LOL - Shakespeare wasn't glamorizing witchcraft in MacBeth and his work wasn't directly marketed to children.
Harry Potter and friends, however, are characters that children may wish to emulate. Creating curiosity about witchcraft draws the impressionable viewer (read: children) away from holiness.
It's disingenuous to support Harry Potter, blast the pope, and then complain that the mass media is indoctrinating our children into accepting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Witchcraft is evil, too, but not in this case? This is aking to saying homosexuality is evil, but not in the case of "Will and Grace" because it's such a well-written show.
Lord of the Rings was written as an allegory for salvation history. Tolkien said as much and was a devout Catholic who had a close friendship with the great theologian, C.S. Lewis. It's not comparable.
"Lord of the Rings was written as an allegory for salvation history. Tolkien said as much and was a devout Catholic who had a close friendship with the great theologian, C.S. Lewis. It's not comparable."
Could you perhaps prove that? Tolkien was a devout Catholic but he also wrote quite emphatically that Lord of the Rings was *not* an allegory for anything though people have tried to connect it to Christianity, WWII, WWI, nuclear weaponry etc etc etc...
"The story is neither allegorical nor topical."~J.R.R. Tolkien
Harry Potter and friends are characters children CAN'T emulate. Magic in HP is genetic, it's well established in the books that future wizards already have these powers and accidentally display them before ever being instructed or knowing anything about them. Wizards in HP are wizards at birth, everything else is training and control, it doesn't glorify witchcraft as discussed in the Bible because it has no relationship to that kind of witchcraft.
They can emulate Harry Potter to their hearts' content but their spells still won't work.
Following this logic, superhero comic books are bad for kids because they might encourage kids to emulate an illegal alien (Superman) or a vigilante psychotic (Batman).
STOP IT ALL OF YOU FROM SAYING THAT LOTR WAS AN ALLEGORY
TOLKIEN HIMSELF SAID IT WAS NOWHERE NEAR AN ALLEGORY
It might serve you best to go read what he had to say on the matter.
I spit on allegories!
Tolkien is the one who caused C.S. Lewis to become a Christian in first place.
Lewis was a confirmed atheist for a long time.
I dont know of anyone who read or saw Lord of The Rings trilogy who became Christian as a result nor do I know anyone who has seen or read the Potter books and become an occultist.
It's entertainment.
I read the children's book "A Little Witch" when I was growing up. And saw Disney's "Fantasia".
And I was forced to read the New York Sunday Times growing up.
And neither one made become a Sorceress nor a Raging Leftie Libtard.
But seriously, I'm grateful B16 slammed these books -- if for no other reason than he is once again demonstrating that he is a man of refined artistic taste. A lover of Mozart and Bach. An admirer of Hermann Hesse (his favorite novel is "Steppenwolf"). Call me an aesthetic snob if you must, but these Harry Pothead books are junk.