But the Pottermore site won't let me. There used to be a way to gift them to yourself, but the UK versions just don't show up on the US site anymore.
Anybody in the UK (or Canada) willing to "gift" them to me? I'd paypal you the cost first, of course.
Quote from: Bernadette on September 10, 2018, 09:21:38 PM
But the Pottermore site won't let me. There used to be a way to gift them to yourself, but the UK versions just don't show up on the US site anymore.
Anybody in the UK (or Canada) willing to "gift" them to me? I'd paypal you the cost first, of course.
Aren't Harry Potter books "evil"? I would like to know because I liked the movies?
Opinions vary on that. I've never found them detrimental.
This is a comment to a video from sensum fidelium youtube channel" "Fr Chad Ripperger in one of his excellent talks said that J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, wrote them under the influence of the occult practice of automatic writing . Fr Ripperger screenshotted her admittance of this fact which she later removed. Truly, the source of the Harry Potter books is Hell. For anyone with these books in their house burn them and tell others to do the same.?"
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGNaruEYOE0[/yt]
It's a polarizing topic, I guess.
Edit: Just realized that this would probably fit better under the Buy Sell Trade subforum. ::)
I really enjoyed Harry Potter movies but after reading some stuff about the author and the books I decided not to watch these movies. There is something mysteriously enticing about the series and the movies. the fact that real spells and demonic names are used makes me cringe.
Why the UK version? Trying to learn to lace up those trainers?
My pastor reaffirmed just this past Sunday the evil nature of Harry Potter and the inspirations the author used to write. Stay away.
... and she's buying a stairway to Hogwarts</sarcasm>.
Quote from: MilesChristi on September 11, 2018, 05:54:52 AM
Why the UK version? Trying to learn to lace up those trainers?
I'd like to read them as they were originally written. :)
Problem solved. I was able to buy them from Amazon(.co.uk). :P
Quote from: Bernadette on September 11, 2018, 11:26:41 AM
Problem solved. I was able to buy them from Amazon. :P
It is your soul.
I fail to see how anything about Harry Potter is particularly evil. Magic in-universe is an inborn, genetic trait. It's not gained by making pacts with Satan. And beyond Voldemort's making of Horcruxes, there's nothing really occultish or demonic about the magic in the books.
Edit: Oh, Bernadette: Are you getting the ebooks with the animated pictures? If so please let me know if they're worth the buy! ;D
Quote from: GloriaPatri on September 11, 2018, 12:24:52 PM
Edit: Oh, Bernadette: Are you getting the ebooks with the animated pictures? If so please let me know if they're worth the buy! ;D
I tried the first one with the animated pictures, and wasn't impressed with it. Looking back, I don't think I had the animation activated.
Voldemort did nothing wrong.
We must secure the existence of our kind, and a future for pureblood children.
Gas the goblins, magical war now
He's such an evil villain, isn't he?
Tbh, I disliked Umbridge much more than Voldemort. I mean, he's evil but he's also obviously evil. Umbridge is evil covered up in a faux-sweet disposition and a belief in extreme governmental order.
Oh, I disliked Umbridge, too. She was sickening.
If anyone wants further information on why Harry Potter is "evil", I'd suggest reading Harry Potter and the Paganization of Culture. The author O'Brien makes some good points, though I would say that some of his points fall into the realm of opinion.
Here's a brief summary of some of the topics in his book (not an exhaustive list):
1.) The cosmology found in Harry Potter is inherently dualistic/gnostic. (Star Wars is also dualistic/gnostic.) O'Brien does a good job explaining what this means exactly, and why it's problematic.
2.) The Harry Potter books contain some satanic symbolism and a lot of inverted Christian symbolism (symbols which traditionally mean one thing have had their meanings switched around to mean something else). O'Brien says that this is dangerous because it weakens the reader's symbolic literacy and it subliminally distorts the reader's perception of the spiritual realities which the symbols signify. I'd take what he's saying here with a grain of salt, but it may have some truth in it.
3.) Harry Potter is based in "values" instead of "virtues", and in relativistic ethics. There's a lot of good stuff in Harry Potter, but there's also quite a lot of bad stuff as well. This is why it's so controversial: some people say kids should read it, since it teaches good values, but other people say kids shouldn't read it, since it's basically the spiritual equivalent to eating good food which has been tainted with poison. O'Brien takes the latter stance and says that kids simply shouldn't read this sort of literature (though they can read Tolkien and Lewis and traditional fairy tales which don't have this problem).
4.) Harry Potter uses rhetorical techniques to encourage the reader to feel a sense of satisfaction whenever Harry gets revenge (not justice but revenge... and sometimes that revenge is pretty violent). And this is problematic (especially in children) because it subliminally enters into the person's experiential memory. If revenge makes him feel good, (even if it's in fiction,) he begins to lose the sense that revenge is wrong.
5.) There is one scene in Harry Potter (the mandrake root which looks like a human infant but which must be chopped up to make a certain potion) which O'Brien thinks can subliminally weaken a child's sense that abortion is wrong, and there's one scene (Snape kills Dumbledore) which promotes the idea of "mercy killing". I think O'Brien is going a little too far with the first example, but I definitely agree with him on the second example. (It goes right back to the subjectivistic ethics (#3 above). Too many antiheroes and "the end justifies the means"... not enough true heroes and real ethics.)
6.) The way magic is portrayed in Harry Potter is far too close to real-world wicca. This goes back to the whole thing about the dualistic philosophy (#1 above) and also the subjectivist ethics (#3): wiccans believe that magic is not objectively evil but that there's good magic (white magic) and bad magic (black magic), and that it is the witch's intention which determines whether the particular use of magic is good or bad. Magic in Harry Potter works in pretty much the same way. Harry uses many of the same spells as the Death Eaters, yet when Harry uses them they're good but when the bad guys use them then they're bad. Harry has even on occasion used the three unforgivable curses as a means to a good end. This depiction of magic is entirely different than the way magic is depicted in Tolkien or Lewis (in which the bad guys use a different kind of magic than the good guys, and in which the magic of the bad guys signifies the preternatural while the magic of the good guys signifies grace. Traditional fairy tales are the same... two distinct kinds of magic: the evil magic signifying real-world/occult magic; the good magic signifying grace). Also, Tolkien and Lewis include warnings against the occult.
Thanks, Daniel. When exorcists say not to read Harry Potter, that should be good enough for everyone. Some people think they know better.
if someone writes a story about a gang of active pedophiles but it's set in a universe where pedophilia is morally good, is that also ok to read
(https://i.imgur.com/WOC03tg.jpg)
Quote from: Heinrich on September 11, 2018, 10:44:01 AM
My pastor reaffirmed just this past Sunday the evil nature of Harry Potter and the inspirations the author used to write. Stay away.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: martin88nyc on September 10, 2018, 10:19:05 PM
This is a comment to a video from sensum fidelium youtube channel" "Fr Chad Ripperger in one of his excellent talks said that J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, wrote them under the influence of the occult practice of automatic writing . Fr Ripperger screenshotted her admittance of this fact which she later removed. Truly, the source of the Harry Potter books is Hell. For anyone with these books in their house burn them and tell others to do the same.?"
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGNaruEYOE0[/yt]
I've decided to watch this, and I don't mean to be disrespectful to Fr. Ripperger, but I think he's wrong in many of the points he brings up.
As someone who has read the Harry Potter books once and has, for Christian apologetic purposes, only briefly looked into some of the sources of the Occult - and I could be wrong, I don't have a Theology degree and haven't actually dealt with exorcism or have dealt with the Occult in any real spiritual way -
but about 75% of the spells used in Harry Potter are just Latin words that mean what the spell does.
Like the spell for summoning a protector - "Expecto Patronum" - is just "I expect my guardian"
Or "accio" - which summons an object - "I summon"
Or "protego" - "I protect"
The rest seem to be just parodies of well known pop-culture spells like "Avada Kadavra" (which is just a play on "Abba Kadabra") or just Latin sounding words ("Expelliarmus" - to disarm).
He's the exorcist - and while it may be possible that some phrases might have been clipped from some Satanic or Occultic rituals that parody Roman Catholicism (hence the Latin), I don't see any evidence of this whatsoever.
And let's assume that it is - how could just the mention of a Latin word used in such a ritual be equivalent to the ritual itself?
From what I can gather, and this is from books that I was exposed to as a kid that I would deem
far more dangerous that can get kids into the Occult ("The Wizardology Handbook"), from reading about the Gnostic Catholic Church online, reading about Wicca and Magick, and reading Medieval descriptions of Black Masses and other similar rituals, "spells" are way more elaborate and ritualistic than simply muttering one to two Latin words, and can involve physical movements / actions, body fluids, animals, candles, idols, etc.
Furthermore, how is it possible for someone to be possessed if they do not have a conscious will to be possessed? From what I understand, possession is the complete giving up of the will to a demon - how can someone do that on a spiritual level if they have no intention to do that? How can you get possessed then by reading Harry Potter, if you have no intention of actually trying to use the magic?
I think the only danger that come from Harry Potter is the same kind of danger that can come from kids reading about Egyptian Mythology or wanting to cook food - some percentage I think will invariably get carried away and go way above just being interested in it to something spiritually dangerous. Some kids will want to learn about the magic behind Egyptian rituals and want to get involved, some kids will become gluttonous and fat and obsess over food - and some kids will just go overboard with interest in wizardry and as a parent, you have to stop them.
If your priest tells you to stay away - good. He's the Priest, you should obey him.
But in my personal opinion, Fr. Ripperger is way off on this one, and I don't agree with his reasoning why
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2019, 07:26:29 PM
Furthermore, how is it possible for someone to be possessed if they do not have a conscious will to be possessed? From what I understand, possession is the complete giving up of the will to a demon - how can someone do that on a spiritual level if they have no intention to do that?
If your knowledge of the other subjects you discuss is as lacking as your knowledge of demonic possession, then perhaps it's best if you avoid such subjects.
Fr. Ripperger, in contrast, is a qualified professional in the area of demonic possession. To argue with him in his own field, a field in which he is a world-renowned expert, can only result in embarrassment.
As Fr. Ripperger points out in his video on "Intellectual Pride" recently posted here at SD:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21503.0
Quote from: Maximilian on March 19, 2019, 07:55:58 PM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2019, 07:26:29 PM
Furthermore, how is it possible for someone to be possessed if they do not have a conscious will to be possessed? From what I understand, possession is the complete giving up of the will to a demon - how can someone do that on a spiritual level if they have no intention to do that?
If your knowledge of the other subjects you discuss is as lacking as your knowledge of demonic possession, then perhaps it's best if you avoid such subjects.
Fr. Ripperger, in contrast, is a qualified professional in the area of demonic possession. To argue with him in his own field, a field in which he is a world-renowned expert, can only result in embarrassment.
As Fr. Ripperger points out in his video on "Intellectual Pride" recently posted here at SD:
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=21503.0
Well congratulations, you put me in a rhetorical deadlock.
The moment that I say that I have any amount of adequate knowledge for any other field, you will just accuse me of being intellectually prideful.
The moment I show any amount of self depreciation - warranted or unwarranted - you will seize that opportunity to make me look like an idiot.
I've already stated where my thoughts come from on this field - having read the Harry Potter books - and how qualified I am in terms of the content that I have engaged myself in. Take it or leave it.
Also, an appeal to authority argument isn't the best one.
Authorities can be wrong - for instance, I remember listening to Father Hesse, and although he had a Doctorate Thomistic Theology Degree, his knowledge on the 1st Millennium Ecumenical Councils is staggeringly erroneous - he said that the Pope of Rome attended all of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils except a couple of them (which isn't true - he didn't attend a single one, cause they were all in the East - he sent a Legate to most of them), he said that Pope Honorius was cast into the Tiber (he's conflating Pope Honorius with Pope Formosus - the former was only posthumously anathematized by the 6th Ecumenical Council, the latter was judged posthumously by the then-reigning Pope and then thrown into the Tiber), and he said that Pope Liberius wasn't a Saint (although he's been recognized as a Saint by the Church Fathers according to Denzinger and is a Saint in the Eastern Churches).
Let's rephrase that argument.
"Richard Dawkins, in contrast, is a qualified professional in the area of biology. To argue with him in his own field, a field in which he is a world-renowned expert, can only result in embarrassment."
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2019, 08:31:22 PM
Let's rephrase that argument.
"Richard Dawkins, in contrast, is a qualified professional in the area of biology. To argue with him in his own field, a field in which he is a world-renowned expert, can only result in embarrassment."
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned expert in the field of biology. That is still a fact even if we believe he is wrong about some things like evolution. If I know nothing about biology, then I will only embarrass myself by arguing with him in public. Rather than help my cause, it will only discredit my position.
Fortunately, there are also world-renowned biologists like Michael Behe on my side. Rather than embarrass myself, I can simply post what they have to say. Then it's an apples-to-apples comparison between the views of Richard Dawkins and the views of Michael Behe.
In this instance, what you would need is a well-known, qualified, experienced exorcist who disagrees with Fr. Ripperger and states that reading Harry Potter books is harmless and couldn't possibly be a contributing cause to demonic influence on children.
If you find someone like that, then please post it.
Quote from: Maximilian on March 20, 2019, 08:12:44 AM
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2019, 08:31:22 PM
Let's rephrase that argument.
"Richard Dawkins, in contrast, is a qualified professional in the area of biology. To argue with him in his own field, a field in which he is a world-renowned expert, can only result in embarrassment."
Richard Dawkins is a world-renowned expert in the field of biology. That is still a fact even if we believe he is wrong about some things like evolution. If I know nothing about biology, then I will only embarrass myself by arguing with him in public. Rather than help my cause, it will only discredit my position.
Fortunately, there are also world-renowned biologists like Michael Behe on my side. Rather than embarrass myself, I can simply post what they have to say. Then it's an apples-to-apples comparison between the views of Richard Dawkins and the views of Michael Behe.
In this instance, what you would need is a well-known, qualified, experienced exorcist who disagrees with Fr. Ripperger and states that reading Harry Potter books is harmless and couldn't possibly be a contributing cause to demonic influence on children.
If you find someone like that, then please post it.
What makes someone a "qualified" and "experienced" exorcist?
This guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK9puYY2r3o
These people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28bfU7VfR-U
This guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbpp4vyfTZM&t=89s
Richard Dawkins and Michael Behe have PhD's - academic accreditation - for biology.
Yes, Fr. Ripperger has a PhD of Philosophy, but that's not a qualification for exorcism.
I firmly believe in demonic possession and the need for exorcism by trained professionals.
But I also firmly believe that Evangelical Protestantism - like it usually does - has created sects with an overly emphasized aspect of the Church that is so over emphasized that it's completely disconnected from the practice of the Church and the reality we live in. Much like "Speaking in Tongues", "Deliverance Ministries" have ridiculously claimed that any mention of magic is Satanic, liturgical practice is Satanic, that Disney is Satanic, that Super Heroes are Satanic, that C.S. Lewis is Satanic, etc. etc., and believe that demonic possession can occur due to innocuous activities like Liturgy or playing Magic the Gathering or Reading Harry Potter.
And Evangelical Protestantism, in part due to contact over time with Catholics, and in part due to Vatican II allowing Catholic versions of Protestant theological movements and ideas (the Charismatic Movement for example) to an extent, I believe these completely foreign practices have tainted Catholicism in how it views Exorcism compared to how the Church has viewed Exorcism in the past, and have even tainted some Exorcists in how they view how the Devil works in the world in terms of the Occult, witchcraft, etc.
Can you find me a Church Father that says reading Greek Mythology will get you possessed by Satan? What about reading Near Eastern Mythology? Egyptian Mythology?
According to his Confession, if memory serves correctly, Saint Augustine read Greek Mythology in his education, but he was off-put by the hedonic characters of the narratives.
Again, don't listen to me - if your Priest tells you to stay away from Harry Potter, obey him.
But I don't think that Harry Potter leads to possession in of itself.
Anyone who claims the Harry Potter books are some kind of witchcraft training manual or contain real spellcasting, demonic names or occult philosophy doesn't know what he's talking about and is either duping or duped. I say this from a position of two decades of study and involvement in these things, that it's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
Other criticisms stand.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:06:00 PM
Anyone who claims the Harry Potter books are some kind of witchcraft training manual or contain real spellcasting, demonic names or occult philosophy doesn't know what he's talking about and is either duping or duped. I say this from a position of two decades of study and involvement in these things, that it's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
Other criticisms stand.
Surprising to hear this answer from you. Are you an exorcist?
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:06:00 PM
Anyone who claims the Harry Potter books are some kind of witchcraft training manual or contain real spellcasting, demonic names or occult philosophy doesn't know what he's talking about and is either duping or duped. I say this from a position of two decades of study and involvement in these things, that it's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
Other criticisms stand.
Thank you - it's Evangelical Protestantism to say that any literature with "magic" must be Satanic and invoking demons.
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:06:00 PM
Anyone who claims the Harry Potter books are some kind of witchcraft training manual or contain real spellcasting, demonic names or occult philosophy doesn't know what he's talking about and is either duping or duped. I say this from a position of two decades of study and involvement in these things, that it's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
Other criticisms stand.
Surprising to hear this answer from you. Are you an exorcist?
No. Like Valentin Tomberg I was an Hermeticist and practising theurgist before my conversion and have experience in occultism beyond that. Maybe Harry Potter seems "accurate" to someone who dabbled in the mental onanism that is 90% of "Wicca", but even that's a stretch, because Harry Potter is literally just wand waving and saying some words or throwing some ingredients together to make a potion; she doesn't even understand scrying.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:52:25 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 01:31:57 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:06:00 PM
Anyone who claims the Harry Potter books are some kind of witchcraft training manual or contain real spellcasting, demonic names or occult philosophy doesn't know what he's talking about and is either duping or duped. I say this from a position of two decades of study and involvement in these things, that it's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
Other criticisms stand.
Surprising to hear this answer from you. Are you an exorcist?
No. Like Valentin Tomberg I was an Hermeticist and practising theurgist before my conversion and have experience in occultism beyond that. Maybe Harry Potter seems "accurate" to someone who dabbled in the mental onanism that is 90% of "Wicca", but even that's a stretch, because Harry Potter is literally just wand waving and saying some words or throwing some ingredients together to make a potion; she doesn't even understand scrying.
You might need an exorcism. Just FYI. So, if I understand your Machiavellian claim to expertise("to know evil is to avoid evil"), we should all plug our ears when numerous traditional priests and exorcists--even one of 50+ years, ordained in the old Rite-- say the Harry P. series is "garbage" and further announce that the uptick in possessions due to HP is not really a thing.
Bei Wölfen und Eulen
Lernt man heulen
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 02:18:51 PM
You might need an exorcism. Just FYI.
No, I don't need an exorcism. To contend I could be "possessed" you'd be contending that valid Catholic baptism does not necessarily sanctify or that a devil and the Trinity could reside in the same person, that the solemn exorcism leading up to it is ineffectual and would not at least bring out demonic signs, and that I don't understand my own self and will. You'd also have to contend that at some point I'd chosen, of my own volition, to truly give my body and soul over to control by a demonic entity, a condition to whose validty I can cite exorcist Malachi Martin, a proposition which is not only not true, as this is something I've never even considered let alone done, but involves a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of genuine Hermetic theurgy as something other than an honest human search for the divine. On this last matter I'd point you to the talks of Charles Coulombe. But no exorcism is more powerful than a a sacrament instituted and effected by Christ, much less the one upon which our personal salvation depends. That there are doors which once opened can never again be closed, however, is true, but I do not consider this an intrinsically bad thing; Hermeticism and the experiences I've had led me directly to Jesus and Catholicism, and not as a mere matter of a hopeful faith but one of knowing and complete and total conviction in the absolute reality of his person and phenomena like the Eucharist.
QuoteSo, if I understand your Machiavellian claim to expertise("to know evil is to avoid evil"), we should all plug our ears when numerous traditional priests and exorcists--even one of 50+ years, ordained in the old Rite-- say the Harry P. series is "garbage" and further announce that the uptick in possessions due to HP is not really a thing.
I haven't disputed either of those claims. It's not high literature, and there's no doubt it has served to cause curiosity in many and lead them on to wish for or dabble in dangerous things made all the more dangerous by the author's total ignorance. I have just reported the fact that in Rowling's works there is no understanding or reflection of any occult philosophy and practice or even a basic notion of how "spells" are constructed and cast and how and why they work, much less the presence of instruction in witchcraft and "real spells". That idea is hysterical and just plain kooky. And yes, this is a fact. I'd be happy to consider any textual evidence, referencing genuine occult parallels, Fr. Ripperger can produce to the contrary, but one can't possibly know these things on any level without at least having both studied Western occultic literature and spoken to genuine practitioners, and even this will at the end of the day be incomplete and misleading, as most of it is not publically available in any form. There's more occultism in a scene form a Christopher Nolan film than there is in all the Harry Potter books combined.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 02:18:51 PM
You might need an exorcism. Just FYI.
No, I don't need an exorcism. To contend I could be "possessed" you'd be contending that valid Catholic baptism does not necessarily sanctify or that a devil and the Trinity could reside in the same person, that the solemn exorcism leading up to it is ineffectual and would not at least bring out demonic signs, and that I don't understand my own self and will. You'd also have to contend that at some point I'd chosen, of my own volition, to truly give my body and soul over to control by a demonic entity, a condition to whose validty I can cite exorcist Malachi Martin, a proposition which is not only not true, as this is something I've never even considered let alone done, but involves a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of genuine Hermetic theurgy as something other than an honest human search for the divine. On this last matter I'd point you to the talks of Charles Coulombe. But no exorcism is more powerful than a a sacrament instituted and effected by Christ, much less the one upon which our personal salvation depends. That there are doors which once opened can never again be closed, however, is true, but I do not consider this an intrinsically bad thing; Hermeticism and the experiences I've had led me directly to Jesus and Catholicism, and not as a mere matter of a hopeful faith but one of knowing and complete and total conviction in the absolute reality of his person and phenomena like the Eucharist.
QuoteSo, if I understand your Machiavellian claim to expertise("to know evil is to avoid evil"), we should all plug our ears when numerous traditional priests and exorcists--even one of 50+ years, ordained in the old Rite-- say the Harry P. series is "garbage" and further announce that the uptick in possessions due to HP is not really a thing.
I haven't disputed either of those claims. It's not high literature, and there's no doubt it has served to cause curiosity in many and lead them on to wish for or dabble in dangerous things made all the more dangerous by the author's total ignorance. I have just reported the fact that in Rowling's works there is no understanding or reflection of any occult philosophy and practice or even a basic notion of how "spells" are constructed and cast and how and why they work, much less the presence of instruction in witchcraft and "real spells". That idea is hysterical and just plain kooky. And yes, this is a fact. I'd be happy to consider any textual evidence, referencing genuine occult parallels, Fr. Ripperger can produce to the contrary, but one can't possibly know these things on any level without at least having both studied Western occultic literature and spoken to genuine practitioners, and even this will at the end of the day be incomplete and misleading, as most of it is not publically available in any form. There's more occultism in a scene form a Christopher Nolan film than there is in all the Harry Potter books combined.
You are as wordy as a woman.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 09:19:45 PM
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 04:42:28 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on March 23, 2019, 02:18:51 PM
You might need an exorcism. Just FYI.
No, I don't need an exorcism. To contend I could be "possessed" you'd be contending that valid Catholic baptism does not necessarily sanctify or that a devil and the Trinity could reside in the same person, that the solemn exorcism leading up to it is ineffectual and would not at least bring out demonic signs, and that I don't understand my own self and will. You'd also have to contend that at some point I'd chosen, of my own volition, to truly give my body and soul over to control by a demonic entity, a condition to whose validty I can cite exorcist Malachi Martin, a proposition which is not only not true, as this is something I've never even considered let alone done, but involves a complete misunderstanding and mischaracterisation of genuine Hermetic theurgy as something other than an honest human search for the divine. On this last matter I'd point you to the talks of Charles Coulombe. But no exorcism is more powerful than a a sacrament instituted and effected by Christ, much less the one upon which our personal salvation depends. That there are doors which once opened can never again be closed, however, is true, but I do not consider this an intrinsically bad thing; Hermeticism and the experiences I've had led me directly to Jesus and Catholicism, and not as a mere matter of a hopeful faith but one of knowing and complete and total conviction in the absolute reality of his person and phenomena like the Eucharist.
QuoteSo, if I understand your Machiavellian claim to expertise("to know evil is to avoid evil"), we should all plug our ears when numerous traditional priests and exorcists--even one of 50+ years, ordained in the old Rite-- say the Harry P. series is "garbage" and further announce that the uptick in possessions due to HP is not really a thing.
I haven't disputed either of those claims. It's not high literature, and there's no doubt it has served to cause curiosity in many and lead them on to wish for or dabble in dangerous things made all the more dangerous by the author's total ignorance. I have just reported the fact that in Rowling's works there is no understanding or reflection of any occult philosophy and practice or even a basic notion of how "spells" are constructed and cast and how and why they work, much less the presence of instruction in witchcraft and "real spells". That idea is hysterical and just plain kooky. And yes, this is a fact. I'd be happy to consider any textual evidence, referencing genuine occult parallels, Fr. Ripperger can produce to the contrary, but one can't possibly know these things on any level without at least having both studied Western occultic literature and spoken to genuine practitioners, and even this will at the end of the day be incomplete and misleading, as most of it is not publically available in any form. There's more occultism in a scene form a Christopher Nolan film than there is in all the Harry Potter books combined.
You are as wordy as a woman.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/21/Appeal-to-Authority
That's a laugh. You're the one, in complete ignorance of the subject matter, making appeals to the "authority" of a priest on a subject of which he appears to be almost as ignorant as you are. And he'd likely have to be, since he'd be forbidden to even study the occult and publically-available literature in question, like the Corpus Hermeticum, the Greek Magical Papyri, the Kabbalistic texts, the Picatrix, the Solomonic grimoires like the Hygromanteia, Lemegeton, Key of Solomon or Grimorium Verum, the collections of folk magic and spells, the classics on occult philosophy of Agrippa, Bruno and Paracelsus, the later writings of Eliphas Levi, A.E. Waite, Mathers, Regardie and the Golden Dawn manuals, or the modern practitioners.
If one is making the assertion that "real spells" exist in the pages of the Harry Potter books, then one ought to evidence that by example. Nobody has done so. But it's absurd on the face of it, as waving a wand while uttering some fake Latin words is not a spell nor casting a spell, which requires preparation, astrological timing, ritual preliminaries and invocations, entering into gnostic trance, rhythmic repetition, and application of imagination and force of will; that is, if one is not invoking a spirit over days over ritually prepared device or evoking a spirit to manifestation to exorcise, bind and command it to perform a task, or forming a pact with it. But none of that appears in Rowling's work, even in rudimentary or superficial form.
If one is making the assertion that the Harry Potter books contain the names of demons, then one ought to evidence that. Of course, that's more unevudenced baloney, and consultation of any demonolological works or spirit lists, be they the Bible, Nag Hammadi library, Testament of Solomon, Hygromanteia, Ars Goetia, Steganographica, Ars Theurgia, Book of Abramelin etc., will leave one coming up empty handed.
If one is making the assertion that Rowling understands the occult and has written a "training manual", then one ought to evidence that too. But she demonstrates not even a basic knowledge of meditative practice in any system east or west, how divination works from the perspective of the visionary, spiritual hierarchies, Neoplatonic cosmology, astrology as applied to magical practice, the elementary divisions of magic, the Kabbalistic "Tree of Life" and its worlds, or any magical theory on how it all fits together and works.
That's not an appeal to authority. It's a statement of facts which will be corroborated by anyone else in the know, and by in-the-know, I don't mean someone who dabbled for six months in Gardnerian Wicca and read one Lewellyn-published book picked off the shelf of the local pop occult store when she was a teenager.
This "debate" is just retarded.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on March 19, 2019, 07:26:29 PMbut about 75% of the spells used in Harry Potter are just Latin words that mean what the spell does.
Like the spell for summoning a protector - "Expecto Patronum" - is just "I expect my guardian"
Or "accio" - which summons an object - "I summon"
Or "protego" - "I protect"
The rest seem to be just parodies of well known pop-culture spells like "Avada Kadavra" (which is just a play on "Abba Kadabra") or just Latin sounding words ("Expelliarmus" - to disarm).
True. I remember when the first movie came out, my former friend was attending a NO Catholic middle school, and she told me that her Latin class went on a field trip to see the movie. (Probably not the best way to learn Latin though, lol)
I also have not come across any real-world spells in Harry Potter. The closest I'm aware of is avada kedavra. Granted, I haven't done a whole lot of research on the subject and don't really know many real spells.
Supposedly somebody attempted to use the
incendio spell (or whatever it's called) and actually set something on fire. But I don't know if that's true.
Quote from: Kreuzritter on March 23, 2019, 01:06:00 PMit's clear as day that Rowling does not understand anything about the subject and presents only a bookish caricature of the most superficial and passing sort.
I don't think the claim is that Rowling deliberately put witchcraft and stuff into her books. (Rowling doesn't even believe in magic. And she probably got her ideas from various fantasy books, not from research into witchcraft and the occult.) But I think that the claim is that there is real-world witchcraft in the books, and the way it got there is that the devil put it there, using Rowling as his pawn. This theory is based on a statement which Rowling made in an interview, in which she more or less said that the idea of Harry Potter just popped into her head one day fully-formed. i.e. She received the idea through the inspiration of a devil. And then the devil guided her creative decisions as she physically sat down and wrote the books, and the devil also arranged things such that the books would be a big success, have a huge audience, and turn Rowling into a celebrity.
Whether or not there actually is real witchcraft in the books, I have no idea. Nothing stood out to me personally as I read the books, but that was a while ago and I'm no expert.
By the way, just wanted to put this here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxpwlKRQ2U&t=14s