In I Samuel 28, there is a record of Saul, dusguising himself and engaging a witch, who performed a ritual and literally conjured the spirit of a dead Samuel.
Based upon what you've said, it sounds like to be consistent you should probably promote the removal of this story from Scripture.
I wonder what you would do if they made a movie about this encounter. Would you watch it?
I've seen nothing in the Narnia series that would suggest a promotion of engaging in witchcraft. Can you point out something specific that happens where you think CS Lewis was attempting to promote readers to engage in witchcraft? You keep saying it's obvious, so I would think this ought to be easy for you to actually do.
And again, what about Veggie Tales? They're pure fantasy - is it wrong for my children to watch Veggie Tales?
Just because the Bible says it was Samuel does not mean it was the real Samuel. I provided an explanation to this (from an article) so as to explain this. Anyways, here are...
7 Reasons why it was not the Real Samuel:
#1. The medium or witch is a polytheist.
The medium tells Saul, “I see ’elohim (‘gods’, KJV) coming up from the earth” (28:13). The term ’elohim can be translated as a singular (God or god) or plural (gods), usually depending on context,21 but here the medium uses it with a plural verb: “they are coming up.” This is consistent with polytheism: the Philistines use ’elohim with plural grammar (4:8), and it is used in describing the worship of gods other than Yahweh (8:8; 26:19).22 Saul’s reply ignores her plural, and uses the singular: “What does he look like?” (28:14). Saul is a monotheist. The medium then perhaps changes her story to suit her audience, or perhaps focuses on just one of the apparitions she sees arising,23 and says, “An old man is coming up” (28:14).
#2. The rebuke by the apparent Samuel complains about “bringing me up”
One smaller detail also questions the identity of the apparent Samuel. The opening line of his rebuke is “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” Considering the scale of the issues at stake for Israel and its king, this would be a rather petty and self-focussed comment for the real Samuel.43 And it would be strange indeed if it came from a prophet who was very willing to be awakened, and to disturb Eli repeatedly, in order to hear a word from Yahweh (1 Sam 3). If, as a number of commentators argue,44 God seized the initiative to turn an occultic consultation into an opportunity for true prophecy, why would Samuel begin by complaining about being there at all? Would he not willingly go on a mission for God?
#3. Bringing up was credited to the Medium and Saul and not by an intervention by GOD.
Why would the real Samuel credit the woman or Saul with bringing him up? The phrase “come/bring up” is noticeably repeated in the conjuration scene. Saul has asked the woman to bring someone up (28:8, Hiphil of hl[), and she has asked him whom to bring up (28:11, Hiphil of hl[) and been told to bring up Samuel (28:11, Hiphil of hl[), then described the divinized dead and then an old man coming up (28:13, 14, Qal of hl[) and after all that repetition of the phrase, the apparent Samuel than complains about being brought up. As Pigott points out, “according to Samuel’s words in v.15, he was disturbed from his sleep by the conjuring.”45 If this was the real Samuel sent by God, why would he suggest the medium had brought him up?
#5. The rebuke ignores the most obvious issue.
The rebuke by the apparent Samuel does not blame Saul for his most obvious sin of all—the divination itself. One grumpy, self-centred complaint about having his own sleep disturbed is hardly equivalent to a rebuke for the damning sin of divination. Miscall observes: “Samuel says nothing of Saul’s sin of divination and consulting a medium.”47 Pigott also comments: “In every passage where necromancy is mentioned, the Hebrew Bible clearly decries the practice and/or condemns the practitioner—every passage, that is, except one. One of the most striking aspects of the account is the complete absence of the expected negative word about the witch.”48 By contrast, Chronicles reveals that the divination was a key reason for Saul’s death: “Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the Lord, even against the word of the Lord, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit [an ‘ob], to inquire of it; and inquired not of the Lord: therefore He slew him.” (1 Chron 10:13, 14, KJV).
#6. The apparent Samuel’s predictions are questionable and not accurate.
Many commentators accept that the predictions of the apparent Samuel come true, but careful examination reveals nagging questions about the accuracy of some details. Of course the prediction generally comes true: Israel suffers military defeat. Yet this was not difficult to predict, and Saul already feared it (1 Sam 28:5). However some details do not ft. The prediction is, “Yahweh will hand over both Israel and you to the Philistines, and tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” Yet Saul is not handed to the Philistines—he kills himself before they can get him. The Philistines do take his body, but this does not happen “tomorrow” as they do not come to strip the bodies until the day after (31:8), and the men of Jabesh Gilead soon recover his body immediately and put it permanently beyond Philistine reach (1 Sam 31:12-13; cf 2 Sam 21:12-14). And perhaps most obvious, Saul’s sons do not all die on the same day. It appears that they have, as three sons die in battle (1 Sam 31:2) and the narrator has so far listed only three sons for Saul (Jonathan, Ishvi, Malki-Shua, 1 Sam 14:49) compared with four listed by the Chronicler (Jehonathan, Malki-Shua, Abinadab and Esh-Baal, 1 Chron 8:33).51 Yet a few chapters after the apparent Samuel’s prediction, “Ish-Bosheth son of Saul” appears, with the title “son of Saul” repeatedly linked to his name even when it is not necessary as he has already been introduced (2 Sam 2:8-10, 12, 15; 4:8).
#7. Saul was killed because He consulted a medium that had a familiar spirit and to inquire of IT. Why would GOD participate in a situation that He condemns?
The Bible says,
"So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to inquire of it;" (1 Chronicles 10:13).
This verse alone should be sufficient to destroy any non-sense that GOD intervened. For one of the reasons Saul is said to die is because he consulted a FAMILIAR SPIRIT. The witch was not the familiar (fami-LIAR) spirit. It was the demon that she conjured up to talk with Saul. It says that Saul inquired of it. IT. IT. The witch is not an "it" because she was a female. The "IT" is the familiar spirit. In other words, this text says it was not GOD, and it was because Saul contacted a FAMILIAR SPIRIT that was the cause of his death (in addition to the other wrong things he did).
Side Note:
Does the narrator say Samuel appeared?
A number of commentators reason that the real Samuel must have appeared because the narrator tells us that Saul “knew” (NIV) or “perceived” (KJV) “that it was Samuel” (1 Sam 28:14), and then that “Samuel said to Saul” and “Samuel said” (28:15, 16). I submit that this is an example of focalization, the technique in which the narrator temporarily adopts the point of view of a character. It is well accepted among literary scholars that an otherwise omniscient narrator can put aside that privilege for a time to adopt “the perspective of one of the characters, and see ‘through his or her eyes.’”66 Alter shows that hinneh “(the familiar ‘behold’ of the King James Version) is often used to mark a shift in narrative point of view from third-person omniscience to the character’s direct perception.”
A writer can show a character’s views and perceptions either in that character’s own words (direct speech) or in a focalized narration (free indirect speech), but the effect is very similar. Even if the character’s views and perceptions are wrong, the dependable, reliable biblical narrator has the flexibility to use focalization when it suits a purpose, such as letting the reader enter a character’s “mind and . . . secret motives or ‘participate in the experience with the protagonist.’”70 These shifts in point of view can be marked by the use of hinneh (“behold”),71 but also “verbs of perception (‘to see,’ ‘to hear,’ ‘to know’) can be important indicators of specific focalizations,” though “the context is decisive.”72
This focalization technique is apparent elsewhere in 1 Samuel. For example, in 4:5-11 the Philistines hear a shout and know (verbs of perception) that a god has come into the camp, but in fact this is merely their perspective: it is not a god but the ark of Yahweh. In this case the narrator renders their perception by quoting their direct speech in contradiction of what he has told us really happened, but elsewhere the narrator also uses focalized narrations (free indirect speech) to reflect a character’s perception. For example, in 1 Samuel 5 the narrator describes the idol of the Philistine god Dagon as if it were a person. The description adopts the perspective of the Philistines. The narrator tells us that they enter the temple and then the narration cuts (or focalizes) to their point of view: “and hinneh (behold, KJV), Dagon was fallen on his face on the ground before the ark of Yahweh! And Dagon’s head and both the palms of his hands were broken off on the threshold. Only Dagon was left to him” (1 Sam 5:473). Here a stone idol is described as if it were a living ’elohim by a writer who does not actually think it is, but wants to imitate the Philistine point of view. The effect is to let the reader experience the consternation of the Philistines, in a way that mocks their god from within their religious paradigm.
Source used:
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3311&context=auss
