Is witchcraft today fundamentally different than that condemned in scripture?

[py3ak]

Naturally. And cleaving means cleaving - but whether from or to is a matter for the context.

I don't know what to think really. Do you think Harry Potter is ok?

I enjoyed the Harry Potter books as the epicification of the school story genre that's been around in British literature for quite some time. I wouldn't recommend them to provide role models, as great literature, or as your vehicle for exploring metaphysics; but I don't think a whole lot of the intelligence of anyone who would look to them for that in the first place. There are good, decent, weak and bad lessons that can be drawn from them. But since I suspect that moralizing (at least without having finished the book yet) is one cause of why people so often misread things, I don't put a lot of emphasis on that either.

But the ultimate answer is that I had no problem reading them myself, nor do I have any difficulty with others reading them. The audiobooks are nice company for long car journeys.

You might also enjoy my exposé of the real problem with Harry Potter in my guest post on my ex-loaned-dog's blog.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Wicked Witch of the West: Who killed my sister? Who killed the Witch of the East? Was it you?

Dorothy: No, no. It was an accident. I didn't mean to kill anybody.

Wicked Witch of the West: Well, my little pretty, I can cause accidents, too!

 

[21st Century Calvinist]

If the theme of witchcraft or magic is an issue or temptation for you then don't read the books or watch the movies whether it be Harry Potter or LOTR or Narnia or a whole host of others.
If you don't like the genre then steer clear.
If you haven't read them, sure ask questions, seek people's opinions, but don't jump to conclusions or malign the names and characters of those who have.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I think the bible is quite clear that witchcraft and sorcery (magic) are very real phenomenons that are evil. Appartently how it works is by the power of demons. So if one is in tune with the demonic spirits that be they can apparently get things done to the glory of the demons. That is what I believe we must make clear in regards to the evil that magic really is.

However, there is a genre of literature in sci/fi fantasy that uses many similar terms yet different rules for reality and application. So it is fantastical and purely a story of fiction meant for entertainment only. I don't think this leads at all to real demon worship if those who are free to read it or watch it on TV are educated about the fictionality of it in respect to the reality of demonic activity.

So, it really comes down to what is your opinion of the value of entertainment? Is entertainment itself a waste of time, energy and thus a self indulgent sin or not? All untrue things that people entertain themselves with are of the same value as the fiction that is the Harry Potter books. None of it is true, yet all of it is time consuming.

 

[Megan Mozart]

I was a rabid (actually... this word is probably not sufficient to depict my obsession) reader of HP from the time I was 9 until I was about 15 or so. Then I took a hiatus, and came back for the last few books of the series but then my interest was very much abated.

I had an extremely-fantasy prone childhood. I didn't grow up in a Christian home, besides going to a United Methodist church. Harry Potter was the pinnacle of my active imagination. It was an escape for me - a world that I preferred to the real world. In fact, I was so immersed in it (writing fan fiction, re-reading the books over and over, participating in online forums, checking fan news everyday, etc) that the world started becoming more real to me than the real world. I actually started thinking that perhaps the real world isn't the real one, Hogwarts has to be because I spend so much time in it that it seems more real. It was all I ever talked about with my friends at school. I was proud of all the useless facts and trivia I knew about the books. I loved it more than anything. It was my life.



It was at its worst, and then I became a Christian when I was 13. The interest lessened but I still kept up with all the fan stuff, still loved it a lot, but Jesus was replaced as the primary love in my life. I began a process of letting go of the concept that Hogwarts is NOT the place I want to be more than anything else. Heaven with Jesus is.

After middle school I realized, by God's grace, how dangerous it was to be obsessed with this, so I decided to quit with all the fan stuff and re-reading... completely stop with HP for a while. When the next book came out, I continued then reading the remaining books, but I didn't follow the fan stuff anymore except once every now and then. The moment I finished that last book was one of the biggest "sigh of relief" moments in my life. I have completely moved on and now live a life apart from HP! Yay!

I am just so thankful that God has convinced me that the most fulfilling endeavour is the pursuit of knowing him.

Anyways, I don't know how this helps in the discussion, but I thought I would contribute my insight. It was probably more than you cared to know...

Ruben, you might have addressed this in your blog post, but I didn't read it...

So when I think of the dangers of HP, I actually just think of the worldview the book purports - basically that the ends justify the means. It's ok to break curfew, forget authority, etc if you know what you're trying to accomplish is the right thing. This is mainly why if I ever let my kids read them, they have to be age 16/17+.

I am not convinced that the magic part of the books is dangerous, but I am willing to be proved wrong.

 

[Augusta]

What J.K. Rowling has done with these books is, I think, is appalling. She may later wish she had a millstone tied around her neck and been thrown into the sea. She has led little ones astray to love and admire character who commit abominations in the sight of God. I don't care that they are just fictional characters. The sins that follow in the reader are real. Something that causes you to approve and even laugh at sinful actions is not harmless. Romans 1:32

I haven't heard any good arguments to the contrary yet. I would beg everyone to rethink letting this type of literature (for lack of a better word) into you library and your life. If you insert homosexual in place of witch and make it a funny, riveting story about homosexuals, is it still harmless? Would you still think that children endeared to homosexual characters would not cause them to think lightly of that sin?

Would you, yourself, be comforable writing a book of this nature? If not, why not? I really cannot imagine a Christian choosing such subject matter to write a story about. If you don't think it's ok for you why is it ok for J. K. Rowling and why would you read them? I don't think many would have but for all the hype that came of them. If they are skillfully written does that change the morality of reading them?

 

[JennyG]

You're so absolutely right Augusta, I was looking for the function to press "thanks" several more times!
....another way of looking at it - if Harry Potter had been around in the first century AD, can you seriously imagine the Apostle Paul curling happily up with a copy?
Or can you picture Elijah or Isaiah or any of the prophets confronted with the books, and imagine what their reaction would be?

 

[Parsifal23]

No it's of the same spirit as wichcraft in the Bible even if the outward rituals have changed.

 

[py3ak]

I still struggle with this question. I often hear the argument that today's witchcraft is different than what is condemned in the Bible. That fictional witchcraft is not the same. I have to work through this to know what to let my children read as well as participate in, in terms of plays etc.

My gut reaction is that it is at root the same. It is rebellion from the created order and God's providence. It is the desire for powers that free you from God sovereign power.

Am I totally wacked?! I know many very faithful Christians who have no trouble reading the Harry Potter books. I, honestly, have a visceral reaction to them. I need to know if this is my conscience reacting or if it is a knee jerk fundamentalist reaction. Even the latter may not be wrong because the fundamentalists weren't wrong on everything.

Talk amongst yourselves.

Looking back through the thread, I realize I didn't actually address the original post.

Is today's witchcraft the same as ancient witchcraft? It depends. Are there satanists, idolaters, etc., trying to manipulate the world through illegitimate means? Yes. Are people being led astray by lying wonders? Yes. Are people attempting to contact the dead, and is that used by demons? Yes. Are there people involved in bizarre pseudo-religions? Yes. Are there people putting fake warts on their nose and clutching broomsticks? Yes. But these last are not quite in the same category as the others.

Is fictional witchcraft the same? Yes and no: it depends on the book, movie, TV show, etc.

Are you totally whacked? No, but you are wrong. One of the things we do, as little makers, is think, "What if things were like this?" It is not rebellion against the created order to imagine things that are contrary to fact, as that there is a very wealthy gentleman named Mr. Darcy whose pride is overcome by love, or that it is the year 3500 and faster-than-light space travel is a reality.

If I had the talent and discipline and an idea, I would have no qualms of conscience in writing a fantasy or science fiction novel. The fundamental principle that abusus non tollit usus is one of the things it seems fundamentalists frequently forget, so that point really may be some latent fundamentalism talking.

As to Paul, et al, I have pointed out before that the Apostle (who as probably the most self-disclosing penman of Scripture was the most likely candidate for something along these personal lines) does manifest acquaintance with the playwright Menander, among other heathen writers, going so far as to quote that comedian in inspired Scripture. So that doesn't leave me in the position of having to try to imagine his response. Of course, if use of the imagination is a problem, we'd better not do that in any case.

You say you haven't seen any arguments to the contrary: but there haven't been any arguments to establish it. There have been assertions and there have been feelings and there have been newspaper anecdotes.

Ruben, you might have addressed this in your blog post, but I didn't read it...

Neither did I, actually.

 

[py3ak]

When you raise a question about something being different, it is not out of the way to remark that no argument have been offered for its identity.

Secondly, I think you must have overlooked that I pointed out that in actuality there is the sort of witchcraft condemned in Scripture, but I also pointed out that there is something else referred to by similar terms which does not fit in the same category. I then proceeded to make the same distinction with regard to fiction that I had already made with regard to real life.

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

No doubt there are good and bad motives for reading: but your ideas about Paul's reading habits or his motives can be nothing other than speculation. What can be shown from the text of Scripture is that Paul was aware of and found profit in pagan writings. I find it a little hard to believe that Paul enjoyed sports, but the evidence from his letters says otherwise.

If conscience were fully adequate to direct us, the Bible could have been a lot shorter. I am not recommending that you go against your conscience, but you can't make your moral feelings the standard for other people. Of course, I'm also quite happy to follow my conscience in this regard.

I take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

 

[Wanderer]

I can deal with LOTR a little easier, not saying I am right about it, because his magic is downplayed and even said to be passing away and dangerous (the ring, the dark Lord). Even the elves, who aren't necessarily magical but seem to have certain inate abilities (like angels), are leaving. He seems to deal a little more honestly with the magic. He is at least no flouting it as the author of HP does.

I take your point here, but actually I have a slight problem with LOTR too.
I think it stems from seeing people (some I know personally) who appear to treat the book like the Bible. I don't mean that facetiously. I know people who give it the place in their inner/imaginative/intellectual/spiritual lives which ought to be occupied only by holy scripture.

I have witnessed that too Jenny. Although I have witnessed that with a lot of things. People get all caught up in fads of all sorts, so I don't think that argument is very strong against LOTR. I may have a blind spot where LOTR is concerned for nostalgic reasons and because I have been a sci-fi/fantasy fan for many years and it is classic.

Like I said I am learning and hopefully conforming to the word of God, but it is so hard to buck the culture. Especially where it has invaded the church.

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-----

When you raise a question about something being different, it is not out of the way to remark that no argument have been offered for its identity.

Secondly, I think you must have overlooked that I pointed out that in actuality there is the sort of witchcraft condemned in Scripture, but I also pointed out that there is something else referred to by similar terms which does not fit in the same category. I then proceeded to make the same distinction with regard to fiction that I had already made with regard to real life.

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

No doubt there are good and bad motives for reading: but your ideas about Paul's reading habits or his motives can be nothing other than speculation. What can be shown from the text of Scripture is that Paul was aware of and found profit in pagan writings. I find it a little hard to believe that Paul enjoyed sports, but the evidence from his letters says otherwise.

If conscience were fully adequate to direct us, the Bible could have been a lot shorter. I am not recommending that you go against your conscience, but you can't make your moral feelings the standard for other people. Of course, I'm also quite happy to follow my conscience in this regard.

I take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

You said it better than me.

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

When you raise a question about something being different, it is not out of the way to remark that no argument have been offered for its identity.

Secondly, I think you must have overlooked that I pointed out that in actuality there is the sort of witchcraft condemned in Scripture, but I also pointed out that there is something else referred to by similar terms which does not fit in the same category. I then proceeded to make the same distinction with regard to fiction that I had already made with regard to real life.

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

No doubt there are good and bad motives for reading: but your ideas about Paul's reading habits or his motives can be nothing other than speculation. What can be shown from the text of Scripture is that Paul was aware of and found profit in pagan writings. I find it a little hard to believe that Paul enjoyed sports, but the evidence from his letters says otherwise.

If conscience were fully adequate to direct us, the Bible could have been a lot shorter. I am not recommending that you go against your conscience, but you can't make your moral feelings the standard for other people. Of course, I'm also quite happy to follow my conscience in this regard.

I take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

You said it better than me.

 

[Augusta]

When you raise a question about something being different, it is not out of the way to remark that no argument have been offered for its identity.

Secondly, I think you must have overlooked that I pointed out that in actuality there is the sort of witchcraft condemned in Scripture, but I also pointed out that there is something else referred to by similar terms which does not fit in the same category. I then proceeded to make the same distinction with regard to fiction that I had already made with regard to real life.

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.

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

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?

No doubt there are good and bad motives for reading: but your ideas about Paul's reading habits or his motives can be nothing other than speculation. What can be shown from the text of Scripture is that Paul was aware of and found profit in pagan writings. I find it a little hard to believe that Paul enjoyed sports, but the evidence from his letters says otherwise.

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.

If conscience were fully adequate to direct us, the Bible could have been a lot shorter. I am not recommending that you go against your conscience, but you can't make your moral feelings the standard for other people. Of course, I'm also quite happy to follow my conscience in this regard.

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 take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

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?

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

 

[Augusta]

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.

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?

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.

No one said we are free to imagine whatever we want; I pointed out that there are acceptable uses of imagination, so the fact that someone imagines something that is contrary to fact does not automatically make it evil.

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.

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, In my humble opinion, condemn the book.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[kvanlaan]

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.

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.

 

[JennyG]

Py3ak:

....... Paul shows a familiarity with pagan literature....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

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

Of course, it's a little absurd to think that if people read something they consequently approve of it...

As you also said:

I take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

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?

...the mother of Emma Thompson had some stone gargoyles stolen out of her garden 2 years ago... She put up notices saying she had laid a curse on the thief.
Now she's had [the gargoyles] left on her doorstep with a terrified little anonymous note saying "please lift the curse, I've been terribly ill since I stole these".
She says she got the inspiration for the curse from her daughter's role in Harry Potter.

 

[kvanlaan]

....... Paul shows a familiarity with pagan literature....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

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.

 

[Montanablue]

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.

 

[kvanlaan]

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)

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

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/amusing-ourselves-death-53659/#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. )

 

[py3ak]

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

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?

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.

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.

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, In my humble opinion, condemn the book.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Of course, it's a little absurd to think that if people read something they consequently approve of it...

As you also said:

I take pleasure in many Biblical stories which have villainous behaviour. One needn't approve of Abimelech or of Mr. Toad in order to enjoy the story.

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.

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

...the mother of Emma Thompson had some stone gargoyles stolen out of her garden 2 years ago... She put up notices saying she had laid a curse on the thief.
Now she's had [the gargoyles] left on her doorstep with a terrified little anonymous note saying "please lift the curse, I've been terribly ill since I stole these".
She says she got the inspiration for the curse from her daughter's role in Harry Potter.

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.

....... Paul shows a familiarity with pagan literature....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

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.

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.

 

[Augusta]

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.

 

[Rich Koster]

It all falls under the category of idolatry.

 

[py3ak]

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.

"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:

I was not allowed to read fantasy growing up; I discovered it after becoming a Christian, as an adult. It helped me to grasp the vividness and the wonder of doctrines I had always been taught, but which had never been presented as having much reality to my imagination. I never saw the incredible beauty of some of the things I had been taught, till I read them in parables. All books are dangerous because ideas are dangerous, but in my opinion, making a true statement about the world in make believe symbols is much less dangerous than making a false statement about the world in real symbols. I have been told by a friend that Christian Romance Novels almost ruined her marriage; and by another that they almost ruined her singleness. Yet Christian Romance Novels get recommended by people who discourage fantasy literature all the time.

I would never urge anyone to read fantasy against the pricking of their conscience: I have a friend who told me that before he came to Christ, Tolkien and C. S. Lewis were instrumental in his fascination with the occult. I take this seriously; but it is an abuse, not a proper use, of those stories: just as one can use a steak knife to butcher oneself, but a steak knife isn't made for that end: and manufacture and proper usage of steak knives should hardly be discontinued because some people cut their wrists. (Incidentally, I have never had anyone tell me the same thing about Harry Potter, who gets so decried for promoting witchcraft: though Rowling explicitly denies all such intent.) My own experience is that such books have added tremendously to my joy and helped me to see God's glory; and I can in conscience enjoy them to the glory of God -- I do enjoy them with that end in view.

The symbols in a fantasy story are not meant to speak to reality by way of realism. Perhaps some people read all books as if they were that sort of literature; but this is rather a reflection on the reader, than on fantastic literature. And this kind of reader makes a poor interpreter of Scripture. Because the greatest fairy tale ever, which incorporates fantastic symbols that stand not only throughout all of Scripture but throughout all of history, is the book of Revelation. There you have the dragon, the princess, the magic sword, the rider on the white horse.

So, whence this power of Winnie the Pooh to make words when real bears cannot speak? From God? Or the Devil? The question as applied to the kind of magic and the kind of people who use it that are portrayed in most fantasy stories seems very similar. What is being portrayed has nothing to do with an attempt to encourage the reader to manipulate reality by the occult, which is what is forbidden by Scripture. Rather through fantastic images and storylines one can communicate the wonder and the moral stakes of everyday actions and things.

 

[kvanlaan]

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.

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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[kvanlaan]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSgW9Qy07R4&feature=PlayList&p=BF26BCBFC40352B8&index=1&playnext=2&playnext_from=PL"]Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"[/ame]

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-----

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[JennyG]

Kathleen, you said

I think its a bit much to claim that her motives in writing are to turn her readers into Wiccans or Satanists

you'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.

 

[py3ak]

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.

 

[JennyG]

Kevin, you said

It may be engaging and well written,......

This 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

 

[Caroline]

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.