"Harry Potter and Biblically-condemned Magic: Is there a Connection?"
The answer is no, but the reasons are complex. First off, we need to take a look at a Biblical passage usually used to condemn Harry Potter as Satanic/evil, Deuteronomy 18:10-13.
This passage, on the surface, seems to do the job quite easily, but it takes a knowledge of linguistics to understand what is really going on. In the following, I have taken out the translations and put in Hebrew transliterations, which are in italics and have put in bold their literal meanings:
"No one shall be found among you who makes a son or daughter pass through fire, who is a yid'oni (one who contacts spirits that are not of God), who practices sho'el'ov (making forbidden contact with the dead to discover the future), who is a qosem q'samim (someone who predicts the future through unsanctioned devices), who is a m'onen (someone who predicts the future by interpreting signs in nature not atributed to God), who is a m'nachesh (someone who charms snakes without God's will), who practices chover chavar (practicing knot-tying to bind people with manipulative spells), who is a m'khaseph (someone who is an evil sorceress who uses mystics to harm others offensively), or is a dresh 'el hametim (someone who forbiddenly contacts the spirits of the dead)."
Lets go throug these prohibitions one-by-one:
Are Harry or his friends yid'oni? No. I've personally read all six books, and the only spirits communable so far that I remember are the Hogwarts ghosts, and no one needs to use any spell, magic devise, or other sort of mechanism to contact these spirits; one merely needs to wander around to find one (or one might just pop up). In addition, the religious persuation of these ghosts, in their living lives or in their current state of "undeath" is unknown, making it completely illogical to assume. Lastly, since we don't know how God fits into the book (as it is a FANTASY) we cannot simply assume they do.
Do they sho'el'ov? No. This form of contact with the spiritual realm is closely related to the other as a person would still need to contact spirits that are not of God. However, this time, the desire to know the future is a part of the equasion. This does not happen at all. The Prophecy that Trelawny spoke of and of which Harry and co. found at the end of Book 5 has nothing to do with this also, since no contact with spirits were made. In fact, it was already known of by many of the major characters (especially Dumbledore). Lastly, since we don't know how God fits into the book (as it is a FANTASY) we cannot simply assume they do.
Do they qosem q'samim? No. This is tied closely with the above since it also deals with fortune-telling, so much of what I'm saying here can also be said about the above (and visa versa). The books and even its characters state many times how challenging REAL divination is. Hermoine quits the class in Book 3 because she finds it useless (not to mention she finds Prof. Trelawny little more than a fraud...not an inaccurate observation if I might add). Dumbledore speaks right out against the accuracies of divination several times in the books. Harry and Ron never master it (Harry in particular is very accomplished in his classes), and Trelawny gets LUCKY all the time. Lastly, Firnez, the new Prof. of Divination, says pointblank on how foolish humans are when it comes to their silly perceptions on what divination is. Now what about the Prophecy or the pensieve? Again, they don't qualify. The Prophecy doesn't in itself predict anything; it is merely a physical reminder of a prophecy made. The pensieve has been used to show the past, but never the future. In addition, since Harry's world is a sort of "other-dimentional world," we don't know how God fits into this alternate world (as it is a FANTASY).
Do they m'onen? No. Again, this relates heavily to the others above. Since Trelawny's form of divination is given a negative light, we can throw away this accusation completely (except, of course, when she spoke the Prophecy). But what about Firnez? His form isn't applicable either. True, he's a stargazer, but he is very cautious and informs the students not to "just trust" the signs; they could be wrong (which I believe is stated when we first meet him and the other centaurs in Book 1). So even this isn't in any way fortune-telling through nature. Lastly, since we don't know how God fits into the book (as it is a FANTASY) we cannot simply assume they do.
Is HARRY a m'nachesh? Yes, but a resounding NO as well. Harry has the ability to speak parseltongue; the language of snakes. However, lets look at the details. 1. It isn't Harry's fault he has this ability. When Voldemort failed to kill Harry, part of his essence and power was transferred unwillingly to Harry. 2. The Books outright say that it is a power some wizards and witches are BORN with; they don't learn it (yet in this world, we would need to learn how to charm snakes, and those who do [like modern Indian snakecharmers in India] don't use anything magical). 3. The Books express that the last wizard or witch who DID have this ability was Voldemort himself, and it is said that only evil and dark witches and wizards are usually born with this ability. 4. Harry, upon learning about his ability, wishes he never had it; this doesn't sound very "withcrafty" or demonic to me. 5. The first time Harry used it (Book 1; the trip to the Zoo), he didn't even realize what he was doing; the power was involuntary. However, on other occasions, it is important to know that he used the ability to STOP the snake from attacking his fellow student and to STOP Tom Riddle by invading the Chamber of Secrets. He never uses it to harm; much like how Gandalf never uses his powers to harm (unless necessary). Therefore, the argument against Harry is off-base and illogical.
Do they chover chavar? Not that I've seen.
Is HERMOINE (or any of the other female students) a m'khaseph? Not at all. In nearly every time she used her magic, it was either a class activity (neutral), to practice (neutral), aid (good), or protect (good). Granted, she used it to stop Neville in Book 1 (bad). But lets remember one thing: Hermoine wasn't too happy with herself for paralyzing poor Neville and in fact apologized (although the apology did happen first, knowing her character, he would definitely have done it again after he recovered). This last point paints a powerful portrait about NOT HARMING PEOPLE, a VERY moral ideal.
Do they doresh'el hametim? No. The ghosts wander the halls No contact is required. In addition, its rare that the characters go out to find the ghosts (the only time I can remember on the top of my head is at the end of Book 5 when Harry seeks Nearly Headless Nick about the possibility of his Godfather becoming a ghost after loosing him in the battle against Voldemort earlier).
So that ends this list. Everything in Harry Potter is benign of these stumbling blocks.
Yet what about passages like Galations 5:20? The Greek word used is actually the same root word that we get the words "pharmecy" and "phamaceuticals" from. It deals with potions and philters to harm people (ie: poison) or to charm (enthrall, literally enslave to another's will).
Professor Snape is the Potions Master at Hogwarts and although he may be on the anti-Voldemort side, doesn't always have the best of dispositions. He does threaten to poison Neville's toad, but he himself didn't create the potion; Neville did (and screwed up because Potions is arguably his worst subject). In addition, opponents of the books often point to the famous Veritaserus potion Snape sometimes threatens Harry with and is actually used often in the books. The problem is, we today use similar drugs to coerce information out of enemies of the State or as an alternative to torture to get information from captured forces. In fact, "veritaserus" is Latin for what the potion is also named; a "truth potion." It does not harm anyone it is used against unless that person is then abused, and there was only one occurrance of this: it was by the allies of Voldemort in order to keep someone from snitching on their plans to "resurrect" the Dark Lord himself.
The potions therefore used in Harry Potter are benign used used to abuse or harm, just like any current drug today: asperin can bring down fevers and quell pain but it can also be used to poison someone all the same. The Bible is telling people not to harm people via magical or poisonous potions, and Harry Potter books don't protray any of the heroes doing that at all, only the villains.
I must therefore conclude that there is nothing in the Bible than condemns the "magic," "witchcraft" or "spells" contained in the "magical" Harry Potter books. The only "spell" it has cast is one of a renewed love of reading in children, teenagers, and adults of all ages, keeping their eyes glewed to reading instead of the boobtube.
And that is one spell that I'm glad Rowling conjured.
