I
IlovetheBible
Guest
Is it okay for children and/or adults to read fantasy? I mean books like Alice in Wonderland, Redwall, fairytales, Tom and Huck, that type of stuff?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wisdom Seeker
New Member
Yes. 
I
IlovetheBible
Guest
The real question I suppose is: Who is going to catch on first where I'm taking this?
C
Christian41974
Guest
I believe it matters what kind of fantasy. I don't like Harry Potter or some others ,and would not suggest you read that ,but what is wrong with Old Huck Fin or some other good decent books. I have read of great preachers who read after Greek philosophers ,but this was only for expansion of the mind not for real truths. Reading broadens your vocabulary and tends to make one smarter and think more. Plus if you watch tv you already are giving your children plenty of fantasy which will not help half as much as reading a book. Reading probably should be spaced out of different genres of books(bio,fiction,nonfiction,and so forth and so on, leaving out soap operas of course)
I
IlovetheBible
Guest
CDGriffin- Thanks. You opened the door for my next question- why is it okay to read Huck Finn, yet not okay to read Harry Potter? According to you that is?
I
IlovetheBible
Guest
Hey! Who is asking the questions here
I would think that the difference would lie in that fantasy cannot happen where as fiction could happen. What I'm trying to get at does lie closely around my first question- whether it is okay to read fantasy or not.
Here is another one- is reading fantasy God honoring?
(post script- I'm playing devils advocate in some of these questions, just so you know and don't think i'm completely crazy)
I would think that the difference would lie in that fantasy cannot happen where as fiction could happen. What I'm trying to get at does lie closely around my first question- whether it is okay to read fantasy or not.
Here is another one- is reading fantasy God honoring?
(post script- I'm playing devils advocate in some of these questions, just so you know and don't think i'm completely crazy)
Books like Harry Potter that are about witchcraft would not gel with the bible when it states to have nothing to do with witchcraft. fantasy, if it is some type of make believe story is quite o.k.
I can not wait to see the Twin Towers installment of the Lord of the Rings epic.
I can not wait to see the Twin Towers installment of the Lord of the Rings epic.
Fantasy has inherrent difficulties, as it may have spiritual implications (compared to Tom Sawyer, Treasure Island et al) and supernatural that touches on the occult.
That's why I don't mind (though don't care much about) Star Wars. Pure fiction set in the future. But I do fuss with Harry Potter and even so-called Christian "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe".
That's why I don't mind (though don't care much about) Star Wars. Pure fiction set in the future. But I do fuss with Harry Potter and even so-called Christian "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe".
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ;
Would not the target audience need to also be considered? Harry Potter was aimed and most influential in the readership in the grade and middle school age. LOTR and the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, are more for an older readership, in the High Scool age, who are more able to discern between reality and fiction.
Another point would be that LOTR and Lion, witch, Wardrobe, are so fantasy that the stark contrast with reality is readily apparent. Harry Potter on the other hand blurs the line in that the Muggle's world is very modern and comparable to our own, ie. cars, motorcycles, trains, etc.
A disfunctional child can seek escapism more readily in HP and have a desire for empowerment in their lives drasticly reinforced. This can lead to an interest in witchcraft, and a strong potential to be influenced by occultic involvement.
Would not the target audience need to also be considered? Harry Potter was aimed and most influential in the readership in the grade and middle school age. LOTR and the Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe, are more for an older readership, in the High Scool age, who are more able to discern between reality and fiction.
Another point would be that LOTR and Lion, witch, Wardrobe, are so fantasy that the stark contrast with reality is readily apparent. Harry Potter on the other hand blurs the line in that the Muggle's world is very modern and comparable to our own, ie. cars, motorcycles, trains, etc.
A disfunctional child can seek escapism more readily in HP and have a desire for empowerment in their lives drasticly reinforced. This can lead to an interest in witchcraft, and a strong potential to be influenced by occultic involvement.
I
IlovetheBible
Guest
The twin towers???? You mean the two towers?
Dr. Bob Griffin:
That's why I don't mind (though don't care much about) Star Wars. Pure fiction set in the future. But I do fuss with Harry Potter and even so-called Christian "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe".
Actually, Star Wars takes place "long ago in a galaxy far, far away," but even so, what is the moral difference between pure fiction set in the future, and pure fiction set in a fantasy world (e.g. Hogwarts, Narnia, Middle-earth)?
That's why I don't mind (though don't care much about) Star Wars. Pure fiction set in the future. But I do fuss with Harry Potter and even so-called Christian "Lion, Witch and Wardrobe".
Actually, Star Wars takes place "long ago in a galaxy far, far away," but even so, what is the moral difference between pure fiction set in the future, and pure fiction set in a fantasy world (e.g. Hogwarts, Narnia, Middle-earth)?
If picking up a stick (Harry's magic wand) and saying a mystical word, could make a feather float, then I think I could agree that it is wrong.
But the fact is that witchcraft has as much power to make something occur in a person's life as Harry's crooked wand. Soon all witches realize that they have gained nothing and will continue the spiritual search until they find God.
The empty spot in a person's heart can be filled with fantasy, fiction, witchcraft, job, sex, drugs, running away, computer games and a million other diversions. None of these can fill the bill, and is part of finding the truth. It is easier to see light when it contrasts against darkness.
But the fact is that witchcraft has as much power to make something occur in a person's life as Harry's crooked wand. Soon all witches realize that they have gained nothing and will continue the spiritual search until they find God.
The empty spot in a person's heart can be filled with fantasy, fiction, witchcraft, job, sex, drugs, running away, computer games and a million other diversions. None of these can fill the bill, and is part of finding the truth. It is easier to see light when it contrasts against darkness.
Would not the target audience need to also be considered?
Yes, but you are largely mistaken about the target audience of each of these works. You are correc that Harry Potter is geared toward upper grade school children. However, the Chronicles of Narnia was not geared toward high-school children, but younger children, say, 8-11. Same with Tolkien's The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, was written for a decidedly adult audience - poet W. H. Auden, in his 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring for the NYT, said that "No fiction I have read in the last five years has given me more joy than 'The Fellowship of the Ring.'" It seems to be found most frequently in the Young Adult section of the library, but I personally suspect this is due to the foolish idea that adult readers are beyond this sort of thing.
Most children know the difference between fantasy and reality. Judging by the people who write the most nonsense about Harry Potter and LOTR, on the other hand, it would appear to be the adults who have difficulty distinguishing the two. (I don't know how many very silly critiques of HP I have seen that claim it teaches authentic witchcraft. It is to laugh.)
Another point would be that LOTR and Lion, witch, Wardrobe, are so fantasy that the stark contrast with reality is readily apparent. Harry Potter on the other hand blurs the line in that the Muggle's world is very modern and comparable to our own, ie. cars, motorcycles, trains, etc.
I fail to see a difference between there being a gateway to Narnia at the back of a wardrobe, and entering the magical world of Hogwarts via a secret train platform. The "real" and "magical" worlds are equally distinguished in both.
And remember that LOTR is Tolkien's attempt to fabricate a mythology for England. Implicit in his story-telling is the idea that he is merely the editor of manuscripts written originally by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. In fact, Bilbo's main motivation for disappearing from the Shire on his eleventy-first birthday was so he could get away from it all and get on with the writing of There and Back Again, which of course we know in our world as The Hobbit.
Lewis and Rowling, by contrast, make no claims, even fictional or tongue-in-cheek ones, to be writing a "true story."
Yes, but you are largely mistaken about the target audience of each of these works. You are correc that Harry Potter is geared toward upper grade school children. However, the Chronicles of Narnia was not geared toward high-school children, but younger children, say, 8-11. Same with Tolkien's The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings, on the other hand, was written for a decidedly adult audience - poet W. H. Auden, in his 1954 review of The Fellowship of the Ring for the NYT, said that "No fiction I have read in the last five years has given me more joy than 'The Fellowship of the Ring.'" It seems to be found most frequently in the Young Adult section of the library, but I personally suspect this is due to the foolish idea that adult readers are beyond this sort of thing.
Most children know the difference between fantasy and reality. Judging by the people who write the most nonsense about Harry Potter and LOTR, on the other hand, it would appear to be the adults who have difficulty distinguishing the two. (I don't know how many very silly critiques of HP I have seen that claim it teaches authentic witchcraft. It is to laugh.)
Another point would be that LOTR and Lion, witch, Wardrobe, are so fantasy that the stark contrast with reality is readily apparent. Harry Potter on the other hand blurs the line in that the Muggle's world is very modern and comparable to our own, ie. cars, motorcycles, trains, etc.
I fail to see a difference between there being a gateway to Narnia at the back of a wardrobe, and entering the magical world of Hogwarts via a secret train platform. The "real" and "magical" worlds are equally distinguished in both.
And remember that LOTR is Tolkien's attempt to fabricate a mythology for England. Implicit in his story-telling is the idea that he is merely the editor of manuscripts written originally by Bilbo and Frodo Baggins. In fact, Bilbo's main motivation for disappearing from the Shire on his eleventy-first birthday was so he could get away from it all and get on with the writing of There and Back Again, which of course we know in our world as The Hobbit.
Lewis and Rowling, by contrast, make no claims, even fictional or tongue-in-cheek ones, to be writing a "true story."