_Harry Potter and the Bible_

[rabanesss at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 17513

Dear HP Fans,

         I was alerted to the fact that many of you have posted some 
rather negative comments about my book "HARRY POTTER AND 
THE BIBLE." I can appreciate your contrary opinions and look 
forward to some sincere, thoughtful, and rational dialogue with 
as many of you as possible (time permitting). 
            First, I'd like to just say that insults and personal
attacks 
will get us all nowhere. So, please, lets' keep the tone civil and 
mature. After all, this is supposed to be a board for ADULTS.
            Second, I will be more than happy to respond on the 
board or in private e-mails. Whichever it seems the majority of 
you would prefer. I will answer private e-mails sent to my 
richardabanes at earthlink.net address.
           And now, on with my responses to the personal attacks, 
half-truths, misinformation, disinformation, and out-right lies 
concerning me and my book "HARRY POTTER AND THE BIBLE."


__________________BEGIN


 In one post, a Dave Hardenbrook  wrote:

>I've reluctantly picked up _Harry Potter and the
>Bible: The Menace Behind the Magick_ and started to read
>it.  My intention was to scrawl into the book comments by
>Harry, Ron and Hermione . . . but I'm finding it impossible 
because long before >this Harry, Ron and Hermione would have 
thrown the book down the toilet (Sixty >points if it goes through 
>Myrtle's left adenoid. :) ).

           Here is a classic example of juvenile attacks that are 
completely without warrant. Let's talk about these issues in a 
mature manner and perhaps all of us will understand each other 
better.



>Just to give you an example, he claims that Harry's
>actions in the Second Task were *not* courageous
>but selfish.  (*Real* Christian courage would have been
>if Snape or Malfoy or someone else Harry hates had 
>been down there and Harry had saved *them*.)

       This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of my point in the 
book, and it is difficult to understand how "DAVE" could have 
misunderstood me. Notice by the way, that Dave gives no page 
numbers so you all can verify his accusations. I, however, unlike 
Dave, will give page references. On page 135, I discuss how 
Harry's actions were not really all THAT extraordinary in the 
"CHRISTIAN PARADIGM" because according to Christian belief, 
sacrificing for a friend or for someone that loves you is 
NATURAL. It is basic instinct for a person to want to love those 
and help those who love and help them. We, as Christians, 
strive to go beyond this concept by loving and reaching out to 
those whom we would consider our enemies, even at cost to us 
(Luke 6:32-33; Rom. 5:7-8). Is this really such a horrible 
concept??? I then go on to simply state that it seems biased to 
attribute exceptional moral fiber to Harry for one specific deed, 
which is in reality, quite a natural response. It is especially 
one-sided when taking into account his many other moral 
failings. I agree he did a great thing, but this natural response to 
save friends is hardly exceptional, when the same person 
behaves in a most unethical way faced with other scenarios.



>Later, he launches into a tirade against Wicca, Neopaganism,
>and other "occult" practices and how Western Civilization
> As We Know It is threatened by J.K. Rowling's promotion
> of them.

          Again, only half-truths here. I do indeed talk about 
occultism in America and also mention studies indicating that 
occultism has factually been linked to teen violence and 
adolescent problems. Tis is documented people, and it has 
NOTHING to do with religion, Christian or otherwise. And I would 
not call my carefully documented chapters that thoughtfully 
separate the distinctions between Wicca, neo-paganism, and 
Satansim as a "tirade" (see chapter 9). I quote from numerous 
sources, many of whom are religion scholars, to explain these 
beliefs. Notice that Dave did not say I misrepresent any of the 
beliefs.



>(He sites incidents in the books and selective editing of 
Rowling interview quotes to demonstrate her "heathen" status.)

   NOWHERE do I call Rowling a "heathen" nor do I pull any of 
her quotes out of context, but rather, let them explain her position 
on a number of issues.



>He concedes that some Christian leaders think the persecution 
>of Harry is >silly, but he says that any "expert" on the occult 
would recognize what a threat the Harry books are to the 
salvation of mankind.  My suspicion is that he is engaging in 
"Argument by Definition" (i.e. he defines an "expert" on the > 
occult as one who sees advocacy of it in the books),

            Dave here shows his complete unwillingness to 
accurately represent my words. First, I NOWHERE say that the 
HP books are a threat to mankind's salvation (by the way, if I HAD 
said this, I would have used the word "humanity" because 
"mankind" is so sexist). Second, I said an expert would see the 
occultism in the books. No expert says that occultism is NOT in 
the books. My gosh, Rowling herself says THAT (so Dave may 
be contradicting Rowling on this one). Third, an "expert" is any 
individual who has studied in-depth the field of question (in this 
case, occultism).



>but can anyone here point to
>any article online by a Christian leader who speaks
>intelligently about the vast gulf between occultism and
>the Hogwarts universe? 

        Talk about bad arguments. Here, Dave is basically saying 
that in order to qualify as an expert in his eyes, someone would 
have to espouse what he considers to be an "intelligent" opinion 
-- i.e., one that agrees with HIS opinion. Beautifully illogical and 
intolerant.
__________________________________________________

I SHALL NOW MOVE ON TO OTHER POSTERS





Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer stated:


>I was hoping someone would report in on whether this book 
was trash or
>at least worth reading for an intellectual exercise.  Sounds like 
the
>former from Dave's comments!  I'd been toying with ordering it 

     Interestingly, rather than make up their own minds, these 
individuals simply choose to believe good old Dave. Is that 
wise? Is that intellectual? Is that fair? I do not believe so, 
especially since Dave, like so many other HP fans have 
completely misrepresented my book, many of them having 
NEVER even read it. interesting.
__________________________________________________

DAVE RESPONDED AS FOLLOWS:





>t is worth reading for the intellectual excercise of seeing how 
many logical fallicies one can spot.

    For logical fallacies and poor argumentation, on eneed only 
look at Dave's posts.
__________________________________________________

ANOTHER POSTER WRITES


AMY Z. wrote:


> My  dictionary says it's belief in the supernatural, which would 
make most  Christians occultists.  But dictionaries aren't the 
most nuanced  sources . . .

     This is the most suberbly poor definition of occultism I have 
ever heard. Any religion scholar would agree. The world of the 
occult and its practices extend back thousands of years to the 
ancient mystery religions. the word literally means hidden, or 
veiled, as in information that is not obtainable via the natural 
senses or channels of knowledge. The occult includes those 
various practice that attempt to go beyond our world and gather 
information through use of divination techniques. To go any 
further in explaining this would require far too much space.



> What goes on in HP has nothing to do with Paganism other 
than its  positive valuation of magic and the word "witch."

   Untrue. The books also contain positive presentations of occult 
techniques and practices (astrology, numerology, channeling, 
etc). That cannot be denied. They are there, per Rowling herself. 
Contradict on that and you contradict Rowling -- not me.


>Never mind that it is  quite unclear what the Bible means by a 
witch.

     This is patently absurd and untrue. Books and books and 
books by renowned Bible scholars clearly know exactly what the 
Hebrew words in the Old Testament for witch meant.



>I expect that one thing the  author of _HP & the Bible_ means by 
"occult" is "Satanic."

    See, here is proof that everyone is sooooo quick to cindemn 
without bothering to get facts. I DO NOT equate occult with 
Satanism. Nor do I equate occult with Wicca. In fact, I go to great 
pains to distance Wicca from Satansim, and explain the vast 
difference between the two systems. Sorry, I do not fit your 
stereotyped, narrow-minded, fundamentalist boob.

___________________ END
Cordially

Richard Abnaes
author, "Harry Potter and the Bible"