Dekker, Twilight, and Me.

[Elrohir]

Yeah, Gandalf is comparable to an angel. They don't do "magic", but they have supernatural powers.

For those who object to witchcraft in HP, you should know that there is nothing in the books that resembles real witchcraft. Some quote a few lines from the second book which are taken out of context and which the author said she only included because she trying to go for realism. Yes, witchcraft is a sin, but it's clear that the author's idea of witchcraft is very different from the way the Bible defines it. Even Charles Colson has said that the magic in HP is fairly innocent. I've even read an article by a person who practices witchcraft saying that he has little hope of HP bringing more kids into it.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that.. Honestly, if it wasn't called magic and some of the names were changed (ie, don't call them curses/charms) I wonder how big of a deal it would be. They're basically just waving wands and saying Latin phrases.. I'm not sure if I'd let my kids read them if they were younger (partially due to the fact that kids, especially younger ones, tend to take things *very* literally), but I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be.

You seem to be forgetting the drawing of blood in order to use various spells, etc. However, I do have one other reason.

Would Jesus want you to read that book?

What Jesus would do is subjective, but what He did do is not. Jesus was clearly familiar with pagan mythology as is evident in his parable of the wheat. Paul also uses elements of pagan tradition to create a bridge to the gospel for his readers. I'm not saying Harry Potter is all good, but it has positive elements to it that can prove valuable if you allow them to. However, I would say that if you are personally convicted to not read the books or support the movies, then it is wrong for you to do so. But to treat it as though it is the source of all evil in the lives of children is a bit much.

BTW, I forgot to address the supposed homosexuality of Dumbledore. First of all, Rowling never states or even implies in the books that he is gay, she only said casually that she's always seen him as such. Now, if all the readers of the book never came to this conclusion, save one, it matters not who that one person is, whether she be the author or not; that person is the one obviously taking something out of context and probably has her own agenda. The end result is the end result, regardless of what the author was thinking. And the end result is that it cannot be inferred by simply reading or studying the books using proper literary analysis that any of the characters are homosexual, and even if they are, there is nothing in it that actually promotes homosexuality.

[Samurai Neil]

Yeah, Gandalf is comparable to an angel. They don't do "magic", but they have supernatural powers.

For those who object to witchcraft in HP, you should know that there is nothing in the books that resembles real witchcraft. Some quote a few lines from the second book which are taken out of context and which the author said she only included because she trying to go for realism. Yes, witchcraft is a sin, but it's clear that the author's idea of witchcraft is very different from the way the Bible defines it. Even Charles Colson has said that the magic in HP is fairly innocent. I've even read an article by a person who practices witchcraft saying that he has little hope of HP bringing more kids into it.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that.. Honestly, if it wasn't called magic and some of the names were changed (ie, don't call them curses/charms) I wonder how big of a deal it would be. They're basically just waving wands and saying Latin phrases.. I'm not sure if I'd let my kids read them if they were younger (partially due to the fact that kids, especially younger ones, tend to take things *very* literally), but I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be.

You seem to be forgetting the drawing of blood in order to use various spells, etc. However, I do have one other reason.

Would Jesus want you to read that book?

What Jesus would do is subjective, but what He did do is not. Jesus was clearly familiar with pagan mythology as is evident in his parable of the wheat. Paul also uses elements of pagan tradition to create a bridge to the gospel for his readers. I'm not saying Harry Potter is all good, but it has positive elements to it that can prove valuable if you allow them to. However, I would say that if you are personally convicted to not read the books or support the movies, then it is wrong for you to do so. But to treat it as though it is the source of all evil in the lives of children is a bit much.

BTW, I forgot to address the supposed homosexuality of Dumbledore. First of all, Rowling never states or even implies in the books that he is gay, she only said casually that she's always seen him as such. Now, if all the readers of the book never came to this conclusion, save one, it matters not who that one person is, whether she be the author or not; that person is the one obviously taking something out of context and probably has her own agenda. The end result is the end result, regardless of what the author was thinking. And the end result is that it cannot be inferred by simply reading or studying the books using proper literary analysis that any of the characters are homosexual, and even if they are, there is nothing in it that actually promotes homosexuality.

My point was not what He would do, but if he appreciates you reading such books, if you do. Can you say that God likes you to, or doesn't mind it?

Jesus is aware of Pagan mythology because he is aware of ALL THINGS. Also, where exactly does he use the said mythology?

As to your second paragraph, I can't argue with seeing as how there is no evidence that he is, save in thought.

[Elrohir]

Yeah, Gandalf is comparable to an angel. They don't do "magic", but they have supernatural powers.

For those who object to witchcraft in HP, you should know that there is nothing in the books that resembles real witchcraft. Some quote a few lines from the second book which are taken out of context and which the author said she only included because she trying to go for realism. Yes, witchcraft is a sin, but it's clear that the author's idea of witchcraft is very different from the way the Bible defines it. Even Charles Colson has said that the magic in HP is fairly innocent. I've even read an article by a person who practices witchcraft saying that he has little hope of HP bringing more kids into it.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that.. Honestly, if it wasn't called magic and some of the names were changed (ie, don't call them curses/charms) I wonder how big of a deal it would be. They're basically just waving wands and saying Latin phrases.. I'm not sure if I'd let my kids read them if they were younger (partially due to the fact that kids, especially younger ones, tend to take things *very* literally), but I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be.

You seem to be forgetting the drawing of blood in order to use various spells, etc. However, I do have one other reason.

Would Jesus want you to read that book?

What Jesus would do is subjective, but what He did do is not. Jesus was clearly familiar with pagan mythology as is evident in his parable of the wheat. Paul also uses elements of pagan tradition to create a bridge to the gospel for his readers. I'm not saying Harry Potter is all good, but it has positive elements to it that can prove valuable if you allow them to. However, I would say that if you are personally convicted to not read the books or support the movies, then it is wrong for you to do so. But to treat it as though it is the source of all evil in the lives of children is a bit much.

BTW, I forgot to address the supposed homosexuality of Dumbledore. First of all, Rowling never states or even implies in the books that he is gay, she only said casually that she's always seen him as such. Now, if all the readers of the book never came to this conclusion, save one, it matters not who that one person is, whether she be the author or not; that person is the one obviously taking something out of context and probably has her own agenda. The end result is the end result, regardless of what the author was thinking. And the end result is that it cannot be inferred by simply reading or studying the books using proper literary analysis that any of the characters are homosexual, and even if they are, there is nothing in it that actually promotes homosexuality.

My point was not what He would do, but if he appreciates you reading such books, if you do. Can you say that God likes you to, or doesn't mind it?

Jesus is aware of Pagan mythology because he is aware of ALL THINGS. Also, where exactly does he use the said mythology?

As to your second paragraph, I can't argue with seeing as how there is no evidence that he is, save in thought.

To answer your first question, yes, I can and I do (Although I have yet to read the books, but I have researched them and watched and enjoyed the movies.)

In John 12 some Greeks had come to Jerusalem for a feast and wished to speak with Him. Jesus responds to their request in verses 23-26. It is most likely that Jesus was referencing the myth of Persephone and Demeter in order to communicate to them a spiritual rebirth. I'll admit it's conjecture (an idea my professor Dr. Louis Markos has proposed), but keep in mind Paul's usage of paganism as well.

[Samurai Neil]

Yeah, Gandalf is comparable to an angel. They don't do "magic", but they have supernatural powers.

For those who object to witchcraft in HP, you should know that there is nothing in the books that resembles real witchcraft. Some quote a few lines from the second book which are taken out of context and which the author said she only included because she trying to go for realism. Yes, witchcraft is a sin, but it's clear that the author's idea of witchcraft is very different from the way the Bible defines it. Even Charles Colson has said that the magic in HP is fairly innocent. I've even read an article by a person who practices witchcraft saying that he has little hope of HP bringing more kids into it.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with you on that.. Honestly, if it wasn't called magic and some of the names were changed (ie, don't call them curses/charms) I wonder how big of a deal it would be. They're basically just waving wands and saying Latin phrases.. I'm not sure if I'd let my kids read them if they were younger (partially due to the fact that kids, especially younger ones, tend to take things *very* literally), but I don't think they're as bad as some people make them out to be.

You seem to be forgetting the drawing of blood in order to use various spells, etc. However, I do have one other reason.

Would Jesus want you to read that book?

What Jesus would do is subjective, but what He did do is not. Jesus was clearly familiar with pagan mythology as is evident in his parable of the wheat. Paul also uses elements of pagan tradition to create a bridge to the gospel for his readers. I'm not saying Harry Potter is all good, but it has positive elements to it that can prove valuable if you allow them to. However, I would say that if you are personally convicted to not read the books or support the movies, then it is wrong for you to do so. But to treat it as though it is the source of all evil in the lives of children is a bit much.

BTW, I forgot to address the supposed homosexuality of Dumbledore. First of all, Rowling never states or even implies in the books that he is gay, she only said casually that she's always seen him as such. Now, if all the readers of the book never came to this conclusion, save one, it matters not who that one person is, whether she be the author or not; that person is the one obviously taking something out of context and probably has her own agenda. The end result is the end result, regardless of what the author was thinking. And the end result is that it cannot be inferred by simply reading or studying the books using proper literary analysis that any of the characters are homosexual, and even if they are, there is nothing in it that actually promotes homosexuality.

My point was not what He would do, but if he appreciates you reading such books, if you do. Can you say that God likes you to, or doesn't mind it?

Jesus is aware of Pagan mythology because he is aware of ALL THINGS. Also, where exactly does he use the said mythology?

As to your second paragraph, I can't argue with seeing as how there is no evidence that he is, save in thought.

To answer your first question, yes, I can and I do (Although I have yet to read the books, but I have researched them and watched and enjoyed the movies.)

In John 12 some Greeks had come to Jerusalem for a feast and wished to speak with Him. Jesus responds to their request in verses 23-26. It is most likely that Jesus was referencing the myth of Persephone and Demeter in order to communicate to them a spiritual rebirth. I'll admit it's conjecture (an idea my professor Dr. Louis Markos has proposed), but keep in mind Paul's usage of paganism as well.

If I recall correctly both Jesus and Paul use references from the documents of ancient scholars, NOT ancient mythology.

[J-man]

The only drawing of blood I can remember is when Voldemort returns. Yeah, he's the bad guy. He does dark magic and horrible stuff like that. The books even say that what he does is bad and shouldn't be done. Actually there is another I can think of where blood is drawn, when Harry and Dumbledore go to the cave. Dumbledore uses blood as a key to open a door, a door created by Voldemort. Again, it all comes back to Voldemort, the evil dark wizard who does bad stuff. It's not like they say the drawing of blood is good.. O_o

Also, are you advocating reading only books that don't have bad things in them? I hate to say it, but there are very few books that don't have something objectionable to God in them. I mean, come on, the Bible is far more violent than a lot of what I've read.

[TigerintheShadows]

The only drawing of blood I can remember is when Voldemort returns. Yeah, he's the bad guy. He does dark magic and horrible stuff like that. The books even say that what he does is bad and shouldn't be done. Actually there is another I can think of where blood is drawn, when Harry and Dumbledore go to the cave. Dumbledore uses blood as a key to open a door, a door created by Voldemort. Again, it all comes back to Voldemort, the evil dark wizard who does bad stuff. It's not like they say the drawing of blood is good.. O_o

Also, are you advocating reading only books that don't have bad things in them? I hate to say it, but there are very few books that don't have something objectionable to God in them. I mean, come on, the Bible is far more violent than a lot of what I've read.

Really, there's a certain age when kids can read those books. Kids who are in, say, the first or second grade (or younger) probably shouldn't read them--partly because of an educational incapacity (the word ostentatiously is used at least one--Half-Blood-Prince--and I know no one in first grade who knows the meaning of that word) and partly because, as mentioned earlier, kids at that age tend to take things to a quite literal extent. Kids, however, who are a bit older and have grown out of that mad literalist stage could probably read them.

And you can't really protect a person from bad or objectionable things forever (I mean, come on, I was cussed out once or twice in fifth grade and flicked off more than once in the sixth--neither of which had anything to do with me, mind you). You have to understand that the Bible is one of those few books--that is appropriate and enjoyable for all ages--that is completely clean, other than somewhat explicit violence.

And J-man is right; the drawing of blood for magic is only used for the dark and the evil and the not-a-good-idea in the Harry Potter universe. The use of blood for magic is clearly defined as a bad thing, and, like in our world, being your average all-around murderous Regis-like jerk is generally frowned upon.

[Elrohir]

If I recall correctly both Jesus and Paul use references from the documents of ancient scholars, NOT ancient mythology.

Source? First of all, that in no way responds to what I said. Exactly which references are you talking about? Which ancient scholars? What about Acts 17? Paul was clearly well-read in their mythology. In verses 26-28 Paul quotes the lines "for we are also his offspring" and "in him we live and move and have our being" from two pagan poets: Aratus and Epimenides, respectively. Peter also uses Tartarus as a synonym for the deepest part of Hell.

[TigerintheShadows]

If I recall correctly both Jesus and Paul use references from the documents of ancient scholars, NOT ancient mythology.

Source? First of all, that in no way responds to what I said. Exactly which references are you talking about? Which ancient scholars? What about Acts 17? Paul was clearly well-read in their mythology. In verses 26-28 Paul quotes the lines "for we are also his offspring" and "in him we live and move and have our being" from two pagan poets: Aratus and Epimenides, respectively. Peter also uses Tartarus as a synonym for the deepest part of Hell.

This may not have too much to do with this, but I also recall Acts 16, in which Paul casts a spirit of divination (or, in literal Greek translation, Python) out of a slave girl, who was thought to be one of the Pythias from the Oracle at Delphi. I'm guessing that the others of Paul's band of Christian merry men (without the thievery) were also well read in said mythology, as Luke (who also wrote Acts) was with them at the time and seems to suggest that the powers associated with the Oracle were demonic rather than induced by narchotic vapors.

You could also, of course, take Paul's irritation with this slave girl over the things she was saying as his knowledge of the Greeks and their mythology, as he was well aware that the town in which they were staying--refresh my memory on the name, someone, please!--was woefully ignorant of the Gospel and its teachings. I'm not saying he didn't know that she was possessed (he must have; it seems illogical that she would say something along the lines of "These men are servants of the most high god (lowercase because of what "most high god" meant to this girl) who proclaim to you a way of salvation" otherwise), but I'm saying that he most likely knew exactly what the term "most high god" meant to her.

And good point on the whole Acts 17 thing; I'm going to have to read that one again...

[Samurai Neil]

If I recall correctly both Jesus and Paul use references from the documents of ancient scholars, NOT ancient mythology.

Source? First of all, that in no way responds to what I said. Exactly which references are you talking about? Which ancient scholars? What about Acts 17? Paul was clearly well-read in their mythology. In verses 26-28 Paul quotes the lines "for we are also his offspring" and "in him we live and move and have our being" from two pagan poets: Aratus and Epimenides, respectively. Peter also uses Tartarus as a synonym for the deepest part of Hell.

This may not have too much to do with this, but I also recall Acts 16, in which Paul casts a spirit of divination (or, in literal Greek translation, Python) out of a slave girl, who was thought to be one of the Pythias from the Oracle at Delphi. I'm guessing that the others of Paul's band of Christian merry men (without the thievery) were also well read in said mythology, as Luke (who also wrote Acts) was with them at the time and seems to suggest that the powers associated with the Oracle were demonic rather than induced by narchotic vapors.

You could also, of course, take Paul's irritation with this slave girl over the things she was saying as his knowledge of the Greeks and their mythology, as he was well aware that the town in which they were staying--refresh my memory on the name, someone, please!--was woefully ignorant of the Gospel and its teachings. I'm not saying he didn't know that she was possessed (he must have; it seems illogical that she would say something along the lines of "These men are servants of the most high god (lowercase because of what "most high god" meant to this girl) who proclaim to you a way of salvation" otherwise), but I'm saying that he most likely knew exactly what the term "most high god" meant to her.

And good point on the whole Acts 17 thing; I'm going to have to read that one again...

If I recall correctly Paul quoted Aratus and Epimenides from scholarly documents, not mythologies. Also, perhaps the word Tartarus is used in your translation, but the word used in mine is Hades, a common expression of the times.

Also, I fail to see the connection you are trying to draw between Paul's knowledge of demons, and Greek mythology.

[Elrohir]

Also, perhaps the word Tartarus is used in your translation, but the word used in mine is Hades, a common expression of the times.

Also, I fail to see the connection you are trying to draw between Paul's knowledge of demons, and Greek mythology.

Most translations translate the word Tartarus as Hell or Hades, even though the term Gehenna is the word for Hell, and Sheol for Hades (and vise versa since they are synonymous). But the actual word used in 2 Peter is Tartarus.

The point I am trying to make is not that we should spend all our time reading pagan things, but that we cannot ignore the culture we live in. We should be aware of it, and separate from it (Holy), but we must be able to connect with the unbelieving world in a way they can identify with. That doesn't mean we dilute the gospel, but we figure out what spiritual truths they are aware of and already identify with and draw from that. But we cannot do that if we completely cut ourselves off the rest of the world.

For example, in the most recent Harry Potter movie, Dumbledore's opening speech to Hogwart's is surprisingly deep and morally profound. He references the Dark Lord and his Death Eaters trying to break into the school, and then reminds the students that there was once a boy, just like them who walked the halls and had aspirations of becoming a great wizard. His name was Tom Riddle, now known as Lord Voldemort. The point he makes is that no one wakes up one day and decides to be evil. They already are, and it's just as evident in the small choices you make. "Every day, every hour, this very minute, perhaps, dark forces attempt to penetrate this castle's walls. But in the end, their greatest weapon... is you." That is a great bridge to start sharing the gospel with someone who's really into Harry Potter, but you'd never know to do it if you didn't see the movie. (Now, if you have a personal conviction not to see the movie, that's fine. You can't justify sinning by having it lead to a good work.)

[TigerintheShadows]

Thank you, Elrohir!

Of course, there is the fact that Lord Voldemort and Satan have a HUGE difference--Satan, I think, was evil from the start, and Lord Voldemort wasn't always so, but still, excellent point.

Really, though, aside from the fact that Harry and buds are ultimately good (albeit not perfect) and ol' Voltmeter and buds are ultimately evil, there's not much else one can do to use the books as a witnessing tool.

"Hello. Tiger? Have you lost it? Remember, like, the third to last chapter of DH? You know...major plot device? Yeah."

True. But Harry and Jesus are nowhere NEAR the same. Jesus was PERFECT. Completely. And Harry...well, Harry wasn't. He's really brash, arrogant, and often he thinks the best way to go is his own way. He also ends up using the Unforgivable Curses, which, to be honest, I think Rowling could have left out.

Now, I'm not saying in ANY WAY that it is impossible to use the books to bridge over to witnessing. I'm saying, though, that it takes careful analysis of both topics to do so (and if you're talking to a fangirl, well, you may or may not have to have a lot of patience).

I think, though, that we might be getting slightly off-topic here. WHO WANTS SOME TWILIGHT BASHING AWESOME?

Just kidding. -winces as post gets mobbed by rabid fangirls-

We're going to have mature, Twilight-critiquing-awesome. XD

[Samurai Neil]

Elrohir: I believe that the term Sheol originated long before the term Hades, I do not know for sure. My feeling toward books that display such admirable points while stilling containing much that is false is this: if it fails to glorify God, or intends to glorify something else, then for what purpose do we read it? We must remember that every object in the world has only three sources: God (who is perfect); Satan (who is wholly evil); and Mankind (who are basically evil, incapable of good unless moved by God). Since the intent of Harry Potter IS NOT the glorification of God, it's source IS NOT God. Therefor it originates from fallen Man, or fallen Angel. In either case Harry Potter is very dangerous.

Tiger: I really don't feel like bashing anything right now, I'm already in trouble for saying what I have! But, I wonder what difference you make between Twilight and Harry Potter. Explain to me the differences you see.

[Lord Sesshoumaru]

Samurai Neil, do you read the news paper? That's one example of something that most people read that I would say doesn't always glorify God. So should we avoid the news in any form weather it be the paper or on TV or radio?

and thats just something that comes to mind

[Elrohir]

Yes, I'm pretty sure Sheol originated before Hades (Hades being the Greek word for Sheol), but I don't see what that has to do with anything. The two are interchangeable/they mean the same thing.

Samurai Neil, it seems you subscribe to the total depravity view. But that's like saying that you should close your ears every time an unbeliever speaks. Jesus certainly didn't.

Remember that Man is fallen, but still made in God's image. Just because it was not committed for the purpose of glorifying God doesn't mean it can't. Remember that God hardened Pharaoh's heart for the purpose of His glory. And the sins committed by Joseph's brothers were used for the glory of God in the end. BTW, even Satan is not wholly evil. He is certainly extremely evil. But if he has no good in him he would have no life (since life is good) and thus couldn't exist.

[TigerintheShadows]

Well, now, Samauri, I'm glad you asked. -delivers bad sales pitch-

By the way, something tells me that the mods just might notice the top of your post.

Anyway (as I have already mentioned on the Twilight thread I myself started), it seems to me that the main difference between Harry Potter and Twilight is because in Harry Potter, there is a HUGE AND OPAQUE line between fantasy and reality. In Potter, you can tell that the situations in Harry Potter wouldn't ever happen in real life. While there are raging hormones, friend wars, and the general trials of everyday boarding school life, you can pretty much tell that the magic whatever can't ever happen in real life, no matter how hard you try and make it so.

Twilight, however, is a completely different matter altogether. While there's no such thing as vampires or werewolves or some irritating, problem causing higher government power (we have Joe Biden and Congress for that), there is such a thing as a girl caring completely about romance. There's nothing else. And when it's not romance, it's "This town sux. Srsly." The whole thing is gloom-gloom-romance-romance-romance-romance-and-a-little-more-romance-gloom-teensy-tiny-bits-of-action-romance-romance-romance-gloom-gloom-romance-romance-romance-romance-romance-romance (I'm beginning to wonder if I've even spelled the word right ). She even informs him that "If you stay, I don't need heaven."

Most of the people who read these novels are EXTREMELY impressionable adolescent girls. These impressionable teenagers will probably think that they can marry very young (or, even worse, not marry) and have sex quickly and get pregnant and everything will work out beautifully all because it happens to Bella.

"Aw, c'mon, Tiger. You're just joshing us. That won't happen."

I wish I were joshing ya'll (I'm Southern Baptist, and yet I live up North ). But I'm not joshing. A lot of teenage girls (and even some guys) are very impressionable, as has been stated, and no one knows better than we do ourselves. I was a teenager once. I am also female. I understand what life at that age is like.

Besides, as I have already stated before, Harry Potter's just written better.

[Lord Sesshoumaru]

from the sounds of it tiger you're saying the same kind of thing said about HP earlier in this thread, it's not for younger readers.

[TigerintheShadows]

I'm saying that it's really not appropriate for older readers, either--at least, not the Christian ones. Malachi 2:15 mentions to "guard your heart and your spirit." It is speaking of adultery here, but this passage is still relevant to the subject--look at the very last line of my signature and you'll understand what I mean. I'm not saying that no one should read anything but things that come from a Christian source, but the things we listen to, watch, and read are very important--even the least impressionable people are still impressionable.

[Elrohir]

I'm saying that it's really not appropriate for older readers, either--at least, not the Christian ones. Malachi 2:15 mentions to "guard your heart and your spirit." It is speaking of adultery here, but this passage is still relevant to the subject--look at the very last line of my signature and you'll understand what I mean. I'm not saying that no one should read anything but things that come from a Christian source, but the things we listen to, watch, and read are very important--even the least impressionable people are still impressionable.

But exactly what is it impressing upon me? I have never felt even the remotest inclination to practice anything sinful from watching Harry Potter. You're argument is based on the assumption that Harry Potter is filled with questionable material. Would you care to point out what such material is that hasn't already been rebutted in this thread?

BTW, I do follow that basic rule of thumb. I am extremely hesitant towards seeing movies. Harry Potter is in fact one of the few that I'm very comfortable with.

[jasonjannajerryjohn]

You do realize that JKR (author of the Harry Potter books) purposly put Christian themes and parallels into the Harry Potter books?

Off topic since this is a debate, I saw like a nine year old girl wearing a Twilight shirt. It was funny.

[TigerintheShadows]

You do realize that JKR (author of the Harry Potter books) purposly put Christian themes and parallels into the Harry Potter books?

Off topic since this is a debate, I saw like a nine year old girl wearing a Twilight shirt. It was funny.

Oh, my gracious...that is funny...

And yeah, I know. But considering that the majority of these parallels are buried reeeeeeally down deep, I'd say that it's almost irrelevant.

And to answer you, Elrohir, other than the fact that it is explicitly mentioned as witchcraft being what people are practicing (and people who can't recognize the fact that yes, this is fiction are going to draw the conclusion that it's okay to practice it), but what nobody seems to recall is the use of the terms "d***" and "bloody h***" being peppered throughout the books early on (the terms "b******" and "b****" are used more than once or twice as well).

"Okay, so what? Everyone's probably heard all those words by the time they're, what, fifteen?"

What about the fact that you never, ever, ever hear the terms being used in the books by Death Eaters? I mean, sure, you'll hear the occasional swear--REALLY occasional--but even when god ol' Voltmeter is included, I only remember one Death Eater--Snape--using the term d*** in Goblet of Fire. And since Snape's really a good guy, and you only ever really hear Harry, Ron, and the other members of the Order of the Phoenix say it, even when around Death Eaters for a prolonged period of time (i.e. The Battle of Hogwarts), you have to wonder if you really need to fill up your mind with this--it's like, "Is this what we want our heroes to become?"

Some people who read these books walk away unaffected. That's fine. Great, in fact. But note that I say some. Not everybody can read Harry Potter and walk away without certain things.