Posted on 07/23/2005 1:31:34 PM PDT by Coleus
HARRY POTTER: ENEMY OF GOD By Dr. Bradley Carey (c) 2005, All rights reserved
I am amazed at how many churches get up in arms about Christians participating in Halloween, and yet turn around sell Christmas trees in their church parking lots. It is these same churches that refuse to take a public stand against the legalized murder of unborn children know as abortion and close their eyes to the plague of abomination known as homosexuality that is overtaking the world. Yet when someone speaks out against a fictional character named Harry Potter and the books and movies made around him, many of these same churches will attack the individual who criticizes this diabolical movement. Yes I said diabolical. Now many people will argue that there is nothing wrong with Harry Potter and that it has gotten children to get in and start reading more, and has improved the reading ability of millions around the world. Yet these same people who praise these books and movies are obviously blind or have simply chosen not to see what else is taking places because of Harry Potter and everything associated with him.
Many will argue that Harry Potter is just a fictional character in series of books and movies and that is all. Well that may be true, but it is what this fictional character and the books and movies are doing that must be of concern to everyone.
For example, since the release of the Harry Potterbooks, interest in Wiccan materials, schools, spells, etc., has increased over 200%. (Retail Trends, 2004)
Wicca is now the seventh largest organized religion in the United States. The world-renowned occultist, Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, who is also a master wizard and a practicing witch, has said in his book, "Grimoire for the Apprentice Wizard," that its [his book's] express purpose is to target the growing numbers of Harry Potter readers who have become interested in exploring real Witchcraft. Under "Acclaim for the Author."
In the Harry Potter books many spells are discussed in great detail. According to Wiccans and Wizards, what is discussed in these books accurately portray Wiccan spells and rituals.
In the Bible we find the following concerning the practice of witchcraft, witches, seeking familiar spirits, and many of the other teachings in the Harry Potter books and movies:
"For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft..." 1 Samuel 15:23
"...and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the site of the Lord..." 2 Chronicles 33:6
"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these...witchcraft...that they do not inherit the kingdom of God." Galatians 5:19-21
"There shall not be found among you and one that...useth divination, or an observer of times, of an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee." Deuteronomy 18:10-12 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to love." Exodus 22:18
"Regard not them with familiar spirits, neither to be defiled by them." Leviticus 19:31
"And the soul that turn after such as have familiar spirits, and after wizards, to go a-whoring after them, I will even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from among his people." Leviticus 20:6
According to the Bible, God's own Holy Word, those who practice witchcraft are committing a sin and abomination in God's eyes. Those who seek after those who practice witchcraft, do so against the Word of God. By doing so, God will set His face against them and cut them off.
In the Harry Potter books and movies, both Harry Potter and his friends are students of magic and witchcraft. They do this of their own free will. As such, they have chosen to freely transgress the Word of God. By doing so, they have made themselves enemies of God. Individuals and teachings such as these have no place in the lives of children, especially those who are Christian. Yet, churches and parents still turn a blind eye to this. By doing so they are inviting the judgement and eternal condemnation of God
The question is now this. Is this the type of things that children need to learn and become involved in? Do we want children following after the things that God has pronounced as sin and abomination?
By allowing the Harry Potter books and movies into your home, you are allowing Satan to enter also. By allowing Satan to enter into your home, you are allowing all sorts of problems, including spiritual ones, to enter as well.
The churches and their members who allow their children to participate in the Harry Potter enticement into things that are evil and contrary to the Word ofGod, are no better than those who openly practice witchcraft. You are either for God or against Him. There is no middle ground. By refusing to take a stand, you are putting yourself in league with those who stand against God. So now it comes down to this, where do you stand?
thanks......
There's real demons out there.......
Remember that from the movie "the Right Stuff" ??
Whoops, sorry, got off track. Something about this thread promotes frivolous thought. :D
I would have to say I agree completely
What, there used to be two of them on Earth and now there's seven?
According to Wiccans and Wizards, what is discussed in these books accurately portray Wiccan spells and rituals.
A transparent lie. You will have your part in the lake of fire.
Don’t dismiss the principle that language really can be used as a tool to influence people’s beliefs. Maybe Harry Potter won’t do this in an undesirable way or to a significant degree. But to say the Harry Potter Debate = bad is not as good an assessment as one that at least defines the potential problem (corruption of children’s approach to good/evil), explains the steps that would be involved in the process of this kind of corruption, and identifies any of Rowling’s language/concepts that can be said to contribute either significantly or insignificantly to such corruption.
One thing I always noticed—liberals in the press and elsewhere have always gotten just a little too excited about these books.
How bout both, speak out against the IRS and against this fictional character.
"Render unto Caesar"..
That is the difficulty with that argument..
But it does not say "Bend over and take it unto Caesar".
There is a difference between being taxed and being abused and the Income Tax Code crosses that line.
Fact: No Such Thing As "Magic"
Fact: No Such Thing As Witches And Warlocks,there just people who dress funny for attention talking about how there going to turn people into toads
Fact: Its just a stupid book with a large following,it is not the end of civilization,
If I could be (benevolent) dictator I'd abolish the IRS.
Unfortunately, that's just not going to happen..
Too many people don't seem to mind bending over..
What a bunch of pure BS. I hear the same stuff about the Star Wars saga as well.
This also reminds me of the same hysteria about human sacrifice in ther 80s. That turned out to be a bunch of BS also. (Unfortunately it destroyed families and lives).
When I was a kid, it was Aleister Crowley who was supposed to turn the country to the "dark side". Well I am almost 50 and I haven't seen it yet.
Harry Potter books are being used to make religion look bad by those who think they are doing good.
Each must be put into its own perspective. I see no reason to join this campaign against hp, because I believe working FOR good and AGAINST evil are our greatest callings. I will not arrogate hp into that battle.
The book the "Right Stuff" had the X-15 pilots in the story line, and developed them well; something that the movie omitted. Darn, what a good movie that was, nonetheless.
The Star Wars series is one of the most blatant with it’s New Age theme. If asked, the vast majority of the millions of viewers of this series would probably not identify themselves as New Agers, but for lots of them (many of which who aren’t church goers), their concept of God has been identified with a force; instead of the benediction that says, “May God be with you” (cf. Second John 11), it’s “May the Force (uppercase ‘F’) be with you.” George Lucas, the producer of this series, is big into the NAM just as Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was: George once said, “When you are born, you have an energy field around you.... When you die, your energy field joins all other energy fields in the universe, and while you’re still living, that larger energy field is sympathetic to your own energy field” (Eldon Winker, The New Age Is Lying to You, 74). This idea is introduced to us by the Jedi Knight who, like Jesus, has realized and mastered the Force within him: Obi-wan Kenobi, in fact, said, “The Force is what gives the Jedi his power, Luke. It is an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together”.
The creator of the series, Gene Roddenberry, is a Baptist who converted to a merely ethical humanism. For this reason, someone once pointed out the pronounced presence in Star Trek of a pantheistic theological substratum where God is nothing but a impersonal entity.
Star Trek is often accused of being simply the American Dream transported into a space setting, and of course the crew of the Enterprise does behave as if it were composed of 20th-century Americans rather than of people born into a future age. This, however, is characteristic of all mythology. Greek gods and goddesses and the mythical heroes with whom they interacted behaved like larger-than-life inhabitants of ancient Greece; in both cases, a necessary allowance had to made for the sake of communicating with the audience. (One of the major distinctions between mass-media and literary SF is that the latter makes less allowance.) Myths don’t attempt to portray the real future; they portray what is important to a culture at the time they develop.
We know the people of the 23rd century aren’t going to be just like the Enterprise crew. People drawn deeply into the Star Trek myth, however, do generally share to some degree the views of life’s meaning as portrayed in that myth. And the portrayal shows clearly that there’s no meaning to be found beyond (a) exploration and discovery, (b) ethics, and (c) brotherhood and friendship. Furthermore, this meaning is derived not from some mysterious power external to the human mind, but from human progress itself. These are the tenets of humanism. [I wrote this paragraph on the basis of my own observation and used it in the course for several years before a student’s research for her term paper uncovered the fact that Gene Roddenberry was a member of the American Humanist Association and consciously intended the series to promote humanism, although he did not reveal this to the network.]
Star Trek: The Next Generation promotes such ideas as a universal mind or energy that flows through all things in the universe, animate and inanimate, and that heals and restores people who are plugged into this life force.
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine promotes such ideas as looking for solutions within yourself; in fact, Gene Roddenberry once said that people who believe there’s only one true God deserve all the contempt they receive
Star Trek I was considered entirely too mystical in tone by many fans of the TV series. But notice its conclusion: what starts out seeming to be mystical is really the result of humanity’s own creation, an early space probe.
Similarly, II and III centered upon the universal theme of death and rebirth, one of the most truly mythic elements (in terms of the individual psyche) ever included among its plots. But note that again, Spock’s rebirth was shown as a result of human—and Vulcan—activity; no reality in the universe beyond this was involved. Moreover, it is clear that nobody on the Enterprise sees meaning in myths that postulate such a reality. No dialog refers to religious observances. No chaplain of any faith has ever appeared, even at Spock’s funeral. In short, even apart from the explicit rejection of religion in the fifth movie (see lecture 11), Star Trek does not simply ignore the issue, as one might suppose by watching a few episodes. On the contrary, it assumes humanism to be overwhelmingly predominant in the culture of the Federation. This perhaps is why many people like it.
The most obvious example is provided by the Star Trek phenomenon, which for three decades has been the dominant “global myth,” according to cultural commentator Jeff Greenwald. In his book Future Perfect: How Star Trek Conquered Planet Earth, Greenwald describes that myth as “a wildly optimistic view of humanity's future,” with Earth becoming “truly a global village...Poverty has been eradicated, racism is dead, and nobody breathes secondhand smoke. Money no longer exists, and Earthlings don't squabble or bicker; even organized religion is a thing of the past.” That last point is central to the universe: The program's creator, Gene Roddenberry, was a militant secularist honored by the American Humanist Association for his crusade against religion. Although humanist and global elements of the Star Trek concept were relatively muted in the original program (which ran from 1966-1969) Roddenberry won a small victory for Humanism: He decreed that his fictional starship Enterprise would not have a ship's chaplain.
Star Trek spawned five television series, ten films, hundreds of novels, and a cult-like following reminiscent of Edward Bellamy's “Nationalist” movement. Like Bellamy, Roddenberry networked skillfully, and his creation's success is largely due to his recruitment in the 1960s of influential science fiction writers -- Asimov, Spinrad, Harlan Ellison, and numerous others -- to promote the show as a means of making sci-fi “respectable.” These promotional efforts did much to bring about the “spontaneous” emergence of a devoted core of Star Trek fans, who in turn ensured the program's success as a vehicle for revolutionary ideas.
Edward Bellamy and H.G. Wells would probably approve of the future depicted by Roddenberry (who claimed that many of his ideas came from the elitist Rand Corporation think-tank). Earth, in the futuristic setting of Star Trek is subject to a single world government (Australia, the final holdout, succumbed sometime in the 22nd century) that is a constituent of the “United Federation of Planets,” a galatic body patterned after the UN. In his 1968 book The Making of Star Trek, author Stephen Whitfield noted that Desilu Studios, which produced the original series, wanted the starship featured in it to be an American vessel. Roddenberry insisted that the ship would represent humanity under a global government. “He believed that a peaceful, harmonious, unified earth must be the result of a natural and logical evolution of society, if society is to survive,” observed Whitfield. “This approach expresses the 'message' basic to the series: We must learn to live together or most certainly we will soon all die together,” declared Roddenberry. This missing third alternative, of course, is that humanity can peacefully exist as a world of independent free nations that cooperate through amutually beneficial commerce -- a vision ignored by Roddenberry and other sci-fi globalists.
The Federation is headquarted in San Francisco (the UN's founding city) and boasts an insignia adapted from the familiar UN seal. In all of its incarnations, Star Trek sermonizes about mankind's “wisdom” in creating a global political system to prevent self-immolation through nuclear war. It's reasonable to believe that this familiar staple of UN propaganda has found favor with literally tens of millions worldwide at least in part because of the influence of Star Trek.
Star Trek also persistently promotes the Marxist themse that “capitalism” represents a passing phase in the development of the means of production, destined for obsolescence as human sophistication and knowledge increase. In Star Trek: The Next Generation, a sequal series that ran from 1987-1994, Captain Jean-Luc Picard offered several lectures about the foolishness of capitalism. “We've grown out of our infancy,” Picard sneers at a displaced 20th-century investment broker in one episode. “We have eliminated hunger, want, the need for posessions.” [Editor's note: The man Picard addressed had been cryogenically frozen and was recovered centuries later in Picard's time. Capitalism in this episode was depicted as selfish, ignorant, and greedy.]
In the 1996 theatrical release Star Trek: First Contact, Picard delivers a similar homily to an inhabitant of the 21st century: “The economics of the future are different. Money doesn't exist in the 24th Century...The acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.” Picard never explains that the revolution in human nature that made such a society possible.
Theosophy and Doomsday
Where Star Trek evangelizes on behalf of globalist humanism, the Star Wars films celebrate what could be called a form of cosmic pantheism. Roddenberry populated his God-less fictional universe with a variety of god-like aliens. Star Wars creator George Lucas conjured up a universe devoid of diety, but permeated with a mystical, omnipotent quantity called “The Force,” operating through genetically superior adepts called Jedi Knights.
This sophomoric mysticism owes a great deal to the influence of the Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 to promote the abolition of monotheism (particularly Christianity). Like Wells and Bellamy, Anne Besant, who succeeded Society founder Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, was attatched to the Fabian network. The Theosophist-inspired Lucifer Publishing Company (subsequently re-named the Lucis Trust) is a major fountainhead of the modern New Age movement -- and Lucas' Star Wars films traffice tirelessly in New Age nostrums.
Except for its introduction of “The Force,” the first Star Wars film was little more than a “space western.” The film's all-American hero is named Luke Skywalker -- an intersting choice, given that Theosophical Society founder Blavatsky taught each of her disciples that he should aspire to be a “Walker of the sky.” As the films progress, Skywalker learns that the saga's Lucifer figure -- the fallen Jedi Knight Darth Vader -- is really his father. In the more recent films (The Phantom Menance and Attack of the Clones), Lucas' character Anakin Skywalker, the child who would become Vader, was the result of a virgin birth.
This confounding of roles between Satan and Christ appears derivative of Blavatsky's 1877 book Isis Unveiled, supposedly dictated to the author by a host of “ascended masters.” In that book, Blavatsky declared: “The Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the 'Lord God' are identical.” Lucas' creation, Darth Vader, seems to embody this blasphemous concept. Given the ubiquity of Star Wars, and the seriousness with which it is treated as a “modern myth” (an idea promoted tirelessly by the late Joesph Campbell), it is likely that Lucas' lucrative franchise has dramatically affected the religious and philosophical views of the public at large.
Another familiar sci-fi concept is the eschatological idea than an alien encounter will forever change humanity -- whether in the form of a peaceful contact by supreme beings (e.g. 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Day the Earth Stood Still), an alien invasion [Independence Day, Signs], or a cosmic disaster [the recent CGI attack of The Day After Tomorrow]. Embedded in this concept is the hidden corollary that there will be one voice, such as a world government or a scientific elite, representing a united world; hence the cliche of alien visitors telling humans to “Take us to your leader.”
There are many sci-fi authors, both past and present, who have skillfully used this litarary vehicle to anticipate genuine human progress. Jules Verne's writings describing submarines and lunar exploration were genuinely visionary. Arthur C. Clarke predicted the advent of communication satellites and other commercial adaptations of space science. Both Wells and Robert Heinlein wrote presciently about atomic energy. Scores of other authors have stirred the imagination of the young, whetting within them an appetite to explore the universe.
But among the ideas transmitted through science fiction is the deadly assumption that man can perfect himself through the use of technology and applied science, thereby creating “an unprecedented sort of people” who can excercise total power over others. The political history of the 20th century documents that genocide is the distinctive science of those who rule in the name of that murderous fiction.
Harry Potter 'occult' warning (News Report from the BBC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_1638000/1638887.stm
School bans Harry Potter. (News Report from the BBC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/education/newsid_693000/693779.stm
Buffy Draws Children to Witchcraft. (News Report from the BBC).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_864000/864984.stm
Good grief. What a bunch of cut and paste.
See:
http://www.asiteforthelord.com/sys-tmpl/theimpactofthenam/
http://www.sylviaengdahl.com/space/myth09.htm
etc.
However, I did wade thru it.
Good grief. If you followed everything that was being touted on those websites, you would never read, see a movie, or watch TV outside of the Bible or bible stories.
Thank you Coleus. Appreciate the Scripture refs.
I do NOT observe Halloween. I have not read any of the H.P. books nor have I gone to the movie.
Bookmarking to read later.
Thanks again,
JM
Must we always bash Harry. There are Wiccans but I highly doubt they can use Wingardium Leviosa to make feathers float. Attempting magic is bad and true Wiccan groups lead to Satan. But I doubt they have working spells to make stuff float or unlock locks, etc. It seems like Wiccans are more New Age stuff than Harry Potter spells(though I may be wrong). And people who love the books(me for instance) probably won't be changed by a few posts saying that it is bad.
BTW- Just wondering... Where does the Bible say to not read stuff like Harry Potter? magic isn't nearly as important as the Ten Commandments but there's nothing said about reading about them. Many stories have it(you know; taking God's name in vain, killing, jealousy, working on Sunday, stealing). Are not these much worse than magic? Should all mystery novels, spy novels, most cartoons, etc. not be read either?
P.S.- I wasn't asking it rhetorically. I really would like to know whether it says to not read Harry Potter type stuff. And please don't yell at me ;).
And also what makes Harry Potter special? She(Rowling) is just following traditional folklore. Our own precious fairy tales have kids trying to be burnt alive, toes being cut off to fit a shoe, black magic causing a person to transform to a dragon and another to lay in eternal sleep, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.