_Harry Potter and the Bible_

[Dai Evans]

No: HPFGUIDX 17534

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., rabanesss at y... wrote:
> Dave wrote:-
> >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*.)

Richard wrote:
>        This is a COMPLETE misrepresentation of my point in the 
> book, and it is difficult to understand how "DAVE" could have 
> misunderstood me. 

Perhaps Dave thought that you made your overall point of the book on 
the front cover. "The menace behind the magic" - a tad sweeping 
perhaps? I can well imagine how Dave would come to his conclusion.

> 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's not exactly menacing though, is it? I can't see how Harry saving 
his friends is a bad thing, or in any way not moral.
.
> 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. 

Dumbledore was at this point in the book judging Harry's actions in 
the second task. He was not commenting on Harry's overall character. 
You have taken this out of context.

> 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.

He's a teenage boy. He will act with questionable judgement. Are you 
not in favour of realism?

> 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. 

Religion - Christian or any other - has been responsible for far more 
violence than occult ever has. Witch burnings for example (I could go 
on to talk about the crusades, the troubles in Northern Ireland etc. 
but y'know, it would require far too much space).

> 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.

I'm glad you don't take Rowling out of context. However you don't 
seem to carry this carefulness into your recent message.


>         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.

Intolerant eh? Interesting word usage from a person who describes a 
piece of popular fiction as a menace, due to its fantasy content.

> 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? 

What? Do you never take the advice of a friend? Have you ever decided 
not to: 
read a book,
watch a film,
order something from the menu at a restaurant,
because a friend recommended against it? If someone says to 
you "Drugs are bad" do you try anyway so that you can form your own 
opinion?

> 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.

Don't you think that HP fans like those on this list would be put off 
by the title? "Harry Potter and the Bible: The menace behind the 
magic" says to me "someone trashing HP."

> Dave wrote:-
> >t is worth reading for the intellectual excercise of seeing how 
> many logical fallicies one can spot.
> 
Richard replied:-
>     For logical fallacies and poor argumentation, one need only 
> look at Dave's posts.

I'd be careful here if I were you; considering your quotes out of 
context, ignorance of facts against your arguments and sweeping 
statements.

> 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 . . .
> 
Richard replied:
>      This is the most suberbly poor definition of occultism I have 
> ever heard. Any religion scholar would agree.

Whoops! You've gone and taken Amy's remark out of context. Careful, 
that sort of thing could damage your argument.

> 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.

> >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.

Books and Books and Books eh? In my experience, anything that takes 
books and books and books to explain is never understood exactly, or 
often even clearly.

> >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.

So, if you don't have a problem with the occult, wicca or anything 
else apart from Satanism - and you've said there's no Satanism in HP -
 why exactly are the books a menace?



Dai
(pronounced die. Does that make me evil?)