Why isn't Harry Potter welcome? [Archive]

Piebald

January 6th 2005, 03:19 PM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.

The Harry Potter world is based on the "witchcraft and wizardry" of fairy tales and folklore. The reason that it has some "real world" paralells to religious 'witchcraft' is because religious witchcraft revived things people used to believe and adapted them as part of their religious worldview. J.K. Rowling took things that people used to believe and adapted them as part of her 'fairy tale' series.

Now, is Harry 'dangerous' in a world where religious witchcraft is making a comeback? Well, maybe, if a particular child cannot differentiate the two. I guess if piracy was making a comeback Pirates of the Carribean would be dangerous to kids as well.

Bottom Line: Harry Potter is not intrinsically "occult" or evil, it's just an entertaining fantasy story that adapts medieval European folklore. It could be used by some as a springboard into the occult, but so can Lucky Charms or Lord of the Rings if you try hard enough.

steamer

January 7th 2005, 05:13 PM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.
My Jewish in-laws celebrate on the 25th of December. They have a tree and gifts and everything.

The Harry Potter world is based on the "witchcraft and wizardry" of fairy tales and folklore. The reason that it has some "real world" paralells to religious 'witchcraft' is because religious witchcraft revived things people used to believe and adapted them as part of their religious worldview. J.K. Rowling took things that people used to believe and adapted them as part of her 'fairy tale' series.
I'd agree with this but Harry would probably be welcome to Wicca.

Now, is Harry 'dangerous' in a world where religious witchcraft is making a comeback? Well, maybe, if a particular child cannot differentiate the two. I guess if piracy was making a comeback Pirates of the Carribean would be dangerous to kids as well.
I can barely distinguish between the two since I have only the most rudimentary understanding of Wicca. If Wiccans magic worked even a quarter as well as Harry's I'd really have to go try it.

Bottom Line: Harry Potter is not intrinsically "occult" or evil, it's just an entertaining fantasy story that adapts medieval European folklore. It could be used by some as a springboard into the occult, but so can Lucky Charms or Lord of the Rings if you try hard enough.
Hmm is Harry as dangerous as a hobbit? I don't know, he's got a nasty little twig but them hobbits can carry swords and such.

Stephen

January 8th 2005, 02:19 PM

Has anyone even asked Harry if he wants to join this forum to begin with?

JillPole

January 8th 2005, 10:04 PM

bhukkadakota

January 8th 2005, 11:48 PM

I suppose christmas has grown to mean more than just the celebration of the birth of jesus, i mean atheist celebrate it and their kids look forward to it every year when they wouldnt have even heard of jesus. how can reading harry potter be dangerous? i reckon its a pretty good read. harry potter and the half blooded prince comes out soon. what is wiccan anyway? i heard of it before, i just never knew.

shunyadragon

January 9th 2005, 02:46 AM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.

Bottom Line: Harry Potter is not intrinsically "occult" or evil, it's just an entertaining fantasy story that adapts medieval European folklore. It could be used by some as a springboard into the occult, but so can Lucky Charms or Lord of the Rings if you try hard enough.
All good Wiccans should celebrate the Winter Solstice as Neo-Pagans as did the believers in the Primal relaigions of the north, before Christianity corrupted it.

Should Neo-Pagans be considered any more intrinsically "occult" or evil than Harry. Hmmm . . . at times Wiccans can be quit entertaining like medieval floklore.

JCA

January 9th 2005, 05:50 AM

All good Wiccans should celebrate the Winter Solstice as Neo-Pagans as did the believers in the Primal relaigions of the north, before Christianity corrupted it.

Was that called for? :ahem:

You know it isn't exactly true. They didn't 'corrupt' it.. they adopted it. No one made any pagans take part.. and no one can make you stop worshipping whatever god you worship.. seems to me that if pagan god worship died out, or 'Christmas' became more popular, it was little to do with corruption..

How do you corrupt Winter Solstice anyway?? It happens or it doesn't.. and strangely enough, it seems to continue to happen every year.. :wink: That's some terrible corruption.. :tongue:

In Love and Peace

JCA

shunyadragon

January 9th 2005, 08:03 AM

Was that called for? :ahem:

You know it isn't exactly true. They didn't 'corrupt' it.. they adopted it. No one made any pagans take part.. and no one can make you stop worshipping whatever god you worship.. seems to me that if pagan god worship died out, or 'Christmas' became more popular, it was little to do with corruption..

How do you corrupt Winter Solstice anyway?? It happens or it doesn't.. and strangely enough, it seems to continue to happen every year.. :wink: That's some terrible corruption.. :tongue:

In Love and Peace

JCA
Thw Winter Solstice will always be so, of course. IT was the holiday that was messed with.

First they did everything they could to exterminate the practice of the primative religions of Europe. Second, they banned, burned and destroyed anything to do with ancient observances of holidays and feasts.

In coming up with the calender the Romans changed the dates and observances to their own conveniance.

Piebald

January 9th 2005, 06:07 PM

technomage

January 9th 2005, 06:26 PM

All good Wiccans should celebrate the Winter Solstice as Neo-Pagans as did the believers in the Primal relaigions of the north, before Christianity corrupted it.
Might I suggest that you worry about your religion, and allow us to make decisions about ours?

Frank, from time to time you've shown an amazing lack of historical knowledge. In this post, you not only demonstrate that lack, you also show an incredible arrogance. What, precisely, gives you the knowledge to know what a "good" Wiccan is, much less the authority to say what good Wiccans "should" do?

Justin

shunyadragon

January 11th 2005, 08:36 AM

Might I suggest that you worry about your religion, and allow us to make decisions about ours?

Frank, from time to time you've shown an amazing lack of historical knowledge. In this post, you not only demonstrate that lack, you also show an incredible arrogance. What, precisely, gives you the knowledge to know what a "good" Wiccan is, much less the authority to say what good Wiccans "should" do?

Justin
Your over reacting a bit. The Winter Solstice is one of the main Pagan festivals all across Stone Age Europe.

shunyadragon

January 11th 2005, 08:43 AM

A Member of the Bahai faith complaining about adapting a Religious festival or doctrine to a new faith is completely rich.

Which one of these Prophets is original to Bahai?

Adam (? BCE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm))
Abraham (? BCE)
Moses (1456 BCE)
Krishna (1249 BCE)
Zoroaster (1000 BCE)
Buddha (757 BCE)
Jesus Christ (34 CE (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm))
Mohammed (613 CE)

The Bab (1844 CE) and Baha'u'llah (1863 CE). New Year is May 21.

I am not sure of your point, concerning the adaptation of a holiday, but I do consider the Winter Solstice one of the main holidays of the Stone Age people of the Northern Hemisphere, that Christians call Pagan.

{Tim}

January 11th 2005, 09:00 AM

I am not sure of your point, concerning the adaptation of a holiday, but I do consider the Winter Solstice one of the main holidays of the Stone Age people of the Northern Hemisphere, that Christians call Pagan.His point was, how can you complain about the "adaptation" of a holiday, when you've "adapted" so many prophets from other religions.

technomage

January 11th 2005, 12:05 PM

Your over reacting a bit.
Shunya, you just came in and said what "good" Wiccans would do. Now, precisely how would you feel if I went and said that "good" Bahai should get baptized like Christians, or go on Haj, or ... any number of things that have nothing to do with the central doctrines of your faith?

The Winter Solstice is one of the main Pagan festivals all across Stone Age Europe.
One more time, my friend: Wicca is not a Stone Age religion, I am not an inhabitant of the Stone Age, and Christianity did not corrupt the Winter Solstice. They have their own celebration of that time that commemorates a similar event (birth of the God), but that does absolutely nothing to "corrupt" my celebration.

Justin

technomage

January 11th 2005, 12:09 PM

Would anyone not be welcomed to join Wicca?
Well, actually, most covens do not admit minors unless their parents also attend or are members. Part of the reason is sheer practicality: the "Satanic Panic" and accusations of child abuse and ritual sacrifice of the 1980s and 1990s attracted a lot of teenagers who were far more interested in rebelling against their parents than in Wicca.

Justin

technomage

January 11th 2005, 12:15 PM

My Jewish in-laws celebrate on the 25th of December. They have a tree and gifts and everything.
It's called "double dipping." :hehe:

I can barely distinguish between the two since I have only the most rudimentary understanding of Wicca. If Wiccans magic worked even a quarter as well as Harry's I'd really have to go try it.
:lol: I wish!

Hmm is Harry as dangerous as a hobbit? I don't know, he's got a nasty little twig but them hobbits can carry swords and such.
Hey, didn't you know? Harry Potter is a serial killer. I mean it ... every time he shows up, people start dropping like flies!

shunyadragon

January 11th 2005, 06:49 PM

The Bab (1844 CE) and Baha'u'llah (1863 CE). New Year is May 21.

I am not sure of your point, concerning the adaptation of a holiday, but I do consider the Winter Solstice one of the main holidays of the Stone Age people of the Northern Hemisphere, that Christians call Pagan.
Slight late at night typing error New Year - March 21.

shunyadragon

January 11th 2005, 07:08 PM

His point was, how can you complain about the "adaptation" of a holiday, when you've "adapted" so many prophets from other religions.There is a difference. First, the Baha'i Faith does not 'adapt' prophets or messiahs from other religions. It believes every people have a spiritual relationship with God through innate awareness and revelation in their own time and place, and it respects those cultures spiritual heritage. It is theirs of their own right.

Second, history says it was not 'adaption'. The original 'Winter Solstice' celebration was a natural event celebrated like other natural Festivals by these people. Their religion, temples, and observances were ethnical cleansed and those that did not repent and convert were executed and accused of crimes like withcraft. The dates and focus of the celebration were changed, and the original meaning was lost.

Apparently, Justin's version of Wicca or Neo-Paganism does not relate the primal religions of Europe. It takes a more modern humanist approach like Unitarian Universalists. My friends in the Durham area of North Carolina attempted to relate more to Primal Cultures and celebrated the 'Winter Solstice' and the 'Spring Equinox'.

Adaptation is actually okay, if done so in the spirit it was intended. The Baha'i Faith has adapted the 'Spring Equinox' as their 'New Year' (Note correction in my previous post, March 21.). This is done in the spirit of the original observance by many ancient cultures.

shunyadragon

January 11th 2005, 11:39 PM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.
I do not think the concept of God parents is necessarily unique to Christianity. I may be mistaken, but except for possibly muggles, I did not see any sign that the wizards celebrated Christmas. Except for the trees and the trimmings, which could be a Winter Solstice celebration, I do not remember any mention of Christianity or Christmas in the books or the movies.

Piebald

January 12th 2005, 01:32 AM

I did not see any sign that the wizards celebrated Christmas.

Hogwarts is emptied every Christmas for "Christmas break." The Professors and the Headmaster have a Christmas dinner (Harry attends once). The Knights are enchanted to sing "Christmas Carols," one of which was religious in nature but I can't remember precisely (I'll go back and check the books). They also celebrate Easter. Rowling has simply used real British boarding schools as a model for her magical one, which apparently like many of it's real counterparts, has a Christian heritage.

shunyadragon

January 12th 2005, 01:39 AM

Hogwarts is emptied every Christmas for "Christmas break." The Professors and the Headmaster have a Christmas dinner (Harry attends once). The Knights are enchanted to sing "Christmas Carols," one of which was religious in nature but I can't remember precisely (I'll go back and check the books). They also celebrate Easter. Rowling has simply used real British boarding schools as a model for her magical one, which apparently like many of it's real counterparts, has a Christian heritage.
I would like to see more direct quotes in reference to this. I know they went home around mid-winter and a spring break, but these could very well be the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox celebrations. I still do not think Christmas or Easter was mentioned. The songs may or may not be religious in nature, but I do not think anything they sang was specifically Christian.

Piebald

January 12th 2005, 01:50 AM

Okay, from "Prisoner of Azkaban," just flipping through,

"He got a Firebolt for Christmas," said Ron.

"Had a good Christmas?" he said, and then, without waiting for an answer, he sat down, lowered his voice, and said, "I've been doing some thinking over Christmas, Harry. After last match, you know, if the dementers come to the next one..."

"I couldn' leave him tied up out there in the snow!" choked Hagrid. "All on his own! At Christmas."

Meanwhile, in the rest of the castle, the usual magnificent Christmas decorations had been put up, despite the fact that hardly any of the students remained to enjoy them [because they were going home for Christmas break]. Thick streamers of holly and mistletoe were strung along the corridors, mysterious lights shone from inside every suit of armor, and the Great Hall was filled up with its usual twelve Christmas trees, glittering with golden stars. A Powerful and delicious smell of cooking pervaded the corridors, and by Christmas Eve, it had grown so strong that even Scabbers poked his nose out of the shelter of Ron's pocket to sniff hopefully at the air.

On Christmas morning, Harry was woken by Ron throwing his pillow at him.

"Oy! Presents!"

Mrs Weasley had sent him a scarlet sweater with the Gryffindor lion knitted on the front, also a dozen home-baked mince pies, some Christmas cake, and a box of nut brittle . . . "

Christmas spirit was definitely thin on the ground in the Gryffindor common room that morning.

At lunchtime they went down to the Great Hall, to find that the House tables had been moved against the walls again, and that a single table, set for twelve, stood in the middle of the room. Professors Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sproute, and Flitwick were there, along with Filch, the caretacker, who had taken off his usual brown coat and was wearing a rather moldy-looking tailcoat. There were only three other students, two extremely nervous-looking first years and a sullen-faced Slytherin fifith year.

"Merry Christmas!" said Dumbledore as Harry, Ron, and Hermione approached the table. "As there are so few of us, it seeemed foolish to use the House tables. . . sit down, sit down!"

"Merry -- hic -- Christmas! Password?"

"Merry Christmas!" said Dumbledore as Harry, Ron, and Hermione approached the table. "As there are so few of us, it seemed foolish to use the House tables. . . Sit down, sit down!"

steamer

January 13th 2005, 04:51 PM

I knew it! Harry Potter is Christian propaganda! Ban it from the schools! j/k

Bill the Cat

January 13th 2005, 05:04 PM

Eyeheart Pumpkin

January 16th 2005, 05:48 AM

Steamer, generally speaking, this Wicca / Pagan forum (as part of the World religions grouping) is for theists only. I understand your curiosity, so I'll allow this thread. Just remember to keep it in the bounds of the discussion
Being an agnostic does not preclude one from being a theist, necessarily (I'm an agnostic who believes in God, for instance). Agnostics generally reject religion, but that does not equate to rejecting God or a belief in God. Having said that, I don't know what degree of Agnosticism steamer holds, but we shouldn't automatically assume he isn't a theist (or that he is). At any rate, agnosticism is NOT atheism.

Richbee

January 16th 2005, 07:04 AM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.

I bet Satan can throw a Christmas party as well. So what?

Now, is Harry 'dangerous' in a world where religious witchcraft is making a comeback? Well, maybe, if a particular child cannot differentiate the two. I guess if piracy was making a comeback Pirates of the Carribean would be dangerous to kids as well.

Bottom Line: Harry Potter is not intrinsically "occult" or evil, it's just an entertaining fantasy story that adapts medieval European folklore. It could be used by some as a springboard into the occult, but so can Lucky Charms or Lord of the Rings if you try hard enough.

Harry Potter opens the door(s) to the occult, IMO. So does Wicca or Neopaganism, and there are testimonies to this fact.

Richbee

January 16th 2005, 07:22 AM

Being an agnostic does not preclude one from being a theist, necessarily (I'm an agnostic who believes in God, for instance). Agnostics generally reject religion,

But of course, you just made a series of very Religious statements.

Very often people are confused by the meaning of "religion".

Quote:

Toward a definition of religion.

Religions involve social practices, institutions, and worldviews that lay claim to or presuppose certain objective truths concerning the existence of the sacred or holy, which is viewed as somehow transcendent (whether it be the Trinity, Yaweh, Allah, Brahman, the Tao, Nirvana, the Kami, etc.). Religions normatively articulate (or prescribe) how people ought to be oriented toward the sacred or holy spiritually, existentially and socially. This right orientation to the sacred or holy—meaning spiritual liberation or way of being—is viewed as necessarily connected to proper beliefs and practices.

shunyadragon

January 16th 2005, 09:57 AM

Being an agnostic does not preclude one from being a theist, necessarily (I'm an agnostic who believes in God, for instance). Agnostics generally reject religion, but that does not equate to rejecting God or a belief in God. Having said that, I don't know what degree of Agnosticism steamer holds, but we shouldn't automatically assume he isn't a theist (or that he is). At any rate, agnosticism is NOT atheism.
Generally people who reject the establishment theist notions of God and religion, but cling to some sort of being or identity are called deists, like Jefferson and the current belief of Flew, and not agnostics. Agnostics usually believe either the existence of God is not important enough to even consider, they are indifferent to the question, or they definitely say there is not enough evidence to support either case.

Considering Justin's modern views. I would think atheists and agnostics would be welcome. In particular since I knew of Wiccans in the US that believed no specific Deity as such exists and they embraced more of a nature worship spiritual belief without Gods.

Sacrificial Ram

January 16th 2005, 10:24 AM

Piebald

January 16th 2005, 02:06 PM

I bet Satan can throw a Christmas party as well. So what?
I Was answering Shunya's query about the mentions of Christmas in the Harry Potter books. Why Satan would want to celebrate the birth of Jesus, though, I dunno.

Harry Potter opens the door(s) to the occult, IMO.
It can if people do not know any better. My youngest sister once told me "I heard that there are real life Wizards and Witches called 'Wiccas'," while we were discussing Harry Potter. I don't claim to be an expert on Wicca but I certainly didn't see any of that in the books, nor was it Mrs. Rowling's intention to say that the witches and wizards in her books are Neo-Pagans.

Most people, I would suspect, have no interest in converting to another religion on the basis of Harry Potter any more than they will take up Astrology or Monalatry from reading The Chronicles of Narnia

steamer

January 16th 2005, 02:49 PM

Most people, I would suspect, have no interest in converting to another religion on the basis of Harry Potter any more than they will take up Astrology or Monalatry from reading The Chronicles of Narnia
When I was a child, a neighbor let us borrow the Chronicles of Narnia. The four children in my family each read them as soon as the other finished one of them. This book set was the only read-athon I remember ever having in my family. My daughter and step-son had the same experience with the Harry Potter books. In my view, any book that can get a child to start to read recreationally is probably a good thing and there is nothing in Harry Potter or Chronicles that makes a child want to do anything but perhaps read more books.

steamer

January 16th 2005, 02:54 PM

Durthorin

January 16th 2005, 03:20 PM

I do not believe in any god(s) but I do not know that god(s) don't exist. That's my agnostism. I do have fun with the idea of "if one did exist, what would it be like?" There are athiest Wiccans, with a view of god as non-being.
I know at least two Wiccans that hold the view that the Gods are in essence Jungian archtypes.. patterns that we create to symbolize both our aspirations and darkest desires.. as such the human uses those symbols to pattern their life on. Its not my personal belief but I've found that Wicca as a faith has a big enough roof to enclose such beliefs as part of it.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Eyeheart Pumpkin

January 17th 2005, 12:42 AM

But of course, you just made a series of very Religious statements.
How so?

Very often people are confused by the meaning of "religion".
Agreed.

Quote:

Toward a definition of religion.

Religions involve social practices, institutions, and worldviews that lay claim to or presuppose certain objective truths concerning the existence of the sacred or holy, which is viewed as somehow transcendent (whether it be the Trinity, Yaweh, Allah, Brahman, the Tao, Nirvana, the Kami, etc.).
Agnostics may believe there is a God or probably is a God (believe, but recognize that they don't know if that belief is accurate or not), but they tend not to believe that any particular interpretation they have developed of this God they believe probably (but not definitely) exists, based on their own subjective experiences, is either true, accurate or objective. Nor do they necessarily believe that God (if there is such a thing) is necessarily transcendent. Might be, but might not be. Agnostics simply refuse to be pigeonholed into presupposing things that require a specific and unmalleable interpretation be adopted. Now, as Shuny also pointed out, this also sounds much like deism, but the difference, as I see it, is in the degree to which the person is willing to commit to a belief that their interpretation regarding the existence of deity is accurate. A deist believes there is a God, really doesn't question that, but doesn't subscribe to any religious interpretation. Some agnostics are similar in that regard, except we hold the question of God's existence open.

Religions normatively articulate (or prescribe) how people ought to be oriented toward the sacred or holy spiritually, existentially and socially. This right orientation to the sacred or holy—meaning spiritual liberation or way of being—is viewed as necessarily connected to proper beliefs and practices.
And this, more than anything else about religion, is what we tend to reject, the politics of religion.

Pythagoras

February 4th 2005, 02:37 AM

Hi,

Why Satan would want to celebrate the birth of Jesus, though, I dunno.

Have you ever considered the possibility that Satan himself might have instituted Christmas? December 25th!, think about it. Pagans use[d] to celebrate their Sun God feast, Saturnalia , on this day. They still do , sometimes without even knowing it. C.S. Lewis said that the cleverest stratagem of the devil is to convince us he doesn't exist. .....This trick seems to be working well for him.

My youngest sister once told me "I heard that there are real life Wizards and Witches called 'Wiccas'," while we were discussing Harry Potter.

Ofcourse Wiccans and Wizards exist. In a way all of humanity uses the tools of witchcraft from time to time. .Using ones charisma is a form of wizardry, so is utilizing one's power to persuade, to instill fear , to sow suspicion or to create confusion, etc. The man of God ,on the other hand,has no desire for the powers of the witch but only to do God's will on earth as it is done in heaven. His very existence is tied to the will of God.

I don't claim to be an expert on Wicca but I certainly didn't see any of that in the books,

Then you must be blind.

It can if people do not know any better. nor was it Mrs. Rowling's intention to say that the witches and wizards in her books are Neo-Pagans.

Neo-Pagans will be very comfortable at Hogworths.

Most people, I would suspect, have no interest in converting to another religion on the basis of Harry Potter any more than they will take up Astrology or Monalatry from reading The Chronicles of Narnia

Children's minds are converted. And that's the strongest kind of proselytizing.

Rowling is now a billionaire . She has been a good stewerdess to her master. "All this I will give you ", he(the Devil) said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus's reply was clear. And so it seems, is Rowling's.

Piebald

February 4th 2005, 03:34 AM

Have you ever considered the possibility that Satan himself might have instituted Christmas? December 25th!, think about it. Pagans use[d] to celebrate their Sun God feast, Saturnalia , on this day.

Then it would be a case of Christians taking something that Satan corrupted and transforming it into something Godly -- baptising it. Ex-Pagans celebrating Ex-Pagan rituals.

Then you must be blind.

Please show me the Wicca in the Harry Potter books.

Neo-Pagans will be very comfortable at Hogworths.

It's assumed that there are children from all sorts of religious backgrounds attending Hogwarts, since it's based on British boarding schools.

Children's minds are converted. And that's the strongest kind of proselytizing.

They don't present any dogmas or religious beliefs. If someone converts to a form of Paganism because on J.K. Rowling's books they are silly. Just as silly as someone converted to paganism because of the Lord of the Rings.

Kiwano

February 4th 2005, 11:15 PM

Having read all of the Harry Potter books about 3 times I can confidently say that Harry Potter is not a Wiccan. In fact, he has Godparents and celebrates Christmas.

I agree with your assertion that Harry Potter is not Wiccan, but still maintain that he is very probably associated with the Occult. Many occult systems, like Theosophy, Gnostic Christianity, and Rosicrucianism, maintain their Christianity. Many of the rest are based on Thelema, which claims that Crowley fulfils Biblical prophecies in much the same way that Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. Because of this, Thelema retains a substantial Christian element. In fact, the presence of this Christian element is often used (though many Thelemites complain, not often enough) to shoo away New-Agers who are looking for nothing more than a forum in which they can claim to be non-Christian.

An occult Harry Potter could celebrate Christmas very easily indeed.

Piebald

February 4th 2005, 11:49 PM

Hi there Kiwano,

My view (based on researching what Rowling has said herself) is that she is using the same source material that "the occult" uses. She is using folklore about magic that (mostly European) people used to believe. Things like the hand of glory, invisibility capes, flying carpets, etc. It really isn't any different than what fantasy authors have been using. The Occult (or Neo-Pagans) use these things that people used to believe in and reinterpret them as having relevence for religious beliefs.

Lord of the Rings is based on Norse mythology. So are some Neo-Pagan religions. That does not mean that Tolkien was borrowing from Neo-Pagans. Because they share the same source material(s) they have superficial similarities.

But most of the magic in Rowling's books she has invented from her own imagination (and said, repeatedly, in interviews, that none of it has any basis in fact). For example, someone says the word "Alohomora," waves their magic wand, and a lock opens. Rowling simply combined the words "mora" (obstacle) and "Aloha" (Hello/Goodbye) in order to create the spell.

The magic of Rowling's books is purely of the fantasy genre. Unicorns run around in forbidden woods, dragons fly around romania, and vampires eat blood-flavored lollypops.

Could a child be persuaded by a pagan to check out so-called "real magic," where said pagan uses Harry Potter in a fallaciously equivocal way in order to draw that child into the occult? Yes if that child is unequipped with an understanding of neo-paganism. But they could do the same for Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings. If you have a problem with Harry Potter, it's likely that you have a problem with fantasy stories in general.

Kiwano

February 8th 2005, 06:16 PM

My view (based on researching what Rowling has said herself) is that she is using the same source material that "the occult" uses. She is using folklore about magic that (mostly European) people used to believe. Things like the hand of glory, invisibility capes, flying carpets, etc. It really isn't any different than what fantasy authors have been using. The Occult (or Neo-Pagans) use these things that people used to believe in and reinterpret them as having relevence for religious beliefs.
I think it's important here to make a distinction between (neo)Pagans and the Occult. The use of old folklore in religious practice is Pagan. The Occult tends to be more concerned with how these religious practices affect people, as well as how contemporary religious practices affect people, and how to manipulate the effects of these practices to achieve desired results.

More succintly, a Pagan will experience hallucinations while meditating, and prattle on about the metaphysical implications of these hallucinations. An Occultist will continue to meditate through the hallucination, learning the necessary discipline to work through hallucinations. The Occultist will then have the "magical" powers arising from his ability to keep working through hallucinations brought on by fatigue, malnutrition, or other factors.

The Occultist also learns how to introduce various symbolic or religious elements into his writing, so that it may be more persuasive, which is another sort of magical power.

There is however, a paranormal element to the Occult, but it would be difficult to describe such an element as characteristic of the Occult, as it is just something that happens to exist and to work, just like a magnetic compass (which was paranormal until recent centuries). This paranormal element is also fairly widely recognised as existing by non-Occult religious institutions, like the Roman Catholic Church.

Note also that I wouldn't have any problems with Harry Potter leading children into the Occult, as I am something of an Occultist myself.

Heathen Dawn

February 9th 2005, 03:04 PM

Seems to me Harry potter could be a Wiccan. Why not?

Wicca is a religion, and a theistic one at that. The Harry Potter books are entirely atheistic, they don’t mention Gods at all. And the magic in Harry Potter isn’t Wiccan, it’s mediaeval Christian (see here (http://web.archive.org/web/20040203013611/www6.aeonflux.net/~io/index.html)).

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 03:35 PM

. The Harry Potter books are entirely atheistic, they don’t mention Gods at all. And the magic in Harry Potter isn’t Wiccan, it’s mediaeval Christian (see here (http://web.archive.org/web/20040203013611/www6.aeonflux.net/~io/index.html)).Wrong on all counts Heathen.

Heathen Dawn

February 15th 2005, 03:46 PM

Wrong on all counts Heathen.

Wow! What a textbook example of ipse dixit. I’m underwhelmed.

Come on, Pyth, give us a little sources showing me where I’m wrong, come on, you can do it, I know you can, you’ve got what it takes…

Pilgrim

February 15th 2005, 03:59 PM

I do not think the concept of God parents is necessarily unique to Christianity. I may be mistaken, but except for possibly muggles, I did not see any sign that the wizards celebrated Christmas. Except for the trees and the trimmings, which could be a Winter Solstice celebration, I do not remember any mention of Christianity or Christmas in the books or the movies.
Then I guess you must have the Readers Guide Condensed Version.

Pilgrim

February 15th 2005, 04:05 PM

Wrong on all counts Heathen.
What an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced!

Seriously all I know is that the author has said that any simularities to Wicca are entirely un intended. In other words, she was not trying to portray wicca of any kind.

Interestingly enough, she is a devout Anglican.

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 07:04 PM

Pilgrim,

What an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced
I can get into the details, if that's what you're after?...

Seriously all I know is that the author has said that any simularities to Wicca are entirely un intended

I see... So the similarities just happen to be there huh, by magic perhaps?

In other words, she was not trying to portray wicca of any kind.
What an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced. Wow!

Interestingly enough, she is a devout Anglican
And Adolph Hitler was a devout Catholic. So what man? And, what an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced.

Jeez,

Pilgrim

February 15th 2005, 07:40 PM

Pilgrim,

I can get into the details, if that's what you're after?...

I see... So the similarities just happen to be there huh, by magic perhaps?

What an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced. Wow!

And Adolph Hitler was a devout Catholic. So what man? And, what an amazing rebuttal. I'm totally convinced.

Jeez,
Unlike you I am giving a hard fact rather than mere assertion and ipse dixit.

The intention of an author is very germain to the topic and ultimatly the verbal explanation of the author is THE prime source on the matter. The author denys any attempt to portray wicca in her books. She says she was drawing on essential themes in children's literature and trying to put it all together. IIRC, when first asked if there was an attempt to portray wicca in her book she said, "Wicca? What is that?"

By the way, nice non-sequitor into Hitler there. Too bad it doesn't add anything to your argument...oh wait, you didn't have one yet...my bad.

Piebald

February 15th 2005, 07:57 PM

I see... So the similarities just happen to be there huh, by magic perhaps?

The Magic Spell in question: Presto Equivocation! :teeth:

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 08:28 PM

Pilgrim,

You're the potato which got tossed off the frying pan and into the fire.

Unlike you I am giving a hard fact rather than mere assertion and ipse dixit.
I've yet to see any evidence of 'hard fact' from you, Dan Quale..

and ultimatly the verbal explanation of the author is THE prime source on the matter.
You're a naive one, you. Many authors have hidden agendas, and their 'verbal explanations' serve only to cloak those agendas further.

Like any good salesperson, she's putting the best possible face on her product, stressing the 'positives'(boarding school environment) and downplaying the potential 'negatives'(witchcraft), thereby lulling concerned parents into complacency ..... She didn't become a billionairess by being stupid..

The author denys any attempt to portray wicca in her books. A duck may deny till kingdom come that it quacks, but fact it, it quacks.... There is witchcraft in the Harry Potter movies. Only stupidas cannot see it.

IIRC, when first asked if there was an attempt to portray wicca in her book she said, "Wicca? What is that?"
You truly believe she's never heard of Wicca, don't you, Pilgrim?
Not the brightest crayon in the pack.

By the way, nice non-sequitor into Hitler there. Too bad it doesn't add anything to your argument...I expected too much from you, I guess... Never mind.

Slow Coach.

Piebald

February 15th 2005, 09:08 PM

Many authors have hidden agendas

C.S. Lewis' hidden agenda was to get people to start worshipping nature deities such as trees. Stephen King's hidden agenda was to communicate that there really IS a murderous clown in the sewers of Bangor, Maine. etc. You can populate the world with hidden agendas in the face of outright denials where there is no need for a denial, but it does not make much sense.

stressing the 'positives'(boarding school environment)

She's stressing the boarding school? What makes you think that? If she was trying to download the "witchcraft" then why aren't the titles of the books "Harry Potter and the Formal British Education"? Instead she uses phrases like The Chamber of Secrets, The Philosopher's (Or Sorceror's) Stone, The Goblet of Fire, etc.

thereby lulling concerned parents into complacency

Rowling can say "No, none of the magic is real" "I don't believe in magic" a thousand times, say that the magic in her books is something that people used to believe is true, say that she made up the one-word quasi-latin "spells" in her books, but conspiracy theorists will always see a UFO and not a Weather Balloon.

If Pilgrim is wrong about you, Pythagoras, then you can answer the initial inquiry: Show us where Wicca exists in the pages of Harry Potter.

guacamole

February 15th 2005, 09:38 PM

You're the potato which got tossed off the frying pan and into the fire.
I've yet to see any evidence of 'hard fact' from you, Dan Quale..

A modest proposal. If you are going to impugn someone's intellect, at least make sure that when you compare them to someone you spell the name right - it's Quayle. And you might want to get the grammatical mechanisms correct as well - next time use one period. Perhaps it would be best not to throw stones?

You're a naive one, you. Many authors have hidden agendas, and their 'verbal explanations' serve only to cloak those agendas further.

It has been suggested to you that if you detect a hidden agenda point it out. You have repeatedly tied the story to paganism. Others have politely asked you to support your assertion. I will be more blunt. Your repeated protestations without a shred of evidence are making you look like a moron. You're either completely outclassed in the discussion or you some how think that the best way to convince us of how right you are is to dodge the main points of the discussion and hurl insults. No one here is impressed with nor intimidated by with your "insult" wit because you aren't showing any. No one is moved by your repeated unsupported assertions because we aren't fools who just accept anyone's word for it. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you also aren't a fool who just accepts anyone's word for it. If you have any evidence. Whatsoever. Present it. (Note well: repeatedly insisting that since a writer mentions "magic" and "witch craft" means that she is talking about "wicca" doesn't count as evidence.)

I'm sure you will disregard this. Who am I to prevent you from making a braying assinine spectacle of yourself.

fwiw
guac.

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 10:39 PM

Hi-a Ugly,

C.S. Lewis' hidden agenda was to get people to start worshipping nature deities such as trees. Stephen King's hidden agenda was to communicate that there really IS a murderous clown in the sewers of Bangor, Maine. etc. You can populate the world with hidden agendas in the face of outright denials where there is no need for a denial, but it does not make much sense.False analogy.

She's stressing the boarding school? What makes you think that?
She's trying to stress on things 'wholesome' , publicly downplaying the darker impulses in her movie .

If she was trying to download the "witchcraft" then why aren't the titles of the books "Harry Potter and the Formal British Education"?
So you do admit there's witchcraft(wicca) in Harry Potter? Took you long enough , genius.

Instead she uses phrases like The Chamber of Secrets, The Philosopher's (Or Sorceror's) Stone, The Goblet of Fire, etc.
Thanks for proving my point that Harry Potter is Wiccan.

Rowling can say "No, none of the magic is real" "I don't believe in magic" a thousand times, say that the magic in her books is something that people used to believe is true, say that she made up the one-word quasi-latin "spells" in her books, but conspiracy theorists will always see a UFO and not a Weather Balloon.
Listen up hideous, Rowling's a witch who has adapted; --the inquisitor must not be allowed to burn her books.

: Show us where Wicca exists in the pages of Harry Potter
You just admitted as much not two lines ago, ---
"If she was trying to download the "witchcraft" then why aren't the titles of the books "Harry Potter and the Formal British Education"? "

Arnie was right : "You're one ugly -- "

Anyhow, have a good one.

MuggleOrSquib

February 15th 2005, 10:44 PM

Pythagorus,
Hard-line wiccans are at least as opposed to the Harry Potter books as you are. They view it as a radical distortion of their faith, even moreso than 'The Last Temptation of Christ' is/was viewed as a distortion of Christianity. Rowling doesn't deal with modern witchcraft AT ALL in the books. She also doesn't suggest that her readers might be able to perform spells, as one D&D book I saw during the 1980s did. She doesn't suggest that her readers might themselves really be witches and wizards. She doesn't mention any of the neo-pagan or old pagan dieties, or any of the spiritual focii of the wiccans, the neo-pagans, the Satanists...

If this were an attempt to present a sneaky wiccan gospel, she's rather failed at it. The reader is given NO IDEA that there are wiccan groups they can contact (don't know if there are, just guessing) or that they might be able to find more information at a new-age bookstore.

For attacks on Christianity, Mark Twain is FAR more effective. For the seduction of aquarian and/or wiccan thought, Andre Norton is a very well-writen evangelist (I know this from reading her as a pre-adolescent). There are many effective anti-Christian novelists, and a number of effective wiccan evangelist/novelists. JKRowling just isn't in their crew.

CSLewis was an effective evangelist/novelist--he hid the gospel, but let it allegorically shine through in the Narnia series, and he was far more open about it in the Perelandra series. As an evangelist or apologetist for wicca and/or witchcraft of ANY sort, Rowling is a complete failure. If I were a Tibetan Buddhist reading the Narnia series or the Perelandra series in translation, I would gain some sort of valid understanding of Christianity. But as a non-wiccan reading Rowlings work, I gain NO understanding of wicca whatsoever! All I get are pictures which move (and maybe talk), international sports games played on broomstick, the importance of honor, and the centrality of love.
honi soit qui mal y pense

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 10:56 PM

Greetings Grim Reaper,

modest proposal. If you are going to impugn someone's intellect, at least make sure that when you compare them to someone you spell the name right - it's Quayle.
Is that all you have? Do you think I bother with the potato[e] head's name? I'm glad I got it wrong.

And you might want to get the grammatical mechanisms correct as well - next time use one period.

People who have nothing of substance to deliver usually major on the minor things ..

It has been suggested to you that if you detect a hidden agenda point it out.

The hidden agenda is glorification of witchcraft. Can't you see it?

You have repeatedly tied the story to paganism. Others have politely asked you to support your assertion. I will be more blunt. Your repeated protestations without a shred of evidence are making you look like a moron.

If you can't see paganism in Harry Potter , you can't be helped. ..

You're either completely outclassed in the discussion or you some how think that the best way to convince us of how right you are is to dodge the main points of the discussion and hurl insults.

Out-classed by unwitting pawns of Satan? Not likely.

(Note well: repeatedly insisting that since a writer mentions "magic" and "witch craft" means that she is talking about "wicca" doesn't count as evidence.)

See what I mean? Wicca is witchcraft and has occultic roots, and dabbles in magic, all of which is portrayed in the Harry Potter movies. And if that's not evidence for ya, then I don't know whatcould be.

I'm sure you will disregard this. Who am I to prevent you from making a braying assinine spectacle of yourself.

The most annoying thing about Devil-Worshippers(i.e. Satanists/Pagans/Occultists/Wiccans) is the level of self-delusion .

Have a good one

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 11:04 PM

Hi Muggle,

Pythagorus,
Hard-line wiccans are at least as opposed to the Harry Potter books as you are. They view it as a radical distortion of their faith, even moreso than 'The Last Temptation of Christ' is/was viewed as a distortion of Christianity. Rowling doesn't deal with modern witchcraft AT ALL in the books. She also doesn't suggest that her readers might be able to perform spells, as one D&D book I saw during the 1980s did. She doesn't suggest that her readers might themselves really be witches and wizards. She doesn't mention any of the neo-pagan or old pagan dieties, or any of the spiritual focii of the wiccans, the neo-pagans, the Satanists...

n
In other words Wicca is to Harry Potter what radical Protestantism is to Catholicism, etc.. Which only proves a linkage of sorts between Harry Potter and Wicca..

Thanks for the sober comments. A breath of fresh air.

Piebald

February 15th 2005, 11:10 PM

False analogy.

So you do admit there's witchcraft(wicca) in Harry Potter? Took you long enough , genius.

Hamster: The Harry Potter world is based on the "witchcraft and wizardry" of fairy tales and folklore.

That was posted long ago. Apparently you didn't read it. The more you accuse people of being "blind" or "dumb," the more eyeless and brainless you look.

Furthermore, "Wicca" isn't witchcraft. It's a religion that involves witchcraft. This is, again, ignorance on your part.

Thanks for proving my point that Harry Potter is Wiccan.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Wicca isn't simply witchcraft. It's a religion involving witchcraft.

http://goldenbroomstick.tripod.com/email/faq.html
Q: Are all Witches Wiccan?
A: No. Not all Witches are Wiccans.And not all Wiccans are Witches. Some Wiccans refer to themselves as Witches (as I do) because they feel to accept the stereotypes by society associated with the word Witch is wrong and narrow minded.I honor all the souls who were wrongfully tortured and murdered that passed into the great beyond before me. There are good and bad people in every religion.

http://www.angelfire.com/goth/stormys_site/FAQ.html
Q: Are all Witches Wiccan?
A: No, all Wiccans are Witches but all Witches are NOT Wiccan. Many countries and sects have Witches. Some call them medicine men, shamans, or just Witch. Santaria, popular in Mexico, and Voodoo {Voodun}, popular in the Carribean are two examples of other witches.

http://www.circleofhecate.com/faqs.htm
Are all Witches Wiccan?

(Say that ten times fast!)
No. Being a Witch and being Wiccan are two totally distinct and separate things. Some Wiccans are witches, but not all witches are Wiccans.

You know, ignorance is fine, pythogonuffaluffagus, but when you're obstinate and bone-headed at the same time, it really makes you look like a horse's Asatru.

Rowling's a witch who has adapted

Evidence for claim thus far: Zero

MuggleOrSquib

February 15th 2005, 11:21 PM

a^2+b^2=c^2,

While I personally know someone who got into witchcraft because of reading The Lord of The Rings when he was in middle school, I have heard of no one who has gotten involved in witchcraft, wicca, satanism... because of the Harry Potter books.
Justin gives a fairly good presentation of one wiccan viewpoint, and I can't get there from Rowling's books or website.
Andre Norton is a FAR more effective aquarian/new-age/wiccan apologist/evangelist than Rowling.
Yes, I know about Flamel and about the Philosopher's Stone. Rowling doesn't mention Giordano Bruno, nor his execution, she doesn't mention either Qabalah nor Hermes Trismegistos. She hasn't mentioned Robert Fludd, nor has she mentioned Swedenborg. There is no invitation to involve oneself in alchemy; in fact her young subjects are barred from using magic of any sort by threat of expulsion and/or legal action.

Have you taken any action against Andre Norton? Do you have any idea how seductive Norton's books can be for pre-adolescents? Unlike Rowling, who draws a distinction between the reader (a muggle) and Harry (a wizard), Norton invites her readers into this semi-aquarian, semi-alchemical world.

As a Christian, I didn't end up 'succumbing' to Norton's lure, though I still enjoy her books from time to time. I do recognize threats when I read them. Norton is one, though mild. There are a number of others in the Science Fiction world especially, but also in the alternative history realm and in parts of the fantasy realm. I don't take them as seriously as you apparently do, but I definitely recognize them (and thus find my reading enjoyment tainted). Rowling is not one. Arthur Clark could definitely be considered one (mild). Asimov's fiction is not an attack on Christianity, but his commentary on the Bible is definitely an attack on a Christian understanding of the Bible. There was a novel about witches a number of years ago, about which the publicists said that the author did for witches what Anne Rice had done for vampires (no, the author was not Anne Rice). That book was also an attack of sorts.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Pythagoras

February 15th 2005, 11:27 PM

Hamster,

What happened to ugly?

The Harry Potter world is based on the "witchcraft and wizardry" of fairy tales and folklore.

Oh? But isn't all witchcraft the stuff of fairytales, inculding Wiccanism.

Furthermore, "Wicca" isn't witchcraft. It's a religion that involves witchcraft. This is, again, ignorance on your part.

You can run but you can't hide. Your own words condemn you.

A: No. Not all Witches are Wiccans.And not all Wiccans are Witches. Some Wiccans refer to themselves as Witches (as I do) because they feel to accept the stereotypes by society associated with the word Witch is wrong and narrow minded.I honor all the souls who were wrongfully tortured and murdered that passed into the great beyond before me. There are good and bad people in every religion.

Lol. Speaks for itself.

No. Being a Witch and being Wiccan are two totally distinct and separate things. Some Wiccans are witches, but not all witches are Wiccans.

Lol

You know, ignorance is fine, pythogonuffaluffagus, but when you're obstinate and bone-headed at the same time, it really makes you look like a horse's Asatru.

Are you or are you not a witch?

The Jewish 'Rambam' , like the witches , was well aware of the Inquisitors power. Thus in his introduction to the Guide, 'Rambam' informs the reader that he employs certain devices to conceal some of his true beliefs from the uneducated reader that will be perceieved by the educated reader as contradictions. Those discernig readers, the elite fre for whom the Guide was actually written, who see beneath the exterior layer are enjoined to keep what they learn secret.

In his words, "the vulgar must in no wa be aware of these contradictions; the author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means."

Rawling is simply playing her cards right. That's why she's got a million dollars a thousand times over and Hamster , well, poor Hamster---.

Stop being so naive Hamster.

MuggleOrSquib

February 15th 2005, 11:30 PM

Pythagorus,

In other words Wicca is to Harry Potter what radical Protestantism is to Catholicism, etc.. Which only proves a linkage of sorts between Harry Potter and Wicca..

Thanks for the sober comments. A breath of fresh air.
No, Wicca is to Harry Potter what 'Jesus woulda been a stoner' is to Christianity (of any sort). Except 'Jesus woulda been a stoner' mentions Jesus.
BIG difference.

I have no idea why the folks against Rowling haven't paid attention to Andre Norton, save that it might make them look foolish. Norton, while a fun read, is many thousands of times more seductively presenting semi-Rosicrucian, semi-alchemical... ideas. (and no, I won't burn Andre Norton's books. I just view them as seductive)

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Piebald

February 15th 2005, 11:33 PM

You can run but you can't hide. Your own words condemn you

*gasp*

Lol

Lol is ancient Aramaic for "I just spent an hour thinking that the term Wicca was synonymous with witchcraft and now I'm painfully embarrased."

Rawling is simply playing her cards right

She's so sneaky that she has managed to never produce a single line of evidence of her true, secret, conspiratorial identity. She must be a witch!

MuggleOrSquib

February 15th 2005, 11:48 PM

Pythagorus,

You said:

The Jewish 'Rambam' , like the witches , was well aware of the Inquisitors power. Thus in his introduction to the Guide, 'Rambam' informs the reader that he employs certain devices to conceal some of his true beliefs from the uneducated reader that will be perceieved by the educated reader as contradictions. Those discernig readers, the elite fre for whom the Guide was actually written, who see beneath the exterior layer are enjoined to keep what they learn secret.

In his words, "the vulgar must in no wa be aware of these contradictions; the author accordingly uses some device to conceal it by all means."

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides, RaMBaM) precedes the inquisition. On the other hand, the tendency of Spanish Catholicism to seek for problems in Jewish writings was well known.

Rawling is simply playing her cards right. That's why she's got a million dollars a thousand times over and Hamster , well, poor Hamster---.
[/i]
She's got a million dollars because people buy the books. Financially she's far more successful the Andre Norton (yeah, I'm harping on Norton for the moment), but 'evangelistically' she's not even in the same quarter of the galaxy. Speaking of galaxy--have you also considered Babylon 5? Several things of note there.
I assume Eleanor Cameron's Mushroom Planet books are no longer in print. However, you might want to examine them.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Pythagoras

February 16th 2005, 02:49 AM

Hi muggle,

No, Wicca is to Harry Potter what 'Jesus woulda been a stoner' is to Christianity (of any sort). Except 'Jesus woulda been a stoner' mentions Jesus.
BIG difference.I don't buy that. Now you're being disingenious.

have no idea why the folks against Rowling haven't paid attention to Andre Norton, save that it might make them look foolish.Because Norton is not nearly as influential as Rowling.She has the capacity to lead many more souls to the Devil than Norton.

best,

Pythagoras

February 16th 2005, 02:54 AM

Hi Mug,

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides, RaMBaM) precedes the inquisition

Are you suggesting there were no inquisitors during 'Rambam's' time? Read my words carefully.

On the other hand, the tendency of Spanish Catholicism to seek for problems in Jewish writings was well known.

Thanks.

Take Care,

MuggleOrSquib

February 16th 2005, 03:16 AM

Pythagorus,
If I recall correctly, RaMBaM lived during the 10th century, while the inquisition began during the 13th century, in dealing with the Cathars and Albigensians.
Jews were not subject to the inquisition, as they were not as such subject to the Church. Conversos WERE subject to the inquisition, but at the time of Maimonides there wasn't an unusual level of conversion.

If I recall correctly (though I may well be wrong), The Guide to The Perplexed was written while Maimonides was acting as physician to the Caliph in Cairo, and it was written in Arabic. In such case, the intended audience probably doesn't include Christians. He says nothing against Islam (in fact he was fairly close to some current Islamic philosophical trends), so the Muslims are not an issue. On the other hand, he's rather philosophical in regards to God, far more than good Jewish piety would like. Thus the controversies over his teachings within a generation or so.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

MuggleOrSquib

February 16th 2005, 04:01 AM

Hi muggle,

I don't buy that. Now you're being disingenious.

Gosh, you really know how to get a fella all riled up! jest call him a liar.

Sorry, you're wrong. No disingenuity there. I may be wrong, but I certainly ain't disingenuous ( that's dis in gen u ous).
No, I haven't run across any wiccans who're happy with the idea of Rowlings as an expositor of Wicca. They may (or may not) like her writing, but she's not

Because Norton is not nearly as influential as Rowling.She has the capacity to lead many more souls to the Devil than Norton.

best,
Sorry, don't agree. not at all. Have you ever READ Andre Norton? I'm guessing you haven't read Rowling, but have you read any of Norton's books?

And actually, a far better example would be Ayn Rand. From everything I've heard and read, Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy is quite close to the philosophy of most modern American Satanists. Not too humongously far from the do-it-yourselfism characteristic of many Masons (which is totally antipathetical to a gospel of grace). There you have someone whose writings are DESIGNED to convert, and directly counter to a gospel of grace, and caritas/agape'. And while Rowling is read as light fiction, Rand is read seriously.
While he was in High School, my little brother was nearly converted to Objectivism by his weight lifting coach. He WAS converted FROM Christianity. Part of what prevented his total descent into hard Objectivism was being involved in an outreach to a group of young adults with Cerebral Palsy. Without that personal involvement, actually going to the movies with one young man, he might well have adopted Rand's disdain for any form of charity.

Rowling doesn't have this effect, nor does she seem to want it. She wants her readers to chose honorable and loving actions, to be aware of the ways in which we depersonalize those around us, to reject an overweening pride, and to exercise mercy. To stand up to our friends when we think they're doing wrong. To reject trading real life for unattainable fantasy. To be willing to sacrifice our own interests when our interests endanger others. To chose the charitable course even when that may cost us. To avoid judging other's by parentage, wealth (or it's lack), race or ethnicity. To be loyal, unselfish, and not caught up in our own self-image.
These things she preaches, as clearly as Ayn Rand preaches Objectivism.

I would guess that most Wiccans might like Rowling as a person, but she does not either preach or teach Wicca, or neo-paganism, or anything of the sort.
We'll only really know once she's published the last volume of the Harry Potter books, if ever. That book is the one where things come to a conclusion, and that book is the one to which the whole series has been pointing.

-----
A small note---when in a conversation with a young man at a public storage facility, I mentioned an interest in the Greek Fathers. He responded that he wanted to avoid anything of the sort as he was an Evangelical Christian. My mention of the spiritual gems to be found in the writings of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa seemed only to make him more wary of me, as if I were seeking to destroy his faith. I am wondering how closely you relate with that young man's point of view.

Be Well,
Bob Griffin

Heathen Dawn

February 16th 2005, 07:33 AM

You just admitted as much not two lines ago, ---
"If she was trying to download the "witchcraft" then why aren't the titles of the books "Harry Potter and the Formal British Education"? "

Aaaah, good shot. For you, though not aware of it at the time, I prepared a Wicca Questions and Answers File yesterday. One of my exchanges is pertinent:

http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/wicca-qa.htm

Q: Is it like the witchcraft of Harry Potter?

A: No, Wiccan witchcraft is of a different kind. The witchcraft of Harry Potter is from the Christian world, as practised from the Middle Ages up until the 18th century. In Wicca it is an entirely new form of witchcraft, a modern adaptation of witchcraft into the framework of a pagan religion. Wiccan witchcraft does not revel in “special effects” and high magic, and is further constrained by ethical considerations (such that a spell to make a particular person fall in love with the spellcaster, very common in the world of witchcraft on which Harry Potter is based, is forbidden in Wicca).

And the link I posted previously (http://web.archive.org/web/20030501032948/http://www6.aeonflux.net/~io/) is still relevant. If you wish to claim Wiccan witchcraft and Harry Potter witchcraft is identical, you’ll have to refute it (especially this page (http://web.archive.org/web/20030727064842/www6.aeonflux.net/~io/try.htm), which mentions Wicca and contrasts it with Harry Potter).

guacamole

February 16th 2005, 11:27 AM

Greetings Grim Reaper,
Is that all you have? Do you think I bother with the potato[e] head's name? I'm glad I got it wrong.

I bet you're glad. Why would you admit to doing something foolish in public?

People who have nothing of substance to deliver usually major on the minor things ..

Minor things? A large portion of your argument consists of your insulting your oponents and impugning their intelligence. Nevertheless, you don't bother to spell the critical component of your insult correctly and you use incorrect grammar. It's humerously ironic... and not in your favor...

The hidden agenda is glorification of witchcraft. Can't you see it?

I see you constantly braying that over and over and over. I don't see you offer any evidence to support that. That's because you don't have any evidence to support that assertion, or else you would have offered it by now.

If you can't see paganism in Harry Potter , you can't be helped. ..

If you don't present the evidence (which you don't have, so you can't present it) I won't see the paganism in Harry Potter.

Out-classed by unwitting pawns of Satan? Not likely.

:LOL:

(Note well: repeatedly insisting that since a writer mentions "magic" and "witch craft" means that she is talking about "wicca" doesn't count as evidence.) See what I mean? Wicca is witchcraft and has occultic roots, and dabbles in magic, all of which is portrayed in the Harry Potter movies. And if that's not evidence for ya, then I don't know whatcould be.

:LOL: What part of "repeatedly insisting that since a writer mentions 'magic' and 'witch craft' means that she is tlaking about 'Wicca' doesn't count as evidence" was unclear to you. Magic, Witch Craft, and Wicca are not synonyms (words that mean the same thing). Equivocating them is not evidence. Try, try again.

Have a good one
Thanks. I probably will. I'm already amused.

Pilgrim

February 16th 2005, 11:54 AM

What would be fitting on Pythag's part would be to offer us a bullet point list of points that make his argument.

I can see his assertions but would like to see proof to the assertion.

Maybe what we have here is a basic misunderstanding of the art of argument or debate.

STAT23MJ

July 29th 2005, 10:38 PM

There is no evidence that suggests that J.K. Rowling is a witch. Rowling is an admitted Christian, who said that she doesn't discuss her faith "because if I talk too freely about that, I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books." Those are her words. Not mine.

In regards to the supposed "witchcraft" in the novels that you deem are so obvious, the magic in those novels are really the stuff of fairytales. If Rowling is guilty of anything it is using folklore (which is not occultism by the way) affectively in weaving them seamlessly in her novels. Most of the magic in her novels are made up (she said 95 percent in one interview) and not in any way parallel Wicca. Wicca is strictly a pagan religion, whose adherents pray to different deities whereas there is no such activity at Hogwarts. The spells are made up by Rowling herself and are cleverly worded from the Latin. It is impossible to wave a wand and mutter those words and see something happen. If people eavesdropped on your peculiar activity they would probably think you're mental or something. Or that you needed to grow up. Plus the magic in the series is purely mechanical with rules and laws. More like physics than occultism actually.