![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
olde_fashionedFor the record, I am utterly opposed to Harry Potter and other books involving and glorifying witchcraft. THIS is a link to Doug Phillips' blog, that explains the dangers of Harry Potter much better than I ever could.
olde_fashioned
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 08:02 am (UTC)It's one thing to say, "I personally choose not to read Harry Potter because to me, this equates to real witchcraft, and therefore I want nothing to do with it." But we step over the line when we say, "Because I think the Potter books equate to real world witchcraft, I insist that everyone else adopt my interpretation”even though the author has made clear that she did not mean it as real-world witchcraft." They take the view that the Potter books are promoting real occultism to everyone who reads them.
It's taken from a 2001 interview here (http://www.breakpoint.org/listingarticle.asp?ID=5659).
You might want to visit Connie Neal's website (http://www.connieneal.com/index.html) as she does seem to be very aware of the issues and concerns about the books.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 03:10 pm (UTC)Using this reply, but I'm really here to comment on a few things that you've said.
First of all, I really love how you are so respectful in your disagreements and I already have a great liking for you as a person. Secondly, I absolutely love debates/arguments so I really appreciate your perspective. Thirdly though, this is for you olde-fashioned, my apologies in advance if you'd really rather us not talk. Let me know, and I'll shut my laptop on the discussion. :)
You're getting into some pretty deep things here, and neither will I say that I'm the best person to state my view with good wrapping or even enough, but if you'll bear with me, I'll try.
First off... You mentioned something about only taking Jesus' teachings from the Bible. Well, you can't do that without taking the Bible as a whole, because Jesus TAUGHT from the Old Testament. He used it to hold many of his words to be truth, and he was a Jew. So he followed it. Despite not having all the discussions penned down for us in the gospels, there are quite a few incidents were Jesus is found expounding on the scriptures. After his death, he had a long talk with his disciples in which he expounded ALL of the scriptures to them. Also, Jesus IS the Word. To say that you're going to follow Jesus' teachings is to say you're following the Bible. The Bible isn't simply an inspiration. It is the word of God.
Secondly, both you and another commenter made the statement that we should judge others and the Bible says we shouldn't. ACTUALLY, the Bible says we SHOULD. It says we should never try condemning anyone, because we can't possibly judge another person's soul, but we are supposed to try the spirits, and we are supposed to help each other out in the spiritual battle. I know people try to use the scripture that says we shouldn't be taking specks out of people's eyes when we have motes in our own..But people STOP there. It actually goes on to say that we need to get the mote out of our eye FIRST so we can see clearly to get the speck out of our brother's eye. So there is a judgment there, but also a warning that we need to be sure we're right with God ourselves.
To say that we shouldn't "impose our views" on other people would be directly against God's commandments. We should educate people in what is right and wrong.
But, you know, it's kind of hard to get the unsaved sinner to follow God's principles. That's one thing that we do that Jesus never ever did. On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing in the least to let the world know where we stand. And it's not a bad thing to try to get other Christians to try to search out the scriptures and find God's will for issues.
And if Connie Neal or anyone else can prove to me that my view of the scriptures is wrong, and that God's will is really such and such, then I'd gladly follow that other view. But I don't believe that's the case, and I will stick by God and His Word and keep searching out to understand myself in the meantime.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 03:36 pm (UTC)I won't comment on the majority of what you've written as it is for olde_fashioned. However, about your final remark: I will stick by God and His Word and keep searching out to understand myself in the meantime.
I do think this illustrates the real strength that exists within the Protestant faiths with the encouragement to search for individual meaning and understanding rather than blindly following the dictates of a priest or Church. I'm also very much an advocate of the search for self-knowledge as well.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 03:40 pm (UTC)But you don't have to reply to it if you'd rather not.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 03:57 pm (UTC)Let me have a think about what you've written above and come back to you. :)
Finally getting back to you.
Date: 2007-07-28 10:37 am (UTC)I certainly agree with you about needing to take the whole of the Bible into account though there are passages about things like the owning of slaves and certain rights of women that people do not follow from the OT.
As for the Bible being the Word of God, I know this is a central tenet for some Christians but it is one that I could never subscribe to given the many times it has been translated (and likely mistranslated), the way certain books were cut from inclusion as well as other historical considerations - such as the Gospels being written decades after Jesus' death. Indeed one of the reasons some books were left out of the Bible was because they were deemed not to be 'inspired enough'.
I guess it is quite a thorny theological debate as to whether something inspired equates to being a direct transmission so s never to be question.
Followers of the Koran also believe it to be the Word of God and the same God as in the Old Testament.
Secondly, both you and another commenter made the statement that we should judge others and the Bible says we shouldn't. ACTUALLY, the Bible says we SHOULD. It says we should never try condemning anyone, because we can't possibly judge another person's soul, but we are supposed to try the spirits, and we are supposed to help each other out in the spiritual battle. I know people try to use the scripture that says we shouldn't be taking specks out of people's eyes when we have motes in our own..But people STOP there. It actually goes on to say that we need to get the mote out of our eye FIRST so we can see clearly to get the speck out of our brother's eye. So there is a judgment there, but also a warning that we need to be sure we're right with God ourselves.
Did I say that? Can you point me to the comment because this sounds a bit ooc for me.
To say that we shouldn't "impose our views" on other people would be directly against God's commandments. We should educate people in what is right and wrong.
I do understand this. I am glad that forced conversion to Christianity is a thing of the past.
But, you know, it's kind of hard to get the unsaved sinner to follow God's principles. That's one thing that we do that Jesus never ever did. On the other hand, I don't think it's a bad thing in the least to let the world know where we stand. And it's not a bad thing to try to get other Christians to try to search out the scriptures and find God's will for issues.
I would imagine it is almost impossible if the person does not consider themselves a sinner or in need of salvation. However, speaking up about what you believe in as well as dialoguing with other Christians seems a positive thing to do.
And if Connie Neal or anyone else can prove to me that my view of the scriptures is wrong, and that God's will is really such and such, then I'd gladly follow that other view. But I don't believe that's the case, and I will stick by God and His Word and keep searching out to understand myself in the meantime.
I do feel that writers such as Neal's job isn't to convince that someone is wrong but perhaps to raise questions. I actually hate the idea of people trying to convince other people that what they believe is wrong. I really dislike Richard Dawkins for his militant atheism and disrespect for all religions, though I expect I should be more tolerant.
I do think it is always important to seek out answers for yourself. It is not always a comfortable process.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 04:21 am (UTC)I looked into Connie Neal and the links you gave me, and thank you, they were interesting.
I don't know if I'm being unclear or not, but by stating my beliefs of Harry Potter, LotR, and Narnia, I am not demanding everyone else adopt my views. I'm merely stating them, the same way as I might state certain costume dramas are my favourite or that I can't stand certain types of music. I'm not saying that I know all, or even that I know better, so please don't think that. If I am coming off in a manner such as I have described then please forgive me. The last thing in the world that I want to do is tell other people how to think!
Also, Connie Neal seems to stand upon the arguement that Harry Potter is okay because LotR and Narnia depict similar elements, and that if we're going to condemn HP we'd have to chuck Lewis and Tolkien out the window, too. I haven't read anything so far other than those comparisons and the "it's harmless and pretend" argument to convince me of her POV.
On a side note, her books seem to be published by Zondervan, who is also the publisher that came out with the "gender-neutral" Bible which removed all references that suggested God was male.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-30 08:51 am (UTC)On a side note, her books seem to be published by Zondervan, who is also the publisher that came out with the "gender-neutral" Bible which removed all references that suggested God was male.
From what you said in the comment earlier to me about translations and the like being guided by God, perhaps this version was also? God being male-female in one or beyond all human conceptions of gender makes sense.
Both male and female were created in the image of God (according to the OT) which does not assign maleness to God. It's a thorny topic for sure.