The newest Pope is Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, now named Pope Benedict XVI. He is the 265th Pope according to the records of Roman Catholic Church. John Paul, who preceded him died April 2, 2005, and was buried on April 8th.
The process of finding a successor to John Paul...not the first, but the second, began when the College of Cardinals began meeting April 18th to do just that. Many of the Catholic faithful gathered in Rome to see who would be selected as the next head of the church. There would be a srot of election behind closed doors and they would know if a new pope had been chosen by the color of smoke that they saw rise from the Sistine Chapel chimney. It took a while, but eventually white smoke rising from the chimney gave the first indication that someone had been chosen; his name was Joseph Alois Ratzinger, who upon being selected as Pope, then became Pope Benedict XVI.
Ratzinger said he was surprised, but the waiting watching world wasn’t. Many people believed he was a “shoo-in” for the job, as he was not only close confidant to John Paul II, but he had all the credentials to the the next Pope.
As early as November 1981, Cardinal Ratzinger had been summoned to Rome by Pope John Paul II, and named "Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, President of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and President of the International Theological Commission." In addition Ratzinger had published several best-selling books which have served to clarify the catholic faith, practice and doctrine for today's Roman Catholic faithful. His works include, The Ratzinger Report, (1985) God and the World, (2002) Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions, (2003) Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion, (2005) and God’s Revolution (2006.)Honoring Ratzinger, Catholic publisher, Ignatius Press president, Mark Brumley said, “He staunchly proclaims the universal call to holiness of Vatican II…. He understands the importance of dialogue among Christians and dialogue with world religions and seekers, while he upholds the integrity of Catholic faith and insists on a renewed missionary drive to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world."
Now that he is Pope, he no longer goes by the title of Ratzinger. He has chosen to be named Benedict, like sixteen other Popes before him, who presumable take their name from St. Benedict,the founder of twelve communities for monks which used what is called Benedictine rule. .
You and I may address Pope Benedict the Sixteenth as "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI," but his official title as Pope is, "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Providence, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God." And as note, the term "Patriarch of the West" (which also used to be part of that title) has been omitted with no explanation for the change, the Vatican only says that this change made in March 2006 was done at the request of Pope Benedict himself.
Purple Haze
Purple lies somewhere between blue and red... It could be magenta or heliotrope, depending on the saturation. It's the color of royalty because in earlier days, cloth made of purple dye was very expensive. Haze, is aa rather meteorological term, referring to an atmospheric phenomenon whereby dust, smoke and other dry particles obscure the clarity of the sky. "Purple Haze" is the title of a song by Rock guitarist, Jimmi Hendrix from an album called, “Are you Experienced.”
Jimmi Hendrix, born Johnny Allen Hendrix in 1942, was famous for his msic, attire and his use of psychedelic drugs. The word, “experience”in this particular album title, may or may not refer to the drug experience and "purple haze" may or may not refer to a particular type of LSD, (also called acid) but truth is that Hendrix was known to experiment with it. When asked if this was the case or not, Hendrix claimed the title to the song had nothing to do with drugs. In fact, he said that the song is said to have an original title of “Purple Haze-Jesus Saves.” He said that he had changed it before it was recorded. Hendrix's story about the song itself is that it is about a dream, not an acid trip.
In his dream, he says that he was walking under the sea, surrounded by purple haze. He became lost and Jesus saved him. So, it’s not about being in a Purple Haze while you are on drugs, or anything like that…at least according to Hendrix. Hendrix died September 18th, 1970, in London, possibly from a drug overdose, but maybe asphyxiated with either vomit or wine as the autopsy showed.
But let's look at LSD...What is LSD anyhow?
LSD, (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) was a popular drug in the 60’s. It is a hallucinogenic drug whose creation was first documented in Holland by Albert Hofmann in 1938. It is derived from a fungus that grows on grains, particularly rye.
During the sixties the drug called acid or LSD became a recreational drug one that Henrdix recreated with. The “experiences” were refereed to as “trips” and have been described by some survivors as inducing mystical, brilliantly colorful, psychedelic, religious-like experiences. The sensory perception of a person who is “high,”on LSD becomes distorted. One of the most famous people in the drug culture and outspokenly that promoted the use of LSD was another man, named Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary, who died in 1996, was an avid and LSD advocate. He became famous when he was kicked out of Harvard University for using student volunteers in his drug studies. Over the course of his life, he spent time in jail for possession of marijuana and even at one time escaped prison, only to be apprehended by the FBI in Afghanistan. Leary became well-known as a professional druggie, and is considered by some to be an “avatar of the mind,” He is known as a proponent of the “spiritual” use of LSD and other mind altering drugs.
Another LSD expert is Augustus Owsley Stanley III. (not the deceased Kentucky Senator.) It was this guy who was the first “hippie alchemist” to produce very pure LSD in his home which he then sold in mass quantities. His specialties were the legendary Purple Haze, White Lightening, and Orange Sunshine, which he marketed on the streets in San Francisco, California. In 1967, he was arrested when he was found in possession of several hundred thousand individual doses and he was imprisoned for three years as a result. Stanley is thought to be responsible for most of the LSD used in the 60’s when this song wa popular:
Purple Haze... Jimmi Hendrix
(lyrics)
Purple Haze all in my brain,
lately things don't seem the same,
actin' funny but I don't know why
'scuse me while I kiss the sky.
Purple Haze all around,
don't know if I'm comin' up or down.
Am I happy or in misery?
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me.
Purple Haze all in my eyes,
don't know if it's day or night,
you've got me blowing, blowing my mind
is it tomorrow or just the end of time?
Jimmi Hendrix, born Johnny Allen Hendrix in 1942, was famous for his msic, attire and his use of psychedelic drugs. The word, “experience”in this particular album title, may or may not refer to the drug experience and "purple haze" may or may not refer to a particular type of LSD, (also called acid) but truth is that Hendrix was known to experiment with it. When asked if this was the case or not, Hendrix claimed the title to the song had nothing to do with drugs. In fact, he said that the song is said to have an original title of “Purple Haze-Jesus Saves.” He said that he had changed it before it was recorded. Hendrix's story about the song itself is that it is about a dream, not an acid trip.
In his dream, he says that he was walking under the sea, surrounded by purple haze. He became lost and Jesus saved him. So, it’s not about being in a Purple Haze while you are on drugs, or anything like that…at least according to Hendrix. Hendrix died September 18th, 1970, in London, possibly from a drug overdose, but maybe asphyxiated with either vomit or wine as the autopsy showed.
But let's look at LSD...What is LSD anyhow?
LSD, (Lysergic Acid Diethylamide) was a popular drug in the 60’s. It is a hallucinogenic drug whose creation was first documented in Holland by Albert Hofmann in 1938. It is derived from a fungus that grows on grains, particularly rye.
During the sixties the drug called acid or LSD became a recreational drug one that Henrdix recreated with. The “experiences” were refereed to as “trips” and have been described by some survivors as inducing mystical, brilliantly colorful, psychedelic, religious-like experiences. The sensory perception of a person who is “high,”on LSD becomes distorted. One of the most famous people in the drug culture and outspokenly that promoted the use of LSD was another man, named Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary, who died in 1996, was an avid and LSD advocate. He became famous when he was kicked out of Harvard University for using student volunteers in his drug studies. Over the course of his life, he spent time in jail for possession of marijuana and even at one time escaped prison, only to be apprehended by the FBI in Afghanistan. Leary became well-known as a professional druggie, and is considered by some to be an “avatar of the mind,” He is known as a proponent of the “spiritual” use of LSD and other mind altering drugs.
Another LSD expert is Augustus Owsley Stanley III. (not the deceased Kentucky Senator.) It was this guy who was the first “hippie alchemist” to produce very pure LSD in his home which he then sold in mass quantities. His specialties were the legendary Purple Haze, White Lightening, and Orange Sunshine, which he marketed on the streets in San Francisco, California. In 1967, he was arrested when he was found in possession of several hundred thousand individual doses and he was imprisoned for three years as a result. Stanley is thought to be responsible for most of the LSD used in the 60’s when this song wa popular:
Purple Haze... Jimmi Hendrix
(lyrics)
Purple Haze all in my brain,
lately things don't seem the same,
actin' funny but I don't know why
'scuse me while I kiss the sky.
Purple Haze all around,
don't know if I'm comin' up or down.
Am I happy or in misery?
Whatever it is, that girl put a spell on me.
Purple Haze all in my eyes,
don't know if it's day or night,
you've got me blowing, blowing my mind
is it tomorrow or just the end of time?
Martin Luther Kings and Co.
Martin Luther King Jr. (1929- 1968) is named after his father, “Martin Luther King,” who, lived from 1899-1984. Though born as Michael King, the senior King changed his name when he entered his "ministry" career, to Martin “Luther,” King in order to be reminiscent of the famous man named Martin Luther, who posted his 95 thesis on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany, October 31, 1517. King senior named his son after himself and his son, junior did likewise to his own son. There is Martin Luther King the I,II, and III.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s son, Martin Luther King III, follows in his father’s footsteps as a political activist. He currently serves as Chairman and CEO of Realizing the Dream, Inc., an organization that says it, “promotes and embodies justice, equality, and the ‘beloved’ community through specific sustainable initiatives in economic development, non-violence and conflict resolution training, and targeted leadership development for youth.... Realizing the Dream, Inc. is a 501c(3) non-profit organization that continues the humanitarian and liberating work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mrs. Coretta Scott King,” but this article is not about him, it is about his dad, Martin Luther King II.
King II, made it a point to say he was a Negro man, and he lived at a time in history that was in great turmoil, (much like every time in human history.) He lived at a time when people involved in various political, religious, social and economic forces contended for superiority in our human systems.
It was a time of rising tensions between people groups, and rising tensions, as they often do, create an atmosphere of uncertainty. Streets were bursting out with violence over racial issues. People (of every color) lived in poverty and many lives were touched by all sorts of crime. Government offices vulnerable to corruption themselves had to deal with corruption and with issues of war and threat of war. In a time of tension, one voice that rose to the top of the heap was Martin Luther King Junior and he emerged well known as a social-political, even religious leader.
At this particular time in human history, “Christian” America, (a land founded on Biblical principals,) was under attack. Darwinian thought on the issue of evolution was being accepted in the minds of many who thought of themselves as "intellectuals." Some even falsely reasoned that perhaps God did use evolution for a means of creation, and if he did, (at least according to the theory of evolution,) then one could know the color of them that would be the superior race and the color of them that were not, and as thoughts spread like wilfire, so did emotion and fear. In some place, particularly the south, prejudice was growing between races.
Prejudice was nothing new, but since harsh feelings and emotions about slavery and evolution theory had been turned into segregation, Satan had new fuel for his destructive fire. This fuel streamed like a river into American life. King, is honored today because in his day, he was like a firefighter, one who worked to put the racial prejudice fires that raged...out. He did this by organizing people to gather and demonstrate, and encouraging them to have a voice without perpetrating violence.
King Jr. also was a man who stood out as being concerned about “right and wrong” particularly according to Biblical principals, for example, that all people, red and yellow black and white are precious in God's sight. He even said that he believed that it was the Bible that led him to choose the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest over hatred and violence. King rightly declared to believe in an America where all people, regardless of color, would one-day sit together at one table, and where liberty and justice for all would reign.
For such noble thoughts, King was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, after which Martin Luther King Jr was reknown as "a man of peace." Then, one day in 1968, he was assassinated, and for this reason, many people now consider Martian Luther King Jr. a martyr for his faith, but it might surprise you to know that King, "man of peace" that people claimed him to be, didn't believe in the biblical Jesus.
Here in America, we now honor King in January via a National holiday that commemorates his birth.People think of him as a Christian minister, they consider hims a great leader, one incinciting people to non-violent political confrontation in order to create crisis and a platform for change. This angent of change is probably most remembered for a speech he gave August 13, 1963, when he gave the world his vision, saying, "I have a dream..."
King's famous speech, titled, “I have a Dream,” was given to the world during a march on Washington. His dream, he said, was “a continuation of 'the American Dream.' King himself described it as "the dream of a new reality upon the earth where all of God's children, could sit down at the table of brotherhood dispite outward differences, a world where character was what described a person,." He said in his speech, “ black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, would be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
One would think King were a Christian, being a "minister" and all. (After all, he pastored Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama. and even was a promoter of peace.) He attended thological seminaru he quoted scripture he talked often about God, and people even often called him “Reverend.” However as a man of the "Christian faith" Martin Luther King extensively studied not Jesus Christ or the Bible, but the writings and words of other men, like Gandhi.
It is well know that King was greatly influenced by Ghandi's views and philosophies, King even traveled to India in 1959 to learn how to employ Satyagraha, Ghandi’s preferred method of social change. King, it would seem from the words he left behind, preferred the wisdom of a man named Ghandi over Jesus. King also enjoyed the philosophy of Henry David Thoreau.
Thoreau, who believed that Jesus Christ was the "Prince of Reformers and Radicals" even said, "Christ was a sublime actor on the stage of the world,..... he taught mankind but imperfectly how to live; his thoughts were all directed to another world. There is another kind of success than his." (The Writings of Henry David Thoreau)
What “other” kind of success might this be, but earthly?
Like Thoreau recommended, King directed his thoughts, to another kind of success. His thoughts and actions were not directed “to another world” like Jesus, but rather to this one. The man whom angels proclaimed would bring peace on earth, goodwill to men, Jesus Christ, took second placethe mind of Martin Luther King Jr, (or maybe had no place at all).
In a 1949 paper written for a class, (source:Standford University's The King Papers Project, ) King refers to the ‘unscientific doctrines’ of the Christian faith held forth in the Apostles Creed, as "mere myth." Whether he was analyzing the contents of a book or giving his own opinion is not necessarily clear from the paper, but what is clear is that King does not speak in defense of scripture, or in the “defense” of the divinity of Christ. This paper of King's was written in response to a question that basically asks, “What led the early Christians to come up with the doctrines they hold as stated the well-known Apostles Creed?”Listening to King one would think, they had no basis, except for "mere myth," and what they borrowed, (the idea of Logos) from the concepts of the Greeks.
Instead of upholding the Christian doctrines, King not only states that the Apostles Creed is based on myth, but he causes confusion for people about Jesus' divine birth. He suggests to his reader that the origin of the concept of the virgin birth of Christ, is again the Greeks, as he says it is reminiscent of their mythology. King also “reminds” his readers that the term "virgin birth" is absent from the New Testament, and that "most likely" there is some misinterpretation of a term for “young woman,” translated "virgin" in the text. His choice of words indicate he believes that scripture is not true on such matters, and that the Apostles creed is invalid as the beliefs it contains is only "mere myth" as well. All this is enough to rightly question the viability of King being either a Christian or a Christian Pastor.
But wait, there's more:
In a paper titled The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus, archived at a Stanford webpage, (Stanford .edu) King wrote, “To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental".... and "the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.”
In 1977, according to the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Educate webpage, Coretta King granted history Professor Clayborn Carson permission to examine papers stored in boxes in the basement of the King family home. These papers, sermon notes, outlines and sermon texts, in King's own handwriting, reveal that King’s concern about poverty, human rights and social justice, but they also reveal that king had his own beliefs. According to Dr, Carson of the King's Papers Project at Standfor, King believed, “the Pentateuch teachings were written by more than one author," " that the whale did not swallow Jonah,” and “that Jesus never met John the Baptist." King also wrote that he believed that the American Christian church was “the greatest preserver of the status quo” thereby, “one of the chief exponents of racial bigotry.” King also noted in the margin of one of his books that he was "ashamed of Christianity, but not of Christ.".
Was Martin Luther King Jr. Christian or not? A man of peace? Reverend? Pastor? Was he a hero? Martyr? Did he preach Jesus, as a preacher, or simply a social gospel, the message of "change?" You'll have to decide. There is a lot of both true and false information floating around about this man named King.
Here is yet something more to consider:
Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed, apparently assassinated, by a man named James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968. But this is another strange part of his story. There were no witnesses who actually saw Ray kill King, and to this day the whole crime remains shrouded in mystery. Ray, after first entering a plea of not guilty, changed his attorney and then he his mind about wheather or not he did it. He pleaded guilty, but after he was sentenced, Ray insisted he was really not guilty
In 1998, thirty years later, Ray died in prison for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
Martin Luther King Jr.’s son, Martin Luther King III, follows in his father’s footsteps as a political activist. He currently serves as Chairman and CEO of Realizing the Dream, Inc., an organization that says it, “promotes and embodies justice, equality, and the ‘beloved’ community through specific sustainable initiatives in economic development, non-violence and conflict resolution training, and targeted leadership development for youth.... Realizing the Dream, Inc. is a 501c(3) non-profit organization that continues the humanitarian and liberating work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mrs. Coretta Scott King,” but this article is not about him, it is about his dad, Martin Luther King II.
King II, made it a point to say he was a Negro man, and he lived at a time in history that was in great turmoil, (much like every time in human history.) He lived at a time when people involved in various political, religious, social and economic forces contended for superiority in our human systems.
It was a time of rising tensions between people groups, and rising tensions, as they often do, create an atmosphere of uncertainty. Streets were bursting out with violence over racial issues. People (of every color) lived in poverty and many lives were touched by all sorts of crime. Government offices vulnerable to corruption themselves had to deal with corruption and with issues of war and threat of war. In a time of tension, one voice that rose to the top of the heap was Martin Luther King Junior and he emerged well known as a social-political, even religious leader.
At this particular time in human history, “Christian” America, (a land founded on Biblical principals,) was under attack. Darwinian thought on the issue of evolution was being accepted in the minds of many who thought of themselves as "intellectuals." Some even falsely reasoned that perhaps God did use evolution for a means of creation, and if he did, (at least according to the theory of evolution,) then one could know the color of them that would be the superior race and the color of them that were not, and as thoughts spread like wilfire, so did emotion and fear. In some place, particularly the south, prejudice was growing between races.
Prejudice was nothing new, but since harsh feelings and emotions about slavery and evolution theory had been turned into segregation, Satan had new fuel for his destructive fire. This fuel streamed like a river into American life. King, is honored today because in his day, he was like a firefighter, one who worked to put the racial prejudice fires that raged...out. He did this by organizing people to gather and demonstrate, and encouraging them to have a voice without perpetrating violence.
King Jr. also was a man who stood out as being concerned about “right and wrong” particularly according to Biblical principals, for example, that all people, red and yellow black and white are precious in God's sight. He even said that he believed that it was the Bible that led him to choose the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest over hatred and violence. King rightly declared to believe in an America where all people, regardless of color, would one-day sit together at one table, and where liberty and justice for all would reign.
For such noble thoughts, King was even awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, after which Martin Luther King Jr was reknown as "a man of peace." Then, one day in 1968, he was assassinated, and for this reason, many people now consider Martian Luther King Jr. a martyr for his faith, but it might surprise you to know that King, "man of peace" that people claimed him to be, didn't believe in the biblical Jesus.
Here in America, we now honor King in January via a National holiday that commemorates his birth.People think of him as a Christian minister, they consider hims a great leader, one incinciting people to non-violent political confrontation in order to create crisis and a platform for change. This angent of change is probably most remembered for a speech he gave August 13, 1963, when he gave the world his vision, saying, "I have a dream..."
King's famous speech, titled, “I have a Dream,” was given to the world during a march on Washington. His dream, he said, was “a continuation of 'the American Dream.' King himself described it as "the dream of a new reality upon the earth where all of God's children, could sit down at the table of brotherhood dispite outward differences, a world where character was what described a person,." He said in his speech, “ black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, would be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
One would think King were a Christian, being a "minister" and all. (After all, he pastored Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery Alabama. and even was a promoter of peace.) He attended thological seminaru he quoted scripture he talked often about God, and people even often called him “Reverend.” However as a man of the "Christian faith" Martin Luther King extensively studied not Jesus Christ or the Bible, but the writings and words of other men, like Gandhi.
It is well know that King was greatly influenced by Ghandi's views and philosophies, King even traveled to India in 1959 to learn how to employ Satyagraha, Ghandi’s preferred method of social change. King, it would seem from the words he left behind, preferred the wisdom of a man named Ghandi over Jesus. King also enjoyed the philosophy of Henry David Thoreau.
Thoreau, who believed that Jesus Christ was the "Prince of Reformers and Radicals" even said, "Christ was a sublime actor on the stage of the world,..... he taught mankind but imperfectly how to live; his thoughts were all directed to another world. There is another kind of success than his." (The Writings of Henry David Thoreau)
What “other” kind of success might this be, but earthly?
Like Thoreau recommended, King directed his thoughts, to another kind of success. His thoughts and actions were not directed “to another world” like Jesus, but rather to this one. The man whom angels proclaimed would bring peace on earth, goodwill to men, Jesus Christ, took second placethe mind of Martin Luther King Jr, (or maybe had no place at all).
In a 1949 paper written for a class, (source:Standford University's The King Papers Project, ) King refers to the ‘unscientific doctrines’ of the Christian faith held forth in the Apostles Creed, as "mere myth." Whether he was analyzing the contents of a book or giving his own opinion is not necessarily clear from the paper, but what is clear is that King does not speak in defense of scripture, or in the “defense” of the divinity of Christ. This paper of King's was written in response to a question that basically asks, “What led the early Christians to come up with the doctrines they hold as stated the well-known Apostles Creed?”Listening to King one would think, they had no basis, except for "mere myth," and what they borrowed, (the idea of Logos) from the concepts of the Greeks.
Instead of upholding the Christian doctrines, King not only states that the Apostles Creed is based on myth, but he causes confusion for people about Jesus' divine birth. He suggests to his reader that the origin of the concept of the virgin birth of Christ, is again the Greeks, as he says it is reminiscent of their mythology. King also “reminds” his readers that the term "virgin birth" is absent from the New Testament, and that "most likely" there is some misinterpretation of a term for “young woman,” translated "virgin" in the text. His choice of words indicate he believes that scripture is not true on such matters, and that the Apostles creed is invalid as the beliefs it contains is only "mere myth" as well. All this is enough to rightly question the viability of King being either a Christian or a Christian Pastor.
But wait, there's more:
In a paper titled The Humanity and Divinity of Jesus, archived at a Stanford webpage, (Stanford .edu) King wrote, “To say that the Christ, whose example of living we are bid to follow, is divine in an ontological sense is actually harmful and detrimental".... and "the orthodox view of the divinity of Christ is in my mind quite readily denied.”
In 1977, according to the Martin Luther King Jr. Research and Educate webpage, Coretta King granted history Professor Clayborn Carson permission to examine papers stored in boxes in the basement of the King family home. These papers, sermon notes, outlines and sermon texts, in King's own handwriting, reveal that King’s concern about poverty, human rights and social justice, but they also reveal that king had his own beliefs. According to Dr, Carson of the King's Papers Project at Standfor, King believed, “the Pentateuch teachings were written by more than one author," " that the whale did not swallow Jonah,” and “that Jesus never met John the Baptist." King also wrote that he believed that the American Christian church was “the greatest preserver of the status quo” thereby, “one of the chief exponents of racial bigotry.” King also noted in the margin of one of his books that he was "ashamed of Christianity, but not of Christ.".
Was Martin Luther King Jr. Christian or not? A man of peace? Reverend? Pastor? Was he a hero? Martyr? Did he preach Jesus, as a preacher, or simply a social gospel, the message of "change?" You'll have to decide. There is a lot of both true and false information floating around about this man named King.
Here is yet something more to consider:
Martin Luther King Jr. was shot and killed, apparently assassinated, by a man named James Earl Ray on April 4, 1968. But this is another strange part of his story. There were no witnesses who actually saw Ray kill King, and to this day the whole crime remains shrouded in mystery. Ray, after first entering a plea of not guilty, changed his attorney and then he his mind about wheather or not he did it. He pleaded guilty, but after he was sentenced, Ray insisted he was really not guilty
In 1998, thirty years later, Ray died in prison for the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
Vatican City
Vatican City is an independent state in Rome, Italy where the Pope is an undisputed, absolute ruler. Located in the middle of Rome Italy, Vatican City is not part of Rome, nor is it a city in Italy. it is a country unto itself.
Established since the 5th century, Vatican City is home to more than the Pope, it houses museums filled with antiquities of history, libraries and various other treasures. For example, if you were to visit Vatican City, you would see the Sistine Chapel, once painted by the famous artist Michelangelo and could visit what is believed to be the tomb of the Apostle Peter whose body is said to be buried there is a palace called the Basilica, the largest religious building in all the world.
The ruler of the Vatican is called the Pope,” a man who is known all over the world as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics call him “Holy Father.” This is because "Pope," in Italian, means father (or Papa.) Priests of the Roman Church are all called "Father" as a title, but the Pope is the main father, the biggest daddy of them all, head of head the church, (They believe the head of ALL the church,) in Jesus’ absence.
Vatican City is, Catholics believe, ordained by God to be the capital of the world, as well as the place from where the Pope exercises his authority. The one who is Pope is not to be considered as subject to any human authority or law whatsoever, he is believed a sovereign and considered (by some) to be a sovereign over the affairs of the whole Christian church, maybe even the world. From Vatican City come many decrees and laws... just look at their website. One needs to be a lawyer or hire one if they are to be certain to do everything right and in accordance with Vatican Laws.
In the minds of many people, Vatican law is believed supreme, and it comes to the ret of us in the form of decrees and bulls as the Pope and his entourage interpret the Scripture. Their revelations are then made "official" for the rest of the world, under the final authority of the one who sits on the Vatican throne, or rather, the "Chair of Peter."
This mindset posses a bit problem in Christianity because history and practice shows us that not all Popes have been impeccable in thier rule and not everyone believes they are to follow the dictates of a man, even one who is and called "Pope,." above the dictates of God in His Word. Some even say that the scripture is of "no private interpretation," (as it says in 2 Peter 1:20-21,) meaning that a person cannot read the Bible without the interpretation of the Pope and his final word on what the Bible means and says. Others believe the Bible to be an open book, waiting for us to read and understand it and simply conform to what it says.
Many who are called "protestants" would not say they are protestant, but that they are Christian, and being Christian, they believe that they are part of the body of Christ, with Jesus as the head. But the Vatican, by papal decree in Unitatis Redintegratio, has formally declared that “separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body.” In the eyes of the Vatican they are still spiritually dead because they do not recognize the power of the Pope and as protestants they are not receiving Pope sanctioned sacraments like the faithful Roman Catholics.Protestants bear the sin of Martin Luther who protested against such things.
Luther protested, but Luther did not protest either Christ or Christianity,what he protested was the abuse of power within the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and he promoted the reading of the Bible and subsequently the entire concept of grace and faith as a means to sanctification instead of works and paying fees to the pope for God's spiritual protection or even salvation. “Restoring the separated brethren” sounds benevolent enough, a sort of reconciliation, but truth is that restoration to this end really means all are subject to the Roman Pontiff. No matter how benevolent the Roman Pontiff may be or appear to be, faith and salvation is not a matter of believing in any man, it is a matter of believing God, believing he makes good on what he says and taking him at his Word.
The Vatican declares on one hand that protestants are anathema, because they reject Papal rule they are believed to be going to hell even though they profess faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, even though they live holy lives with a mind unto God. They are believed to be in rebellion, believed to be the problem for unity on Earth.
In the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, given in Rome at St. Peter's, November 21,1964, it states that “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.” Yet, seemingly benevolent the Vatican says also that it's desire is to reunite with Rome, these "separated brethren." This kind of thinking in Roman Catholic dogma is the base for what has become known as the ecumenical movement between committees of various denominations, with them all of course receiving direction from none other than the Vatican, and the Pope. Such thinking is labeled ecumenical, and it's practice is what we see in the formation of inter-denominational organizations such as the World Council of Churches.
Ecumenism is an interesting word. The word itself is derived from the Greek word, oikoumene, which means “earth” or the inhabited or civilized “world.” It is used in the New Testament many times. (Romans 10:18; Luke 2:1; Hebrews 1:6 and others) The word "ecumenism" is applicable to anything that involves the world’s inhabitants, the entire inhabitable world and even refers to a world system.
While there is no doubt a world system, their is also God's system, and God's systme of doing things is wuite different from that of the world's ways. God's system is ruled by his Word, connected by His Holy Spirit, and put's it's hope and faith in the one whom he sent to seek and save the lost, which all Christians believe to be Jesus. While these are the things that make Christians Christian, some people look at the Christian world and see disunity because they want everyone to be like them and do what they do, to do things only whih they want them to do at all. The reality however is that a true body has manny different working parts and they do not all always look the same.
Christians are to be one in Christ because as it say's in Ephesians, 4:1-6: “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Also, 1 Corinthians 12 tell readers, “ For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many….” In contrast the Vatican’s decree teaches that the unity of the Christian faith rests upon looking to the Pope as our Father, the head of the church. They even claim that the unity of Christian faith depends greatly upon believing that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built, with this rock being the firm foundation that the church is built upon, which causes divisions when some suggest the Rock is Jesus, not Peter and that like Peter, Christians are but little rocks, rocks that rest in the revelation of God unto us about the savior, Jesus Christ and who he is.
What give with all of this? Who is right and who is wrong? Does it even matter?
Consider Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, of Nehemiah’s day; they detested people doing the will of God and trusting in him instead of in them and their power and authority. These guys despised and mocked Nehemiah, who was doing his bet to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Adam Clark’s commentary says that these guys falsely "charged Nehemiah with the design of rebellion."
Well, they suggested it was rebellion, but the truth was that Nehemiah had permission to rebuild, permission given to him via letters from the King himself. They would have liked it if Nehimiah would have submitted unto them and their authority instead of God, but Nehemiah was not very ecumenical in his thinking. He was busy working on the wall and leading others to do the same. He didn't need their permission to be about what he was building. He already had the King's personal permission, and ultimately God's.
The Vatican may be a country of it's own, but God's Kingdom is more than merely a place upon this earth or a kingdom of this world. It is everywhere, and it is a kingdom with a true king called God who sits upon a throne. At his right hand, true justice reigns, with mercy grace and love; and the subjects of God's kingdom bow before this scepter and none other. These are they who know a peace that passes understanding, quite different than the peace any ruler of this world can ever give.
Established since the 5th century, Vatican City is home to more than the Pope, it houses museums filled with antiquities of history, libraries and various other treasures. For example, if you were to visit Vatican City, you would see the Sistine Chapel, once painted by the famous artist Michelangelo and could visit what is believed to be the tomb of the Apostle Peter whose body is said to be buried there is a palace called the Basilica, the largest religious building in all the world.
The ruler of the Vatican is called the Pope,” a man who is known all over the world as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics call him “Holy Father.” This is because "Pope," in Italian, means father (or Papa.) Priests of the Roman Church are all called "Father" as a title, but the Pope is the main father, the biggest daddy of them all, head of head the church, (They believe the head of ALL the church,) in Jesus’ absence.
Vatican City is, Catholics believe, ordained by God to be the capital of the world, as well as the place from where the Pope exercises his authority. The one who is Pope is not to be considered as subject to any human authority or law whatsoever, he is believed a sovereign and considered (by some) to be a sovereign over the affairs of the whole Christian church, maybe even the world. From Vatican City come many decrees and laws... just look at their website. One needs to be a lawyer or hire one if they are to be certain to do everything right and in accordance with Vatican Laws.
In the minds of many people, Vatican law is believed supreme, and it comes to the ret of us in the form of decrees and bulls as the Pope and his entourage interpret the Scripture. Their revelations are then made "official" for the rest of the world, under the final authority of the one who sits on the Vatican throne, or rather, the "Chair of Peter."
This mindset posses a bit problem in Christianity because history and practice shows us that not all Popes have been impeccable in thier rule and not everyone believes they are to follow the dictates of a man, even one who is and called "Pope,." above the dictates of God in His Word. Some even say that the scripture is of "no private interpretation," (as it says in 2 Peter 1:20-21,) meaning that a person cannot read the Bible without the interpretation of the Pope and his final word on what the Bible means and says. Others believe the Bible to be an open book, waiting for us to read and understand it and simply conform to what it says.
Many who are called "protestants" would not say they are protestant, but that they are Christian, and being Christian, they believe that they are part of the body of Christ, with Jesus as the head. But the Vatican, by papal decree in Unitatis Redintegratio, has formally declared that “separated brethren, whether considered as individuals or as Communities and Churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those who through Him were born again into one body.” In the eyes of the Vatican they are still spiritually dead because they do not recognize the power of the Pope and as protestants they are not receiving Pope sanctioned sacraments like the faithful Roman Catholics.Protestants bear the sin of Martin Luther who protested against such things.
Luther protested, but Luther did not protest either Christ or Christianity,what he protested was the abuse of power within the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and he promoted the reading of the Bible and subsequently the entire concept of grace and faith as a means to sanctification instead of works and paying fees to the pope for God's spiritual protection or even salvation. “Restoring the separated brethren” sounds benevolent enough, a sort of reconciliation, but truth is that restoration to this end really means all are subject to the Roman Pontiff. No matter how benevolent the Roman Pontiff may be or appear to be, faith and salvation is not a matter of believing in any man, it is a matter of believing God, believing he makes good on what he says and taking him at his Word.
The Vatican declares on one hand that protestants are anathema, because they reject Papal rule they are believed to be going to hell even though they profess faith in Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior, even though they live holy lives with a mind unto God. They are believed to be in rebellion, believed to be the problem for unity on Earth.
In the DECREE ON ECUMENISM, UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO, given in Rome at St. Peter's, November 21,1964, it states that “The restoration of unity among all Christians is one of the principal concerns of the Second Vatican Council. Christ the Lord founded one Church and one Church only. However, many Christian communions present themselves to men as the true inheritors of Jesus Christ; all indeed profess to be followers of the Lord but differ in mind and go their different ways, as if Christ Himself were divided. Such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages the holy cause of preaching the Gospel to every creature.” Yet, seemingly benevolent the Vatican says also that it's desire is to reunite with Rome, these "separated brethren." This kind of thinking in Roman Catholic dogma is the base for what has become known as the ecumenical movement between committees of various denominations, with them all of course receiving direction from none other than the Vatican, and the Pope. Such thinking is labeled ecumenical, and it's practice is what we see in the formation of inter-denominational organizations such as the World Council of Churches.
Ecumenism is an interesting word. The word itself is derived from the Greek word, oikoumene, which means “earth” or the inhabited or civilized “world.” It is used in the New Testament many times. (Romans 10:18; Luke 2:1; Hebrews 1:6 and others) The word "ecumenism" is applicable to anything that involves the world’s inhabitants, the entire inhabitable world and even refers to a world system.
While there is no doubt a world system, their is also God's system, and God's systme of doing things is wuite different from that of the world's ways. God's system is ruled by his Word, connected by His Holy Spirit, and put's it's hope and faith in the one whom he sent to seek and save the lost, which all Christians believe to be Jesus. While these are the things that make Christians Christian, some people look at the Christian world and see disunity because they want everyone to be like them and do what they do, to do things only whih they want them to do at all. The reality however is that a true body has manny different working parts and they do not all always look the same.
Christians are to be one in Christ because as it say's in Ephesians, 4:1-6: “there is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Also, 1 Corinthians 12 tell readers, “ For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many….” In contrast the Vatican’s decree teaches that the unity of the Christian faith rests upon looking to the Pope as our Father, the head of the church. They even claim that the unity of Christian faith depends greatly upon believing that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built, with this rock being the firm foundation that the church is built upon, which causes divisions when some suggest the Rock is Jesus, not Peter and that like Peter, Christians are but little rocks, rocks that rest in the revelation of God unto us about the savior, Jesus Christ and who he is.
What give with all of this? Who is right and who is wrong? Does it even matter?
Consider Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem, of Nehemiah’s day; they detested people doing the will of God and trusting in him instead of in them and their power and authority. These guys despised and mocked Nehemiah, who was doing his bet to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Adam Clark’s commentary says that these guys falsely "charged Nehemiah with the design of rebellion."
Well, they suggested it was rebellion, but the truth was that Nehemiah had permission to rebuild, permission given to him via letters from the King himself. They would have liked it if Nehimiah would have submitted unto them and their authority instead of God, but Nehemiah was not very ecumenical in his thinking. He was busy working on the wall and leading others to do the same. He didn't need their permission to be about what he was building. He already had the King's personal permission, and ultimately God's.
The Vatican may be a country of it's own, but God's Kingdom is more than merely a place upon this earth or a kingdom of this world. It is everywhere, and it is a kingdom with a true king called God who sits upon a throne. At his right hand, true justice reigns, with mercy grace and love; and the subjects of God's kingdom bow before this scepter and none other. These are they who know a peace that passes understanding, quite different than the peace any ruler of this world can ever give.
Harry Potter...Witchcraft?
Christians should highly regard the scriptures and what they say. There are thing in there, like, "There shall not be found among you anyone that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination. … or an enchanter or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard. … For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord;" (Dueteronomy 18:10-12)
Surprisingly many turn a deaf ear to the parts like this, even when it says, “they which do such things...(the above in mention) shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:21) Apparently there is some confusion as to what exactly this means or doesn't mean and if it applies to people today. Take for example, a recent work of literature marketed to kids, the recent publishing phenomena, Harry Potter.
Harry Potter is a story about a boy wizard. It is written by a woman, an English writer named Joanne, (or rather, JK,) Rowlings. The hard cover book sold almost 7 million copies in the United States in its first 24 hours after publication. Saying that the book was popular would be an understatement. People of all ages stood in line to purchase the book hours before stores opened on it's publication date and the gleeful readers devoured it in hours. But the story didn't stop with one episode, there have been many books to follow, all telling tales of Harry's wizardly adventures. and the stories have even been made into movies.
The reason it was popular at the start was not because people read the book and liked it, nor was it word of mouth, (people telling other people about the fantastic book they had just read.) The reason people loved Harry even before the book hit the shelves was the clever advertising. It was as if, right before the public's eyes, the marketing experts from the four corners of the publishing world, cast their spell... and all the interested parties swam right into it barely thinking that perhaps a book about witchcraft and a boy who is a wizard, learning all about how to cast spells and enchanter others into doing your will, would be something to avoid. But with that said, not everyone was plugged-in to the media hype and clever advertising; and not everyone thought the book was the best choice for kids to be reading. The dialogue between the two groups soon began and as such, these Harry Potter books became quite controversial.
In the story, the hero Harry is an orphan boy, and like Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars tale, Harry, (who doesn't know that he is destined to do great things,) finds himself in face to face battle with a villain character who has something do to with his personal history. This is the evil Lord Voldermort.
Voldemort, murdered Harry’s parents who were "magical "and even though his parent passed on the ability to do magic to Harry Harry does not know this. Harry finds himself living with people who hide this information from him becuse they hate magic. Not only that, these are his relatives, his aunt and uncle, and they don;t love him at all, simply control him and treat him badly. Harry does learn of his magic abilities when he makes contact with people from the magical wizardly part of his world, even though aunt and uncle try to keep them from contacting Harry.
Harry's aunt and uncle, horrible, unmagical relatives, who not only want to keep Harry from his magical lineage, but also treat him badly and keep him in a closet are are described to the readers as "Muggles." Eventually Harry makes contact with Hogwarts school and goes off to become a wizard where he has adventures that lead him to uncover a secret, destroy the philosophers/sorcerers stone cause Voldemort's defeat and graduates from the school and heads home for the summer... well, not really.
Some reviewers say that it’s the story of good verses evil, one we have all heard a million times before. They liken the story to the story of any young boy that grows up and goes off to discover who he really is, a boy who loves his parents he never knew, a boy who makes friends and demonstrates courage, self-sacrifice and honesty... "Its good story," they say. REgarding the magic, they call it fantasy and say we should all rejoice because little wonderful Harry, overcomes the dark side of magic with the good, and remind the ret of us that it’s just an old, familiar tale, one with a magical twist no doubt, but on the whole it's a good story about bravery, honesty, and positive relationships, just like all the rest.
This aside, some spiritually minded people remain concerned about the many aspects of the occult that children are being exposed to as they learn with Harry all the concepts of using magic spells and potions, as they are taught to think such things are perfectly normal, even desireable, if, like Harry, one i born to be a wizard, or a witch. They believe that the idea around the rest which is all "innocent enough" would lure them into the idea that the world of dark arts is benign or friendly. And it was not just the books and the movies that they were concerned over, it was the potion kits, magic wands, spell books, games, posters, and action figures from the books, things that would serve to intensify Harry play with things like "familiar spirits." Concern was that children, exposed to Harry Potter would be interested in learning more and more about the dark arts and the occult.
People argued that this kind of fear was ridiculous. They said that such things were harmless to kids, the stuff childlike fantasy is made of. They said, everyone knows that this witchcraft stuff isn't really real, that 'magic' is illusion. Even key information sources for the public, like child psychologist, Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family, as well as Christian magazines like Christianity Today, hoping to shed some light on the matter at hand, began commenting on the phenomena of Harry Potter, giving parents and teachers of the Christian persuasion their point of view. They wanted to both warn fellow Christians and dis-spell some of the concerns.
.Christianity Today, (CT) is a well know magazine marketed to Christians and as an authority on Christianity and media they published several articles over the years. Titles included, Most Evangelicals Like Harry Potter Books, Really. (June 2003); Positive About Potter (December 1999); Virtue On A Broomstick (September 2000) Somewhat Wild About Harry (December 2001); and Let Harry Conjure Up Some Gospel Magic, Says Christian Magician. (Dec. 2001) Their January 2000 article titled, Why We Like Harry Potter, stated authoritatively, “We think you should read the Harry Potter books to your kids.”
Christianity Today Magazine even ran an article just before Thanksgiving Day 2001, (when the first Harry Potter movie was first released) titled, Wary About Harry. In it they say the movie is a “big, clever, fast-paced adventure.” The article clearly recommended that parents not participate in what they labeled a “witchcraft hunt” or worry about the influence reading these stories will have on their kids. For many reader of these magazines, this was a far cry from what the scriptures say in Deuteronomy.
Comparing JK Rowling's Harry Potter to CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, Engle's Winkle in Time, and Toklien's The Lord of the Rings, Overstreet, author for Christianity Today magazine, told his readers that Harry Potter, like such tales as these is merely whimsical, whimsical while they express spiritual truths.
What is the spiritual truth about witchcraft? Is it a sinful reality or simply whimsical fantasy. Should Christians seek spiritual insight into such matters from God's word or from man's litterary achievements? The way I read scripture, the early converts to Christianity wanted nothing to do with anything occultic like witchcraft, once they had been converted in their minds and hearts, to the truth. Once they realized spiritual truth, once they believed in God, once the put their hope in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they lived to be pleasing to God and as a result they were even known to have burned all their occultic books. (Acts 19:19) They didn’t see the occult as harmless imaginative fun nor as something to be toyed with.
Is it possible that someone has pulled the wool over the eyes of these Christians today?
Consider the whimsical fantasy of HArry Potter...
In the story, Hogwart’s Arcane School of Wizardry is compared to a magnificent imaginative castle built “away from prying Muggle eyes.” (A quote from pg. 114 of the Philosopher's Stone) “Muggles,” in case you do not know, are the stupid and easily fooled, often mean and controlling individuals in Harry's world, like Harry's Aunt and Uncle, who would dissent to or oppose actually teaching children (like the story's hero, Harry,) such magnificently wonderful things such as witchcraft.
The history of Hogwart’s, School (as the reader learns) is that long ago, “witches and wizards suffered much persecution.” BUT…not to fear, for the wise founders of Hogwart’s, (the quote continues, ) "worked in harmony together, seeking out youngsters who showed signs of magic and bringing them to the magnificently imaginative castle to be educated."
You can avoid the books because God said to have nothing to do with such things, or you can read them to your kids and be happy to know that these books will inspire them with great spiritual insight. It really is up to you, but remember, it could be that right under your nose, as if by some work of literary magic, someone has built an magnificently imaginative castle.
Surprisingly many turn a deaf ear to the parts like this, even when it says, “they which do such things...(the above in mention) shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (Galatians 5:21) Apparently there is some confusion as to what exactly this means or doesn't mean and if it applies to people today. Take for example, a recent work of literature marketed to kids, the recent publishing phenomena, Harry Potter.
Harry Potter is a story about a boy wizard. It is written by a woman, an English writer named Joanne, (or rather, JK,) Rowlings. The hard cover book sold almost 7 million copies in the United States in its first 24 hours after publication. Saying that the book was popular would be an understatement. People of all ages stood in line to purchase the book hours before stores opened on it's publication date and the gleeful readers devoured it in hours. But the story didn't stop with one episode, there have been many books to follow, all telling tales of Harry's wizardly adventures. and the stories have even been made into movies.
The reason it was popular at the start was not because people read the book and liked it, nor was it word of mouth, (people telling other people about the fantastic book they had just read.) The reason people loved Harry even before the book hit the shelves was the clever advertising. It was as if, right before the public's eyes, the marketing experts from the four corners of the publishing world, cast their spell... and all the interested parties swam right into it barely thinking that perhaps a book about witchcraft and a boy who is a wizard, learning all about how to cast spells and enchanter others into doing your will, would be something to avoid. But with that said, not everyone was plugged-in to the media hype and clever advertising; and not everyone thought the book was the best choice for kids to be reading. The dialogue between the two groups soon began and as such, these Harry Potter books became quite controversial.
In the story, the hero Harry is an orphan boy, and like Luke Skywalker in the Star Wars tale, Harry, (who doesn't know that he is destined to do great things,) finds himself in face to face battle with a villain character who has something do to with his personal history. This is the evil Lord Voldermort.
Voldemort, murdered Harry’s parents who were "magical "and even though his parent passed on the ability to do magic to Harry Harry does not know this. Harry finds himself living with people who hide this information from him becuse they hate magic. Not only that, these are his relatives, his aunt and uncle, and they don;t love him at all, simply control him and treat him badly. Harry does learn of his magic abilities when he makes contact with people from the magical wizardly part of his world, even though aunt and uncle try to keep them from contacting Harry.
Harry's aunt and uncle, horrible, unmagical relatives, who not only want to keep Harry from his magical lineage, but also treat him badly and keep him in a closet are are described to the readers as "Muggles." Eventually Harry makes contact with Hogwarts school and goes off to become a wizard where he has adventures that lead him to uncover a secret, destroy the philosophers/sorcerers stone cause Voldemort's defeat and graduates from the school and heads home for the summer... well, not really.
Some reviewers say that it’s the story of good verses evil, one we have all heard a million times before. They liken the story to the story of any young boy that grows up and goes off to discover who he really is, a boy who loves his parents he never knew, a boy who makes friends and demonstrates courage, self-sacrifice and honesty... "Its good story," they say. REgarding the magic, they call it fantasy and say we should all rejoice because little wonderful Harry, overcomes the dark side of magic with the good, and remind the ret of us that it’s just an old, familiar tale, one with a magical twist no doubt, but on the whole it's a good story about bravery, honesty, and positive relationships, just like all the rest.
This aside, some spiritually minded people remain concerned about the many aspects of the occult that children are being exposed to as they learn with Harry all the concepts of using magic spells and potions, as they are taught to think such things are perfectly normal, even desireable, if, like Harry, one i born to be a wizard, or a witch. They believe that the idea around the rest which is all "innocent enough" would lure them into the idea that the world of dark arts is benign or friendly. And it was not just the books and the movies that they were concerned over, it was the potion kits, magic wands, spell books, games, posters, and action figures from the books, things that would serve to intensify Harry play with things like "familiar spirits." Concern was that children, exposed to Harry Potter would be interested in learning more and more about the dark arts and the occult.
People argued that this kind of fear was ridiculous. They said that such things were harmless to kids, the stuff childlike fantasy is made of. They said, everyone knows that this witchcraft stuff isn't really real, that 'magic' is illusion. Even key information sources for the public, like child psychologist, Dr. James Dobson and his organization Focus on the Family, as well as Christian magazines like Christianity Today, hoping to shed some light on the matter at hand, began commenting on the phenomena of Harry Potter, giving parents and teachers of the Christian persuasion their point of view. They wanted to both warn fellow Christians and dis-spell some of the concerns.
.Christianity Today, (CT) is a well know magazine marketed to Christians and as an authority on Christianity and media they published several articles over the years. Titles included, Most Evangelicals Like Harry Potter Books, Really. (June 2003); Positive About Potter (December 1999); Virtue On A Broomstick (September 2000) Somewhat Wild About Harry (December 2001); and Let Harry Conjure Up Some Gospel Magic, Says Christian Magician. (Dec. 2001) Their January 2000 article titled, Why We Like Harry Potter, stated authoritatively, “We think you should read the Harry Potter books to your kids.”
Christianity Today Magazine even ran an article just before Thanksgiving Day 2001, (when the first Harry Potter movie was first released) titled, Wary About Harry. In it they say the movie is a “big, clever, fast-paced adventure.” The article clearly recommended that parents not participate in what they labeled a “witchcraft hunt” or worry about the influence reading these stories will have on their kids. For many reader of these magazines, this was a far cry from what the scriptures say in Deuteronomy.
Comparing JK Rowling's Harry Potter to CS Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia, Engle's Winkle in Time, and Toklien's The Lord of the Rings, Overstreet, author for Christianity Today magazine, told his readers that Harry Potter, like such tales as these is merely whimsical, whimsical while they express spiritual truths.
What is the spiritual truth about witchcraft? Is it a sinful reality or simply whimsical fantasy. Should Christians seek spiritual insight into such matters from God's word or from man's litterary achievements? The way I read scripture, the early converts to Christianity wanted nothing to do with anything occultic like witchcraft, once they had been converted in their minds and hearts, to the truth. Once they realized spiritual truth, once they believed in God, once the put their hope in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior, they lived to be pleasing to God and as a result they were even known to have burned all their occultic books. (Acts 19:19) They didn’t see the occult as harmless imaginative fun nor as something to be toyed with.
Is it possible that someone has pulled the wool over the eyes of these Christians today?
Consider the whimsical fantasy of HArry Potter...
In the story, Hogwart’s Arcane School of Wizardry is compared to a magnificent imaginative castle built “away from prying Muggle eyes.” (A quote from pg. 114 of the Philosopher's Stone) “Muggles,” in case you do not know, are the stupid and easily fooled, often mean and controlling individuals in Harry's world, like Harry's Aunt and Uncle, who would dissent to or oppose actually teaching children (like the story's hero, Harry,) such magnificently wonderful things such as witchcraft.
The history of Hogwart’s, School (as the reader learns) is that long ago, “witches and wizards suffered much persecution.” BUT…not to fear, for the wise founders of Hogwart’s, (the quote continues, ) "worked in harmony together, seeking out youngsters who showed signs of magic and bringing them to the magnificently imaginative castle to be educated."
You can avoid the books because God said to have nothing to do with such things, or you can read them to your kids and be happy to know that these books will inspire them with great spiritual insight. It really is up to you, but remember, it could be that right under your nose, as if by some work of literary magic, someone has built an magnificently imaginative castle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
