Cactus Game Design Message Boards

If Rowling created a book explaining the "behind the scenes" of magic and had them have different sources, how does it change anything?

I think it might change something for me.  I don't have a problem with people who God has given the gift of healing to working miracles.  Peter healing the lame man would seem like magic, but I would call it a miracle because the source of the power behind it was God.  However, I do have a problem with witchcraft and magic, which I believe has its power source to be from the devil.

So I'm thinking that perhaps the best way to figure out whether a book with magic in it is good or not is to ask a couple questions:

1 - Are the people in the book who use magic the "good-guys" or "bad-guys"?  If they are the "bad-guys" only, then the book is OK (at least from a magic perspective).

2 - If the people who use magic are the "good-guys", then is there a distinction between the sources of their power?  If the "good-guys" get their power from a good source, and the "bad-guys" get their power from a bad source, then the book is OK (at least from a magic perspective).

These seem to be much more objective questions than: Is there too much magic?  or Is there enough good stuff in the book to overlook the magic?

Having read Lord of the Rings three times, the Hobbit four times, and the Silmarillion twice, I can confidentially say that, for the most part, the magic in that series falls under the category of " same source, but it's how you use it." The Silmarillion details how Sauron may very well have been a good guy, except he was ultimately corrupted by Morgoth. Likewise, Gandalf and Saruman were roughly of the same order, but Saruman was corrupted by Sauron's power. There are exceptions to the rule, but in general, all the magic in the series comes from a neutral source. Narnia, meanwhile, draws a massive distinction between good and evil, mostly in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I'm not even going to elaborate here, since odds are if someone hasn't read that series (or at least the book) they're probably not well-equipped to contribute to this debate anyway.

Harry Potter falls roughly between these two origins. What magic actually is or why some people can use it or can't use it is never touched on throughout the series. Wizards and the magical world are simply a fact of life, albeit one hidden from non-magical people. Rowling also never elaborates or mentions any kind of deity, and only vaguely says anything about the afterlife. Now that said, there are stricter lines drawn in the good/evil debate than what is found in Lord of the Rings. For the most part, in that series, whether magic is good or evil is determined entirely by intent. In Harry Potter, there are actual spells, known as the Unforgivable Curses, that are largely unjustifiable to use under any context, and are mostly seen being used exclusively by the bad guys (there are a handful of examples when Harry uses them, and this is largely to demonstrate his imperfection as a human and teenager). There are more extreme examples (dark magic) that are hinted at but never expounded on, which one exception (which I won't delve into, due to spoilers).

Here's the thing, a lot of super conservative Christians are entirely against Star Wars due to the Force. However, I'm willing to be that the vast majority of people here don't have any serious problem with it, at least because of the Force. It's almost identical to the magic found in Harry Potter: some people have the ability to use it, most people don't. Whether it's good or evil depends on how you use it, but it's inherently neutral, and can be used as either. My question then is, if Just Kidding Rowling had not used the term "magic" and instead made up a word and foregone the concept of wands, would anyone really have a problem with it? The magic the Bible is referring to was only possible through the works of Satan (or so I am told - I wouldn't swear to that), and was inherently evil. The magic in Harry Potter was essentially the same as any other ability. If I write a book about how fast I can run, and I call that ability magic, does that mean that that book shouldn't be read, just because I called it something?

Please edit your post, I specifically avoided giving out plot details so things wouldn't be spoiled for anyone. Also, there's not much evidence to assume that Sectumsempra is dark magic.

Other than it being modern day, not 1950's, I think you've hit upon something. It would be utterly ridiculous for a kid to think he could really be a Wizard in Narnia or Middle-earth or a Jedi--that is, REALLY think it--but perhaps not so ridiculous to think he could be a Wizard like those in Harry Potter. This makes it more threatening to parents who would rather ban something that requires an extra measure of guidance rather than give the extra measure of guidance.

I still maintain that the original and fullest source of the taboo is the fact that it's taboo. LotR was rejected by the Churchiness establishment when it first came out, and took some time for people to get over the knee-jerk reaction. In the same way, I don't think HP has been around long enough for the general public to get over their initial opposition, and most people that have a problem with it do so because they think they're supposed to have a problem with it.

I've Heard that some of the spells in the books are actual Wiccan/Satanic Spells... is this True?

Quote from: The Warrior on December 25, 2011, 02:32:15 PM

I've Heard that some of the spells in the books are actual Wiccan/Satanic Spells... is this True?

All of the spells in the books are Latin forms of whatever they are supposed to do, so since they are an actual language that was used for a very long time and was prevalent in the same region that Wicca began it's possible there is some (unintentional) overlap.

so thats a ..No?

Most of it's just poorly translated Latin. Anyone who says they're real Wiccan and/or Satanic words is a fear-mongering fool.

This.

There is one spell that is a derivative of a "real" occult spell: Avada Kedavra (derivative of Abrakadabra). It is also the only spell in the book that is used exclusively by evil wizards and is never even attempted by a good one.

Aurors were also authorized to use the curse against the death eaters in the same way that police are authorized to use deadly force.

Also *Snape 

Having read Lord of the Rings three times, the Hobbit four times, and the Silmarillion twice, I can confidentially say that, for the most part, the magic in that series falls under the category of " same source, but it's how you use it."

Narnia, meanwhile, draws a massive distinction between good and evil, mostly in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

Harry Potter falls roughly between these two origins...whether magic is good or evil is determined entirely by intent.

...Star Wars ...Force. It's almost identical to the magic found in Harry Potter: some people have the ability to use it, most people don't. Whether it's good or evil depends on how you use it, but it's inherently neutral, and can be used as either.

This is unfortunate for me.  Based on the criteria from my last post, I would be forced to conclude that Narnia is appropriate for my kids, but that LotR, Star Wars, and HP are not.  However, I really like LotR and Star Wars, and have never felt convicted about those series.  So now I have to determine whether I need a different criteria or need to just be consistent despite my personal preferences.

It would be utterly ridiculous for a kid to think he could really be a Wizard in Narnia or Middle-earth or a Jedi--that is, REALLY think it--but perhaps not so ridiculous to think he could be a Wizard like those in Harry Potter.

So if I'm looking for a 3rd criteria to add, it could be something along the lines of whether the magic was presented in a context that would be likely for a child to attempt to emulate.  This does deal with the problem of not wanting to lead others into sin.  But it doesn't really deal with the problem of finding entertainment from a worldview that is contrary to what the Bible teaches.  However that brings up other issues...like whether we should be entertained by the "good guy" getting revenge on the "bad guy" in a movie.

Am I right in assuming that every Christian opposed to Harry Potter and "magic" in general believes that the Devil and Demons are actually performing "false miracles" and magic today?  Frankly I never realized this mindset until recently, which is why I ask.  If this is how someone feels, then I can definitely see how someone would be so opposed to "magic", because they think the devil and his demons are performing real magic today.

Not trying to derail this thread, but this might help explain some of our differences.  I always viewed "magic" in the bible that was performed by evil persons to be one of two things:  1) God choosing to give that person that ability (usually temporarily) to fulfill His larger purpose (i.e Pharaoh's magicians or the witch at Endor), or 2) Magic "tricks", which were basically illusion or sleight of hand, used to deceive people for the performer's own purposes (i.e. Simon or Elymas).  Thus the "false signs" and "lying wonders" are called "false and lying" because they are not actual signs and wonders at all - but merely deceiving tricks used to get people to follow them.  And this is why I believe Simon was so impressed with the Holy Spirit, because it was REAL.  Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that the devil and his demons used evil men's worship of false Gods to their own ends, and that many of those sorcerors believed that they were serving their false gods, but I also believe that their "sorcerors" were master performers who knew how to deceive their audience to make them think that they could do real magic.

But I can't think of an example of the devil or demons giving someone the ability to perform a true miracle.  And because I feel this way about "secular magic", you may understand better why I treat "magic" in fictional literature so casually.

I guess a lot of the reason that I feel this way is because IF the devil can allow his followers to do signs/miracles just as God did with His followers (and some, not me, would say still does), then there really becomes no way to know the difference.  When Paul writes about the "signs of an apostle" being shown among his audience, how do we know those were signs of an apostle and not signs of demons?  Miracles existed for the purpose of confirming the word in an age where people did not know what the truth was.  If a Christian arrived and performed a miracle, then you knew that THEY had the truth.  Think of Elijah's challenge to the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel as an example of this.  Give the devil that same ability and people still have no idea where to turn.