the devil, and evil in general. In the US I think a lot of it stems from our cultural history of being little settlements surrounded by vast, menacing forests full of Lord knew what. A hundred years ago people were convinced the writings of EA Poe were evil, and 20 years ago man parents were losing their minds over Potter.

But whatever the cause, I do know that the surest way to get a 12-year-old kid to do precisely what you don’t want them to is to tell them it’s dangerous or could hurt them. I still maintain the best course of action the OP can take is to bring his concerns to the girl’s parents.
 
brgregmack said:
well… in any case, there’s certainly the possibility of becoming a source of scandal when playing a game like this. Especially when there’s this: google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__5YnNY9i2RU/S-bO-2hnagI/AAAAAAAAACc/CSBk7VopKWE/S1600-R/Picture%2B2010-05-08%2B13-03-23%2Bcopy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thedivinediviner.blogspot.com/2010/09/upcoming-wizard101-movie.html&usg=__Kp6hxPghfmqp5JDJhUXcuIl3w7E=&h=768&w=1024&sz=151&hl=en&start=146&zoom=1&tbnid=-NS8ZLwoWRiggM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=189&ei=r9MDToaXHKvTiALY_ID2DQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwizard101%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26client%3Dsafari%26sa%3DX%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1245%26bih%3D784%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=134&vpy=324&dur=220&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=116&ty=81&page=8&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:146
Divination is forbidden.
Click to expand...
It’s just a creative title. You’re being awfully scrupulous about this.

I’ve called myself a Hellfire Warlock numerous times (it’s my favorite DnD prestige class). You won’t see people asking me if I worship Satan.

One of my favorite RPG characters is called Jade the Necromancer. You won’t see me digging up corpses in the hopes of reanimating them. (In fact, the character himself is not even a Necromancer at all. It’s just a title given to him because his enemies think him creepy.)
 
brgregmack said:
I do. Even though WE might be able to separate ourselves from it since we are solid in our faith, there is a possibility that others who are weaker could, as a result of seeing us read HP etc., start sliding into syncretism and religious indifference. This is what St. Paul was talking about when he said that we should not eat meat sacrificed to idols so as not to become a stumbling block for others. We are called to higher standards, and our culture has desensitized us to a lot.
Click to expand...
I think you make some good points.
 
also, it must be remembered that it’s not necessarily the presence of magic that makes something to be avoided, but rather how magic is portrayed. HP is to be avoided because it portrays magic as something to be used for good as well as pushing the myth of white and black magic. Narnia and LOTR are fine because magic is portrayed as the evil it really is.
 
brgregmack said:
also, it must be remembered that it’s not necessarily the presence of magic that makes something to be avoided, but rather how magic is portrayed. HP is to be avoided because it portrays magic as something to be used for good as well as pushing the myth of white and black magic. Narnia and LOTR are fine because magic is portrayed as the evil it really is.
Click to expand...
Except that certain good characters use magic and it is NOT portrayed as bad?
 
Here’s an excerpt from the preface of Michael O’Brian’s book on HP:

Nevertheless, I still declined to read them. But then came a curious 24 hour period in which I spoke with three different people (in two telephone calls that came out of the blue and one chance meeting face-to-face). All three described a personal experience in very much the same words. I did not initiate the subject, nor did I prompt their thoughts on the matter. None of them knew each other. All were parents of healthy, happy families, and as far as I knew were emotionally and mentally well-balanced. These were people I respected for their mature stability as well as their gifts of wisdom and goodness. They had strong faith in Christ, were neither superstitious nor suspicious by nature, were not alarmists, and did not tend to hysteria or paranoia. They had provided a thriving cultural life for their families, books were treasured in each of their homes, and among their collections were many fantasy novels for the young. Yet, that day each of them said something like the following:

“I heard so much about the Harry Potter books, and very good people told me they’re great. So we bought one [or were given one] and I started to read it. At first I had no problems with it. Then something strange happened. In the middle of a chapter I was suddenly overwhelmed by nausea.”

“Nausea?” I asked.

“Yes, a kind of spiritual nausea. I didn’t see it coming because I wanted to like these books. The whole world’s in love with them, even a lot of good Christians, so I felt they were probably healthy enough to give to our kids. I just wanted to check it out first. I’m glad I did.”
 
brgregmack,

As has been pointed out before on CAF threads about Harry Potter, Michael O’Brian’s literary criticism on this topic is laughable. Here’s the original post about the very similar book A Landscape with Dragons (by DGDDavidson, I believe):
This weird thing about dragons is the pet idea of Michael O’Brien, and it always amazes me that so many Catholics have paid attention to it. He contradicts himself in his book, misunderstands some of the fantasy works he attempts to analyze, and even abuses Christian theology. His overview of dragon imagery in world mythology is selective, inadequate, and inaccurate. The book is simply terrible, and yet I keep finding people who take it seriously.
Click to expand...
O’Brien’s favorite trick is tossing around certain inexplicable words to lead you by the nose. He compares fantasy works with “traditional” fairy tales, but never explains what he means by “traditional.” Dungeons and Dragons is a “cult,” but he never explains why he calls it that. Dragons are positive symbols in China because of “dualistic eastern religions,” but he doesn’t explain why dualism would lead to positive dragon symbols. Nor does he explain why serpents are consistently negative in Zoroastrianism, which is unquestionably dualistic. He mentions Tiamat from the Enuma Elish as a sort of dragon and seems to think that helps his case, but he’s apparently unaware that Tiamat’s vanquisher, Marduk, has serpents and dragons among his sacred symbols. He claims J. R. R. Tolkien is on his side in all this, but he is apparently unaware of Tolkien’s Farmer Giles of Ham, which contains a tamed dragon, the very thing O’Brien claims will drag children into neo-paganism.
Click to expand...
When attacking the work of Madeline L’Engle, he criticizes her for describing cherubim as dragon-like, apparently unaware that in ancient iconography, cherubim are winged sphinxes. He is also apparently unaware that seraphim are winged serpents with legs–that’s a positive use of snake imagery right out of the Bible. He also gives no account, that I remember, of John 3.14 or of the good dragon, representing Mordecai, who battles the evil dragon in the additions to Esther. Scripture does not contain a univocal use of serpent imagery, so there can be no basis for a Christian argument that snakes in fiction must always represent only one thing, all the time, unless we’re prepared to condemn the Bible as a confused neo-pagan work.
Click to expand...
He trips over his theology on a few occasions. In an attempt to discuss beauty as a property of being and the symbolic use of beauty in fairy stories, he gets confused and ends up–I hope by accident–saying pretty people are inherently better than ugly people. Even though he praises fairy tales for showing evildoers as ugly and do-gooders as beautiful, he turns around in one of his essays on Harry Potter and attacks J. K. Rowling for doing the very same thing.
Click to expand...
During that aforementioned criticism of L’Engle, he criticizes her for (correctly) depicting evil as non-being, even though he admits she’s basically right on that point. But though O’Brien himself (correctly) understands demons as beings as wholly dedicated to evil as beings can be, and (correctly) criticizes L’Engle for a universalist bent, he (incorrectly, very incorrectly!) says some living human beings are the same way, “completely ruled by evil.” Sometimes he sounds more like a Lutheran or Calvinist than a Catholic.
Click to expand...
He also excuses George MacDonald for his universalism. In Lilith, MacDonald depicts even Satan being saved, and O’Brien gives this a pass, but for some reason, that sort of thing is absolutely condemnable when Madeline L’Engle does it. He also praises MacDonald for depicting Lilith being converted back to good, even though she’s a demonic figure, though he condemns the depiction of the conversion of other demonic figures. The heroic characters in Lilith also use magic, just as Lilith does–yet when discussing Harry Potter and other fantasy works, he condemns books where both heroes and villains employ magic. For some reason, the use of magic by both good and evil is something O’Brien is willing to excuse in works by the authors he favors. O’Brien simply can’t be consistent in his criticism, so how can anyone seriously expect fantasists to use ideas like O’Brien’s as a moral guide for writing their work?
Click to expand...
O’Brien may be a fine novelist. I know from experience he’s a competent painter. But in the realms of folklore or literary criticism the man is a sophomore, the Richard Dawkins of Catholic literary moral criticism, making facile arguments based on some master key to interpreting stories that he claims to have discovered, and huffily dismissing anyone who disagrees with him as “illiterate.” I do not understand why anyone treats A Landscape with Dragons or O’Brien’s essays on this subject as anything other than an embarrassment.
Click to expand...
I and a dozen other posters have proven again and again in Harry Potter threads that the series is overtly Christian and an excellent influence on children.
 
Transformer said:
brgregmack,

As has been pointed out before on CAF threads about Harry Potter, Michael O’Brian’s literary criticism on this topic is laughable. Here’s the original post about the very similar book A Landscape with Dragons (by DGDDavidson, I believe):

I and a dozen other posters have proven again and again in Harry Potter threads that the series is overtly Christian and an excellent influence on children.
Click to expand...
How can Harry Potter be overtly Christian when magic is portrayed as morally neutral???
In Goblet of Fire, the means they use to enter they’re names is an authentically occult method of making a binding pact with Satan to carry out a specific mission.
 
brgregmack said:
How can Harry Potter be overtly Christian when magic is portrayed as morally neutral???
Click to expand...
Fantasy Magic =/= Real Magic(k?)

The formula is quite simple. Magic is simply a natural phenomenon in the context of the fictional realm. It is not the same as what we define as magic in the real world.
brgregmack said:
In Goblet of Fire, the means they use to enter they’re names is an authentically occult method of making a binding pact with Satan to carry out a specific mission.
Click to expand...
Riiiiight…

Actually that’s just a literary device. Putting your name in the Goblet of Fire is no different from a character in science-fiction signing up for a battle competition.
 
brgregmack said:
How about this article???
newswithviews.com/BeritKjos/kjos80.htm
Click to expand...
From your article:
“…everything Harry does is an extension of his belief system. His foundation is in magic through will. The concept that magick is an extension of will is a foundational occult truth and is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept of will where every born again believer’s individual will is brought into submission under Christ.”

Following this logic:

Telekinetic superheroes like Jean Grey are sinning just for using their minds to extend their will

Martial artists are sinning just for using their bodies as an extension of their will.

Even businessmen like my parents are sinning because they are extending their will to earn money through their knowledge of marketing.

You will find plenty of Catholic social teaching that justifies just that however.

There is nothing inherently “occult” or “anti-Christian” about the concept of “extending one’s will”. In the context of fictional realms like in Harry Potter, magic is simply an ability to manipulate the world around via means that differ from Muggles.
 
JHow said:
My children like to play an online game called “Lego Universe”.

I am watching them closely in case their fascination with Lego bricks tempts them to become masons (Masons!?:eek:) later in life.

I know they can make decent money in the trades, but I’d rather they hung drywall than become masons… 😉
Click to expand...
 
Lost_Wanderer said:
From your article:
“…everything Harry does is an extension of his belief system. His foundation is in magic through will. The concept that magick is an extension of will is a foundational occult truth and is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept of will where every born again believer’s individual will is brought into submission under Christ.”

Following this logic:

Telekinetic superheroes like Jean Grey are sinning just for using their minds to extend their will

Martial artists are sinning just for using their bodies as an extension of their will.

Even businessmen like my parents are sinning because they are extending their will to earn money through their knowledge of marketing.

You will find plenty of Catholic social teaching that justifies just that however.

There is nothing inherently “occult” or “anti-Christian” about the concept of “extending one’s will”. In the context of fictional realms like in Harry Potter, magic is simply an ability to manipulate the world around via means that differ from Muggles.
Click to expand...
Did you even follow the link to the website of the former occult temple master??? He sounds pretty objective to me. He even defines “occult” for you.
crossroad.to/ask-peter/index.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top