Danger of the occult
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
I still feel that the badger Hufflepuff has more admirable qualities. She is not afraid of hard work or toil and is fiercely loyal to her cause.
Here's the crux.... the issue is not with the witches or the spells or the scenario... the issue is with the intepretation....
Not trying to defend HP, but if I were to intepret.... I'd say HP's mother is the ultimate sacrifice, Gryffindor is the lion, nothing in the book is considered real in the real world, the only on real practical "sorcery" is divination/tea leave reading and it is being made fun of in the person of Prof Trelawney.
My point, brey, is we need to be [b]consistent. I don't read too much into HP and neither do I read too much into Narnia.[/b] -
Plobebly... but the badger is not the central character leh....Originally posted by iveco:I still feel that the badger Hufflepuff has more admirable qualities. She is not afraid of hard work or toil and is fiercely loyal to her cause.
The lion is the hero, and the snake is the bad guy..... the bird and the badger are just side characters. -
As I've said many times, allegorists vs literalists.
-
Even the Old Testament and to some extent, the Gospels are full of allegory and analogy.Originally posted by LazerLordz:As I've said many times, allegorists vs literalists. -
I thought they are the same meaning?Originally posted by Icemoon:wah .. your semantics very powerful .. "know God" and "know about God".
thumbs up.
-
Probably.Originally posted by Icemoon:The real reason why Christians are like that, and Buddhists aren't, is 'cos the Christian place Truth as number one. If you believe in the wrong truth .. you still go to hell .. so you see the importance of truth?
Buddhists emphasises on compassion. There is no historical truth to grapple with. So what if Prince Siddharta sat under durian tree and not bodhi tree?
But would be that stupid to sit under the durian tree?
-
not really,Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:I thought they are the same meaning?
to know about someone, is to know some aspect of that person, be it through hearing from someone or reading about him somewhere.
to really know someone, is to have a personal relationship with that person, ie. knowing him personally.
Hence to know God, means having a personal relationship with Him, knowing Him personally.
To know about God, is just like hearing from someone, or even just reading about Him (from the Bible...etc) without going into a relationship with Him.
cheers -
I see.Originally posted by vince69:not really,
to know about someone, is to know some aspect of that person, be it through hearing from someone or reading about him somewhere.
to really know someone, is to have a personal relationship with that person, ie. knowing him personally.
Hence to know God, means having a personal relationship with Him, knowing Him personally.
To know about God, is just like hearing from someone, or even just reading about Him (from the Bible...etc) without going into a relationship with Him. cheers -
Well CE, this is where we will agree to disagree, the whole spirit behind HP in my opinion is that of witchcraft and wizadry even though there is this good over evil in the end... but it still promotes witchcraft...Originally posted by Chin Eng:That's one way of looking at it....
However, it must be pointed out, in all fairness, that one point constantly mentioned in HP's books: magic is not the total answer. Time and again, in the book, love, sacrifice, as well as wisdom is featured constantly.
Unfortunately, detractors always seem to focus on the "magical" elements.
If I were to fault Narnia, then I am really offended at the Father Christmas character in the story. To me, the inclusion of this character is an insult to Christianity. In any Christmas celebration in any country, the Father Christmas character continues to dilute the true Christian message: one of sacrificial love of God.
It must also be pointed out, from the literary sense, what is allegory to Lewis:
C.S. Lewis used a very strict definition of the word 'allegory' - after all, one of his most important academic books was a study of this subject. He wrote to some Maryland fifth graders in 1954:
'I did not say to myself 'Let us represent Jesus as He really is in our world by a Lion in Narnia'; I said 'Let us suppose that there were a land like Narnia and that the Son of God, as he became a Man in our world, became a Lion there, and then imagine what would happen'.
Another point that is important is: The entire Chronicles series were not meant to be Christian literature per se, as compared to, say, Lewis' Screwtape Letters.
Are there good "magical" imagery in Narnia, of course! The magic healing portion, the bow and arrow set.....
Again, I wish to state that I am not pro HP or magic. I only ask for consistency in our judgement over such genres.
Narnia is totally different kettle of fish in my view. True there are aspects of Narnia that fall short of the mark, like you rightly mentioned about father Christmas... and I understand where you are coming from but HP is just something which I will draw the line at I suppose.
Each of us has our own value system, the way you and I view things will definitely be differnt. Have a good day.
Cheers -
Er, Brey, did you ever see people committing murder by shooting green light from their wands? Of course you haven't, because it is not possible in real life. Furthermore, there is no famous magic school in the Scottish highlands.
-
SLEEPY MAN...
-
brey, actually I am quite sure you'd response this way, and I agree that we can agree to disagree.Originally posted by breytonhartge:Well CE, this is where we will agree to disagree, the whole spirit behind HP in my opinion is that of witchcraft and wizadry even though there is this good over evil in the end... but it still promotes witchcraft...
Narnia is totally different kettle of fish in my view. True there are aspects of Narnia that fall short of the mark, like you rightly mentioned about father Christmas... and I understand where you are coming from but HP is just something which I will draw the line at I suppose.
Each of us has our own value system, the way you and I view things will definitely be differnt. Have a good day.
Cheers
just need to point out to other readers that Lewis is not without controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Narnia under the topic of Pagan Influences has the following write-ups:
There are many Christians who feel that The Chronicles of Narnia promotes soft sell paganism and occultism, because of the recurring pagan themes and the heretical depictions of Christ as an anthropomorphic lion. Satyrs, fauns, centaurs, dwarves, werewolves, giants, and even the pagan god Bacchus and the Maenads are depicted in a positive light, when they are distinctly pagan motifs. Even an animistic "River god" is portrayed in a positive light. (Chattaway 2005), (Berit 2005) According to Josh Hurst from Christianity Today, "not only was Lewis hesitant to call his books Christian allegory, but the stories borrow just as much from pagan mythology as they do the Bible."(Hurst 2005)
Drew Trotter, PhD, president of the Center for Christian Study, noted that the producers of the film version of The Chronicles of Narnia felt that The Chronicles of Narnia closely follows the archetypal pattern of the monomyth as detailed in Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces. [1] Joseph Campbell himself felt that the New Testament adhered to the archetypal monomyth and was but "one version of mythic stories that can be found in many cultures."[2] Both The Chronicles of Narnia and the New Testament are rife with Jungian archetypal imagery.
A religious studies professor, Donald R. MacDonald, PhD, who teaches at the Claremont School of Theology, has written numerous books stating that portions of the New Testament are actually derived from Classical pagan Greek literature like the Iliad and the Odyssey of Homer.(MacDonald 2000), (MacDonald 2003) Assuming that Lewis did indeed base aspects of The Chronicles of Narnia on the New Testament, Lewis might have, in fact, been infusing pagan symbolism, allegory, and supposition into The Chronicles of Narnia.
CS Lewis himself stated in an essay called Is Theism Important?:
"When grave persons express their fear that England is relapsing into Paganism, I am tempted to reply, 'Would that she were.' For I do not think it at all likely that we shall ever see Parliament opened by the slaughtering of a garlanded white bull in the House of Lords or Cabinet Ministers leaving sandwiches in Hyde Park as an offering for the Dryads. If such a state of affairs came about, then the Christian apologist would have something to work on. For a Pagan, as history shows, is a man eminently convertible to Christianity. He is essentially the pre-Christian, or sub-Christian, religious man. The post-Christian man of our day differs from him as much as a divorcee differs from a virgin."(Lewis 1994)
...again, I want to reiterate that I am not justifing HP nor am I lambasting Lewis.
I want to emphasize the need to be CONSISTENT in our stand. While a lot of our opinions we formed are from our personal worldview, we need to have a clear mind as why we support one thing and not another. The standards have to be measured similarly.
To me Lewis and Rowlings are authors. I do not and will not read into allegory (intended or not). If we say that we are against Rowling for her pagan influences, we should also have the same yardstick for Lewis. How can we condemn one and accept the other? -
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
To add, unlike witchcraft that are really in practice, the most 'witchy' things about HP are mabbe some incantations, flying on brooms and all that.
Here's the crux.... the issue is not with the witches or the spells or the scenario... the issue is with the intepretation....
Not trying to defend HP, but if I were to intepret.... I'd say HP's mother is the ultimate sacrifice, Gryffindor is the lion, nothing in the book is considered real in the real world, the only on real practical "sorcery" is divination/tea leave reading and it is being made fun of in the person of Prof Trelawney.
My point, brey, is we need to be [b]consistent. I don't read too much into HP and neither do I read too much into Narnia.[/b]
Things that are specific to witchcraft - invoking the powers of Gaia, having covens, religiously holding on to some values like threefold returns (stupid thing really) are not present in HP.
It is much a fantasy as Enid Blyton's dwarf story or Alice in Wonderland. -
I guess Brey isn't any fan of Bewitched.
-
and Buffy, and Charmed.....Originally posted by Icemoon:I guess Brey isn't any fan of Bewitched. -
and Hansel & Gretel.Originally posted by laurence82:and Buffy, and Charmed.....
opps .. dunno how to spell -
Originally posted by laurence82:and Buffy, and Charmed..... this one sure cannot pass lah.... include Angel also....
I am wondering about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.
The big question is WHY and WHY NOT? -
Why?Originally posted by Chin Eng: this one sure cannot pass lah.... include Angel also....
I am wondering about Snow White and Sleeping Beauty.
The big question is WHY and WHY NOT?
As i used to say, what you got to fear, is fear itself.
-
my favourite little mermaid.
-
Err... actually I mean WHY some can (like Narnia) and WHY some CANNOT (like HP)....Originally posted by laurence82:Why?
As i used to say, what you got to fear, is fear itself. -
Where to draw the line leh?Originally posted by Chin Eng:Err... actually I mean WHY some can (like Narnia) and WHY some CANNOT (like HP)....
Cheers -
I mean why Buffy and Charmed cannot pass?Originally posted by Chin Eng:Err... actually I mean WHY some can (like Narnia) and WHY some CANNOT (like HP).... -
I have my take, but the answer is kinda long.... so I need to organize my thoughts a bit more.....Originally posted by M©+square:Where to draw the line leh?
Cheers
There are nice Christian folks who feel that good Christians should not watch shows that has a high level of occult content either because it goes against Christian beliefs, or that one's mind might get embroiled with the occult, or that one might be tempted to try to emulate the content of these genre. Or simply put, such genre goes against verses like Deut 18:10.Originally posted by laurence82:I mean why Buffy and Charmed cannot pass?
I like to state that nobody in my home watches Buffy, Charmed or Angel.... specifically because of the content - the shows are stupid! I need to say that Rose McGowan looks really really fine.... ahem!
My boys and I are fans of Simpsons, CSI, Fawlty Towers..... and of course American Idol. -
You draw the line where the Holy Spirit convicts you.Originally posted by M©+square:Where to draw the line leh?
Cheers -
Let me be the 'devil's advocate' by voicing out my opinions.Originally posted by Icemoon:The real reason why Christians are like that, and Buddhists aren't, is 'cos the Christian place Truth as number one. If you believe in the wrong truth .. you still go to hell .. so you see the importance of truth?
Buddhists emphasises on compassion. There is no historical truth to grapple with. So what if Prince Siddharta sat under durian tree and not bodhi tree?
Christians focus on merely having FAITH in what is supposedly the TRUTH.
Buddhists focus on REALISING the TRUTHS themselves
BTW, whenever a Buddha attains enlightenment under a tree, that tree will be called bodhi tree. Bodhi = Enlightenment. The BODHI (enlightenment) is important, not the tree. So if a Buddha happens to attain enlightenment under a durian tree, the durian tree will be called the Bodhi Tree. In the future, Maitreya Buddha will attain enlightenment under another kind of tree, called the Dragon-Flower tree. Dragon-Flower tree will then become the Bodhi Tree of the era.