How are they not the same, Luther? One is defined as the other. The only way I can see what you're saying as true would be if what takes place in these movies isn't magic. (What an awkward sentence. Sorry.)
__________________ In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. -John 1:3
This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and that life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son does not have life. -1 John 5:11
I personnel don’t think it is and believe that God sees it as what it is a piece of good fiction. The books have done a lot of good getting kids to read who didn’t before. Look up Harry Potter Alliance this is a group that was started by a couple of fans and they do a lot of good things in this world. They have raised money for Darfur and Burma, registered people to vote, collected food for food banks and much much more.
The Magic in HP or any fantasy/fiction can not be compared to the “Magic” of religions such as Wiccan/Pagan etc. I watched a documentary in which they had an actually “witch” talking about HP compared to “real” witches other then the term witch/wizard there is really no comparison. All of the magical spells/incantations JK Rowling made up. I doubt anyone has joined the occult or become a wiccan because they read HP or any other book that contains magic/sorcery in it. Most people in Wiccan religion would laugh that people want to compare HP or any fantasy magic to them.
How are they not the same, Luther? One is defined as the other. The only way I can see what you're saying as true would be if what takes place in these movies isn't magic. (What an awkward sentence. Sorry.)
Witchcraft as the bible is concerned is the worship of Pagan Gods in the wiccan religion. Its association with "magic" is often overplayed. The term magic is used by wiccans is more or less associated with the rituals they use to motivate their Gods to answer their wishes. In a way its similar to their form of prayer. These are all conducted in connection with nature.
Magic as understood by modern people is pretty much anything that can be changed, manipulated, or done which can not be readily explained by common sense or understood science of the time.
In which case those things which happen in Harry Potter do not even resemble the first definition while they are in every sense the definition of the second.
In Harry Potter when casting a "spell" the characters do not engage in witchcraft as would have been understood in biblical times as worship of nature Gods. (Thats because in biblical times there where alot more real wiccans around.) To participate in witchcraft would be to join in on their worship and worship Gods of nature. Throughout the bible you can find many instances where God's people try to combine their faith with other faiths. And with this they are trying to institute an ounze of prevention. Christians would have been living amoung wiccans and would have been tempted to fit in by combining the two faiths.
On top of this the Harry Potter characters use Latin to intitate whatever spells they wish. This is something Wiccans would never do, as Latin was the language of Rome (who opposed their faith)
On top of that a wiccan would not recognize someone using a Latin phrase and creating a car or something of that nature as a practice of their faith. So why should we? Actual real Witchcraft though still alive in a few circles is for the most part almost completly dead. Because of this, our understanding of what witchcraft really is has fallen mostly to myths that have been made up. Often times the myths where created by Christians to fear-monger. Why do you think Medieval Christians had a history of torturing people to make them confess to Witchcraft? In fact they tended to belive everything bad that ever happened to them was because some witch did it.
On top of this I disagree also with the premise that you use that thinking about the sin is a sin. It depends on HOW one is thinking about it. Lust is the active desire to sin, and yes that is a sin.
However if you watch a movie a couple has pre-marital sex. That is going to make you think about pre-marital sex, but it does not mean you are activily desiring to engage in pre-marital sex. It just means that you have seen it in a story.
So even if one where to completly forget that Harry Potter bares no resemblence to actual real witchcraft (as understood in the bible). And we said that reading Harry Potter is a sin because there is sin in it, then the same standard would apply to any story in which there is sin. Which would make the bible a sin to read since there is sin in the bible.
And to be honest, I would guess that Wiccans probably dislike Harry Potter more then you. It makes their faith look fictional and almost ridiculous.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Witchcraft as the bible is concerned is the worship of Pagan Gods in the wiccan religion. Its association with "magic" is often overplayed. The term magic is used by wiccans is more or less associated with the rituals they use to motivate their Gods to answer their wishes. In a way its similar to their form of prayer. These are all conducted in connection with nature.
Magic as understood by modern people is pretty much anything that can be changed, manipulated, or done which can not be readily explained by common sense or understood science of the time.
In which case those things which happen in Harry Potter do not even resemble the first definition while they are in every sense the definition of the second.
In Harry Potter when casting a "spell" the characters do not engage in witchcraft as would have been understood in biblical times as worship of nature Gods. (Thats because in biblical times there where alot more real wiccans around.) To participate in witchcraft would be to join in on their worship and worship Gods of nature. Throughout the bible you can find many instances where God's people try to combine their faith with other faiths. And with this they are trying to institute an ounze of prevention. Christians would have been living amoung wiccans and would have been tempted to fit in by combining the two faiths.
On top of this the Harry Potter characters use Latin to intitate whatever spells they wish. This is something Wiccans would never do, as Latin was the language of Rome (who opposed their faith)
On top of that a wiccan would not recognize someone using a Latin phrase and creating a car or something of that nature as a practice of their faith. So why should we? Actual real Witchcraft though still alive in a few circles is for the most part almost completly dead. Because of this, our understanding of what witchcraft really is has fallen mostly to myths that have been made up. Often times the myths where created by Christians to fear-monger. Why do you think Medieval Christians had a history of torturing people to make them confess to Witchcraft? In fact they tended to belive everything bad that ever happened to them was because some witch did it.
On top of this I disagree also with the premise that you use that thinking about the sin is a sin. It depends on HOW one is thinking about it. Lust is the active desire to sin, and yes that is a sin.
However if you watch a movie a couple has pre-marital sex. That is going to make you think about pre-marital sex, but it does not mean you are activily desiring to engage in pre-marital sex. It just means that you have seen it in a story.
So even if one where to completly forget that Harry Potter bares no resemblence to actual real witchcraft (as understood in the bible). And we said that reading Harry Potter is a sin because there is sin in it, then the same standard would apply to any story in which there is sin. Which would make the bible a sin to read since there is sin in the bible.
And to be honest, I would guess that Wiccans probably dislike Harry Potter more then you. It makes their faith look fictional and almost ridiculous.
Agreed, but just some nitpicking. Wicca isn't a catch-all name for generic neo-paganism; it's specifically meant as a revival of old Celtic/Northern European religion. Much like Ásatrú is meant as a revival of the old Norse religion. The Witch of Endor was specifically a necromancess, engaged in the practice of necromancy (communing with the dead). Necromancy has, over the years, come to be defined in a lot of ways that may or may not jive with the way it was meant in Scripture. For instance, the idea of a seance is not really true necromancy, but a lot of people assume it's a bona-fide expression of it. Likewise, such practices are not universally held by pagans, both of the ancient or revived variety.
The thing pointed out about Harry Potter is that there is no spirit world involved, no invocational magic whatsoever (I wouldn't know, I never read the books; I was too old for them when they got popular and I've always held a higher preference for science fiction). That in itself is enough of an important distinction to realize that what Scripture describes and what is in HP is completely different.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is the pain of not knowing, worth the price of saying nothing?
Last edited by Qyöt27; 13th October 2009 at 02:09 PM.
The thing pointed out about Harry Potter is that there is no spirit world involved, no invocational magic whatsoever (I wouldn't know, I never read the books; I was too old for them when they got popular and I've always held a higher preference for science fiction). That in itself is enough of an important distinction to realize that what Scripture describes and what is in HP is completely different.
On top of the fact that they don't really involve a spirit world they also are not terribly concerned with nature and the elements of nature. (Earth, Fire, Air, and Water). Those elements are the basis of everything involved in actual wicca. Wicca is inseperable from nature. (IE trees, rivers, etc etc)
HP does not use nature in their "spells". Nor do they call upon any spirits or Gods in order to accomplish their spells. In fact based on the fact that they go to schooling to learn these things one could very easily come to the conclusion that they call upon themselves in order to do their magic. Or, at the very least upon their wands. (Which seem absolutly necessary for them to accomplish anything)
*I should mention my knowledge of HP is limited to the scenes I've seen from the movies and the things I have heard. However I know enough to know they don't call upon false God's to engage in their magic.*
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
On top of the fact that they don't really involve a spirit world they also are not terribly concerned with nature and the elements of nature. (Earth, Fire, Air, and Water). Those elements are the basis of everything involved in actual wicca. Wicca is inseperable from nature. (IE trees, rivers, etc etc)
HP does not use nature in their "spells". Nor do they call upon any spirits or Gods in order to accomplish their spells. In fact based on the fact that they go to schooling to learn these things one could very easily come to the conclusion that they call upon themselves in order to do their magic. Or, at the very least upon their wands. (Which seem absolutly necessary for them to accomplish anything)
*I should mention my knowledge of HP is limited to the scenes I've seen from the movies and the things I have heard. However I know enough to know they don't call upon false God's to engage in their magic.*
Aye, lets not forget that becoming a witch in the HP universe is a genetic thing as muggles (sp?) can never perform spells regardless of what they do. This makes the witches in HP anagolous the mutants in x-men. Both have super powers that normal people cannot use. The difference is merely in the name and setting.
__________________ Against boredom even gods struggle in vain.
-Nietzsche
Someone did actually win the $250,000 prize that Kent Hovind was offering. I think his name was Ivan Renee Spradling, but the news kept refering to his initials, IRS. Hovind was even so nice as to give him his Dinosaur/Creationist theme park as well. What a swell guy.
-Guy on Youtube
Basically what it all comes down to is suspension of disbelief. If you accept the first basic fantastical premise of a story, you can already assume to be firmly outside of what we consider reality. And once that happens, all bets are off. The problems arise because those that dissent don't, whether because they can't or they simply won't, recognize such suspensions as valid in interpreting the books they read (or they just pick and choose when to recognize it, but on that point you could say "Who doesn't?"; how many of those that raise such a huge fuss over Harry Potter would be campaigning to ban Greek or Norse mythology from school libraries? By all means it's the same thing).
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Is the pain of not knowing, worth the price of saying nothing?
Aye, lets not forget that becoming a witch in the HP universe is a genetic thing as muggles (sp?) can never perform spells regardless of what they do. This makes the witches in HP anagolous the mutants in x-men. Both have super powers that normal people cannot use. The difference is merely in the name and setting.
I think that superhero's is a good analogy for it.
The crux of both stories is that certain people have certain fantastical abilities that are well beyond the abilities of any real humans and firmly in the realm of fantasy.
In none of the major stories that I know of where the powers given to them by some sort of God.
The closest you can come is the movies and stories based off of greek mythology.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Witchcraft as the bible is concerned is the worship of Pagan Gods in the wiccan religion.
Not even close. It's concerned with the ideal or notion that anything other than the Spirit of God can supply our needs, or more specifically, that we can make use of the power of God on our own. That is the essence of witchcraft.
Go back and refresh your memory of Saul (1 Samuel 28), when he consulted with the witch (or more correctly necromancer, today rendered "psychic") of Endor. She never consulted a pagan god - one is never even mentioned - but instead she consulted God's holy prophet Samuel; and you might notice that the word used for "wizard" here means only "wise, crafy, or cunning one," not "sorcery" or even "divination." The crime was not in a pagan god (Saul believed in the Lord!), not in being wise or even in causing harm (not all that is good is right), but the crime was committed only in how things were done. This narrative completely exemplifies the point of what witchcraft is: Saul tried to ask help from the Lord, the Lord refused to answer Saul, so Saul tries to do things on his own, making use of what is properly the Lord's.
Again, turn to the book of Acts and read about Simon the Sorcerer (Acts 8). Simon was a follower of Christ (at least as far as he knew), and was even baptized. "Simon himself believed and was baptized." The focus though, is on what? The Holy Spirit:
"Now when the apostles...heard that Samaria had recieved the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who...prayed for them, that they might received the Holy Ghost...then laid they their hands on them, and they recieved the Holy Ghost.
"And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, 'Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may received the Holy Ghost.' But Peter said unto him, 'Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."
All that Simon essentially said was, "wow, that's cool. I wish I could do that. Is there any way that I could do that on my own?" I am well aware that this verse is traditionally interpreted as a slight on money, but any time man tries to glorify himself apart from God, the same response is given. Remember that it's not money that's evil, it's the love of money - the love of being able to control things apart from God. The full meaning of "mammon" completely explains this. Fallen man has what is translated as "greed" or "coveteousness", the desire to hoard a wealth of both material and spiritual possessions. Study these words. Study what mammon means. That is what money stands for to Simon.
All supernatural power belongs to the Lord. It may not be understood in our present-day culture, but Biblically, it is well-understood that the dead, the spiritual world, and all things "magical" belong to Him (or at least to the gods, never to us!). Adam was never given any of these. Through Christ we were (and again, here comes a division of theology as to whether those gifts are still present in the church), but it has never been assumed Biblically that man is able to control the non-physical world, and it has always been assumed that the attempt to do so is at odds with the Lord. Demonstrate a Biblical answer where this is not the case! So you have two options here: are the powers taken from a supernatural being other than the Lord (in which case you have commmitted idolotry), or are the supernatural powers taken from the Lord Himself (in which case you have committed Saul's sin of trying to force the Lord's counsel).
He will give us what He wants us to have, and that always to glorify Himself, never man.
As much respect as I have for you Luther, I don't know which I'm more saddened to see: your statement that "Wiccans" were around in what I assumed you mean as "the time during the unified and/or divided kingdoms", or the implication that Latin is somehow a magical language and that no one who is in anyway connected with Rome takes action against Christ.
I disagree also with the premise that you use that thinking about the sin is a sin. It depends on HOW one is thinking about it. Lust is the active desire to sin, and yes that is a sin.
I mean that lusting after a sin is a sin. And you're absolutely right here: watching Harry Potter amelodically is no sin, for "to the pure, all things are pure." But how many people do you really think watch the movies that way? They watch Harry Potter because it's "cool" to be a wizard and have magical powers. But brother, all that's doing is glorifying man apart from God...which is greed and coveteousness, which is why witchcraft is a sin to begin with.
However if you watch a movie a couple has pre-marital sex. That is going to make you think about pre-marital sex, but it does not mean you are activily desiring to engage in pre-marital sex. It just means that you have seen it in a story.
...and then you counter the point. Because, on the other hand, watching could be construed as our "weaker brethren" as supporting. (Wow, Paul's discussion on food sacrificed to idols really seems relevant here, huh?) I can't be opposed to the portrayal of witchcraft always then, on the grounds that watching it supports it, no more than I could be opposed to eating Baalburgers as supporting the guys that offered it to Baal then fed a Christian with it.
And we said that reading Harry Potter is a sin because there is sin in it, then the same standard would apply to any story in which there is sin. Which would make the bible a sin to read since there is sin in the bible.
Watching others sin (and knowing what they do as evil) and gaining entertainment from watching a sinful act are two different things. I hope you don't glorify in on-screen murder, rape, or robbery. Why would you identify with witchcraft then?
__________________ In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. -John 1:3
This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and that life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son does not have life. -1 John 5:11
Basically what it all comes down to is suspension of disbelief. If you accept the first basic fantastical premise of a story, you can already assume to be firmly outside of what we consider reality. And once that happens, all bets are off. The problems arise because those that dissent don't, whether because they can't or they simply won't, recognize such suspensions as valid in interpreting the books they read (or they just pick and choose when to recognize it, but on that point you could say "Who doesn't?"; how many of those that raise such a huge fuss over Harry Potter would be campaigning to ban Greek or Norse mythology from school libraries? By all means it's the same thing).
So if I imagine a world where my wife isn't married to me, it's okay and legit to fantasize about another woman? In this imagined world, I'm not married, thus (in my heart), there's no sin being committed.
Legalism, no?
__________________ In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. -John 1:3
This is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and that life is in his son. He who has the son has life; he who does not have the son does not have life. -1 John 5:11
Linear Mode
