Dear God! The Pope vs Harry Potter

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 4:49 am

[url=http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/in ... 78326.html]Oh, dear gods, it's the old anti-D&D argument again....[/quote]

Pope Concerned Over Harry Potter Books
By Associated Press
Thu Jul 14, 8:11 AM

BERLIN - In a letter sent two years before becoming pope, Benedict XVI expressed concern that the Harry Potter books "erode Christianity in the soul" of young people, a German writer says.

The comments came in an exchange of letters between then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Gabriele Kuby, a Bavarian-based Roman Catholic sociologist who penned a book criticizing J.K. Rowling's blockbusters.

In a letter dated March 7, 2003, the text of which could be seen Thursday on Kuby's Web site, Ratzinger thanked her for sending him a copy of "your informative book."

"It is good that you are throwing light on Harry Potter, because these are subtle seductions that work imperceptibly, and because of that deeply, and erode Christianity in the soul before it can even grow properly," the letter added.

The Vatican had no comment, noting that the pontiff - a Bavarian native - and his secretary were away on vacation.

Kuby argues in her book, "Harry Potter - Good or Evil," that the Potter novels blur the boundaries between good and evil and impair young readers' ability to distinguish between the two. She also asserts that they glorify the world of witches and magicians at the expense of the human world.

Christians in the United States have made similar criticisms.

Kuby said Thursday that she sent her book to Ratzinger - then the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog - after he commented favorably on an earlier book she wrote, "My Way to Mary."

In an e-mailed response to questions, she said she did not correspond with Ratzinger about Potter again after seeking his permission to cite his judgment later in 2003.

Ratzinger wrote on May 27 that year that "I gladly permit you to cite my opinion on Harry Potter," according to Kuby.

Rowling's sixth Potter book, "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince," is due out Saturday.

Now, it occurs to me that if Christianity really is The One True Way, it shouldn't get "eroded" so easily by a kid's book, or a role-playing game, and so on. Dear gods, don't they have anything better to do?

mrmooky · Post by **mrmooky** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:17 am

I guess they got tired of attacking Teletubbies and SpongeBob, and have now moved on to bigger and better things.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:22 am

A world in which there is no choice bar Christian thought is a world in which free will is a joke. According to their own theology, alternate viewpoints must be allowed to spring forth. A lot of Christians really don't understand that at all.

Marius · Post by **Marius** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:30 pm

They believe that they have an imaginary friend in the sky who created the world on a whim in seven days, and who controls everything that happens.

They tend to believe that some guy crammed every animal on earth into a boat and had his own little bestiality cruise line while everyone else drowned.

They believe that their imaginary friend impregnated some schmuck's wife and she gave birth to a demigod, which was the imaginary friend's way of telling everyone that he feels our pain. Then, in a twist of mythology that makes much less sense than its given credit for, somehow this demigod's capital punishment by local authorities means that everybody gets a happy afterlife.

And we're going to act suprised that they arbitrarily decide a children's book is a threat? This isn't the dumbest thing I've ever heard from a Christian.

Patience · Post by **Patience** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:52 pm

:

If I'd had a vote, I would've voted for the Jesuit. At least HE wouldn't've wasted my time on stupid things when the Church is in crisis.

Marius is right, though: this isn't the stupidest thing I've heard from a Catholic, either.

That's why we should all pray to Saint Clinton. He feels our pain, after all.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 2:52 pm

Okay, objectivity time: this is from an exchange of letters two years ago, before he became Pope. Maybe he changed his mind.

On the more serious issue...do any of us actually practice necromancy, divination or sorcery? Most people I know don't even believe in magic, much less practice it. Since you can read about magic in the Bible without damaging your tender little soul, I don't think reading about it in a kid's book is going to erode your moral guidelines much.

Nightsky · Post by **Nightsky** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:56 pm

As usual it is the fanatics, in any religion for that matter, that make the worst case scenerios. You would think something obvious like Rob Zombie movies would be the think to go for, but no. Let's all pick on Harry Potter instead!

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:18 am

See, I don't understand why they flip out over Harry Potter when they're either very quiet or silent on other books. LotR anyone? I have heard that much muttering about it and it was as fantastical as Harry Potter. You'd think they'd be happy with the series since it encourages kids to read.

Hm, oh wait, that might be why they're freaking out about it. Those who get into the habit of reading get into the habit of reading about stuff that they have questions on. The Catholic church in my experience never encouraged questioning.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:29 am

Nightsky wrote:As usual it is the fanatics, in any religion for that matter, that make the worst case scenerios. You would think something obvious like Rob Zombie movies would be the think to go for, but no. Let's all pick on Harry Potter instead!

...because Harry Potter fans don't have tattoos and criminal records...

Nightsky · Post by **Nightsky** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 4:40 pm

Hm, oh wait, that might be why they're freaking out about it. Those who get into the habit of reading get into the habit of reading about stuff that they have questions on. The Catholic church in my experience never encouraged questioning.

Well, they did finally pardon gallileo.

:

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 5:48 pm

Hardly surprising that the pope (or well he wasn't the pope at the time he said it) wouldn't be down with Harry Potter. All that nasty witchcraft and all, afterall didn't Ratz head up what used to be the inquisition?

Patience wrote:That's why we should all pray to Saint Clinton. He feels our pain, after all.

Talking about saint Clinton, or well his wife anyway ...

Clinton wades into GTA sex storm
Hillary Clinton demands GTA smut enquiry

So in the latest GTA they have this little minigames where you can have sex with your girlfriends, it was made inaccessible in the final game but alittle hack has brought it back out and wow the moral outrage .. ohh the horror ...

So a game that comes down to carjacking and killing on a grand scale is condemned because you can "fuck" other character. Yeah lets just ignore that whole copkilling or whatever you want to parttake in but sex ... oh no!

AtemHutlrt · Post by **AtemHutlrt** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:44 pm

Lorg wrote:...you want to parttake in but sex...

The Pope is also opposed to the subliminal message in this post.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:45 pm

Nightsky wrote: Well, they did finally pardon gallileo. :

After how many centuries?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 12:09 am

Reika wrote:
Nightsky wrote: Well, they did finally pardon gallileo. :
After how many centuries?

It only took 359 years ...

AtemHutlrt wrote:The Pope is also opposed to the subliminal message in this post.

:

paladin2019 · Post by **paladin2019** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 2:22 pm

Unlike the Bible, Harry Potter does not condemn sorcery.

LotR was written by a Catholic and has strong Catholic values. For example, Elves, held to be an ideal Men aspire to (eg Aragorn Elessar, marrying Arwen) choose a single mate and the relationship lasts into eternity. Men don't practice sorcery in LotR, at least, not virtuous Men. And don't get me started on the fascist world-view that hearkens back to another fascist world-view (Southrons, orcs, etc.)

Glyph · Post by **Glyph** » Mon Jul 18, 2005 9:14 pm

Lord of the Rings had plenty of "sorcery" - Gandalf, the elves, and all sorts of magical items such as the ring, a number of magic swords, etc. And it has been criticized by Bible-thumping twits in the past, although most Christians can look at it and see its moral virtues - as they can also do with the Potter books.

Harry Potter is getting the attention it is receiving because it is popular. The parasites who feign religious outrage while asking you to get your checkbook out always pick things that are popular with kids, but that the adults are more ignorant of. That way, it is easier to play off of that ignorance. Anyone who knows anything at all about D&D, Pokemon, etc. knows that the arguments of Jack Chick and his ilk are moronic, illogical, and dishonest.

In the case of the Harry Potter books, though, these people seem to be mostly talking to themselves. Likely because the books have a broader appeal, and a lot of the parents have read the books themselves, meaning that they won't be taken in by the scam artists.

In the case of Ratzinger, take it for what it is - someone responding to an incredibly biased and dishonest source of information, and making a poor judgement based on that incomplete information. I've been hoodwinked like that myself before, so I know it happens. However... I also think that you should know all of the facts before you start putting your opinion out publicly. Ignorance is not an excuse when it is willful ignorance.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:55 am

Most of you are probably against killing, in one form or another. Now, seriously - and objectively - how would you feel about your young children reading books in which the main characters kill people constantly, and in which the killers don't just kill remorselessly, but do so with joy and vigor, in which the greatest hero is the greatest killer? In which it is not adults killing each other, but children - the same age as your own - murdering each other with zest and zeal.

Look, I think the Christian viewpoint is just about as stupid and fucked-up a worldview as is possible without actually being certifiably insane. But this kind of ignorant backlash is just as foolish. Dislike Christians and their views all you like, but when you ignore their views and the logic of their actions flowing from those views, you are as blind and intolerant as they are.

God. Doesn't. Support. Magic. It is a tool of Satan, a work of the greatest evil. It doesn't matter if the kids aren't actually casting spells, they're glorifying those who fictionally cast them. It's like your 6-year-old idolizing Stalin. [Oh, I can hear you hardcore niggaz in the crowd saying, "I'd love that! My kids should worship Stalin!" To you I can only hope for maturity.] It is quite simply morally intolerable. Personally, I find it more repugnant when people who claim to be Christian have no problem with fictionalized evil being glorified by children.

Harry Potter /is/ harmless. It doesn't make people into demons, because magic isn't real, and demons aren't real. But you cannot demonize Christians for standing by their ideals by condemning their dedication; the only justifiable refutation is of their ideals themselves, which no one here seems to be bothered with, largely, I suspect, because it's so damned easy just to poke fun at the dumb intolerant god-lover, without stopping to wonder if you're being as dumb and intolerant as they are.

Learn. Understand. Then judge logically. Anything else is as foolish as being Christian...and there's very little as foolish as that.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:26 am

I reserve might right to make fun of nuts of any religion or non at all for that matter. I don't consider that as being blind or intolerant at all, why should I have to respect their crap if they don't respect mine or that of others?

To blame a series of books, in this case Harry Potter, is just plain nutty when you yourself as a devote christian have your own little book filled with death, violence, killing and supernatural event. The main difference appear to be a matter of faith and that the bullshit they are trying to peddle is a few thousand years older. But then the idea of Harry Potter is hardly new either, hero (with friends) battles (from his/her perspective) evil.

How can it be that when fictional guy in heaven (directly or indirectly) slays people left and right for various reasons it is good, but when fictional wizard boy slays "evil" that is bad? Sounds like hypocrisy to me or perhaps they are just afraid of the competition for young minds.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:43 am

lorg wrote:I don't consider that as being blind or intolerant at all, why should I have to respect their crap if they don't respect mine or that of others?

"They're assholes, so I get to be an asshole! That doesn't make me an asshole, does it?"

lorg wrote:The main difference appear to be a matter of faith...

Yes. And the fact that their faith tells them the Bible isn't fiction, while no one debates the fictionality of Harry Potter. You and I agree that the Bible /is/ fictional, but again, the fault of Christian logic in this matter isn't condemnation of Harry Potter - which is logical in the extreme - but rather the innately ludicrous nature of the faith itself. Nevertheless, the focus is on the condemnation, and not on the faith, because making fun of Christians is funny, no matter how much like them it makes you.

lorg wrote:How can it be that when fictional guy in heaven (directly or indirectly) slays people left and right for various reasons it is good, but when fictional wizard boy slays "evil" that is bad? Sounds like hypocrisy to me or perhaps they are just afraid of the competition for young minds.

You are precisely the example I required to prove my point. I appreciate how much your ignorance, blindness, and complete disregard for tolerance and logic has evidenced the exact nature of the problem. If I didn't know you better, I would suspect you'd made this post precisely to display how foolish, vain, and ignorant everyone is being in regard to this issue. "My truth is the only truth, and their truth is stupid! Just because they think their truth is real doesn't mean they get to condemn my truth! Only I get to do that, because my truth is real!"

Stoo-pid.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:02 am

3278 wrote:"They're assholes, so I get to be an asshole! That doesn't make me an asshole, does it?"

Hardly. My point is that why should I respect them when they don't respect me. There is a world of difference between the two.

3278 wrote:You are precisely the example I required to prove my point. I appreciate how much your ignorance, blindness, and complete disregard for tolerance and logic has evidenced the exact nature of the problem. If I didn't know you better, I would suspect you'd made this post precisely to display how foolish, vain, and ignorant everyone is being in regard to this issue. "My truth is the only truth, and their truth is stupid! Just because they think their truth is real doesn't mean they get to condemn my truth! Only I get to do that, because my truth is real!"

You pompous fuckin' git! You don't know me. You don't know dick about me, all you think you know about me are things you have concluded based on what I have previously written compared to your own beliefs. Something you now consider to be your one and only "truth". So I beg to differ on whom the 'stoo-pid' one is.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:26 am

lorg wrote:My point is that why should I respect them when they don't respect me. There is a world of difference between the two.

No. There isn't.

lorg wrote:You pompous fuckin' git! You don't know me. You don't know dick about me, all you think you know about me are things you have concluded based on what I have previously written compared to your own beliefs.

That's all we ever have, Lorg. That's all you have of the Christians in question, and in fact, you likely possess less communicative knowledge of them than I have of you. Consider, if you believe my opinions regarding you to be erroneous, how in error your opinions of them must be.

I italicize for emphasis. Nothing I've said in this post - nothing I will say - is as significant to the question at hand. In fact, I just deleted about half a post of bullshit personal crap, so as to remain focused on my point, which you just made twice as well as I could have.

You don't know them. All you think you know about them are things you have concluded based on what they have previously communicated, compared to your own beliefs. So if I am full of shit, then you, my companion, are my manure buddy.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:47 am

Sorry, 32, but it doesn't wash.

Christians are bang alongside murder, killing, torture, and evil sorcery in fiction, when it suits their purpose. Look at the Chronicles of Narnia-- C.S. Lewis wrote them as analogies for various aspects of Christianity. I have yet to see an outcry about those books. Really, the Narnia books are a great deal more bloodthirsty than the Harry Potter series. Apparently, however, fiction about all those things is perfectly Ok when it fulfills a Christian purpose.

Christianity has one of the bloodiest histories of any religion alive today. What's more worrisome is that this sort of thing is what leads to "witch hunts"-- where the energies of people are directed at rooting out percieved faults in others, instead of spending them on practices that will improve the human race.

We have a world leader actively attacking a harmless pasttime. That should be troubling enough. The Christian faith has very specific things it's called to do, and harping on a childrens book writer isn't one of them.

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:48 am

3PO wrote:God. Doesn't. Support. Magic.

Correction, God doesn't support magic that doesn't have a basis in God. He's all down for miracles in his name, though. Makes all the spells pretty dull, though, if every magic word was, "By the power of Jesus!"

I think that Super Pope, John Paul, said that Harry Potter wasn't a bad thing. To quote wikipedia:

Wikipedia wrote:In contrast, other members of the Catholic Church gave the series their approval, saying that it is imbued with Christian morals, and that the good versus evil plot is very clear. The late Pope John Paul II praised the books for their message about the evils of racism and genocide. Christian Congregationalist minister John Killinger also argued that rather than corrupting children's minds, the novels encourage young readers to follow the teachings of Jesus. The book The Hidden Key to Harry Potter: Understanding the Meaning, Genius, and Popularity of Joanne Rowling's Harry Potter Novels, written by John Granger, a Reader in the Orthodox Church, claims to uncover Christian themes in its analysis of the story. Granger also cites the fact that Rowling is a professed member of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

It's Christian fundamentalists fucking it up for everyone else again, because that's what fundamentalists do. They forget the ideals they're supposed to be holding up to:

Mathew 7:1-2 wrote:Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

So if you want to clearly show the world that you're a bunch of hypocrites, you can run about trying to get books that are getting kids to read again for the first time in years banned. Lucky for us, this type of debate really doesn't translate very well over here. In this country, we just read the book and call anyone who calls it evil a moron.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:38 am

Cain wrote:Sorry, 32, but it doesn't wash.

Actually, it does. Remember, I'm talking about you all, and not about the Christians.

Cain wrote:Christians are bang alongside murder, killing, torture, and evil sorcery in fiction, when it suits their purpose.

Definitely.

Although I might point out that treating "Christians" as a unit is highly inaccurate. I suspect many of the people against Potter are not against Narnia, but without evidence, I will not judge them.

Cain wrote:We have a world leader actively attacking a harmless pasttime.

Full stop. Listen. From Christian point of view - as accurately as I can emulate it - this is not a harmless pasttime. That you can think of it as such suggests that you're either ignorant of the Christian viewpoint, or refusing to project logic from it.

So some kid - say she's 10 or so - starts reading a book about kids raping each other for fun, where the main character is the ultimate raper. The kid digs rape, and while she'll certainly not start going around raping people, she definitely thinks it's totally cool. Is that okay? Would anyone think that was okay? Would anyone care if it was fictional rape, and not the real thing? Well, Jahova feels about "magic" the way most of us feel about rape: it's real bad. I think it's only logical that Christians would be against this transformation of magic from a tool of Satan into a cool thing fictional children do.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:44 am

Crazy Elf wrote:
3PO wrote:God. Doesn't. Support. Magic.
Correction, God doesn't support magic that doesn't have a basis in God. He's all down for miracles in his name, though. Makes all the spells pretty dull, though, if every magic word was, "By the power of Jesus!"

Surely you comprehend the difference between God-inspired miracles and Satan-inspired magic. From the outside, it all looks equally stupid-as-fuck, and I won't disagree for a moment that it is. But from the inside, it's a tremendous difference, literally the difference between good and evil.

You get that, right? I mean, you're with me that it's all stupid and illogical as hell, but do you also get that condemnation of these works by Christians is internally consistant?

Mathew 7:1-2 wrote:Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

Personally, I believe the last phrase gives these Christians all the justification they need for condemnation of Rollins' works: "Sure, go ahead and measure me by the standard, 'thou shalt not glorify the works of Satan.' That'll be fine."

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 4:08 am

Although I might point out that treating "Christians" as a unit is highly inaccurate. I suspect many of the people against Potter are not against Narnia, but without evidence, I will not judge them.

I'll acknowledge that saying "all Christians" is a poor choice of words, but I think you're just being pedantic. There is, however, very clear evidence that prominent Christians and world fighures (e.g., the current pope) are attacking the Harry Potter series. What's more, the fact that there's no outcry against works like Narnia shows that there's a double-standard in effect.

The troubling thing isn't that this viewpoint is being held by Christians-- it's that it's held by a major world leader.

Full stop. Listen. From Christian point of view - as accurately as I can emulate it - this is not a harmless pasttime. That you can think of it as such suggests that you're either ignorant of the Christian viewpoint, or refusing to project logic from it.

CE was kind enough to provide evidence supporting the Harry Potter books coming from the last pope. So, we see attacking the novels isn't actually an article of faith with them-- it's an article of opinion coming from the current pope.

There's plenty of Christians who acknowledge the Harry Potter books as either a harmless pasttime, or as the case of Narnia, an analogy into the difference between good and evil. Thus, the Harry Potter books are *not* anethema to the tenets of the Christian faith. They are a "witch hunt" coming from prominent Christians; one of which happens to also be a major head of state and the leader of one of the world's largest denominations.

None of this, of course, gives them the right to start another Inquisition. That's what's really troubling-- not so much that people believe that the harry Potter books aren't good for their kids, but that a major head of state is declaring them to be evil.

So some kid - say she's 10 or so - starts reading a book about kids raping each other for fun, where the main character is the ultimate raper. The kid digs rape, and while she'll certainly not start going around raping people, she definitely thinks it's totally cool. Is that okay? Would anyone think that was okay? Would anyone care if it was fictional rape, and not the real thing? Well, Jahova feels about "magic" the way most of us feel about rape: it's real bad. I think it's only logical that Christians would be against this transformation of magic from a tool of Satan into a cool thing fictional children do.

Straw Man fallacy. Besides which, the Bible is full of rape. Christians are very careful to tell their kids that the rape in the Bible is only meant to illustrate a point, and not to be used as an actual practice. The same standard can be applied to Harry Potter.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 12:13 pm

Cain wrote:There is, however, very clear evidence that prominent Christians and world fighures (e.g., the current pope) are attacking the Harry Potter series. What's more, the fact that there's no outcry against works like Narnia shows that there's a double-standard in effect.

Now, I haven't read the books in a quarter-century, so I can't be said to know a great deal about it, but I suspect a portion of the difference is that Narnia is a series of Christian-inspired parables in which one of the main characters is Christ, written by a noted Christian author, while the Harry Potter books are "just children's books," as it were, in which most of the main characters practice the innately evil work of sorcery, written by a noted author who happens to be Christian. Now, I don't know that; I don't know why some Christians like Narnia and don't like Potter.

But...so? I don't think that has any bearing whatsoever on what I was talking about. As I said before, "Remember, I'm talking about you all, and not about the Christians." Maybe they are being hypocrites. Maybe they're all going to hell. But that's not what I'm talking about; I acknowledge that's what you're talking about, but refutation of my point based on the behavior of someone else entirely doesn't make much sense.

Cain wrote:So, we see attacking the novels isn't actually an article of faith with them-- it's an article of opinion coming from the current pope.

Oh my god! Christians, disagreeing on an article of faith? Impossible!

:

Cain wrote:Besides which, the Bible is full of rape.

As a general rule, the Bible isn't full of children raping people and being called heroes for it. If you're going to totally miss the point, try to do so logically, yeah?

Kai · Post by **Kai** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 2:53 pm

You do realize a good probably half of non Third World Catholics don't actually hold to strict Catholic doctrine? I'm sure a good many of them looked at the article, said "Dudes off his rocker" and went on with life. The only thing the Pope has going for him over someone like say Billy Graham is a couple hundred years of history. Catholicism is just as fractured as Protestant..Protestantarianism? Whats the word for that? Anyways, Catholics just fracture internally instead of externally but so to the rest of the world it looks like one big organization.

I don't know of any Catholics that think Magic Is A Tool of the Devil, kind of like I know a whole one couple that doesn't use birth control :7

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 3:46 pm

3PO wrote:You get that, right? I mean, you're with me that it's all stupid and illogical as hell, but do you also get that condemnation of these works by Christians is internally consistant?

Oh yeah, I get you. Just not all aspects of "magic" as such are condemned by Christians, depending on what you call magic. Faith healings, exorcism, counter magic, this sort of deal is considered very Christian, although it probably wouldn't be classified as magic as such, although it does pretty much what other magic is supposed to do.

I'd also be interested in the Christian perspective of the Qabalah, considering its very biblical basis.

Personally, I believe the last phrase gives these Christians all the justification they need for condemnation of Rollins' works: "Sure, go ahead and measure me by the standard, 'thou shalt not glorify the works of Satan.' That'll be fine."

Well outright condemnation and attempting to make someone's life harder seems very non-Christian to me. But hey, there's a happy little tale to tell from the bible that slams into people who use it for their own means:

Matthew 7:21 wrote:Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

And if the will of the father is to live as Jesus did, persecuting people seems right out. It's hard to argue using logic with fanatics, though. Remember Evan.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:32 pm

But...so? I don't think that has any bearing whatsoever on what I was talking about. As I said before, "Remember, I'm talking about you all, and not about the Christians." Maybe they are being hypocrites. Maybe they're all going to hell. But that's not what I'm talking about; I acknowledge that's what you're talking about, but refutation of my point based on the behavior of someone else entirely doesn't make much sense.

And what exactly is your point, then? That we're being intolerant bigots? Actually, what the point of this thread was for is to alert us to another possible witch hunt, like the anti-D&D movement of the 70's and 80's.

We're not calling for a ban on the Bible. We're not saying that Christianity "erodes the soul". Instead, my whole point was: Get them off our backs, and get them doing something productive.

If you've read the Bible, then you know the purported faithful actions is to care for the helpless. Here's the exact scripture:

JAM 1:27 Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Now, I've spent a few years (better part of my quarter century of work, in fact) in social-services jobs, caring for others and "helping them in their distress". That means I'm a better Christian than most-- and I don't even necessarily believe in god.

Oh my god! Christians, disagreeing on an article of faith?

That's not the big deal. It's when world leaders are pushing these views that trouble starts to happen.

As a general rule, the Bible isn't full of children raping people and being called heroes for it. If you're going to totally miss the point, try to do so logically, yeah?

If you're going to keep up with the logical fallacies, don't keep using the same one, yeah? You keep using that same straw man, expecting that we'll fall for it. But, to humor your sexual fixation, I don't see a major religious figure trying to ban the Wraththu books. Those deal with a lot of rape, especially among children.

Now, I know you can provide clear and logial arguments. You want to drop the fallacies, and stick to the real logic?

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:57 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:Just not all aspects of "magic" as such are condemned by Christians, depending on what you call magic. Faith healings, exorcism, counter magic, this sort of deal is considered very Christian, although it probably wouldn't be classified as magic as such, although it does pretty much what other magic is supposed to do.

Apparently, the difference is one of source, which is a tragically difficult position to defend or to prove. I mean, maybe Harry's channeling Jehova. Who knows?

Crazy Elf wrote:Well outright condemnation and attempting to make someone's life harder seems very non-Christian to me.

I've always been a fan of the "soft Christianity," in which you behave more or less like Christ would, minus the money-changer incident. Unfortunately, many fanatics and fundementalists - when they're not one and the same - seem to embrace the money-changer aspect of things.

Crazy Elf wrote:It's hard to argue using logic with fanatics, though. Remember Evan.

Yeah, I'm about to reply to Cain, so I'm right with you.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 12:15 am

Cain wrote:And what exactly is your point, then? That we're being intolerant bigots?

That's exactly it. Well, perhaps not phrased that way, but to draw attention to the fact that intolerance is being met with intolerance, that people are taking the easy out of ridiculing Christians without attempting to understand them.

Cain wrote:Actually, what the point of this thread was for is to alert us to another possible witch hunt, like the anti-D&D movement of the 70's and 80's.

I don't know if you've noticed, but threads here have a tendency to drift a bit from their intent.

Cain, I'm not objecting to your thread, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have posted it, or that you've done anything wrong at all. What I'm objecting to is the reaction to that thread, which is taking the easy way out, victimizing and castigating without recourse to understanding. I think it's great that you started this thread, and I find little to fault in your introductory post. Since then, however, it's been mostly ignorant ridicule.

Cain wrote:
3278, being funny, wrote:Oh my god! Christians, disagreeing on an article of faith?
That's not the big deal. It's when world leaders are pushing these views that trouble starts to happen.

Well, to begin with, he wasn't a world leader at the time. Secondly, it's not just the world leader in question who's "pushing these views." And finally, "Oh my god! Bishops [who've become Pope] disagreeing on an article of faith?" Your point - that opposition to magic isn't an article of faith, but rather an article of opinion - is, you know, ridiculous.

Cain wrote:If you're going to keep up with the logical fallacies, don't keep using the same one, yeah?

Sweet! Are you going to start counting my logical fallacies until you look like an 8-year-old again? 'Cause I love that.

Cain wrote:But, to humor your sexual fixation, I don't see a major religious figure trying to ban the Wraththu books. Those deal with a lot of rape, especially among children.

I had to stop and look that one up, and therein lies a bit of a point. Who the fuck has heard of these books? [Not many people; a total of 43 hits on Google for "Wraththu," guessing the spelling's correct.*] Are they for children? [Um...no. Really, really no.] So I suspect that the reason most Christians aren't condemning the Wraeththu books is because they've never heard of them, because they're not major motion pictures, and because their children aren't reading them.

Does that make it right? I'm divided as to opinion on that. Not that it matters; not my point. Christians are often hypocritical; I won't disagree. But this diversion - entertaining though it may be - has got nothing to do with my point, which Cain is - conveniently and typically - ignoring.

*It wasn't. It's "Wraeththu," and it develops 13,300 hits. Compared to 25,500,000 for "Harry Potter." Google hits ain't sales records, but it's all I've got. I welcome counter-statistics.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:33 am

That's exactly it. Well, perhaps not phrased that way, but to draw attention to the fact that intolerance is being met with intolerance, that people are taking the easy out of ridiculing Christians without attempting to understand them.

I'd hardly say that "intolerance is being met with intolerance". Perhaps ridicule, but that's not the same thing.

We're not saying that Christianity makes people evil, which was what Kuby and Ratzinger are saying about Harry Potter. We're not saying that Christianity "erodes the soul" and "seduces people". What we *are* saying is that attacking Harry Potter is a complete waste of energy, and a symptom of what's wrong with religion these days.

Cain, I'm not objecting to your thread, and I'm not saying you shouldn't have posted it, or that you've done anything wrong at all. What I'm objecting to is the reaction to that thread, which is taking the easy way out, victimizing and castigating without recourse to understanding. I think it's great that you started this thread, and I find little to fault in your introductory post. Since then, however, it's been mostly ignorant ridicule.

Ridicule, yes. However, CE and others have been quoting scripture. I'd hardly call them "ignorant".

Well, to begin with, he wasn't a world leader at the time. Secondly, it's not just the world leader in question who's "pushing these views." And finally, "Oh my god! Bishops [who've become Pope] disagreeing on an article of faith?" Your point - that opposition to magic isn't an article of faith, but rather an article of opinion - is, you know, ridiculous.

You're the one who was insisting that sorcery was always and universally anathema to a Christian veiwpoint. Well, it's not-- as Narnia and the statements of Pope John Paul II showed. Your justification of their attacks, because it's part of Christian scripture, is false.

Sweet! Are you going to start counting my logical fallacies

Are you going to keep using them?

:

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:53 am

Cain wrote:I'd hardly say that "intolerance is being met with intolerance". Perhaps ridicule, but that's not the same thing.

I believe it is. And from someone who specializes in ridicule, I, of all people, should know.

Cain wrote:We're not saying that Christianity makes people evil, which was what Kuby and Ratzinger are saying about Harry Potter.

That's not actually what they're saying, but I acknowledge that you're not saying such a thing, either. I hope you acknowledge that I'm not saying that anyone's saying that.

Cain wrote:We're not saying that Christianity "erodes the soul" and "seduces people". What we *are* saying is that attacking Harry Potter is a complete waste of energy, and a symptom of what's wrong with religion these days.

I believe you're right; attacking Harry Potter is a waste of energy, because magic isn't real, Harry Potter isn't real, and reading about magic isn't going to make people go to Hell, because there is no such place.

But that's not all that's being said, now, is it?

Cain wrote:Ridicule, yes. However, CE and others have been quoting scripture. I'd hardly call them "ignorant".

Knowledge of one thing is not knowledge of another. [Look, a logical fallacy!] I may quote physics all day, but that doesn't mean I understand it, or that I know anything other than what I'm quoting.

Not to be - heavens forfend - pendantic, but it's actually, unless I'm mistaken, "CE and other," the other being you, once. So grouping all the people who've replied to the post as "not ignorant" on the basis of one person quoting scripture a couple of times, and another quoting it once seems...well, a logical fallacy.

Cain wrote:You're the one who was insisting that sorcery was always and universally anathema to a Christian veiwpoint.

Quote me. Quote where I ever, even once, at any time and in any place, stated that sorcery was always and universally anything, much less "anathema to a Christian veiwpoint." Find me a single place where I said that, and I shall cede the argument to you, always and universally. If you cannot, admit that you overstepped.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:02 am

I believe it is. And from someone who specializes in ridicule, I, of all people, should know.

Ah, an appeal to personal experience? You should realize exactly how weak of an argument that is.

I believe you're right; attacking Harry Potter is a waste of energy, because magic isn't real, Harry Potter isn't real, and reading about magic isn't going to make people go to Hell, because there is no such place.

But that's not all that's being said, now, is it?

Well, there's been a fair number of accusations of ignorance and hypocricy. Then again, I'd assume that many of the respondants have read both the Bible *and* Harry Potter. It does not appear that Ratzinger can say the same. Thus, he's attacking from a position of ignorance, while the rest of us aren't.

Most of the ridicule has been about other things they could be attacking, and the (very belated) pardoning of Galileo. Plus a bit of thread drift. Hardly a major attack of ignorance and intolerance, I'd say.

You're the one who was insisting that sorcery was always and universally anathema to a Christian veiwpoint.
Quote me. Quote where I ever, even once, at any time and in any place, stated that sorcery was always and universally anything, much less "anathema to a Christian veiwpoint." Find me a single place where I said that, and I shall cede the argument to you, always and universally. If you cannot, admit that you overstepped.

Page 2 of this thread. A "tool of Satan" is pretty much anathema to a Christian viewpoint, wouldn't you say? Well, then:

3278 wrote:God. Doesn't. Support. Magic. It is a tool of Satan, a work of the greatest evil.

How does that helping of crow feel, 32?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:11 am

3PO wrote:I mean, maybe Harry's channeling Jehova. Who knows?

Ah, yet then credit needs to be given to God. It's like Moses being killed after getting water from a rock and not giving God credit. If you're using God to do magic, you have to say where it's coming from.

Avada Kedavra is hardly, "In Lord Jesus' name". The Harry Potter magic is against God because it never claims to come from him. It's also pure bloody fiction and never attempts to cross that line. If someone tries to cast a spell, it's going to do no more harm than someone hitting things with a hammer if they read Thor comics and screaming, "Odin!" It's going to do no more harm than someone loving Yoda and telling everyone to "Use the force". No more harm than loving He-Man and screaming, "By the power of Greyskull!"

Cain wrote:Ridicule, yes. However, CE and others have been quoting scripture. I'd hardly call them "ignorant".

I study religion, and I'm not ridiculing Christianity. Fanatics, yes, but I hardly count them as Christians.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:36 am

Cain wrote:
I believe it is. And from someone who specializes in ridicule, I, of all people, should know.
Ah, an appeal to personal experience? You should realize exactly how weak of an argument that is.

It's not meant to be one; it's an /opinion./ Hence the word "believe."

Cain wrote:Most of the ridicule has been about other things they could be attacking, and the (very belated) pardoning of Galileo. Plus a bit of thread drift. Hardly a major attack of ignorance and intolerance, I'd say.

I would say differently. That's why we disagree. [Although I'm not sure I'd use the word "major," in any case. Fairly certain I didn't.] Personally, I don't see a great deal of effort to understand or analyze the Christian position as stated, or explore its ramifications. I see kneejerk reactionism, the automatic rejection of dumb faith where it collides with cool fiction.

Cain wrote:
3278 wrote:
Cain wrote:You're the one who was insisting that sorcery was always and universally anathema to a Christian veiwpoint.
Quote me. Quote where I ever, even once, at any time and in any place, stated that sorcery was always and universally anything, much less "anathema to a Christian veiwpoint." Find me a single place where I said that, and I shall cede the argument to you, always and universally. If you cannot, admit that you overstepped.
Page 2 of this thread. A "tool of Satan" is pretty much anathema to a Christian viewpoint, wouldn't you say? Well, then:
3278 wrote:God. Doesn't. Support. Magic. It is a tool of Satan, a work of the greatest evil.
How does that helping of crow feel, 32?

Hey, Cain? Do you see the words "always and universally" in there? Anywhere? Did you miss the part where I clearly said that some Christians disagree on the issue? Are you willing to admit you overstepped yourself?

Instead of making up more dramatic things that I've said - which I actually haven't - you could always actually quote me. You could have said, for instance, "You're the one who was insisting that sorcery was, and I quote, 'a tool of Satan, a work of the greatest evil.'" That's what I generally do, and it works quite well.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 10:41 am

Crazy Elf wrote:Ah, yet then credit needs to be given to God. It's like Moses being killed after getting water from a rock and not giving God credit. If you're using God to do magic, you have to say where it's coming from.

Do you? I mean, is it required? I would have thought that what counts is not where you /say/ it's coming from, but where it /is/ coming from.

Crazy Elf wrote:It's also pure bloody fiction and never attempts to cross that line. If someone tries to cast a spell, it's going to do no more harm than someone hitting things with a hammer if they read Thor comics and screaming, "Odin!" It's going to do no more harm than someone loving Yoda and telling everyone to "Use the force". No more harm than loving He-Man and screaming, "By the power of Greyskull!"

To you and I, yes. But it's the glorification of magic they're concerned about, much as it is with D&D; that people will become entranced by the idea of magic, and seek out real magic - real, /evil/ magic - in the real world. So in that sense, the fact that it's fiction doesn't really matter at all, any more than Kill Bill would be considered an acceptable Christian film because, hey, it's just fiction, yeah? [Of course, actual harm can be done by chopping people up with swords, but just because the route to harm is more direct doesn't mean less direct harm isn't real.]

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 2:26 pm

3278 wrote:Do you? I mean, is it required? I would have thought that what counts is not where you /say/ it's coming from, but where it /is/ coming from.

I guess that's what Moses thought also, but God still killed him for it.

3PO wrote:To you and I, yes. But it's the glorification of magic they're concerned about, much as it is with D&D; that people will become entranced by the idea of magic, and seek out real magic - real, /evil/ magic - in the real world. So in that sense, the fact that it's fiction doesn't really matter at all, any more than Kill Bill would be considered an acceptable Christian film because, hey, it's just fiction, yeah?

Yes, this is where I don't get along with the church. You speak out against something, you give it more press. You give it more press, people look into it more. It's counter productive.

If they just say, "It's fiction, it's okay. But kids, don't try any of this for real. Magic is bad." the response would be more respectable than, "STOP READING! GO BACK TO BEING ILLITERATE FUCKS!"

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:54 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:I guess that's what Moses thought also, but God still killed him for it.

That guy's a prick.

Crazy Elf wrote:Yes, this is where I don't get along with the church. You speak out against something, you give it more press. You give it more press, people look into it more. It's counter productive.

The "Last Temptation effect." Yeah, these people - the vocal reactionaries - end up doing more damage than the quiet ones, who just don't let their children read the books, and who talk about it within their church, and with their friends, rather than trying to act globally. I think that quietness is more Christian, anyway. I've always felt the ideal Christian is much more like a Zen monk than like today's Christian reactionary.

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 4:26 pm

Hey, Cain? Do you see the words "always and universally" in there?

Hey, 32? Do you see any qualifiers in your statement? No? Then shut up and take your helping of crow. If you hadn't put things that way in the first place, we wouldn't be having this argument. You're trying to weasel and backpedal, and I'm not letting you off the hook this time.

Are you willing to admit you overstepped yourself, by not qualifying your statement? You chided me for saying "all Christians", so shouldn't your standard apply to yourself?

Or are you going to try the: "That's not what I really meant!" dodge yet again?

To you and I, yes. But it's the glorification of magic they're concerned about, much as it is with D&D; that people will become entranced by the idea of magic, and seek out real magic - real, /evil/ magic - in the real world. So in that sense, the fact that it's fiction doesn't really matter at all, any more than Kill Bill would be considered an acceptable Christian film because, hey, it's just fiction, yeah?

But that's just it. If they said "all magic is bad", that would be internally consistant. They're not, as Narnia (and to a degree, LotR) demonstrates. What they're effectively saying is: "All magic is bad...except when it's not." That's a scarily inconsistant view to be held by a major religious group, and even worse when help by a major world leader.

Yeah, these people - the vocal reactionaries - end up doing more damage than the quiet ones, who just don't let their children read the books, and who talk about it within their church, and with their friends, rather than trying to act globally. I think that quietness is more Christian, anyway. I've always felt the ideal Christian is much more like a Zen monk than like today's Christian reactionary.

Oh, I agree. In fact, I think I cited scripture to that effect.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:36 pm

Cain wrote:You're trying to weasel and backpedal, and I'm not letting you off the hook this time.

You know what? I'm actually going to forepedal. This argument has, ridiculously, become about the semantics of what I did and didn't say, whether lack of qualifiers always means "absolute," and other stupid crap you do when you just want to fight. So I'm going to stand by the position you've decided I intended, and directly say, yes, it is a Christian standpoint that sorcery is, always and universally, evil. You're completely right, that's what I meant, and I stand by it.

Cain wrote:If they said "all magic is bad", that would be internally consistant.

No, it would be illogical. As CE and I have been - rationally - talking about, it's source that matters. To be simpler, "magic" comes from the devil, while "miracles" come from God. It's pretty much that simple. [Stupid, yeah, from our point of view, but tolerance and understanding require comprehension of alternative viewpoints.]

Cain wrote:What they're effectively saying is: "All magic is bad...except when it's not."

Yeah. That's exactly the truth - from their whacky point of view - just like our laws say, "All killing is bad...except when it's not."

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 6:52 pm

But that's just it. If they said "all magic is bad", that would be internally consistant. They're not, as Narnia (and to a degree, LotR) demonstrates. What they're effectively saying is: "All magic is bad...except when it's not." That's a scarily inconsistant view to be held by a major religious group, and even worse when help by a major world leader.

Just out of curiosity, which major world leader holds this inconsistant view?

Cain · Post by **Cain** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 7:17 pm

No, it would be illogical. As CE and I have been - rationally - talking about, it's source that matters. To be simpler, "magic" comes from the devil, while "miracles" come from God. It's pretty much that simple. [Stupid, yeah, from our point of view, but tolerance and understanding require comprehension of alternative viewpoints.]

The problem is that the difference between "miracles" and "magic" isn't that clearly defined in the Bible. For example, Pharoh's sorcerer turned his staff into a snake. Moses did the exact same thing. There's also cases of the Bible acknowledging the miracles of "other gods".

The prohibition against what you're terming magic comes from the verse: "Suffer not a witch to live"; which in turn refers to necromancers, not supernatural activity as a whole. Furthermore, there's at least 1 case that I can think of, where a Jewish king consulted a witch for advice (she summoned a spirit for him to converse with).

So, the difference comes in thusly: Magic is all right when it suits their purpose, for the most part. The problem is that this is a clear case of situational ethics, which is not what you'd want to see in a religion that supposedly preaches a universal standard of morality.

Just out of curiosity, which major world leader holds this inconsistant view?

The pope. In addition to being the head of the Catholic church, he's the head of the Vatican City, a UN-recognized country. The pope has a lot of political power, certainly enough to rival many other heads of state.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 8:16 pm

Cain wrote:The prohibition against what you're terming magic comes from the verse: "Suffer not a witch to live"; which in turn refers to necromancers, not supernatural activity as a whole.

Definitely not. That verse is mistranslated; the word means "poisoner," and doesn't have anything to do with necromancy.

Now, the prohibition may, indeed, come from the mistranslation of that verse; I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be able to source accurately the reasons for being against magic. I'm simply representing - well, "encouraging the understanding of the point of view of" - many of the Christians I've discussed the topic with over the years. I don't have CE's grasp of the Bible; rather, I have a midwestern atheists background of dogma.

Cain wrote:Furthermore, there's at least 1 case that I can think of, where a Jewish king consulted a witch for advice (she summoned a spirit for him to converse with).

I wouldn't doubt that at all. Hypocracy isn't exactly rare in Christianity...but it doesn't have anything to do with this.

Cain wrote:So, the difference comes in thusly: Magic is all right when it suits their purpose, for the most part.

In the minds of some Christians, yes, many of them church leaders. But assuming the man on the street - or the man who became Pope - holds this sort of convenience view would be illogical.

Cain wrote:The problem is that this is a clear case of situational ethics, which is not what you'd want to see in a religion that supposedly preaches a universal standard of morality.

That doesn't parse. Many Christian ethics are situational, and many are clearly divided into, "What God does is okay, but what Satan does isn't." What is inspired by God is similarly okay [usually], but what is inspired by Satan isn't [ever]. What is done by a Christian might be okay, but what is done by an atheist never is.* [In all these cases, the actions taken might be exactly the same; it is the inspiration behind them that matters.] Those are just some of the universal standards which are applied to situations.

*This was always one I had a problem with. If you don't believe in God, nothing you do is good. Giving food to a starving man isn't good. Saving the lives of Christians isn't good. It's as if you're outside of God's plan, as if everything you do is tainted by the touch of evil. It's a clearly defensible view if you accept the metaphysics required, but I always found those metaphysics questionable, even when I was a Christian. But it's in...hmm, Proverbs, maybe? CE would know. And it's a part of other doctrine, as well, such as Lucaris' Confession.

TheScamp · Post by **TheScamp** » Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:50 pm

The pope. In addition to being the head of the Catholic church, he's the head of the Vatican City, a UN-recognized country. The pope has a lot of political power, certainly enough to rival many other heads of state.

Where has Mr. Ratzinger professed an acceptance of those two other book titles you mentioned?

Crazy Elf · Post by **Crazy Elf** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:05 am

3PO wrote:That guy's a prick.

Oh fuck yes. Different to the later stage God, but in the start he's an arse.

I've always felt the ideal Christian is much more like a Zen monk than like today's Christian reactionary.

I had trouble separating what was the real deal from what claimed to be for a very long time.

I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be able to source accurately the reasons for being against magic.

Okay, the basis is that if it's not from God, then it's from something else. If that other thing isn't God, then it falls into the category of Satan, call it what you will. That doesn't mean it's from God or it's from Satan, that's a little too easy (and Satan means accuser anyway, it's a little complex... Book of Job for reference), the idea is that if it's outside God then you can't achieve salvation.

If you choose to follow gods outside of God's kingdom, then you can't get into God's heaven. Make sense?

This was always one I had a problem with. If you don't believe in God, nothing you do is good.

Not true. You can still do good, just you will ultimately live outside of God's Kingdom. You can do all the good you want to, you can be a great good person. You can do more good than Christians, sure. The issue isn't that you can't do good, it's that you won't achieve salvation for it. If you don't accept God, then you can't enter its kingdom. That's more to the point.

It comes down to the whole free will thing.

Cain wrote:The problem is that the difference between "miracles" and "magic" isn't that clearly defined in the Bible. For example, Pharoh's sorcerer turned his staff into a snake. Moses did the exact same thing. There's also cases of the Bible acknowledging the miracles of "other gods".

No, that's the Bible pointing out that the Pharoh's magic men could work magic. It doesn't say their gods were around, or that they were even gods. The Bible states time and time again that there is magic and other spiritual beings, just that you shouldn't deal with it. Yawh kicks the shit out of magic, and the people who use it, from a Biblical perspective without Biblical phrasing.

Furthermore, there's at least 1 case that I can think of, where a Jewish king consulted a witch for advice (she summoned a spirit for him to converse with).

And then Yawh kicked the shit out of the country. You're missing that part.

Magic is all right when it suits their purpose, for the most part.

Nope, it's never all right in the Bible. People fuck up and use it, then get killed.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:38 pm

Crazy Elf wrote:
3PO wrote:That guy's a prick.
Oh fuck yes. Different to the later stage God, but in the start he's an arse.

Personally, I liked him more back in the day. Screw this, "Turn the other cheek," crap; I want to see dashing babies on the rocks!

Crazy Elf wrote:
I'm not familiar enough with the Bible to be able to source accurately the reasons for being against magic.
Okay, the basis is that if it's not from God, then it's from something else.

I'm sorry; that statement wasn't very clear on my part. I get all that; what I can't do is /source/ it, by which I mean, I don't know the Bible well enough to quote passage and verse for the beliefs; I'm familiar with the beliefs, both from reading Christian philosophy and talking about it with Christians of various stripes, but since my knowledge is thus more "practical" and less "biblical," I can't actually whip out passages to explain why in the world Christians believe some of the things they do. Some I certainly can, and most I can remember and locate, but not all...as we're about to see.

Crazy Elf wrote:
3278 wrote:This was always one I had a problem with. If you don't believe in God, nothing you do is good.
Not true.

And here we are. I /know/ it's in there. Actually, I remember noticing it's in there twice; it's an identical passage, twice. [Whether that was a glitch of my Bible or not, I have no idea.] And, of course, now I can't find it.

The idea, though, doesn't fall very far outside of what you were talking about with magic, above: if your actions are not inspired by God, they're inspired by something else, which is thus bad, and even if you /think/ you're doing good, you're not acting out his plan. The metaphysics are logical; the source is escaping me. I'll poke about and see if I can't find it; it's a good one, particularly when you're getting into fights with Christians. Not that I'd do that.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:53 pm

Whew. Found it, and its copy: Psalm 14 and Psalm 53, verse one of both.

Now, isolated, the verse seems to mean exactly what I said, although that's arguable. [I'd hate to assume the absolute - "there is none that doeth good" always and universally - simply because of the absence of qualifiers.]

However, if you look at it in context with the two following verses, it seems he's saying that /no one/ does any good, which makes this more about the corruption of the race than about specific fragments of it who reject God.

I don't really see an argument for one view over the other. My temptation is to choose the latter - to take it in context. But the phrasing really does make that somewhat dubious. Anyway, I'm just happy I found it, and without search engines, either; just a Bible and some eyes.

Bishop · Post by **Bishop** » Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:57 pm

Your hands aren't burning and all that jazz?

Oh wait..that was me.

Dear God! The Pope vs Harry Potter

Dear God! The Pope vs Harry Potter

Re: Dear God! The Pope vs Harry Potter

Re: Dear God! The Pope vs Harry Potter