niuhuskie84 Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Having read the Harry Potter books, I have to say that Rowlings does not treat witchcraft as a religion at all. I really think you should read the first story before you start the grand conspiracy theory.

How does that make sense at all? I should read a book that I know up front I don't agree with. Come on, Uhmump, that makes no sense what so ever.

How does THAT statement make any sense at all???? WTF is this world coming to...
Heres a hypothetical example you would understand, using your train of logic: "I have never read the Bible, but I've heard about this Jesus stuff and it all sounds pretty kooky and I don't agree with what I've heard, so why should I read it if I already know I'm going to disagree with it?"

If you are curious about the Bible, I say you should read it. Other than that, it isn't going to do an un-believer much good.

Now that I have been attacked over and over about this, let me ask a question.

Where do you draw the line with what you allow your children in the house?

Harry Potter..OK
Porno Mags...No (except for maybe Blah) ;-)
Alchohol? (By the way, I drink a beer on occassion)
Drugs?
BB Guns?


My point is, what measuring stick will you use to set the rules in your house?

Here is mine...

Quote:Joshua 24:15 But if serving the LORD seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD."

Fair enough question.

First i support your right to raise your family as you see fit. I may not agree with what you choose to see fit, but it seems to fall far short of child abuse, so have at it.

I also raised my children as I saw fit, and it is none of your damn business what that was, as it also fell far short of child abuse.

Now will you answer my question about suffering a witch to live?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Fair enough question.

First i support your right to raise your family as you see fit. I may not agree with what you choose to see fit, but it seems to fall far short of child abuse, so have at it.

I also raised my children as I saw fit, and it is none of your damn business what that was, as it also fell far short of child abuse.

Now will you answer my question about suffering a witch to live?

Sorry, I missed your question originally. I must say that I have no plans on killing a witch (nor am I familiar with that verse).

*edit*
I just searched an on-line Bible for "witch" and it only came up with one verse which was nothing close to what you stated.

GrayBeard Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:When you were kid, did your parents let you have Porno Mags?

No, but let me ask you a follow-up question.

How would you handle it if/when your middle school age son comes home and said that he did see one of those magazines at his friend's house that him and his friend found in his friend's dad's room?

Ah, here's the rub. My son went to a friends house to spend the night. It just so happens that kid listened to Harry Potter on tape to go to sleep, so my kid (he felt by force) listened to it as well.

When he came home he told us about it, and it lead to a good learning opportunity. We told him that it was OK, that we can't control what happens when he is outside of the home. We thanked him for being honest with us, and we told him that he will see and hear things sometimes that he does not believe in/agree with and that is just fine. In the end all of the choices will be his, and we can't make them for him.

By the way, we were still friends with those people to the day we left that town.

If you actually were picking friends based on the kinds of books they read, I'd imagine the world would be a pretty lonely place.

niuhuskie84 Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:When you were kid, did your parents let you have Porno Mags?

No, but let me ask you a follow-up question.

How would you handle it if/when your middle school age son comes home and said that he did see one of those magazines at his friend's house that him and his friend found in his friend's dad's room?

Ah, here's the rub. My son went to a friends house to spend the night. It just so happens that kid listened to Harry Potter on tape to go to sleep, so my kid (he felt by force) listened to it as well.

When he came home he told us about it, and it lead to a good learning opportunity. We told him that it was OK, that we can't control what happens when he is outside of the home. We thanked him for being honest with us, and we told him that he will see and hear things sometimes that he does not believe in/agree with and that is just fine. In the end all of the choices will be his, and we can't make them for him.

By the way, we were still friends with those people to the day we left that town.

If you actually were picking friends based on the kinds of books they read, I'd imagine the world would be a pretty lonely place.

That wasn't my point at all. I was responding to a question of how would I react if...., and I was just letting Blah know that we did not attack/criticize/fault the people for what happened. What they allow in their house is their decision, not mine.

GrayBeard Wrote:

blah Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:When you were kid, did your parents let you have Porno Mags?

No, but let me ask you a follow-up question.

How would you handle it if/when your middle school age son comes home and said that he did see one of those magazines at his friend's house that him and his friend found in his friend's dad's room?

Ah, here's the rub. My son went to a friends house to spend the night. It just so happens that kid listened to Harry Potter on tape to go to sleep, so my kid (he felt by force) listened to it as well.

When he came home he told us about it, and it lead to a good learning opportunity. We told him that it was OK, that we can't control what happens when he is outside of the home. We thanked him for being honest with us, and we told him that he will see and hear things sometimes that he does not believe in/agree with and that is just fine. In the end all of the choices will be his, and we can't make them for him.

By the way, we were still friends with those people to the day we left that town.

That seems more reasonable. My questions was geared to see if you would let your kid hang out with his friend and their family anymore. I'm glad to see you did and the discussion afterwards sounds like a good way to approach it.

On a side note and to just a little bit more....
Did you ask your son why he didn't stand up for what he believed? If he truly believes that Harry Potter is evil and wrong, why not say something to his friend?

blah Wrote:On a side note and to just a little bit more....
Did you ask your son why he didn't stand up for what he believed? If he truly believes that Harry Potter is evil and wrong, why not say something to his friend?

Like myself, my oldest son (the one in question) is a very passive person, not generally wanting to so to speak. I am only aggressive on internet message boards. :shhh:

I will say that I think he was slightly bewildered by the event, since his friend was part of a "Christian Family". Most of his other "Christian Friends" were not allowed to read/listen/watch HP either.

GrayBeard Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Fair enough question.

First i support your right to raise your family as you see fit. I may not agree with what you choose to see fit, but it seems to fall far short of child abuse, so have at it.

I also raised my children as I saw fit, and it is none of your damn business what that was, as it also fell far short of child abuse.

Now will you answer my question about suffering a witch to live?

Sorry, I missed your question originally. I must say that I have no plans on killing a witch (nor am I familiar with that verse).

*edit*
I just searched an on-line Bible for "witch" and it only came up with one verse which was nothing close to what you stated.

I'll see if I can find it later. I think it must be in Leviticus, along with all the other commands that would send a modern Christian to jail, such as killing your neighbor.

Just out of curiosity, the one reference you did find, what did it say?

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Fair enough question.

First i support your right to raise your family as you see fit. I may not agree with what you choose to see fit, but it seems to fall far short of child abuse, so have at it.

I also raised my children as I saw fit, and it is none of your damn business what that was, as it also fell far short of child abuse.

Now will you answer my question about suffering a witch to live?

Sorry, I missed your question originally. I must say that I have no plans on killing a witch (nor am I familiar with that verse).

*edit*
I just searched an on-line Bible for "witch" and it only came up with one verse which was nothing close to what you stated.

I'll see if I can find it later. I think it must be in Leviticus, along with all the other commands that would send a modern Christian to jail, such as killing your neighbor.

Just out of curiosity, the one reference you did find, what did it say?

1 Samuel 28:1 [ Saul and the Witch of Endor ] In those days the Philistines gathered their forces to fight against Israel. Achish said to David, "You must understand that you and your men will accompany me in the army."

uhmump95 Wrote:Okay so you read or viewed LOTR and Narnia and those have sorcery in them. Why don't you feel that those books also promote wicca?

Plus you have NOT read Harry Potter (I would assume that you haven't watched one of the movies either) and you say that does promote wiccas. I have read the books and I do not think the promote wicca. What proof do you have that these books promote wicca?

Graybeard,

Can you answer the questions above please? I am not attempting to change your mind or prove you wrong. I just want to understand your thinking on this situation. I do not need any bible verses, just your thought process on the questions above.

Graybeard:

I have heardthe phrase "Thou shalt not suffere a witch to live" for many years, especially in regard to the Puritans' justification for the witch executions.

It must depend on the translation (in fact, one of my problems with faith in the Bible rests with the multiplicity of translations, many of which contradict each other.) I found the following discussion, part of which I repeat here, using a search of [witch, Bible].

"Thus in the Torah we find a prohibition against the existence of witches on the one hand, and a prohibition against practicing witchcraft on the other. In Exodus 22:17, a further prohibition is brought: "You shall not suffer a witch to live". A new element is introduced here. Not only is the punishment stipulated as death, a punishment not stipulated earlier, but emphasis is laid here on the woman who is a witch, the Hebrew term used being 'mekasefa', the female form. This emphasis seems strange, given the background of the literary evidence of sorcerers and not of witches."

However, in my grandfather's old masonic Bible, the verse in Exodus 22:17 does not read that way.

Which leads me to the conclusion that what the Bible has to say about witches and witchcraft depends largely on which translation one chooses to believe in.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:Graybeard:

I have heardthe phrase "Thou shalt not suffere a witch to live" for many years, especially in regard to the Puritans' justification for the witch executions.

It must depend on the translation (in fact, one of my problems with faith in the Bible rests with the multiplicity of translations, many of which contradict each other.) I found the following discussion, part of which I repeat here, using a search of [witch, Bible].

"Thus in the Torah we find a prohibition against the existence of witches on the one hand, and a prohibition against practicing witchcraft on the other. In Exodus 22:17, a further prohibition is brought: "You shall not suffer a witch to live". A new element is introduced here. Not only is the punishment stipulated as death, a punishment not stipulated earlier, but emphasis is laid here on the woman who is a witch, the Hebrew term used being 'mekasefa', the female form. This emphasis seems strange, given the background of the literary evidence of sorcerers and not of witches."

However, in my grandfather's old masonic Bible, the verse in Exodus 22:17 does not read that way.

Which leads me to the conclusion that what the Bible has to say about witches and witchcraft depends largely on which translation one chooses to believe in.

Not to speak for Graybeard, but it might have something to do with not only the translation but the context. You are talking about 5,000 years of history translated from two different languages into English. Even the English (King James) translation was done almost 400 years ago.

Imagine if those guys were around to here us talk today. I say that so-and-so is "killing me" all the time. I obviously don't mean literal kill, but being stupid and making me dumber for it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents....

blah Wrote:Not to speak for Graybeard, but it might have something to do with not only the translation but the context. You are talking about 5,000 years of history translated from two different languages into English. Even the English (King James) translation was done almost 400 years ago.

Imagine if those guys were around to here us talk today. I say that so-and-so is "killing me" all the time. I obviously don't mean literal kill, but being stupid and making me dumber for it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents....

My argument exactly - back when I was talking to the Men of Faith. It seems to me that is would be hard to be a Biblical literalist given these multiple translations, but many of them are.

And then on top of all that, some people choose to interpret the various translations using a 2006 disctionary. A lot of words have bery different meanings even in the last 50 years - "gay" for example.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

blah Wrote:Not to speak for Graybeard, but it might have something to do with not only the translation but the context. You are talking about 5,000 years of history translated from two different languages into English. Even the English (King James) translation was done almost 400 years ago.

Imagine if those guys were around to here us talk today. I say that so-and-so is "killing me" all the time. I obviously don't mean literal kill, but being stupid and making me dumber for it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents....

My argument exactly - back when I was talking to the Men of Faith. It seems to me that is would be hard to be a Biblical literalist given these multiple translations, but many of them are.

And then on top of all that, some people choose to interpret the various translations using a 2006 disctionary. A lot of words have bery different meanings even in the last 50 years - "gay" for example.

From a teaching standpoint, I am a big fan of pastors/preachers who use multiple translations as well as the original Greek/Hebrew and then walk you through how they came to their point, while at the same time pointing out where a certain translation is very accurate and where others are maybe not as clear.

blah Wrote:

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

blah Wrote:Not to speak for Graybeard, but it might have something to do with not only the translation but the context. You are talking about 5,000 years of history translated from two different languages into English. Even the English (King James) translation was done almost 400 years ago.

Imagine if those guys were around to here us talk today. I say that so-and-so is "killing me" all the time. I obviously don't mean literal kill, but being stupid and making me dumber for it.

Anyways, just my 2 cents....

My argument exactly - back when I was talking to the Men of Faith. It seems to me that is would be hard to be a Biblical literalist given these multiple translations, but many of them are.

And then on top of all that, some people choose to interpret the various translations using a 2006 disctionary. A lot of words have bery different meanings even in the last 50 years - "gay" for example.

From a teaching standpoint, I am a big fan of pastors/preachers who use multiple translations as well as the original Greek/Hebrew and then walk you through how they came to their point, while at the same time pointing out where a certain translation is very accurate and where others are maybe not as clear.

Only knew one guy like that. he was the one that got me back to church for a decade or so. All the other - absolutists.

uhmump95 Wrote:

uhmump95 Wrote:Okay so you read or viewed LOTR and Narnia and those have sorcery in them. Why don't you feel that those books also promote wicca?

Plus you have NOT read Harry Potter (I would assume that you haven't watched one of the movies either) and you say that does promote wiccas. I have read the books and I do not think the promote wicca. What proof do you have that these books promote wicca?

Graybeard,

Can you answer the questions above please? I am not attempting to change your mind or prove you wrong. I just want to understand your thinking on this situation. I do not need any bible verses, just your thought process on the questions above.

First let me clarify, that I believe that watching things like Harry Potter, Charmed, etc., may not officially endorse/promote wicca, but they lead to a curiousity of wicca. I personally think that Wicca is evil, so I will not "promote" it or allow it to be promoted in my house. When my kids have questioned this, we have had a discussion as to why (not just me yelling "cause I said so") and what I feel is wrong with it.

Now as I said before, I was unable to determine the Biblical spin on LOTR, so I can't find out how it is God honoring. Now, you must realize that I have always been bad a Literature analysis (themes, motifs, etc), so I may have just missed it. And as far as Narnia, all I know is that the Lion is sacrificed for the sinners and then he comes back to life (symbolizing Jesus).

*********************************************************
Now, let's go on to the Exodus 22:18 (NIV) Do not allow a sorceress to live.

First you must remember that this was written to the Jews about other Jews. These are the laws that God's people were to live by to remain pure and blameless before God.

My Life Application Study Bible has this commentary:

Quote:Why did God's law speak so strongly against sorcery? Sorcery was punishable by because it was a crime against God himself. To invoke evil powers violated the first commandment to "have no other gods." Sorcery was rebellion against God and his authority. In essence, it was teaming up with Satan instead of God.

You are right though, the KJV used "witch".

I also agree that we shouldn't take the English versions at face value, as the original Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic often does not translate to English appropriately. That is why a good Bible Dictionary and Concordance really assist with proper Bible knowledge.

I must say that I am astonished that this many people are so concerned about what I will/will not allow in my house.

lmfao

GrayBeard Wrote:I must say that I am astonished that this many people are so concerned about what I will/will not allow in my house.

lmfao

I think it is more the why than the what.

It's just a step down from banning action figures as "graven images."

But I still think that you have the right to decide for your children. As do Wiccan parents.

OptimisticOwl Wrote:

GrayBeard Wrote:I must say that I am astonished that this many people are so concerned about what I will/will not allow in my house.

lmfao

I think it is more the why than the what.

It's just a step down from banning action figures as "graven images."

But I still think that you have the right to decide for your children. As do Wiccan parents.

Don't you take away my GI Joe figures, now! They have kung fu grip! lmfao


No really think about it, I took a stand against something that I didn't approve of. I don't want it in my house. Just think of me as a filter and not a censor. A censor just takes stuff away from you. A filter keeps stuff out that you don't want coming in.

I'm not asking the libraries to ban/burn the books. I'm not asking the supreme court to rule against JK Rowlings. I'm not asking for a consititutional ammendment. I'm just filtering what is coming in my house. I am an involved parent who cares what his kids come in contact with.