Facing The Challenge Web Site

[koinonia02]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at y..., John Walton <john at w...> wrote:
> lou_selastic wrote:

> > I think the article at  www.facingthechallenge.org/potter.htm 
gives a
> > balanced and objective analysis of Harry Potter and aims to help
> > towards a more reasoned and thought-through response to the Harry
> > Potter film and books, rather than just a knee-jerk reaction by 
those
> > opposed to anything that might even allude to anything to do with 
the
> > occult.
> 
> Except for the fact that it calls "anything to do with the occult"
> dangerous. I find that offensive:
> In answer -- No, it's not. What *will* drive Christian children to 
curiosity
> about other religions is the intolerant attitude shown by many 
Christians
> (this site included) towards other religions, gay people, and Harry 
Potter.

Why is it intolerant if a Christian believes that "anything to do 
with the occult" is dangerous?  The Bible is quite clear on that. 

Why is it that if one is not willing to accept certain lifestyles, 
Harry Potter, or the occult, then they are intolerant.  However if 
one continually gives misinformation about Christianity, calls anyone 
and everyone a homophobe and can't understand why some people just 
don't like Harry Potter, then why is that person considered tolerant? 
Sounds pretty intolerant to me.

Many religions offer so called *guilt-free, do whatever you want, you 
don't have to answer to anyone, just do it, you are your own god* 
type stuff and that can be attractive to many children and adults.

It is not intolerant to raise a child on what God has to say.   

Not every person who calls themselves a Christian *is* one.  You 
could have a discussion on exactly what a Christian is and get many 
different responses.  For that reason I really don't like to lump 
anything and everything under Christianity.
   
> Really? As a non-Christian, I disagree. Much of what it uses for 
>motivation
> is based *only* and *solely* on the Bible.

So?  If one believes the Bible to be the inspired Word of God with no 
errors than why should it not be what they base their opinion on or 
live by? Just because the Bible might contain things that you find 
offensive doesn't mean it's wrong.  
  
>One example:
> 
> "The Bible is clear that experimentation with the occult opens the 
door to a
> harmful world, and that as Christians we are to avoid it."
> 
> I won't go into the argument I've seen, from Christians and non-
Christians,
> about the varying translations of the word "witch" and "sorcerer" 
from the
> original languages, through between six (OT) and two (NT) millennia 
of
> translation with probably political and inter-denominational and 
sectarian
> bias. 

I have no problem believing that the Perfect Creator of All would 
have any problem seeing to it that His Word was passed down without 
error.

 
> Nor even whether one should allow two lines in the entire Bible 
(which is a
> book with many inherent contradictions)

Not really.


>to create an antipathy towards
> multiple belief systems (Hinduism ["idolaters"], Paganism, 
>neoPaganism,
> Wicca and Witchcraft ["sorcerers"]), not to mention a series of 
*fictional
> books*.

Why should one be expected to accept what one considers to be wrong? 
A person should be free to worship what they wish but that doesn't 
mean they have to accept the other belief system as being right. If I 
believe there to be only one God then why am I not allowed to believe 
that?  If someone believes there is a goddess than I respect the 
right of that person to believe that way but I'm not going to live by 
what that person believes in.   

> 
> In conclusion, in my opinion, while Facing the Challenge is less 
rabidly
> moralistic and polemical than Focus on the Family,

I have no problem with Focus on the Family.  What is wrong with 
someone or some group having a high set of morals and living their 
lives based on the Bible? A group like this isn't going to change 
their beliefs for what the world believes in.  Nor should they.   
Just how much lower are we suppose to drop our morals in order to be 
considered "tolerant"?  Where does one draw the line?  Some are going 
to draw the line with what the Bible says and some are going to make 
up their own rules.

>or even our
> old pal Richard Abanes (*waves at the Christian Polemics experts on-
list*),

I still say Richard Abanes got a bum deal.  Part of the problem here 
is that Abanes is well versed on certain matters and goodness knows 
that's not a good thing for the opposing side. 


> it's still extremely limited in its knowledge and perception of
> non-Christians, and its moralism is only slightly veiled.

Quite the contrary.  Those who warn others of the occult and other 
non-Christian religions have a very good knowledge and perception of 
what these religions are.  As for morality....we all follow a set of 
morality.  It just varies as to what that is. Some people are very 
liberal, rabid, and unmoralistic. That is their choice.  That is 
their morality.

As far as HP is concerned, as a Christian I do love the books but I 
also have no problem if some parents don't want their child to read 
these books.

Koinonia