Harry Potter = Witchcraft?

[Kol]

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.)

 

[Spirit_Star]

Hufflepuff all the way

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.

 

[Luther073082]

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.

 

[Qyöt27]

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.

 

[Luther073082]

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.*

 

[Isambard]

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.

 

[Qyöt27]

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).

 

[Luther073082]

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.

 

[Kol]

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?

 

[Kol]

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?

 

[Isambard]

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.

I guess science is withcraft too.

 

[Qyöt27]

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?

Placing yourself into such a fantasy removes the elements that make suspension of disbelief - which has to do with non-empirical or totally illogical things in the first place, not simple "what ifs?" that are completely possible from an objective standpoint - even work. It's the act of accepting certain premises that tend to deny the laws of physics or biology or what have you, for the sake of the story being told. Like, say, Flubber. Or guns that never seem to run out of ammo, unless it provides a desperation moment (or reloading your gun by doing some sort of acrobatic, completely impossible midair backflip, curving bullets, etc.). Or anything involving Santa Claus as a real character - whether he battles Satan or not.

It's the ability of the reader/viewer to say "It's just like that" when confronted with the utterly absurd in fiction. The whole "you're not supposed to ask" answer to the plot holes in a story counts too.


In terms of the Harry Potter uproar, I see it as no different than I see Bedknobs and Broomsticks - which, unlike HP, had references to real people and mysticism in it (Aleister Crowley, if I remember right). Harry Potter also doesn't have Nazis and cartoon animals living on a banana-shaped island, but I believe the point still stands.

 

[Qyöt27]

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.

Actually, it was probably closer to Ominous Latin Chanting, a common dramatic convention. Meaning that usage of Latin for said purposes is pretty much a literary device, not a real one.

 

[Luther073082]

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.

So then all the superhero movies out there such as superman, spiderman, fantastic 4, etc etc are all witchcraft in your interpretation?

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.

I think you are trying to stretch this verse way way too far. First of all a medium (as translated by NIV and ESV) is not the same thing as a witch in the NT.

Secondly the Lord was already angry at Saul for disobeying him and Samuel tells him as much. There actually isn't anything the chapter indicating that Saul had done a bad thing by consulting the medium.

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.

I know what Mammon means. I don't see how this has anything to do with Harry Potter unless you are alledging that ANY movie that isn't Christian is a sin to watch. (As they do not point to God)

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).

In what cases does Harry Potter control the non-physical world.

He will give us what He wants us to have, and that always to glorify Himself, never man.

So any movie that isn't Christian in nature and does not directly glorify God is a sin?

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.

You havn't established the connection between the medium in the OT and the witchcraft which you speak of in the NT. And you've established the connection of neither to Harry Potter.

The commandment in the NT is to avoid the practices of the wiccan religion which was prominate in NT times. The bible has to be understood by what they ment to the readers of the time. I'm not talking about historical critism, I'm talking about how its to be understood. For example the NT uses the term "sexual immorality" as something not to engage in. At the time homosexuality and fornication where considered immoral. It is not so anymore. But as Christians we have to understand it by the meaning it had to the Christians reading it, not to how we feel today.

The meaning to Christians reading "witchcraft" in the NT, directly ment pagan worship practices. It did not mean magic in the way we understand magic which is to be anything that defies common sense and/or understood science.

I did not implicate Latin was a magical language. Latin is nothing but a language used by the Romans. My point is this. The Romans themselves where not big fans of Wiccans. Wicca represented a religion of the previous celtic culture and was therefore "unroman".

In a Wiccan ritual they would never even think of using Latin. Latin was the language of the Romans that opposed them.

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.

I think people watch it for a story in which you have to let go of reality and go with unrealistic assumptions about life in order to understand the story. The assumptions are so unreaslitic that adults and older children would be unable to realistically change their world view in order to fantasize about having those powers. At least that is how I see it, from what I've seen of it I can vaguely understand the story, however I can not fathom the ability to magically create a car or magically make someone smaller in my own life. So its impossible for me to fantasize about such things.

Do children possibly watch it and wish they had magical powers. Probably. . . but children watch superman and wish they where him. They watch spiderman and do the same thing. Power rangers, the incredibles, anything in which there is a heroic figure who has fantastic abilities. Are you suggesting that all of those movies and shows are sins against God because the children wish for that power.

If you take the children to see an illusionist and they belive those things that the illusionist does is actually magic, they may fantize about having those abilities. Is seeing an illusionist a sin.

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?

So the movie Valkerye (which is based on a true story) where the characters attempt to muder Adolf Hitler is sinful. Lord I confess, I do wish they would have succeeded in blowing up Hitler.

Or how about the movie "Gone in 60 seconds" in which the characters steal cars?

What about those Christian books for men where they tell you to think of yourself like a Medieval knight. When knights historically quite enjoyed raping and pillaging cities. Or when they tell you to think of yourself like a cowboy, who historically typically convorted with prostitutes when they wheren't driving cattle. Are those books sinful?

 

[Kol]

I guess science is withcraft too.

In a very real sense, YES.

"For the wise men of old, the cardinal problem of reality had been how to conform the soul to reality. For magic and applied science alike, the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men." -C.S. Lewis

In other places, Lewis explained that magic and science were two sides of the same coin. One became successful, the other did not. Reason and intellect are no sin at all, but modern science is idolatry because it does exactly what Qyot's imaginary world does: it sets aside God and tries to find its aim on man's own principles and abilities (and for his own desires).

I hate quoting long strings of text, but another explanation I ran across (on a non-Christian website, as you will see) explains this so well. The topic is idolatry:

Most men require some emotional attachment, and as religious attachment has faded out, first in the West and more recently in Eastern civilisations also, nationalism has grown up to take its place. It was unknown in the ancient world, practically unknown until the Reformation dissolved religious attachment in the modern West. What might look like nationalism in ancient times...was quite a different phenomenon: it was attachment to a civilisation and way of life based on a religion. The Ancient Greeks felt a loyalty to their civilisation, as many Europeans do to theirs today, but politically they were a group of warring states, as modern Europe is not. The Romans were a city-state that expanded into a bureaucratic empire. Devotion to a territorial unit within a wider civilisation, devoid of any spiritual or profoundly cultural identity, such as a modern nation, is pure idolatry. It is acceptance of a worldly instead of a divine allegiance, and that is the very definition of idolatry.

In this case the emotional and materialistic aspects of allegiance outweigh the intellectual. Intellectually the great modern idolatry is science. When someone says that science agrees with such and such a religious tenet, the usual implication is that science is true and religion is to be accepted on sufferance as long as it does not disagree with it. That is to say that it is really science in which the speaker believes, not religion. It depends on the attitude of mind from which the statement is made. It is possible for someone who understands the Eternal Dharma to say that nuclear science is coming nearer to the Upanishad's teaching of primordial nature as formless substance or energy, meaning thereby that within its own domain (the domain of prakriti, for Purusha is beyond it) science is correcting its former errors and penetrating farther than hitherto; but more often such statements are an attempt to shelter religion, of which the speaker is not certain, behind science, of which he is or thinks he is.

The heart of idolatry is placing anything above or on equal setting with God; placing God aside to grasp something else. The essence of both witchcraft and science is idolatry, and for that reason I do not believe any faithful and knowledgeable Christian can-or will-profess a faith in science the way a secularist will. This very fact demonstrates the wickedness of scientific thought (to say nothing of naturalism). Christians may practice science, or scientific method/reasoning, but since science is man's endeavor to understand his world and shape it to his likes, it is apart from God. It is Simon, trying to purchase the Holy Spirit, the wonders of God.

What kind of society might we have had if we had so trusted in God that all healing was done by faith and never by our own methods?

Last thought: science and magic are the same thing. One affects the material, the other the immaterial.

 

[Kol]

Placing yourself into such a fantasy removes the elements that make suspension of disbelief - which has to do with non-empirical or totally illogical things in the first place, not simple "what ifs?" that are completely possible from an objective standpoint - even work.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. So Harry Potter is witchcraft to me and not to you because you don't believe magic is possible? Wasn't it considered possible in Scripture?

It's the act of accepting certain premises that tend to deny the laws of physics or biology or what have you, for the sake of the story being told. Like, say, Flubber. Or guns that never seem to run out of ammo, unless it provides a desperation moment (or reloading your gun by doing some sort of acrobatic, completely impossible midair backflip, curving bullets, etc.). Or anything involving Santa Claus as a real character - whether he battles Satan or not.

But whether the magic works or not is not the issue. I'm not objecting because I see magic as in-line or out-of-question with the laws of physics, etc. but rather because the act (however successful) is listed specifically in scripture as idolatry and a vice of the flesh. I think you seem to be saying that, because magic is something which could never exist in reality, it's alright to fantasize about, whereas the example concerning adultery could exist and is therefore just a "what-if". But the behind-the-scene action of witchcraft is acquiring things ("power") on one's own.

It's the ability of the reader/viewer to say "It's just like that" when confronted with the utterly absurd in fiction. The whole "you're not supposed to ask" answer to the plot holes in a story counts too.

You make a good argument and I can see you're firmly convinced. But I see magic and witchcraft as having an inherent quality which is from its origins opposed to godliness.

 

[Kol]

So then all the superhero movies out there such as superman, spiderman, fantastic 4, etc etc are all witchcraft in your interpretation?

Maybe. But don't you think they would be closer to what Isambard said?

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.

Given his statement here, I'd more liken the characters to angels or roman gods than "witches." As far as I understand, that's what the superhero archetype was derived from, though I can't remember the exact story. I would say that the more human a character becomes, the closer to witchcraft they draw.

 

[Kol]

I think you are trying to stretch this verse way way too far. First of all a medium (as translated by NIV and ESV) is not the same thing as a witch in the NT.

Secondly the Lord was already angry at Saul for disobeying him and Samuel tells him as much. There actually isn't anything the chapter indicating that Saul had done a bad thing by consulting the medium.

It's not the literal event I was trying to draw on, but the abstract idea that seeking things of God outside of God's allowance is a horrible sin.

Nothing Saul had done wrong by consulting a medium? I'm going to guess you're pulling my leg here, Luther. Did you not read where Saul asked for God's advice and God refused to give it? Or did you miss the part where God told the Israelites to banish the mediums from the land? You must be joking.

I know what Mammon means. I don't see how this has anything to do with Harry Potter unless you are alledging that ANY movie that isn't Christian is a sin to watch. (As they do not point to God)

Sorry. I didn't mean it as an insult to suggest you didn't know what Mammon meant.

What I'm claiming is that any thing which allows men to claim God's power as their own without God's blessing is a sin...which is why murder is a sin to begin with. These things are the taking into a man's hands that which has not been given to him.

So any movie that isn't Christian in nature and does not directly glorify God is a sin?

No, but basking in the sins of such a movie would be sinful. Murder and witchcraft are both sins. Watching either does not make one sinful, but taking pleasure in wickedness is.

I think people watch it for a story in which you have to let go of reality and go with unrealistic assumptions about life in order to understand the story. The assumptions are so unreaslitic that adults and older children would be unable to realistically change their world view in order to fantasize about having those powers. At least that is how I see it, from what I've seen of it I can vaguely understand the story, however I can not fathom the ability to magically create a car or magically make someone smaller in my own life. So its impossible for me to fantasize about such things.

But the Law is never an "unrealistic assumption." I don't care if all the characters in Harry Potter can grow new arms, have three sets of wings, or can win a land war in Asia. But righteousness is a universal principle (as ambiguous as it may seem in our world). No matter if magic is impossible here and possible for Harry or Ged or Raistlin, or even Uncle Andrew, once it becomes something a reader lusts after, it has set that reader to sin.

I have to go. I love you all.

 

[Luther073082]

Given his statement here, I'd more liken the characters to angels or roman gods than "witches." As far as I understand, that's what the superhero archetype was derived from, though I can't remember the exact story. I would say that the more human a character becomes, the closer to witchcraft they draw.

Most of the superheros I can think of are portrayed as humans who where either born with their powers or received them in some strange accident almost always involving nuclear radiation.

Although technically superman was an alien.

I'm sorry though I don't hold the same standard. Fantasy is not reality and not ment to be such. On top of that I don't see the fantasy as any attempt to displace God. Lets not forget that both Tolken and Lewis wrote fantasy books involving characters that had fantastic abilities.

 

[Luther073082]

It's not the literal event I was trying to draw on, but the abstract idea that seeking things of God outside of God's allowance is a horrible sin.

But here is where that logic fails.

Say for example Harry Potter was real.

If Harry had the powers that he did in the movie, it could only come from God's allowance. No matter if he gained them by seeking after God or not, it would only mean that he has them by God's allowance. Anything and everything that happens, any power that one has is from God.

Also the logic fails because it would alledge that we can not do things in order to change our lives for the better by doing anything but praying.

Say I have cancer and I wish to live longer and survive my cancer.

Well sure I would pray to God to help me to defeat my cancer. But I would also get chemotherapy. The chemotherapy is not straight from God.

Would you say that its a sin to seek medical treatment other then prayer?

Or what if I wanted the ability to heal? So I go to medical school.

The learning I acheived from medical school would give me a limited power to heal. That would not come directly from God.

Is it a sin then to become a doctor?

What of a couple trying to conceive a child. Is it a sin for them to seek out feritility treatments because their intial attempts to conceive are unsuccessful.

All things are from God, all abilities come from God. So any thing in which a person has the ability to do was allowed by God. Whatever they use those powers for determines if they are trying to serve themselves or God.