What do you think of Harry Potter Novels?

[yochumjy]

IrenkaJMJ:

Sigh… Again my point is that the witches are not human, and Dorothy was not in training to become one. That is a real difference between HP and LOTR, Narnia, etc… That is a fact whether one likes it or not. All I’m suggesting is that maybe it is something to think about.

But, are you saying that the “wizards” in the LOTR was not “human”? I’d say they were. Saruman lost his powers and he was human as far as I can tell. Gandalf was given more power when he was sent back, but was he not human throughout the books? Harder to kill, maybe, but human. I see what you are trying to say, but I’m not sure it holds up under scrutiny… And in Narnia, wasn’t there a magician’s apprentice? Wow, I need to reread those books, I’ve forgotten soooo much. I do remember something about a monkey and donkey in a lion’s skin in the Last Battle, but things are a bit fuzzy…Time to pull them out, I guess!

John

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Shiann:

This is an article written by the man who wrote the book “Finding God in Harry Potter”…

touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/16.9docs/16-9pg34.html

This is a link to the Introduction and the first chapter of this book. You might note that the first chapter deals specifically with Magic.

Invocational Magic vs. Incantational Magic.

It is his premise, that Invocational magic (meaning “to call in”) requires the person to perform magic with powers being summoned to the person. He goes on to describe how people call on spirits (whom we assume are evil) for personal power.

Incantational magic (meaning “to sing along with, or to harmonize with”), and that the magic used in good fiction parallels the use of magic, as reflections of God’s work in our lives and the miracles of the saints.

Granger goes into more detail and sifts through more aspects of HP magic vs. Narnia, and Middle Earth magic. But in the end he reiterates that they are all of the same ilk, that is, incantational magic.

The whole book itself is worth the read- especially if you are biased against HP just because of the magic/occult. But at the very least, read the Intro and first chapter on the following link, to familiarize yourself with the beautiful imagery and reflections of God in these stories…

tyndalebooksellers.com/firstchapter/pdfs/1-4143-0091-3.pdf

Thanx for the links. They are interesting and a different perspective!

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

To start with, in the first few chapters alone of the first book there are at least six references to stupid: “stupid new fashion,- he was being stupid - stupid people - big and stupid - stupidest of the lot”, and “Don’t be stupid.” You will also find a few references to fat: Dudley was very fat - his thick, fat head - on his fat wrist." You also might want to know that the phrase, “no damn letters today” can also be found in the pages of this piece of children’s literature. Now I realize that right about now some of you reading this may be wondering if I really counted. Yes! … I did! … Why? … To point something out! Our society has declined in our day and age to where we don’t seem to be too concerned with what our children are ingesting into their minds. In fact there are many parents, teachers and even leaders of church groups who are handing this over to our young on a silver platter. I have yet to find even one parent or teacher who desires, likes or encourages children to use vocabulary as was mentioned above. Maybe we should look at this … Ephesians 4:29 “No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear.” We are to use our words in ways that will build others up for the glory of God. Always!! Why in the world would we encourage our children to entertain themselves with reading that clearly gives them a message that this kind of talk is acceptable? And to a child, something as attractive as the adventures of Harry Potter is most definitely going to be an influence.

This is an excerpt from the following link:
radixguys.com/potter1.htm

To be perfectly honest, I read Shiann’s links with great interest and alot of it made sense. Then I read something like the above and that makes sense! I guess as a parent, I’d rather err on the side of safety. Besides, there are literally 1000’s of great books my kids can read, besides HP!

 

[Shiann]

IrenkaJMJ

I appreciate your stand on foul language, condescending talk etc. I would even agree with you.

I tend not to like Junie B Jones books for the same reason. All the “silly baby talk”. It’s cute for one story, but when it permeates every story… well it gets old, and what is the point to reading it?

I guess there is a way for some parents to look past the jargon and ‘kidspeak’ for some of these stories and see some value in the basic story.

On the other hand, there are some stories that are made richer for the language… Where the Red Fern Grows is an example of this. The boy in the story is raising a couple of coon dogs for hunting. He lives in the deep mountains of the south, and his family and neighbors have cuss-like words and vivid scenes where dogs fight or boys fight… The story would miss the mark IMO, if it used ‘kinder’ language.

So I guess what it amounts to for me is if the language seems to fill out the story, make it richer- or does it detract. If it fills it out, and we can put the language in perspective for the story- then I feel it can be beneficial… otherwise, you’re right, it’s just gratuitous.

These points basically settle on opinion, and I can’t fault someone for their opinion!

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Shiann:

IrenkaJMJ

I appreciate your stand on foul language, condescending talk etc. I would even agree with you.

I tend not to like Junie B Jones books for the same reason. All the “silly baby talk”. It’s cute for one story, but when it permeates every story… well it gets old, and what is the point to reading it?

I guess there is a way for some parents to look past the jargon and ‘kidspeak’ for some of these stories and see some value in the basic story.

On the other hand, there are some stories that are made richer for the language… Where the Red Fern Grows is an example of this. The boy in the story is raising a couple of coon dogs for hunting. He lives in the deep mountains of the south, and his family and neighbors have cuss-like words and vivid scenes where dogs fight or boys fight… The story would miss the mark IMO, if it used ‘kinder’ language.

So I guess what it amounts to for me is if the language seems to fill out the story, make it richer- or does it detract. If it fills it out, and we can put the language in perspective for the story- then I feel it can be beneficial… otherwise, you’re right, it’s just gratuitous.

These points basically settle on opinion, and I can’t fault someone for their opinion!

Great point!:clapping:

 

[deaconswife]

IrenkaJMJ:

Sigh… Again my point is that the witches are not human, .

Witches are not human? I can tell you as one who was one in my youth that yes they are human. I’m sure all those practioners of Wicca would be pleased to know that because they are not human that stepping in front of a speeding car would not subject them to the consequences that would occur to a mere mortal.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

deaconswife:

Witches are not human? I can tell you as one who was one in my youth that yes they are human. I’m sure all those practioners of Wicca would be pleased to know that because they are not human that stepping in front of a speeding car would not subject them to the consequences that would occur to a mere mortal.

I was referring to the witches in “Wizard of Oz”, not witches in general! Notice it says “the witches” in what you quoted.

 

[Emily_Watson]

For the record, Harry Potter is not “human” either, he is a wizard. So, the humans in the series don’t preform magic. The wizards and witches do. Harry Potter would be just as much “human” as Elizabeth Montgomrey.

I liked the books. However, my children will have to wait until they are older before reading the series themselves. There are so many good books out there for kids. The good thing is that HP has so many children reading now for fun. Something that you have to almost pull teeth to do with some.

 

[anne1]

WORLD MEDIA FALSELY TRUMPET POPE’S APPROVAL OF HARRY POTTER

VATICAN, February 7, 2003 (LifeSiteNews.com) - “Pope Approves Potter” headlined the Toronto Star, the BBC rendered it “Pope Sticks Up for Potter Books”, and the Chicago Sun Times bellowed, “Harry Potter Is Ok With The Pontiff.” Has Pope John Paul II actually become a fan of J.K Rowling’s boy-witch tale, which Rome’s chief exorcist insinuated was inspired by Satan? No, journalistic license has been rampant on this one. At a Vatican press conference to present a study document on the New Age drawn up by the Pontifical Council for Culture and the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, one of the presenters - Fr. Peter Fleetwood - made a positive comment on the Harry Potter books in response to a question from a reporter. Rev. Fleetwood, apparently a Potter fan, said, “If I have understood well the intentions of Harry Potter’s author, they help children to see the difference between good and evil And she is very clear on this.” He said Rowling is “Christian by conviction, is Christian in her mode of living, even in her way of writing.” The resulting press coverage proclaiming Vatican approval for Harry Potter far outstripped the coverage given to the actual document on the New Age. In French, Spanish, Italian, German, English, and even Turkish, and from Italy to Australia and Canada to South Africa headlines proclaimed “Vatican okays Harry Potter” (News24, South Africa), “Vatican: Harry Potter’s OK with us” (CNN Asia), “Vatican gives blessing to Harry Potter” (Scotsman), “VATICAN JUST WILD ABOUT HARRY” (Barrie Examiner, Canada). Despite the massive coverage for this off the cuff remark, the world media scarcely gave any coverage to a more official statement from Rome on the Potter series. In early December 2001, Rome’s official exorcist, Fr. Gabriele Amorth, warned parents against the Harry Potter book series. The priest, who is also the president of the International Association of Exorcists, said Satan is behind the works. In an interview with the Italian ANSA news agency, Rev. Amorth said “Behind Harry Potter hides the signature of the king of the darkness, the devil.” The exorcist, with his decades of experience in directly combating evil, explained that J.K. Rowling’s books contain innumerable positive references to magic, “the satanic art”. He noted that the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction “does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil.” Rev. Amorth also criticized the disordered morality presented in Rowling’s works, noting that they suggest that rules can be contravened and lying is justified when they work to one’s benefit.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

anne1:

. . . He noted that the books attempt to make a false distinction between black and white magic, when in fact, the distinction “does not exist, because magic is always a turn to the devil.” . . .

That’s why the books are called FICTION. And if magic is always a turn to the devil, then Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia must also be evil.

 

[Mperea75]

+JMJ

Right on Anne. I have been looking for that article for the past few days thank you!! Two thumbs way up!!!

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

The fact is . . .

The Rev Peter Fleetwood, a member of the Vatican’s council for culture, was speaking at the launch of a document warning of the dangers of “new age” spiritual beliefs to the Catholic faith. Asked whether the Harry Potter books fell into the same category, Mr Fleetwood said, “I don’t see any, any problems in the Harry Potter series.” He went on to say that the good v evil message of the books was consistent with Christian morality.

Countering suggestions from some evangelical groups that the tales of magic school add glamour to occult beliefs, he said, "I don’t think there’s anyone in this room who grew up without fairies, magic and angels in their imaginary world. They aren’t bad. They aren’t serving as a banner for an anti-Christian ideology."

Harry Potter is a fictional book, and if you have any doubts about it, the proper people to answer your questions are the Vatican’s council for culture,** not** an exorcist.

 

[Marauder]

I find it interesting that every time this debate comes up on the board it goes the same exact way.

In the end the VATICAN has never given it’s opinion on Harry Potter. All that have given their opinion is two different priests assigned to the Vatican. Neither of which were speaking as the Vatican when making their statements.

The Vatican Exorcist thought one thing, the Priest speaking on cultural aspect of the New Age thought another thing. They are allowed to state their opinion. Neither of which was signed off on by the Pope.

You can see lots of varying opinion on Harry Potter. The USCCB movie reviews specficially stated that the Harry Potter movies were not against Catholic belief.

 

[Seebert]

IrenkaJMJ:

One thing I’ve noticed about Harry Potter vs. LOTR and the Chronicles of Narnia is that the human characters in the latter do not perform magic whereas Harry Potter has the human characters performing magic. Maybe that is a difference to consider???

WHAT? How did you miss Gandalf in LOTR? or Aragon’s use of an elven sword?

In Narnia, how did you miss Lucy’s healing cordial?

There are plenty of “ordinary humans” using magic in both those series.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Marauder:

I find it interesting that every time this debate comes up on the board it goes the same exact way.

In the end the VATICAN has never given it’s opinion on Harry Potter. All that have given their opinion is two different priests assigned to the Vatican. Neither of which were speaking as the Vatican when making their statements.

The Vatican Exorcist thought one thing, the Priest speaking on cultural aspect of the New Age thought another thing. They are allowed to state their opinion. Neither of which was signed off on by the Pope.

You can see lots of varying opinion on Harry Potter. The USCCB movie reviews specficially stated that the Harry Potter movies were not against Catholic belief.

I guess you’re right.

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

Seebert:

WHAT? How did you miss Gandalf in LOTR? or Aragon’s use of an elven sword?

In Narnia, how did you miss Lucy’s healing cordial?

There are plenty of “ordinary humans” using magic in both those series.

Is Gandalf a human? I thought he was a wizard? I don’t know much about LOTR, I’m not a big fan of it. I know for sure though that Aragon was a human. And I’m a big fan of Chronicles of Narnia, so I know Lucy did use a healing cordial, it involved magic.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

Seebert:

WHAT? How did you miss Gandalf in LOTR? or Aragon’s use of an elven sword?

In Narnia, how did you miss Lucy’s healing cordial?

There are plenty of “ordinary humans” using magic in both those series.

I still think their is a difference between HP and the other novels. A boy learning to use and develop magic and magical skills is different from the other examples you gave. Magic in LOTR is not to be trifled with and is used sparingly. In the books I mean. Wasn’t the cordial Lucy used( chronicles of narnia) given to her ? I mean she didn’t learn to make her own, did she? Maybe the differences I see are too subtle that they don’t really matter to most people( obviously! ) Like I said earlier, I’d rather err on the side of safety. Mine or my children’s lives won’t be over without Harry Potter!

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

IrenkaJMJ:

. . . Wasn’t the cordial Lucy used( chronicles of narnia) given to her ? I mean she didn’t learn to make her own, did she? . . .

But the wizards in Harry Potter are given their wands, they don’t make them, and they need their wands to use magic. Also, I remember reading about gods and goddesses of the forest in *The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, *of the Chronicles of Narnia. I think it’s okay for anyone to read fictional, fantasy books as long as they understand it’s FICTION, and as long as they don’t begin to try to cast spells or worship gods and goddesses.

 

[IrenkaJMJ]

*Tolkien, however, follows the traditional pattern: his Gandalf appears as a typical wizard-mentor whose role is largely confined to guiding the heroes and overcoming certain magical obstacles to allow the true heroes, Bilbo and Frodo, to do their own proper work in their own proper way. Bilbo and Frodo work no magic at all, nor do the vast majority of the supporting cast. (That is because, as Tolkien insists, magic in Middle-earth is the exclusive domain of certain specific beings possessed of inherent magical power; and Hobbits, like Men, are not numbered among these.) *

*To be sure, both Bilbo and Frodo are bearers of the great Ring whose properties include the ability to render the wearer invisible. However, in the first place, there is a difference between stumbling across or bearing a magic ring, and engaging in the study or pursuit of magical arts; it is significant that neither Bilbo nor Frodo ever takes up sorcery, or learns to cast spells. In the second place, although Bilbo uses the Ring intermittently throughout The Hobbit, from the outset of The Lord of the Rings we are told that the Ring is evil and must be destroyed; that Frodo must bear it but must never use it, for to do so, even once, compromises the user and gives advantage to the enemy. Already we see that it has begun to have a deleterious effect on Bilbo; we learn with horror that Gollum’s wretched condition is the Ring’s handiwork; and even Frodo is almost consumed by its power. This is very far from the safe and lawful pursuit of magic with which I am here concerned. *Likewise in Lewis’ Narnia, although there is good and neutral magic, none of the protagonists (almost invariably children from our world) are depicted engaging in its study or pursuit. In fact, good or neutral magic in Narnia generally subsists more in objects and situations than in characters. A table, a doorway, or a pool of water might exhibit magical properties; but good characters, major or minor, do not go about casting spells. Those who pursue magical arts in the Narnia stories, even among the supporting characters, usually turn out to be villains (the White Witch; the Queen of the Underland; Uncle Andrew).

This is from a website that actually states that HP could be part of a Christian’s library! But it explains that there are differences between HP and LOTR,Narnia books. That’s what I’m trying to say. The magic isn’t all the same. And the differences should be pointed out so that they can be understood and explained better to the kids that need more guidance. Here’s the link to the full article:
members.tripod.com/Snyder_AMDG/SDG2.html
It’s actually very interesting and worth the read. It’s got me thinking twice about my stance against HP!

 

[JMJ_Pinoy]

IrenkaJMJ:

This is from a website that actually states that HP could be part of a Christian’s library!

I don’t think HP, LOTR, or Narnia should be in a Christian’s library. I’d rather have 'em in a public library under the fiction section.