Harry Potter and the Bible

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 17582

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., rabanesss at y... wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., naama_gat at h... wrote:
> 
> > (The following point has been made ad nauseum, but..)
> = A few examples of good characters doing bad things (not from 
> HP):  Eve ate of the forbidden fruit and tempted Adam to do the 
> same.  Adam ate of the forbidden fruit. Abraham exiled Hagar 
> and his son, Ishmael.  Levi and Zebulun slaughtered all the 
> residents of Shechem. Moses broke the Covenant stones in 
> rage; smote the rock. David sent Uriah to be killed in battle to 
> free Uriah's wife for  seduction. (David has a long list of sins, I 
> just settled for the  worst.)  Solomon established pagan temples.
>  Peter denied knowing Jesus. Hmmm.. think that's a suitable 
> book for innocent little Chirstian   kiddies to read? Tsk, tsk, 
might 
> give them ideas
 Might even promote  teenage violence?
> 
>       Very clever, but also painfully stupid. 

Thank you so much! Such a beautiful example of Christian forbearance 
and charity.

>Go back and maybe 
> read some of tehse stories rather than just getting them off of a 
> list of some kind, 

^-^ I have read the Bible. Several times in Hebrew. Bits of it in 
Greek. Large parts in English. The list was from memory. 

and then see what negative consequences 
> happened as a resuult of teh bad deeds that were done-- 
> message means bad deeds = bad consequences. Now let's go 
> to little Harry and his friends and look at teh negative 
> consequences of their deeds -- bad deeds = fun, excitement, 
> funny stuff, good character. 

Point taken. I didn't think of that aspect when I compiled my little 
list of good chracters doing bad deeds. I'd like to retroactively, 
if I may, add Jacob, the guy who cheated his way into his brother's 
inheritance. Lets think... became a wealthy patriarch, father of the 
chosen nation.. nope, can't think of bad consequences in this 
example. 

Also, I take issue with the postulated equation in HP of bad deeds = 
fun, ..etc. I take issue with that on two levels: 1. No good charcter 
has DONE any truly bad deed. All the examples you give are of 
breaking SCHOOL RULES, breaking MoM regulations and very mild lying. 
2. Most of these mild transgressions are either performed for a 
higher moral goal (help friend, fight evil, save world) or for 
harmless reasons. There is no evil intent (only the bad characters, 
e.g., Draco, transgress rules with bad intentions).


I'd like to go through your list of HP misdeeds:

- Arthur Weasley broke the Wizarding law that he is supposed to 
uphold.

The law has a purpose - to prevent Muggles being damaged by charmed 
objects and to maintain the secrecy of the Wizarding world.
Arthur broke the law, but not the spirit of the law - his intentions 
were good, or at least not bad. He was motivated purely by a 
(benevolent) curiosity in all things Muggle

Good consequences? No. He is publicly disgraced, pays a high fine and 
has a humungous fight with his wife.

>Hagrid is a criminal because he keeps illegal pets.

Criminal?! Do you call criminals people who keep dogs in building 
apartments where no pets are allowed? What term do you have left for 
drug pushers?

Good consequences? As I recall - no. Hagrid was originally EXPELLED 
because of keeping Aragog; his passion for dragons caused him to 
betray a great secret (which caused him great distress) and Norbert 
got himself and his friends into a lot of trouble; the blast-ended 
Skrewts got him in very hot waters (thanks to Rita Skeeter). What 
good consequnces?!

>Harry cheated at the Triwizard Tournament

Umm.. well, he didn't. It was the false Moody who cheated.

Good Consequences? Since it was the means to kidnap Harry and 
resurrect Voldemort.. no. No good consequences there.
(And, just to set the record straight, Harry *refused* Bagman's offer 
of help.)

I thought this description of Arthur Weasley extremely illuminating 
of your position:

>Another excellent role model is Mr. Weasley (sarcasm). This 
>guy is nothing but a weak-willed hypocrite who lies to his wife. 
>His two boys run ruffshod oer him. he is SUPPOSED to keep 
>wizards from bewitching muggle artifacts (even having them 
>arrested), while he himself does exactly what he is supposed to 
>be standing against (like cops who take cocaine from busts and 
>sell it). And he lies to his wife -- great.

Nothing but a "weak-willed hpocrite"? Even if I grant you everything 
you say of him (which I don't) - is that ALL there is to him? What 
about a kind and loving father and husband? A kind and caring friend 
for Harry? A man unswerving in his allegiance to the good side? 
And how can you compare his bewitching muggle artefacts to corrupt 
cops? Even as an analogy it doesn't stand, since Arthur Weasely 
tinkers with muggle artefacts for FUN, not for profit. 


You position seems to be that rules are more important than moral 
principles. That a little fallibility is more important than 
kindness and compassion. That following rules blindly is the essence 
of goodness? 
> 
> 
> 
> > And regarding current day teenage violence being connected to 
> > occultic practices, I personally do not know whether this 
> postulated  connection is well-established.  I would however like 
> to point that there is a VERY well-established connection 
> between teenage violence and child abuse.  If you are so 
> troubled by teenage violence, why are you off on a  crusade 
> against a fantasy book and not against abusive parents or the  
> lack of funds for social services or the lack of funds for 
> education? > How about a crusade agains social indifference 
> and collective cruelty? Why not put that world-changing passion 
> of yours where it  would actually help?
> 
>    How ignorant and judgmental. How do you know what I do with 
> my time, or the community projects contribute to, or teh time I 
> spend helping the homeless and battered children. 

Well, I know what you've done with SOME of your time, no? 

You are so 
> quick to attribute negative characteristics to someone just 
> becasue they don't like a book. 

I know several people who don't like HP. It's your reasons for not 
liking HP that I resent.


Interesting. And by the way, I am 
> NOT on a crusade. My HP - related book is only one of NINE 
> books I have written, one of which won teh Myers Award for 
> Tolerance in America (1997) for my work on Racism. I was alos 
> a guste speaker at the Simon Wiesenthal Center during their 
> conference on Hate and acism in America. Anything 
> "world-changing" enough in there for you???
> 

Yes. Very impressive. I suggest you continue with these activities.


Naama