Why Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
weil...@hotmail.com
RIMSTING, Germany, June 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the sixth
issue of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series - Harry Potter and the
Half-Blood Prince - is about to be released, the news that Cardinal
Joseph Ratzinger, prior to his elevation to the Pontificate, had
denounced the wildly popular series has resurfaced. In 2003, a month
after the English press throughout the world falsely proclaimed that
Pope John Paul II approved of Harry Potter, the man who was to become
his successor sent a letter to a Catholic German critic of Harry Potter
outlining his agreement with her opposition to Rowling's offerings.
As Amazon books touted over a million pre-orders for the newest in the
Potter series, Spiritdaily.com, a Catholic news website with the flair
of the DrudgeReport, recalled a German magazine article speaking of a
letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to German Potter critic Gabriele Kuby.
That letter came to Kuby on March 7, 2003. A month before papers
around the world were littered with false headlines such as "Pope
Approves Potter" (Toronto Star), "Pope Sticks Up for Potter Books"
(BBC), "Harry Potter Is Ok With The Pontiff" (Chicago Sun Times) and
"Vatican: Harry Potter's OK with us" (CNN Asia). The stories were based
on an off-hand comment in favour of the Potter books by a Vatican
spokesman at a press conference on the release of a Vatican document on
the New Age. (See the LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/feb/03020703.html )
A 2003 German-language interview with Kuby, the author of "Harry Potter
- gut oder böse" (Harry Potter- good or evil?), by Zenit news
summarizes Kuby's objections to Potter neatly as its theme being "My
Will be done' opposed to 'Thy Will be done". In that interview Kuby
readily admits that many people, Catholics included, do not see the
dangers she sees in the Potter series. "I have no desire to see and
depict devils where there are none, but when I see with my own eyes,
when my intelligence and heart inform me, that there is a devil painted
on a wall even though most everyone else sees on this same wall one
flowery wallpaper design, then I feel obliged to give witness to the
truth , whether convenient or unwelcome. There is such a thing as
public deception - we Germans know about that," she says. (See the
German Zenit interview
http://www.zenit.org/german/visualizza.phtml?sid=4... )
The main thrust of Kuby's objection to Potter is that the books corrupt
the hearts of the young, preventing them from developing a properly
ordered sense of good and evil, thus harming their relationship with
God while that relationship is still in its infancy.
In the Zenit interview, Kuby quotes from the letter she received from
Cardinal Ratzinger. In the letter, then-Cardinal Ratzinger
specifically pointed to the fact that the danger in the Potter books is
hidden was greatly concerning. "It is good that you shed light and
inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions
that are barely noticeable and precisely because of that deeply affect
(children) and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it (the
Faith) could properly grow and mature," said Cardinal Ratzinger.
Kuby's Potter criticism also received recognition in Germany from the
city of Munich's office of Youth affairs, which at the time made
headlines for indicating that the Potter books were not fit for
children.
Regarding the harm to children from the Potter books, Kuby again quotes
Cardinal Ratzinger's letter saying, "That they (children) are being cut
off from God, the source of Love and Hope , so that they in sorrowful
life conditions are without a foundation that supports them -that they
lose the spirit of discernment between good and evil and that they will
not have the necessary strength and knowledge to withstand the
temptations to evil."
The most prominent Potter critic in North America, Catholic novelist
and painter Michael O'Brien commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the
comments of now-Pope Benedict saying, "This discernment on the part of
Benedict XVI reveals the Holy Father's depth and wide ranging gifts of
spiritual discernment." O'Brien, author of a book dealing with fantasy
literature for children added, "it's consistent with many of the
statements he's been making since his election to the Chair of Peter,
indeed for the past 20 years - a probing accurate read of the massing
spiritual warfare that is moving to a new level of struggle in western
civilization. He is a man in whom a prodigious intellect is integrated
with great spiritual gifts. He is the father of the universal church
and we would do well to listen to him."
See O'Brien's essay analyzing the Potter series:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/harrypotter/obrienpotter.html
See the LifeSiteNews.com Harry Potter controversy page:
http://www.lifesite.net/features/harrypotter
See Gabriele Kuby's, Michael O'Brien and Spiritdaily's websites:
http://www.gabriele-kuby.de/
http://www.studiobrien.com
http://www.spiritdaily.com
Paul Duca
weil...@hotmail.com at weil...@hotmail.com wrote on 6/30/05 8:40 PM:
Why? So I can spend eternity licking the spot on the street of gold
In Heaven where his foot touches, as such a saintly person shouldn't have to
trod on something dirty?
Paul
Aaron Davies
> Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
Someone please send him His Dark Materials, and with any luck we'll have
another new Pope.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
Ho! Ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust!
rms
argues that this book series really is pro-christian.
Really anything at all that promotes a good-vs-evil mindset can be labelled
as pro-christian, even ones which feature little difference in method
between good and evil characters. This fits in perfectly with the low-ball
with-us-or-agin-us Texan version of capitalistic christianity that passes
for religion in this country nowadays.
rms
Cheeze
So Harry Potter is evil because:
1) Its theme is "my will be done" instead of "thy will be done"
2) Because Kuby sees a devil where others see flowers
3) It corrupts the hearts of the young
4) Because Kuby's Potter criticism also received recognition in Germany
from the city of Munich's office of Youth affairs
5) Children are being cut-off from God
6) Because this discrenment shows how smart the pope is according to
Michael O'Brien
7) Because the pope is the father of the universal church and thus
always right.
Did I miss anything?
Most of the above are rather circular, or outright non-sequiturs and
appeals to authority. But I wonder what it meant by saying that its
theme is "My will be done" instead of "thy will be done?" Is it
because the miracles in the books are performed by a boy rather than by
God? The article would have been more valuable if it expounded on it.
Personally I think the Harry Potter books are evil. Why? Well the
pope said so. :-)
These kids should all be reading Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles
of Narnia anyway.
Gene Ward Smith
weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> He is the father of the universal church
> and we would do well to listen to him."
By all means let us listen to this profound moral wisdom:
``But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual
persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not
disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is
consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to
protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the
Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted
notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions
increase.''
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER* Prefect
Ratzinger first makes a smarmy profession that gay-bashing is bad, and
then gives it a wink and a nod, because by asking for equal rights,
something they do not deserve, homosexuals bring violence on
themselves. It's exactly like a good German saying in the wake of
Kristallnacht that, after all, the Jews brought it on themselves.
However deplorable violence may be, there is clearly a Jewish Problem
to be solved, and if anyone doubts it, look at Herschel Grynszpan.
Surely Aryan youth cannot be expected not to react to the Jews pushing
their way in where they are not wanted? Society cannot protect a claim
of equality between Jew and Aryan to which the Jew has no concievable
right, and one cannot be surprised at violent reactions.
Shame on the Catholic Church for selecting a morally unqualified bigot
to be its head. His opinions on Harry Potter or anything else are worth
exactly the same as those of colleagues such as Pat Robertson or Jerry
Falwell.
har...@missinglink.com
>Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
I'd say this pope is a laughable lunatic, as are the people who think
him infallible - but that would make me an 'intolerant' atheist.
Toon
>A 2003 German-language interview with Kuby, the author of "Harry Potter
>- gut oder böse" (Harry Potter- good or evil?), by Zenit news
>summarizes Kuby's objections to Potter neatly as its theme being "My
>Will be done' opposed to 'Thy Will be done".
But isn't god telling people what to do My will, and those who obey
follow Thy will?
and who is this My anyway?
> In that interview Kuby
>readily admits that many people, Catholics included, do not see the
>dangers she sees in the Potter series.
Ever think you're the one that's wrong, Kuby? This ain't like when
harry cried V, and eveyrbody else laughed at him. it's the other way
around.
PS. You're a moron.
> "I have no desire to see and
>depict devils where there are none,
Then riddle me this: What the frick is up with you claiming Harry
Potter is evil?
And isn't there only one Devil, Lucifer? Did Bezelebub get a
promotion? is Homer Simpson right, and one turly can run for jesus
then?
>but when I see with my own eyes,
Define see? What crud you make up?
>when my intelligence
HAHAHAHHA! Stop it. You're killing me. My stomach can't take any
more.
> and heart inform me,
You ahve no love, therefor eno heart. and um, hearts don't inform
peopl of stuff. They kinda can't talk, or reason or think (like you.)
>that there is a devil painted
>on a wall even though most everyone else sees on this same wall one
>flowery wallpaper design,
Then you need your eyes/head examined. You're delusional.
>then I feel obliged to give witness to the
>truth ,
Well,s tart. so far, you've been bearing false witness, to a
nonexistant kid.
>whether convenient or unwelcome.
Tis unwelcome. Tis.
Mainly because you're a moron.
> There is such a thing as
>public deception
As you're doing right now.
>- we Germans know about that," she says.
Did she just admit to trying to restart up the Third Reich?
>The main thrust of Kuby's objection to Potter is that the books
Are above her comprehension. She's still stymied by The Sorcerer's
Stone is really the Philosopher's Stone.
>corrupt
>the hearts of the young,
Sicne when?
>preventing them from developing a properly
>ordered sense of good and evil,
Yeah. Kid risks his life fighting a dnageorus Troll to save a girl he
abrely even knows, let alone likes, tries tor ecover a powerful magic
rock solely to kepe the baddies form it, not for his wons elfish gain,
risks his lfie to save his ebtsf riend's sister, helps prove an
innocent man's innocence (however limited), doens't try to win a
contest he feels he didn't even belong him, feels guilty he couldn't
save a school chum's life, risks life and limb to save his godfather,
and can't even truly cause pain to someone who killed said godfather,
and has no desire to kill the thing that keeps killing (directly or
indirectly) his fmaily and aquietences. Clealry evil folks.
A good person would force their beliefs on a whole group of people
(Native americans), then kill them if they say no. a good person
willf orce god's alleged love on people, or kill them if they say no
(gays.) A good person will insiste Tinky Winky and Spongebob
Squarepants are turning kids gay, depsite the fact they do no such
thing.
>thus harming their relationship with
>God while that relationship is still in its infancy.
Then thye were doomed from the start (and Harry's maming no difference
in their lives.). Best to drown yourself toe scape the horro of them.
>
>In the Zenit interview, Kuby quotes from the letter she received from
>Cardinal Ratzinger. In the letter, then-Cardinal Ratzinger
>specifically pointed to the fact that the danger in the Potter books is
>hidden was greatly concerning. "It is good that you shed light and
>inform us on the Harry Potter matter, for these are subtle seductions
>that are barely noticeable and precisely because of that deeply affect
>(children) and corrupt the Christian faith in souls even before it (the
>Faith) could properly grow and mature," said Cardinal Ratzinger.
well, good thing Jews, Muslims, Buddists, etc cna stillr ead them
then.
>Kuby's Potter criticism also received recognition in Germany from the
>city of Munich's office of Youth affairs, which at the time made
>headlines for indicating that the Potter books were not fit for
>children.
Neither are these people. Yet still they are allowed to reproduce and
raise kids.
>
>Regarding the harm to children from the Potter books,
Hernia's, eyes strain, papercuts, hernias. and elst not forget the
biggets crime of all, encourgauing children to read, who toehrwise
would not.
>Kuby again quotes
Try having an original thought.
>Cardinal Ratzinger's letter saying, "That they (children) are being cut
>off from God, the source of Love and Hope , so that they in sorrowful
>life conditions are without a foundation that supports them -that they
>lose the spirit of discernment between good and evil and that they will
>not have the necessary strength and knowledge to withstand the
>temptations to evil."
And you're a firiggin genius. Oh wiat, no you're not. appreantly not
reading HP didn't do wonders for you.
>
>The most prominent Potter critic in North America, Catholic novelist
>and painter Michael O'Brien
CoughLoserCough
> commented to LifeSiteNews.com on the
>comments of now-Pope Benedict saying, "This discernment on the part of
>Benedict XVI reveals the Holy Father's depth and wide ranging gifts of
>spiritual discernment."
No, it makes newPope look like a moron.
> O'Brien, author of a book dealing with fantasy
>literature for children added,
Now there's your corruption.
> "it's consistent with many of the
>statements he's been making since his election to the Chair of Peter,
>indeed for the past 20 years - a probing accurate read of the massing
>spiritual warfare that is moving to a new level of struggle in western
>civilization.
But if we put tinfoil on our heads, we'll be safe.
>He is a man in whom a prodigious intellect is integrated
>with great spiritual gifts.
HA! Not the wya you portray him.
>He is the father of the universal church
Wait, isn't that against regualr churches?
>and we would do well to listen to him."
And be brain dead idiots who are all a danger to themselevs and
others.
Thank goodnes I'm Jewish.
Tim Bruening
Mark K. Bilbo
<1120178409.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, weiler161
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
> Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
Because books scare him so much he hikes his skirt and runs away?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
--------------------------------------------------
"Come to think of it, there are already a million
monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet
is NOTHING like Shakespeare!" -- Blair Houghton
Mazz
wisdom (after all that's why
they get the big jobs right??) have no imagination and are so fearful of a
fictional book? Where will they
see demons next? Winnie the Pooh?
I am so tired of all of them.
Mazz
<weil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120178409.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gort
Agreed. Anyone that has not read all of the books available has no
right to express an opinion, much less make "pronouncements" as to their
suitability.
--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.
Sumbuny
Much of this can also be said about any/all of the fairy tales that children
read as well...
I guess that the literature that children should be exposed to should be the
Bible--in its orginal language, lest anything be lost in translation....
<shaking head>
Buny
Öjevind Lång
increase.''
>JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER* Prefect
I agree. Ratzinger has no business accusing others of evil when he
preaches evil himself. Also note that the man and his Church actually
wanted to outlaw homosexuality. The next logical step would of course
be to disenfranchise atheists, Protestants and Jews.
Öjevind
kathryn
To stop the needless deaths by broomstick?
thomas p
<lynettem...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Isn't it amazing how so many people who are supposed to posses supreme
>wisdom (after all that's why
>they get the big jobs right??) have no imagination and are so fearful of a
>fictional book? Where will they
>see demons next? Winnie the Pooh?
>I am so tired of all of them.
>Mazz
>
Winnie the Pooh is evil. He is a glutton and he steals honey from the
poor bees.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
Sam's the little guy
weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
>
>
> RIMSTING, Germany, June 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - As the sixth
> issue of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series - Harry Potter and the
> Half-Blood Prince - is about to be released, the news that Cardinal
> Joseph Ratzinger, prior to his elevation to the Pontificate, had
> denounced the wildly popular series has resurfaced. In 2003,
So in fact, these remarks were made in 2003. Two years ago. And consist
of a letter sent by a church official to an author -the contents of the
letter we haven't seen.
Given the amount of cross posting, might I be the first to say
(af-hp) "Troll! There's a Troll in the dungeon! Thought you ought to
know"
(aft) Strider walked forward unconcernedly. 'Get up, old stone!' he
said, and broke his stick on the stooping troll.
The last quote being particularly apt. Far be it from me to tell you
trolls how to do your job, but shouldn't you get some new material?
Steve Coltrin
"Cheeze" <csmar...@gmail.com> writes:
> This reminds me again why I hate being catholic.
"Doctor, it hurts when I do this!"
--
Steve Coltrin spco...@omcl.org Tom Cruise can kiss my ass
"A group known as the League of Human Dignity helped arrange for Deuel
to be driven to a local livestock scale, where he could be weighed."
- Associated Press
the softrat
The pope is only infallible when he is speaking 'ex cathedra' on
church issues. If he says that the sky is plaid, we know that he is
just another lunatic.
However, a great deal of pop culture is of dubious theological
character and, yes, a lot of diabolical themes are put forward as
positive. For a viewpoint, read _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis
if your open-minded atheism will permit you to.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
I intend to live forever - so far, so good. -- Steven Wright
Gene Ward Smith
the softrat wrote:
> However, a great deal of pop culture is of dubious theological
> character and, yes, a lot of diabolical themes are put forward as
> positive. For a viewpoint, read _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis
> if your open-minded atheism will permit you to.
I recall Lewis suggesting that Surrealism was Satanic. Could we get
Benedict to move on that, before Dali, Magritte and company destroy
civilization as we know it?
The trouble with your point here is that the topic isn't pop culture in
general, but Harry Potter in particular. If Benedict were to opine that
Old Dirty Bastard or Sid Vicious had been negative influences, that
would have been a worldwide yawn. If he denounced Debby Does Dallas,
all that would happen is that people would wonder when he'd seen it.
But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense. The ball is in
the Papal Court, but so far we have not heard any reasons which make a
particle of sense from that direction or any other. Is rationality too
much to ask for?
Jan van Aalderen
> Isn't it amazing how so many people who are supposed to posses supreme
> wisdom (after all that's why
Not so much "are supposed to possess" as "claim to possess".
......... cut all the crap cut......
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Jan van Aalderen
Even in the original language, the actual text is most unlikely to be
even near the original... they didn't have copymachines nor any other
way of copying but by manually rewriting until the 15th century. And
editing texts to suite opinions was even more common in those days than
it is now.
Mark
news:11cc0vk...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> they didn't have copymachines nor any other way of copying but by
> manually rewriting until the 15th century. And editing texts to
> suite opinions was even more common in those days than it is now.
>
and you know this...how???
(couldn't possibly be by reading any of the aforementioned
15th century, as clearly anything contained therein is
obviously suspicious...)
--
Mark
Sam's the little guy
Öjevind Lång wrote:
> Gene ward Smith wrote:
> themselves. It's exactly like a good German saying in the wake of
> Kristallnacht that, after all, the Jews brought it on themselves.
> However deplorable violence may be, there is clearly a Jewish Problem
> to be solved, and if anyone doubts it, look at Herschel Grynszpan.
> Surely Aryan youth cannot be expected not to react to the Jews pushing
> their way in where they are not wanted? Society cannot protect a claim
> of equality between Jew and Aryan to which the Jew has no concievable
> right, and one cannot be surprised at violent reactions.
>
>
>
> I agree. Ratzinger has no business accusing others of evil when he
> preaches evil himself. Also note that the man and his Church actually
> wanted to outlaw homosexuality. The next logical step would of course
> be to disenfranchise atheists, Protestants and Jews.
>
> Öjevind
Öje, did you actually read what this person said? He deliberately made
reference to Ratzingers racial and historical background to imply that
he is a Nazi, as if all Germans are automatically under suspicion.
Shame on you Öje for putting your good name to such hate-filled
racially/religiously inspired claptrap.
Sam.
Gene Ward Smith
> Öje, did you actually read what this person said? He deliberately made
> reference to Ratzingers racial and historical background to imply that
> he is a Nazi, as if all Germans are automatically under suspicion.
A lie, as anyone can check by reading what I wrote. What I did was
point out the similariity of Ratzinger's approach to the kind of
apologies for the Nazis that people who were not Nazis made for them.
In doing so I courted Godwinization, but I think the analogy is apt and
telling. Ratzinger, with his blame the victim rant, is no different
than someone apologizing for the excesses of Kristallnacht.
> Shame on you Öje for putting your good name to such hate-filled
> racially/religiously inspired claptrap.
Shame on you for lying and for trying to put a happy face on bigotry.
How dare you call people racist after doing that? I lived in Germany
for a year and loved it, incidentally. Your attempt at smearing me in
order to change the topic from what Ratzinger said, and the vile,
replusive lies you choose as your means for doing this, pretty well
show your own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Do you support Ratzinger's claims? Do you even have the guts to say yea
or nay?
Jos Flachs
>Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
Darn! I was looking forward to that book. Well, since I can't buy it,
I'll use my money to buy a good video instead:
Shall I buy the latest Cadinot or Kirsten Bjorn movie? :-D
Flame of the West
> This reminds me again why I hate being catholic.
I doubt anyone's holding a gun to your head.
> So Harry Potter is evil because:
>
> 1) Its theme is "my will be done" instead of "thy will be done"
Yes, such as the parts where Harry's lying is depicted positively.
> These kids should all be reading Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles
> of Narnia anyway.
Yes indeed, and they should eat real food rather than just
junk food.
-- FotW
"If you must read newspapers and magazines at least
give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
-- C.S. Lewis
Alex Clark
Toon wrote:
> > There is such a thing as
> >public deception
>
> As you're doing right now.
>
> >- we Germans know about that," she says.
>
> Did she just admit to trying to restart up the Third Reich?
Not really. She only tried to suggest that her hatred of Harry Potter
books is morally equivalent to the resistance to the Nazis, thus
incidentally trivializing the latter and implying that it didn't have a
point.
--
Alex Clark
Lard lover do it mom (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Malcolm
>
> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense. The ball is in
> the Papal Court, but so far we have not heard any reasons which make a
> particle of sense from that direction or any other. Is rationality too
> much to ask for?
>
doesn't make him a particularly good literary critic, but if he said
something negative about Harry Potter many Catholics might assume that he
was making a formal ruling against the book binding on all Catholics. Unless
there can be no dispute that the books are evil, that would be unfair to Ms
Rowling.
The treatment of the occult and magic in literature is a difficult issue.
Some Christian groups ban anything with a witch in it, which leads to
campaigns against Rupert the Bear and similar absurdities. There is also the
problem of what to do when the English Literature syllabus includes Macbeth.
On the other hand there are works which are clearly designed to interest
readers in real magical practises.
There are also works which don't set out consciously to oppose Christianity,
but which in fact do so because of the assumptions of the author. Enid
Blyton wrote a series of books set in a boarding school, St Clare's. With a
name like that, it was obviously a Christian foundation. Each story is
centred round a new girl who comes to the school with some deep seated
emotional or relationship problem, which is eventually resolved. However
there is not a single chapel scene, not a single priest, not a single
religious studies lesson. The message, probably unintended, is that problems
must be solved by secular teachers, and that religion is irrelevant. However
Blyton herself wrote a child's version of the Bible.
Alex Clark
> In our last episode
> <1120178409.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, weiler161
> pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:
>
> > Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
>
> Because books scare him so much he hikes his skirt and runs away?
I doubt that the books scare him at all. What he's probably afraid of
is a lay Protestant having more worldwide influence in ethical (if not
spiritual) matters than the career theologian who is now pontiff of the
Roman Catholic Church.
--
Alex Clark
To ram dim old lover (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Alex Clark
Sumbuny wrote (with apparent irony):
> I guess that the literature that children should be exposed to should be the
> Bible--in its orginal language, lest anything be lost in translation....
That last stipulation would be a good thing, if it were feasible. Then
nobody would imagine that the Bible is against witchcraft and magic.
AFAIK in the original language it is poisoning and the Dark Arts (i. e.
injurious magic) that the Bible is against.
--
Alex Clark
Mild mood art lover (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)
Flame of the West
> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
Flame of the West
> I agree. Ratzinger has no business accusing others of evil when he
> preaches evil himself. Also note that the man and his Church actually
> wanted to outlaw homosexuality. The next logical step would of course
> be to disenfranchise atheists, Protestants and Jews.
Öje, please don't encourage this deluded person by endorsing his
spin on what Cardinal Ratzinger said. He neither accused others
of evil nor did he preach evil himself. I don't think his reference
to civil legislation is about outlawing homosexuality but rather
recognizing homosexual relationships in law. People can and do
disagree about these things but calling the other side evil is not
helpful, nor is it fair.
Jette Goldie
"Flame of the West" <jsol...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:M72dnR1-3ob...@comcast.com...
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> > But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so
questioning the
> > rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
>
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
>
"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Katt
news:kdxxe.60888$G8.4...@text.news.
>
> "yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>
> Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
"Does my bum look big in this faith...?"
Katt.
Tamim
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
>> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
So does Asterix, Pippi Långstrump and nearly every other decent
character children read about. Lying is normal, whether you like it or
not, and IMO stories in which the characters are believable and normal
instead of perfect little angels are better.
Woden
@oravannahka.helsinki.fi:
And it seems to me that in most of these stories, the characters also find
out (usually the hard way) that there are unfavorable consequences to
lying.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Cheeze
Flame of the West wrote:
> Cheeze wrote:
>
> > This reminds me again why I hate being catholic.
>
> I doubt anyone's holding a gun to your head.
>
No gun, but you can label me undecided.
> > So Harry Potter is evil because:
> >
> > 1) Its theme is "my will be done" instead of "thy will be done"
>
> Yes, such as the parts where Harry's lying is depicted positively.
>
I thought it was probably a reference to witchcraft. The magician's
will being imposed upon reality instead of God's.
I could understand why the Church has made these statements. Afterall
witches and warlocks have been their traditional enemies. But I
believe that it was the immaturity of human consciousness at that time
that may have depicted witchraft as evil. I think perhaps it was
"evil" simply because it was a rival religion.
Jan van Aalderen
>
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
>> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
>
>
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
That is exactly what the vicar of a small Dutch town believed. The
well-known story took place during WW-II. When his teenage son, who was
in the resistance, was found betrayed to the Germans, he saw them coming
and just had time to hide under the roof. But his pious dad thought it
morally wrong to lie when an SS-officer asked him where his son was. The
SS pulled the boy out and shot him dead. But his pious dad kept up his
precious morals, doing the "the right thing".
There was a similar issue with public servants who thought it morally
wrong to falsify public records by altering the data on religion from
jewish into christian. It would not have saved most jews, but smoe might
have gained enough time to go into hiding and survive.
(note: since, registration of religion is no longer required)
Also, when evaluating stories about people insisting on doing what is
"morallly right", one cannot help noticing that often - too often to
explain by the statistics of chance -, the moral chices of the righteous
happen to coincide with serving their own interest. Hence I am
extremely sceptical towards people who impose their vision of right and
wrong upon others, and think the may judge over the actions of others
because they have studied some books, be it holy books or lawbooks.
There is nothing moral about either lying or telling the truth in
itself. There are circumstances, and these determine what is the right
or wrong thing to do. And plenty of times the choice is between wo
evils. Even then, NOT choosing is sometimes wrong.
Personally, from what we've read so far I think the Harry Potter books
can help youbg readers - and some older ones - to get a better
understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In all situations
where it matters so far, Harry has done the morally right thing, if not
right away then at least eventually.
Which in fact does explain any antagonism there might be towards the
book within the Vatican, the rotting core of christian powermongering
since about the fall of Rome, of which the stench even now breaks out
from time to time. The Reformation sought to cleans it, but failed, and
the rot just split up. In fact, wherever religion gets organised, the
powermongering starts and the clergy becomes an evil in itself.
Having said all that: now I come to think of it - a bit late :) - I
realize, that all I read about the pope's alledged opposition against
the HP series so far, is said or written by others, or a small quote out
of context. So in fact I am still not entirely convinced he *does*
oppose them, or even has reservations.
In fact, because of the worldwide HP-hype and especially since the
general view is, that the books *do* uphold certain moral values, it
would be more in the tradition of the RK church to jump on the bandwagon
and exploit the popularity of the books with both kids and adults to
lure families - I don't think responsible parents would let their
children go to an RK church unsupervised - to their teachings.
Jan van Aalderen
Subsequent versions of handwritten books have survived, correspondence
about desirable "corrections to prevent misunderstanding" was kept, not
seldom by those opposing such corrections. I once - at school, hence
decades ago - read an essay about it.
Peter Bruells
> That is exactly what the vicar of a small Dutch town believed. The
> well-known story took place during WW-II.
So you can give us a cite?
> When his teenage son, who was in the resistance, was found betrayed
> to the Germans, he saw them coming and just had time to hide under
> the roof. But his pious dad thought it morally wrong to lie when an
> SS-officer asked him where his son was. The SS pulled the boy out
> and shot him dead. But his pious dad kept up his precious morals,
> doing the "the right thing".
I know of one - I believe it was Dutch - theologician who thought that
lying was wrong and would've given himself up to the SS *if*
asked. However, he thought that the alternative to lying was "not
speaking" - even if this would cost your own live.
>
> There was a similar issue with public servants who thought it morally
> wrong to falsify public records by altering the data on religion from
> jewish into christian.
I have this nagging suspiction they thought it was wrong because it
would've allowed jews to escape.
....
> Personally, from what we've read so far I think the Harry Potter
> books can help young readers - and some older ones - to get a better
> understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In all situations
> where it matters so far, Harry has done the morally right thing, if
> not right away then at least eventually.
Nope. There's the assault on Crabbe and Goyle, for example. Then
trying to resolve the Death Eater thing by witholding important
information from Dumbledore
Harry certainly tries to do the right thing, but he doesn't
necessarily do so and suceeds often only due to Hermione's help.
Taemon
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning
>> the rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
Do you think that that is the reason why the Pope opposes Harry
Potter?
T.
Mike Schilling
"Taemon" <Tae...@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
news:3io0o0F...@individual.net...
He opposes the book of Genesis too, at least the parts about Jacob.
Flame of the West
> Isn't it amazing how so many people who are supposed to posses supreme
> wisdom (after all that's why
> they get the big jobs right??) have no imagination and are so fearful of a
> fictional book? Where will they
> see demons next? Winnie the Pooh?
> I am so tired of all of them.
I am so tired of ad hominem arguments.
thomas p
wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:24:45 +0000, har...@missinglink.com wrote:
>
>>On 30 Jun 2005 17:40:10 -0700, weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
>>
>>I'd say this pope is a laughable lunatic, as are the people who think
>>him infallible - but that would make me an 'intolerant' atheist.
>
>The pope is only infallible when he is speaking 'ex cathedra' on
>church issues. If he says that the sky is plaid, we know that he is
>just another lunatic.
If he claims any kind of infallibility he is either a lunatic or a
liar.
>
>However, a great deal of pop culture is of dubious theological
>character and, yes, a lot of diabolical themes are put forward as
>positive. For a viewpoint, read _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis
>if your open-minded atheism will permit you to.
The teaching of Christianity in general and Caholicism in particular
are of very dubious character. The doctrine of infallibility comes to
mind, and then there is the doctrine concerning the existence of a
devil.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
thomas p
You must be talking about the various translations that do not agree
with each other. Yes, that is a problem, isn't it?
Flame of the West
>>>This reminds me again why I hate being catholic.
>>
>>I doubt anyone's holding a gun to your head.
>
> No gun, but you can label me undecided.
When you say you "hate being Catholic," you sound
pretty decided to me.
> I thought it was probably a reference to witchcraft. The magician's
> will being imposed upon reality instead of God's.
>
> I could understand why the Church has made these statements. Afterall
> witches and warlocks have been their traditional enemies. But I
> believe that it was the immaturity of human consciousness at that time
> that may have depicted witchraft as evil. I think perhaps it was
> "evil" simply because it was a rival religion.
You are assuming of course that the Christian religion is based
on the "human consciousness" rather than relevation from God.
You are free to think that, but don't expect any Christians to
agree with your analysis.
Gene Ward Smith
Flame of the West wrote:
> Öje, please don't encourage this deluded person by endorsing his
> spin on what Cardinal Ratzinger said. He neither accused others
> of evil nor did he preach evil himself. I don't think his reference
> to civil legislation is about outlawing homosexuality but rather
> recognizing homosexual relationships in law. People can and do
> disagree about these things but calling the other side evil is not
> helpful, nor is it fair.
Ratzinger wrote what I quoted long before the debate on gay marriage,
so your spin that this is what his comments are about is balony. But
say it is true. Then Ratzinger will have said that gays bring gay
bashing on themselves because some are asking for the right to marry,
and that the violent response to this is natural and understandable,
though not something the Church can endorse. That would *still* amount
to a wink and a nod, condoning violence while at the same time opposing
it. That kind of mixed message simply encourages violence--Ratzinger is
telling gay-bashers that they are right in what they feel, but wrong
only because beating people to a bloody pulp is not a good Christian
reaction. A wink and a nod to violence.
If you tell a group of people that hating Arabs is natural because of
9/11, are you helping to prevent violence? In the sixties, would it
have been helpful to tell people that that while the Ku Klux Klan has
clearly gone to far, bombing churches and murdering people involved in
voter registration drives is a natural response to the pushy demand for
equal rights?
Your attempt to excuse the inexcusible is noted; I'll put it along side
Ratzinger's. What is your feeling about gay bashing? Are gays in part
responsible for it?
Gene Ward Smith
Flame of the West wrote:
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
Charles Kingsley (obsf: the author of Water Babies) wrote an
interesting essay to the effect that in Catholic countries, due to the
influence of Jesuit causuistry, people were less honest than in
Protestand lands. Certainly the extreme Kantian position that came up
in reference to its prevalence in Dutch evangelical circles has hardly
been the only position Chrisitan theologians have adopted, much less
secular philosophers, who mostly reject the Kantian theory that lying
is always wrong on consequentialist grounds: that it leads to moral
absurdities if believed in and followed.
So, I'd like a cite that the Catholic position is, or ever has been,
that lying is always morally wrong.
Gene Ward Smith
Flame of the West wrote:
> I am so tired of ad hominem arguments.
Like calling someone "this deluded person"?
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> You are assuming of course that the Christian religion is based
> on the "human consciousness" rather than relevation from God.
But...
> You are free to think that, but don't expect any Christians to
> agree with your analysis.
Oh. OK.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> Öje, did you actually read what this person said? He deliberately made
> reference to Ratzingers racial and historical background to imply that
> he is a Nazi, as if all Germans are automatically under suspicion.
Rubbish. He [Gene Ward Smith] did no such thing. He compared the ways in
which they justified their opinions. He did not compare their "racial
and historical background".
For a start, he did not even say Ratzinger was a German.
YOU made that connection.
> Shame on you Öje for putting your good name to such hate-filled
> racially/religiously inspired claptrap.
No. Shame on _you_ for failing a simple reading comprehension test.
Christopher
--
---
Reply clue: Saruman welcomes you to Spamgard
thomas p
<jsol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>
>> I agree. Ratzinger has no business accusing others of evil when he
>> preaches evil himself. Also note that the man and his Church actually
>> wanted to outlaw homosexuality. The next logical step would of course
>> be to disenfranchise atheists, Protestants and Jews.
>
>Öje, please don't encourage this deluded person by endorsing his
>spin on what Cardinal Ratzinger said. He neither accused others
>of evil nor did he preach evil himself. I don't think his reference
>to civil legislation is about outlawing homosexuality but rather
>recognizing homosexual relationships in law.
He talked about outlawing homosexual activity that, according to him,
nobody had a right to.
People can and do
>disagree about these things but calling the other side evil is not
>helpful, nor is it fair.
Your interpretation of what was said was not helpful, nor was it
correct.
thomas p
<samd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Öjevind Lång wrote:
>> Gene ward Smith wrote:
>
>> themselves. It's exactly like a good German saying in the wake of
>> Kristallnacht that, after all, the Jews brought it on themselves.
>> However deplorable violence may be, there is clearly a Jewish Problem
>> to be solved, and if anyone doubts it, look at Herschel Grynszpan.
>> Surely Aryan youth cannot be expected not to react to the Jews pushing
>> their way in where they are not wanted? Society cannot protect a claim
>> of equality between Jew and Aryan to which the Jew has no concievable
>> right, and one cannot be surprised at violent reactions.
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. Ratzinger has no business accusing others of evil when he
>> preaches evil himself. Also note that the man and his Church actually
>> wanted to outlaw homosexuality. The next logical step would of course
>> be to disenfranchise atheists, Protestants and Jews.
>>
>> Öjevind
>
>Öje, did you actually read what this person said? He deliberately made
>reference to Ratzingers racial and historical background to imply that
>he is a Nazi, as if all Germans are automatically under suspicion.
>Shame on you Öje for putting your good name to such hate-filled
>racially/religiously inspired claptrap.
Shame on you for distorting what was written. Are you a liar or
merely stupid?
thomas p
<jsol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
>> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
>
>Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
>
Inanity is boring, and you are being inane.
thomas p
There are also times when lying is morally required or just required
by simple charity. In any case the mere fact of an immoral act
performed by the hero of a novel does not, in and of itself, make the
book immoral. All of this is so obvious that it makes the accusation
made by "Flame of the West" silly.
thomas p
<jsol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Mazz wrote:
>
>> Isn't it amazing how so many people who are supposed to posses supreme
>> wisdom (after all that's why
>> they get the big jobs right??) have no imagination and are so fearful of a
>> fictional book? Where will they
>> see demons next? Winnie the Pooh?
>> I am so tired of all of them.
>
>I am so tired of ad hominem arguments.
>
The above was not an ad hominem argument. If the Pope actually
attacked the books in question as being immoral, he was acting like a
fool.
Christopher Kreuzer
<snip>
> You are assuming of course that the Christian religion is based
> on the "human consciousness" rather than relevation from God.
PS. What is relevation? Making things relevant?
Dale Ratner
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
>> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
>
>
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
>
That is a a little simplisitc. Lying can often be wrong (as in giving
yourself more skills and experience on a resume than you have) but in
most social situations it is also necessary. Most people would not
answer yes if someone asked them a question like "Do I look fat?" Doing
so would be very mean and uncoth.
Tamim
> There are also times when lying is morally required or just required
> by simple charity. In any case the mere fact of an immoral act
> performed by the hero of a novel does not, in and of itself, make the
> book immoral. All of this is so obvious that it makes the accusation
> made by "Flame of the West" sily.
Yes. Who are the Heroes of Morte D'Arthur? Galahad. No. The main
heroes are Arthur and Lancelot, both make mistakes and act immorally. Is
the story also immoral. I can't even name very many books in which the
heroes are always morally impeccable. Of those that I could name only a
few are worth reading. To build good characters, they need some vices
othervise they remain very one-dimensional. In fact that is what I and
many others consider to be Tolkiens greatest failing as a writer. And
because of that his most best characters are the imperfect ones:
Turin, Feanor and Gollum. Frodo and Aragorn are after all pretty boring.
the softrat
<j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>
>"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>
>Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
Jesus did say that he came to bring strife to within families.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Support bacteria - they're the only culture some people have.
Gene Ward Smith
Tamim wrote:
> Yes. Who are the Heroes of Morte D'Arthur? Galahad. No. The main
> heroes are Arthur and Lancelot, both make mistakes and act immorally.
Which may be why they are boring, and Galahad far more interesting.
Tamim
> Tamim wrote:
--
:o
DanielSan
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
>> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
>
>
> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
Harry Potter is a fictional character. You do know that "Hogwarts"
isn't a real school, right?
>
>
> -- FotW
>
> "If you must read newspapers and magazines at least
> give yourself a mouthwash with The Lord of the Rings."
>
> -- C.S. Lewis
Oh, right. C.S. Lewis doesn't have anything in it that is "morally
wrong." Uh huh....
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
DanielSan
> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
> news:kdxxe.60888$G8.4...@text.news.
>
>>"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>>
>>Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
>
>
>
That's the big question. If a woman asked God if she looked fat in that
dress, how would God answer?
Tamim
> Katt wrote:
>> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
>> news:kdxxe.60888$G8.4...@text.news.
>>
>>>"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>>>
>>>Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
>>
>>
>>
>> "Does my bum look big in this faith...?"
> That's the big question. If a woman asked God if she looked fat in that
> dress, how would God answer?
So if the hero in a novel doesn't act like God, the book is immoral.
Katt
news:NZDxe.6075$mr4.1771@trnddc05...
> Katt wrote:
>>
>> "Does my bum look big in this faith...?"
>
> That's the big question. If a woman asked God if she looked fat in that
> dress, how would God answer?
Well, I've seen the phrase "Put them away..." used quite a few times in the
Bahbel...!!
Katt.
Jette Goldie
"Gene Ward Smith" <genewa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120339462.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Mmmm - which version of the mythology have YOU read?
--
Jette Goldie
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything, but
you
still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Flame of the West
>> Lying is morally wrong, and Harry does it.
>
> Harry Potter is a fictional character. You do know that "Hogwarts"
> isn't a real school, right?
I had suspected as much.
Flame of the West
>>The pope is only infallible when he is speaking 'ex cathedra' on
>>church issues. If he says that the sky is plaid, we know that he is
>>just another lunatic.
>
> If he claims any kind of infallibility he is either a lunatic or a
> liar.
Not true.
> The teaching of Christianity in general and Caholicism in particular
> are of very dubious character. The doctrine of infallibility comes to
> mind, and then there is the doctrine concerning the existence of a
> devil.
Dubious? The only thing that matters is whether the teachings
are true or false.
David Johnston
Jan van Aalderen
> Jan van Aalderen <reply-in-g...@jva.getxs.nl> writes:
>
>
>>That is exactly what the vicar of a small Dutch town believed. The
>>well-known story took place during WW-II.
>
>
> So you can give us a cite?
You mean site, or quotation?
Whichever: I read this as a short story in a librarybook from my school
in the late 1950's. It is most unlikely I could find either title or
quotation on the internet, since I just recall the core of the story and
the fact that the teacher told us it was true. a cousin of mine in
another town had the same story read to their class, hence I figured it
had to be a wellknown fact.
>>When his teenage son, who was in the resistance, was found betrayed
>>to the Germans, he saw them coming and just had time to hide under
>>the roof. But his pious dad thought it morally wrong to lie when an
>>SS-officer asked him where his son was. The SS pulled the boy out
>>and shot him dead. But his pious dad kept up his precious morals,
>>doing the "the right thing".
>
>
> I know of one - I believe it was Dutch - theologician who thought that
> lying was wrong and would've given himself up to the SS *if*
> asked. However, he thought that the alternative to lying was "not
> speaking" - even if this would cost your own live.
I have, from a very early age, never trusted statements by people about
what they would or could do or not do under hypothetical circumstances.
So I would likely never have remembered such a hypothesis.
>>There was a similar issue with public servants who thought it morally
>>wrong to falsify public records by altering the data on religion from
>>jewish into christian.
>
> I have this nagging suspiction they thought it was wrong because it
> would've allowed jews to escape.
No doubt a few people thought that way - there were nazi's in the NL
too, especially before and in the early days of the war -, and many more
were afraid to stick out their own necks, especially since not all of
their collegues could be trusted to keep their mouths shut. Which in
those days could get very painful once questions were being asked.
> ....
>
>
>>Personally, from what we've read so far I think the Harry Potter
>>books can help young readers - and some older ones - to get a better
>>understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In all situations
>>where it matters so far, Harry has done the morally right thing, if
>>not right away then at least eventually.
>
>
> Nope. There's the assault on Crabbe and Goyle, for example. Then
> trying to resolve the Death Eater thing by witholding important
> information from Dumbledore
What assault ??
What is "the DE thing"? I don't recall Harry ever attempting to resolve
any "thing" concerning DE's *by means of* not informing DD. Informing DD
of what? I don't see how not telling DD something would resolve a
specific problem. I get the impression you are confusing making a wrong
choice with making an immoral one.
> Harry certainly tries to do the right thing, but he doesn't
> necessarily do so and suceeds often only due to Hermione's help.
Now you seem to confuse "right" with "smartest". I used "right" in a
moral sense. Where exactly hermione convinced Harry to do "the right
thing" while he himself was contemplating an immoral action?
--
Vriendelijke groet,
Jan van Aalderen, Amstelveen
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Wie mijn raad volgt, doet zulks geheel op eigen risico!
Reactie op usenetpostjes in de groep. Email zie ik niet.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
Flame of the West
> So if the hero in a novel doesn't act like God, the book is immoral.
No one's saying that (except maybe you!).
Flame of the West
> He talked about outlawing homosexual activity that, according to him,
> nobody had a right to.
That's not clear from the snippet. Do you have a fuller quote?
Sam's the little guy
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> Sam's the little guy wrote:
>
> > Öje, did you actually read what this person said? He deliberately made
> > reference to Ratzingers racial and historical background to imply that
> > he is a Nazi, as if all Germans are automatically under suspicion.
>
> A lie, as anyone can check by reading what I wrote.
A lie? Thats a pretty strong statement. The question is, are now you
able to justify that strident claim with some hard evidence?
> What I did was
> point out the similariity of Ratzinger's approach to the kind of
> apologies for the Nazis that people who were not Nazis made for them.
> In doing so I courted Godwinization, but I think the analogy is apt and
> telling. Ratzinger, with his blame the victim rant, is no different
> than someone apologizing for the excesses of Kristallnacht.
>
My misreading, and I apologise for it. It sounded to me like you were
implying that somehow Ratzinger was subtly encouraging this behaviour
(presumably, physical/verbal abuse against gay people) by blaming the
victim.
And I say it again, its a really disgusting parallel to draw -
krystallnacht was a touchpoint event in a series of increasingly bad
crimes against European Jews, which led in the end to an attempt to
annihilate them. You cheapen the deaths of all those people by using
anything in those series of events as a parallel with anything
happening in modern day Germany. Have some common sense.
A similiar event occurred in my country last year. A secular judge, in
a secular court, said when passing sentence in a rape case that the
woman who was raped had been partly to blame for the crime because of
the way she dressed.
Now this was a JUDGE who was JUDGING a case in which his ignorance of
the causes and blame for rape could have affected the outcome of the
trial. Yet I don't see some international outcry against him, or any
navel gazing and suggestions we dismantle the secular state because of
his remarks. It's an absurdity.
> > Shame on you Öje for putting your good name to such hate-filled
> > racially/religiously inspired claptrap.
>
> Shame on you for lying and for trying to put a happy face on bigotry.
> How dare you call people racist after doing that? I lived in Germany
> for a year and loved it, incidentally. Your attempt at smearing me in
> order to change the topic from what Ratzinger said, and the vile,
> replusive lies you choose as your means for doing this, pretty well
> show your own moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Nice ad-hominem. Are you fond of ad-hominems?
>
> Do you support Ratzinger's claims? Do you even have the guts to say yea
> or nay?
And a strawman as well. What's next? Are you going to call me a
Nazi/terrorist/communist/flavour-of-the-month bad guy?
Sam.
Tamim
> Dubious? The only thing that matters is whether the teachings
> are true or false.
Not really. The only thing that matters is whether they cause more good
or evil. You can teach the true thing and still do wrong.
Flame of the West
> For a start, he did not even say Ratzinger was a German.
>
> YOU made that connection.
The sort of implied connection is a common device to make
a point you don't want to be quoted on. If I said that
the major-media owners in this country are greedy and
money-grubbing and out of touch with the Christian heartland
of America, I could strike a chord with the vast majority
who know that such owners are disproportionately Jewish.
But if you challenged me on it, I could always reply that
YOU made that connection.
Now I'm not accusing Mr. Smith of having done any such
thing. But his choice of illustration was unfortunate
because it lends itself to that interpretation.
Flame of the West
>>I am so tired of ad hominem arguments.
>
> Like calling someone "this deluded person"?
Yeah, just like that! One reason I'm so tired of 'em
is that I make so many of 'em myself!
Flame of the West
> "yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>
> Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
Not to evade your point, but I just have to mention once
again that your sig is probably the funniest one I've
ever seen!
> Some people are like Slinkies . . . not really good for anything,
> but you
> still can't help but smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Jette Goldie
"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:4nvdc115opq10taef...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:08:16 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
> <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
> >
> >Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
>
> Jesus did say that he came to bring strife to within families.
>
I'm not sure he meant it that way!
--
Jette
"Work for Peace and remain Fiercely Loving" - Jim Byrnes
je...@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Tamim
>> So if the hero in a novel doesn't act like God, the book is immoral.
> No one's saying that (except maybe you!).
So what are you saying? Why is it so bad if a hero in a novel acts in
not so morally perfect way once in a while? Do you realise that that is
what most heroes in most novels do? Especially in so called better
literature. Is Hamlet an immoral story and should not be read or
performed on the stage? If not, then why Harry Potter? Or should we
shield the children from the fact that otherwise good people like their
parents or they themselves do sometimes act in morally dubious way?
You cannot shield them from that, they already know.
AFAIK according to your religion only two persons in history have been
sinless: Virgin Mary and her firstbor son. The rest of us, including you,
C.S Lewis and James the Just have sinned once in a while. Why should
the fictional characters be perfect? Even the characters in the TV
series 7th Heaven lie once in a while, while generally being so perfect
that it sickened me to watch the series (I admit watching a few episodes
in extreme boredom several years ago, but that was primarily because one
of the actresses was pretty good looking ;))
Tamim, a sinner.
Troels Forchhammer
West <jsol...@comcast.net> enriched us with:
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>>
>> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so
>> questioning the rationality of the claim that there is
>> makes good sense.
>
. . . in a way that is portrayed as 'right' and 'desirable' by not only
Harry himself in the moment, but also by the adults we've come to
regard as good -- Dumbledore, Harry's mentor, even insists that Harry
lie to save himself while Dumbledore takes the blame in /Order of the
Phoenix/:
" 'Did he, did he?' said Fudge appreciatively. 'I must
remember to tell Lucius. Well, Potter ... I expect you know why
you are here?'
Harry fully intended to respond with a defiant 'yes': his
mouth had opened and the word was half-formed when he caught
sight of Dumbledore's face. Dumbledore was not looking
directly at Harry - his eyes were fixed on a point just over
his shoulder - but as Harry stared at him, he shook his head a
fraction of an inch to each side.
Harry changed direction mid-word.
'Ye-no.'
'I beg your pardon?' said Fudge.
'No,' said Harry, firmly."
[OotP-27 'The Centaur and the Sneak']
The message here seems to be that it is a good thing to lie to avoid a
secular punishment that is unjust (but not unlawful).
That is, however, an exception (not the only of its kind, but still an
exception) to the rule that is that Harry's transgressions are always
punished in some way (Harry always gets to repent his actions when they
are wrong).
As for the main thrust of the criticism -- that the Harry Potter books
promote a 'my will be done' world-view, I can see where the idea comes
from, but I don't agree with the conclusion. The series contains a
strong element of 'find the strength within yourself' -- though we
don't yet know the end of the series (which makes it extremely
difficult to say anything for sure), it seems very possible that it
will follow for instance Tolkien's example by letting evil defeat evil,
though in the case of Harry Potter it is likely that it will be a
result of a strategy rather than the result of divine grace we see in
LotR.
The point, however, is that the books do not promote the position of
"find the strength within yourself to do what you will", but rather one
of "find the strength within yourself to do what is Right" -- or, if we
rephrase the latter to allow for a theistic universe: "find the
strength within yourself to do God's will".
In that view I think it is possible to allow for variations in the
interpretation of God's will -- that dissent seems to permeate every
Christian denomination from from the Roman Catholic Church to the
smallest independant congregation somewhere in northern Sweden, and
though lying may be bad (and is generally portrayed as such in the
Potter books) there may also be situations where the greater good
requires a lie, but drawing the line between right and wrong in such
cases doesn't seem to me to be a simple consensus matter.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Knowing what
thou knowest not
is in a sense
omniscience
- Piet Hein, /Omniscience/
Jan van Aalderen
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 18:51:02 -0700, the softrat <sof...@pobox.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 06:24:45 +0000, har...@missinglink.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 30 Jun 2005 17:40:10 -0700, weil...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pope Benedict Opposes Harry Potter Novels
>>>
>>>I'd say this pope is a laughable lunatic, as are the people who think
>>>him infallible - but that would make me an 'intolerant' atheist.
>>
>
>>The pope is only infallible when he is speaking 'ex cathedra' on
>>church issues. If he says that the sky is plaid, we know that he is
>>just another lunatic.
>
>
> If he claims any kind of infallibility he is either a lunatic or a
> liar.
>
>
>
>>character and, yes, a lot of diabolical themes are put forward as
>>positive. For a viewpoint, read _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis
>>if your open-minded atheism will permit you to.
>
>
> The teaching of Christianity in general and Caholicism in particular
> are of very dubious character. The doctrine of infallibility comes to
> mind, and then there is the doctrine concerning the existence of a
> devil.
The assumption of infallibility when he speakes "ex cathedra" and the
resulting "dogma's" are one of the more ridiculous aspects of the RK
church. It deprives it of moral authority rather than granting it. The
crusades ordered by the pope ex officio are a typical example: God,
through Christ, may have ordered us to love each other and learn to live
in peace, but unlucky for Him, his orders were overruled by Rome.
In certain circles, it is believed he does. Rumour says he lives in Rome
and wears a white dress to mock purity, and his dark servants mess with
little boys in an unholy manner. Not unexplainable: lifelong denial of
the body's biochemistry would cause abnormal behavior to at least some
extent in most people.
Fact is, that church is often confused with faith. The two have very
little to do with eachother. Churches are about power and control, faith
is about morality and consideration.
A non-churchgoing christian I know used to say, that every clergical
hierarchy is an attempt by evil to seek dominion over man. In his view,
'god' lives in all of us, and hence he can hear only when we listen to
ourselves. Whether we call that prayer or meditation, does not matter. A
wise man, although I myself am not religious. But I do believe their is
good and evil, and the line between is barely visible at times.
....
Bloody hell, am I getting serious here.... :)
Katt
>>
>> Jesus did say that he came to bring strife to within families.
>>
>
> I'm not sure he meant it that way!
Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain it another way, then:
Lk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
but rather division:
Lk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
against two, and two against three.
Lk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against
the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in
law against her mother in law.
Lk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
cannot be my disciple.
Lk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he
hath, he cannot be my disciple.
-------
Katt.
DanielSan
Harry Potter is fiction. The Bible is fiction. Both have flat out
lies. To base your life from either book is stupidity.
Joe Pfeiffer
I think your irony detector needs to be replaced.
--
Joseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605
Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002
New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer
skype: jjpfeifferjr
Flame of the West
> Harry Potter is fiction. The Bible is fiction. Both have flat out
> lies. To base your life from either book is stupidity.
So is this the kind of thing that passes for intelligent debate
in alt.atheism?
Jan van Aalderen
> "Jette Goldie" <j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote in message
> news:q6Fxe.61284$G8.3...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>>"the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>
>
>>>Jesus did say that he came to bring strife to within families.
>>>
>>
>>I'm not sure he meant it that way!
>
>
> Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain it another way, then:
>
> Lk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay;
> but rather division:
>
> Lk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three
> against two, and two against three.
Hence the "standard family" of 4?
> Lk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against
> the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
> mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in
> law against her mother in law.
He does rub it in, doesn't he?
> Lk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
> wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he
> cannot be my disciple.
>
> Lk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he
> hath, he cannot be my disciple.
It sounds like a load of crap, really. I cann't help suspecting that
either you're leaving out an essential bit of context, or dear Lk's
recall was far from total when he wrote this down, or Jesus said al this
shortly after he turned al that water into wine and made much too sure
his miracle had worked properly. Certain is only, that it sounds very
much out of character.
Jan van Aalderen
> "the softrat" <sof...@pobox.com> wrote in message
> news:4nvdc115opq10taef...@4ax.com...
>
>>On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 14:08:16 GMT, "Jette Goldie"
>><j...@blueyonder.com.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>"yes, darling, you DO look fat."
>>>
>>>Morally correct maybe, but would you really do it?
>>
>>Jesus did say that he came to bring strife to within families.
>>
>
>
> I'm not sure he meant it that way!
>
>
As worded in english, this could mean that his actions had resulted in
strife within families, rather than such being an intentional effect.
Katt
news:G8udnZPxPan...@comcast.com...
> DanielSan wrote:
>
>> Harry Potter is fiction. The Bible is fiction. Both have flat out lies.
>> To base your life from either book is stupidity.
>
> So is this the kind of thing that passes for intelligent debate
> in alt.atheism?
Four clear and unambiguous propositional statements; four impregnable facts.
You reckon you can score higher than that, munchkin...?
Katt.
Jan van Aalderen
The law is irrelevant as to decide what is right and what is wrong.
This especially applies when the law is made with the sole purpose to
assist the lawmaker in getting rid of others conceived as political enemies.
> That is, however, an exception (not the only of its kind, but still an
> exception) to the rule that is that Harry's transgressions are always
> punished in some way (Harry always gets to repent his actions when they
> are wrong).
Reading about Hogwarts, one sometimes gets the impression that wrongful
punishments seem to be more common than deserved ones. :)
.................
>
> The point, however, is that the books do not promote the position of
> "find the strength within yourself to do what you will", but rather one
> of "find the strength within yourself to do what is Right" -- or, if we
> rephrase the latter to allow for a theistic universe: "find the
> strength within yourself to do God's will".
Exactly.
..............
Katt
news:11ceh4v...@corp.supernews.com...
> Katt wrote:
>>
>> Lk 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you,
>> Nay; but rather division:
>>
>> Lk 12:52 For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided,
>> three against two, and two against three.
>
> Hence the "standard family" of 4?
>
>> Lk 12:53 The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against
>> the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the
>> mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter
>> in law against her mother in law.
>
> He does rub it in, doesn't he?
>
>> Lk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and
>> wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also,
>> he cannot be my disciple.
>>
>> Lk 14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that
>> he hath, he cannot be my disciple.
>
> It sounds like a load of crap, really. I cann't help suspecting that
> either you're leaving out an essential bit of context, or dear Lk's recall
> was far from total when he wrote this down, or Jesus said al this shortly
> after he turned al that water into wine and made much too sure his miracle
> had worked properly. Certain is only, that it sounds very much out of
> character.
I'm afraid it isn't *remotely* 'out of character': Jesus is the most
*selectively quoted* figure in all religious fiction. People want a warm and
fluffy character, so they ignore all the stuff that doesn't fit -- tons and
tons and tons of it. 'Gentle Jesus, meek and mild' is the creation of
someone with a real fucking serious Attention Deficit Disorder.
You wanna spend a bit of time listing all of Jesus's supposed 'teachings' in
two adjacent columns, and see what it looks like? Go on: do it. Play 'Good
Christ / Bad Christ' for a while...! We've all done it!
Katt.
Virgil
"Katt" <workco...@dfhu.net> wrote:
There is a slight difference in that the Potter books are not intended
to be taken as Gospel.
DanielSan
> DanielSan wrote:
>
>> Harry Potter is fiction. The Bible is fiction. Both have flat out
>> lies. To base your life from either book is stupidity.
>
>
> So is this the kind of thing that passes for intelligent debate
> in alt.atheism?
In response to your post about Harry Potter? This is the best I could
do. Sorry. Try posting something substantive next time and I'll
participate in intelligent debate.
Jan van Aalderen
>
>>> The pope is only infallible when he is speaking 'ex cathedra' on
>>> church issues. If he says that the sky is plaid, we know that he is
>>> just another lunatic.
>>
>>
>> If he claims any kind of infallibility he is either a lunatic or a
>> liar.
>
>
> Not true.
>
>> The teaching of Christianity in general and Caholicism in particular
>> are of very dubious character. The doctrine of infallibility comes to
>> mind, and then there is the doctrine concerning the existence of a
>> devil.
>
>
> Dubious? The only thing that matters is whether the teachings
> are true or false.
Since that is a matter of opinion, what truely matters is whether they
are good or evil. Since religious teachings tend to be presented by
those who preach them as if they are unchangeable facts, and those
following them often are encouraged to do so blindly - thus being
inherently incapable of seeing nuances like circumstantial variables
that determine whether a given action is good or evil in that situation
- such followers wil fail to notice when their application is evil.
Hence, religious teachings are inherently dubious in the sense that it
is uncertain whether they will be applied when such is right, or when
such is wrong.
Jan van Aalderen
An action being good or evil is rarely a matter of keeping book of their
netto consequences.
DanielSan
Exactly. Why the Pope and "Flame of the West" is taking as such is
mind-boggling.
Sam's the little guy
Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> the softrat wrote:
>
> > However, a great deal of pop culture is of dubious theological
> > character and, yes, a lot of diabolical themes are put forward as
> > positive. For a viewpoint, read _That Hideous Strength_ by C. S. Lewis
> > if your open-minded atheism will permit you to.
>
> Benedict to move on that, before Dali, Magritte and company destroy
> civilization as we know it?
>
Well, firstly it's unlikely that P Benedict would feel compelled to
comment on the (alleged) artistic opinions of a long dead Anglican
scholar. If he has any knowledge of the matter, and feels that
commentary is necessary, he might well refer to the following, well
known piece of Christian doctrine concerning the concept of
'externalised evil' (eg, alleged satanic art and satanic Harry Potter)
and it's place in dictating the behaviour of a Christian:
(quote from NLT translation of the first letter to the Corinthians)
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%208:1-16;&version=51;
" Should we eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols? Well, we all
know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God
and no other. According to some people, there are many so-called gods
and many lords, both in heaven and on earth. But we know that there is
only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we exist for him.
And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made
everything and through whom we have been given life.
However, not all Christians realize this. Some are accustomed to
thinking of idols as being real, so when they eat food that has been
offered to idols, they think of it as the worship of real gods, and
their weak consciences are violated. It's true that we can't win God's
approval by what we eat. We don't miss out on anything if we don't eat
it, and we don't gain anything if we do. But you must be careful with
this freedom of yours. Do not cause a brother or sister with a weaker
conscience to stumble."
(end quote)
So in practice, this means that I'm free to hang a Dali on my wall if I
happened to be rich enough to own one. But if CS Lewis were to come
around to dinner, and I was aware of his feelings concerning
surrealism, I would probably take it down, so as to not risk him acting
against his conscience. In a similiar way, I'm free to read Harry
Potter if I so choose (and in reality, I do so quite frequently)
recognising that no amount of suspicion about it's spiritual content
can damage my faith. However, if another Christian, burdened certain
superstitions or with a weaker faith such that their conscience did not
permit them to read it were to visit me, I would not read it in front
of them or use my freedom to read those books in such a way that it
damages there conscience. I have a duty to use my freedom responsibly.
Which neatly segues back to my main point - this notion that Christians
in general are against Harry Potter is just bunkum. A small group of
Christians think there's a spiritual (ee) problem with it, they've
stated their opinions. Now of course, it's just material for trolls use
in order to try and stir up anti-Christian sentiment in people of other
religious persuasions (eg atheists) in order to see the fireworks. It's
just a troll aimed at Atheists/ SecHumanists. You chaps should learn
some self discipline and ignore it.
> The trouble with your point here is that the topic isn't pop culture in
> general, but Harry Potter in particular. If Benedict were to opine that
> Old Dirty Bastard or Sid Vicious had been negative influences, that
> would have been a worldwide yawn. If he denounced Debby Does Dallas,
> all that would happen is that people would wonder when he'd seen it.
> But there is nothing obviously Evil in Harry Potter, so questioning the
> rationality of the claim that there is makes good sense.
But the odd thing is, you yourself have apparently decided which of
these is evil and which is not, according to the tenets of your own
religious belief. So why would we accept YOUR view of evil/not evil and
not some other person with a different view, eg a Muslim or Hindu?
> The ball is in
> the Papal Court, but so far we have not heard any reasons which make a
> particle of sense from that direction or any other.
By which I assume you mean that the Pope hasn't actually commented on
Harry Potter and his supposed moral/spiritual influence, which is by
and large true.
Gene Ward Smith
Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
> > Galahad? Interesting?
>
> I think your irony detector needs to be replaced.
Since I speak fluent Ironic, this is a natural assumption to make.
However, I find many of the moral characteristics people extoll in
fiction as especially interesting to be boring, and features
many--perhaps most--find boring to be interesting. That was the root of
my difficulty with Ice&Fire. Saints are intrinsically interesting, and
the utterly depraved dull. That is why a book on serial killers which
focuses too much on the serial killer is tends to be so bad, such as
the utterly unreadable Hannibal.
the softrat
<jsol...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>Dubious? The only thing that matters is whether the teachings
>are true or false.
>
know how much *they* will make out of it and how many people they can
screw.
the softrat
"Honi soit qui mal y pense."
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada." --
Britney Spears