Harry Potter Books Banned For "Real Spells And Curses"

[Vetalia]

On what grounds do you consider minimizing suffering in the world a good thing?

I already know that #1 Pain is bad when it happens to me. This is a self evident truth. OK, you win, when I expand from that self evident truth to my assertion that #2 when Pain happens to other people, it is also a bad thing
You are correct. #1 does NOT prove #2. this proves that
#3 When Pain happens to you, it is a good thing.

Well, actually...the idea of suffering being a good thing as either a test from God, a natural occurrence giving opportunity to grow in faith or a means to expiate one's sins is widespread among many religions.

[Vetalia]

Is that why so many atheists don't do horrible messed up crimes against humanity?

Yes, they are delightful chaps. Stalin and Mao, clearly pure human beings. Also please source your claim aethiests are somehow are pure of crimes against humanity.[/quote]

Not to mention all of the "faithful" who merely used their religion to advance their personal and political agendas against others without believing a word of it.

[Rojava Free State]

Is that why so many atheists don't do horrible messed up crimes against humanity?

Yes, they are delightful chaps. Stalin and Mao, clearly pure human beings. Also please source your claim aethiests are somehow are pure of crimes against humanity.

Clearly if I as someone who doesn't believe in God can live a normal non aggressive life, God is not needed for morality.

No hes not, but one might question the ego of man who has set his beliefs before the creator. Its like you made this house and your dick of a roomate wont adhere to your rules even though your the ruler.

Without a moral code, we all are in danger from each other

Nay, believing to much in morals and ethics cause trouble. The animal liberation front and ISIS are clear examples of believing to much in a cause.

#1 I never said atheists don't do bad things. Clearly everyone from every group is capable of some evil shit. Point is you don't see me killing puppies or lighting daycare centers on fire despite the fact I don't believe in the moral cornerstone known as god (whose morals by the way are like that of a sociopath)

#2 prove God made the house. you can't

#3 they do not minimize suffering. The ALF are fanatics that disrupt farms and ruin people's livelihoods and ISIS actively genocides people.

[Nakena]

True, but I was more criticizing Fr. Reehill's over-simplification of the issue; he would be more effective at warning against the dangers of the occult if he were more specific as to how and why these works are dangerous spiritually rather than painting in broad strokes. There isn't a single spell or curse in the HP novels that can do anything at all (or for that matter, nor can any other spell or curse by itself) but when a susceptible person reads these kinds of works it opens them to influence from preternatural sources. Similar to playing with an Ouija board or conducting a seance.

Well that makes a lot more sense than what Ghost said earlier. I do retain my point however that Harry Potter is way too mundane to have any noteworthy effect in that regard.

Usually persons actually suspectible to, lets say, influence from preternatural sources (as you have put it, i wouldn do so but for arguments sake...) are so by natural, intuitive talent.

[Vetalia]

True, but I was more criticizing Fr. Reehill's over-simplification of the issue; he would be more effective at warning against the dangers of the occult if he were more specific as to how and why these works are dangerous spiritually rather than painting in broad strokes. There isn't a single spell or curse in the HP novels that can do anything at all (or for that matter, nor can any other spell or curse by itself) but when a susceptible person reads these kinds of works it opens them to influence from preternatural sources. Similar to playing with an Ouija board or conducting a seance.

Well that makes a lot more sense than what Ghost said earlier. I do retain my point however that Harry Potter is way too mundane to have any noteworthy effect in that regard.

Usually persons actually suspectible to, lets say, influence from preternatural sources (as you have put it, i wouldn do so but for arguments sake...) are so by natural, intuitive talent.

I tend to side with your opinion; realistically, most people who read Harry Potter isn't going to get involved in *real* occult practices any more than they would reading any of the literally thousands of works that involve magic in the fantasy literary corpus. These themes have been around for millenia, I mean Merlin is the archetypal magician and he's a key player in one of the most Christian legends of all time.

However, someone in a particularly vulnerable psychological state could read these books and think that the magic involved is real, only to find themselves attracting diabolical interest as they are driven to further investigate the occult. That being said, I am much more worried about the adherents of "The Secret" and the prosperity gospel than I am a kid reading Harry Potter. Those two ideas are far more demonic than anything in Rowling's novels.

[Pacomia]

This thread needs a poll.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Yes, they are delightful chaps. Stalin and Mao, clearly pure human beings. Also please source your claim aethiests are somehow are pure of crimes against humanity.

No hes not, but one might question the ego of man who has set his beliefs before the creator. Its like you made this house and your dick of a roomate wont adhere to your rules even though your the ruler.


Nay, believing to much in morals and ethics cause trouble. The animal liberation front and ISIS are clear examples of believing to much in a cause.

#1 I never said atheists don't do bad things. Clearly everyone from every group is capable of some evil shit. Point is you don't see me killing puppies or lighting daycare centers on fire despite the fact I don't believe in the moral cornerstone known as god (whose morals by the way are like that of a sociopath)

These are some wild claims that your throwing without providing sources. I want to know how exactly you came to these beliefs such as aethiest dont start fires.

#2 prove God made the house. you can't

The matter was if man should listen to god's morality. It doesnt matter whehter his existence is proven or not in that regard. The matter was should man listen to god before his own morality. In which I replied aptly

#3 they do not minimize suffering. The ALF are fanatics that disrupt farms and ruin people's livelihoods and ISIS actively genocides people.

Morality comes in many different forms. You speak only of utilitarianism, which is one of many forms of ethics.

[Nakena]

Well that makes a lot more sense than what Ghost said earlier. I do retain my point however that Harry Potter is way too mundane to have any noteworthy effect in that regard.

Usually persons actually suspectible to, lets say, influence from preternatural sources (as you have put it, i wouldn do so but for arguments sake...) are so by natural, intuitive talent.

I tend to side with your opinion; realistically, most people who read Harry Potter isn't going to get involved in *real* occult practices any more than they would reading any of the literally thousands of works that involve magic in the fantasy literary corpus. These themes have been around for millenia, I mean Merlin is the archetypal magician and he's a key player in one of the most Christian legends of all time.

However, someone in a particularly vulnerable psychological state could read these books and think that the magic involved is real, only to find themselves attracting diabolical interest as they are driven to further investigate the occult. That being said, I am much more worried about the adherents of "The Secret" and the prosperity gospel than I am a kid reading Harry Potter. Those two ideas are far more demonic than anything in Rowling's novels.

I also agree with you here. Theres an awful lot of people who are either in vulnerable psychological states or are, as I like to put it, otherwise unhinged fellows who feel - unfortunatly - attracted by new-age and occult claptrap and the often associated fraudulent and sometimes dangerous schemes that operate in those areas. (Of which "The Secret" definetively is one)

[Rojava Free State]

#1 I never said atheists don't do bad things. Clearly everyone from every group is capable of some evil shit. Point is you don't see me killing puppies or lighting daycare centers on fire despite the fact I don't believe in the moral cornerstone known as god (whose morals by the way are like that of a sociopath)

These are some wild claims that your throwing without providing sources. I want to know how exactly you came to these beliefs such as aethiest dont start fires.

#2 prove God made the house. you can't

The matter was if man should listen to god's morality. It doesnt matter whehter his existence is proven or not in that regard. The matter was should man listen to god before his own morality. In which I replied aptly

#3 they do not minimize suffering. The ALF are fanatics that disrupt farms and ruin people's livelihoods and ISIS actively genocides people.

Morality comes in many different forms. You speak only of utilitarianism, which is one of many forms of ethics.

First off, saying everyone is capable of doing terrible stuff isn't wild. It's just a fact of life. My point stands that a person doesn't need a god to be moral. As for the second point, I trust my own morality more than that of a being that no one has ever seen who tells people to literally kill and torture other people. The bible and Quran are full of verses justifying religious conflict. I meanwhile believe that all people are entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be victimized for what they think

As for the third point, clearly if morality is fluid in your opinion, god's morality can't be "right" because no morality is the " right morality"

[Holy Tedalonia]

These are some wild claims that your throwing without providing sources. I want to know how exactly you came to these beliefs such as aethiest dont start fires.


The matter was if man should listen to god's morality. It doesnt matter whehter his existence is proven or not in that regard. The matter was should man listen to god before his own morality. In which I replied aptly


Morality comes in many different forms. You speak only of utilitarianism, which is one of many forms of ethics.

First off, saying everyone is capable of doing terrible stuff isn't wild. It's just a fact of life. My point stands that a person doesn't need a god to be moral. As for the second point, I trust my own morality more than that of a being that no one has ever seen who tells people to literally kill and torture other people. The bible and Quran are full of verses justifying religious conflict. I meanwhile believe that all people are entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be victimized for what they think

The matter of religious doctrine is maintained by the churches/sects. They interpret their material and preach. Many do not promote religious war as the ones of old. For a comparison for aetheism, I would point out communism a ideology so rooted in ideology that it caused many people to suffer in the name of the state. It is that deep rooted idealism and a strong sense of morality that causes problems for mankind.

As for the third point, clearly if morality is fluid in your opinion, god's morality can't be "right" because no morality is the " right morality"

Indeed your morality and gods moraliry are different. Same as your common man. Morality is simply what a person uses to distinguish right from wrong, everyone has different takes on moralities.

[Rojava Free State]

First off, saying everyone is capable of doing terrible stuff isn't wild. It's just a fact of life. My point stands that a person doesn't need a god to be moral. As for the second point, I trust my own morality more than that of a being that no one has ever seen who tells people to literally kill and torture other people. The bible and Quran are full of verses justifying religious conflict. I meanwhile believe that all people are entitled to an opinion and shouldn't be victimized for what they think

The matter of religious doctrine is maintained by the churches/sects. They interpret their material and preach. Many do not promote religious war as the ones of old. For a comparison for aetheism, I would point out communism a ideology so rooted in ideology that it caused many people to suffer in the name of the state. It is that deep rooted idealism and a strong sense of morality that causes problems for mankind.

As for the third point, clearly if morality is fluid in your opinion, god's morality can't be "right" because no morality is the " right morality"

Indeed your morality and gods moraliry are different. Same as your common man. Morality is simply what a person uses to distinguish right from wrong, everyone has different takes on moralities.

Then what even is the point of this religious stuff?

[Nakena]

The matter of religious doctrine is maintained by the churches/sects. They interpret their material and preach. Many do not promote religious war as the ones of old. For a comparison for aetheism, I would point out communism a ideology so rooted in ideology that it caused many people to suffer in the name of the state. It is that deep rooted idealism and a strong sense of morality that causes problems for mankind.


Indeed your morality and gods moraliry are different. Same as your common man. Morality is simply what a person uses to distinguish right from wrong, everyone has different takes on moralities.

Then what even is the point of this religious stuff?

Heres my take:

"Religious" and mystic ideas and inspirations are inherent as our supposed ability as humans to receive, exchange and process (to varying degrees, but usually fragmented) information from places that appears to be somewhere else that in turn appears to be populated by various beings and entities etc. This is done through mystic dreams, trance, visions and substance induced states of mind. (Theres a number of sects who use Peyote or ayahuasca for those purpose etc.)

In traditional societies those matters were usually being delegated to shamans and the likes, that means individuals who have an natural inclinations towards those matters. Sometimes that is still being done.

However most of the biggest religions today are often (unless they're made up! mind you...) in one way or another based onto interpretations that derivated supposedly from said information exchange. They're heavily text and scripture based. Accordingly most followers nowadays don't make their own experiences and relay upon textual interpretations and transmission made by people who claimed that they had. Or knew people who had. Which of course makes the whole matter already more blurry than it already is.

Oh and of course, as we have learned in the recent years in Information Age, theres always the possibility that info is just not useful at all. Theres no guarantee that the information itself was ok, it may have been misleading, malicious or just random nonsense in itself.

That of course opens yet another whole can of worms. Who can decide what interaction "legit" or just nonsense? We lack (yet...) the techniques to dertermine so. The problem is by no means new and even 17th century philosopher Thomas Hobbes was already aware of it.

[Neanderthaland]

This thread needs a poll.

-This is dumb
-Indeed this is dumb

Pick up to two

[Pacomia]

This thread needs a poll.

-This is dumb
-Indeed this is dumb

Pick up to two

Agree.

[Ghost in the Shell]

The first Pope knew that being personally so I would disagree.

I'm supposed to just believe that this random man could talk to a god?

Countless numbers of people have attested to it. The four gospels are accounts of his life and their historical reliability is greater than you'd think. In fact, they're the most detailed accounts of anything in that part and time of the world that we have.

How self important are people to think that a God would want to talk to any of us?

How self important are you to think that God wouldn't want to talk to any of us?

[Ayytaly]

All I got from Harry Potter is that Ireland is at least competitive in Quidditch.

[The South Falls]

This is incredibly backward. What next, banning the cookbooks because they've got recipes on haram dishes?

[Gormwood]

All I got from Harry Potter is that Ireland is at least competitive in Quidditch.

All that hurling.

[The Alma Mater]

All I got from Harry Potter is that Ireland is at least competitive in Quidditch.

Don't forget that all wizards around the globe support the scottish rugby team.

[Ghost in the Shell]

This is incredibly backward. What next, banning the cookbooks because they've got recipes on haram dishes?

If you meant halal, then yes hopefully.

[The Alma Mater]

This is incredibly backward. What next, banning the cookbooks because they've got recipes on haram dishes?

I actually assume that that is a normal thing to do in Islamic countries, yes. No cooking with bacon for you.

[Internationalist Bastard]

This is a consipracy from the Magical Congress to keep no-mags' from finding out the truth.

[The Black Forrest]

All I got from Harry Potter is that Ireland is at least competitive in Quidditch.

All that hurling.

No. That’s Boston.

[Neanderthaland]

All I got from Harry Potter is that Ireland is at least competitive in Quidditch.

It's because when the get the snitch, they drill through it's kneecaps.