I think one has to be careful and not be too dogmatic about these things. Many Christians subscribe to classical training for their children now days. Which means exposing them to the Greek and Roman classics where they are exposes to the belief systems of the ancient world and are taught moral stories. Though many of the ancient classics are not very moral and can be quite the opposite.

Face it, the many stories that are told now are not really that too far off than what was told in ancient times. Also, it seems that Paul might have had an understanding of many of these stories himself. And we know that Paul made references to the various god's of the Roman world. I do not find it sinful to have knowledge of these things, are to use these stories to illustrate truth. The question is, what do you believe, and are you believing it is a story to illustrate some kind of truth. The LOTR in itself teaches us about a King, bravery, staying in the fight even though you might loose, and so forth. Much can be gleaned from the story about what is true and right. As long as you are looking at things through the lens of scripture, and discerning truth from error, I don't see a problem. But the thing is, are you looking at these stories through the lens of scripture.

-----Added 9/25/2009 at 08:20:25 EST-----


You said it better than me.

-----Added 9/25/2009 at 08:21:55 EST-----


You said it better than me.

__________________
Michael McNeil
PCA
Ellicott City, MD
www.spepchurch.com

There is something with the same terms because it is the same thing. Words mean things. What is condemned in scripture is: one that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch. They do all those things in the HP books.

How about if we imagine a world where children, no less, are instructed in the use and practice of things condemned in scripture. If they were instructed in homosexual practices would that also be alright?

I was the one making the point that your comment about Paul was speculation. The sports comment is also speculation. I could use an allegory of something I have never done before too. He was in both instances speaking to heathens using things they would identify with.

We should, of course, check the scriptures to see if our consciences are in error. That is exactly what I am trying to do. All I see in scripture are these practices condemned roundly in about 6 or 7 places, even in the NT.

I am surprised at this comment coming from you Ruben. The Scriptures are: profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. They are not mere stories. Not only that the bad things in them are condemned as bad not celebrated as a good thing.

I will say that you have shown the most hope so far, for the reading of HP.

__________________
Traci
Lynnwood OPC
"I have taken all my good deeds, and all my bad deeds, and cast them through each other in a heap before the Lord, and fled from both, and betaken myself to the Lord Jesus Christ, and in him I have sweet peace."--David Dickson

Words do mean things, in combination with other words. Context and usage are vital. As one for instance, Paul and James use one or more of "works" or "faith" or "justify" in a different sense. Have you read the Harry Potter books? I thought I knew them pretty well, but I appear to have overlooked the "observer of times" bit - unless you mean that they celebrate Christmas?

This paragraph strikes me as a little off topic, but I'll give it an answer anyway.
1. You don't really have to imagine such a world - just pay attention to what some people out there want to have happen. If they get their way, we'll be living that reality.
2. Imagining that such a world exists isn't necessarily wrong. (Think of an article in a Christian magazine beginning with, "What if the Man-Boy Love Association's candidate became President....") Approving the practices of that world would be wrong. (Of course, it's a little absurd to think that if people read something they consequently approve of it: In the Days of the Comet is a beautiful and an abominable book. If we're still fighting tomorrow I'll look up a good quote from George Orwell for you on the topic of recognizing good work while thinking the worker ought to be shot.)
3. Think about a book that talked about a world where everyone was gay, and how wonderful it would be if only we were all gay all the time. Then mentally date that book as having been written in 1890. It might be sappy, but it wouldn't necessarily be immoral. That's because "gay" has now been given more than one meaning.
4. Your paragraph above assumes what you said was a question in your first post - namely, whether the magic in books like Harry Potter, The Dark is Rising, Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, The Chronicles of Narnia, is the same as the magic denounced in Scripture.

Traci, you said, "If it is a comedy I find it hard to believe that he didn't have much more pressing things to do after being called by God on the Damascus road." (Emphasis added.) This was in response to me pointing out the admitted fact that Paul quotes Menander in 1 Corinthians 15:33. If your point was that its speculative to say that he quotes Menander since he doesn't introduce it as a quotation, I can reply by pointing you to Acts 17:28 and Titus 1:12, where in both places Paul shows a familiarity with pagan literature. The Titus reference is particularly instructive, because he is familiar with personal details about the poet, as well as with his work. It is also instructive that there are at least two occasions where an explicit citation is made of pagans in the NT. What you have when you put it together is that Paul had sufficient acquaintance with pagan literature to be able to quote it aptly, and that he had encountered enough value in it that he was not hesitant to quote it, and that the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul embedded those quotations as true statements in holy scripture. That is not speculation: that is the witness the Bible bears on this point. No doubt Paul was sharper than I am, but I find that in order to be able to quote aptly from a work, especially in speech (as in Acts 17:28), I have to have not only read but thought about what I've read. I know that over the years a lot of preachers have made sweeping assertions about things they know nothing about, but it is unjustified to attribute that same defect to Paul.

In applying Scripture to circumstances, you have to have an understanding of both termini. It's my contention that by failing to recognize any elasticity of meaning in the terms in question, you're applying texts to something they don't address - much like someone using the phrase "Suffer little children" as a defense of corporal punishment!

That the Scriptures are profitable, does not mean that they are not also pleasant. I don't think you can find in my post any hint that they are mere stories: but inasmuch as they contain narratives with a beginning, middle and end, they most certainly do contain stories, and stories that are well and interestingly told. Esther, for instance, is quite a dramatic masterpiece, as well as providing striking illustrations of many of Solomon's proverbs, and subtly holding forth God's ruling over all second causes for the good of His people. And Esther would not be that dramatic masterpiece without the unpredictable Ahasuerus or the low villain Haman.

As I said, I enjoyed the Harry Potter books, and don't feel at all guilty about that. When you take them for what they are, they are no worse than many episodes of the original Star Trek, and the fighting is a little less awkward.

By the way, I've addressed the matter before. As in this post in a rather alarmingly titled thread, and this post in a thread devoted to an unusual approach to the question of conscience. See also Fred Greco's post number 8 on that thread.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

In combination the whole context of the HP series is in disputably witchcraft and wizardry. There is no ambiguity about that.

They do make a big thing of Halloween in the few books I read. Yes, I have read the first one and the third or fourth one. I only left the observer of timess in there to keep the verse phrase intact.



It is not off topic. It is another wicked thing condemned in the Scriptures that if shown in a favorable light in a book would also, imho, condemn the book.


You completely misunderstood me here. What I thought was speculation was that he read it before his conversion. We don't know that he read any of those things post-conversion. He probably read them while in school. If we could know that, it might help your argument, but only if it contained things condemned by Scripture shown in a favorable light.

There is only so much elastisity in a word. Part of the galling nature of the HP series is that she didn't dance around the witchcraft etc. She took it on whole hog without batting an eyelash.

The Scriptures are not sensational and are actually sometimes abrupt in their matter of fact style. I agree that the poetry is very beautiful. They were written to teach and admonish, and they do not show sin in a favorable light. Which is the issue at hand.

However, when they are exposed to these Greek and Roman systems, they are very clearly taught that these are pagan cultures and we have nothing to do with them beyond learning about them - it is trivia that is seen as a part of a knowledgeable person's store of knowledge, nothing more. With HP, there is more, oh so much more. I've never seen children dressed up as Hector for Halloween, but children swallow the whole thing when it comes to HP. And some live it far beyond the pages of the books.

__________________
Kevin, husband of a truly angelic woman, and father to ten.
Zion United Reformed Church of Sheffield
Ontario, Canada

Py3ak:

True, but I think there may be a danger of building way too much on that one fact. After all, Traci is familiar with HP. She might easily use it as an illustration of a point in an evangelistic conversation with a Harry Potter fan (nobody is wrong ALL the time, and there may be statements in there both true and profitable, just as Paul found in Menander). Anyone who inferred that she was thereby giving her blessing to it would still be dead wrong, and you imply as much when you say
As you also said:I think that's the crux though: can anyone doubt that Rowling does approve, endorse, in fact wholeheartedly promote the witchcraft in her books? That's just the problem, and Traci put her finger on it.

-----Added 9/26/2009 at 07:06:22 EST-----

I would respectfully add, can anyone put a harmless spin on the news item I referred to in post 30?

__________________
JennyG
Church of Scotland (Presbyterian)
Fife, Scotland

I've heard that point raised many a time, but wonder just how familiar he really was with pagan writings on his own time. I know that in the 19th century, poetry and literature was the popular entertainment of the day, and clever turns of a phrase were memorized by many to show their wit, even those who couldn't read! I know it is a stretch, but who doesn't know "Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun." Does this mean that you are a McD's fan, or that you were at that time faced with a very popular saying that everyone just knew? (And, that was a jingle that ran from 1975 to 1976 - when I was a kid, in the mid to late 80's, everyone still knew it.) I don't think it is fair to say that because of a quote of popular literature, that he 'found value' in it in a meaningful way.

Poole says that what Epimenides wrote about the Cretians became a popular proverb in Paul's day. One need not read anything in order to know that catchphrase. In a similar fashion, not everyone who used the phrase "oh behave" watched Austin Powers movies. "Take off, eh?" is not the exclusive property of Bob and Doug McKenzie aficionados, it was a popular phrase for general use (and still is in general use, for some). And if a pastor said it to someone in a conversation, it is not a personal endorsement of its 'value', it is simply a well-known phrase.

[QUOTE]I think that's the crux though: can anyone doubt that Rowling does approve, endorse, in fact wholeheartedly promote the witchcraft in her books? That's just the problem, and Traci put her finger on it.[/QUOTE

I'm wary of getting involved in this argument (I've been in it too many times before) and as I basically agree with everything Ruben has said, I'll leave him to it! However, your point about Ms. Rowling did remind me of a television interview that I saw a few weeks before the 6th book came out. In the interview, someone asked her if she thought her books were turning children towards witchcraft and satanic practices. Ms. Rowling replied that her intention was to create a fantasy world or alternate reality, not to endorse satanic practices. Then she said: "You know, I've met thousands of kids at my book signings, and not once has one of them approached me and asked if I'd like to trot aroundand sacrifice a goat out back - or take part in any other satanic ritual. If that was happening, I'd be concerned, but its not."

I think that interview showed that Ms. Rowling isn't trying to convert children to the "dark side," she's just trying to create an engaging alternate reality. Whether or not one wants to read her books is a matter of personal choice and conscience, but I think its a bit much to claim that her motives in writing are to turn her readers into Wiccans or Satanists. (I don't think anyone has used those labels yet, but I think its been pretty generally implied in the thread)

That's all.

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

So create an engaging alternate reality that is devoid of witchcraft. I think this also ties in well with:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/amu...59/#post693639

It is more white noise, with a little arsenic in the milk in the form of witchcraft.

(Also, remember that Satanism is not about the sacrifice of animals and black masses. It is simply service to ones-self instead of God. )

If there's no ambiguity about it, why did you ask the question in the OP? How much are you struggling with this if you've already made a firm decision?

But you also said that "they do all those things." If words mean things, as you say, then you're going to have to use them a little more carefully.

Again, you're assuming as proven the point you originally said you had a question about. It's fine if you've made up your mind, naturally, but there's still been no evidence presented for your view.

Traci, please read your paragraph above again. It is speculation to say that Paul probably read pagan writings while he was in school. It is somewhat unlikely that it was in school that he would have had access to them, given that the Gamaliel at whose feet he was brought up, felt that owning a targum in Aramaean on Job was wrong, and so had it buried. You say we don't know that he read any of those things post-conversion: sure. We don't know that he read any of them pre-conversion, either. What we do know is that after his conversion, and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he has no trouble taking what he knew to be pagan writings, and using even what they said about their gods (Acts 17:28), as having value in his own teaching. Of course that doesn't imply an endorsement of everything Menander or Epimenides or Aratus or whomever else said; but it does tell you that they could be read for profit, because something profitable was found in them. And to say that if Paul read them he didn't enjoy them, is not only baseless speculation, it's also irrelevant: he endorsed specific statements as profitable: those specific statements can only be found by someone going through the larger works.

Your original question was about how much elasticity there might be. If Rowling had avoided the use of the words witchcraft and wizardry, I doubt that she would be better received.

Of course, not all of the Scripture is equally stylish. Not everyone is going to be David, after all. The issue at hand is whether fantasy literature portrays one specific sin in a favorable light: so far, you're assuming it does. If you want to extend the question, then you're going to find that the issue of a favorable presentation of some sin is a problem in practically all writing - even if it's the sin of divisiveness that is portrayed as zeal for the Lord, for instance, in some fundamentalist tracts.

Jenny, please notice again the circumstances in which Paul quotes the pagans, and under whose inspiration he is at those times. That's the vital point.
And yes, I find it quite easy to doubt that Rowling is pushing children towards witchcraft. I often spend at least 15 minutes a day doubting just that.

I don't think there's any need to spin it. Would you like to put a harmless spin on the story I heard repeated to me that once a purse-snatcher seized a purse from a woman, but when she hollered "Jesus" at him he dropped it? The woman who told me the story had been influenced by that anecdote to decide to scream the Lord's name at anyone who might ever assail her. Abusus non tollit usus.

Kevin, obviously Paul didn't give us an annotated bibliography. (And by the way, I was not familiar with any of the common phrases you quoted, thankfully.) But he knows what a Cretan poet said about the Cretans, and is able to cite it when writing to a man located in Crete. In speaking, extemporaneously and without much opportunity for preparation, again an apt pagan quotation leaps to mind. There are naturally neutral citations of well-known phrases. But that is not how Paul quotes them. Look at 1 Corinthians 15:33. Is Paul speaking the truth? Look at Acts 17:28? Is Paul speaking the truth? Look at Titus 1:12. Is Paul speaking the truth? (V. 13 will clear up any doubts.) Even if he didn't read it personally, he still approved it. That's three witnesses that settle the matter. And in so doing, he started (unless Solomon beat him to it) a tradition that extends right down to the present, of God's people having the purity of conscience to be able to engage and profit from uninspired, non-theological literature.

If Satanism is the service of one's self, then it loses all value as a label, because it is no way distinguished from sin. Aleister Crowley was a Satanist in a way that George Orwell was not.

Ruben, I mentioned earlier somewhere that I thought that the reading of certain secular material, for the purposes of learning, and that done with a critical eye, could be done by a mature Christian.

You are right I am fairly set in this conviction. I was hoping to be challenged by someone vigorously to test that conviction. Thank you sir, for doing just that. I just cannot get past all the Scripture I know that tells us to steer clear of sin, not to even put it before our eyes. I can find no justification for reading something with not just witchcraft but any sort of gross sin being shown in a favorable light. We are to make no provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

I am aware that that leaves out a lot of things. My girls are receiving a Classical Education. They will be reading 'critically' some of the classics like the Iliad and the Odyssey. And that under the care of Christian teachers. I hope that this is not a mistake. We do guard against secular worldviews and ideas, and feminist garbage as well.

The only reason witchcraft came to the fore is that their drama class wants to do a play where more than half the cast are witches and warlocks. I am very disappointed that this is occurring in our girls school. This is driven by one teacher who we will be speaking with soon. That is part of why I wanted to test my thinking on this.

Thanks to all for your comments thus far.

It all falls under the category of idolatry.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

"For the purposes of learning, and that done with a critical eye", though, can lead to misreading, which is not a Christian virtue. Yes, to the critical eye. Yes, there are things you have to read to learn. But if you can't read Shakespeare for enjoyment, then you are misreading him. Mutatis mutandis, that applies across the board. Things must be read for what they are.

In addition to the Biblical warrant I've provided, I'd like to paste in a statement from a sensible, sensitive, thoughtful, talented, charming, gracious, beautiful and lovely person of my acquaintance, which sets out a positive value to fantastic literature, as well hurling down a few common objections:

OK, I'm not trying to be pruposefully obtuse, but: hunh?

If JK Rowling writes that Harry said that 2+2=4, I have no problem with that. If she says that Harry says that water is wet, I am not disputing that truth either. It's all the witchcraft that puts me off. If my pastor preaches from the pulpit: "Hey, remember in 'A Clockwork Orange', when the main character is participating in theft and terrorizing innocent victims; I think we can draw a parallel in blah blah blah..." No one will be listening past the movie title, because what on earth is he doing watching that sort of thing? I know this is Harry Potter and not rape and pillage, but it is indeed witchcraft, and the glorification thereof. I can't actually understand the attraction. It may be engaging and well written, but if Mark Twain decided to publish the continuing adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn in serial form in Playboy magazine, I wouldn't read them, whether my conscience could handle seeing the surrounding materials or not. It is simply not appropriate material for Christians to be spending their time on. I am not talking about non-theological material, I'm talking about material that glorifies/normalizes activities in which the participants commune and make use of the power of the devil.

Kevin, have you read any of the Harry Potter books?

Paul evidently did not think that Titus' reaction would be jaw-dropping horror at the fact that he would quote a sweeping generalization from a degenerate pagan as part of inspired apostolic instruction meant to guide the church for all time.

From about 1:40 - 3:20 (but it is sprinkled before and after as well)

That's the really scary part. "The answer to your problems is in yourself, not in some God," says one adherent.

That is indeed Satanism.

-----Added 9/26/2009 at 03:35:08 EST-----

Enough of the first one to know it is not for the eyes of Christians.

I have difficulty with this line of reasoning. I read "The Shack" for this same reason, and wish I hadn't. Fouling my mind with rambling and puerile heresy so that I can speak 'intelligently' about the topic was not a wise thing.

It may have been a statement of relevance to illustrate more clearly, and been appropriate at the time. But I still think that Poole's commentary is fair in that these are common sayings and not the product of personal study.

Thus I don't see it as a key part of this "apostolic instruction", it was more to set the stage for what he was going to say. Are we to still rebuke only Cretians in this way today? Are they now as they were made out to be at that time? I don't think that the Spirit's inspiration was meant to keep us biased towards Cretians for 2000 years. I thik from what read on it was a thrust in the direction of "they have these tendencies as a people, as a cultural norm; make them see that it is wickedness, call them on it." If we see the same trends in other peoples, call them on it. Do not use cultural lenses, use scriptural lenses.

Kathleen, you saidyou're right of course!
but she is entirely careless of whether she succeeds in selling them the idea of an enticing world in which all the good and powerful and glamorous and desirable things just happen to be at enmity with God's word. Without getting anecdotal, I know kids do buy it.
Someone mentioned the "Dark is Rising" series. That too must have left many a little reader with a lasting impression of the Christian minister in the story, utterly helpless before the powers of evil which only the young wizard, like David against Goliath, can take on. If that's your take on it, the fact that good does triumph over evil becomes slightly irrelevant!
Abusus non tollit usum does invite the question of what the good usum is, where witchcraft is concerned. Not to be presented in the light of a force to save the world, if you ask me. I really think it should bother Christian HP fans more, that at the end of the series the hero is made into a pseudo-Christ.

Kevin, it's speculation that it was not the fruit of personal study. I've presented the evidence that shows that Paul knew, not only the remark, but something about the man who made it. It's on the surface of the text. Compare that again with Acts 17:28. Whether from a compendium, whether from private conversation with someone who knew, whether from billboards announcing the new premieres, Paul not only picked up some knowledge of pagan stuff, he also, inspired by the Holy Spirit, included it in Holy Writ.
Cretans today may not be as they were then (at one point, according to Orwell, it was a characteristically English crime to kick your wife to death, then that kind of dropped out of circulation, and now if Theodore Dalrymple is a competent witness, it's coming back into style). But that has zero bearing on the point at issue.

No one is requiring you to read anything; but until you can make an argument, I'm going to stick with my own reading of 9 Harry Potter books as a source of information about them, over your partial reading of one.

Kevin, you saidThis is off the point, but am I the only person in the whole world who found it really formulaic, derivative and predictable?? I did read the whole of the first one, but at the cost of some effort

I quite enjoy the Harry Potter books. I also let my kids watch Cinderella, with its enchantments being cast by a fairy godmother. Greek mythology is always a good read in classic education, even with its multitude of gods.

I used to be (back in my Pente days) very strongly against reading stuff that I deemed non-Christian or full of paganism. But at some point, I realized that I had actually become quite superstitious on that point. God is able to keep me, and witchcraft isn't a disease that someone can catch. I can, for example, visit an ancient Egyptian temple and admire the artistry and architecture and history involved in it without becoming a devotee of Isis. And that's closer to real paganism than Harry Potter will ever be (it was never intended to be taken seriously, whereas the Egyptians were quite serious in their worship).

But it is entirely possible (as Ruben has pointed out) to enjoy a story without endorsing everything in it. One of my favorite movies is 'Chicago'. My mother-in-law said, "I hated it! It was a movie about how to get away with murder!" Well, yes, on one level, it was. But really, it was a movie about the problems within our justice system, media hype, and some interesting aspects of society and human behavior.

My children and I love the Merlin series on TV, and we made it a weekly family activity to watch and discuss it (the season is over now, though, so we've moved on to watching the john Adams series on DVD). I have yet to see my children attempt any sort of magic, and they know full well that that part is just make-believe. The things they talked about and admired were how Prince Arthur sacrificed his life to save his friend, and how Morgana forgave the man who was responsible for her father's death, and so on. It is good for children to have heroes, and I would never want to make them as frightened of witches and demons and such as I was as a child.

__________________
Caroline
OPC
Schenectady, NY
Blog: The Unlikely Calvinist

This would likewise be something relatively simple to know about a famous poet. This is no evidence to show that it was knowledge gleaned by personal study, and your statement is thus every bit as speculative as mine.

Because you have drunk more deeply of those waters, you will indeed be able to offer more information than I. However, while you reference tenuous links to the pop culture of the day as validating the liberty to read as you please, I would say that 1 Samuel 15:23, 2 Chronicles 33:6, Micah 5:12, and Galatians 5:20 all stand quite solid in backing up the spirit of this statement: Witchcraft is not to be entertainment for Christians.

Why is that so hard to swallow?

We have no right to play with fire because we know that God can keep us from falling. He has also commanded us to flee from sin, to flee from idolatry. We have no right to tempt him and you do so at your own peril. So take heed lest you fall.

1 Cor. 10:6-14:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12 Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. 14 Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.

Thanks, but I am quite alright in that. I trust in the Lord, who is able to keep me from falling.

As for worshipping any of these idols, I have no temptation that way, thank the Lord. If I did, then perhaps it might be good to avoid them.

But the answer is not to make one's self comfortable with them.

Caroline, thanks for your sane post. To the pure all things are pure, and a spirit of fear is not from God. How good He is, to give us not one or two, but all things richly to enjoy.

Kevin, I've pointed out multiple times that speculative explanations for how or where Paul acquired his knowledge have no bearing on what lies on the surface of the text: that he was aware of, and quoted with approval, the works of pagan writers. His manner of citation suggests a more extensive familiarity than you seem willing to allow, as the fact that some of our members can appropriately and speedily cite from church fathers, reformers or puritans suggests a fairly decent familiarity with those sources. But say that Paul only knew three lines from the Greek poets: say that he picked them up without ever scanning a line of Greek literature: say that it was a randomly overheard remark that gave him information about Epimenides, and it was due to a remarkable memory that he preserved that fact. Say all of that: it doesn't change his citation with approval, his demonstrating by example to preachers (Acts and Titus) and church members (1 Corinthians 15:33) that pagan writings contained true and valuable remarks, and that acquaintance with them, thought about them, use of them, is not wrong.

Your final paragraph doesn't seem like you've paid attention to what I've been saying from my first post on this thread. Consider again that Traci asked if the witchcraft in Harry Potter was the same as that in Scripture: consider that I have consistently answered no. Now ask yourself the same question you just asked me.

Traci, I think it's wrong of you to try to bind Caroline's conscience. Be fully persuaded in your own mind, but don't apply threatenings to her.

I understand what you mean by that,.... and yet we all do have temptation to idols. I do really think that Traci is right and HP is idolatrous. Witchcraft is presented as the force that can save the world - and at the end of the series, Harry Potter himself takes the role of Christ in dying for that and then returning to life. If that's not idolatrous.....!
Can't any HP admirer explain why that shouldn't bother me as much as it does?

I'm closing this thread until another moderator can get on and review to see if this one has run its course. I'm not at all comfortable with the posts directed to Caroline.

Do not mistake my continuing to close this thread for what it is not: it is not a ruling that the prudence/wisdom of reading fantasy or pagan literature is off limits, nor how Christians should interact with literature or art (whether fantastic or not) that involves or is based upon pagan practices. Such discussions should be beneficial for us all, as we learn in what sorts of things a renewed mind ought to take pleasure. In agreement with Ruben's judgment, however, it seems the productivity of this particular thread may be nearing the end; the respective positions have been clearly established, and ample reading material has been provided.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?