by Travis
Note: The spam-catcher is stealing a lot of comments in this thread. Matthew and I are trying to stay on top of it, but if your comment does not show up, please let us know, and we’ll find it!
Well, if the bombshell revelation that the Harry Potter books really were about the Christian story was big news, this will get even more attention:
Tonight, Rowling said that Dumbledore was gay, and that he had actually fallen in love with Grindelwald when they were young.
This actually proves most of the “Harry Potter contains Christian elements” advocates (like myself and John Granger) to be correct once again, as we’ve always maintained that Rowling would be, for lack of a better word, a “liberal” Christian. But I’ll tell you what: the anti-Potter culture war Christians are going to go to town with this one. This could get really ugly.
revgeorge on 
R. Ross on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 143 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Personally:
Dumbledore is gay- so what? It may be what some of you call a sin, but this sin isn’t any worse than some of the sins the characters committed… It’s not his fault he’s gay, is it? I don’t think he can change his sexuality.
And if the anti-Potter people take this and twist it around, well, just shove the Christian values in their face. If those people wanted to, they could argue that Narnia was anti-Christian… Gosh.
Johnny, I thought I was tapped out, but I guess not. This isn’t about Dumbledore anymore. It’s about tolerance, and intolerance.
You say that this is a sensitive topic and everyone has a right to their opinion and any difference of that opinion shouldn’t bother you.
I don’t think I agree with you.
Say that I’m gay, and say that you think that is a sin. I suppose that if you thought that in the privacy of your home and didn’t broadcast it to the world, then it wouldn’t bother me. But if you chose to make your views public, and called me a sinner, then I think I might be reasonably offended by your opinion. Especially if I was a practising Christian and tried to act like a decent person.
And you know what, it’s not even about whether I am a sinner or not. It’s about your right to call me that. I don’t think you – speaking of the abstract you, not of Johnny – I don’t think you have the right to call me a sinner unless you are my Pastor, or Minister, or Priest or the person to whom I come for help in understanding and acting according to God’s will. Otherwise, what I am is truly none of your business.
I realize, of course, that the hundred odd people who have commented on this post so far are not talking about any actual person when they condemn homosexuality as a sin. They are talking about a fictional character. There is no need to watch what you say about a fictional character.
But if that is true, why do we argue about Lovecraft’s racial slurs, which are, for the most part, aimed at fictional black people? Why are Jewish people offended by Shylock and Fagin? Why are hip-hop gay bashing lyrics offensive?
How do you think it would make you feel if you were a gay person and you read all of the comments above?
I, too, was surprised to see some of the personal comments remain up. I really hope what I say doesn’t offend anyone, because that is not my intent. I would like to discuss and even debate the points being put out there, but I see no need for personal comments of a negative nature. This topic is most certainly a sensitive one, so, even though many comments have disappointed me in here, I will most definitely be back. I have been very pleased with the comments of our host. Thank you, Travis.
Carla Lute says: “Scripture bans all fornication, reguardless of gender.”
I am going a bit off topic. I was confused recently about Old Testament heroines, Esther and Ruth, and how their fornicating seemed to be condoned or almost required by God. Am I wrong, here? How does that work when fornication is forbidden?
As others have mentioned, I see fraternal and maternal love as the strongest themes of the series with romantic love taking a much smaller role.
Angela, there’s a diversity of opinion here. I’m surprised at the strong reaction (deleting the site…approving of hate, etc.).
Richard, you responded to Johnny, not me. I was just takin’ a jab at ya.
I’m using ‘liberal’ in the sense of J. Gresham Machen’s _Christianity and Liberalism_ from before WWII.
I am inclined to strongly suspect that Rita Skeeter is involved in this.
Or that at least, Dumbldore repented of that abomination along with his wizard-supremacy views.
Certainly, if the report is true, and was always in her mind, rather than a post burnt-by-Christians response, Dumbledore seems to have refrained from engaging in that sin. A person after all isn’t ‘a homosexual,’ they do or do not engage in that blasphemy against the musterion of marriage. Dumbledore appears to have not engaged in that sin. Certainly post-Grindlewald, and perhaps he never did.
However, liberals are so influenced by the pneumon ton aion (zeitgeist, Queen of Air and Darkness, Spirit of the Age) that even when they do hold on to the Cross, and apparently a few do, they certainly follow the cultural elites meekly when it comes to such things as homosexual offenses.
It is most disturbing because Dumbledore was such an authority figure for youth. DH ought to have changed that, but one can’t be sure.
She might even have been giving a rather humorous sharp retort to being badgered by pro-homosexualist agitators. “Oh, yes, well of course Dumbledore was quite smitten with Grindlewald” imagine that in a sarcastic tone.
She has been very hurt by other Bible-believing Christians who didn’t bother to read before discerning. But her response was the graceful, loving rebuke in having the character Pius Thicknesse, which describes my unliterate brethren so well.
I urge being kind to her and praying for her, and not letting Rita Skeeter destroy enjoying the books.
Since, like JKR, I am a fan of Chesterton, I suppose I am one of those horrible evil “right-wing” Bible-believing Christians Who Must Be Killed For The Good of Society.
Eeyore, quite so! Whatever happened to friendship? I believe C. S. Lewis bemoaned the very notion being destroyed by the over-sexualizing of everything and anything by those who reject God. Those are the people who try to claim that Jesus was an abomination with John, or David with Jonathan! They remind me of the Freemasons claiming everyone famous was a Freemason.
Dave the Longwinded, those who have so perverted themselves as to engage in homosexuality, statistically are FIFTEEN TIMES more likely to engage in pedophilia.
I can’t off-hand remember any of the Order of the Phoenix torturing people.
Jamie, re Oct 20, 6 pm. Yes, I think that interpretation is quite possible. Apart from a notion that a person -is- a sin.
Carla, so does the New Testament. Unrepentant homosexual offenders do -not- go to heaven.
Angela, it isn’t hypocrisy, it is the Bible. It is what God has said. Homosexuality requires a deep, deep, Voldemort and more deep hatred for all that God is and has done, and an insistence to blaspheme the mysterion of the relationship of Christ and the Church. There is sin, which has the penalty of eternal hell because those who insist on serving out the justice themselves, will find that sin against the infinite God has an infinite price, and there is the depth of depravity against God’s creational intent, and hatred against God Himself, and in that polarity, not all sins are the same.
–Elphias Doge.
TO ALL: This is obviously a heated discussion. I want to make a point very clear: Matthew and I will be quite certain to warn about personal attacks and breaking of the discussion guidelines here. We will not be deleting opinions, no matter how much you dislike them. If you want to storm off the board, tossing generalized bombs about “hate” and “intolerance” as you go, that’s on you. We’re allowing for a wide diversity of opinion to be expressed here, far wider that you’ll find on many other boards.
No personal attacks. Now discuss and debate.
Labrialumn, can you please provide the biblical references, especially to the unrepentant homosexual offenders not going to heaven, but also about homosexuality requiring a hatred of God? Thank you.
Hi, all,
Long time reader, first time commenter. I’m a bit inclined to agree with Angela — it saddened me to see things on this wonderful site that would be so hurtful to some of my friends and to people in my family — but I’m not going anywhere. I enjoy the literary analysis too much, and I was thrilled to be introduced to Lovecraft. Besides, how better to confront things I don’t understand than to talk to people about them?
Personally, the “revelation” doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me after book 7, and in fact it makes Dumbledore all the more endearing to me. I agree with other commenters that there was no need to emphasize it in the books themselves, as that would have distracted from the plot. I also really don’t believe we need to be concerned about Dumbledore viewing Harry in a sexual way — just as I as a heterosexual woman am not controlled and defined by my sexuality, my gay friends are in no way controlled or defined by theirs. The fact that Harry was there and often had to rely on him/meet with him in private does not mean that Dumbledore saw him in any other way than Rowling conveyed in her writing.
Trish, could you please explain why you think Rowling’s portrayal of love is predominately romantic/sexual? I’m afraid I don’t have my HP books with me (too heavy to lug to college) so I’m only relying on memory and can’t look through them as I’d wish to. Thanks!
Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9
Always good to ask such questions.
Angela, I too am tempted to storm off, as Travis says, because, like you, find the outpouring of dismay, disappointment, hurt and anger at JKR’s revelation hard to take.
I keep reading – and occasionally commenting – for two reasons.
First, this site is run by men of integrity and good will. They are always willing to acknowledge if they have been wrong and to apologize – sometimes even when there hasn’t been any offense given – and they maintain a level of civility, courtesy and respect which is quite extraordinary in these rude times. The people who comment here follow their example, and it is an uncommonly civilized forum.
My second reason for hanging in, even when I am very discouraged, is that if we – following such civilized rules and in such a respectful place – if we are unable to have a civil discussion, then what hope is there for the rest of the world?
I think the main point of the whole thing is that it never mattered to the plotline whether DD was gay, so why bring it up now??? It doesn’t affect the story, it changes nothing, so WHY was it necessary to point out that he was a homosexual? I must admit that I am now going through the books, especially Rita Skeeter’s analysis of the relationship that DD had with GW, and I can see the choice of words that were used are very indicative of feelings that are more than friendly. But it skews my perception of DD. Now, he is the token gay guy, rather than the venerable wizard. It puts an emphasis on something that is irrelevant and changes how I see DD now. And that stinks.
I’m going to try to tread lightly on some very sensitive ground here. I think it’s important, though, for a Christian to be able to explain the homosexuality-sin issue in a way that brings understanding. Whether you agree with any of this or not is quite beside the point right now. I’m simply trying to help us understand each other better. Please, please be clear with me about anything in this comment that I’ve written poorly or that bothers you. Let’s all try to understand each other, rather than hiding in trenches and throwing grenades. (One important note: I’m using the term “Christian” in this comment as shorthand for “historical Christianity,” which, until very recently in the overall scheme of things, unanimously believed homosexuality to be a sin.
It’s been charged that it’s ok for a Christian to believe homosexuality to be a sin only if that Christians holds the opinion privately. To speak it publicly is to offend, and therefore to be in the wrong, and “intolerant.”
Except the problem for the Christian is this: to believe something is a “sin” doesn’t just mean, “You’re bad.” We Christians believe all of us sin, and are indeed sinners. So to name one specifically isn’t to say, “You’re bad and I’m not.” And further than that, the Christian believes sin to be soul-damaging. If I saw a friend of mine committing adultery, it wouldn’t be intolerant for me to call him on it. If a friend saw me doing the same, I’d need him to call me on it.
So it’s impossible for the Christian to detach belief in something as a “sin” from everything that “sin” means.
Furthermore, the Christian cannot see sexual orientation and race as parallel issues. The Scriptures are very clear on race: Christ died for those of “every tribe, language, and nation.” The central redemptive act of the Christian story was one of racial reconciliation. There is no biblical precedent for racism, nor any indication that being of a certain race can be construed in any way as a sin. Not so with sexual morality. The two issues are vastly different for the Christian who believes the Scriptures are authoritative.
The problem, however, is this: because of the culture war mentality of American Christianity, whether we admit it or not, we’ve elevated this sin above all the others. While commenters did discuss at length issues like Dumbledore’s lying, Harry’s crucio, and the like, there were no Christians feeling betrayed and wanting to abandon the series altogether as a result of those things. And they were in canon. But as soon as Rowling makes this statement, there’s a major blowup.
There’s a major hypocrisy there, and I’m not afraid to use the word “homophobia” to describe it. But I want to say that there is such thing as a position that is publicly against homosexuality and not “homophobic” and has love at its center.
It’s just rare to find it these days.
I must say, also, that Aberforth’s affinity for goats bothers me much more than the possibility of DD being gay. ha…ha…
One more thought to all: I do apologize that the tone has gotten out of hand in this thread. This blog has been a full time job for Matthew and I all day…many comments are getting caught in spam, and we’re fielding emails like crazy.
I’m urging all to take deep breaths and write graciously. Please keep the personal attacks out of it, and do everything you can to promote understanding and calm, charitable discussion.
Other threads on other major websites have already shut down. I don’t want to do that here, so please keep the conversation charitable. I’m very thankful for all of you who have done that.
Who decides which books get press (Gay-promoting Harry Potter) and which get censored? After all, censorship is becoming America’s favorite past-time. The US gov’t (and their corporate friends), already detain protesters, ban books like “America Deceived” from Amazon and Wikipedia, shut down Imus and fire 21-year tenured, BYU physics professor Steven Jones because he proved explosives, thermite in particular, took down the WTC buildings. Free Speech forever (especially for books).
Last link (before Google Books caves to pressure and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0
Travis: “This actually proves most of the ‘Harry Potter contains Christian elements’ advocates (like myself and John Granger) to be correct once again, as we’ve always maintained that Rowling would be, for lack of a better word, a ‘liberal’ Christian. But I’ll tell you what: the anti-Potter culture war Christians are going to go to town with this one. This could get really ugly.”
Nail on the head, Travis. Although I am not one who automatically equates “liberal Christian” with “non-Christian” (although recognizing the dangers thereof), a number of my “conservative Christian” acquaintances (ditto in recognizing the dangers) automatically jump on the bandwagon.
Reyhan asks (and answers the apropos questions:
I think that sometimes we — not just Christians, but the ‘cultural elite’ and the ‘madding crowd’ for lack of better terms — make too big a deal about homoeroticism. At worst it is another sin like so many others.
Let me expand on something that Dn Kevin wrote and revgeorge hinted at. Any of you: are you tempted to over-eat? Your gluttony is likely worse than Dumbledore’s gayness — except he doesn’t appear to have flaunted it.
Are you tempted to spend time on the Internet when you should be spending time doing chores around the house, or helping a family member with something? If so, your sloth is likely worse than Dumbledore’s gayness — except he doesn’t appear to have flaunted it.
Are you tempted to absolutely detest the politics of some politician — President Bush, Senator Reid, Senator Clinton, Vice President Cheney, it doesn’t matter whom?? If so, your hatred is likely worse than Dumbledore’s gayness — except he doesn’t appear to have flaunted it.
Perspective is needed. (I think Signe does well to help!) Look at Dumbledore!!! Is there any evidence in the text that he yielded to the homoerotic temptation Reyhan mentioned? No, no, and no. Even if so, is there any evidence that he continued to engage in such acts? Or that he tried to seduce Harry or Draco or Snape or someone else? The answer remains: no!
I think that Travis reminded us of something that, although we profess with our lips, sometimes the sinful flesh gets in the way.
Jamie also notes that Dumbledore’s character shows strong evidence of maturing! He learns from the mistakes of his youth! Are any of you middle-aged or older? Would you like to be judged by others on your behavior when you were in your teens or twenties???? If you are like me, you would echo with St. Paul a rousing God forbid!
Why shouldn’t the same be granted to the character of Dumbledore?
And, if Ms. Rowling is stating that homoerotic sex is moral — which may well be the case — then an appropriate Christian response would be, “Ms. Rowling’s heart is in the right place, but she is in error in not seeing the long-term damage to the human soul in such relations.”
I have quite enjoyed this discussion group. Thank you, Travis et al. for hosting it.
reyhand and Travis Prinzi: Thank you for your posts of 12:30/21 October and 1:30/21 October. I do disagree in one part: the term homophobia has become almost meaningless, and is usually used only as a pejorative. For all practical purposes, to call someone “homosphobic” is less meaningful than to call someone a “nigger”. YMMV, of course, but I have seen extremely few examples which should not be tossed into the dustbin. I would encourage avoidance of the “h-word” as much as I would encourage avoidance of the “n-word”.
>Richard Abanes,
Check any dictionary for a definition of “gosh” then come back. Matthew
yes yes yes, blah blah blah. anything to condemn. lol. truth is the word “gosh” – like so many other such words – has pretty much lost its original bindings to any orignal meaning and has taken on a self-contained, isolated non-meaningful position as a simple exclamation. i suppose now you’re going to condemn peeps for saying “darn,” and “crikey,” and “shoot,” and a whole slew of other words/terms. ever use the word snafu? or maybe fubar? hmmm, you’re destined for hell. look those up! anyway, fun word play, but tbh, not a very meaningful discussion except to the likes of jehovah’s witnesses perhaps who also condemn christmas and easter for their pagan ties. i think God cares about a lot of other things a whole lot more. cheers.
Oh, fandom. One minute I’m defending you like crazy, the next I’m shaking my head and wondering how I can share such similiar views with people for so long and then find out that those wonderful open-minded people I knew for so long, weren’t really that open to begin with. Dumbledore is Gay. He’s also a fictional character who doesn’t affect you beliefs in any way. Attack the author, but please don’t resort to attacking the books that have inspired multiple generations to explore the joys of reading. It’s dissapointing, finding out how fast people can turn on something that meant so much to them.
Trish, I do not see how Dumbledore’s homosexuality would be a matter of suspicion regarding Harry. You emphasize that Harry is grown but keep in mind that Dumbledore was killed before Harry’s 17th birthday, so Harry was not of age. How about when Harry was alone with Dumbledore when he was younger like 11, 12, 13…? You say pedophilia has nothing to do with it, but why have suspicion even if Harry is an adult? All I’m saying is that Dumbledore never compromised his office in his relationship with Harry. Dumbledore is gay, of course, but that does not and should not raise alarm bells over his interactions with Harry.
And no, romantic/sexual love is not the exclusive definition of love in the series. It was Lily Potter’s maternal love for her son, that reversed Voldemort’s Avada Kedavra’s curse onto himself. It is this definition of love that Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort does not understand love. I’m pretty sure that Harry’s “saving people thing” stems from his love for his friends. This love is emphasized (love of family and friends) although we do see romance in the novels. It’s just not as exclusive as you say.
Personally, I could care less if Professor Dumbledore was gay. Rowling is going to have a hard time stirring up controversy amongst “Bible-thumping” Christians if this is her method. Most of the intelligent ones are pretty quick to say that there is no sin in a homosexual orientation in itself, and that homosexuals are called to the same chastity as any unmarried person. Though not proven it seems that the character of Dumbledore lived out this chastity and devoted his life to Hogwarts. To me, it’s no different than the many gay men and women who have lived celibately and devoted their lives to God and service. I’m one of those, and I’d bet that most people know one or more like that, even if they don’t realize it.
Hi Travis,
I am also ZoeRose at HogPros. I’ve written on my first thoughts at my main blog, BabyBlueOnline, on this topic, especially that as an Episcoplian/Anglican this topic is very much front and center right now. Rather than post and take up more bandwidth from you, I’ll just post the link here: http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/rowling-reveals-dumbledore-was-gay.html
My deal is that from the evangelical Christian point of view, there is a difference between the “sin” and the “sinner.” Since Dumbledore’s view is that we are defined by our choices, when we look at Dumbledore’s choices (from canon!) we see a man who led a celibate life and who devoted his life to fighting evil and equpping the next generation for life. The context for his same sex attractions – according to canon – was disastrous. Reading Deathly Hallows is the key to understanding Dumbledore and his tragic past. The context of his love for Grindelwald was of no redeeming value – hardly the mantra for those who seek certain political outcomes in our American society. It is cast in a very dark light and before we start tossing out the Potter books, we might want to pause and consider that Jo Rowling – whether she is conscience of doing this are not – has cast her one outed “gay” character into a light that does not align with the so-called “gay” agenda. Dumbledore has chosen what is basically a chaste monk’s life, which is what the Church traditionally has supported for those who are faced with same sex attractions – while other parts of the more traditional church might also recommend healing prayer. But in no way do the Potter books put homosexual relationship s on the same level as heterosexual relationships. Unless Jo now wants to start outing all sorts of characters (which would be completely ridiculous and unprofessional) this is what she’s left with – her one example of same sex love was a complete dismal failure with huge worldwide ramifications, not the least of which being the death of Dumbledore’s sister.
My guess, as I note later in comments, is that there was an expectation in the HP fandom that Lupin was gay – his character was setup as a prototype of someone who is HIV positive. That Lupin turned out to be in love with Tonks and to father a child before book’s end may have been more of an underground shock that most of us understood. Only Jo knows what letters she receives. Whether or not she always thought Dumbledore was gay, the fact was she never outed him until she did so rather recklessly last Friday night.
But is it fair to gays seeking equality to have the one relationship in the Potter series turn out to be one with a complete villain who’s evil was on the par of Voldemort himself? I don’t think so and I do wonder if Jo thought this completely through before she blurted out her answer. She got quite an ovation, but I fear it may be short-lived once activist gays read what happened to Dumbledore.
But from a Christian point of view, I maintain that Dumbledore leads a moral life. He is celibate and he is devoted to his calling. God bless him.
bb (aka ZoeRose)
Here is the link for more:
http://babybluecafe.blogspot.com/2007/10/rowling-reveals-dumbledore-was-gay.html
Our temptation in a moment like this is to be reactionary, this would be an intellectual mistake. Question: What kind of person was the object of Dumbledore’s devotion? How is the attraction described? What was the end of this relationship? How did it affect those around it? What two words describe this “love”? And finally, what type of life did it lead Dumbledore to lead?
Apologies for adding another reply to an already very long discussion, but I just had to make this point:
To anyone who finds themselves liking the Harry Potter books much less as a result of JK’s revelation, and thinks they now can’t be a Christian and a Harry Potter fan, I urge you to reconsider. If you truly enjoy the books, you should still be able to do so regardless of Dumbledore’s sexuality.
After all: many people here have pointed out how the Harry Potter series is, basically, a giant Christian allegory. Have you never considered how those of us who aren’t Christians deal with that?
I am a determined atheist, and I admit that HP is a Christian allegory; but I enjoy it all the same. The fact that I disapprove of the Christian aspects of the books does not stop me from liking them in many other ways.
Those of you who don’t like Dumbledore being gay should take the exact same approach, just in reverse. You can accept that the books portray a view you disagree with and still enjoy them for what they are.
You don’t have to agree with every single aspect of a book to enjoy and appreciate it.
(I believe revgeorge made essentially the same point earlier in this thread. If you don’t get what I’m saying here, go read his post.)
Can I just say, I’ve never been here before, and I’m REALLY happy I found this site. It’s one thing to be reading comments about this from a general cross-section of readers of HP, but it’s AWESOME to be reading what my brothers and sisters in Christ have to say…even though we all certainly don’t seem to agree!
For myself, it was like a kick in the stomach. Will all kids authors now be throwing in sexual proclivities of characters into their books? I hate to see it happen to literature– that it gets tainted by politics and whatever subject happens to be fashionable.
JKR could have just answered the child’s question by saying, “Gee, dear, why don’t YOU come up with a story about Professor DUmbledore?”
CS Lewis did something similar when a child asked for more Narnia. (I paraphrase) He said, “Go on, then, and write some!”
JKR unnecessarily killed off a lot of possibilities for Dumbledore by doing what she did.
By keeping quiet, she would have left open a lovely world of possibility, where gay folks could have thought of DD as their own, and the traditional community could have done likewise.
It was an unwise decision, and I hope that right now at her last book-signing, reading thing in New York, she’s not ruining more characters by answering too many questions.
Laura
Hi.
if this comment offends anyone I appologize in advance. does anyone else not find it interesting that JKR compared dd’s love for Grindallwald (spelling) with voldemort and bellatrix? I really don’t feel she is trying to say that Gay is good, rather I think she is trying to say that obsessive love that blinds you to everyone and everything, and if you make bad choices because of that love interest isn’t a good thing. I also can’t see any evidence that Dumbledore kept having that life style. I think him saying that Harry was the better man basically speaks of his remorse, perhaps repentance of all that happened in his youth? Puts a whole new spin on chosing what is right rather than what is easy. as a christian I do believe that homosexual behaviour is a sin, but I also believe a lot of other things are a sin and we are all sinners. Also I’m an AD/Mm shipper so (yea for fanfiction). anyway, I guess I’m trying to say that since there is no one in the books engaging in homosexual relationships, and there are overwhelming Christian themes in the books I will stick with the series and reading hp fanfiction. I also love (Snape didn’t really die, falls in love and is happy fanfics) lol. Maria
Travis, and others I may have offended I do sincerely apologize. I was annoyed and reacted in a very spontaneous, ‘knee jerk’ manner. As I haven’t been able to access the sight for a few days, I write now to apologize.
Travis, I don’t think those who are angered by Dumbledore’s outing are unintelligent. Again it was something said in the heat of the moment. I just wished more people were more open minded. I understand that it is of many people’s beliefs to condemn those who are gay. I just strongly disagree. Gay, straight, and anyone of any colour, or lifestyle is seen to be equal in my eyes. That is MY opinion, I should have expressed it in that way before.
revgeorge, am I asked to be intolerant of those who choose to condemn people who go about their lives in a way that is simply different to us ’straight people’? If you’re asking me be open minded to those who choose to condemn people I love and have befriend then I’m sorry I won’t. I have a family member who can’t enjoy the beauty of marriage because she is gay. She is one of the most beautiful people I have ever come to know. Why should people condemn her for having an attraction and loving her same sex. It baffles me that society can still justify this seclusion. I have other friends who have come close to being suicidal because they were shunned from their family and friends, have been physically beaten and abused for their lifestyle choices. Again these people are wonderful people, like you and me.
My god asks us to treat others as we want to be treated. He would be contradicting himself if that passage went ‘treat others as you want to be treated (except for gays, blacks, Asians and any other minority group.)
This is my opinion. I hope you Travis and anyone else can respect that a’ight!
Michael,
I have no problem respecting your opinion. It’s just that you didn’t seem to respect the opinions of anyone who disagreed with you on this issue & instead used a pejorative term for us.
In regard to the use of the golden rule to excuse any sort of behavior, well, your use of it is taken totally out of context. Read all of Matthew 7 instead of just verse 12. Jesus is certainly making a lot of distinctions there, first between what is holy & what is not, & then between who is able to enter through the narrow gate & who is not. In regard to judging, He is saying do not judge others blindly, but first recognize your owns sins & then you will be able to help others deal with their sins.
Only God can judge men’s hearts but He has told us to judge the confession of faith people make & also their actions, just as He tells us to judge our own confessions & actions. And this is done by His Word. Which is why it is vitally important that we actually study God’s Word to see what it means rather than simply imposing our own meaning on it.
Otherwise, if we can make no judgments or distinctions, then anything goes. A little boy can lie to his mom, & then say when she gets mad, “Oh mom, God says judge not.” Ad infinitum.
Nobody says these issues are easy or that they don’t cause a lot of heartache. I can see it in your post. But I too have felt rejection & anger by family members & congregation members for sticking up for what God’s Word says. It certainly would’ve been easier to just let things slide to get along with people. To just say God doesn’t care what we do or believe; He just loves us, when that obviously is contrary to Scripture. Heck, in regard to my own personal sins, that’d be a lot easier to do than to admit them & confess them & struggle against them.
Everyone’s opinions are their own, but when it comes to differing opinions, both of them can’t be right, although both of them could be wrong. That’s why it’s important to have discussions like these, to sort things out. Otherwise, every opinion is just neutral in itself & the only one that matters is the one with the most popularity at the time. Which as we can see in our society isn’t necessarily the most helpful way of doing things.
Which is why I hope we can continue to discuss these things, even though we disagree. Sorry for the long post.
Alasdair,
Your point is exactly the point I was trying to make in one of my posts. Reversing the situation is quite helpful. Could an atheist read Lewis’ Narnia books & still think them a good read while disagreeing with any Christian content in them? Yes, I think they could.
Could a Christian read Pullman’s Dark Materials & still find them a good read even though disagreeing with the content? I guess so, since I haven’t read them. But I do know Christians who have read Brown’s DaVinci Code & still found it a good read even though they disagreed with virtually everything he says in there.
I myself watch Ghosthunters on SciFi even though I disagree with their conclusions about paranormal activity. I read lots of fantasy books wherein a multiplicity of religious & magical systems are presented. Hasn’t made me want to worship other gods or practice magic yet.
Mark Noll wrote a great book a while back called The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind in which he starts off by saying, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there isn’t one.” By which he meant that a lot of evangelical Christians seem to be just plain scared of scholarship, & I would also say imagination.
It seems that some people think if they use their imagination or study things academically they are going to instantly turn into pagans or devil worshipers or atheists, oh my! Or else they play faith off against their intellect & imagination. You can either have faith or you can have intelligence. Which is a false dichotomy. Certainly in matters of faith, reason & intellect must be subservient to the Word of God, but being subservient simply means being in service to. Not totally absent. Same goes for imagination.
So, if an atheist is not going to be magically changed into a Christian because they read Lewis or some other Christian author, a Christian is not going to be magically changed into a witch or a liberal Christian by reading Harry Potter. Everything has to be read in context & with a critical mind.
revgeorge,
I’m all for respecting each other and trying to understand each other’s point of view, and sorting things out through respectful debate. But when it comes to differing opinions, at the end of the day, they can’t both be right, as you say.
I believe that homosexuality is biologically determined, not a matter of choice, and that gay people have the right, legal and moral, to express their sexuality just as non-gay people do. I don’t think gay sex is a sin. I also don’t think that gay people are any more likely to be pedophiles than non-gay people, and I don’t think anyone can “become” gay through role models, actual or fictional.
I don’t think Dumbledore’s gayness is going to make any kids turn gay, although it might make a few kids who are gay feel better about themselves because of the emergence of a mainstream gay character
Religious conservatives believe that acting on your gay sexuality is a sin, and that depicting an unrepentent gay character is an endorsement – or at least tacit approval – of sinful behaviour. Some of them may also believe that gayness is an acquired characteristic. They fear that children who read the books will see a respected character engage in sinful behaviour without remorse or sanction, and either grow insensitive to wrong behaviour, or begin to think that there is nothing wrong with that behaviour. They may, in the worst case scenario, think their children will become sinful, i.e. gay, through exposure to the books.
I can see their point of view, although I don’t agree with it. And I agree that a few kids from such families may feel secretly validated in their sexuality, and feel emboldened to come out.
If I were a religious conservative person with children, I’d have to weigh the strongly Christian central theme of the books against the tacit endorsement of sinful acts. If I strongly felt homosexuality was a sin, I don’t think I’d let my kids read the books. If they had already read the books, I’d curse JKR (silently) and start working on how I was going to explain Dumbledore’s sinful behaviour to them.
I’d also start working on getting the books banned from schools and junior libraries.
One side believes the behaviour is harmless and the books are harmless. The other believes the behaviour is sinful and the books tacitly encourage sin.
How can we sort that out?
I can’t help commenting. I am a mother of 2 raised as a Catholic and raising my children as Catholics in a rather conservative old world environment. However, having been raised by a forward thinking theologist I was taught that as a Catholic more weight should be given to the New Testament than to the Old Testament. I believe that no one can argue that one of the main and often repeated messages of the New Testament is tolerance and not judging others. God is the judge, no one else. As we discuss this, let us not forget that Jesus hung around with ALL of the undesirables of the time, without judging them.
Having said this, I also believe that if we do judge Dumbledore on his actions, his sexual orientation does not play a part.
With regards to JKR’s intentions in outing Dumbledore, please read the transcripts and context. I think most people will gain a better understanding of her motives for outing Dumbledore.
-Bear
Bear wrote,
“As we discuss this, let us not forget that Jesus hung around with ALL of the undesirables of the time, without judging them.”
Yes, Jesus did hang around with a lot of undesirables but by doing so He did not condone or approve of their sins. Just as when He hangs around the Pharisees, He’s not condoning or approving their sins.
Jesus came to rescue us from our sins. The undesirables He hung around with realized that they needed that kind of rescue. The Pharisees would not admit they needed to be rescued from their sins. There’s the difference. Not that one group was sinners & the other wasn’t. Both Pharisees & tax collectors & other sinners are definitely sinners. But one realizes their need for a savior & the other doesn’t.
Reyhan,
I don’t have much disagreement with what you say in principle. Obviously, just because someone believes homosexuality is biological doesn’t make it so. It has yet to be proven. And just because something might be biological also doesn’t make it right or beautiful. There’s a lot more proof that alcoholism is genetic, but I don’t think we’d say that alcoholism is okay then or should be celebrated as something good.
But that’s all beside the point. I think you make an excellent case that this comes down to parental & individual choice. If a parent, for whatever reason, doesn’t want their kids to read HP, fine. If a parent, for whatever reason, wants their kids to read HP, fine. If an individual wants to read HP, fine. If they don’t, fine.
Last I knew nobody was making people read HP or any other book. Except maybe in public schools where people have the perfect right to try to affect the curriculum or the books offered in the library. Why? Because everybody is forced to pay taxes to support public schools whether they have kids or not or whether they even send their kids to public schools or not.
But otherwise nobody is trying to force or even can force someone to believe a certain way. How can we sort things out? By discussing & arguing to an extent & presenting our case.
The problem occurs when one side, no matter what that side may be, decrees that the other side shouldn’t even be allowed to debate. The application of force soon follows to shut down one side of the debate.
After thinking about this subject for a few days, my main concern comes down to Rowling rewriting her books and the character of Dumbledore after the fact. I’ve been pretty good at pre-guessing what was coming in the books, but never in my mind was anything remotely gay attached to the character of Dumbledore. The text doesn’t support it, and the immediately angry reactions were because it was a ridiculous claim on the surface. Rowling evidently had this strange image of Dumbledore in her head, but I suspect very few fans did.
My second concern is that this divisive subject–thank you ever so much Jo–isn’t the same as arguing that fantasy magic isn’t real magic. Fantasy gay has a very real world component, there isn’t a way to distinguish the two, and even though some people are not bothered by the idea of Dumbledore being gay, for others, only Harry being gay or Hermione having an abortion could be worse. Connect the word gay to the Potter series and that word ends all debate for those who take the Bible for fact. There are at least three areas in the New Testament where the context and words clearly define homosexuality as a sin. Some would have us equate it to the sin of lying, and perhaps we should not distinguish, but I would be no happier if Rowling revealed Dumbledore was secretly married to Minerva and had been cheating on her, committing adultery, for years. Dumbledore is a non-sexual godlike figure in the series, and perhaps if possible, the best of all responses is to stick with the text and forget Rowling’s bizarre surmising. Let’s hope she gets busy writing another book and stops adding post scripts to the Potter series.
revgeorge,
My belief that homosexuality is biologically based is based not on faith, but on the articles which I have read on the topic. I realize that that is not an unbiased process. For our purposes I Googled the topic of nature vs nurture with regards to homosexuality. The following site summarizes the arguments on either side succinctly:
http://www.borngayprocon.org/
I am more convinced by the pro arguments (the 50% concordance rate between identical twin brothers vs 20% for fraternal twin brothers and 4% concordance for non-twin brothers did it for me), but will allow there is some room for nurture.
Another perspective on the same question comes from a close gay friend, who has said to me with incredulity: “Who would choose to be this way?”
As you say, whether homosexuality is a matter of nature or nurture doesn’t really change anything. What it comes down to is that the Bible says it’s a sin. And that is something that I don’t think we can sort out through debate. All we can do is agree to disagree and live and let live.
As for banning the books, I accept and will defend your right to try. And fight you all the way to stop you.
When I was reading the books, was it clear to me that Dumbledore ‘fell in love’ with a man in his youth?
No.
Does this piece of ‘back story’ change the way I read the books?
No.
Next!
Just as I was beginning to enjoy the Lovecraft discussion, this had to come up!
I think that it is very evident that Rita Skeeter has placed a confundus charm on JKR
That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.
the gospel is just a bunch of words open to interpretation and perception to whomever, much like the hp books. there is no “truth” unless the writers [of the gospels] themselves rise up and decipher what they meant when written. the hp books, for me, are just as awesome regardless, and albus’ sexuality really, in no way, has a core impression on the story unless you (as the reader) make a big deal out of it.
signed,
many things, and least of all defined by my lesbianism.
Well…
Contrary to Travis’ exhortations moderate discussion is being ignored by many commentors on this thread.
This is not a forum to vent your spleen at others with differing views.
On this thread there appears to be no or little common-ground for further discussion. There has been some excellent discussion, for sure! But there has been too many snide and back-handed swipes at others. This is not what I believe this site is about.
No one is going to be able to convince others into their way of thinking or of their interpretation of scripture here. If you’re serious about winning people to your side do so by first living what we can all agree is good- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
If you cannot help yourself and post inflaming comments you will have your comments edited or deleted and you may banned from the site.
Thank you.
Matthew
Thank you, Matthew. Yes, I just mentioned in the other thread that the time has come to stop debates about biblical exegesis. Not that those debates aren’t important, but there are other forums for those things, and I’ve seen them get out of hand way too quickly.
There’s probably a really good chance that sometime in the near future, I’ll consider shutting down comment threads on these particular issues, and let the comments stand as they are. There is no point in going round and round. I’m going to consult with Matthew on this, and if we do decide to go in that direction, we’ll give plenty of notice.
Okay, last comment on this subject from me & it’s just a clarification about me, not about anyone else.
Reyhan said,
“As for banning the books, I accept and will defend your right to try. And fight you all the way to stop you.”
I never said I was trying to ban the books. I’m the one who’s reading them after all & I’ve encouraged others to read them. Hardly the actions of a book banner.
All I said was that if parents don’t want their kids to read HP, then they don’t have to. And if parents have children in public schools, to which they are forced to pay taxes, then they have a perfect right to try to influence the curriculum of those schools.
I agree with what Matthew & Travis have said, nobody can force another person to believe anything. Which is why in this whole debate I’ve been trying to point out to both sides the flaws in their argumentation rather than focusing on the argument itself. Hopefully I’ve done that most of the time, although as with very important issues it’s sometimes hard to do.
I’d just like to thank Matthew & Travis for keeping this thread up as long as they have. I really thought it would’ve been shut down a long time ago.:)
revgeorge,
I didn’t mean you personally wanted to ban the books. I should have said “they” and “their”, not “you” and “your”.
My feelings on banning books are actually mixed. I obviously disagree with it, but I do think parents have the right to exercise some control over what their children are exposed to. I’m toying with the idea of a “Restricted” section of the library which kids could only access with a permission slip from their parents. Problem is, some of the greatest authors would end up there: Shakespeare (Shylock), Mark Twain (Huckleberry Finn), Dostoevsky (Brothers Karamzov). Margaret Atwood (The Handmaid’s Tale) and so on.
I don’t have the answer, but I do think that the civilized debate we try to have here is part of the solution.
BTW, JKR is giving a reading, answering questions and holding a news conference in Toronto today. Even as we speak. Wonder what she’ll say about the fall-out.
There’s a 49 second clip of JKR talking about the freedom of being able to talk about the characters after having to keep things to herself while writing.
She looks tired.
Here’s the URL.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071023/Rowling_Toronto_071023/20071023?hub=Entertainment
My comment didn’t make it. What do I do???
Kaeli
← Previous Comments