Pro-Potter or Anti-Potter?

[TomPiltoff]

I personally think she was “persuaded” by her secular “cool kid friends” (“progressive” literati buds of her’s) to drop a “homosexuals (prefereably sexually-practicing) are not sinful in their acts” message after the fact (post completion).

But, in any case, this ambiguous position on homosexuality is a bomb,… and it’s going off BIG TIME in society.

That the bomb does what you want doing is neither here nor there to the effect produced by the bomb.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

I agree that Dumbledore’s homosexuality was a total afterthought, but it just isn’t a big deal.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree that Dumbledore’s homosexuality was a total afterthought, but it just isn’t a big deal.

I agree. I think what happened was that when she was developing the character, she wasn’t thinking about his sexuality at all, and then when she looked at the completed figure, she realized at that time that he was homosexual.

But there is no evidence of him having a boyfriend in the series - it’s just something that came about accidentally, and she didn’t realize that she had added the combination of elements that causes homosexuality until after she had completed him. Once she had completed him, it was difficult to go back and make him straight, so she just left him as he was.

 

[mlchance]

Uh…you missed the point.

Then you need to do a better job making the point. You didn’t specify genre.

I’d like you to tell me where a story similar to Harry Potter has been done better. As in, a fantastical, epic coming of age type saga.

Then stick with the first three on the list. Add to it the movie adaptation of Freak the Mighty. It isn’t epic, but verges on fantastical and is certainly a “coming of age type saga”.

It just seems to me that you’re discounting it because it’s popular.

Based on what evidence?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Then you need to do a better job making the point. You didn’t specify genre.

I’m sorry, I thought “what would you consider to be comparable and superior to the Harry Potter movies?” was clear enough.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the fact that you haven’t given any reasoning for why you dislike it.

Honestly, to say that NO TALENT was involved?

 

[mlchance]

Based on the fact that you haven’t given any reasoning for why you dislike it.

So, IOW, you don’t actually have any evidence. I’ve listed reasons why I don’t like the films. Not a single one of those reasons had anything to do with popularity.

Honestly, to say that NO TALENT was involved?

Please quote me with appropriate link or links to where I said that “NO TALENT was involved”.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TomPiltoff]

So, IOW, you don’t actually have any evidence. I’ve listed reasons why I don’t like the films. Not a single one of those reasons had anything to do with popularity.

Then please go a little more in depth. What specifically do you not like about them?

Please quote me with appropriate link or links to where I said that “NO TALENT was involved”.

My mistake, you said “little talent” which I disagree with just as much.

 

[Brendan]

The most important thing for children at that stage to understand is that your choices in aggregate determine character,

I suggest that you read John Paul’ Encyclical “Veritas Splendor”.

What you just described is a moral position known as the “Fundamental Option” which views moral character as the sum of the choices in a persons life, either for good or against good, and that specific actions of evil actions do not impact the moral character, or that they do so in only a minor way. The pope is pretty clear in his condemnation of that position.

and a bad choice is not irredeemable. ’

That is certainly true, but it requires repenance. Where does Harry express remorse, or seek forgiveness for this? If one remains unrepentant, then the choice is, by defintion, unredeemed.

 

[mlchance]

Then please go a little more in depth. What specifically do you not like about them?

Not any time soon, but thanks for the question. Believe it or not, I have better things to do then write movie reviews for films that I regret watching.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[jmcrae]

That is certainly true, but it requires repenance. Where does Harry express remorse, or seek forgiveness for this? If one remains unrepentant, then the choice is, by defintion, unredeemed.

And, it’s okay, because nowhere does Harry Potter ever claim to be setting a Christian example. No one has ever claimed that the books are intended to be read as a morality tale for Christian children.

Instead, it is in the genre of Peter Pan, or Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and other fanciful stories of magic.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Not any time soon, but thanks for the question. Believe it or not, I have better things to do then write movie reviews for films that I regret watching.

Erm…I’m not asking you for a review. I’m asking you, on a message board designed for discussion, to clarify your earlier statements. What about the movies do you dislike?

 

[Keikiolu]

I agree that Dumbledore’s homosexuality was a total afterthought, but it just isn’t a big deal.

JK is now in the position of either stating that Dumbledore is a practicing (or past practicing) homosexual-act SSA sufferer, or the obverse.

If she is (finacially) smart she will prove her cowardice by leaving Dumbledore’s status ambiguous. This would prove her wish to be controversial and “thought provoking”, and her unwillingness to take an actual stand on the matter.

If she is brave, and chooses to make Dumbledore a “fine with it” practicing homosexual-act SSA sufferer then she at least takes a stand, which will be applauded greatly in society.

If she is brave, and chooses “Dumbledore the Chaste” she will cause such an incredible fuss that she’ll never hear the end of it, from both sides, as I for one would applaud her courage to the ends of the planet, and the “other side” would tear her several “new ones”…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[mlchance]

What about the movies do you dislike?

Please refer to my earlier posts in which I list those things I didn’t like. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m afraid you’ll just have to get used to the disappoint. I’ve answered the poll. I’ve voiced my opinion. I’ve answered questions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to further expand on my thoughts.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TomPiltoff]

Please refer to my earlier posts in which I list those things I didn’t like. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m afraid you’ll just have to get used to the disappoint. I’ve answered the poll. I’ve voiced my opinion. I’ve answered questions. I have neither the time nor the inclination to further expand on my thoughts.

Then I guess your vague criticisms will remain unclear.

Funny how you have enough time to explain to me again and again how you will not go into detail, but not enough time to actually explain.

 

[Melissa]

I suggest that you read John Paul’ Encyclical “Veritas Splendor”.

What you just described is a moral position known as the “Fundamental Option” which views moral character as the sum of the choices in a persons life, either for good or against good, and that specific actions of evil actions do not impact the moral character, or that they do so in only a minor way. The pope is pretty clear in his condemnation of that position.

Actually, no, I am NOT describing a ‘fundamental option’ position. I do not believe that one bad decision makes a person into a bad person, but I do believe one decision tends to predispose a person to certain subsequent decisions, and that you can describe a person’s character based on the observation of all decisions he has made. It’s the same principle as St. Francis Xavier’s statement “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”.

My discussions with my son do not limit themselves to what Harry did or did not do, but also whether he should have done so or what he should have done instead.

 

[Orthodox_Guy]

I am NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN and I am PRO-Potter

 

[cgirl4ever]

I think it actaully shares a good lesson in the sense that we have to use our gifts to do good things instead of bad.

 

[Chronister4673]

I am Catholic and I am Pro-Potter. During September I replied to a post titled “Articles criticizing Harry Potter novels.” To save time I’ll cut and post my reply:

The problem with most of the criticism coming from the Anti-Harry’s is that they are reading this as if it was something that’s really going on. If you’re going to read fantasy of any sort, you have to allow your mind to work around the framework that the author creates. In the world that JK Rowling has created, God has allowed human beings to be born with innate magical talent. In Anne McCaffrey’s writing, there are dragons and intergalactic space travel. In other authors’ worlds, there are sentient and talking animals, human colonization of other planets, etc… ad nauseum…

The point I’m trying to make here is that within the framework of these novels, moral choices are still moral choices. In HP, the framework is doing everything within your given talents to fight evil, and doing it within the most moral manner possible. Repeatedly, Harry is given the choice to use things that are considered reprehensible to meet his desired end. He repeatedly does not do this. In the last book, he does use the Unforgivable Curses, but it’s a case of self defense. Killing someone innocent is always a gravely immoral act, but killing someone to defend yourself or your family or someone else is allowable. Harry has mercy on those who have wronged them, up to and including Voldemort. Harry sacrifices himself for the sake of the whole wizarding world. Death is overcome by love. All of this is done in an imaginary framework where magic of this type exists.

In our world, God has not given us this ability. The sorcery and witchcraft spoken of in the bible is divination using spirits. The wizarding world of Rowling’s books is entered dependant on your DNA. Reading a book or watching a movie requires you to suspend the real world for a bit. The message of HP is that Love will win over Evil. (What was B-16’s first encyclical titled? Oh yeah, GOD IS LOVE) Rowling is using her secret wizarding world to drive home messages of Love, Mercy, Forgiveness. At the end of book 7, Harry urges Voldemort to repent. The one who took everything from him, the one who hounded him from his infancy, the one who wanted to kill him. Harry grew up enough to not want him to suffer (“Try a little remorse. I’ve seen what you become.”). Love your enemies? Sound familiar?

 

[Joe_5859]

I am Catholic and I am Pro-Potter. During September I replied to a post titled “Articles criticizing Harry Potter novels.” To save time I’ll cut and post my reply:

Thank you, Chronister. I remember reading that post. The distinction you made between magic in the Potter world as something you’re born with and magic in our world, which is always an appeal to evil spirits, was very helpful. It’s what gave me that final nudge to look at the Potter phenomenon for myself.

 

[Brendan]

And, it’s okay, because nowhere does Harry Potter ever claim to be setting a Christian example. No one has ever claimed that the books are intended to be read as a morality tale for Christian children.

Instead, it is in the genre of Peter Pan, or Bedknobs and Broomsticks, and other fanciful stories of magic.

That’s kind of interesting, because quite a number of people here have claimed that it’s story of good vs. evil.

I presume that you disagree with them as well.

Next question, since it is not a morality tale, would it have been acceptable for Harry to, for example, rape Herminoe?

Would it have been just as acceptable for teens to read? What it he did it using magical means, such as via the Imperious Curse?

 

[Brendan]

The point I’m trying to make here is that within the framework of these novels, moral choices are still moral choices. In HP, the framework is doing everything within your given talents to fight evil, and doing it within the most moral manner possible. Repeatedly, Harry is given the choice to use things that are considered reprehensible to meet his desired end. He repeatedly does not do this:

Actually, he does quite the opposite. He regularly resorts to evil means to accomplish his ends.

I’ve covered the use of torture, but remember when Harry was attempting to rob Gringott’s. He repeatedly uses the Imperious Curse, which is, in effect, at type of slavery. It is also one of the “Unforgivable Curses” that is supposed to result in a life sentance to Azkaban.

How can you say that Harry attempts to use “the most moral means possible” when he uses the Crucacuis Curse on Amycus Carrow, (an evil act itself), could he have not used a Stunning Spell?

How can you say that he uses moral means when he uses an enslavement spell (repeatedly) to break into a bank and steal something that is not his?

No, you are quite incorrect, Harry’s character is that the ends justify the means. Why should children be shown that as a supposed model of heroic behavior?