Ladies and gents, this is one of the times that I've had the pleasure of giving some religious fundy moron the smackdown.
This is in response to a "book review" of "harry potter and the sorcerer's stone" on Cutting edge ministries website.
Read that first, then come back here and read my reply.
Good day to you,
As a young person who has grown up reading the Harry Potter series, I feel compelled to politely disagree with some of the points mentioned in your article.
Drug use was never, ever mentioned in the books. To say so is a blatent falsification, and does God not disapprove of lies? It is one of the Ten commandments, after all.
Also, you have much of the plot incorrect. A list of your inconsistencies and discrepancies follows:
Harry is not removed from the boat by "The supernatural large man", he is removed from the small cabin on the rocky island by such a man. Also, this book is written from a point of view of an outsider, but of course is presented with a slight biased towards the nonmuggles.
Your analysis of how Harry's parents were killed is also incorrect. They were not "psychically"" murdered, they were physically murdered. Had they been psychically murdered, I am quite sure that they would be in Saint Mungo's, as Neville Longbottom's parents are. If you bother to read the rest of the series, you will note that many, many more myssteries are unravelled. Such as the mystery of the scar. What "Supernaturally powerful global leader" are you referring to? This seems out of the realm of sanity and more or less the rantings of someone taking just a little much incense, don't you think?
The letters for harry were not in the boat, they were in the hut on the rock.
Satanism is not synonymous with witchcraft, wicca, paganism, or atheism. Nice try.
harry in book two when speaking to Dobby is referring to the abuse he suffers at the hands of his aunt and uncle.
Hagrid's loss for words is because he has never had to explain it to a new student, that has usually fallen under the job description of Albus Dumbledore.
There is a difference between supernatural forces and surreality. Harry potter books are designed for children. Adults may, of course enjoy them, however, it is not constitutional, godly or even humane to restrict what a person may do, say, or read. These books are not damaging to the mind. I have read the Bible, and had nightmares about it. The Bible teaches us to live in fear of being struck down for sneezing wrong.
A dimensional portle and found himself in fictional reality? Are you even aware of the definition of the terms you so loosely throw around? Try, that this book is for children. What, are you going to next ban other books as well?
Ms. Rowling's depiction of muggles is mostly a depiction of Harry's family and those that have contact with him. Not every muggle you would come across. "how do you know your child doesn't think of you in these terms?" Most of the parents in the muggle world are blind to their child's activities, I doubt that they would get much from their child in the way of an opinion.
"Remember Adolf Hitler, the most famous black magic wizard?" Huh, Hitler was a sick, twisted man, and Rowling is making absolutely no reference to Hitler. Also, your claims about contact with the supernatural... what about demons, angels, God, etc?
Green is Satan's favourite colour? Pardon? These people are wearing green, deal with it. Are you stating that everyone who has green eyes or wears green is evil?
The green icing on the cake would show up better against the chocolate background. By the way, green is also a calming colour, and is associated with Nature.
"drug glorification?" what drug glorification, this book is fiction, a work of the mind of a young writer. there is no such thing as drug glorification as portrayed in your review, unless of course you take anything that doesn't fit your tiny world view as glorification of Satanism.
Furthermore, your comments about Snape were incorrect, it was not him who threw the curse. Children reading this series will conclude that it is a work of fiction and will not take it too seriously.
Children will not learn morality from books, especially fiction books. there is good and evil in all religions, nice try. Epic fail. Rowling depicts some knowledge of physics, not necessarily witchcraft.
The mirror mentioned is a fictional item found in the world of the book, and mirrors are useful besides being ornamental.Half of alchemy is knowledge, not just the making of the Sorcerer's stone. Depending upon in which month Mr. Flammel's birthday falls, he may still be 665 years old. His age doesn't matter, except in your twisted world view. This book nor its characters do not depict nor teach immorality, nor anything of the mark of the beast. Most children and parents with their heads on straight will not take much stock in it, as it is FICTION.
The unicorn is a nearly universal symbol of peace and healing. Not the antichrist. Not everything with a horn is evil, you know.
Voldemort is a fictional character portrayed in a fictional world. Yes, some of Ms. Rowling's knowledge of alchemy is correct, however, this does not make her evil. Nice try. What personal godhood? No one I know of is seeking personal godhood, again, your logic fails you.
"Nearly every spell results in contact with a supernatural being". incorrect. You are attempting to base your "review" on false ideas, assumption and all-out tantrum-throwing blindness to reality.
Physical transfiguration/transformation is impossible. Even for witches, they cannot transcend the laws of physics. demonic possession, you yourself as a catholic would claim is real, as exercisms are designed to remove this threat, yes? Now, "human sacrifice or have had someone do it for them" is patently incorrect. You need to cite more neutral sources.
"Some of the potions are very real, very deadly" I doubt little Tommy is going to go home and brew up wormwood potion. A familiar is not a spirit. It may be spiritual, or physical. She's also simply portraying magic in the stereotypical sense, for children's enjoyment.
"Any time a witch or wizard performs high level.... demonic possession" again, see above. impossible.
Actually, in other books the colours of the other houses are mentioned:
Blue and bronze for Ravenclaw,
Yellow and black for hufflepuff,
scarlet and gold for gryffindor
and obvious silver and green for slytherin.
The "dark lord" is rejuvinating, slowly, andi n book four does so. The atmosphere of the books is setting up the underlying political agendas for later books.
Children are not stupid little sheep. They know when lying is good and when it's not. Your conclusion that children would draw on Hermione's lie as excellent is incorrect at its core.
A child's nature is inherrently evil? So a babe in the womb is evil? Nope. Epic fail.Parcelmouth I've never heard of before reading the books. I will go out on a limb and suggest you read the rest of the books, with an open mind. It is explained in later books why this happens.
Irony was used for the author of the book. The ball was glass, not crystal. read closely. Quit skimming through for your twisted sedistic pleasure.
Children know it's fantasy. They know that it is a book meant for their entertainment. Neville was catching Harry's eye because Neville wished for Harry to practice the assignment with him, as Neville is clumpsy. So if I were to catch another woman's eye, is that blatent homosexuality? Again, fail.Again, in regards to wizard chess, the child knows that this book is fantasy. Quirrell was not possessed, per se, was sharing the body with Voldemort. I find your depth of research extremely lacking. You don't research both sides of the issue, you only research the one that fits your view, preset and preformed before you even open it.11 is not the first primary number. two is.
I doubt the original bird of the states was a phoenix, as it could not be protected if it were. The title of the book simply depicts the coming adventure. If you're going to analyze anything, analyze your own religion and leave innocent sane people alone.
What peril?
And before you claim that these books are violent, I suggest that you read the Bible just a tiny bit more closely. It's not the all-encompassing love that you love to pedal. It's a book of disease, treachery, death, destruction and the chronicles of a being that should be on a locked ward somewhere. If anyone in this physical plain presumes to pull such machinations, he or she would be immediately locked away. I do not find that your "book review" is accurate, fair or even in the same zipcode as being sane. Many, many of your ideals as Catholics were taken from Paganism. You will, of course, deny this fervently, but let's draw some parallels:
1) "mother Mary" a.k.a goddess, "queen of heaven", all terms used to denote a goddess, or similar figure.
2) "Father, son holy spirit" (maiden, mother crone, prince kin elder) a trenity of beings all facets of one single being. Taken from Hinduism, and adapted for your use.
3) rosary: prayer beads have been in existence longer than Saint Dominick, and I doubt they're going to change. You simply put a different spin on them.
4) during mass, partaking of bread and wine. This is not new. Many many religions use this as an offering, or merely refreshment, or a simple partaking of gifts given to them by their chosen deity.
5) pergatory, a place not quite heaven not quite hell. this is also known as "the place of rest" in other religions. your ideas are not original.
6) Angels. Angels have been around a lot longer than Catholicism, or indeed Christianity. They are your adaptation of beings that have been here since the beginning of time. Nice try.
7) Ever noticed how your mass is eerily similar to a Wiccan/pagan ritual? If you can quit scremaing about how "ungodly" it is, you will note that there are more similarities than most Catholics are willing to admit. In short:
Do not pass go,
Do not collect $200
Epic. Fail.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lady Silver Starsong
p.s., I am a practising Wiccan, have been for six years, and I'm not about to change.