Jabbadabbado posted:Does it matter that the witchcraft of Harry Potter is not the same witchcraft that is under prohibition in the Bible?
Jabbadabbado posted:Does it matter moreover that the witchcraft of Harry Potter is entirely fictional in every respect (e.g., it does not offer a useful blueprint for casting spells or brewing potions of any kind in any way with any known real magical effect)
Jabbadabbado posted:What about other works of fiction that depict things that the Bible clearly prohibits, like murder, stealing and sexual infidelity or extramarital sex? How are other works of fiction that depict (more or less accurately) instances of breaking the ten commandments prioritized against the Harry Potter series.
Jabbadabbado posted:So, it's not the calling up of magical powers that is prohibited, it's the pretending to call up the nonexistent magical powers of false gods that is prohibited. Under that view, all witchcraft is fictional, and therefore prohibited, and so the witchcraft of the Harry Potter series is prohibited as well, not despite the fact that it is a fictional representation, but because of it.
Go-Mer-Tonic posted:Harry Potter movies simply make it so people of all ages don't have to read the books.
Quixotic-Sith posted:Ironically enough, it was the first Harry Potter movie that got me into the books - I didn't read any of them until after I saw the first one for free.
Jabba-wocky posted:It is not the position of most people that reading Harry Potter is directly sinful. However, it is their concern that the neutral-to-positive depictions of magic and spell-casting found within that series could negatively influence the reader's understanding of witchcraft as sinful. As I said earlier, it's very similar to people who are concerned that excessive exposure to action movies can cause children to be more inclined to see violence as a legitimate form of conflict resolution.
Jabba-wocky posted:I'd also like to close by offering a response to Vortigern's thoughts on Isaiah. First, as I mentioned earlier, in responding to EBB, that characterization of earlier writings is misleading. While, prior to that point, there isn't much space dedicated to explicitly calling other gods fake, neither was their any real broaching of the topic of the existence of other gods. For the most part, they were only mentioned in terms of A)commanding someone not to worship them or B)punishing them for disobeying A. Especially in light of the fact that the eventual position would emerge that even explicitly false gods should not be worshipped, we can see why this wouldn't have been an important topic to address in these contexts. To project backwards and claim that failure to address the topic is tantamount to an admission that the other gods do exist is, I think, intellectually unjustifiable.
Jabba-wocky posted:It would be much like my pointing out that in this conversation, since I first started offering explanations for some Christians' view of Harry Potter, Vortigern has not explicitly called that view incorrect, and claiming that that is therefore evidence he agrees. It certainly isn't because what actually happened is that early on--from his first few posts--he said specifically that he wasn't addressing the issue of whether the view was right or wrong, but rather simply trying to understand it. In the same way, I don't think it is necessarily fair to take silence on the issue of the existence of other deities as an endorsement of the belief that they exist.
Jabba-wocky posted:Secondly, I don't think we can take Second Isaiah as metaphorical. After all, the first division of Isaiah also includes a historical account in which Hezekiah is quoted as saying "Of a truth, Lord, the kings of Assyria have laid waste all the nations [. . .] and have cast their gods into the fire: for they were no gods, but the work of men's hands" (Isa 37:18-19). More generally, there are also other incidents that strongly suggest other gods are fake. For instance, Elijah's rejoinders on Mt. Carmel are clearly sarcastic, and therefore have the actual implication not that Baal is merely impotent, but that he doesn't exist at all. In Psalms 96, the author notes, "For the Lord is great [. . .] he is to be feared above all gods. For all the gods of the nations are idols." Similarly, Deuteronomy 28:36, in cataloging the punishments Israel will receive for disobedience, says that God will "bring thee [. . .]unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, stone and wood." This is interesting because the grammatical structure of the sentence is such that the "other gods" are described as nothing more than stone and wood--in other words, not actually in existence. In any case, I think you take my general point. I think there's a strong case to be made for persistent monotheism throughout the text of the Bible.
Vortigern posted:And yet, as I mentioned previously, Solomon (Kings 11: 1-8) erected shrines to two subordinate divinities within the area of the Temple to God, to provide worship for his numerous wives of foreign nationality. In his old age, Solomon himself worshipped at these altars. Why should a wise and godly man such as Solomon erect such shrines, and later worship at them, if he did not believe the deities so honored to be real?
Vortigern posted:Also, there is the matter of angels, demons and Satan -- all of whom are described in numerous passages of scripture to be real, extant beings, and whose reality is never questioned by the faithful. If these beings, who can hold dominion over the regions of the earth, can be (perhaps wrongly) revered as divinities -- with offerings, worship, prayer and supplication being offered them -- then the claim that "all other gods besides YHWH are false" -- or even that the Jews or Christians of bibilical times believed other gods to be false -- is clearly a contradiction.
Vortigern posted:I'm a little unclear on your meaning in this section, Jabba-wocky.
Vortigern posted:A close reading reveals that the author is merely asserting that the kings threw their idols of wood and stone into the fire, not their actual gods. There is no clear assertion that such divinities do not actually exist.
Vortigern posted:Elijah's mocking of the 450 priests of Baal, and their deity's silence at the invocation of him, is not necessarily read as the non-existence of Baal, but merely of his impotence in the face of YHWH's superior power. Your interpretation -- that Elijah is asserting that Baal does not exist -- may be one valid interpretation, but equally valid is the reading that since Baal is a subordinate deity to the God of Israel, he, Baal, is powerless if YHWH so wills it. Again, there is no clear assertion that other deities apart from YHWH do not exist.
Harper's Bible Dictionary posted:"... the beliefs and procedures by which primitive peoples try to induce desired results, or to secure information about the future."
CoAW posted: "3. We acknowledege a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the avergage person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it is sometimes called 'supernatural', but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all."
J-w posted:Now, you are correct in pointing out that what we have to consider is the reason why witchcraft is sinful. Or, to be more precise, we have to try and grapple with the problem of spell-making itself. The problem is that magic/spell-making asserts control over, or at least manipulation of, supernatural forces. It is explicitly acting outside the normal laws of the universe as described by physics, chemistry, biology, and the other sciences. Such a claim begs the question of the source of their supernatural influence. Within the Christian understanding of the universe, any supernatural power must emanate from either God and his servants, or from demons. These are the only two possibilities because no other classes or categories of non-material entities exist. The Bible is quite explicit about supernatural power exercised by God, and that it is utilized at His discretion, and petitioned for through prayer, fasting, and direct invocation of God. Any use of the supernatural that lacks some or all of these elements (that isn't explicitly directed towards petitioning the one God of the Bible) must therefore be drawing from the other source of supernatural power. I think we can all see how it would be understandable that God might therefore object to communion and cooperation with demons, or unsuccessfully attempting to do so.
