Wizards and a defense of Gandalf
#11
I don't understand why this couldn't have gone in the other thread. It's just an extension of your argument. I can't help suspecting that you like to start over with a clean slate when people have made convincing arguments against you. Everyone should go look at the harry potter thread; there's some good stuff in there, and there's some good stuff in the last thread in this subforum which was posted on this topic. Personally, I get a little tired of repeating myself, but I will add that it was clear that the magicians or wizards in the bible were evil, whether or not Moses and Aaron performed miracles, which is not the same thing. The fact that you are associating the two in this manner makes about the clearest argument in favor of the morality of witchcraft for a Catholic that I've ever seen. I wouldn't go around telling children these kinds of things if I were you.
Reply
#12
(09-30-2010, 12:29 AM)dark lancer Wrote:
(09-30-2010, 12:22 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: It's miracles vs. sorcery

Regardless of setting or purpose, it always boils down to this without exception?

Yes, a miracle is something that comes from God--often through the intercession of the saints. Magic is tricks and smoke and mirrors or witchcraft; not from God.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#13
Very Good Herry. I'll take Iolanthe's advice and go read the other too.
tim
Reply
#14
Bravo!  :)
Reply
#15
(09-29-2010, 11:15 PM)dark lancer Wrote: So basically something is evil or not based on what appellation is used and in what context.

Sort of. It is the appellation which is judged though. So, more appropriately:

"the subject of an appellation is evil or not based on context".

So, in the right context, a demon can be good if for some reason this term refers to something for whatever reason which is not what we would call a demon (ie, fallen angel). The spoken word "demon" (it uses an alternative spelling though which originally referred to the same thing as "demon" though) can also refer to some types of software...I'm not sure why (for the curious and geeky...it refers to a Unix programming which runs in the background (more precisely, it has to be a child of init, but if you know what that means, you already know what I'm writing about)).

So, the fact that Tolkien used the Anglo-Saxon word "Wizard" to refer to an angelic being in human form does not make the being evil. Tolkien uses words of different backgrounds for linguistic reasons.
Reply
#16
(09-29-2010, 11:11 PM)Walty Wrote: I think it's worth noting that, in my opinion, "magic" is something which is quite real.  It may best be labelled as a supernatural power.  We see the saints and even common priests employing wonders and sacraments by the grace and power of God.  And, like your post, I believe that there are some who mess around with these powers and are able to do things by tapping into some sort of supernatural/divine/angelic power that they are unaware of.  But, at the same time, I also think that demons possess supernatural powers and that certain "wizards" tap into that sort of dark magic and know exactly what they are doing.

Your opinion is mostly fact, except for one detail...it is not "supernatural", which is God only, but "praeternatural" in Catholic theology :)

Also, this is more true than you may have stated here, as noted: http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/inde...991.0.html

In that post, er, the blog post referred to in that post, people who have the faith have the more sure access to such evil because we know it exists and because demons can use direct temptation as a last resort.
Reply
#17
(09-29-2010, 11:01 PM)dymphna17 Wrote: What a nerd.  You were really bored today, weren't you?

I kid, I kid.  ;) :P ;D

Geek. And it was last night.

I wasn't particular bored. I like to write and I think a lot, so the post does not reflect any abnormal reflection of mine. It is just one I chose to share.
Reply
#18
Wizard = Magus, or Magi in plural = The Wise

I don't think the evangelist would be talking about evil men bringing gifts to Our Lord.

Reply
#19
(09-30-2010, 03:49 AM)Iolanthe Wrote: I don't understand why this couldn't have gone in the other thread.
For me, it boils down to Unix. I like things focused and clear. This is a new topic, although, a direct continuation of the other. It was also a general post, not one directed at your response, although I use it as the example for the term.

Quote:It's just an extension of your argument.
Not at all. I do not intend to argue for the reading of Tolkien because refraining from it is never sinful. It is only when some presses the other way do I push back. Avoiding sin is more important than this.

Quote: I can't help suspecting that you like to start over with a clean slate when people have made convincing arguments against you.
I can't help that, but I did not find your argument convincing against any of my statements. As noted in the another thread, it is important to determine the fundamental principles used for judgement before judging an individual work. I haven't actually read Tolkien's or C.S. Lewis's fantasy novels in a long time, so my main posting in regard to each is focused more on fact. If one says Gandalf uses magic just like Harry Potter, I'll be able to refute that. If one says that Tolkien's depiction of Gandalf is still immoral, I can't really go into detail because I haven't studied the direct source closely enough.

Quote: Everyone should go look at the harry potter thread; there's some good stuff in there, and there's some good stuff in the last thread in this subforum which was posted on this topic. Personally, I get a little tired of repeating myself, but I will add that it was clear that the magicians or wizards in the bible were evil, whether or not Moses and Aaron performed miracles, which is not the same thing.
That is true, wizards and magicians referred to evil practitioners, however, like I pointed out, words do not have inherent meaning. Wizard went from "wise man" to a suitable translation of "nefarious, evil person" in (it seems) less than two centuries. To judge a particular work, one must study it in detail. The fact that Tolkien uses the word wizard to describe Gandalf would lend evidence to the evil nature of this fictional character. A closer analysis of what Tolkien's fantasy contained, would possibly mitigate the use of the term. If someone changed all the "wizard" references to "wise man" or "messenger of God", it would probably not change the story at all. On the other hand, in a story like Harry Potter, if one changed all the wizard references to something else, the nature of the situations described would still support the concept of "evil".

If the Lord of the Rings were translated into Latin (which may have been done), would one use "maleficus", a word which means "evil male" without any doubt or something else? If that Latin text were translated into English again, what would would be used to translate whatever word was used to describe Gandalf?

Quote: The fact that you are associating the two in this manner makes about the clearest argument in favor of the morality of witchcraft for a Catholic that I've ever seen. I wouldn't go around telling children these kinds of things if I were you.

Read the list at the bottom of my post. It was a highly focused thread on the context of "wizard". It is more of a linguistic analysis than anything.

Also, the morality is another issue. Fantasy may still be evil; I never directly supported that. I do not at this time think it is, but I would not strongly defend that position because it can easily be so and there is no loss if I'm wrong now.

Speaking of the morality of witchcraft, perhaps my blog may make this clearer: http://nonpeccabis.blogspot.com/2010/09/...ntasy.html

This thread was about the word "wizard" and depictions of Gandalf.

You are addressing things which were not written. Please do not assume things about me. Pointing out the written words of scripture and respectful art of it does not a clear argument about anything. It merely points out that older men, holding sticks and speaking are not necessarily evil because there are two very holy instances of such people in the faith.
Reply
#20
(09-30-2010, 09:53 AM)Augstine Baker Wrote: Wizard = Magus, or Magi in plural = The Wise

I don't think the evangelist would be talking about evil men bringing gifts to Our Lord.

Thanks!

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)