News, How Christian is J K Rowling’s “Christian Inspiration” for the series of Harry Potter books? (church, Mary)

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Actually, this Christian agrees with the post you were replying to. Faith and proof don't mix. I need no 'proof' that God exists. It is by faith that I believe that. Nor do I feel any need to 'prove' my beliefs to anyone else. Even if no one in the entire world shares my belief, it still my belief. As I once heard in a sermon, "The believer needs no proof and the nonbeliever wouldn't accept any kind of proof anyway."

The fact remains that your faith is not a blind one but one based on some amount of "proof". The believer does need proof - that's what the Bible provides. It is not physical or natural proof, but spiritual.

Likewise, "faith" is not limited to the spiritual. Even an atheist exhibits "faith"; faith in nature and the natural world. While an atheist considers it to be "proven" that a car's brakes will stop a car, he still needs to harbor at least a little faith each time he presses the brake pedal of the car he's driving, because it's also been "proven" that cars' brakes can fail with no warning.

Faith and proof definitely "mix" in the lives of all people. It's just a matter as to how each person chooses to accept the mix. Those who reject spirituality and all things non-physical/non-natural eliminate out of hand an entire category of evidence and therefore will logically arrive at a different point of faith, limiting their faith to all things natural. Those who accept spirituality through faith do so based on certain physical, non-spiritual premises.

To believe that faith and "proof" exist independently in their respective vacuums is to ignore the very nature of the world in which we live.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

In one way I agree with you that, in the US anyway, the popularity of the Harry Potter books was to some extent driven by the controversy caused by a few who wanted them banned. But, the thing I see here in your post is that you seem to be judging the quality of the writing, but I'm not sure from your comments whether you have ever read them.

I've read enough of a couple of them to rightfully deem them "mediocre", based on the natural presumption that Rowling's writing style didn't transform immensely in subsequent editions in the series. Furthermore, the reviews of literary critics do corroborate my assessment of the quality of the literature. All of this is from a purely literary perspective and has nothing at all to do with my attitude, as a Christian, towards the themes of witchcraft and sorcery in the works.

There is no doubt the books are popular and loved by many, and therefore are top sellers. The same can be said for Britney Spears, the National Enquirer, Paris Hilton, McDonald's, Rush Limbaugh, and "reality shows"; however, popularity and quality are very different things. Harry Potter is the McDonald's of children's literature; the kids love it but it is empty literary calories, full of fillers and junk and little nutrition. And, it's cheap.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

I sure wouldn't call them 'mediocre children's books'. In fact, I've recommended to friends who wanted them for their children and/or grandchildren to start giving the books to them when they are at the same age as Harry is in each book, because some of the themes are simply not appropriate for a younger child.

There are such better books for kids to read, and I would always recommend the classics for children. The classics are just as entertaining and even more so, plus they reinforce to the child what good literature is. Recommending JK (the "JoKe") Rowling over, say, JRR Tolkien, or CS Lewis, or Mark Twain, or myriad other classic authors is like recommending a McDonald's Happy Meal over a balanced meal with all food groups represented in appropriate portions; no doubt the kids may like it better, but it's not really helping the kids. (Again, this has nothing to do with the "magic" aspect of Hairy Potter; the "magic" in the Narnia books or Lord of the Rings trilogy is not an issue but rather the issue is the quality of the literature.)

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

As for why I started reading the books at my age, I just wanted to see what the hubbub was about. I still don't get how anyone thinks these books 'teach witchcraft'. As I said, I have enjoyed reading all of the books and seeing all of the movies. And I'm looking forward to the next movie and, for a change, plan to see that one in the theater rather than waiting for the DVD.

These books do draw from actual, traditional forms of witchcraft and glorify witchcraft. They don't so much teach actual witchcraft as they teach witchcraft as a viable option for "good". Furthermore, ,the morality taught by these books is that of relativism; "good" is relative to Harry and his friends and their own perspective. There is no "greater good" and moral judgments are arbitrary. But I'm not going to get into a review of the books, that's for another discussion. Suffice it to say that Hairy Potter and JoKe Rowling are pretty much garbage, regardless of the witchcraft aspect. Yes, it is top-selling, highly popular garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

I thank God that my mother was an English major and teacher and introduced me to great classics when I was a kid. And one of my favorite series was the Paddington bear collection my Canadian Anglo aunt gave me for Christmas one year; that would be a great British substitution for junky old Hairy Potter.

Some other great classics kids should read before they even get close to a Hairy Potter book:
Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott
Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, by Ian Fleming (who is better known for writing the James Bond stories)
The Red Pony, by John Steinbeck
A Bear Called Paddington, by Michael Bond
The Secret Garden, by Virginia Lee Burton
The Jungle Books, by Rudyard Kipling
The Call of the Wild, by Jack London
Little House on the Prairie (the entire series), by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Charlotte's Web, by EB White
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
Chronicles of Narnia series, by CS Lewis
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain


JoKe Rowling can't even be mentioned with any of those authors, and Hairy Potter just doesn't stack up to any of these classics. It's like the difference between Chicken Piccata and Chicken McNuggets...

[victorianpunk]

Originally Posted by John1960

ARLINGTON, VA (ANS) -- J. K. Rowling made a recent statement that “Christian inspiration” played a role in her writing of the series of Harry Potter books.



Whatever J K Rowling may say about inspiration for the books, the true
J.K. Rowling
judgment of the books should rest on what they themselves present. I don't doubt Ms. Rowling's sincerity, but if it is authentic Christianity that inspired her, would she have created a child hero who practices occult arts that are clearly condemned by God's word? Harry and his friends casts spells, take a class called Divination, communicate with the dead, and learn how to mix magical potions. In fact, they are in school to hone their practice of the occult.

How Christian is J K Rowling’s “Christian Inspiration” for the series of Harry Potter books?

Hilarious! That article puts the "mental" in "fundamentalism"

Seriously, as a former pagan who spent way too many nights trying to summon Bael, Astaroth, and Leviathan and current heretic, let me tell you that if you want to corrupt your kids, Harry Potter is not the way to do it. Stick with the real deal:


Amazon.com: Baby's First Mythos: C.J. Henderson: Books

Amazon.com: ABC Book of Shadows (hc) by Katie Olivares: Everything Else

and, when they get a little older:

Amazon.com: The Goetia: The Lesser Key of Solomon the King (Clavicula Salomonis Regis): Aleister Crowley, Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers: Books

WARNING: LEAVING CHILDREN ALONE ON A FULL MOON NIGHT WITH THE DREADED GOETIA IS NOT RECOMMENDED, BECAUSE WHO KNOWS WHAT TROUBLE THEY'LL GET INTO!



The proceding was mostly in humor, in case you didn't notice...

[MsMcQ LV]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

I've read enough of a couple of them to rightfully deem them "mediocre", based on the natural presumption that Rowling's writing style didn't transform immensely in subsequent editions in the series. Furthermore, the reviews of literary critics do corroborate my assessment of the quality of the literature. All of this is from a purely literary perspective and has nothing at all to do with my attitude, as a Christian, towards the themes of witchcraft and sorcery in the works.

There is no doubt the books are popular and loved by many, and therefore are top sellers. The same can be said for Britney Spears, the National Enquirer, Paris Hilton, McDonald's, Rush Limbaugh, and "reality shows"; however, popularity and quality are very different things. Harry Potter is the McDonald's of children's literature; the kids love it but it is empty literary calories, full of fillers and junk and little nutrition. And, it's cheap.



There are such better books for kids to read, and I would always recommend the classics for children. The classics are just as entertaining and even more so, plus they reinforce to the child what good literature is. Recommending JK (the "JoKe") Rowling over, say, JRR Tolkien, or CS Lewis, or Mark Twain, or myriad other classic authors is like recommending a McDonald's Happy Meal over a balanced meal with all food groups represented in appropriate portions; no doubt the kids may like it better, but it's not really helping the kids. (Again, this has nothing to do with the "magic" aspect of Hairy Potter; the "magic" in the Narnia books or Lord of the Rings trilogy is not an issue but rather the issue is the quality of the literature.)



These books do draw from actual, traditional forms of witchcraft and glorify witchcraft. They don't so much teach actual witchcraft as they teach witchcraft as a viable option for "good". Furthermore, ,the morality taught by these books is that of relativism; "good" is relative to Harry and his friends and their own perspective. There is no "greater good" and moral judgments are arbitrary. But I'm not going to get into a review of the books, that's for another discussion. Suffice it to say that Hairy Potter and JoKe Rowling are pretty much garbage, regardless of the witchcraft aspect. Yes, it is top-selling, highly popular garbage, but garbage nonetheless.

I thank God that my mother was an English major and teacher and introduced me to great classics when I was a kid. And one of my favorite series was the Paddington bear collection my Canadian Anglo aunt gave me for Christmas one year; that would be a great British substitution for junky old Hairy Potter.

Some other great classics kids should read before they even get close to a Hairy Potter book:
Little Women, by Louisa May Alcott
Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang, by Ian Fleming (who is better known for writing the James Bond stories)
The Red Pony, by John Steinbeck
A Bear Called Paddington, by Michael Bond
The Secret Garden, by Virginia Lee Burton
The Jungle Books, by Rudyard Kipling
The Call of the Wild, by Jack London
Little House on the Prairie (the entire series), by Laura Ingalls Wilder
Charlotte's Web, by EB White
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
Chronicles of Narnia series, by CS Lewis
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, by Mark Twain


JoKe Rowling can't even be mentioned with any of those authors, and Hairy Potter just doesn't stack up to any of these classics. It's like the difference between Chicken Piccata and Chicken McNuggets...

Thing is, I'm looking at the books more from an 'enjoyability' aspect. I never read any Tolkien or C. S. Lewis until the last ten years or so. Never heard of them until they started making movies from them. My point is that, if the child doesn't enjoy the story, it could very well turn them off from reading at all. And that's what the Harry Potter series has done - made reading an enjoyable pastime for a lot of children who otherwise wouldn't read. As for your list of 'classics', there's very few of them that I have ever read and all of them were around when I was a child. They were just not the kind of stories I was interested in reading. So please curb your 'literary critique' because that's not what I'm interested in and actually find such to be total nonsense when it comes to the readability of any book. And I find your mangling of the names of the main character and the author to be offensive.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

Thing is, I'm looking at the books more from an 'enjoyability' aspect.

How are the classics listed not "enjoyable"??? I, and many others, enjoyed reading them, as children.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

I never read any Tolkien or C. S. Lewis until the last ten years or so. Never heard of them until they started making movies from them. My point is that, if the child doesn't enjoy the story, it could very well turn them off from reading at all.

The point is to give them something of quality that they will enjoy. Many children will not enjoy all the books I listed; each book is different, contains different themes and settings and characters, and will appeal to different children. But they are classics which will provide not only enjoyment for the child but also an instruction, whether they realize it or not, in great literature.

It's like food, again. Many kids "enjoy" McDonald's, candy, and other junk food while turning their noses up to broccoli, salads, lean meat, and other nutritional food. So should a parent give his child only potato chips and chocolate bars for their meals, so that the child is not "turned off" to eating altogether? Indeed, many irresponsible parents DO feed their children McDonald's and other JUNK when the child refuses to eat real, good food. But that doesn't make it right. It's wrong. It's indulging the child to eat crap and not helping the child but hurting the child. Furthermore, giving a child a diet of chicken mcnuggets and shakes will not get them to ever enjoy REAL food; likewise, indulging a child with crappy Harry Potter will not lead them to enjoy classic literature and to become intelligent readers and writers, but will rather get them used to subpar garbage literature.

So, if you want to feed kids the literary equivalent of a diet of McDonald's and chocolate bars, that's fine, but don't mistake that for any kind of quality reading which will benefit a child. All that does is indulge a child's impulse, and it doesn't enhance the child's mind at all.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

And that's what the Harry Potter series has done - made reading an enjoyable pastime for a lot of children who otherwise wouldn't read.

What hogwash. That's like saying McDonald's has made eating vegetables enjoyable for a lot of children who otherwise wouldn't eat vegetables because they put onions and pickles on their crappy burgers. Or like saying that Britney Spears has made music enjoyable for a lot of kids who would otherwise never listen to music, so Britney Spears must be better than Beethoven or Prokofiev. Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

As for your list of 'classics', there's very few of them that I have ever read and all of them were around when I was a child. They were just not the kind of stories I was interested in reading.

How do you know they're "not the kind of stories [you were] interested in reading" if you never read any of them???

If you are interested in reading Hurry Potter because it's about magic and witches and fantasy, then the Narnia series would fit that description as well. I think that the reason you or others are interested in reading Hurry Potter is because they are identified in pop culture as the hot item. It's no different than being interested in Cable Larry's "Git 'R Done" movies or Paris Hilton's latest TV show or whatever else the media tells you is "good" (so they can sell it to you). As I said earlier, yes, it's popular, yes, a lot of people want to read it, yes, a lot of kids will want to read it because it's popular and "in" and because ignorant adults are pushing it on them at this point; however, it is literary junk with the intention of making money and nothing more. It's the Hostess cupcakes of children's literature - they love it and eat it up and can't get enough of it but it's harming them and providing no nutrition whatsoever.

Originally Posted by MsMcQ LV

So please curb your 'literary critique' because that's not what I'm interested in and actually find such to be total nonsense when it comes to the readability of any book. And I find your mangling of the names of the main character and the author to be offensive.

No, you please curb your bravado in recommending to children and their parents that the kids read garbage simply because it's popular and you, in your most unprofessional opinion, think it's good for them to read that tripe merely because you THINK they will find it "enjoyable" and will not find any classics "enjoyable". That's one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a long time.

What's total nonsense is some pop culture victim like you making recommendations to parents and kids to read garbage because you, with your lack of education and exposure to classics, bigotedly dismiss the classics out of hand (without having read them yourself). What other brilliant suggestions do you have for parents? "Oh, he won't eat peas? Try giving McDonald's Fries! Your little girl doesn't like ballet? Oh, just show her a few Britney Spears videos, then she'll love dance! Your son doesn't want to go play baseball with his friends? Just buy him a PS3 with MLB '09, it's better than playing the real game, he can't get hurt playing a video game!"

As for my mangling of Hurry Potter's name, yes, it was meant to be an insult to the whole Hairy Potter series of crap as well as to JoKe Rowling, who is a wealthy, stupid woman much like any pop icon.

[Bluefly]

Originally Posted by John1960

ARLINGTON, VA (ANS) -- J. K. Rowling made a recent statement that “Christian inspiration” played a role in her writing of the series of Harry Potter books.



Whatever J K Rowling may say about inspiration for the books, the true
J.K. Rowling
judgment of the books should rest on what they themselves present. I don't doubt Ms. Rowling's sincerity, but if it is authentic Christianity that inspired her, would she have created a child hero who practices occult arts that are clearly condemned by God's word? Harry and his friends casts spells, take a class called Divination, communicate with the dead, and learn how to mix magical potions. In fact, they are in school to hone their practice of the occult.

How Christian is J K Rowling’s “Christian Inspiration” for the series of Harry Potter books?

You should read the book "Finding God in Harry Potter", written by an evangelical.

It is horribly misnamed, as it should be titled "Finding Christianity in Harry Potter" (he makes the mistake of confusing a religion with God), but nevertheless he makes a strong argument.

So many fearful Christians get caught up in the cursory "occult" stuff and miss the underlying mythological thrust that taps into all the core values of Christianity.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by Bluefly

You should read the book "Finding God in Harry Potter", written by an evangelical.

It is horribly misnamed, as it should be titled "Finding Christianity in Harry Potter" (he makes the mistake of confusing a religion with God), but nevertheless he makes a strong argument.

So many fearful Christians get caught up in the cursory "occult" stuff and miss the underlying mythological thrust that taps into all the core values of Christianity.

I'd file that book under the category of finding Jesus on a potato chip or finding Mary in a sweat stain on a dirty T-shirt. Just more crap to be thrown on the crap pile.

[Bluefly]

Glad you read the man's ideas before coming to your own conclusion about his work. I don't agree with anything he believes, but found the book to be very thought provoking.

The intellectual enlightenment of the masses continues to inspire me. Truly a gift to us all.

[Ceece]

I really enjoyed the Harry Potter books and movies, as do my kids. They are not the ONLY books we read, but I'll be darned I'm going to let anyone tell me what we should or shouldn't read.

[BergenCountyJohnny]

Originally Posted by Ceece

I really enjoyed the Harry Potter books and movies, as do my kids. They are not the ONLY books we read, but I'll be darned I'm going to let anyone tell me what we should or shouldn't read.

That's fine. I enjoy McDonald's and potato chips and chocolate cake and other junk food every once in a while also, but I would never recommend these things as quality, nutritious food to anyone. Likewise, it's fine with me if people want to read Harry Potter, but don't try to tell me or others that it is any kind of quality literature, because it's not. It's just childrens' pop literature, not very well written and not very creative. I'm more amazed that so many adults read it, considering it is designed for immature minds. Then again, a lot of adults do have immature minds...