NationStates Jolt Archive

why dont like different religious groups some books?

I can understand if you dont like a book ho criticize you religion.

But i dont understand when people want to stop fantasy books like harry Potter. Are the priest rightened people dont can see difference
between fantsy and reality ?

And idont think is right to forbid books only becuse you dont like them. Freedom of speech is only real if you also want your opponent have theright.

You are not a democrat if you only want people ho have think like you shall have the right to do book, movie, news papper....

why dont like different religious groups some books?

I can understand if you dont like a book ho criticize you religion.

But i dont understand when people want to stop fantasy books like harry Potter. Are the priest frightened people dont can see difference
between fantasy and reality ?

And idont think is right to forbid books only becuse you dont like them. Freedom of speech is only real if you also want your opponent have theright.

You are not a democrat if you only want people ho have think like you shall have the right to do book, movie, news papper....

Me not know

I agree.

depends. What kind of book are we talking about here?

didn't I already reply to this topic, where did my post go? :confused:

why dont like different religious groups some books?

I can understand if you dont like a book ho criticize you religion.

But i dont understand when people want to stop fantasy books like harry Potter. Are the priest frightened people dont can see difference
between fantasy and reality ?

And idont think is right to forbid books only becuse you dont like them. Freedom of speech is only real if you also want your opponent have theright.

You are not a democrat if you only want people ho have think like you shall have the right to do book, movie, news papper....

I .... uh ..... I'm ..... well ..... gosh ....

That is to say .... errr ....

Me not know

Ah ... good ... someone answered for me.

Da Vinci Code is forbidden by the christian church.

didn't I already reply to this topic, where did my post go? :confused:

I have of a accident postet this posten too times.

why dont like different religious groups some books?

I can understand if you dont like a book ho criticize you religion.

But i dont understand when people want to stop fantasy books like harry Potter. Are the priest rightened people dont can see difference
between fantsy and reality ?

And idont think is right to forbid books only becuse you dont like them. Freedom of speech is only real if you also want your opponent have theright.

You are not a democrat if you only want people ho have think like you shall have the right to do book, movie, news papper....


I have of a accident postet this posten to times.

depends. What kind of book are we talking about here?

Harry Potter

Sentence ... structure ... failing .... must ... hold on ... body strong ... mind weak ... can't ... take .... much .... more ..............

Sentence ... structure ... failing .... must ... hold on ... body strong ... mind weak ... can't ... take .... much .... more ..............

Indeed. It pains me so.

why dont like different religious groups some books?

Why must you use "like" in that way?

some people are just nuts. after all most of the people who boycott books like harry potter haven't read them. I am an evangelical Christain and I read Harry Potter, I like it, I know it is pretend and that it doesn't really promote witchcraft or anything, mostly it is a book about friends.
The people that annoy me are the ones who took Huck Finn and To Kill a Mocking Bird out of the library when I was in junior high, because they had racial slurs in them. Of course if they had taken time to actually read the books they would have realized they had pretty good messages.

I read books before I give them to my kids, I watch movies before I let them see them, and when they get old enough (past wiggles age) I will screne their music too. (until they are old enough to make thier own choices) If you don't want your kids exposed to something then you figure out what to do about it, and quit whining to everyone else.

okay rant over

It was the Jews, I swear!

Why must you use "like" in that way?

Im not good at gramma so it can be wrong word some times.

Da Vinci Code is forbidden by the christian church.
Erm, not by my church.....are you sure the ENTIRE Christian faith decided against that one?

God, would've been nice for the Vatican to tell us that we're strictly forbidden to read it, rather than just saying that it's a work of fiction....

Its ironic that a Christian groups do a lot of the attacking. There's a verse in Proverbs that states:

A fool takes no joy in understanding
Only in airing his own opinions.

I mean some right wing groups have any gone after Madeleine L'Engle's books, which are Christian allegories!

Granted there are a lot of points on which L'Engle is liberal where religion is concerned e.g.

If u go by her books, she does not believe in predestination or that non Christians are damned.

I agree. Censuring everything u disagree with is obviously folly.

some people are just nuts. after all most of the people who boycott books like harry potter haven't read them. I am an evangelical Christain and I read Harry Potter, I like it, I know it is pretend and that it doesn't really promote witchcraft or anything, mostly it is a book about friends.
The people that annoy me are the ones who took Huck Finn and To Kill a Mocking Bird out of the library when I was in junior high, because they had racial slurs in them. Of course if they had taken time to actually read the books they would have realized they had pretty good messages.

I read books before I give them to my kids, I watch movies before I let them see them, and when they get old enough (past wiggles age) I will screne their music too. (until they are old enough to make thier own choices) If you don't want your kids exposed to something then you figure out what to do about it, and quit whining to everyone else.

okay rant over

yes even christian can se valuor in the book is good and im glad for it.

at least he's trying with his english english is a hard language to learn I applaud him

Its ironic that a Christian groups do a lot of the attacking. There's a verse in Proverbs that states:

A fool takes no joy in understanding
Only in airing his own opinions.

I mean some right wing groups have any gone after Madeleine L'Engle's books, which are Christian allegories!

Granted there are a lot of points on which L'Engle is liberal where religion is concerned e.g.

If u go by her books, she does not believe in predestination or that non Christians are damned.

I agree. Censuring everything u disagree with is obviously folly.
The one that gets me is people who are trying to censor C.S. Lewis.
His books are obviously Christain. (well it was obvious to me when I was 10)

Da Vinci Code is forbidden by the christian church.
define forbidden. I think we aren't really encouraged to read it if we can't understand that it is a work of fiction, that most of it is made up. But then if you don't understand the difference between fiction and nonfiction I could think of a lot of books you shouldn't read too. (hitchhikers guide... the earth explodes in the first one, could be scarey)

why dont like different religious groups some books?


Because those books contain viewpoints that conflict with their own, and they are not confident enough that their followers would not be persuaded (or "led into temptation" if you prefer).

Harry Potter for instance shows magic as something "normal", something which is not inherently evil. The heroes in the book are likeable, people will tend to identify with them. Does that mean they will think it is real ? Probably not. But they will be a little less against magic - and magic is evil according to the church.

The religions fear for these things is mainly so great because all they have to justify their commandments, pillars, laws, rules and so on is complete faith in God/Allah/etc. God says certain things are good or bad, but he generally does not explain why. So when someone says something that sounds reasonable, the religion has no real answer.

Are the priest rightened people dont can see difference
between fantsy and reality ?


They are right in this case because it is a book marketed to children. Generally, adults can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Children may or may not be old enough to tell fantasy from reality. A lot of 8 year olds read Harry Potter and also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Da Vinci Code is forbidden by the christian church.

There is no such thing as "the christian church".

The Da Vinci Code (which I haven't read) is full of shit, and irrelevant.

I am not in any way a christian.

They are right in this case because it is a book marketed to children. Generally, adults can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Children may or may not be old enough to tell fantasy from reality. A lot of 8 year olds read Harry Potter and also believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

They believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny and God not because they are too young to distinguish between fantasy and reality but because adults tell them that these things are real. Lying to children is cruel and stupid, but people do it anyway. They can't help that they've been lied to.

Da Vinci Code is forbidden by the christian church.

Don't be stupid. They are filming the movie at Lincolnshire Cathedral.

Perhaps the bishop didn't get the memo!

Maybe atheists should start censoring bibles and burning them because of all the harm they do.

That's just a fantasy book.

There is no such thing as "the christian church".

The Da Vinci Code (which I haven't read) is full of shit, and irrelevant.

I am not in any way a christian.

There is such a thing as the "Christian Church". It is the collection of synods that meet yearly to discuss the direction of the church.

If you haven't read it you have no idea what the hell you are talking about so your opinion on the Da Vinci Code is null. You are a prejudice religious zealot if you don't even know what's in the book. I've read both that book and the bible. The Da Vinci code (while fiction) is more accurate to certain historical factors.

Maybe atheists should start censoring bibles and burning them because of all the harm they do.
That's just a fantasy book.

Yes, but what moral code would you offer as alternative ? A religion is more than just some prayers and rituals - it is a way of looking at the world, for considering things right or wrong.
There are plenty of moral systems that do not require divine authority - but how are you going to make people accept one of them ? And are they intellectually *capable* of dealing with them ?

There is such a thing as the "Christian Church". It is the collection of synods that meet yearly to discuss the direction of the church.

No there isn't. There is no authoritative body that makes decisions on behalf of the aggregated mass of all groups counting themselves as christian denominations. As I can't prove a negative, ie that there is no such thing as "The Christian Church" as a single decision-making body, it would be courteous of you to prove the positive point. Please provide a link to some information about the synod you refer to.

If you haven't read it you have no idea what the hell you are talking about so your opinion on the Da Vinci Code is null. You are a prejudice religious zealot if you don't even know what's in the book. I've read both that book and the bible. The Da Vinci code (while fiction) is more accurate to certain historical factors.

I'm not in any way religious, so I'm not a religious zealot. I've read reviews of the book which outline the plot in few papers, and I've discussed the book with a lot of people who've read it, so I know that it is badly written and devoid of interesting or new facts. I also know that it isn't a threat to anyone's religious beliefs.

Religion is a great way to control society.

Books tend to open a persons mind - which is threatning to religion and thus society.
And we all know society must be protected ("F* Society - I did and I have the social diseases to prove it" -- sorry went off on a Rocky Horror mind set)

Books such as Harry Potter promote "witch craft", which the bible condems to death. Doesn't matter if the theme is "good over evil" - both are witches and must die.

If it floats, it must be a witch.

Yes, but what moral code would you offer as alternative ? A religion is more than just some prayers and rituals - it is a way of looking at the world, for considering things right or wrong.
There are plenty of moral systems that do not require divine authority - but how are you going to make people accept one of them ? And are they intellectually *capable* of dealing with them ?We could all read Knigge's guide to etiquette. :p

If you haven't read it you have no idea what the hell you are talking about so your opinion on the Da Vinci Code is null. You are a prejudice religious zealot if you don't even know what's in the book. I've read both that book and the bible. The Da Vinci code (while fiction) is more accurate to certain historical factors.

I'm not religious, but I'm comparatively informed on the contents of the bible and on the history of Christianity. And unfortunately, I read the Da Vinci Code.
Most of the alleged "facts" were absolute inventions of the author, and of those facts that happened to be either correct or at least deserving the benefit of doubt, none were new or were brought up or discovered later than the 1970s.
If you are interested in books about secret societies and alternative history, I suggest you read Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pedulum".

Maybe atheists should start censoring bibles and burning them because of all the harm they do.

That's just a fantasy book.
hey... that isn't very nice. besides they could burn them if they wanted to , free country, and I am against censorship by the government, however I do censor things for my children that I feel would be harmful to them, couldn't the atheists just do this too?

Yes, but what moral code would you offer as alternative ? A religion is more than just some prayers and rituals - it is a way of looking at the world, for considering things right or wrong.
There are plenty of moral systems that do not require divine authority - but how are you going to make people accept one of them ? And are they intellectually *capable* of dealing with them ?

Are you saying that the bible "makes" people accept christian morals?

I certainly reject what I've seen of Christian morals. Use, abuse, contol, dominate, Us Vs. Them. I exaggerate, but from my point of view this is not entirely inaccurate.

People need a personal moral compass, it cannot be proscribed to them by any book or philosophy. It is something that must develop within themselves.

Jesussaves
Member




Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 224 Proof that Harry Potter books cause satanism

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An article from a major newspaper was emailed to me yesterday. It says that Harry Potter books cause satanism. Here's what the article said.


Lock Haven PA- Ashley Daniels is as close as you can get to your typical 9-year-old American girl. A third grader at Lock Haven Elementary school, she loves rollerblading, her pet hamsters Benny and Oreo, and of course, Harry Potter. Having breezed through the most recent Potter opus in just four days, Ashley is among the millions of children who have made Harry Potter And The Goblet Of Fire the fastest-selling book in publishing history. And like many of her school friends, Ashley was captivated enough by thestrange occult doings at the Hogwarts Schoool of Witchcraft and Wizardryto pursue the Left-Hand Path, determined to become as adept at the black arts as Harry and his pals. "I used to beleive in what they taught us at Sunday School" said Ashley, conjuring up and ancient spell to summon Cereberus, the three-headed hound of hell. "But the Harry Potter books showed me that magic is real, something I can learn and use right now, and that The Bible is nothing but boring lies."



The article also has a teacher who says her kids started reading Harry Potter and now have read the seven scrolls of the black rose, the necronomicon, the satanic bible, and the origin of species. Also satanic groups are getting new members. One of the satanists bragged that all the new members they get from harry potter were virgins.

These books are sick. They need to be taken out of the libraries and classrooms.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's why.

hey... that isn't very nice. besides they could burn them if they wanted to , free country, and I am against censorship by the government, however I do censor things for my children that I feel would be harmful to them, couldn't the atheists just do this too?


I did take that too the extreme to prove a point. I don't believe any book should be burned. And I too "censor" things for my children, at least the younger ones. My wife and I don't see eye to eye about the bible, so instead of censoring I qualify it and give them other literature. For example, studies done on the innaccuracy of the bible, the Tao Te Ching, books on zen buddhism, The Diamond Sutra, a translated Quaran and other non-christian things so they can get a full perspective.

My point was, no one should burn any books, or ban them to the general public. They are, afterall, only books. The danger of any book is only in the mind of the one who reads it.

I did take that too the extreme to prove a point. I don't believe any book should be burned. And I too "censor" things for my children, at least the younger ones. My wife and I don't see eye to eye about the bible, so instead of censoring I qualify it and give them other literature. For example, studies done on the innaccuracy of the bible, the Tao Te Ching, books on zen buddhism, The Diamond Sutra, a translated Quaran and other non-christian things so they can get a full perspective.

My point was, no one should burn any books, or ban them to the general public. They are, afterall, only books. The danger of any book is only in the mind of the one who reads it.

You give your "younger" children books about Zen Buddhism and studies about the bible? How "young" are we talking here?

The Da Vinci Code (which I haven't read) is full of shit, and irrelevant.


Are you a critic by any chance?

I did take that too the extreme to prove a point. I don't believe any book should be burned. And I too "censor" things for my children, at least the younger ones. My wife and I don't see eye to eye about the bible, so instead of censoring I qualify it and give them other literature. For example, studies done on the innaccuracy of the bible, the Tao Te Ching, books on zen buddhism, The Diamond Sutra, a translated Quaran and other non-christian things so they can get a full perspective.

My point was, no one should burn any books, or ban them to the general public. They are, afterall, only books. The danger of any book is only in the mind of the one who reads it.
oh yeah. I didn't read who posted it sorry. it would be out of character for you. (from the discussions we have had elsewhere, you seem pretty tolerant)

No there isn't. There is no authoritative body that makes decisions on behalf of the aggregated mass of all groups counting themselves as christian denominations. As I can't prove a negative, ie that there is no such thing as "The Christian Church" as a single decision-making body, it would be courteous of you to prove the positive point. Please provide a link to some information about the synod you refer to.

Definition of the Christian Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)

A history of meetings to organize Christian Church leaders and follow a direction (http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/shortcourse/congchri.htm)

If you need more let me know.



I'm not in any way religious, so I'm not a religious zealot. I've read reviews of the book which outline the plot in few papers, and I've discussed the book with a lot of people who've read it, so I know that it is badly written and devoid of interesting or new facts. I also know that it isn't a threat to anyone's religious beliefs.

While you are right in parts (very little new or unknown information was presented) I disagree in part. The book was well written for a thriller novel. i found it exciting and fun to read. The facts were interesting if not new to the general public. Whether it is a threat to anyone's religious beliefs isn't really a tangible thing, so I can't say yes or no on that.

Finally, reading reviews, excerpts, and hearing from other people is not reading a book. If you want to be considered to have an informed opinion, read the book yourself.

oh yeah. I didn't read who posted it sorry. it would be out of character for you. (from the discussions we have had elsewhere, you seem pretty tolerant)

I just add a little pizazz from time to time to catch the eye. ;)

I just add a little pizazz from time to time to catch the eye. ;)
how old are your kids? just curious.

off topic sorry.

You give your "younger" children books about Zen Buddhism and studies about the bible? How "young" are we talking here?

Okay...I wasn't clear about that. My younger children are only coming of reading age. My step children are in their teens, that's who I give the other books to. For my younger ones I simply help them explore other possibilities via discussion, but when they are older I will give them the same opportunity as the older ones. Sorry for not being clear.

.
If you are interested in books about secret societies and alternative history, I suggest you read Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pedulum".

That is an awesome book. Thanks for bringing it up. Must have slipped my mind.

Definition of the Christian Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm)

A history of meetings to organize Christian Church leaders and follow a direction (http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/shortcourse/congchri.htm)


Erm... you do realise that the first link is a definition of the Catholic church and the second one of an American Protestant church?
None of them have any authority whatsoever in any other congregation.

People try to ban books like Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings because they don't want "impressionable young minds" going around shouting "Alohamora!" and killing orcs.

Sentence ... structure ... failing .... must ... hold on ... body strong ... mind weak ... can't ... take .... much .... more ..............

Pitholm is from Sweden, english probably isn't his or her first language. So by speaking yoiur language, he's doing you a favour. don't complain!

honestly, do you understand what i mean if i say: "Nu ar det jul igen!"? do you?

learn Swedish perfectly before you complain about Pitholm's English.

Pitholm is from Sweden, english probably isn't his or her first language. So by speaking yoiur language, he's doing you a favour. don't complain!

honestly, do you understand what i mean if i say: "Nu ar det jul igen!"? do you?

learn Swedish perfectly before you complain about Pitholm's English.
Actually, it's easier for me to understand Pitholm if I translate what's s/he's writing in Swedish first.

Are you saying that the bible "makes" people accept christian morals?

The tale about the big God that can smite you mightily certainly helped to make it accepted by the masses, and therefor the basis of many societies.

People need a personal moral compass, it cannot be proscribed to them by any book or philosophy. It is something that must develop within themselves.

If you want people to live in stable societies instead of anarchy that does not work. "Good" and "Evil" are for the most part (and perhaps even completely) relative concepts. What you consider good or neutral might be a deadly sin to another. There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that "truly good" or "truly evil" things exist.

So to live together in some harmony, you need to define some common ground - which in turn means you must make sure that everyone agrees to at least some basic principles. And there lies the problem... religion might not be the best moral compass, but it *is* easily accepted - while something like Kants teachings appeals to far less people.

I've read both that book and the bible. The Da Vinci code (while fiction) is more accurate to certain historical factors.

No it isn't. It is based on long theories and psuedo-history. There is no worth in the book, even just as a book of fiction. Unless you like cliches, cardboard characters and hackneyed plots.

btw, I'm an agnostic.


Most of the alleged "facts" were absolute inventions of the author,

Not even that, it was basically a cheap (?) rip off of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."

The church has had a long history of censorship, but its not only Christians that are opposed to fantasy lit. etc.

For example, in the movie "The Wizard of Oz" they ended it by waking Dorothy up and showing the audience it was all just a dream. But in the books Oz was a real place.

People just couldn't deal with the possibility that there might be other worlds. Again, there is irony here. I don't get it: If u believe in life after ( as many people do) why is it so hard to believe that there might be other worlds? Go figure.

The church has had a long history of censorship, but its not only Christians that are opposed to fantasy lit. etc.

For example, in the movie "The Wizard of Oz" they ended it by waking Dorothy up and showing the audience it was all just a dream. But in the books Oz was a real place.

People just couldn't deal with the possibility that there might be other worlds. Again, there is irony here. I don't get it: If u believe in life after ( as many people do) why is it so hard to believe that there might be other worlds? Go figure.

I think this might be one of the issues. Fanaticly religious people tend to be very narrowminded of their idea exactly how and what things are, so they will have very clear ideas of the afterlife. Which makes it in turn harder to accept different levels of reality and surreality.

Farenheit 451 anybody?

I think this might be one of the issues. Fanaticly religious people tend to be very narrowminded of their idea exactly how and what things are, so they will have very clear ideas of the afterlife. Which makes it in turn harder to accept different levels of reality and surreality.
define Fanaticly religious.

define Fanaticly religious.

"A person filled with excessive religious zeal"

Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com)

"A person filled with excessive religious zeal"

Oxford English Dictionary (http://www.askoxford.com)
oh guess that would be me. hmm

oh guess that would be me. hmm

I guess in my own book, fanatic would be defined as "cannot accept the slightest possiblity that the world/god/whatever might be even a touch different from what he believes to know it/him/whatever to be"

I guess in my own book, fanatic would be defined as "cannot accept the slightest possiblity that the world/god/whatever might be even a touch different from what he believes to know it/him/whatever to be"
ah well, since I do not claim to know the exact nature of God then I guess that wouldn't be me.
I do believe that the Bible is for the most part right, and I believe in basic gospel truths, many have said that I am a religious extremist, because I believe that there is only one true way to heaven and only one true God. just wondering.

ah well, since I do not claim to know the exact nature of God then I guess that wouldn't be me.
I do believe that the Bible is for the most part right, and I believe in basic gospel truths, many have said that I am a religious extremist, because I believe that there is only one true way to heaven and only one true God. just wondering.

I would agree on the "one true god" bit, but I would argue the ways. There are as many ways as there are people on this planet, and pressumably even more.

I would agree on the "one true god" bit, but I would argue the ways. There are as many ways as there are people on this planet, and pressumably even more.
ah, many think that. Scripture says there is only one way, and it warns of others teaching false doctrines. I believe that the "many roads lead to heaven" doctrine to be inherently false.

i think we are off topic though.

darn I keep doing that.

gotta look out for myself...

ah, many think that. Scripture says there is only one way, and it warns of others teaching false doctrines. I believe that the "many roads lead to heaven" doctrine to be inherently false.

i think we are off topic though.

darn I keep doing that.

gotta look out for myself...

Given that the Quran and the Bagvadh Gita are books as well, we're not that far off
:D