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Previous Messageboard have been archived.
|
JD,
It seems that we have reach the end and going back to the start. I hear you. I am glad that at least you don't have a blanket rule. That's wise and mature. However, I do get confused over your position. Perhaps you can clarify this for me: 1. The issue as I still see is that if the kids never read HP, they will not know about crystal balls, spells..etc until they grow a bit bigger. But now, with HP they are exposed to it. In the same manner, kids do not know what homosexual people do in thier rooms, but I guess it is OK for them to know them, right ? from your argumanents ?? 2. Kids at 'kids' age are not capable enough to distinguish fantasy and reality and also right and wrong as much as adults. I hope this you know. Yes, there is an age in which we can let a kid read such books on thier own. And that age is known by the parent most likely ( If the parent is discerning ). One does not give kids firecrackers at the age of 3 years. secondly, regarding star trek, I agree. It can be like HP at times. So, do I let my kids watch it? Well, depends. If my kids are mature enough to know then I let them. If they are prone to gulp everything naively, I don't, unless I am there to explain. Perhaps you are talking about a specific group of kids of a certain age and you assume I am referring to that same group. You see, it is hard to understand each other if you do not qualify your statements. It seems that you are saying that for kids who are at the age capable of distinguishing fantasy and reality may read Harry Potter with parental guidance. Is this what you mean by "bigger"? Now, if that is the case, you should know that Daniel Eaton then is talking about the same age group. He is talking about that age where kids CAN tell fantasy from reality. In other words, you should be agreeing with what Eaton said. So it appears confusing to me when you spoke against him. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding. On another note, someone on this forum has written to me to say that wicca and Harry Potter are more or less the same. Here again, I will re-post what Daniel Eaton said: "I agree that God condemns the occult. But I have yet to see that the Harry Potter novels use any connection to the supernatural realm for some occultic power. The case just has not been made. But even if the connection can be shown, the only thing Harry Potter “glories” in is Quidditch, an extra-curricular sporting event. The school lessons are just background for a mediocre juvenile adventure story." "While the magic used in the imaginary world is mechanical (making a broom fly or a torch light), there is no resemblance with the “magic” of the occult of trying to control one’s future or contacting the dead. "While the Potter books do have spells in them, they are little more that Latinized commands. For example, the students are told how to make the end of their wand light up. The command to do so is "Illuminus". To turn an ogre called a boggart into something silly, the command is "Riddikulus". These commands are as stereotypical and dangerous as "Abracadabra" or "Open Sesame!" This is a far cry from a true occultist spell. "As you can see, Harry Potter uses a command and calls it a spell. The occult enters a communication or prayer with a supernatural deity/demon and calls upon them for their assistance. The power is supernatural in nature. The prayer is called a spell. This is not the case with the Harry Potter books." Please note what Eaton actually says. In this sense, you will realise that TO A KID, disappearing in Star Trek and disappearing in a fireplace is the same thing UNTIL you explain the difference. Christopher
|
Messages
Outline:
getting more liberal... by Little Man of God, 2001, Dec 26