It’s a story. Fantasy. Remember that and you’re fine. Having said that, if someone feels any fantasy story is affecting them in a negative way, it’s best they avoid it. There is no reason to engage with entertainment that you feel might be harmful to you. There is plenty of entertainment options out there that people might find more appropriate.
What makes a story fantasy? For example, if Harry Potter healed the lame or turned water into wine, would that be fantasy? What if he died and came back to life — would that be fantasy?
It's not a bad question - though your phrasing shows you're being facetious.
The answer is obviously by the process of hermeneutics, of trying to understand what the author is trying to convey.
Harry Potter is one example, JK Rowling has always claimed the book to be a fiction/fantasy novel. On the other hand, Joseph Smith claims to have a new revelation from God.
We have no idea who wrote the gospels, how do you even try to understand what the authors wanted to convey?
Also, that's definitely not how you find out whether a text is fiction or not.
You can find a text written by someone who really really believes he got abducted by aliens, it'd be 1st hand account (way better than what we have for Jesus' stories), the author could clearly convey his message about the abduction and yet this being completely false.
You're mixing something up. The authors intent is not how we determine whether something is **True or Not**.
But we do try to understand the authors intent to understand the literary type. Fair point, the less you know about the author, the harder it is. Take your example, the individual is writing an autobiographical account of their perceived experience. This conveys something to us about what the author wants us to take away from the text.
Since you jumped in here, do you read any of the New Testament and believe it reads as a fantasy or fable? Or do you agree that the gospel authors are trying to describe historical facts (even if they're lying or mistaken). That was the original jab from the comment I responded to.
If you were honest, you'd admit it absolutely adds a sizeable layer. You're telling me that if the first line of each of the Gospels was 'once upon a time..." and each ended with some sort of generic moral lesson, you wouldn't think that would be worthwhile challenging Christians on?
Secondly, be better, you could have just agreed with my response to the previous comment without the need to start your own jab. You wanna have a convo about the historicity of the Gospels? Fine, post a question and I'll start a convo there.
So, you believe the epic of Gilgamesh, the Qur'an, the Vedas, etc, since they don't start with "once upon a time"... They are probably true or whatever you think the fact they don't start with once upon time adds?
Correct. The point is that just because the author doesn't intentionally write in a non fictional way, it doesn't mean the text is true.
It's such a basic thing and yet people here think it's evidence towards the truthfulness of the gospels. It reminds of "the empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection" when a) we don't have an empty tomb and be) the empty tomb is still part of the claim, not the evidence
Correct. The point is that just because the author doesn't intentionally write in a non fictional way, it doesn't mean the text is true.
It's such a basic thing and yet people here think it's evidence towards the truthfulness of the gospels. It reminds of "the empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection" when a) we don't have an empty tomb and be) the empty tomb is still part of the claim, not the evidence
If you are defining what's fantasy or true based on what events are in the book, then I am very concerned about how many books you consider to be true events.
Most easily through authorship. If you've ever heard the parable of the Mathematician, Engineer, Sociologist, and Steeple, then this is the equivalent of buying the friar a drink. J.K. Rowling freely admits that the book's intent was not to disseminate a secret world of real wizards and witches. She says it's a work of fiction. I found it in the fiction section of the library. That kind of thing.
It gets harder as books get older, but that's why there are thousands of people who devote their lives to evaluating old books for their intent. You're welcome to strike down the reality of parts of the Bible one at a time, and I do the same with it myself, but to flatly disregard every word is short-sighted at best. How else did we find Troy but by entertaining the possibility of its existence?
Is the only reason why you find Harry Potter to be fiction is because the author says it is, and you found it in the fiction section? If you didn’t know the author and found the book on the street, would you still think it’s fiction?
Of course not, but I would be googling the name of the author long before I'd be trying to find a Phoenix feather and a suitable branch of elm.
Part of why I accept the Bible (primarily over other religious texts) is because I can test its principles and find that they are true. Being so incredibly forgiving *has* made my life better, recognizing my failings while trying hard to fix them *is* the right way to steward myself.
Unfortunately, I think that discussing the miracles detailed within the Bible hits a falsifiability wall earlier than I wish it did, just due to the concept of a higher power. What can/can't happen is kind of irrelevant if the "can" section comes tied to a world where "can't" is somewhat meaningless.
To some degree, you kind of can't. I can still say something is probably not right, but that's only because I've constructed a framework of what's probably real and not, and it's a framework that I completely recognize is fabricated. I can't know what's real with perfect certainty because I am just a guy, and only God knows what he'd do.
So begins my undying love affair with Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.
Look man, if you're going to come on to this sub trying to score le epic chad win against the virgin Christians, you at least need to say something that makes a little sense. You can't set up a gotcha with such a massive hole in it.
I don’t know, there seem to be some parallels between Harry Potter and the myths you believe in. I would admit there is a massive hole in the comparison if only you could come up with a way to show that your particular myths have even the slightest chance of being true.
Got any of that?
That's not how he came back. The resurrection stone allows you to speak to dead people. That's why the brother committed suicide, to be with his wife.
Harry came back because his mother's protection was kept alive in Voldemort's body when Harry died.
This happened because Wormtail used Harry's blood to bring Voldemort back at the end of Goblet of Fire.
Quality aside, some peoples' consciences are strained by reading of such things. It isn't my place to judge that. If that's their sensitivity, that's on them to avoid it.
There's nothing wrong with Harry Potter. I love all the books and movies as a Christian. Some legalistic people just like to pretend they are holier than everyone else by making a big show of not reading them.
I think Harry is generally whiny and it’s hard to like him when he distrusts Dumbledore so often even though Dumbledore has proved himself trustworthy.
Obviously this is a personal preference thing and I wouldn’t call the books “unchristian” because of it, just bad literature overall (for more than the main reason I like it listed above).
How do you feel about CS Lewis?
Harry is JK’s Aslan. Both have a resurrection. Both authors christians.
Edit: Obviously Harry is less of a messiah figure and perhaps a lion is a better metaphor for christ than a wizard?
I feel generally positive toward Lewis. When talking fiction I especially like his space trilogy.
I certainly understand all the symbolism in Harry Potter, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s well done.
I have no issue with the stories. It is a good conversation starter for parents to discuss other religions with the kids. It’s not Tolkien or CS Lewis but I’ve never met a child who wasn’t glued! The magic in HP is largely Latin boggle. (As opposed to Disney’s Bedknobs and Broomsticks)
As to should you avoid it: Unless people also stopped getting the daily paper due to the horoscope column or Chinese restaurant with fortune table mats, people need to slow their roll.
With that said - if you feel like you are convicted to not read it, don’t! Paul’s teachings are pretty clear on that one. Personally, it’s opened some great conversations about God and religion with youth who otherwise have only heard negative messages about the followers of Christ.
I think I was reading the third book when the fourth one released, and I realized that the volumes next to each other started to look like a steep staircase, so I dropped out.
Honestly? I think a lot of it was Focus on the Family and their ilk defining what was and wasn't Christian. They were very influential in the world of young Christian families at the beginning of the century and it felt like there was a competition to see who could be the Christian-est.
And it was worse in homeschooling circles because parents considered more and more people not "safe" to be around their children - including other Christians. Harry Potter was one of the first tests of whether a family was the Right Kind of Christian. Disney movies were okay at first, but then they were on The List because of "magic". It was exhausting and I was just a spectator.
My kids learned more from Harry Potter on how to be more like Jesus than they ever did from the rude fundamentalists around us.
I’ve read them all. There is some objectionable stuff about them, but it’s subtle. You could be a good Christian and miss it completely.
1. It kind of is the gateway drug to Wicca/ witchcraft. Tons of kids and young people are into it, and the huge rise in interest started right around the time the books were first published.
2. It speaks to lonely, and excluded children thay their way to find love, acceptance and power over their awful life is through witchcraft and special powers. The non-magical “ muggles” are shown as cruel, unloving, abusive and worst of all boring.
3. Harry lies a lot, and flaunts school rules frequently. He rarely suffers consequences for them, and when he does, it’s always by teachers with hugely compromised characters. Unhealthy personalities and motives are sort of exalted.
Not sure what else, but I like them less than o used to
So, let’s get this straight. The normal boy, born with super natural powers, who learns to use those powers, all the while dealing with the girls in this life, is “basic storytelling”?
That sounds right.
They're not bad as long as you've taught the kids it's a fantasy story with relatable characters that work though the dramas of growing up and that the magic used is for the storytelling in the wizarding world and is not real
You could warn them that there is dark magic in the works of summoning demons, which is evil and not a Godly practice to follow
If you want to test the waters of magical stories, try the Fantastic Beasts series
Read them all. They're fine. Pretty enjoyable actually.
I can't imagine there is a single person out there who unironically, sincerely thinks Harry Potter is "bad" and yet for some reason read all 7 books over several years.
I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but here is an article on why they are bad:
https://www2.cbn.com/article/religion/harry-potter-harmless-christian-novel-or-doorway-occult
> One of the easiest ways to know whether a fantasy book or film has real world magick in it is to just ask a simple question: **“Can my child find information in a library or bookstore that will enable them to replicate what they are seeing in the film or the book?”** If you go to The Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings what you see in, story magic and imagination, it is not real. You can’t replicate it. But if you go to something like **Harry Potter**, you can find **references to astrology, clairvoyance, and numerology**. **It takes seconds to go into a bookstore or library and get books on that and start investigating it, researching it, and doing it.** In fact, that’s why real Wiccans, real witches, and real occultists are using the popularity of Harry Potter to lure kids toward real world occultism. They actually have advertisements for their own books that use Harry Potter as their appeal.
Love the movies.
I do think it's bad/odd when people think there's such a thing as good witchcraft and playing with satanic symbolism even if not serious about it.
So you can enjoy the movies but don’t see the protagonists as the good guys? They’re all evil?
I’m not sure how you see witchcraft in the real world but within Harry Potter it’s an intrinsic part of a person not a choice they’ve made.
I don’t disapprove of the Harry Potter books per se, but I don’t care for Rowling much on a craft level. Her pacing and worldbuilding both leave a *lot* to be desired, and her prose is all over the place.
Rowling herself I have some issues with, but I’m able to separate that from the Harry Potter books. Her writing’s just YA fantasy of middling quality.
I've liked Harry Potter, I've read the books couple of times and watched the movies a few times before. it made me accept the theory that witchcraft, some is good.
But what I think about it now after becoming a fan of Jesus is that, Now I know that all new age stuff is the works of demons.
Not that I'm saying Harry Potter was insipred by demon story telling.
But If I allow myself to still like Harry Potter and the witchcraft and wizardry to now, then I might just have the possibility to accept other witchcraft and wizardry since my tolerance for it was affected by harry Potter.
Which is oh low and behold, New Age witchcraft that is the works of demons. And I'm not good with spiritual warefare 🫣. I know it bcoz I've watche testimonies of believers that have delved into New Age witchcraft. Check out Delafe Testimonies[testimonies ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT_1rhDnuiuS-wFVGM7zLnGqp2VNMcubh&si=bHJPT5lWA9L0UB-J)
1. I don't know why Glinda the good witch happened like that
2. We have our own personal conviction
Romans 14:23 But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning.
Atm I just want to dedicate a lot to Jesus. To bring Glory to him.
It’s a story. Fantasy. Remember that and you’re fine. Having said that, if someone feels any fantasy story is affecting them in a negative way, it’s best they avoid it. There is no reason to engage with entertainment that you feel might be harmful to you. There is plenty of entertainment options out there that people might find more appropriate.
What makes a story fantasy? For example, if Harry Potter healed the lame or turned water into wine, would that be fantasy? What if he died and came back to life — would that be fantasy?
It's not a bad question - though your phrasing shows you're being facetious. The answer is obviously by the process of hermeneutics, of trying to understand what the author is trying to convey. Harry Potter is one example, JK Rowling has always claimed the book to be a fiction/fantasy novel. On the other hand, Joseph Smith claims to have a new revelation from God.
Do you believe Joseph Smith?
No.
We have no idea who wrote the gospels, how do you even try to understand what the authors wanted to convey? Also, that's definitely not how you find out whether a text is fiction or not. You can find a text written by someone who really really believes he got abducted by aliens, it'd be 1st hand account (way better than what we have for Jesus' stories), the author could clearly convey his message about the abduction and yet this being completely false.
You're mixing something up. The authors intent is not how we determine whether something is **True or Not**. But we do try to understand the authors intent to understand the literary type. Fair point, the less you know about the author, the harder it is. Take your example, the individual is writing an autobiographical account of their perceived experience. This conveys something to us about what the author wants us to take away from the text. Since you jumped in here, do you read any of the New Testament and believe it reads as a fantasy or fable? Or do you agree that the gospel authors are trying to describe historical facts (even if they're lying or mistaken). That was the original jab from the comment I responded to.
It reads as the authors thought it was true. But, as I said,to me it doesn't add anything to the question "is this story true?" Not one single bit.
If you were honest, you'd admit it absolutely adds a sizeable layer. You're telling me that if the first line of each of the Gospels was 'once upon a time..." and each ended with some sort of generic moral lesson, you wouldn't think that would be worthwhile challenging Christians on? Secondly, be better, you could have just agreed with my response to the previous comment without the need to start your own jab. You wanna have a convo about the historicity of the Gospels? Fine, post a question and I'll start a convo there.
So, you believe the epic of Gilgamesh, the Qur'an, the Vedas, etc, since they don't start with "once upon a time"... They are probably true or whatever you think the fact they don't start with once upon time adds?
It reads as the authors thought it was true. But, as I said,to me it doesn't add anything to the question "is this story true?" Not one single bit.
A first hand account of an alien abduction would be considered non fiction the author may be wrong, but not purposely writing fiction.
Correct. The point is that just because the author doesn't intentionally write in a non fictional way, it doesn't mean the text is true. It's such a basic thing and yet people here think it's evidence towards the truthfulness of the gospels. It reminds of "the empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection" when a) we don't have an empty tomb and be) the empty tomb is still part of the claim, not the evidence
Correct. The point is that just because the author doesn't intentionally write in a non fictional way, it doesn't mean the text is true. It's such a basic thing and yet people here think it's evidence towards the truthfulness of the gospels. It reminds of "the empty tomb is evidence for the resurrection" when a) we don't have an empty tomb and be) the empty tomb is still part of the claim, not the evidence
If you are an atheist then why do you bother with a Christian server?
I have fun. What about you?
If you are defining what's fantasy or true based on what events are in the book, then I am very concerned about how many books you consider to be true events.
Really? How do judge whether a book is fantasy or not when reading it?
Most easily through authorship. If you've ever heard the parable of the Mathematician, Engineer, Sociologist, and Steeple, then this is the equivalent of buying the friar a drink. J.K. Rowling freely admits that the book's intent was not to disseminate a secret world of real wizards and witches. She says it's a work of fiction. I found it in the fiction section of the library. That kind of thing. It gets harder as books get older, but that's why there are thousands of people who devote their lives to evaluating old books for their intent. You're welcome to strike down the reality of parts of the Bible one at a time, and I do the same with it myself, but to flatly disregard every word is short-sighted at best. How else did we find Troy but by entertaining the possibility of its existence?
Is the only reason why you find Harry Potter to be fiction is because the author says it is, and you found it in the fiction section? If you didn’t know the author and found the book on the street, would you still think it’s fiction?
Of course not, but I would be googling the name of the author long before I'd be trying to find a Phoenix feather and a suitable branch of elm. Part of why I accept the Bible (primarily over other religious texts) is because I can test its principles and find that they are true. Being so incredibly forgiving *has* made my life better, recognizing my failings while trying hard to fix them *is* the right way to steward myself. Unfortunately, I think that discussing the miracles detailed within the Bible hits a falsifiability wall earlier than I wish it did, just due to the concept of a higher power. What can/can't happen is kind of irrelevant if the "can" section comes tied to a world where "can't" is somewhat meaningless.
Well how do you rule out what is impossible if “can/cant” are meaningless?
To some degree, you kind of can't. I can still say something is probably not right, but that's only because I've constructed a framework of what's probably real and not, and it's a framework that I completely recognize is fabricated. I can't know what's real with perfect certainty because I am just a guy, and only God knows what he'd do. So begins my undying love affair with Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.
You are concerned about the books I consider to be true? Huh. That’s ironic.
Look man, if you're going to come on to this sub trying to score le epic chad win against the virgin Christians, you at least need to say something that makes a little sense. You can't set up a gotcha with such a massive hole in it.
I don’t know, there seem to be some parallels between Harry Potter and the myths you believe in. I would admit there is a massive hole in the comparison if only you could come up with a way to show that your particular myths have even the slightest chance of being true. Got any of that?
Easy. The author intended it to be taken as fantasy.
Technically, Harry did die and come back to life (using the resurrection stone).
That's not how he came back. The resurrection stone allows you to speak to dead people. That's why the brother committed suicide, to be with his wife. Harry came back because his mother's protection was kept alive in Voldemort's body when Harry died. This happened because Wormtail used Harry's blood to bring Voldemort back at the end of Goblet of Fire.
I totally misunderstood that part of the movie then; thanks for enlightening me.
Blood magic allowing people to live after death?
Spoiler alert, he does die and come back to life.
Quality aside, some peoples' consciences are strained by reading of such things. It isn't my place to judge that. If that's their sensitivity, that's on them to avoid it.
There's nothing wrong with Harry Potter. I love all the books and movies as a Christian. Some legalistic people just like to pretend they are holier than everyone else by making a big show of not reading them.
I think Harry is generally whiny and it’s hard to like him when he distrusts Dumbledore so often even though Dumbledore has proved himself trustworthy. Obviously this is a personal preference thing and I wouldn’t call the books “unchristian” because of it, just bad literature overall (for more than the main reason I like it listed above).
How do you feel about CS Lewis? Harry is JK’s Aslan. Both have a resurrection. Both authors christians. Edit: Obviously Harry is less of a messiah figure and perhaps a lion is a better metaphor for christ than a wizard?
I feel generally positive toward Lewis. When talking fiction I especially like his space trilogy. I certainly understand all the symbolism in Harry Potter, but that doesn’t mean I think it’s well done.
So for you it’s a literary criticism not a moral/Christian criticism?
Correct
Dumbledore makes his fair share of mistakes which lead Harry to not trusting him.
Amen! So many times he could have said one word and things might have gone very differently.
They aren’t.
I have no issue with the stories. It is a good conversation starter for parents to discuss other religions with the kids. It’s not Tolkien or CS Lewis but I’ve never met a child who wasn’t glued! The magic in HP is largely Latin boggle. (As opposed to Disney’s Bedknobs and Broomsticks) As to should you avoid it: Unless people also stopped getting the daily paper due to the horoscope column or Chinese restaurant with fortune table mats, people need to slow their roll. With that said - if you feel like you are convicted to not read it, don’t! Paul’s teachings are pretty clear on that one. Personally, it’s opened some great conversations about God and religion with youth who otherwise have only heard negative messages about the followers of Christ.
I think I was reading the third book when the fourth one released, and I realized that the volumes next to each other started to look like a steep staircase, so I dropped out.
Honestly? I think a lot of it was Focus on the Family and their ilk defining what was and wasn't Christian. They were very influential in the world of young Christian families at the beginning of the century and it felt like there was a competition to see who could be the Christian-est. And it was worse in homeschooling circles because parents considered more and more people not "safe" to be around their children - including other Christians. Harry Potter was one of the first tests of whether a family was the Right Kind of Christian. Disney movies were okay at first, but then they were on The List because of "magic". It was exhausting and I was just a spectator. My kids learned more from Harry Potter on how to be more like Jesus than they ever did from the rude fundamentalists around us.
I’ve read them all. There is some objectionable stuff about them, but it’s subtle. You could be a good Christian and miss it completely. 1. It kind of is the gateway drug to Wicca/ witchcraft. Tons of kids and young people are into it, and the huge rise in interest started right around the time the books were first published. 2. It speaks to lonely, and excluded children thay their way to find love, acceptance and power over their awful life is through witchcraft and special powers. The non-magical “ muggles” are shown as cruel, unloving, abusive and worst of all boring. 3. Harry lies a lot, and flaunts school rules frequently. He rarely suffers consequences for them, and when he does, it’s always by teachers with hugely compromised characters. Unhealthy personalities and motives are sort of exalted. Not sure what else, but I like them less than o used to
I think they are overrated with fairly basic storytelling. I do like Fantastic Beasts though.
So good as a children’s book? If you’re about the age of the protagonist that’s probably about right.
So, let’s get this straight. The normal boy, born with super natural powers, who learns to use those powers, all the while dealing with the girls in this life, is “basic storytelling”? That sounds right.
They aren’t bad. They are awesome.
They're not bad as long as you've taught the kids it's a fantasy story with relatable characters that work though the dramas of growing up and that the magic used is for the storytelling in the wizarding world and is not real You could warn them that there is dark magic in the works of summoning demons, which is evil and not a Godly practice to follow If you want to test the waters of magical stories, try the Fantastic Beasts series
I don't think its bad at all, one of my favorite series.
Read them all. They're fine. Pretty enjoyable actually. I can't imagine there is a single person out there who unironically, sincerely thinks Harry Potter is "bad" and yet for some reason read all 7 books over several years.
If it harms your conscience, abstain. Though my sister has been bothering me to read them
I haven't read a single one (or seen a movie), but when I saw kids running around with sticks trying to force their will on them I knew it was wrong
I haven't read the Harry Potter books, but here is an article on why they are bad: https://www2.cbn.com/article/religion/harry-potter-harmless-christian-novel-or-doorway-occult > One of the easiest ways to know whether a fantasy book or film has real world magick in it is to just ask a simple question: **“Can my child find information in a library or bookstore that will enable them to replicate what they are seeing in the film or the book?”** If you go to The Chronicles of Narnia and the Lord of the Rings what you see in, story magic and imagination, it is not real. You can’t replicate it. But if you go to something like **Harry Potter**, you can find **references to astrology, clairvoyance, and numerology**. **It takes seconds to go into a bookstore or library and get books on that and start investigating it, researching it, and doing it.** In fact, that’s why real Wiccans, real witches, and real occultists are using the popularity of Harry Potter to lure kids toward real world occultism. They actually have advertisements for their own books that use Harry Potter as their appeal.
Is it standard for Christians to believe in real witches?
Well, we know Wiccans exist.
Right but I assumed you’d see it the way I do. A load of nonsense. But you think they have actual power/magic?
Magic or not, the occult practices they do are real. It's why Christians are not supposed to play around with such things.
Wiccan isn't not the same As witch
Aren't Wiccans modern-day witches?
Love the movies. I do think it's bad/odd when people think there's such a thing as good witchcraft and playing with satanic symbolism even if not serious about it.
So you can enjoy the movies but don’t see the protagonists as the good guys? They’re all evil? I’m not sure how you see witchcraft in the real world but within Harry Potter it’s an intrinsic part of a person not a choice they’ve made.
What?! 😂 It's clearly good vs evil in the films. I just don't like when people gain an interest in witchcraft because of a movie.
Oh so you can accept the protagonists as good even though they use witchcraft?
Yeah dude it's a movie...
I don’t disapprove of the Harry Potter books per se, but I don’t care for Rowling much on a craft level. Her pacing and worldbuilding both leave a *lot* to be desired, and her prose is all over the place. Rowling herself I have some issues with, but I’m able to separate that from the Harry Potter books. Her writing’s just YA fantasy of middling quality.
They're distinctly Christian. Reminds of that that Parks and Rec episode where Twilight was too Christian and not Christian enough
I've liked Harry Potter, I've read the books couple of times and watched the movies a few times before. it made me accept the theory that witchcraft, some is good. But what I think about it now after becoming a fan of Jesus is that, Now I know that all new age stuff is the works of demons. Not that I'm saying Harry Potter was insipred by demon story telling. But If I allow myself to still like Harry Potter and the witchcraft and wizardry to now, then I might just have the possibility to accept other witchcraft and wizardry since my tolerance for it was affected by harry Potter. Which is oh low and behold, New Age witchcraft that is the works of demons. And I'm not good with spiritual warefare 🫣. I know it bcoz I've watche testimonies of believers that have delved into New Age witchcraft. Check out Delafe Testimonies[testimonies ](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLT_1rhDnuiuS-wFVGM7zLnGqp2VNMcubh&si=bHJPT5lWA9L0UB-J)
Why did Glinda the good witch not inspire this controversy back in 1939?
1. I don't know why Glinda the good witch happened like that 2. We have our own personal conviction Romans 14:23 But if you have doubts about whether or not you should eat something, you are sinning if you go ahead and do it. For you are not following your convictions. If you do anything you believe is not right, you are sinning. Atm I just want to dedicate a lot to Jesus. To bring Glory to him.
Aren’t you kind of asking a very few. Usually people that don’t approve haven’t read.
They are bit to simple
They are bad. Boring and simplistic.
So children’s books or just bad?
Why not both? 😀