[Feanor of the Peredhil]

Since it's taken me this long to discover this fascinating thread, I've got a long post addressing many comments. Here goes:

In Rowling's world magic is of this kind - people are not born with natural abilities that may appear to the Sams of this world as 'magic'. They study & practice to gain powers they would not have had otherwise

Not exactly, davem. Just like in Tam Pierce's land of Tortall, where some people are born with the Gift, Rowling's wizards are either born with or without magic (remember Squibs and Muggle-borns). The point of the school is not to teach them evil magic and that sort of thing, it's to teach them to develop the powers they were born with. A safe haven for them, much like Xavier's school for gifted youngsters in X-Men.

No concentration or manipulation of the individuals mind, energy etc..., just a parody version of 'magic'.

Actually, lindil, you're wrong. Upon the introduction of Professor Snape, he says "There will be no foolish wand-waving", among other things, saying that Potions class is far more subtle. Also, the study of Occlumency, which is shielding your mind against attack (Leglimency). Harry refers to Leglimency as "mind-reading" and once again, Snape brings the point of subtlety and how the mind is many-layered and cannot be read as a book, but can still be observed and prodded.

HP is for all practical purposes arguably neck and neck on the first 2 levels, but so far leaves one completely w/out direction as to any afterlife, revelation of purpose, destiny etc.

Hey, hey! What about those ghosts floating around? Nearly Headless Nick tells Harry in Book 5 that the reason Sirius won't come back in ghost form is because his life was complete and he was not afraid to continue on to what came next. Nick was still hanging out because he was afraid to face the unknown and so chose a poor imitation of life. Harry seeing his parents in Book 4 was a fluke, but they came back sort of in angel form to give guidance and love to their kid who was about to die. Also, Dumbledore's words on Flamel: "To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." There is mention everywhere of life not being the end. Just no mention of what the end actually is. Which mirrors LotR and the Silm in that Men die, but nobody knows what happens after.

I mean I don't believe magic works but if it did it would be immoral to use it.

Quite frankly, Mith, I have to disagree with you. I don't believe in magic (a lot of superstitious hocus-pocus, as far as I'm concerned, much like ghosts) in the way of chanting a spell and getting results, or that sort of thing. But if it did exist... is it not worse to ignore a gift, than to use it for a good purpose? Although, really, I just sounded like Boromir in regards to the Ring.

The only magic I see is what lies before me on a regular basis. The love between parent and child. Budding flowers and newly opened leaves. A fresh layer of snow glimmering in the early morning light. What's more magical than the beauty of existence? Onward...

Magic is a neutral power & only its use determines whether it is good or evil.

You got it, dave. Magic is not good or evil in and of itself, it is a tool to be used. Unlike the Ring which was made for evil uses and so became evil by default, magic is an ability, like physical strength, or skills with debate. It is entirely up to the individual to make the choice whether to use it for good or evil.

but then, who decides what a 'good' or 'bad' use of magic is? Where/what is the yardstick?

It's pretty easy. Bad magic hurts people (like Voldemort trying to purify the world by killing off half-bloods and Muggles, or like Umbridge's quill). Good magic helps people (like Lily dying to save Harry, or Hagrid helping his veggies grow).

If we start to think that all works which include witches, wizards, elves and suchlike must have a theological structure then where does it stop? Do we ban all fairy tales and nursery rhymes? The world would be so boring and colourless without them.

*shudder* A world with no art? What would be the point of living? Although I suppose some truly *insert words* people could say that since art is only imitation of what God has already made, then art is evil in and of itself and should also be banned. I'll admit that I've heard such ideas of modern art, but since the idea was tied to the Nazi party...

I'm using LOTR and DC comics.

Hey alatar, do you come in clones? One about 18, not nearly ready for kids yet, but maybe eventually, and available at a location near me?

Dumbledore is a magician and little else. Gandalf is angelic in every way, looks aside.

Dumbledore is a good man, and a good role model. I'll even venture to say that he's a heck of a lot more accessable to children than a grouchy old angel. He's the grandpa we all wish we had; there to teach us the difference between good and evil, to protect us as much as he can, and to smile a lot and enjoy the fun things in life (like ten-pin bowling and chamber music). Gandalf, though a good role model if you're interested in subtle leadership, religious connotations, explosives, and short tempers, is harder for kids to understand than the benevolant head of the school.

There is no "magic" in revelation. The only thing that comes remotely close is the power of God, His angels and His wrath, and the power of Satan and his demons.

Which, to many, is magic in and of itself.

In the HP books the individual magician/scientist is entirely capable to the task of conquering evil without the aid of any larger beneficent force in the universe guiding him along. This stance is essentially anti-religious.

Sure it is. But that doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it entirely unreligious. See, the trouble with religious folks is that they automatically assume that if their religion is "right", then every other way of thinking is "wrong". Why not stick with plain old faith (personal relationship with God, as it's been defined) and spirituality and go with a nice moral lifestyle, trying to help others, trying to make the world a better place; without condemning people, or books?

I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with holding a few traditions, when those traditions divert from scripture and start to take centre stage, then I tend to get a little nervous and sometimes objective because of what the Bible says.

What scares me more is that people take books written by men as supreme truth. Men are fallible, with the possible exception of the Pope, who, of course, never makes mistakes.

Another thing about Harry Potter... any kid who sits down with a book that's got a brightly coloured dust jacket depicting a cartoon kid with a wooden stick and actually believes that this book is "real" has some seriously negligent parents.

And boy do I have a crazy feeling some of you lot would hate Lamb: the Gospel According to Biff. That book is just plain hilarious but if you're easily offended, avoid it like the plague. It spends a few hundred pages making fun of Jesus in a well-written sort of way, and yet a story that involves flying broomsticks and house-elves with a penchant for socks and knit hats is more of a threat to Christianity and the eternal salvation of the soul.