Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

[nutshell]

JerryL, I have been sitting back watching this conversation and you have not made a convincing argument. The examples you cite seem unrelated to Harry Potter. For example, you continue to bring up the Tower of Babel as a sign that God is against independence. Independence in reaching Heaven is wrong, but independence in taking responsibility for ones actions and doing all one can to better the world is right. How can you argue with that? Harry does the latter, not the former.

 

[michel]

I did not call followers of your path or any other path evil. I would never do such a thing. No one is evil but Satan and his spirit followers. We are only mortals who do good and bad things.

I call evil evil and good good.

Witchcraft is evil, magic is evil. People are neither evil nor good.

The scriptures

We only do evil and good deeds. Does this make us evil or good ???

I would never say anyone is evil or good.

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God."
Luke 18: 19

None is good but God.

I am only saying that witchcraft and magic is done by the power of Satan which is evil. This is doctrine taught in the Bible.

Yes, Satan does have power and can impart that power to humans on earth. I believe that witchcraft and magic are forms of Satan's power. Satan's power is real and so is God's power.

Witchcraft is evil, magic is evil. People are neither evil nor good.

Rubbish, if you will forgive my directness. It depends entirely what you mean by witchcraft and Magic.

I do faith healing; I am sure that, apart from the people who laugh out loud at me, there are others who see it as 'magic'.

Remember that Magic is only something natural, but something about which we have no ability to understand.

In Africa, the natives used aMagig rather a lot. A witch doctor took away a black man who had been taken to the hospital after having been gored by a lion.

The doctor who let him go (well, there was little he could do for him) was astounded to see him again, at a later date, apparently healed.

The natives used to buty their badly hurt people in earth, with just their head sticking out; feeding them, making sure they were not dehydrated...etc.

What the black man did not know was that the soil was heavily laced with radioactive material - that was what was doing the healing, as well as the maggots which would have been eating and disposing of all the necrotic tissue.

Magic!!!! - evil ?

 

[JerryL]

JerryL, I have been sitting back watching this conversation and you have not made a convincing argument. The examples you cite seem unrelated to Harry Potter. For example, you continue to bring up the Tower of Babel as a sign that God is against independence. Independence in reaching Heaven is wrong, but independence in taking responsibility for ones actions and doing all one can to better the world is right. How can you argue with that? Harry does the latter, not the former.

Nutshell, you have not offered me a compelling reason why you should be accepted as the arbiter of "convincing". Obviously, you have not fuond it convincing to you; but that has no bearing on whether it's right or not.

Please support your assertion that God's complaint was that the tower was building to heaven. It's an unbiblical position:

"The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." " - Gen 11:6-7
​

God's upset is in the ability of man to, independant of him, accomplish anything. There is no indication that it's the nature of the tower (other than it's nature as "otherwise impossable") that causes problem.

 

[JerryL]

Magic!!!! - evil ?

The Bible does get moer specific. Communing with the devil, communing with the dead or acting as a medium. These are explicitly condemned.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I'm happy to discuss that on an appropriate therad. I feel the Bible is very clear on most of these matters. Disrespect to authroity, particualrly parents (in this case, the uncle and aunt who are) is pushinsed by death.

I to find your views very scary indeed.
Not at all the views that I associate with Christianity. or Christs Teachings.
If you ask which views, they are all those you have shown in this thread anyway.

Terry________________________
Amen! Truly I say to you: Gather in my name. I am with you.

 

[michel]

The Bible does get moer specific. Communing with the devil, communing with the dead or acting as a medium. These are explicitly condemned.

I understand that, but Joe public, and indeed many Christians would call what I have described as magic. For all I know the witchdoctor might have painted himself and danced in a hashish enduced 'high' for a couple of hours in the belief that it was the spell that made the guy get better.

Is that evil ?

 

[jeffrey]

Once again, it's only a movie. To say it promotes witchcraft is saying so does Peter Pan. Or dumbo. Or most children's books. I'd much rather have my kids watch Harry Potter then some movie where people are killing each other.

 

[JerryL]

Once again, it's only a movie. To say it promotes witchcraft is saying so does Peter Pan. Or dumbo. Or most children's books. I'd much rather have my kids watch Harry Potter then some movie where people are killing each other.

"Mein Kamph", "the Prince", and the writings of Rusdi and LeVay are only books.

For that matter, the Bible is only a book.

 

[JerryL]

I to find your views very scary indeed.
Not at all the views that I associate with Christianity. or Christs Teachings.
If you ask which views, they are all those you have shown in this thread anyway.

I think you are asking yourself the wrong question.

The thing you should be worried about is that I'm accurately represnting the Biblical views... the Christ said that he did not come to abolosh the law; that he was the fulfillment and continuation of scripture. God is all-good and perfect, and I'm only discussing Gods word as presented in the Bible.

 

[michel]

I think you are asking yourself the wrong question.

The thing you should be worried about is that I'm accurately represnting the Biblical views.

We can't get back into the 'Which part of the bible' saga again; that has been wrung through before. Personally, I agree with Terry; you are nitpicking.

I'll give you an example; the Children's nursery rhime 'ring a ring a roses, atishoo, atishoo, we all fall down'.

Would you ban that because technically, it could be seen as making fun of the people who died from the plague in London, just before the great fire ?

 

[lilithu]

I to find your views very scary indeed.
Not at all the views that I associate with Christianity. or Christs Teachings.
If you ask which views, they are all those you have shown in this thread anyway.

OK, this has gone on long enough!

Terry, jgallandt, nutshell and whomever, unless JerryL has "found God" since the last time I interacted with him in a thread (and I admit that I do not know his heart, only his past posts), you guys are not arguing with biblical literalist Christian. You are arguing with a nonbeliever who for some reason is choosing to interpret the bible in the most intolerant way and telling you that your more tolerant views are wrong.

JerryL, I don't understand what you're doing. I don't understand why, if you are talking with Christians who hold perfectly sane and reasonable positions regarding these things, you would want to try to convince them otherwise. It seems to me that you and some other nonChristians in other threads lately have taken the position that you are going to reject any moderate form of Christianity as valid. It seems to me that you and some other nonChristians in other threads lately are trying to force a definition of Christianity that is so extreme that most people could not accept it. Yes, I know that this is a debate forum and you have the right to argue any position that you want as long as you can back it up and I know that there is plenty in the bible to back up the fundamentalist stance you've taken. yada yada yada. But it still smells rotten to me if your debate opponents don't know that they're not dealing with one of their fellow believers.

 

[JerryL]

Would you ban that because technically, it could be seen as making fun of the people who died from the plague in London, just before the great fire ?

I see no biblical proscription on making fun of plague victims... though I do recall soem shebares sent to devour children who teases Ezekial, I suspect that was more because he was a prophet.

Terry, jgallandt, nutshell and whomever, unless JerryL has "found God" since the last time I interacted with him in a thread (and I admit that I do not know his heart, only his past posts), you guys are not arguing with biblical literalist Christian. You are arguing with a nonbeliever who for some reason is choosing to interpret the bible in the most intolerant way and telling you that your more tolerant views are wrong.

Lilith. Have you ever heard of an ad hominym logical fallacy? You are making one.

JerryL, I don't understand what you're doing. I don't understand why, if you are talking with Christians who hold perfectly sane and reasonable positions regarding these things, you would want to try to convince them otherwise. It seems to me that you and some other nonChristians in other threads lately have taken the position that you are going to reject any moderate form of Christianity as valid.

Please point me at a single instance where I've referenced Chrsitianity. I've made a Biblical argument. I'm happy to support that argument Biblically.

I've not, for example, interacted with Michael's "I throw out the parts I don't like" position. He's made a consious decision to do that, I've acknowledged it and moved on. My position is Biblically correct.

It seems to me that you and some other nonChristians in other threads lately are trying to force a definition of Christianity that is so extreme that most people could not accept it. Yes, I know that this is a debate forum and you have the right to argue any position that you want as long as you can back it up and I know that there is plenty in the bible to back up the fundamentalist stance you've taken. yada yada yada. But it still smells rotten to me if your debate opponents don't know that they're not dealing with one of their fellow believers.

I'm arguing a Biblical position. I'm not trying to make the Bible say anything, I'm merely discussing what it does actually say.

A non-fundie Christian has no stake in it, and a fundie should readily either agree with me or be able to correct me scripturally. Anyone can opt out simply with "I don't believe all of the Bible".

All that said, Harry Potter (which is a book, much as the Bible itself is a book) promotes as positve morals which are anti-Biblical. Specifically, it supports personal triumph over evil, rather than the triumph of God, and in doing so supports the thought of power and success autonomous of God. Further, it sets as an example a protagonist who repeatedly defies lawful authority (such as his guardian) and shows this as baing a good thing.

 

[jeffrey]

lol. thanks for the heads up!

 

[nutshell]

This is my last post for JerryL.

You state your position is Biblically correct. I argue that your position is only Biblically correct according to your interpretation of the Bible, the same being true for me and everyone else as well.

So...I think we're done for now.

 

[JerryL]

You state your position is Biblically correct. I argue that your position is only Biblically correct according to your interpretation of the Bible, the same being true for me and everyone else as well.

And, unlike you apparently, I'm willing to Biblically defend my position.

 

[lilithu]

Lilith. Have you ever heard of an ad hominym logical fallacy? You are making one.

Why yes, Jerry, and you spelled the term incorrectly btw. It would be an ad hominem IF I actually were debating you about what's in the bible, but for the reasons that I stated, I feel that would be a complete waste of time. And I felt that the others should be aware of those reasons as well.

Please point me at a single instance where I've referenced Chrsitianity. I've made a Biblical argument. I'm happy to support that argument Biblically.

You're arguing letter of the law, not the spirit. Since, as you point out, you never said you were Christian, you should have no problem with me pointing this out explicitly for others who might have made an incorrect inference. Afterall, it should make no difference, right?

Perhaps this is just fun for you to win arguments. I've already conceded that you have not violated any of the "rules of the game." These people are emotionally invested in their faith and they speak from a position of love. They deserved to know where you were coming from, and that was the only argument that I made.

 

[nutshell]

And, unlike you apparently, I'm willing to Biblically defend my position.

I'm willing to defend my position, but honestly, Jerry, you're not worth the effort. When you decide to soften your heart and have an actual discussion rather than trying to play mental kung-fu with the other posters then we can debate. In the mean time...adieu.

 

[JerryL]

I'm willing to defend my position, but honestly, Jerry, you're not worth the effort.

So you are willing to defend your position, but you are not willing to defend your position. In short, you just lied.

When you decide to soften your heart and have an actual discussion rather than trying to play mental kung-fu with the other posters then we can debate. In the mean time...adieu.

There's no Biblical prescedent that people can soften or harden their own hearts... you are making an excuse.

 

[JerryL]

Why yes, Jerry, and you spelled the term incorrectly btw. It would be an ad hominem IF I actually were debating you about what's in the bible, but for the reasons that I stated, I feel that would be a complete waste of time. And I felt that the others should be aware of those reasons as well.

You don't need to be in a debate with me, you merely need to infer that my position is invalid because of my person. That is excatly the inference you pushed.

You're arguing letter of the law, not the spirit. Since, as you point out, you never said you were Christian, you should have no problem with me pointing this out explicitly for others who might have made an incorrect inference. Afterall, it should make no difference, right

Once again you missquote me. I said that I never said I referenced Christianity... though in point of fact I have not, in this thread, claimed to be Christian.

As to the letter vs the spirit, how would you like to debate it. You are tossing the letter completely out the window with some of the positions that you expouse. They are decidedly unbiblical. As to whether this is a legetimeatly heald belief by many (whcih really is immaterial), it is. It's called "theonomy" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theonomy

 

[jewscout]

i enjoyed the Harry Potter movies, as well as many fantasy writers (including Terry Brooks) and D&D
i don't think they are evil, or the devil, or against G-d's will
i do not give them any power nor do i put my trust in "Magic Missle" or a die 20

only in G-d do place my trust
the rest is just something fun to do while i'm here w/ little influence on my life.