Dekker, Twilight, and Me.

[Samurai Neil]

I thought I would spill my guts on the floor about Fantasy and stuff so that everyone can stone me. Actually, I just wanted to spark a HEALTHY conversation.

So, let's start with Ted Dekker. Ted Dekker is overrated. People rant and rave about his genius. I don't see it. Why do people get pleasure about his sort of Psychological Horror? Why do people take pleasure in reading about that sort of violence? While I do sometimes see a message in his works, I see more mindless enjoyment of action and horror. What drives his work? Is his agenda the glorification of God? I think not. Moreover, his works (Specifically the Circle Trilogy and its various spinoffs.) inspire young woman with thoughts of romance and violence long before they should be thinking about such things.

Next up, Twilight. Now, I haven't read it, but I can't think very highly of it. It gets you woman all excited with thoughts of romance and fantastical dark young men. Violence, Werewolves, and rather inappropriate content as far as romantic material goes.

Now we'll have a chat about Harry Potter. http://www.independentchristianfilms.co ... -07-24.asp That article pretty much tells you all my views about that subject, in detail.

Now, for my personal favorite topic, The Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings.

Based on the article you just read about Harry Potter, perhaps you are curious about how I justify my love for LoTR. But lets look at things in detail. Harry Potter fans often call LoTR fans hypocrites for saying that Harry Potter is bad because if has witchcraft. They put up Gandalf as an example of LoTR containing such magic. But here's the different. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Unfinished Tales" Reveals that Gandalf is in fact an Ainur called Olorin. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Silmarillion" reveals that Ainur (including Olorin) are in fact angelic beings created by Iluvatar and given power over the physical world. Thus, Gandalf in fact does not practice magic, but uses the power of God. This only increases my love for LoTR.

Well, you can stone me, endorse me, or whatever, there it is.

[TigerintheShadows]

Based on the article you just read about Harry Potter, perhaps you are curious about how I justify my love for LoTR. But lets look at things in detail. Harry Potter fans often call LoTR fans hypocrites for saying that Harry Potter is bad because if has witchcraft. They put up Gandalf as an example of LoTR containing such magic. But here's the different. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Unfinished Tales" Reveals that Gandalf is in fact an Ainur called Olorin. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Silmarillion" reveals that Ainur (including Olorin) are in fact angelic beings created by Iluvatar and given power over the physical world. Thus, Gandalf in fact does not practice magic, but uses the power of God. This only increases my love for LoTR.

Well, you can stone me, endorse me, or whatever, there it is.

Actually, you do drive home a very good point there. I think most Harry Potter fans look before they read--meaning that they watch the movies before they read the books, or they never get around to reading the books at all.

I have read all seven Harry Potter books. I loved them. There could be a little less cursing, granted, and the whole witchcraft thing isn't what I call fantabulous, either. BUT they also seem to have (to a certain extent) Christian morals and theories in them. For example: Harry dies because he is willing to sacrifice himself for the Wizarding World and then comes back to life to defeat death (one of the translations of Voldemort's name is "representative of death"). And another is simply the ultimate victory of good over evil, as we, as Christians, know who's truly going to win.

Now, will I say that this is a Christian book series? NO! Absolutely not! To say that, I'd have to be a really stupid person, either that or on drugs, of which I am neither (the latter CERTAINLY not). However, it has certain connotations to it that aren't all inherently bad.

Now we head into more difficult territory--Dumbledore's gayness. If anything, that might have helped something. I've heard of some churches who use those books as examples or something of the like. This would be another reason not to. Even though I in NO WAY support gay marriage or homosexuality at all (one of the HUGE reasons why I supported McCain and not Obama), I'm glad there are more reasons why these books should not be used in churches as a comparison. They're not Christian, and that's that.

They're better than Twilight, though; that's a plus.

[Samurai Neil]

Based on the article you just read about Harry Potter, perhaps you are curious about how I justify my love for LoTR. But lets look at things in detail. Harry Potter fans often call LoTR fans hypocrites for saying that Harry Potter is bad because if has witchcraft. They put up Gandalf as an example of LoTR containing such magic. But here's the different. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Unfinished Tales" Reveals that Gandalf is in fact an Ainur called Olorin. The posthumous work of Tolkien called "The Silmarillion" reveals that Ainur (including Olorin) are in fact angelic beings created by Iluvatar and given power over the physical world. Thus, Gandalf in fact does not practice magic, but uses the power of God. This only increases my love for LoTR.

Well, you can stone me, endorse me, or whatever, there it is.

Actually, you do drive home a very good point there. I think most Harry Potter fans look before they read--meaning that they watch the movies before they read the books, or they never get around to reading the books at all.

I have read all seven Harry Potter books. I loved them. There could be a little less cursing, granted, and the whole witchcraft thing isn't what I call fantabulous, either. BUT they also seem to have (to a certain extent) Christian morals and theories in them. For example: Harry dies because he is willing to sacrifice himself for the Wizarding World and then comes back to life to defeat death (one of the translations of Voldemort's name is "representative of death"). And another is simply the ultimate victory of good over evil, as we, as Christians, know who's truly going to win.

Now, will I say that this is a Christian book series? NO! Absolutely not! To say that, I'd have to be a really stupid person, either that or on drugs, of which I am neither (the latter CERTAINLY not). However, it has certain connotations to it that aren't all inherently bad.

Now we head into more difficult territory--Dumbledore's gayness. If anything, that might have helped something. I've heard of some churches who use those books as examples or something of the like. This would be another reason not to. Even though I in NO WAY support gay marriage or homosexuality at all (one of the HUGE reasons why I supported McCain and not Obama), I'm glad there are more reasons why these books should not be used in churches as a comparison. They're not Christian, and that's that.

They're better than Twilight, though; that's a plus.

Well, since that may be the very case, everyone can apply what I said to the movies as well as the books.

I guess, in essence you are justifying the bad elements using the good elements. However, it has been said rightly that a lie with truth in it is still a lie, it's just easier to believe. So I would say, I bad book with some good stuff in it is still bad, it just seems less bad than it is. I call as an example the new Transformers movie. It has some good stuff in it. Multiple character lay down their lives in order to preserve the life of a friend. The bible calls that the greatest sacrifice of all. And yet it contains things so perverse, so evil. Do you justify that movie because it's sexual content is somehow counteracted by the good content? Remember that we are told that the sin of Witchcraft is as the sin of adultery, which is as much as to say that Witchcraft is equal to sexual perversion.

As to what you have said about Dumbledore, I agree mostly, these books are not Christian, and they are good.

Better than Twilight? I don't think so. More like equally evil.

[Sherlock]

So, I can see why a Christian would be inclined to avoid books like the Harry Potter series and/or the Twilight series, but, under this standard, it seems rather inconsistent to approve of Tolkien's series.

Unlike his counterpart Lewis, Tolkien indicated numerous times that the Lord of the Rings series was not intended as Christian allegory. Though one can certainly draw the parallels if they wish, I don't really see this as being any different than inferring Christian themes from Harry Potter. The only real difference might be found in the quantity of Christian-appearing themes in each.

Regarding The Silmarillion,, while there's certainly a monotheistic theme running through it, that doesn't make it Christian. Again, I think Tolkien intended to create a distinct "fantasy" and drew on his theological knowledge to help paint the picture. Is this a reason to justify The Silmarillion over Harry Potter? Perhaps in terms of quality in writing, sure, but that's about it.

(NB: I chose only to compare Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings/The Silmarillion since I really wouldn't put the Twilight series in the same category either in terms of justifiability or quality. )

[Samurai Neil]

I don't avoid any of the aforementioned books because of "non-Christian 'mystical' elements", I avoid them because of out right violations of God's Law as stated in the New Testament. You have not shown any violations of God's Law to be contained within the Silmarillion. I have shown such violations to exist in the Harry Potter series. Therefore your statement that the only difference between these books is the amount of Christians themes that may be inferred from them is not true. I can draw such themes from the Silmarillion. I cannot draw such themes from a book that directly violates God's Law.

[Sherlock]

You have not shown any violations of God's Law to be contained within the Silmarillion. I have shown such violations to exist in the Harry Potter series.

Well, The Silmarillion deals with the worship of false religions/deities for one. The God of Tolkien's work is not the Christian God, nor are the Valar (who are seen by the lesser beings as "godlike") of Christian origin either. Mystical elements are used throughout the book both in the context of the deity Iluvatar's creating the universe but also by the Valar, the elves and other created beings. All the creatures in The Silmarillion, absent those "fallen", participate in the worship of a false God and, to some extent, the veneration of lesser-godlike creatures (the Valar).

So, essentially, The Silmarillion involves repeated blatant violations of the the First Commandment. And though Christians have an easier time drawing Christian themes out of this book, I don't think that's going to justify reading it if you want to hold the standard of avoiding any and all books that involve the violation of God's law.

NB: Though the book involves several other "commandment violations", its violation is arguably the only one that would be considered "acceptable" by the book's standards.

[Samurai Neil]

You have not shown any violations of God's Law to be contained within the Silmarillion. I have shown such violations to exist in the Harry Potter series.

Well, The Silmarillion deals with the worship of false religions/deities for one. The God of Tolkien's work is not the Christian God, nor are the Valar (who are seen by the lesser beings as "godlike") of Christian origin either. Mystical elements are used throughout the book both in the context of the deity Iluvatar's creating the universe but also by the Valar, the elves and other created beings. All the creatures in The Silmarillion, absent those "fallen", participate in the worship of a false God and, to some extent, the veneration of lesser-godlike creatures (the Valar).

So, essentially, The Silmarillion involves repeated blatant violations of the the First Commandment. And though Christians have an easier time drawing Christian themes out of this book, I don't think that's going to justify reading it if you want to hold the standard of avoiding any and all books that involve the violation of God's law.

NB: Though the book involves several other "commandment violations", its violation is arguably the only one that would be considered "acceptable" by the book's standards.

First off, Men are considered lesser partly because of their worship toward the lesser beings.

The Valar do not have the position of God, instead the rather act as his agents, often calling on Iluvatar's aid when a task is beyond them.

Finally, while Tolkien made it clear he did not write allegory, it's possible Iluvatar meant more to him than that. Iluvatar often seems to me to not represent God in Tolkiens mind, but to actually BE him, in a fictional world. C.S. Lewis did much the same thing, as have others.

As to the other 'violations' they are indeed portrayed as wrong in the stories.

Quick question, are you defending Harry Potter or am I defending Tolkien. I can't figure it out.

[Termite]

So, let's start with Ted Dekker. Ted Dekker is overrated(1). People rant and rave about his genius. I don't see it. Why do people get pleasure about his sort of Psychological Horror?(2) Why do people take pleasure in reading about that sort of violence?(3) While I do sometimes see a message in his works, I see more mindless enjoyment of action and horror. What drives his work?(4) Is his agenda the glorification of God?(5) I think not. Moreover, his works (Specifically the Circle Trilogy and its various spinoffs.) inspire young woman with thoughts of romance and violence long before they should be thinking about such things.(6)

1: Ted Dekker is only overrated to people who don't have his taste in writing. If you liked his style of writing, you probably would "overrate" him as well.

2: Because through the psychological horror, the characters learn their own weaknesses in their own strength,

3: Because I, personally, enjoy seeing people find the road to redemption when they've had screwed up lives.

4: Love. There was a really good blog about it (posted by him) linked from the website. (don't know if I could find it now.. they revamped the site and I can't find anything. )

5: Honestly, have you read between the lines? Yes, he intends to glorify God through his works. Perhaps, since you don't seem to like him(his writing, might be better?), you haven't looked hard enough.

6: The world in the Circle Series is unspoiled in the beginning. God remade the earth in a second attempt to have a perfect relationship with man. Again, sin entered, and Justin, who was Elyon, sacrificed himself so the people could re-find The Great Romance- their love relationship with Elyon. The only difference, the people had to drown - literally die to themselves. Those that chose to reject Elyon became diseased.

The whole theme in the Circle Series is love. That's why it has "circle" in its title. Because of the love that Elyon(God) and his people share, the people are able to love each other in a pure way. It's an unending circle.

Are you a young woman to know how we think? No. Not everyone is going to be swayed by these books. In fact, I would say you wouldn't find too many non-Christian young women to be reading them, especially as Thomas figures out who Elyon is in our world as it is now, and directly ties the Bible into the Books of History they have in the dream world. Hopefully Christian young women would know better than to be swayed by them, especially since the "romance and violence" are done in a pure way.

[Samurai Neil]

So, let's start with Ted Dekker. Ted Dekker is overrated(1). People rant and rave about his genius. I don't see it. Why do people get pleasure about his sort of Psychological Horror?(2) Why do people take pleasure in reading about that sort of violence?(3) While I do sometimes see a message in his works, I see more mindless enjoyment of action and horror. What drives his work?(4) Is his agenda the glorification of God?(5) I think not. Moreover, his works (Specifically the Circle Trilogy and its various spinoffs.) inspire young woman with thoughts of romance and violence long before they should be thinking about such things.(6)

1: Ted Dekker is only overrated to people who don't have his taste in writing. If you liked his style of writing, you probably would "overrate" him as well.

2: Because through the psychological horror, the characters learn their own weaknesses in their own strength,

3: Because I, personally, enjoy seeing people find the road to redemption when they've had screwed up lives.

4: Love. There was a really good blog about it (posted by him) linked from the website. (don't know if I could find it now.. they revamped the site and I can't find anything. )

5: Honestly, have you read between the lines? Yes, he intends to glorify God through his works. Perhaps, since you don't seem to like him(his writing, might be better?), you haven't looked hard enough.

6: The world in the Circle Series is unspoiled in the beginning. God remade the earth in a second attempt to have a perfect relationship with man. Again, sin entered, and Justin, who was Elyon, sacrificed himself so the people could re-find The Great Romance- their love relationship with Elyon. The only difference, the people had to drown - literally die to themselves. Those that chose to reject Elyon became diseased.

The whole theme in the Circle Series is love. That's why it has "circle" in its title. Because of the love that Elyon(God) and his people share, the people are able to love each other in a pure way. It's an unending circle.

Are you a young woman to know how we think? No. Not everyone is going to be swayed by these books. In fact, I would say you wouldn't find too many non-Christian young women to be reading them, especially as Thomas figures out who Elyon is in our world as it is now, and directly ties the Bible into the Books of History they have in the dream world. Hopefully Christian young women would know better than to be swayed by them, especially since the "romance and violence" are done in a pure way.

Honestly, I used to be infatuated with the Circle Trilogy. It was some dark slightly sexual content in the second book that began my initially confused feelings about it. When I finished the last book I went on the read a book of Dekker that was called "Tears of Heaven" if I remember correctly that had more content of a similar nature. That is my first and main problem with the series, but I was reluctant to speak about in this setting.

Secondly, I don't need to be a girl, I've interacted with enough of them to know how they usually work. The young woman who physically fight in the spinoff series tend to inspire such thoughts in real young woman. I'm a conservative theologically, and don't really appreciate a series which place casts woman into the roll of warrior.

[Sherlock]

Quick question, are you defending Harry Potter or am I defending Tolkien. I can't figure it out.

My only point in this whole exchange was to point out that it seems pretty inconsistent to shun Harry Potter while endorsing Tolkien's work in the same breath.

Neither are Christian fiction, so I am often perplexed by those who are able to shun all non-Christian literature but somehow make an exception for Tolkien. I don't honestly see why his work should get a special exception since, technically, it's no more "Christian" than Harry Potter. Now, if you want to argue that it has better literary quality or endorses some positive moral themes, that's great - but none of those things make it Christian literature.

As for Tolkien's intentions, I can't read his mind and since he said that he didn't intend the books to be allegorical, I'm assuming that he didn't intend for the books to be allegorical, Iluvatar or not.

[Samurai Neil]

Thanks for the clarification Sherlock. I understand your concern. However, I am not one of those people who shun all non-Christian work. There are several non-Christian works I approve of, most notable Hart's War and Tokien's Works.

I wasn't saying that Iluvatar is allegorical, I was saying that he's God in a fictional world, just as God could be found in a historical fiction book.

[Termite]

So, let's start with Ted Dekker. Ted Dekker is overrated(1). People rant and rave about his genius. I don't see it. Why do people get pleasure about his sort of Psychological Horror?(2) Why do people take pleasure in reading about that sort of violence?(3) While I do sometimes see a message in his works, I see more mindless enjoyment of action and horror. What drives his work?(4) Is his agenda the glorification of God?(5) I think not. Moreover, his works (Specifically the Circle Trilogy and its various spinoffs.) inspire young woman with thoughts of romance and violence long before they should be thinking about such things.(6)

1: Ted Dekker is only overrated to people who don't have his taste in writing. If you liked his style of writing, you probably would "overrate" him as well.

2: Because through the psychological horror, the characters learn their own weaknesses in their own strength,

3: Because I, personally, enjoy seeing people find the road to redemption when they've had screwed up lives.

4: Love. There was a really good blog about it (posted by him) linked from the website. (don't know if I could find it now.. they revamped the site and I can't find anything. )

5: Honestly, have you read between the lines? Yes, he intends to glorify God through his works. Perhaps, since you don't seem to like him(his writing, might be better?), you haven't looked hard enough.

6: The world in the Circle Series is unspoiled in the beginning. God remade the earth in a second attempt to have a perfect relationship with man. Again, sin entered, and Justin, who was Elyon, sacrificed himself so the people could re-find The Great Romance- their love relationship with Elyon. The only difference, the people had to drown - literally die to themselves. Those that chose to reject Elyon became diseased.

The whole theme in the Circle Series is love. That's why it has "circle" in its title. Because of the love that Elyon(God) and his people share, the people are able to love each other in a pure way. It's an unending circle.

Are you a young woman to know how we think? No. Not everyone is going to be swayed by these books. In fact, I would say you wouldn't find too many non-Christian young women to be reading them, especially as Thomas figures out who Elyon is in our world as it is now, and directly ties the Bible into the Books of History they have in the dream world. Hopefully Christian young women would know better than to be swayed by them, especially since the "romance and violence" are done in a pure way.

Honestly, I used to be infatuated with the Circle Trilogy. It was some dark slightly sexual content in the second book that began my initially confused feelings about it. When I finished the last book I went on the read a book of Dekker that was called "Tears of Heaven" if I remember correctly that had more content of a similar nature. That is my first and main problem with the series, but I was reluctant to speak about in this setting.

Secondly, I don't need to be a girl, I've interacted with enough of them to know how they usually work. The young woman who physically fight in the spinoff series tend to inspire such thoughts in real young woman*. I'm a conservative theologically, and don't really appreciate a series which place casts woman into the roll of warrior.

"When Heaven Weeps", I think you mean.

The reason I don't mind the "slight sexual content" is because Ted Dekker condemns it. It's a problem the character(s) have, and they know it. Heather, I think her name is, knows that going back to meet with her old boyfriend while she's married is wrong. She gets released from the addiction of that and drugs after learning what love really is, and finding Jesus as her savior. I don't know what you mean by sexual content in the Circle Series, though. Thomas and Rachelle? If not, you can PM me it if you don't feel comfortable posting.

So, because I've grown up around guys means I'm qualified to know how they usually work? Not necessarily. Frankly, I doubt you could figure out how I usually work. Or any other girls I know. Girls are very spontaneous. But that's off-topic.

Well, since that is your own personal belief, I can understand why you would feel like that. *But again, you don't know that for sure. Nearly all teenage girls are disgusted by blood and other things like that. I would know- I'm a girl, for one thing, and normally spend my spare time in their company. It takes a strong person to actually want to fight, male or female. So stereotyping all girls into one thought process won't work.

[The Top Crusader]

I like Dekker but I do think he is overrated. He has two stories that he keeps re-writing basically, and then throws in something original once in a while that is actually pretty interesting and cool. But everything else, you only need to read one of five of his books and you can skip the others.

I went to his forum a while back and its just frightening how obsessive some of the posters there are... I mean, yeah, its his forum, you'd expect them to be fans, but hey are practically worshipping the guy/his work. Overzealous fanbases tend to turn me off.

I recall occasionally thinking "Hmm. Don't usually see that in a 'Christian' novel'" from time to time when reading his work--but nothing really offensive or over the line comes to mind.

[Elrohir]

I do think Dekker is overrated, but I've never found anything objectionable in his books. And the Circle Trilogy is definitely made with a Christian purpose.

I've never read nor seen Twilight, but I've heard it said that it's just a convenient transition into Vampire porn novels.

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.

As for Tolkien, remember that when Tolkien and Lewis said their worlds are not allegories, they were speaking as literature professors. In other words they took the word allegory for its strictest meaning: Pilgrim's Progress is an allegory in which one character represents one specific thing, such as worldliness. Tolkien himself stated in a letter that it is a fundamentally Christian story. He also stated that Gandalf does not use magic. He says the Hobbits call it 'magic' because they don't know any better and Gandalf had given up on trying to explain it to them. Magic in essence in the manipulation of nature, which is what Saruman does. He said "magic is the enemy."

[Termite]

I've never read nor seen Twilight, but I've heard it said that it's just a convenient transition into Vampire porn novels.

That pretty much hits the nail on the head... O

[Lord Sesshoumaru]

He also stated that Gandalf does not use magic. He says the Hobbits call it 'magic' because they don't know any better and Gandalf had given up on trying to explain it to them. Magic in essence in the manipulation of nature, which is what Saruman does. He said "magic is the enemy."

ok forgive me but if Gandalf is not using magic then what is he using? he may of given up trying to explain it to hobbits but how about us non hobbits. Is he some kind of psychic like Jen Grey form the x-men series and can just move stuff with his mind (cause that's all it looked like in the movie)?

[Iron and Light]

He also stated that Gandalf does not use magic. He says the Hobbits call it 'magic' because they don't know any better and Gandalf had given up on trying to explain it to them. Magic in essence in the manipulation of nature, which is what Saruman does. He said "magic is the enemy."

ok forgive me but if Gandalf is not using magic then what is he using? he may of given up trying to explain it to hobbits but how about us non hobbits. Is he some kind of psychic like Jen Grey form the x-men series and can just move stuff with his mind (cause that's all it looked like in the movie)?

Gandalf got his power from the God-figure in the books (and therefore, also in the movies). It was definitely not magic, and was never played out to be such.

Not that I have a problem with books writing about magic, however.

[J-man]

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.

[Elrohir]

He also stated that Gandalf does not use magic. He says the Hobbits call it 'magic' because they don't know any better and Gandalf had given up on trying to explain it to them. Magic in essence in the manipulation of nature, which is what Saruman does. He said "magic is the enemy."

ok forgive me but if Gandalf is not using magic then what is he using? he may of given up trying to explain it to hobbits but how about us non hobbits. Is he some kind of psychic like Jen Grey form the x-men series and can just move stuff with his mind (cause that's all it looked like in the movie)?

Gandalf got his power from the God-figure in the books (and therefore, also in the movies). It was definitely not magic, and was never played out to be such.

Not that I have a problem with books writing about magic, however.

It's not even so much that he gets special power from God whenever he needs to do something. It's just in his natural God-given ability to do so. Sesshoumaru mentioned X-Men. Actually it is sort of like that. The X-Men are technically not humans: they're mutants. Jean Grey's powers are not magic, they're within her natural abilities. It's the same with Gandalf. He is not human and thus his abilities are no more magical than my own ability to walk on two legs or think and reason, which not all creatures can do. Gandalf is an Ainur, which is Middle Earth's version of Angels. Angels do not use magic, they are just created with abilities different from ours. When men use magic it means they are doing thing beyond their natural abilities, and usually that power either comes from God or demons. If it's from demons, it's wrong and considered magic, which is why Scripture condemns it.

[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?