| Subject: Response to Donald |
Author:
Vince
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03:32:34 06/05/04 Sat
In reply to:
Donald
's message, "Re: Harry Potter and Academics (Apologists:Accounting for their Myopia)" on 11:44:36 06/04/04 Fri
Hi Donald, some comments on your above post:
Donald: “Hi Vince,
I was hoping for an intelligent response to this man's argument - some hope.”
Vince: I do find your tone somewhat insulting here Donald. There is no need for such rudeness. Myopia?!! Have you asked the average JW, who is not allowed to read other religious literature other than that of the Watchtower about this?
Donald: “Like I said before, the author of this article is not interested in upholding or rejecting 'Christian' opposition to Harry Potter, that is simply not his purpose.”
Vince: Well from the “abstract” (your words) which you posted on the board (the only section I might add, and what appears to be 3 paraphrased examples by you in a later post), it is difficult to ascertain exactly what he is saying. We have ‘your’ opinion on what ‘you’ have stated he is saying but not much about what ‘he’ actually says himself. You have posted no URL to the article and not even a reference of any sort
Donald: “He is a sociologist and he is interested in the Harry Potter phenomenon as an indicator or where our secular society is headed. Some have maintained that the popularity of Harry Potter shows that even in our so-called secular society many are still very interested in magic and the supernatural. Some have used it in arguments against the secularisation thesis forwarded by Steve Bruce, Bryan Wilson and the young Peter Berger. It is in that context that the article argues that although magic is very prominent in the books, a close examination reveals that it is a very modern, and in many ways secular, view of magic. Magical objects are talked about like technical devices that can 'malfunction' and have technical names. The idea that Harry Potter can communicate with his dead parents is dangled before the reader, before it is quickly shown to be out of the question as impossible and irrational. Hard work and study are emphasized rather than supernatural gifts, and so on and so on. In short, the article points out that what at first appears to be a return to old fashioned magic of fairy tales and so on is in fact a very modern, secular view of the world. As Weber argued, the world has increasingly lost its wonder - demystified, people now believe that there are rational explanations for everything, and Harry Potter is a continuation of that trend, it is not a break with it.”
Vince: Who on earth are Bruce, Wilson, Weber, and Berger (or Ostling for that matter)? Am I expected to know who these people are? Because I don’t. I suppose you will imply that I am not widely read again and ridicule me for not reading the works of these people?
Fair enough that the guy has a theory, but from the sparse information that you have supplied us with to examine here it is difficult to ascertain for ourselves exactly what he is saying.
To state that the magical world of HP is technical fits very well with current trends in neo paganism anyway. There is a growing trend among some neo-pagans to view magic as technical. They view the god and the goddess as Jungian archetypes and the magic they do as harnessing a force yet undiscovered to science. So Ostling is not preaching anything new here.
I am also sure that the majority of young people and neo-pagans themselves (see quotes from neo-pagans I supplied in previous post) don’t think about technical and non-technical magic – just magic. The result is the same – young people are turning to the occult as a result of reading HP (again see the quotes I provided in the previous post).
Academics may call it what they will, but the Biblical view, is that to practice such magic (whatever you want to call it) is disobedience against God.
I would also certainly disagree that the world is secular anymore. Well before HP society was becoming involved in New Age practices. Even though many are rejecting traditional religions, it seems that the majority hold to some sort of eastern world view now (like reincarnation, etc). More people than ever before are interested in ghosts, UFOs, meditation, etc.
Donald: “Essentially his argument has nothing to do with your apologetic agenda and I find it astonishing that you would dismiss his view so out of hand. You have not even read the article.”
Vince: How on earth am I meant to read an article you haven’t even referenced properly? I am not psychic. No reference, not even a URL – just excerpts and paraphrases from you.
Donald: “Then again you have probably not read Harry Potter either, whereas the author of the article had. I must admit I have only read the first book, but I guess that is still more than you. But this should come as no surprise to me, after all your whole web site is a collection of other people's opinions on various books and subjects; an assortment of quotes from books you have never read.”
Vince: How dare you Donald! It seems as though you are one person on the phone and a completely different arrogant and insulting person on the message boards you post on. In fact, the more I have had dealings with you the more this comes out. Are you deliberately out to insult me? Are you really one and the same person or is your board persona your alter ego? I will thank you not to phone me any more until I have a public apology here.
These comments of yours are all about when I spoke to you over the phone and answered your question as to whether I had read a Watchtower book through completely. My reply to this was that I hadn’t, but had read large portions of the relevant parts I research. For example, if I am researching for an article about what Jehovah’s Witnesses believe about baptism, I will read all of the necessary parts from Watchtower material on that subject, and so on. Some of my other material for articles on Jehovah’s Witnesses has also come from dialogue with active JWs (in person at my home and on the net). In fact, as I have stated to you a number of times Donald, ‘you’ have had a significant part to play in the birth and creation of a good number of the articles on my site. Have a look through the articles on JWs on the site and see how many of these are the result of past dialogue on the Reachout Trust board.
I believe in honesty and when we spoke on the phone, and you asked me if I had read a WT book right through, I could never have imagined you would use my answer to ridicule me like you have done. Little did I realize at the time that you would morph into another character and use my honesty to beat me with. Remember that you have also made some admissions in the past as well (which I will give you the courtesy of not revealing to others here)!
Just because I haven’t read whole Watchtower books through from cover to cover doesn’t mean that I don’t have an understanding of the topics I have researched. Nor does it mean that I haven’t read other books from front to cover. Your attitude is most insulting and arrogant Donald.
Not that I have to explain myself to you anyway, but for the record, I have read all of the first 4 HP books right through. I have the 5th but have not read that yet. I have also seen the first 2 films and am going to see the 3rd.
And I also hope that this is to your satisfaction as well Donald: With the other articles on my site covering all the other subjects – I have read many of the books I cite from straight through. As I have said to you on the phone, I have a large personal library. Most books I cite from are actually far more interesting than the average WT book anyway, make easy and enjoyable reading, and are therefore easier to read right through anyway. With others, I research the relevant topic, read through the appropriate chapters and compare with what others have said.
Harry Potter, with all it’s faults, is actually a far more interesting read than the average Watchtower book anyway. As you were reminded by X-JW you have admitted in the past that you find the Watchtower meetings “boring”. One is left to wonder whether you secretly find Watchtower literature boring as well? Probably.
I don’t know whether you are on a personal crusade to hurt and insult those who try and befriend you Donald. We can agree to disagree, yes, but that doesn’t give the right to be rude and insulting. We can get on together, yet disagree. I have many friends (in cyberspace and in the real world) who are from a wide variety of faiths and backgrounds. Take my friend Silverfox, for example. With him, and others like him, we disagree on a lot, but never have I found that it turns into the ad hominem personal attacks like you have brought against me here and on the reachout board. I dread to think what the post was that you put up on the reachout trust board against me a few weeks back that caused one of the moderators to take it down because it was “way too personal”.
I have already spent too long on all this.
I wish you well Donald.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 