Yes – you are right in saying Magic is more of a deal-breaker for the unitiated-Potterverse Christian. All I can say is thank God for the Enlightenment (my favorite era in music history as well):

During the Age of Enlightenment, belief in the powers of witches and sorcerers to harm began to die out in the West. But the reasons for disbelief differed from those of early Christians. For the early Christians the reason was theological—that Christ had already defeated the powers of evil. For the post-Enlightenment Christians, the disbelief was based on a belief in rationalism and empiricism.

But alas – the alarm still echos, centuries later, at the word “Magic”. I am so glad you read the books and found them not only harmless to your faith and the quality of your worship of God – but perhaps have found that they enrich your faith and the quality of your worship of God even more.

You make a good observation (obliquely) about the inherent strict dualism in that worldview– “if something doesn’t come directly from God, it must therefore come directly from the devil.” No room for anything that comes from, say, human insight or imagination!

I actually have once (scarily enough) seen a real website by a wiccan who was using HP as a hook to explain what wicca was all about. But even that site said words to the effect of, “The kind of magick wiccans do is very different from the kind that Harry and his friends do in their fictional world.” Even real “magicians” don’t recognize the magic in the Potterverse as “magic” in our world.

Philologically, the point about “natural” vs. “supernatural” magic reminds me of the magical connection between glamour and grammar (no, really). Which I think it’s not entirely unlikely to suppose JKR is aware of, actually, since she seems quite fond of her Latin and Old French root words.

A lot – and I mean a LOT of Christians out there were scared and angry about these books. Why? – one little word – occult.

Some religious denominations view the occult as being anything supernatural or paranormal which is not achieved by or through God (as defined by those religious denominations), and is therefore the work of an opposing and malevolent entity.

Now the problem here as I see it for Christians who follow the dogma line is – these books hinge all on one prophecy – and it’s a prophecy not given by God. Hence it is the occult. The occult has a big bad reputation in religious circles – and if Trelawny is seeing the future without God’s influence – then it is considered “promoting of the occult”.

I say – I believe the ability to prophecize is magic in the Harry Potter realm and Christianity does not believe in the existance of magic and neither do I. I believe in empirical science of the Age of Enlightenment. Hence the reality presented in these books is fictional in nature – not applicable to everyday reality (so to speak). These books are not about the occult – they are about Magic. Ergo – not “promoting of the occult”.

Of course, for me, even if it was – I have no trouble reading them. I actually love paranormal stuff – I don’t believe it – but I’m fascinated by it.

When thinking of magic it is important to take on board the distinction between natural magic and supernatural magic. Supernatural magic relied on something beyond or above the natural. Practitioners used spells that summoned spirits or demons. The Elizabethan magus John Dee has become renowned for his conversations with angels.

Natural magic did not require anything supernatural. Rather, it worked with what was natural but was hidden from science. Science, sometimes referred to as natural philosophy, dealt with what was evident to the senses. Natural magic dealt with what was hidden, the occult. The word occult at this time did not have any sense of evil as it does today – it simply meant hidden.

There definitely is a difference between Natural Magic and Supernatural Magic. Yet they’re both called magic.

For more information or to investigate the source:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/S/spellbinder/intro.shtml

I still don’t think Trelawney’s prophesying was a use of magic. I think prophecy as being beyond magic and into the spiritual. There’s prophecy in the muggle world too. Divination and prophecy are very different.

Yes Derek D. Other people probably knew the Sectumsempra – the other death eaters for instance. Lupin knew. (DH 5)

Sectumsempra was always a specialty of Snape’s

Or maybe Ron found the potions book and told Harry about it. The main thing was – Snape knew he orginated the spell so there would either have to be only a few degrees of separation of this knowledge between himself and Harry – or Harry was the one who discovered his old potions book. Either way Sectumsempra was clearly recognized by Snape.

I’ll make simple.

You said:
Dumbledore is convinced that she has only prophecied twice- once about Harry and once in front of Harry. She didn’t use magic to do this.

I said:
I think both predictions by Trelawney were the result of magic.

We disagree – I don’t have a problem with this Korg. I also politely disagree with you that we “don’t even know if Snape created the spell.” After Harry attempts to use Sectumsempra and Levicorpus on Snape after Dumbledore’s death in HBP 28.

You dare use my own spells against me, Potter? It was I who invented them – I, the Half-Blood Prince! And you’d turn my inventions on me, like your filthy father, would you? I don’t think so…no!

It was Snape’s spell alright.

I also disagree that Snape didn’t “know” that Sectumsempra was used. He knew the curse and he knew the damage and he knew the remedy for it. Just my humble small opinion.

Also, Voldemort wasn’t exactly a fan of the Malfoys in HBP. He gave Draco an impossible mission just to see him fail. It doesn’t seem out of the possibility that he would mind Sectumsempra being used on him.