LOTR vs Harry Potter

[Emni Windrunner]

I am not trying to draw a comparison between LOTR and HP. I am not trying to scream about HP at the expense of a discussion of LOTR. What I am trying to do is to say that people should not talk who have not read the books--HP or LOTR. I know people who won't read LOTR or go to see it in the theater because of the Nazgul, who look Satanic and damaging to the psyche, apparently. I do not have a problem with seeing the movie or reading the books because evil is real, and the Nazgul are a great representation of evil--nothing good, nothing appealing except raw power and cruelty (if that appeals to you).<BR>By the same token (Note: I am not comparing the works; I am comparing some portrayals in the works), HP shows evil for what it is. The Dementors, the Death Eaters, Voldemort...none of them look good, appealing, or like anything any sane person would want to emulate. Like LOTR, HP has a heavy infusion of so-called "Judeo-Christian" morals. There is right and wrong, and in the end, there is no middle ground.<P>PS Please also note: there is a difference between <B>a cult</B> and <B>the Occult</B>. A cult is a religious group that has extreme and bizarre practices and beliefs. The Occult is Satanic practice. ~EW~<P>PPS I did not put any time into studying the Occult beyond reading the newspaper when there has been Satanic activity discovered and watching a documentary on Sean Sellers, and I could have told you everything Rowling covers in her books. That doesn't make either her or me Satanists or involved in the Occult; it makes us both observant. ~EW~<P>PPPS Ginny Weasley was eleven, not thirteen, and she opened herself up to influence and possession--and she was most certainly influenced and, at times, possessed. This is a Biblical principle, which is why God states unequivocally in Leviticus that the people should have nothing to do with spiritism or mediums, which open them up to influence. Again, nothing you have to be a Satanist to know. ~EW~