/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>622228

Magic is always of satan. So it would have to be something where it is clear from the beginning that magic is not intended to destroy things.

Tolkien's novels are a great example for it. Though he added magic, it is something that is not destructive in first place - althought there's good and bad workings. It generally only weakens or enhances properties of bodies they already possessed. For example: The dwarves can cast spells that keep doors locked and hidden - and they can cast spells to open them. Even Gandalf can't do as he pleases - despite being one of THE mightiest beings beings in Middle Earth. He can make light and set wood on fire - but he can't "burn snow" as he needs "something to work with". Same goes for everyone else, even the Valar themselves.

Harry Potter is a double-edged sword in that regard as magic in that world is neither inherently bad nor inherently good - and there's no moral foundation. But with enough caution it is still ok-ish.

You know the problem is that in the real world, magic exists but it is of the devil. Every single bit of it. So you have to make sure that when you watch a movie, that it either doesn't reflect the real world, or that you're cautious for yourself (and the kids you're watching with) that you don't start to make the mental link from "movie to reality". Because in most scenarios there's "white"/good and "black"/evil/bad magic, which is wrong (as I said: as all magic is of the devil).

So your criteria are not that good in regards to how it's going to be seen. You need caution rather than categories of "good and bad".

>>622248

addition:

So if you want to categorize movies, you'd rather go with the level of caution of you need in order to not mistake movie with or related to reality. For example "realistic" movies that involve ("black") magic and also graphic depictions of demons will need the highest amounts of caution as you can easily be driven away and start to fear the "cloven hoofed demon in your closet" if you know what I mean. The lowest category would be something that is obvious high-fantasy or science-fiction, depending on the narrative

>>622252

…..addition2: That's my opinion on it at least

>From the series: Autism-The Thread

>>622228

>Mircles work the way you would expect them to (fulfilling God's plan), whether they do or do not work is subject to God's Divine Will

This was a view that got somewhat popular around the 10th century. They believed that there was "white magic" came from God and what used to heal, and "black magic" which came from demons and was used to harm, just like in the old Final Fantasy games. The Catholic Church attempted to teach people that this view was false because magic didn't exist, but that didn't stop it from spreading.

>Magic is magic, anyone can do it with enough of practice, doesn't come from evil source, can be used to do good, doesn't involve nature/blood/satan/idol/false deity worship.

This was another view of some people in the middle ages. The Church taught that magic didn't exist, but didn't stop people from practicing "neutral" magic as long as it wasn't sourced in heretical doctrine. Of course neutral magic was mostly for mundane things like helping people find their missing possessions.

>>622509

I've read some books about magic in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Period, but I think I'm yet to read something equivalent to 'white magic' (magia alba?). Are you referring to magia naturalis?

Also, I don't there is any method for discovering hidden things which wasn't considered illicit at the time.

If the world is completely made up is Satanic ( pokemon world, pony world ) because the God of the bible has nothing to do with it.

If it is supposed to be the real world is still satanic because it implies you can obtain power without God( harry potter, super hero world)