Deconstructing Rowling

National Review ^ | 6/9/03 | Dave Kopel

[Mamzelle]

You got your copy, through mail order, already? I ask because I've sent one to a child, and was hoping it'd arrive quickly. Sunday, a no-mail day, complicates the mailing time.

[AmericaUnited]

If you two bothered to read the next part of St Clement's letter, it would be very clear to both of you that he actually thought the bird existed.

Chapter 26: "Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those who have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise?"

His point was that if a bird could actually resurrect itself, then why could not Jesus?

He actually thinks this bird exists! That's why I consider it very funny that Oztrich Boy was using this person as a "credible" spokeman.

[af_vet_rr]

I'd rather my kids read Harry Potter than watch that big purple dinosaur with the annoying voice. There's something scary about toddlers everywhere singing "I love you, you love me, we're a happy family...". ewwwwww

I've always found it a bit creepy/scary as well. Can't put my finger on any one thing about it, but just found it creepy.

[Tribune7]

Oh, get the heck out of here.

Harry Potter is based on Sonny Bono movie from 1986. :-)<

[Oztrich Boy]

No I was establishing how old the phoenix is in Christian symbolism against your citing of a NewAge feminist to claim that it wasn't part of Christian symbolism.

[T-Bird45]

Ahh....sweet release, the Fedex truck just left. See ya in a mere 870 pages from now.

[dark_lord]

I did read the next part. But remember the time he lived. Heck, there was no concept then of "science" as we know it. No scientific method. The intellectual disciplines were weak. People believed all kinds of stuff that was not true...but it wasn't like they had any good way of verifying things. That is why I say it doesn't matter whether he believed it or whether it was allegorical. People quoted myths to make points.

I don't apply the same standards of criteria today for argument that applied centuries ago. Plato and Aristotle "stepped in it" plenty of times making their arguments also, by our standards.

[Buggman]

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Two reasons: first the seeing wasn't literal, and second you have made an interpretation that contradicts the clear and explicit words of the Bible. If anyone is allowed to read stuff into the actual words, how can you claim any authority for the original words at all. Here's a clue: does everyone agree with you?

Not everyone agrees with my stance that the 2nd Amendment gives me personally the right to carry an "assault weapon" either. Does that mean that the 2nd Amendment is less than clear on the subject or that we must agree with an "allegorical" interpretation?

And no, I take the narrative quite literally. I believe that the Adversary took my Lord to the top of a tall mountain. I believe that he showed Him all the world's kingdoms. I do not believe that this requires a flat earth. If I, a mortal creature, have the technology to take you to the top of any given mountain and show you all the world's kingdoms (and I do--all I need is a television and a receiver of some kind), then I have no problem with a fallen angel having the means to accomplish the same. None of this requires a symbolic or allegorical interpretation, or even very much imagination.

[bonfire]

"I've always found it a bit creepy/scary as well. Can't put my finger on any one thing about it, but just found it creepy."

I think that just makes two of us. Most parents I know think it's just "wonderful". Give me witchcraft any day!!! :)