Posted on 06/03/2004 9:38:49 AM PDT by BobbyBeeper
FIRST-PERSON: Is Harry Potter merely entertainment? Jun 2, 2004 By Phil Boatwright
"Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban" Photo courtesy of harrypotter.com
THOUSAND OAKS, Calif. (BP)--"I love Harry Potter. I think it would be so cool to be a witch," Sharon, age 11, says.
That's my answer to anyone who says J.K. Rowling's adventure series is harmless fantasy.
While the Harry Potter book and film series has held a hypnotic fascination for youngsters, its thematic foundation is troubling. Arguably, perceptive children can view such material without succumbing to the snare of the occult, but it would be naive to think that movies and TV programs containing witchcraft are not aiding the rise of Wicca in our culture.
In a television special titled "Hollywood Spirituality" which aired several years back on E! Entertainment, Raven Mounauni, a professing witch and owner of an occult paraphernalia store, credited the 1996 movie "The Craft" with inspiring young women to explore the world of witches. "I get a lot of teenage girls in here. You can always tell when 'The Craft' has been on TV, 'cause we get a big influx of girls looking for supplies."
Occult practices shouldn't be considered just diverting amusement. Ouija boards, psychic readers and other forms of misleading supernatural entertainment should not be taken lightly. In Leviticus 19:26 we are instructed, "Do not practice divination or sorcery." There are several warnings in the Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, making it clear that we are to avoid witchcraft or anything associated with the occult. So if God is instructing us to avoid occult practices, how can we justify using it to entertain ourselves?
This may not be a popular view right now. The first Harry Potter film installment earned $969 million worldwide. J.K. Rowlings' five books on the young wizard have become a phenomenon, allowing the author to become the richest woman in England, with assets beyond $1 billion. That would indicate that many parents find nothing wrong with these children's adventures.
There are even a couple of books out right now exclaiming parallels between the Potter books and the Gospel. One author suggests the books help relate Christian themes and truths, opening the door for talking about things such as right and wrong, the nature of faith, loyalty, bravery and trust. Honestly, I think that's a bit thin. Yes, Rowlings’ themes deal with honor, friendship and self-sacrifice, but the kids in Harry Potter gravitate to sorcery in order to accomplish these attributes. And even if there are positive elements associated with the series, you simply can't ignore the witchcraft equation.
Members of Wicca teach a philosophy that embraces no absolute truth or sin and replaces the patriarchal male creator God of the Bible with a belief in both male and female gods. Its credo instructs members to embrace spirits and conjure spells in order to control their lives and the lives of others. There are millions of practicing witches worldwide. Indeed, Wicca has become one of the fastest-growing religions in the world today.
OK, it's good that children are reading. But what is it they're reading? Shouldn't that be considered? When an author makes $1 billion on five books that have sorcery as a main theme, and renowned secular critics hail the films as incredible filmmaking without examining their occult roots, I question what's really behind this phenom.
Is it merely entertainment? Or is there a dark spiritual source feeding and supporting it? I realize that may sound like a stretch, but often Satan is most deceiving with a glossed-over package. Wouldn't it be a shame if kids got pulled into witchcraft, while their folks thought of the books and films as merely children's fantasy? --30-- Phil Boatwright is a film reviewer and editor of The Movie Reporter, on the Web at www.moviereporter.com. (BP) photo posted in the BP Photo Library at http://www.bpnews.net. Photo title: HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKAB
That is silly. They are going to have to split up the books eventually, especially if they keep pushing vital information into "the next movie".
I so desperately hope for Director's cuts of all the movies. I would buy them.
There will be no director's cut. The DVD of book one includes lots of deleted scenes. They are best left deleted.
The script for the current movie was trimmed to its current length before shooting started. The changes were Rowling approved. My source for this is the current issue of Entertainment Weekly.
The script for number four is also finished, and although no one has released the timing, it will be one movie. It will include underwater scenes, because Radcliff has been taking diving lessons.
There will be no attempt in future movies to cover everything in the books, but Rowling will approve of changes and cuts.
No, the opposite, the non-existence of witchcraft.
Why would this excuse the portrayal of witchraft or wizardry in a positive light?
In reality, witchcraft is an abomination. The protagonist practices "witchcraft" or "wizardry," and sets a poor example for children.
In reality, witchcraft doesn't exist.
Yes.
Your question seems to imply that a person can't have fun without engaging in some vice. Is that what you believe?
I assume that you think books that portray witchcraft in a positive light represent a trivial issue. But I believe otherwise, because I believe that witchcraft is real, and I've read enough accounts of lives lost to the occult that I must in good conscience warn people against it. The Bible also condemns witchcraft in no uncertain terms:
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,And some other relevant passages:I will destroy your witchcraft and you will no longer cast spells.
Many casualties, piles of dead, bodies without number, people stumbling over the corpses- all because of the wanton lust of a harlot, alluring, the mistress of sorceries, who enslaved nations by her prostitution and peoples by her witchcraft. "I am against you," declares the LORD Almighty.
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.""But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things."
It's a good thing. Speaking from experience the goats wouldn't have worked, and BOY would you have been in trouble! LOL
Case closed, shut the heck up Basham.
How do you know?
I take it you believe that FDR was wrong to order it, and Eisenhower on down were wrong to participate in it.
You can look into just war theory if you like. The actions of the State are regarded differently from the actions of individuals, since the object of State action is the preservation of the common good.
It's ironic that you chose this example. How do libertarians justify sending some people off to war to fight and die? Do soldiers fight to preserve the common good, or their personal rights to life and property?
Wouldn't libertarian soldiers be violating the first principle of steve-b's ethics?
The same way I know leprechauns don't exist.
You are the one positively asserting the existence of real witchcraft. It is up to you to prove this is so, not up to me to prove a negative.
You are even more illogical when you refer to the "actions of the State[sic]" as being judged by a different standard than those of individuals. The state is not a conscious entity (and certainly not a divine personage, though your capitalization indicates that you worship it as such), and thus is incapable of choosing to take actions. The actions of individuals in government office are, of course, subject to the same moral scrutiny as those of any other persons.
How do libertarians justify sending some people off to war to fight and die?
The same way they justify sending firemen into a burning building -- it's the job they signed up for, and they knew it was dangerous when they took it. Duh.
Do soldiers fight to preserve the common good, or their personal rights to life and property?
Ultimately, they fight to defend the rights of themselves and those for whom they have chosen to accept responsibility. I'd refer you to Starship Troopers, but given what you've done to poor Aquinas I fear that you'd distort it so badly as to make Paul Verhoeven look like a paragon of understanding and integrity.
Really, attempting to shift the burden of proof to the skeptic ("prove that there aren't any fairies") is lame even by the standards of your previous lines of argument.
After seeing this farrago of illogic posted under the name "Aquinasfan", I expect at any moment to see a "nuke-em-all" screed posted under the name "Ghandifan" and an apologia for Soviet communism posted under the name "Reaganfan".
You ought to be endorsing the skeptical side of this argument, then -- the alternative is to believe that God was unable or unwilling to deliver on His word.
Uh, no ...
"Starship Troopers" promotes bug-acide and you'll get cockroaches if you read it.
Looks like a Christmas 2005 release. Disney's supposedly going to handle the distribution (I hope that's their only involvement) and it's about to be shot on a $100 million budget in New Zealand (hopefully using the same SFX people as LOTR). If Disney handles the whole project the title may be changed to "The Lion and the Witch Come Out of the Closet".
Because if witchcraft did exist, all the angsty goth teenagers would be doing it. Do you seriously think that if something that powerful did exist, it would lie around totally unused?
Thanks, I think I understand what you're saying better.
Seems as if we're loading different understandings into what it means to be "concerned." A Christian who loves people (which should be a tautology) necessarily cares about their eternal destinies, with their relationship with God. He wants them to know God's love and forgiveness, to be reconciled to God. He wants to help if he can. There's no age-limit to that care, that compassion.
But that doesn't translate into making what these folks did wise. For instance, James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization are concerned about children, too. But they don't stand outside libraries shouting at them. They produce radio programs, books, booklets, cartoons, radio shows, and the like. That strikes me as wiser, more apprpriate, and more effective.
Now please make me glad that I took the time to give you a contentful answer.
Dan
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.