quote:Nobody is righteous or unrighteous in Harry Potter.
My impression was the morality in the Harry Potter books was pretty lame, but was not non-existent. The moral compass seemed to be whether someone had ever killed someone else.
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Did you expect God to come down and tell the characters what to do? Even now, we all act according to our best conscience. There's a lot of inspiration in these stories, but it's up to you to bring them.
And since when is God present in any of the "classics"?
Me thinks thou protesteth too much.
Is Shakespeare a classic?
What exactly made it classical over the many who copied him? Yet none of the plays he wrote were original. He copied everything.
"I've been surprised at the disagreements arising when I talk about how God doesn't exist in Harry's universe, and how the series is pretty much on the same moral level as the Golden Compass books."
The responses are perfect examples of what I'm talking about.
A claim that there's no God in that great Christian tome the Chronicles of Narnia by Christianity's (arguably) greatest apologist? I'm utterly befuddled.
I don't get Ray's reaction either. Not sure what he thinks I'm claiming or not claiming about good literature/classics. Not sure why he feels the need to take me to task about it. Whether HP and GC are well- or poorly-written, classics or otherwise, doesn't really matter to me. I don't really have an opinion about the literary value of either series.
Yeah, there's morality in Harry Potter. There is in Golden Compass too. One of athiesm's loudest yellings is about how you don't have to believe in God to have a moral foundation.
I've read both series, and they both exist in universes bereft of ultimate good or deity. If you see it in HP, please point it out to me. ("They celebrate Christmas" doesn't really do it for me though.)
quote:I've read both series, and they both exist in universes bereft of ultimate good or deity. If you see it in HP, please point it out to me.
I thought that was what I did in my post. It seemed to me that J. K. Rowling based "ultimate good" on not killing others, and ultimate evil on being willing to murder. [One could even argue that this was a quite nuanced position, since Snape was not evil for killing Dumbledore. Or one might argue that her morality changed as the series progressed from a children's novel to an international hit.]
I'm not arguing that HP wasn't devoid of deity. But I might disagree with your implicit argument that atheists are wrong to argue that a moral foundation can be built without God. (Not to say I think such a foundation lasts or is sure.)
As for being surprised by people disagreeing with you...I'm surprised that you are surprised. ;-)
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My observation about morality and good/evil in most fantasy books (including Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings and pretty much every epic quest book ever written) is that there is a character who has become absolute evil (Voldemort, Sauron, etc). That's obviously the devil.
However, there isn't a character who is absolute good. There usually isn't a Christ figure in epic fantasy. Instead, the hero is a flawed mortal who finds out that he has the power to save all humanity and defeat the evil (Harry Potter, Frodo, etc). But there isn't a god-character on the same level of the devil-character.
Narnia is different because Aslan is a Christ figure. His goodness and sacrifice defeat the evil every time, and Aslan didn't have to go on a quest to find out he was the chosen one. The main characters in the Narnia books just manage to hold down the fort until Aslan can come, and then Aslan defeats the evil. The main characters get lots of cool swordplay still.
Anyway, I think there is plenty of absolute evil in fantasy series. What they lack is absolute good. They just have a lonely outcast who gathers a group of odd friends and discovers within himself the power to defeat evil. That's what makes them fantasy. In reality, no flawed being can defeat evil without relying on Christ. It's a warped message to suggest that an ordinary person can defeat evil without a Christ-figure to fight the battle on their behalf. They're still fun to read, and I don't mean this comment as a condemnation of fantasy books at all.
So yes, Harry Potter is a godless world. Plenty of good vs. evil and plenty of morality, but no god. Just a devil.
It's kind of interesting to notice how many of the devil-characters in fantasy books have absolute dominion as their goal. The hero's job is to preserve peoples' ability to act for themselves and be free. I see a lot of echoes of the war in heaven in epic fantasy, but again, without a Christ figure. It is kind of interesting to see how many authors echo the theme that the most evil thing anyone can try and do is control everyone else.
Posts: 4767 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know about all this 'godless' stuff. Very few books I've read that aren't overtly religious texts actually contain God in them, but I'd consider few of them to be 'godless'. True they never mention God specifically but so what? What about stories where charecters are religious but God never makes a direct appearance, or a performs any clear miracles but rather serves as a source of faith and strength to those religious characters? What does a book have to do to no longer be 'godless'. The reaction I have stems from the fact that 'godless' has some pretty negative connotations for me, especially in context of an all-LDS board. It implies not just a book without direct reference to deity but a book that creates a world that clearly contains no deity, or discourages readers from believing in one. Neither of which do I feel is accurate for HP. A book about my Father's life would contain no direct references to God or any of His actions (in terms of clearly divine actions) yet as a true story would not, to me, be 'godless'.
posted
Sorry, Hobbes. I didn't meant my comment to be negative about fantasy. But I'll try to answer your questions and explain what I was thinking.
quote: What does a book have to do to no longer be 'godless'.
I'd say it has to have a deity whose strength and goodness other characters can rely on. A character who is as clearly and purely good as the bad guy is as clearly and purely evil. Most fantasies have a hero, but he's usually just an ordinary person. I can't recall much fantasy (besides Narnia) where there is a character who is deeply and genuinely religious, or who relies on faith.
quote: The reaction I have stems from the fact that 'godless' has some pretty negative connotations for me, especially in context of an all-LDS board. It implies not just a book without direct reference to deity but a book that creates a world that clearly contains no deity, or discourages readers from believing in one.
But most fantasy books that I've read don't have a good deity. They have a bad deity, and a bunch of ordinary people (elves, hobbits, wizards, kenders, men, whatever), who have to go defeat the bad deity.
They don't discourage a reader from believing in a deity. They just don't deal with the idea that a hero could draw on the power of a good deity to defeat the bad guy.
I didn't intend a slur on fantasy when I said they usually don't have a good god who is as powerful as the evil figure. It's just a description of something I don't see in them. There's still a difference between good and evil, and moral behavior vs evil behavior. Fantasy usually doesn't have a well-defined source of the good and the morality.
I haven't read a lot of new fantasy written in the last decade. This is my recollection from having read a lot of fantasy in my teens and twenties.
quote: Iluvatar is God in Middle Earth.
LizWiz, is he in the LOTR books, or is that from the Silmarillion? I don't remember Iluvatar, and he wasn't involved in the showdown with Sauron or the destruction of the ring.
posted
Well if you're using it in a technical sense (i.e. "there is no god in this book") then in general I agree. It's more an explanation of why some of the reactions here have been ... well apparently more heated than others thought they'd be. If someone walked up to me while I was reading the HP books and declared "those books are godless." I would assume they meant it as negative about the books. My point was that on a LDS board without more context, I thought it was an analogous situation. 'Godless' meaning 'against god' rather than 'does not explicitly mention god'. I wasn't offended as a HP fan though, just tried to clarify.
I think there's a big difference between books which have clear allusions to deity through their characters (such as the Narnia books) and books that include God directly, and books that don't include God. I suppose Voldemort could be thought of as the devil but I really don't see it that way. The author, in my mind, was not very good at shades of gray characterization and so her villain simply became ludicrously evil. The lack of a 'god' figure to oppose him was a plot choice as any sufficiently powerful good person would remove the need for adventure. Dumbledor was as close as we got, and the flaws added at the end were more bail-outs than actual problems. Or that's how I see it. In other words I consider HP to take place in our world+magic and not be an allegory for religion in any way. Thus no mention of religion makes it technically godless but not godless in the sense that, say, anything by Richard Dawkins is godless.
quote: LizWiz, is he in the LOTR books, or is that from the Silmarillion? I don't remember Iluvatar, and he wasn't involved in the showdown with Sauron or the destruction of the ring.
Mostly in the Silmarillion, but he is mentioned in LOTR also. I don't recall if he is mentioned by name, but in LOTR, he is usually referred to as The One.
Posts: 946 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You might consider as well that for a writer to have the hero rely on faith in deity as the solution to dealing with the problem would be to have the deus ex machina. That is not satisfying as a story, whether or not it is the way things really work. However, it's worth remembering that sometimes the Lord doesn't step in to smite the bad guy because that happens off-screen, beyond the veil. It also seems to me that it runs counter to the idea that we are supposed to do things for ourselves because we should not be commanded in all things.
I would also challenge the idea that there is no God in fantasy books. There is no God in the sense of the books not being a religious tract, but that isn't what they are there for. Whenever you have a prophecy being fulfilled, or a hero/heroine born to fulfil a destiny, there is a deity somewhere behind it whether or not they are explicit. This is God acting through His children, providing the tools for the righteous to do the right things.
I understand where people are coming from when they say that they prefer to read books that do work around Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Harry Potter isn't trying to be like that. They are not written by someone from a church background, but they are exploring themes of good and evil as far as they can.
Posts: 1463 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have a bad deity, and a bunch of ordinary people (elves, hobbits, wizards, kenders, men, whatever), who have to go defeat the bad deity.
From the mention of kenders, I take it you were lumping Dragonlance books in with the godless ones. From my reading, Tracy Hickman often involves God or sometimes demi-gods in his stories. You should read his own view of how God is involved in the Dragonlance world.
Posts: 5047 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I'm not arguing that HP wasn't devoid of deity. But I might disagree with your implicit argument that atheists are wrong to argue that a moral foundation can be built without God. (Not to say I think such a foundation lasts or is sure.)" I'm not intending to make any such argument. I'm only intending to draw parallels between the Harry Potter and Golden Compass series.
"By that standard, so does Johnny Lingo." I suppose it does. The difference between it and HP/GC, is that it's a short skit to illustrate a moral, whereas the two series are windows into another universe and the characters that live there.
"Anyway, I think there is plenty of absolute evil in fantasy series. What they lack is absolute good. They just have a lonely outcast who gathers a group of odd friends and discovers within himself the power to defeat evil."
"Whenever you have a prophecy being fulfilled, or a hero/heroine born to fulfil a destiny, there is a deity somewhere behind it whether or not they are explicit. This is God acting through His children, providing the tools for the righteous to do the right things."
Interesting takes on fantasy books. I believe you can find ample examples of both:
LOTR: Gandalf is resurrected and "sent back" by deity who does indeed take interest in the well-being of the residents of Middle-Earth. Heaven (Aman, home of the Valar) is a beautiful place full of immortal beings and light and precious stones. Elves/Eldar are loosly based on the idea of angels.
Thomas Covenant: Has a benevolent all-powerful creator and the satan character as basically equal players, because the creator can't stop the satan character without destroying his creation.
Narnia: Aslan is creator and in charge - bad guys are allowed to work their nefarious schemes within his bounds, according to his will.
Frank Herbert's Dune, Harry Potter, Golden Compass, and many many others: Totally void of deity. Just people (and robots) and their agendas. Sometimes bad guys are all the way bad, sometimes they manage to get people to worship them (or plan to), sometimes they just have different ideas about what's good.
"The reaction I have stems from the fact that 'godless' has some pretty negative connotations for me, especially in context of an all-LDS board. It implies not just a book without direct reference to deity but a book that creates a world that clearly contains no deity, or discourages readers from believing in one. Neither of which do I feel is accurate for HP. A book about my Father's life would contain no direct references to God or any of His actions (in terms of clearly divine actions) yet as a true story would not, to me, be 'godless'." Well put, and yes, it pretty much addresses what I'm talking about. Thank you! My line of thinking: People create works of fiction describing a universe that is not the one we all live in, but one springing directly from the author's mind. If deity is absent from the story, from the character's lives and opinions, from direct or indirect involvement, how else is deity supposed to get into that universe? It's different than a biography about a real person, it's creating an entire universe and letting the reader know what's in it.
Keep in mind, I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. I love the Dune books. I'm halfway-fond of both HP and GC. My only point, is that in the scale of fantasy books, there's a "absent or unmentioned deity" end, and a "obviously present deity" end - and Harry Potter is pretty much occupying the same place as Golden Compass on that scale.
"I understand where people are coming from when they say that they prefer to read books that do work around Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. Harry Potter isn't trying to be like that. They are not written by someone from a church background, but they are exploring themes of good and evil as far as they can." Yep. All good. Glad to be able to read the books and watch the movies. My only point, is what you say about HP can be said equally as accurately about Golden Compass.
If I could guess, I'd guess that people take such odd and diverse issues with me, not because I'm wrong, but because they like HP and have formed negetive opinions about GC. Even though hardly anyone has read GC, it's somehow offensive to have it lumped in with HP.
What do you say folks? Those of you who take issue with me comparing HP and GC - have you read GC? Or do you just remember something a few years ago about how the author was killing god or some such thing?
posted
Yeah, that notion was loudly shouted from the mouths of critics, as they pointed to a statement the author made that was taken out of context.
As I actually read the trilogy, I detected no more athiest propaganda or attempts to discourage belief in God, than I've seen in the Dune books, or Harry Potter, or Johnny Lingo. In fact, the books seemed designed to continue to express no firm conclusion one way or the other. We never find out, for example, how the witches prophecied or why they were right.
The author obviously had no love for the Catholic church and organized religion in general, and probably had a good time making fun of them and riling everyone up, but athiest propaganda? Not really.
Randy, I'll take your response as an indication that my guess is pretty good.
posted
I don't see how HP could be considered "Godless" since it is full of Christian themes and imagery.
- Christmas is considered a significant event in most of the books
- There is a definite afterlife in the books
- There is a recurring theme that the actions we take in this life impact the condition of our soul and what will happen to it in the life to come
- The pain spell incantation is "crucio", which seems to be derived from the word "crucify"
- Voldemort is not represented as diety in any sense. In fact, a prime modivator for Voldy seems to be the ambition to become immortal, i.e. a diety, which according to most Christian theologies is sinful.
- Accountability is also a strong theme. Dumbledore himself states "It is not our abilities, but our decisions that make us what we are."
The whole idea that a story without God is somehow bad is just silly. Heck, the vast majority of Scott Card's work is "godless", but I think that we can agree that it is not anti-religeous propaganda.
There's a fairly significant and poignant moment in the latest movie that brings out the Christmas Eve thing.
And all his other points are good, and honestly I think LM's making a ridiculously complex point out of a story situation that isn't realistic. Very few people see life with such clarity as LM does. I can understand if LM finds these stories unsatisfying because they don't witness of our true nature as gods in embryo, but I'm somehow okay with it.
I think it's heavy-handed and unfair to lump something like Golden Compass (a book the author admitted was a tool to promote his atheist world view) in with a book like Harry Potter, by an author that has no such agenda.
quote:I don't see how HP could be considered "Godless" since it is full of Christian themes and imagery.
So is The Golden Compass. The two series' share this as a similarity.
quote:- There is a definite afterlife in the books
- There is a recurring theme that the actions we take in this life impact the condition of our soul and what will happen to it in the life to come
Both of these are also true for the Golden Compass. The two series' share this as a similarity. In fact, in book 2 or 3, they actually visit hell.
quote:- Voldemort is not represented as diety in any sense. In fact, a prime modivator for Voldy seems to be the ambition to become immortal, i.e. a diety, which according to most Christian theologies is sinful.
The bad guys in The Golden Compass have succeeded to do what Voldemort is trying to do, and are motivated by ambition to stay that way. The two series' share this as a similarity.
quote:The whole idea that a story without God is somehow bad is just silly. Heck, the vast majority of Scott Card's work is "godless", but I think that we can agree that it is not anti-religeous propaganda.
Again (for the third time), I'm not saying an absence of deity is a bad thing. I'm just saying that HP and GC are more similar than people seem to want to admit.
Again - here's where I'm coming from: "I've been surprised at the disagreements arising when I talk about how God doesn't exist in Harry's universe, and how the series is pretty much on the same moral level as the Golden Compass books."
And again - here's my best guess at explaining it: "If I could guess, I'd guess that people take such odd and diverse issues with me, not because I'm wrong, but because they like HP and have formed negetive opinions about GC. Even though hardly anyone has read GC, it's somehow offensive to have it lumped in with HP."
So JLM, have you read GC?
quote:I think LM's making a ridiculously complex point out of a story situation that isn't realistic. [...] I can understand if LM finds these stories unsatisfying because they don't witness of our true nature as gods in embryo, but I'm somehow okay with it.
Well again (and this is the 2nd time I've said this), I'm not finding anything satisfying or unsatisfying. I'm not saying HP is good or bad, that I like it or don't. All I'm doing is pointing out similarities between HP and GC, expressing befuddlement when people react so strongly against it in various odd ways, and pointing out how many of those ways just don't hold any water.
Again: "Keep in mind, I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. I love the Dune books. I'm halfway-fond of both HP and GC. My only point, is that in the scale of fantasy books, there's a "absent or unmentioned deity" end, and a "obviously present deity" end - and Harry Potter is pretty much occupying the same place as Golden Compass on that scale."
So rayb, have you read GC?
quote:I think it's heavy-handed and unfair to lump something like Golden Compass (a book the author admitted was a tool to promote his atheist world view) in with a book like Harry Potter, by an author that has no such agenda.
Why? Because HP rocks and we want our kids to read it, and GC stinks and we don't want our kids to read it? No really - as I read both series, I noticed quite a bit of foundational similarities. Yeah, Pullman's work is full of criticism of organized religion, while Rowling's work is full of criticism of brainless bureaucracy and "muggles". But that difference aside, the two universes really do seem have a lot in common.
Again: "If I could guess, I'd guess that people take such odd and diverse issues with me, not because I'm wrong, but because they like HP and have formed negetive opinions about GC. Even though hardly anyone has read GC, it's somehow offensive to have it lumped in with HP."
posted
Actually, I've barely heard of the Golden Compass and have no opinion about it whatsoever.
I just don't see any particular significance in where a book falls on the "absent or unmentioned deity" vs "obviously present deity" scale, and if you're not saying that a book with an "absent or unmentioned deity" is bad, then I don't understand what particular significance you see in that scale.
Posts: 946 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Haven't read GC. I didn't know about it until the movie, and i was really interested in it, until I read the Author's own words about how he intended to use the story to teach atheism.
As to the similarities, I believe I could make as many "compelling" comparisons to Lord of the Rings as you've done with GC.
It's a matter of opinion. You can argue til you're blue in the face and you'll still be wrong.
quote: Haven't read GC. I didn't know about it until the movie, and i was really interested in it, until I read the Author's own words about how he intended to use the story to teach atheism.
My experience too, identically.
Posts: 3375 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have read GC, and I agree with LM's take on it. The real target is the Catholic church rather than religion per se, although there is a lack of a deity of ultimate good. Frankly, for an atheist tract to destroy the faith of children, I found it a bit disappointing. For a start, it begins from accepting the idea of angels and demons, whereas a truly atheist tract would have shown the Catholic church caricature as a hollow sham pretending to supernatural events and beings that don't really exist. Mr Pullman needs to try harder.
Posts: 1463 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: The real target is the Catholic church rather than religion per se
From what little I've observed (and I haven't read Golden Compass but I believe the author when he states his intention) I tend to agree.
However. I'm not confident that the author has fully separated the two (ie the Catholic church and religion per se) in his own mind.
Posts: 3375 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I just don't see any particular significance in where a book falls on the "absent or unmentioned deity" vs "obviously present deity" scale, and if you're not saying that a book with an "absent or unmentioned deity" is bad, then I don't understand what particular significance you see in that scale."
I don't really see much significance in it either. The thing that confuses the heck out of me, is how strongly and negatively people react when I talk about it. It's like I've insulted their child or something. They start praising HP and insulting GC in ways filled with factual errors or random statements that don't really address the issue.
And then when pressed, the people admit they haven't even read the thing. They admit their opinions are basically solely on a statement or two from an interview with the author. We don't accept church criticism based on such sound-byting, but it's ok if we're doing it to an athiest author? It's a continued source of bafflement to me.
"Mr Pullman needs to try harder."
Agreed. It makes me think that his public statements were intended to get people ticked off enough to boost sales of his books. Sure wouldn't be the first time.
"It's a matter of opinion. You can argue til you're blue in the face and you'll still be wrong."
Now there's one of the few responses I've seen in this thread that makes sense. "Sorry, not buying it" is a wonderful response - I use it often.
"I'm not confident that the author has fully separated the two (ie the Catholic church and religion per se) in his own mind."
I find that a common theme among athiests and agnostics.
Anyway, yes, Polynesians rock. We shared an alleyway with a Polynesian family once. They threw a weeklong wedding party, and used all the available parking. After the party, they brought over two huge platters full of barbequed pork and chicken and fried plantains and stuff to thank us. We ate for a week and a half.
Sorry to hijack the thread. I should have started a new one. See y'all when the next movie comes out!
quote: They admit their opinions are basically solely on a statement or two from an interview with the author.
I have enough respect for the author to give him the benefit of the doubt that he is being honest.
If you think he's lying about his motives for writing his book, then fine, but that won't raise his standing in my eyes if he did.
Or in other words, it's not at all clear to me why the author's opinions should be disregarded. Doesn't he have any say in why he did what he did? Or is the book itself the only legitimate way for him to express himself, and he should otherwise keep his mouth shut?
[ November 23, 2010, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Randy ]
Posts: 3375 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok LM, Chiming in here as someone who has read both the full HP series and the entire His Dark Materials series.
Golden Compass can be seen as more critical of organized religion than religion in general, but by the time you get to the 3rd book.... religion and anyone who believes in it takes a real beating.
God turns out to not be God at all, just the first angel who came into existence and took power for himself before he basically went mad. There is no real deity working behind the scenes, although it's implied that Dust/the Universe is deity.
Also, the afterlife turns out to be a prison, where spirits continue to exist in a horrible grey limbo where they do nothing except long for an end to their existence. They are finally shown an exit from the afterlife by the protagonist Lyra, where they rise into the sky and dissipate, possibly to become Dust, it's not totally clear.
I wasn't offended by Pullman's trilogy, but I wasn't that impressed by the time I got to the 3rd book: he leaves a lot of threads dangling, subplots go nowhere and things feel rushed. Basically, agenda becomes more important than story, and it shows. Which is really too bad, because the Golden Compass showed a lot of promise. Pullman can really write when he's not too busy making his point.
I'm not one to demonize His Dark Materials, nor do I consider Harry Potter to be the last word in fantasy. I don't feel horrified or offended that Loudmouth Mormon sees similarities between these two series, so I'm not just having a knee-jerk reaction.
All of that being said, put me down as someone who doesn't see the similarities that LM is trying to point out (aka "Sorry, not buyin' it." )
posted
LM: I'm glad you understood me. I was laughing as I wrote it, and figured someone who was overly sensitive might take offense. You've never been the sort. SO I bow to your ability to let me disagree with you. --Ray
Posts: 13027 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't really see much significance in it either. The thing that confuses the heck out of me, is how strongly and negatively people react when I talk about it. It's like I've insulted their child or something. They start praising HP and insulting GC in ways filled with factual errors or random statements that don't really address the issue.
An odd statement indeed since it was written in response to me. I haven't said a blamed thing about GC except that I've barely heard of it and so have no opinion whatsoever. And since I haven't said anything about GC, it's hard to imagine that I've insulted it, made factual errors, or random statements.
I'm not sure what I might have said that could be construed as "praise" of HP. About as close as I've come to "praise" is saying that I don't give a flying fig whether any Deity is explicitly mentioned in HP or not. Since neither you nor me see any real significance in whether or not HP has mention of a Deity, I remained baffled as to why we're talking about it, or why you brought it up in the first place. I certainly have no reaction at all to HP being compared to some book I've never heard of.
Posts: 946 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I've been surprised at the disagreements arising when I talk about how God doesn't exist in Harry's universe, and how the series is pretty much on the same moral level as the Golden Compass books.
I haven't read the Golden Compass books, so I can't compare, but I don't agree that God doesn't exist in Harry's universe.
Harry cannot defeat Voldemort on his own, he must rely on love.
Since “God is love,” the closer we approach Him, the more profoundly we experience love. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf
quote:All Harry Potter and The Golden Compass ever manage, is nice vs. mean. Yeah, they call voldemort evil and dumbledore good, but since there's no ultimate source of either, it's pretty weak.
Nobody is righteous or unrighteous in Harry Potter.
Again I don't agree because Voldmort argues that “There is no good and evil, there is only power, and those too weak to seek it.”
and
“But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncement that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.”
And Dumbledore teaches the opposite of these statements. He explained that the love of Harry parents and their willingness to die for him saved him from Voldemort. He also explains to Harry that only in relying on love will he be able to defeat Voldemort.
I think love is ultimate good.
Posts: 11 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: In fact, Name a classic that's truly unique.
I was going to state The Epic of Gilgamesh, but in looking it up, apparently it was created from a compilation of Sumerian poems that were probably originally separate poems that were later compiled.
Posts: 3493 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So are we deciding if Harry Potter has.... oh wait is this like the star wars thread and the revenge of the sith changing our thoughts on vader? If so is there any thought to the Star Trek and Human religions? I mean you see tonnes of Klingon religious rights etc, but is there any human religions left?
Posts: 1460 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
--Ray
![[Big laugh]](graemlins/biglaugh.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
Over to you, sir.
