Which category of reader are you?

HEADER FOR MessageBoard II

(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)

Welcome to Messageboard II

Agora Messageboard now functions as a quorum. Please click to join as a member. We want to hear from you... A query that needs an answer, a word to uplift the people, a statement of concern that needs prayer, a cry for help...

God bless you...

Previous Messageboard have been archived.

Which category of reader are you?

Forum: Messageboard
Re:

Could someone shed some light on... (simpleman)
Re:

It is all in the mind. (Interested )
Re:

Wrong! (prophet)
Re:

If you are scared of something then you should do something about it. Fear is a bondage. n/t. (Interested )
Re:

Truth (prophet)
Re:

Sorry, don't agree with you. (Interested )
Re:

A word of caution -Fro Interrested (John Doe 666)
Re:

Fear of the Devil (from the Net). (Interested )
Re:

maybe word use is NOT FEAR EVIL BUT TO SHUN & AVOID EVIL (Little Man of God)
Re:

Well, the Lord by His Spirit is speaking to us to have no fellowship with the demons promoted thru' whatever form.eom. (Ivan)
Re:

Most amusing thread (Eveline How)
Re:

Thread 648-3 (Joe)
Re:

"H Potter" is fit for the potty, no matter how many accolades and box office records set (Ivan)
Re:

Untitled
Re:

On the contrary..... (John Doe 666)
Re:

Please (Eveline How)
Re:

Casting down every imagination (Ivan)
Re:

So (Eveline How)
Re:

It's all about choices, knowing the difference and doing what's right (Ivan)
Re:

If (Eveline How)
Re:

Of (Ivan)
Re:

Untitled (Eveline How)
Re:

To Ivan/Eveline (John Doe 666)
Re:

Adults and Children are different (Christopher Yip)
Re:

A new category: RA(BAD) (Ivan)
Date: 2001, Dec 13
From: Christopher Yip CKHY

1. What Kind of Reader are You?

I am a cat #4 reader. In fact, it is very difficult now for me to read a chapter of a book without criticising every other statement it makes. This is not necessarily a good thing especially when you are studying a text for exams. Sometimes, I spend way too much time raising red flags in my head that I don't have the capacity to memorise those information in the text required for the exams.
Take, for instance, the book of Job. If I was required to study it to pass an exam on Job, it would take much effort to remember Job's themes and subthemes, outline, structure, background, etc. But as I read it, my comparative instincts would immediately bring in the pro and con arguments on theodicy, and my mind will run amok among all the theodical literature. Then I would spend so much time arguing for and against Job's theodicy that I have no time and energy to remember those things I need for exam.
What is required in such a situation is for me to temporarily accept what Job says, to suspend my criticism, to lower my guard and to allow the book to speak to me. Edward Goodrick, the gifted bible language teacher, explains this important technique even in biblical exegesis:
"Interpret a text in the frame of its own philosophical presuppositions. For example, you can't interpret "Hamlet" unless, temporarily at least, you believe in ghosts. Sympathy with a text - as opposed to feelings of hostility - is a prerequisite to a true interpretation of any text, be it by Paul or by Marx. Who would understand what Marx has written must look out at the world through Marx's eyes. Whether or not I believe in the deity of Jesus, the writer of the Fourth Gospel did! If I am to interpret it correctly, then that is the view I must adopt, at least for the time being. (As for me, personally, I have no such temporal limitations. With Marx? That's another thing!)" (Edward W Goodrick. Do It Yourself Hebrew and Greek. Grand Rapids: Multnomah Press, 1980).

The reason I said the above is to lead to this question for you, Ivan: what category of reader are you?
If you are cat #1, then it is pointless to discuss with you because you have not read the book yourself. You depend on hearsay, or someone else's opinion. Of course, this is not entirely a bad practice. I mean, if the entire Christian world is in agreement about something, then one can be quite justified in accepting the same conclusion without personal investigation. After all, if all these smart and pious folks agree what is that it is, then what is is. No further investigation is needed and it is quite justified.
On the other hand, if equally smart and equally holy men with no other discernible ulterior motives hold opposing views on the same subject, then one's choice of which to follow can no longer be so simple. One needs to do the investigation oneself.
One cannot say, for instance, that he follows J I Packer's endorsement of the ECT document which essentially denies sola fide since J I Packer has always been an orthodox evangelical. He has always been reliable and therefore will be my guide for my entire life. So even though there are equally competent and holy men such as R C Sproul and John MacArthur who disagree with the ECT document, for some loyalty reason, one will stick with J I Packer, come what may.
What should one do in such a situation? If one chooses to follow a certain individual's view on the subject without personal investigation, without comparing what the other side says (this means one has to read what the other side says), how is this different from blind and irrational cult following? Isn't such behaviour discouraged?
So cat #1 readers are not in the position to discuss the merits of the case until they are willing to read the offensive material. Of course, cat #1 readers need not remain in that state forever but until they move up the rung, I think it is fair for anyone to call such folks uninformed. This is not an insult, it is a matter of fact. We don't debate or argue with uninformed people because they have not set their minds on debate in the first place.
Pretty much the same goes with a cat #2 reader.
Now, that leaves cat #3 and #4 both of which require that the reader actually has read the offensive material.
If you belong to this category, then the question I raised earlier comes to mind, "Would you have known that you didn't need it if you had not gone into it?" In other words, isn't the journey into the mind of J K Rowling and Harry Potter necessary for you? You can't possibly take the present position you have taken (except, of course, if you are a cat #1 reader) unless you have actually read Harry Potter and found it offensive.
Mortimer Adler in his book, How To Read A Book, differentiate between knowledge and understanding. The goal of reading should be to increase our understanding, not just knowledge. If one reads a fashion magazine, one would have increased one's knowledge on many fashion-related things. One's information storehouse has grown. But does it increase one's understanding? Can we say that we have understood more after reading that fashion magazine? I doubt so.
This is not to say we should never read for entertainment or for information or even knowledge. They are all part of the wonderful fabric of life but the goal of learning to read is more than just for entertainment, information or knowledge, it is for understanding. And this understanding and its increase is what makes a man wise, even unto salvation. I believe that is what John implies when he wrote:
"Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-32 NET)

John wrote in order that when one reads his book, one is led to the understanding that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, which then leads to faith. The Holy Spirit gives that kind of understanding through His work of regeneration.
So, for you to have the present understanding that Harry Potter is abominable and evil, you must appreciate the process of reading, analysing, digesting, and then comparing it to Scriptures, don't you? And if so, why would you deny such a beneficial exercise to those capable of pursuing this path? Thus, what you propose in the following quote is contradictory to what you yourself have done:
YOU: My suggestion is be harsh with it and give it a death sentence swiftly for evil to be eradicated. When it comes to witchcraft and pornography, there is no need for comparative skill.
Your further suggestion adds to the contradiction:
YOU: By all means, use your comparative skill in comparing other religions if you are matured in the Lord to do so and to interest them to discuss about Christianity.
Since witchcraft, magick and its association with Satanism is already a type of religion, how are we to do what you suggest unless we read those offensive materials?
If I read Eveline and bluemarc correctly, this is what they are against: the rejection of the very process that brings about greater understanding, maturity and ultimately wisdom that will help order one's life! And in its place, an irrational rejection without true understanding.
Some might say, why do rework since competent readers have already done the analysis? It is not necessary to always read firsthand. As long as the review is reliably done by a competent reader, we can use it.
This is reasonable but misses the point. This is the case where we prefer to have the fish rather than learn to fish. Handbooks, reviews, manuals, digest are all very useful stuff but if one lets these do the thinking for one, then one has not gained any further understanding.
How do we know that the reviewer has done an adequate job given the fact that equally competent and holy men have concluded differently? Surely there is reasonable doubt in such a scenario? A new trial is necessary and this time, you will be the judge, jury and executioner yourself. And in the process of arguing your case, you would have gained that greater understanding which cannot be taken from you, is now infused into your mind.
2. Two Key Issues

There are clearly two issues here: should one read offensive materials, and whether Harry Potter is offensive to the Christian mind.
I have focused only on the first part so far. I believe that comparative reading is critical and important for an apologist. I have also said that whether we should put Harry Potter in the hands of an adult or young reader depends on the stage of reading skill they're at. I also believe that comparative reading is the way to go if we wish to gain greater understanding and maturity and wisdom.
I can understand your concern of putting such material in the hands of any reader. I understand this because I understand what you have concluded from your (own? firsthand?) reading. That is the second point, you have concluded that Harry Potter is offensive to the Christian mind. You rate Harry Potter as "RA(BAD) which stands for Really Abominable(Burn And Destroy). HP books which promote witchcraft ought to come under this category."
Note that cat #1 readers, those paranoid fanatics, also make such statements in their denouncement. What separates cat #3/#4 from these fanatics is credibility. And credibility comes from factual assertions. While the fanatics assert all they want without pointing out specific facts, critical thinkers can substantiate their assertions with details.
Two key facts lead you to such a position: one, you believe that witchcraft is abominable to God and two, you believe that Harry Potter is in fact a manual on witchcraft practice subtly portrayed as fairy tales. Hence your vehement and militant opposition to Harry Potter.
I (and I believe your opponents too) definitely agree with you on fact #1, that God abhors witchcraft. It is fact #2 that is difficult to ascertain. And only Rowling can tell us her true motive for such a series - is she masking witchcraft as fairy tale? is it her goal to usher in that generation of witches that will bring the end? is it her intention to promote witchcraft to children? did she backmask her book?
It would be difficult to get the answers to these questions. If she admits so, sales will go down. She may even be prosecuted for crime against children or society! If Calvin was alive, Rowling would likely burn at the stake! She would obviously have to say no and this is what she has said. What we need are those secret confessions she makes to close friends, relatives and her priests; those soliloquies she makes while laughing in her bathtub or sitting on the golden toiletbowl. But it's unlikely we'll get them.
Nevertheless, those are the same conclusions reached by the authors of those articles JD gave. I personally found it enlightening and insightful. Certainly there are merits to those criticism. And since these folks have actually read all four books and analysed them and compared them to other similar literature such as Lord of the Rings and Narnia, they carry a lot of weight at least with me. It would be unfair for me to dismiss their criticism as irrational frenzy.
But, recalling what I said earlier about disagreements between equally competent and holy men, may I ask - are there equally competent and holy men who do not think that Harry Potter is pure evil or witchcraft masqueraded in folklore? Charles Colson quickly comes to mind.
And if there are, should we not agree to disagree? Is it necessary, nay, justified in belittling the other side? Surely such insinuations cannot be justified in a situation where Christian freedom and expediency rule:
YOU: Better still, if you know the baits of satan that are so suggestively and deliciously presented in whatever form, you will spare yourself much sorrow and not bring shame to the name of God.
Shame is a strong word especially when joined to God's name!
This is certainly sound advice but only in general, it does not apply to one and all! It applies to those in cat #1 since they have not had their eyes and ears trained to discern truth but still they use the name of God to denounce others. It is when they pontificate out of their ignorance that brings shame to God's name. Their tirade and harangue because of the lack of factual evidence, gives the impression that God is irrational.
It wouldn't be far-fetched or unfair for me to say that those in cat #1 and #2 are not well-versed in Scriptures to be able to discern falsehood. My own experience is that Scriptures, when studied, present many challenges to the reader in terms of consistency and interpretation. Readers in cat #1 and #2 will be doomed when Muslim apologists present the 101 contradictions in the bible. They will be stumped!
But you, for instance, have gained greater understanding after having read Harry Potter (I presume) personally. Certainly such advice would have denied you such an opportunity for growth, wouldn't it? Armed with such an understanding, you are now able to quote BCV against specific instances in the four books of Harry Potter which go against biblical injunctions, can you not? And many are benefitting from this.
Since you are clearly able to read and rebut such offensive materials, I wouldn't discourage you. In fact, I would encourage you to do so and so become a credible opposition to the excesses of Potterism.
So, before parents can "tell the children that ... HP books which is a manual on witchcraft practice which is subtlely portrayed as fairy tales", they have to demonstrate some credibility in such an assertion given the fact that equally competent and holy men have rejected such a verdict. Don't you think so?
Back to the second point. If you haven't read the material yourself, I would suggest that you temporarily suspend your judgement, read the material yourself, do the research into the terms and compare. If you still come to the same conclusion, then let us agree to disagree amicably. By then, we would have reached the point where the ambiguity in the findings does not justify any particular dogmatic position. It is time then to let Christian freedom, expediency and unity prevail.
3. Specific Rebuttals

YOU: I really don't know how parents can supervise the children's thinking process. It is better to do it God's way - fill their minds with the word of God and they will give you peace.
ME: Even with the Word of God, parents need to supervise the thinking process. Arius read the Scriptures too, so did Sabellius, Eutychus, the Gnostics, and all the popes of the RCC. They were all filled with the Word of God. The problem is with exegesis and exegesis means learning the tools of hermeneutics.
How can a parent supervise a child's thinking process? Well, how do we learn? There are courses that teach problem solving, PDCA, quality circles, WITs. There are courses that teach you to be more creative and innovative. All these courses change your mindset and teach your mind new tricks, so to speak. Surely they are not all bogus?
But I would recommend the Socratic method for teaching thinking. As young as 7, children can read Plato's dialogues in which the Socratic method is demonstrated in abundance. The Great Books series of 39 books has a 12 year reading plan that will take a child through all the great books of the western civilisation. Before a child reaches 21, if he follows this course diligently, he will not only have a big storehouse of facts and knowledge, he will have the understanding and maturity of older men. Then, add another 5 years in the eastern classics, man, this guy can contemplate the great mysteries of the universe! and maybe, finally solve Stephen Hawking's superstring equations! :-))
YOU: If we follow God's ways, we do not even have to tell our children not to read HP books, they themselves will avoid them like a plague. They will be wise to read books that will spur them on to greater heights and contribute positively to society.
ME: But how would they know Harry Potter is bad for them if they have not read them? Should they accept the verdict on the authority of their parents, or their teachers, or their favourite pop star? Isn't this a fallacious appeal to authority? Really, how do they know Harry Potter is bad for them if they have not read them?
Evil still prevails even during the Millennium when Jesus rules the earth, how then can one avoid any contact with evil? I am not suggesting that we plunge kamikaze style into Satan's territory and claim it back. Given the reality that we are in the world (thought not of the world), how best is it to live our lives that we will not be too heavenly-minded as of no earthly use?
Your suggestion is one good alternative. If we have such a community in which to live, where everyone agrees to such rules, where there are no such books, movies, CDROMs, etc., it would be wonderful.
But the reality is that it is quite impossible to create such a community while on earth. For one, one man's meat is another man's poison. It is difficult to agree what is evil and what is not. For a community to unanimously agree on such a list is quite impossible but that would be necessary for such a community. Second, such a community would necessarily have to separate itself from the rest - it would need its own supplies of food, etc. and it would need to remain uncontactable with the rest of the world.
Many cult groups have tried this. One of the characteristics of cults is precisely this - exclusivism.
But should you be able to create such a community, it would be wonderful. I believe Jesus would.
So what is another alternative? That is the one where we put on the armour of God, train our minds to discern right from wrong. That is the one that leads to greater understanding.
(Actually, this is not another alternative to what you have suggested. I know that is exactly what you have said - to fill our children's minds with the Word of God. So, consider this an extension of your suggestion.)
And such training must be put to the test. They must actually tackle such offensive materials. Whether firsthand or second, it is important that we come face to face with the actual materials we have been trained to stand up against. (This is the extension to your suggestion)
Some may think this is suicide, but it is actually an effective way to inoculate a young mind. Inoculation is a way to strengthen not weaken the body, but it does so by introducing manageable amounts of virus into the body. Again, this is supervised thinking. We feed our children with what is positive (the Bible) and then small amounts of what is negative and guide them in their response. We listen as they rationalise, argue, rebut, and ask questions. This is what JD alluded to also.
4. Conclusion

No matter how often I reiterate to Timothy, my 4-yr old son, not to push and shove, he still exhibits such unruly behaviour. The reason is simple, there is a counter-influence when he goes to nursery. I cannot stop it unless I stop him from Nursery. Even then, there is Kindergarten, then Primary, then Secondary, then College, then University, then (my gosh!) Society!
Will Mission Schools help? I don't think so. Timothy still pushes and shoves even on Sundays when we are in church.
The point is that it is nearly impossible to get away from such influence unless like Tom Cruise in Castaway, we are stranded on no-man island. Even then, evil memories will continue to tempt and haunt us.
When I am dead and gone, how will Timothy live? Will he be a recluse, hermit, one who renounces all worldly attachments, live sparsely and alone, far away from computers, offices, banks, theatres, etc? That will help his devotion but not his growth.
On the other hand, should I throw Timothy into a den of lions? without arming him?
How then should I teach Timothy? I believe I must ground him in the Word of God (as you suggest), allow him the freedom to choose what he wants to read (as JD said), but help him develop a set of critical thinking skills (as Eveline and bluemarc would agree) gradually and according to his pace (as what I have pontificated).
Cheers!
Christopher