(Disclaimer: I have neither time nor energy to work this into perfection. I'm simply tired of Edward Cullen fanatics squealing about how awesome sparkly vampires are. This is my response.)
Top Ten Reasons Not to Be a Vampire
Or, ‘why Twilight fanatics get on my nerves’
So you think vampires are cool. They’re suave, good-looking, drive shiny Volvos and fall in love with humans with surprising frequency. They’re mysterious, powerful, and, not to mince words, sexy.
Or so goes the modern misconception. The point of this essay is to explain why vampire-centered universes like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Twilight, and the novels by Amelia Atwater-Rhodes are illogical, inaccurate, and perpetuators of a destructive modern myth: the coolness and desirability of evil.
But before I begin, and before anyone can start ragging on me again, I have to set the record straight. I used to be a fan of Atwater-Rhodes; still own most of the books, in fact. Demon in My View and In the Forests of the Night were two of my favorite books for years. I’ve watched extensive hours of Buffy, seen Dracula 3000 and Van Helsing, read Interview with a Vampire, The Historian, the original Dracula, and various snippets about the original beginnings of the legends of vampires. In short, it’s safe to say that, for the most part, I know what I’m talking about. What I have not read is Twilight, but I don’t have to—I’m not critiquing the story or the storytelling, merely its premise concerning the coolness of vampires, which, thanks to my obsessive friends and endless streams of Facebook flair, I know far too well.
With that settled, let’s move on: top ten reasons not to be a vampire. (Please note the order is not necessarily that of degrees of importance. Several seemed to tie for number one, for example, so I simply listed them in an order hopefully conducive to lucid reading.)
Number 10: Blood.
Blood: it’s icky. Vampire writers these days like to go on about how sweet it tastes, but anyone who’s ever gotten a cut in their mouth or sucked a painful paper-cut ought to know better.
Vampires are often construed as glamorous, but sucking blood is far from that. In fact, it’s something certain drug addicts do when severely messed up. When put like that, how many of you Twilight fans are up for a round of hemoglobin sharing?
That aside, why is it that vampires take blood? It could have been anything else, but it’s not; in fact, it’s one of the few constants across variations on the legend.
In his novel Hogfather, Terry Pratchett uses an old bit of folklore, a belief about “magic so old it isn’t even magic anymore.” If you take a bit of someone—teeth, hair, nails, anything—you can control them. In his novel Carpe Jugulum, which features the “modern vampyres” of Uberwald, the victims of vampires become docile, like cattle—completely under the control of their oppressors.
So the taking of blood is partly about power.
It’s also, as the methods of obtaining it show—assault, murder, seduction, deceit—about glorifying “the beast.” The Beast is Terry Pratchett’s term for the dark, animal place and rage inside a man; the part that doesn’t listen to reason, the pure instinct and predator factor that is fundamentally a part of man, but also, most importantly, fundamentally mostly under control. To embrace the beast completely, to the exclusion of all else, is to reject what makes you most human. (To take an example from the new Batman movie: when Batman struggles to resist killing the Joker, he’s battling the beast. When the Joker does what he does—he is the beast. In a twisted sort of way.)
Sucking blood is also the work of parasites, such as ticks, leeches, and mosquitoes, just to name a few. Vampires are parasites with intelligence—which ought to be a contradiction. Intelligence exists in part to give us the ability to choose right or wrong. Vampires by nature are inherently evil, paired with a parasitic nature; hence the underlying contradiction in most modern vampire literature.
In a Buffy episode, she tells some potential Slayers this: “He has to kill to live. That tells you everything you need to know about him.” The “intelligent parasite” theme violates “traditional” morality (that is, Christian and Christian-based) as well as morality conceived of in other systems, such as Robert M. Pirsig’s “morality as evolutionary process” theory. If a vampire is not a higher life form than a human, then it is immoral for said parasite to destroy humanity.
Not to mention, a vampire’s blood is entirely taken from other beings, which raises another interesting point: this “being” is a fraud, an imitation of life, without its own claim to the life force; a patchwork of stolen moments from those who do live. A vampire is a thief of the lowest order: a thief of the divine life-spark. Theologically, this makes all vampires a part of Satan.
Lastly, blood is the life force itself, the driving power behind our biological existence. Vampires steal it away; they are inherently opposed to life. Assuming that life is good—using whatever argument you wish to arrive at that conclusion, from evolutionary to theological—and seeing as how vampires, by their very biological requirements to “survive” must oppose life, and take it away—this places vampires firmly on the “evil” side of the game board.
Which brings me to:
Number 9: Corpses – Yours and Others.
Biologically, a vampire simply doesn’t function. There’s no way. Not even “Magic” (a highly overused and misconstrued concept to begin with) can explain the fact that a vampire, whose heart does not beat and whose blood (entirely taken from other beings) does not flow would fall apart and rot and otherwise be messy; that even if something “supernatural” is holding this being together does not change the nature of flesh and blood, and what happens when the two die.
If you were to be a vampire, you’d have to get used to other people’s corpses, as well, not just your own molding carcass. One of the most disturbing scenes I found while watching Buffy occurred in an episode that flashed back to Angel and Spike’s early acquaintanceship. They are riding in a carriage with the bloody-necked corpses of a would-be bride and groom, still in wedding regalia. A vampire is a murderer of happiness.
The point of death is that it is fundamentally different from life (although not necessarily its opposite.) A vampire is considered “undead,” but that is a meaningless term. A vampire sleeps, eats, walks, talks, and, according to some, falls in love. How is this any different from life? It’s simply a different kind of life (and/or the devil’s version. Maybe a good comparison here for what I mean is in Tolkien’s The Silmarilion, where the first evil guy “creates” the orcs.)
In Terry Pratchett’s satirical (and wise) Discworld novels, a side character, a zombie named Reg Shoe, tries to rid the city of Ankh-Morpork of prejudice towards the “differently alive” with inspirational slogans like “Undead yes, Unperson no!”
What does it really mean to be not human? Why is a vampire not human? Biological factors aside, today’s popular vampires are, in fact, human. Yet also “evil” and “soulless.” Hence the contradiction. The point that is that people are either people, or not; you can’t be pure evil and human enough to love and hate both.
Or, in the words of Jim Kirk: “You know what, Spock? Everybody’s human.”
Number Eight: Selfhood and Justice
In one flashback Buffy episode, Angel tells Spike, “You can take what you want, but nothing is ever yours.”
In short, this is a horrible way to have to live. It speaks of a world—an existence—without trust, morality, or fairness. The only rules are the ones you make, and they are going to constantly be in conflict with the rules everyone else is making, because they are all, to a vampire, based on pure self-interest. The truly shortsighted and selfish kind of self-interest, that is, which thinks it must stomp on everyone else’s in order to survive.
To illustrate that point, a parable that someone once told me: There are two tables, each exactly the same, filled with all kinds of delicious food. Both tables are filled with people hungry and ready to eat, but there’s one problem: they cannot bend their arms to bring their forks to their mouths. Here is the difference between the two tables: at one, it’s utter chaos, each man fighting against each other and the inevitable, unable to reach the food despite all their efforts. At the other, all is calm and cheerful, and everyone is eating—because they’ve learned to feed each other.
A healthy society or individual is one who has more or less learned to feed himself by feeding others. A vampire’s very nature is completely opposed to this arrangement, however. A vampire is not only a social anarchist, but an anarchist of the soul, as well.
Number Seven: Murder
Another example from the Buffyverse: In one episode, Dawn has gone to hang out with Spike, and he’s telling her a story about how he terrorized some people. He’s killed everyone except a small girl hiding in a coal bin, and Dawn is hanging on his every word, waiting for the bloody climax of the anecdote, when a furious Buffy stalks in. Spike tries to cover his mistake, ending the story with himself as do-gooding hero: So I got the little girl out, cleaned her up, and gave her to a nice family where she didn’t get locked in coal bins anymore. Buffy, of course, doesn’t buy it, but even more disturbing than Spike’s obvious pleasure in the memory of his sick actions is Dawn’s response. “That’s lame!” she says.
Lame? It’s lame when he doesn’t get to finish his reign of terror? It’s lame when an innocent little girl doesn’t suffer a cruel death at the hands of a twisted maniac?
When you’re the one being persecuted, when the tables are turned, everything is different. Then it’s not “lame” when you’re spared, it’s “unfair” when you’re not. Our generation spends all its time in its heads (the internet doesn’t help with this)—everything sounds fun from a distance, and then you get faced with it up close, and suddenly it’s not so fun anymore.
Hardly anyone seems to notice anymore these days, but life is precious. All life. Here are a few reasons why:
First - It’s the first, fundamental, foremost building block of the universe/human universe. The one natural resource we can’t create or synthesize for ourselves. Even cloners start with what’s there, and AI isn’t human, or, depending on who you’re talking to, the case, and the definition, “real.”
Second - Because we value it. What we value (in some cases) takes on value.
Third, and most importantly - Life is precious because Being is Good. All things strive for what is good, on whatever evolutionary level they may be, whatever definition of good they bow to. Our cells and genes propagate because reproduction, the continuation of their kind, is a good hardwired into their genes; evolutionists say we strive for life because our genes tell us to; theologians and philosophers might agree that we seek the good and/or life because in it we come across a spark to that which is beyond life: the divine. (And what is a vampire’s “life,” if it is only evil? A “life” without that divine spark – i.e., hell; damnation. But that will be discussed below.)
Number six: Souls
The mistreatment of the concept of the soul is one of my greatest pet peeves. Vampires are supposed to be soulless, but has anyone thought about what that really means?
It means nonexistence. It means there is no “you” any longer. In short, J.K. Rowling got it right: as a soulless person, you’re an empty husk.
Yet here these soulless creatures are, walking, talking, having personalities and otherwise acting human.
In Buffy, especially, the misuse of the concept is particularly grating. It seems that to be a vampire is to be soulless; without a soul means to be evil and incapable of love; but to have one doesn’t mean you stop being a vampire, it’s more like gaining a conscience. A soul and a conscience is not the same thing. A conscience is, in part, formed by society, and part an “inherent moral sense” (to borrow James Q. Wilson’s phrase.) You can ride your moral sense into the ground, but there’s no “on/off” switch for it.
In short, modern vampire legends really abuse the concept of good and evil, blurring the lines and confusing the issue until it doesn’t matter at all anymore. Which sounds great, until something truly important in real life happens; and then followers of this thought pattern are completely incapable of meeting the challenge.
Number Five: Eternal Damnation
There’s a big misconception floating around that paints God as the big bearded father-figure in the sky who condemns people to Hell, seen as a big fire pit Down Stairs if they don’t do what he says.
This is not how it works, and that’s not what hell is.
Hell is a choice. You can’t be “condemned” to it against your will, an innocent prisoner victimized by an unfeeling rule-and-punishment legal system, rejected by God forever. Hell is what happens when you make the choice to reject God. The definition of Hell is “absence of God.”
Hell, like Heaven, is God giving people what they want. If people want an existence without truth, justice, morality, order—God—then He will give it to them. Theologians, philosophers, and Average Joes can argue all they want about what “rules” constitute morality (a badly worded concept in its own right, but that’s another subject), but no matter where the final truth on that matter really lies, that doesn’t change the fact that Hell—eternal damnation—is the experience of total Divinelessness.
Vampires are a contradiction on this count too, because while supposedly damned, are still in a Divine world—for God is everywhere in creation, for God is goodness, and creation is Good.
Which brings me to:
Number Four: Loveless Evil
Vampires are true evil; true evil cannot love. This is closely related to the section on damnation, because since God is love, an existence without God is existence without love.
If you cannot love, you’re incapable of truly enjoying anything, or any good feeling. Possibly, depending on how you want to argue the nature of emotions, you’re incapable even of hate: you’re mindless, a force of chaotic destruction; a tool of Satan.
And yet, fans of Twilight, and Buffy, and etc, want to say, in the books these vampires do love! They’re… practically people! They’re good!
Sure they are. In the fantasy. But there’s nothing holding that fantasy together. It’s pure mirage—and a dangerous one.
A very intelligent philosopher once told me that Milton made a mistake when he wrote Paradise Lost, in making his fallen Lucifer a more interesting character than the good guys, from which I draw this conclusion: Milton made it seem like evil could be related to, but an evil you can empathize with is not pure evil, because then it’s partly human. Humans have always been the middlemen, between angels and demons, animals and gods.
It’s a dangerous mirage because it makes us forget that. What would you do, if confronted with a real life vampire? Most likely be led to your death, imagining your dark Prince Charming had come for you at last.
There are no Edward Cullens, there are no Angels or Spikes. There are only people, the angels that save them, the fallen angels that fight them, and the demons they create.
Number Three: Backwards Power
Let’s break it down – what’s really the allure with these modern vampires? Power; sexiness; glamour? In “real life” there would be none of these, although, like so often in our lives, there might be an illusion of power.
“Sexiness” is really a subdivision of power—control over another person via lust. What these vampires really stand for, what you’re really idolizing, is the “honest criminal.”
He’ll look you in the eyes, tell you exactly how he’s going to rob you, and while you’re laughing at his wit and honesty, he’ll take you for all you’ve got. (Idea courtesy Terry Pratchett’s Going Postal.)
Number Two: Immortality and Beyond
Live forever? No thanks. And yet they can “die,” by stakes and by fire – another contradiction – so what happens afterwards? Since by nature vampires cannot repent (like fallen angels—a choice made instantly for all eternity because of their nature and timeless existence) they must go wherever damned human souls go. Or if they never die? What then? A “hell on earth” until the end of time?
Immortality: not all it’s cracked up to be.
Number One: And the number one reason not to be a vampire is…
Not easily summed up by a catch phrase, unfortunately. So bear with me through one more analogy.
In C.S. Lewis’s classics about Narnia, the (chronological) first book, The Magician’s Nephew, features a young boy who wants to save his terminally ill mother. Aslan sends him on a quest that seemingly is unrelated. He is to find a walled garden, far beyond the boundaries of the newly-created Narnia, and, entering by the gate, to pluck a golden apple from a tree. This apple, once planted, will grow a tree that will protect Narnia from the evil this young boy inadvertently brought to Narnia in the from of Queen Jadis, formerly of the world Charn, who would later become the more familiar villainess The White Witch.
The boy finds the walled garden, and the apple; he also finds Jadis there. She entered without permission, climbing the wall, and ate of the fruit. Part of the garden gate’s inscription reads, “For those who steal or those who climb my wall / Shall find their heart’s desire and find despair.” Later, Aslan says that since the Witch ate an apple without permission, “All the rest are now a horror to her…The fruit is good, but they loathe it ever after…Things always work according to their nature. She has won her heart’s desire; she has unwearying strength and endless days like a goddess. But length of days with an evil heart is only length of misery, and already she begins to know it. All get what they want; they do not always like it.” (Emphasis mine.)
Vampires are seen as cool for the same reason the Jadis became powerful by sneaking into the walled garden to eat the apple; for the same reason Satanists (at least certain ones; I wouldn’t know about the philosophy in general) see Lucifer as a “liberator”; for the same reason Christian theology is so badly stereotyped and misunderstood.
Ultimately, we’re all after the same thing, whether we think we see it in vampires, superheroes, the Divine, chocolate, or people. But means and motivations matter, and the riddle of existence is a simple kind of complicated that will tie your brain in knots until you find the one thread that binds the pattern together.
Those who idolize vampires, like Twilight fans, miss the tapestry altogether, unaware that it is what holds them together while they read it; that while they’re busy chasing reflections and mirages and getting everything exactly backwards, the real thing is right beside them, patiently waiting for them to realize which side of the garden wall it is they’re on.
Thanks for reading.
For me its not about the blood at all, believe me. It is about the idea of eternity. The thought of becoming nothing more than worm-food is horrible and dreadfully dark. Not only that, but the vampire offers a way to be anything you want. You never age or die, and you don't (in some books) have to drain a being of its life. The vampire now is sexy, seductive, and charming, and many people wish they could be that. It is a way to see and hear and do things not possible by any other means. But you forget that they are a work of fiction. People will try to mimic it, and those who are "vampires" do not often behave as a vampire in a book would. They style themselves after the charicters because they are frightening and intreging at the same time. Maybe I've read to many Anne Rice novels (Interview with a vampire is not nearly ar good as the book), but I think that wanting to be as clever as Lestat, as emotional as Louis, or as free as Gabrielle isn't a bad thing.
The idea that being a vampire--an evil being whose existence is full of misery--is a better kind of "afterlife" than more "traditional" possibilities like heaven or reincarnation fills me with horror. What happens to the body after death shouldn't frighten anyone... it's what happens to the you that's _you_, whether you call it the soul or something else, that should be of more concern.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
I'm sure most people don't idolize vampires since, as you say, they are creatures that cannot possibly exist. It's just an exciting and amusing myth. That's just the way people are. Rationality rarely makes for fun reading. I don't get disappointed if I have a low readership for my blogs because I understand that people might not find it amusing. Vampires are amusing. They used to be scary amusing like Dracula but now they're sexy amusing. I always get a kick out of people going out of their way to powder themselves up and dress like vampires. It makes life fun. No need to get too upset about it.
You should read Orson Scott Card's essay about the influential power of movies and books in our society (he uses Mamma Mia! and The Dark Knight as specific examples). What "upsets" me is that evil is now "cool." They think they know what they're talking about, and they have no idea. People think it would be fun to meet a vampire because they think its Edward Cullen and he'll fall in love with them. Then there are people who think they really are vampires and want to murder you. It's not healthy, and if you're going to be obsessed with vampires, then you should at least know what you're _really_ obsessing about. Most people don't. Hence post.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
Blood: it’s icky. Vampire writers these days like to go on about how sweet it tastes, but anyone who’s ever gotten a cut in their mouth or sucked a painful paper-cut ought to know better.
I think there are many people who would beg to differ on that matter, myself included. It's not sweet in the sense that sugar is sweet, but not everyone considers it bad.
So the taking of blood is partly about power.
While you may have read a lot about fictitious vampires, I think your information on real vampires is a little rusty. Blood is considered the essence of life, and is considered to be energy itself. Vampires, both real and fictional, need blood, not because of any desire for power, but because they need it to survive.
That, of course, brings me to define "real" vampires. Sanguinarius, a resource for real vampires, defines a sanguine (blood-drinking) vampire as a person who simply needs blood. It's not a desire any more than it's someone's desire to require being a vegetarian, due to intolerance of meat. No, they don't consume blood exclusively. Yes, they do exist. No, they are not like the fictitious vampires. They are not undead, they are not immortal.
They also don't kill. Many sanguines will actually tell you that the blood is better from a willing donor. The experience can be very sensual, and often forms a strong, even if only physical, bond between the two, in much the same way sex can create such a bond. Real sanguines also don't need to bleed someone dry. A small amount - less than what you'd donate to the Red Cross - is enough for several days, if not weeks.
What I've stated here, of course, negates everything you've stated as it applies to reality. However, you still have quite a good argument in regards to the stereotypical, fictional vampires. I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between the two.
Number Five: Eternal Damnation
Your entire argument for this one is purely subjective, and, I might add, reflects a lot on your own beliefs. God is often painted "as the big bearded father-figure in the sky who condemns people to Hell, seen as a big fire pit Down Stairs if they don’t do what he says," because when people hear the word "God," they think of the Christian God, Jehovah, in which the very Christian holy text paints him as such. Actually, if you think about it, it's even more harsh than that because it's not about doing what he says or going to hell if you do bad things. No, you go to hell unless you accept Jesus. Never knew about Jesus? According to strict interpretation, that's too bad, you're going to hell anyway. It was never a matter of choice in that circumstance.
In Christianity, where the idea of Hell as we know it comes from, there is no "God is everywhere." In Christianity, God is God and while God is good and his creations are good, his creations are explicitly not God. Therefore, earth is not a divine place. Christianity actually suggests otherwise, that it's a very evil place because it's run by humanity and humanity is inherently susceptible to evil, thanks to free will.
Vampires are true evil; true evil cannot love. This is closely related to the section on damnation, because since God is love, an existence without God is existence without love.
Again, perspective. Initially, this was true, of course the difference between old vampires and new vampires is about as different as night and day. Fictional vampires have evolved, so to speak, from mindless, soulless, evil, half-rotting monsters into the more human, sensual, though equally scary (because of their allure) creatures.
The idea that "God is Love" is purely an Abrahamic (Christian, Jew, Muslim) belief. This would, of course, explain the perception of the old vampire. However, vampires, like society, have changed over time. Vampires are a reflection of our fears as a society and have thus changed accordingly.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Vampires are a reflection of our fears as a society and have thus changed accordingly."
Edward Cullen the heart throb (as so many Twilight fans I know have described him) is hardly a reflection of our fears. Unless we fear sparklyness and volvos. It's a false kind of "evolving"; all we're doing is confusing real evil with make believe, which is a very dangerous practice
Concerning sanguines:
You're right, I know nothing about them. My argument here is against the fictional world, and the fence it's trying to stradle: an evil creature that can somehow be cool and love at the same time.
"According to strict interpretation, that's too bad, you're going to hell anyway. "
I'm a theology major, religous dialogue concentration, precisely because I think that narrow interpretation is incredibly wrong and not how Christianity is meant to work. It should be fairly obvious I'm working with Catholic theology here, not any of the breakaway Christian denomination's theologies, and my comments in this section are based on the more "liberal" (although I really hate using that term, it's inaccurate) conception of the doctrines of what God, hell, and heaven are.
Concerning "just perspective:"
Yes, it's "Just my opinion." However I'm working with the best definitions of good, evil, God, heaven, hell, and the most common/popular fictional vampire universes available, and since in the subject-object worldview that generates comments like "it's only your persective" _any_ opinion is subjective (and therefore bad), I'm still quite happy with the logic behind my arguments.
"Christianity actually suggests otherwise, that it's a very evil place because it's run by humanity and humanity is inherently susceptible to evil, thanks to free will."
I have to strongly contradict you here. G.K. Chesterton, one of the greatest Catholic apologists ever, put it this way: "Any extreme acesticism on the part of the Church is NEVER a doubt about the good of creation..." or works to that effect. Also, humanity does not run the world, just our little societies that live in it; and we are susceptible to both good AND ill because of free will, but are partly "fallen" because of giving in to Satan in the Garden (however you want to spin that ancient metaphor.)
Lastly, I want to sincerely thank you for your intelligent and spot-on comment. This is the kind of reply I was hoping for! (Besides people agreeing with me, of course :P )
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
Everyone agreeing with you would be no fun. =)
but are partly "fallen" because of giving in to Satan in the Garden (however you want to spin that ancient metaphor.)
That's exactly my point. If you believe in Original Sin (which I assume you do, or at least accept that most Catholics do), then it doesn't matter if you even knew about Jesus and God and Christianity. You're still human, you're still a descendant of Adam and Eve, and, because of their sin, you're still going to Hell because of Original Sin.
However I'm working with the best definitions of good, evil, God, heaven, hell, and the most common/popular fictional vampire universes available
How do you define "best"? Just curious, since I actually don't know of Edward Cullen, or Twilight. I do, however, have an interest in vampires, though more of my recent knowledge has come more from real vampires than the fictional ones anymore.
is hardly a reflection of our fears. Unless we fear sparklyness and volvos. It's a false kind of "evolving"; all we're doing is confusing real evil with make believe, which is a very dangerous practice
Perhaps I should elaborate more.
As far as fictional vampires go, I think most people agree that the vampires depicted by author Anne Rice are some of the most well-known modern vampires. Lestat, Louis, and Marius are among the names many people know and think of when hearing the term vampire.
While Bram Stoker started changing vampires to more of the sensual temptation that we are familiar with, it was Anne Rice who really fleshed out the image of a Deadly Prince possessing the "Dark Gift" with her stories that follow the life of Lestat, Louis, Armand, and Marius, among others.
While I'm not familiar with Twilight, I still stand by my original assertion that vampires, including Cullen, reflect society's fears.
The story of the vampire was inspired by a real person, Vlad the Impaler (aka - Count Dracula), as well as a Elizabeth Bathory (aka - the Blood Countess), and became popular with the Black Plague, which made the vampire well-known.
Note especially the attributes of vampires around the time of the Black Plague. Rotten, undead, soulless husks who killed swiftly in the night. The Black Plague, after its incubation period, killed within 8 days and had a myriad of gory symptoms.
Then, we get into the Renaissance era, the 20th century, a less literal interpretation of the Bible, and the more "pretty" vampires. Disease is no longer the big fear, and the focus goes more toward sex (and, to a lesser extent, homosexuality), especially during the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. Note the erotic and homoerotic undertones in both the Anne Rice novels and even the Dracula movies. They appeal to people also, because of their immortality. Because let's face it, we as a society fear death.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Because of their sin, you're still going to Hell because of Original Sin."
False. Catholic theology does NOT teach this. Otherwise, to pick just one example, babies who aren't baptised would be in hell, and that is an unacceptable conclusion. "Original sin" is simply the Catholic way of pointing out the flawed nature of humantiy. And I'm only Catholic "more or less". Ie, make no assumptions about what I'm in complete agreement with the Church on ;)
"How do you define "best"?"
"Subjectively", I suppose. The definitions that make the most theological and philosophical sense to me--in this case usually those from or close to Catholic theology. As for the vampire stories I have in mind, again I'm mostly thinking of Twilight here, this essay is a direct response to conversations I was having with a fan, but mostly just ones I'm familiar with.
"Because let's face it, we as a society fear death."
You make good points here. I concede the origins point; but again, I was mostly thinking of Twilight, where the sex appeal of Edward Cullen is a lot more prominent than the temptation of immortality. As my friends constantly refrain, "It's not about the "vampire" bit, it's about the "love story" bit!" What bothers me is the inherent contradiction: they're evil, we fear them, and yet they fall in love with us and vice versa? Doesn't make a ton of sense.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
make no assumptions about what I'm in complete agreement with the Church on
Hi Five! Pick-and-Choose Catholics Unite!! :-)
8-}
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I'm not a cafeteria catholic, sorry. As I replied to dragonwolf below:
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I am a Catholic by childhood raising (baptised, confirmed, everything) and currently by choice, who is still in the process of deeply considering the teaching of the Church--along with the teachings of other major religions. While I am more closely associated with the Church than anything else, I haven't completely formulated my opinions or investigated all topics yet, so I don't _know_ whether I might disagree on some things--or how to resolve those conflicts I have found. So I'm not going to lay claim to the label and everything it does or might entail without being able to do so in the fullest sense of what it means to be Catholic. I'm not being "cafeteria"-- I'm being very, very careful.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
That was totally a joke. An inappropriate one; I apologize.
I totally understand where you're coming from. I'm the same in some areas (not knowing if I disagree or not), but others, I know I disagree, and I'm ok with that.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
babies who aren't baptised would be in hell, and that is an unacceptable conclusion
Why? Because we feel that unbaptized babies are innocent? Since when did we make the rules?
Original sin, even when considered a "state," and not actual "sin," still condemns us.
In other words, because of Adam, we have lost the grace of God and have to redeem it.
The formal argument, then, is as follows:
1. Adam sinned, taking away our "sanctifying grace," making us imperfect.
2. God, a perfect being, cannot look upon imperfection and cannot allow it into His kingdom.
3. Therefore, as imperfect beings, we are doomed to be separated from God (ie - Hell) unless we ask for His grace.
Of course, because Catholics didn't like the idea of their babies going to Hell, the ideas of purgatory and limbo came into play. Neither of which are actually in the Bible, I might add.
And I'm only Catholic "more or less". Ie, make no assumptions about what I'm in complete agreement with the Church on
The "Salad Bar" technique is not becoming of any Christian, especially one who claims to be a theologian.
The definitions that make the most theological and philosophical sense to me--in this case usually those from or close to Catholic theology.
Be careful with that, else you'll fall into a trap of having vastly skewed and information that is so far from correct that it's indistinguishable from lies.
As for the vampire stories I have in mind, again I'm mostly thinking of Twilight here, this essay is a direct response to conversations I was having with a fan, but mostly just ones I'm familiar with.
In regards to the rants about Twilight itself, I can understand that. However, you branched out and into a subject you appear to know little about (beyond Twilight) and ended up in over your head a little.
they're evil, we fear them, and yet they fall in love with us and vice versa? Doesn't make a ton of sense.
Why do people fear death? In my opinion, at least, it's because we don't know what happens after we die. It's not so much death itself that we fear, but the unknown.
The thing about the unknown, too, is that, while we are afraid of it, we are also intrigued by it. We want to learn about it, to know what it's like.
What makes a modern, fictional vampire evil? Is it because they drink blood? It seems to me that a dietary necessity would seem a silly thing to consider someone evil.
Is it because they're "undead"? From everything I've seen, they aren't the soulless husks they once were. Considering the remorse some of them have had over making the choice to let themselves be turned, it would seem to me that they very much have a soul.
Is it because they prey on humans? Well, not all of them do, and many that do, don't actually kill them. And even if they did kill, they're not technically considered human themselves. Besides, what makes killing a human for the sake of food any more vile than killing a deer, or cow, or pig, or chicken for the same reason?
No, what makes them "evil" is that they are both human and not human at the same time. Technically, they are not human. They no longer have human's behavioral, dietary, and social traits and needs. Yet, at the same time, they look human and we, for some reason, apply human morals to them. So, when they break those morals, say, by killing a human, we say they're evil.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"Of course, because Catholics didn't like the idea of their babies going to Hell, the ideas of purgatory and limbo came into play. Neither of which are actually in the Bible, I might add."
Limbo is no longer an official teaching of the Church. As for the existence of purgatory, I'm sure they justify it somehow. I haven't looked into that yet. But if you're going to for what's "in" the Bible, you can make an argument for slavery, the subjugation of women, and the stoning of Wiccans. The Church admittedly doesn't go by "just" Bible-ism, anyway; there's the Living Word and the Living Tradition.
Plus, I'm sure no one likes the idea of "innocent" babies in hell. Because that's the thing--they're babies, and haven't committed any sin yet, which is different from simply being of an sinfully affected nature. Also, I'm famiiar with the formal argument, but there's a "side" of God that leaves out: He is merciful and compassionate. If you believe that, and that all souls come from God, then when some of them are barely born before they die again, you can accept the idea of God welcoming them back into Heaven. We don't make the rules, but theology is an entirely human convention; that is, we make the explanations for what the rules appear to be.
"The "Salad Bar" technique is not becoming of any Christian, especially one who claims to be a theologian."
"Claims"? Thanks a lot. I'm in the process of getting my degree from a Catholic college. More importantly, however, I'm not a "cafeteria catholic." Perhaps I should have been more clear. I am a Catholic by childhood raising (baptised, confirmed, everything) and currently by choice, who is still in the process of deeply considering the teaching of the Church--along with the teachings of other major religions. While I am more closely associated with the Church than anything else, I haven't completely formulated my opinions or investigated all topics yet, so I don't _know_ whether I might disagree on some things--or how to resolve those conflicts I have found. So I'm not going to lay claim to the label and everything it does or might entail without being able to do so in the fullest sense of what it means to be Catholic. I'm not being "cafeteria"-- I'm being very, very careful.
"Be careful with that, else you'll fall into a trap of having vastly skewed and information that is so far from correct that it's indistinguishable from lies."
That is an incredibly vague, and I think unjustified, accusation. I am a seeker of truth, doing so with the best tools available to me. I may or may not find it in the Catholic Church; hence part of my reluctance to completely accept the label; hence my consolidation of wildly varying sources.
"However, you branched out and into a subject you appear to know little about (beyond Twilight) and ended up in over your head a little."
Where? I've said that sanguines, of which admittedly I am ignorant, are nowhere part of this discussion. I'm critiquing the lack of logic and murky theology of modern vampire writers. They are creating an enormous problem by making evil look desirable. That is the heart of my argument. perhaps I should have stated it more clearly, since everyone seems to be confusing the issue.
"Considering the remorse some of them have had over making the choice to let themselves be turned, it would seem to me that they very much have a soul."
Take Buffyverse for example: a soul is something that can be "forced" on someone against their will (or taken away.) The confuse the concepts of "soul" and "conscience." Still stradling the fence.
"What makes a modern, fictional vampire evil? Is it because they drink blood? It seems to me that a dietary necessity would seem a silly thing to consider someone evil."
See my section on how they get blood. Evil acts are still evil, even if it "just" to achieve a dietary requirement.
"Is it because they're "undead"? From everything I've seen, they aren't the soulless husks they once were"
Yet they still have all the traits of the soulles husks. Modern writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
"No, what makes them "evil" is that they are both human and not human at the same time."
What makes them evil, traditionally, is their nature; they have no free will to choose otherwise.
"Technically, they are not human. They no longer have human's behavioral, dietary, and social traits and needs."
That's not all that makes someone human. That's just the biology and psychology of it. There's also the matter of the soul.
"Yet, at the same time, they look human and we, for some reason, apply human morals to them."
So there should be different morals for different species? The point of vampires is that they are opposed to all that is good in humanity; they're a symbol of hell.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
But if you're going to for what's "in" the Bible, you can make an argument for slavery, the subjugation of women, and the stoning of Wiccans.
"Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live," tends to be the big one for the Wiccan thing. Most of the people in the Bible owned slaves, even Jesus acknowledged this and seems to have treated it as a normal thing. And "wives, obey thy husbands," tends to be the Biblical backing for that one, as well. So, while they do tend to be stretching what the Bible says and/or means, at least there are some references to it.
there's the Living Word and the Living Tradition.
Now, that's one I haven't heard before. Well, except for the "Living Word," but that usually refers to either the Bible (the Word of God), or Jesus/God himself (the Word was God). I'd be intrigued to know what you mean by those two phrases.
Limbo is no longer an official teaching of the Church.
While it was never an official doctrine, it was still taught until very recently, and has been so for many centuries. That's usually known as tradition. Interestingly enough, Limbo is known as the "edge of hell." Both it and it's alternate, "mild hellfire," still don't hold much hope for unbaptized babies, since they are still not in Heaven. In fact, in the "mild hellfire," which is official doctrine, they are still being tortured, just not as much as those who would actually commit personal sin.
but there's a "side" of God that leaves out: He is merciful and compassionate. If you believe that, and that all souls come from God, then when some of them are barely born before they die again, you can accept the idea of God welcoming them back into Heaven.
So, what about the people whose only wrong they have done is not accept Jesus, whether by choice or by fate? Or those incapable of accepting him?
If there is one, single thing the Church teaches, it's this: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are condemned to Hell unless they come unto the Father through the Son.
As grisly as it may be, that means every victim of SIDS, every miscarriage, every abortion is in Hell, whether you or anyone else likes it, because even they, by nature are sinful and therefore cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
"Claims"? Thanks a lot. I'm in the process of getting my degree from a Catholic college.
You said that you were a theology major. I have no evidence that says you are. Therefore, it is a claim that you've made. It's just like me claiming to have a Bachelor of Science. You don't know for sure if I really do, you can only go off my claim.
That is an incredibly vague, and I think unjustified, accusation. I am a seeker of truth, doing so with the best tools available to me. I may or may not find it in the Catholic Church; hence part of my reluctance to completely accept the label; hence my consolidation of wildly varying sources.
Accusation? Perhaps, but not toward you. I've seen the Church (not just Catholic, Christian Church in general) tell blatant lies and have seen the effects of the lies and fear in people. No, for you, more of a warning.
You've cited no sources in either your original post or any of your responses, unless you count mentioning authors.
I'm critiquing the lack of logic and murky theology of modern vampire writers. They are creating an enormous problem by making evil look desirable. That is the heart of my argument. perhaps I should have stated it more clearly, since everyone seems to be confusing the issue.
From both my own view of your understanding, as well as other people's responses, it seems to me that, while you may have read half a dozen books and seen half a dozen movies about vampires, it seems like you can't see past your preconceptions and your literary interpretation is either extremely literal or very rusty.
The interesting thing about the theology of vampires is that there is no theology of vampires. The nature of vampires as a species is as varied as the authors who write about them.
Anne Rice vampires, for example, were human at one point, their origins are hazy at best, and require the draining then refilling of blood to become a vampire. They gain power over time, and abilities vary by individual. Vampires that are old enough can even survive limited amounts of sunlight. Most, however, don't live that long as life starts wearing them and they eventually lose their very will to live and either find a way to kill themselves or go into a sort of deep hibernation.
On the other hand, the vampires of the Blade series seem to be immortal, but are very susceptible to sunlight (unless using sunblock) and turning only requires a person be bitten. Vampirism is, for all intents and purposes, an infectious disease, and a curable one at that. Their origin is also unknown, though (if memory serves me correctly) it's said to be a mutation.
Then, there's a third mythos, that of Underworld. Their origins are quite clear, actually, and suggest that humans (at least some), vampires, and werewolves are actually fairly close relatives. All three species are descendants of one man. This man had three sons, one bitten by bat, one by wolf, and the third to live his life as a mortal. Here, again, we have the idea that vampirism (along with lycanthropy) are infectious diseases, spread through the saliva or other bodily fluids (such as blood), but the mixing of werewolf and vampire disease usually causes death, unless the human is a descendant of the sons of that one man.
All three of these are different from pretty much any other book or movie you pick up. Van Helsing vampires, for example, are descendants of Dracula himself. Forever Knight I don't recall mentioning any origin for his vampirism, but he was a detective (ie - good guy, by choice). The only thing that remains constant is their thirst for blood and (at least for all but the oldest of vampires) the effects of starvation from lack of blood.
The fact that you and I appear to be working off of two entirely different mythos bases may be lending to the confusion.
See my section on how they get blood. Evil acts are still evil, even if it "just" to achieve a dietary requirement.
Does that make a group of humans who lure a bear or bison into a trap so they can kill it for food, evil? Does that make wolves or lions, who surround their prey and corner it evil? Does that make the lanternfish evil for fooling its prey with a glowing bulb a couple inches away from its mouth?
Though, the way you talk, you do see leeches and mosquitoes as evil, since they are parasites who suck blood. What's that make the vampire bat, then?
the pure instinct and predator factor that is fundamentally a part of man, but also, most importantly, fundamentally mostly under control.
I fail to see how our predatory instincts are "under control." We, as a species, kill thousands of other animals every single day, and the vast majority of us, as individuals, reap the benefits of such slaughter on a regular basis. Remember that steak, or hamburger, or chicken sandwich?
If a vampire is not a higher life form than a human, then it is immoral for said parasite to destroy humanity.
Not necessarily. Bacteria, molds, and viruses are not considered higher life forms than humans, yet they destroy us all the time. A tiger isn't considered a higher life form, yet if you're out in its territory and it's hungry enough, one won't hesitate to kill you.
Not to mention, a vampire’s blood is entirely taken from other beings, which raises another interesting point: this “being” is a fraud, an imitation of life, without its own claim to the life force;
Again, you established the fact that vampires are parasites. As such, they do, in fact, require a "donor" (so to speak) to survive. Various worms and other parasites require the exact same thing, otherwise they die within hours. Does that make them Satan's hands, too?
vampires, by their very biological requirements to “survive” must oppose life, and take it away
Every creature that is not a plant (and in the case of plants, any predatory plants) must take life to live. That's known as the circle of life. To have life, one must take the life of another. Even herbivores must take the life of plants to sustain themselves. Only plants create their own food from inorganic means.
So, if vampires are evil because they require blood to survive, then all of creation that cannot make its own food is evil because it requires another living entity to survive.
Yet they still have all the traits of the soulles husks. Modern writers are trying to have their cake and eat it too.
What traits are you referring to that make them soulless husks? And when it comes to vampires, regardless of what you believe, there is no such thing as "having their cake and eating it, too," because, like I stated earlier, the only constant is the need for blood (and not even every case requires human blood).
What makes them evil, traditionally, is their nature; they have no free will to choose otherwise.
Of all the books you've said you've read, I'm surprised that you've read Interview with a Vampire and still think they have no free will to make choices, since the entire book is about Louis living with his choice of becoming a vampire. He spends half the book trying desperately not to drink human blood and surviving off of rats.
I would suggest reading Blood and Gold, as it goes into more detail about "ethical" drinking - drinking without killing, only drinking the blood of the evildoer, and so forth (it also helps to explain why Lestat is insane).
That's not all that makes someone human. That's just the biology and psychology of it. There's also the matter of the soul.
You're touching on some really, really complicated territory with that one. For more information, look up Otherkin, particularly the reincarnation theories and idea about nonhuman souls in human bodies.
So there should be different morals for different species?
Not should. Are. We don't hold tigers or leeches or hookworms to our standard of morals. For that matter, we can't even hold other human beings to our own, personal, morals.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
"I'd be intrigued to know what you mean by those two phrases."
The Living Tradition, if I don't misquote my theology professors here, whatever source outside the Bible it may come from, gives us teachings like the assumption of Mary, the fall of Lucifer, and some other things not specifically in the Bible but that the Church believes it has good reason for believing anyway. Sorry I'm not more specific, but I'm bad at explaining Church teaching, especially what with my own thoughts on it being so confused half the time. I know I found a really good article about this once online, I'll see if I can find the link. Also I know that in some crucial areas my knowledge of Catholicism is pretty thin; my education has been a little patchy. I'm not proud of it, but I'm working on it.
"So, what about the people whose only wrong they have done is not accept Jesus, whether by choice or by fate? Or those incapable of accepting him?"
This is the precisely the question I spend most of my time arguing with "fundamentalists" about. I don't believe that anyone who led a good life to the best of their ability but never heard of Jesus (which would seem to be the "fate" scenario, although that word implies predestination, something I strongly disagree with) is going to be condemned. Jesus-the-person is a particular, the God and Good that He Is is universal. Have you ever read Raimundo Panikkar? He sets the standard for religious dialogue theology, and is my personal theological hero. I also don't believe that any non-Catholic is automatically going to hell. I did have a classmate tell me "No one has the right not to be Catholic," but from what I can tell, in my campus at least that narrow interpretation is in the minority. I can't remember who said it right now, but somebody influential wrote words to the effect of, There are many who do not seem to be inside the Church, but are, and many who seem to be inside that are not. A literal interpretation of anything, in other words, is extremely tricky business. Such as, as we mentioned, the subjugation of women to men and slavery--in the bible it states pretty literally stuff about that subject, but whenever that Gospel comes up on Sunday you can bet you won't find many priests telling their parishioners the women's rights movements is against the word of Jesus.
"If there is one, single thing the Church teaches, it's this: All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. All are condemned to Hell unless they come unto the Father through the Son."
If there is one, single thing the Church teaches, it's that _everyone_ has a _chance_ to choose or reject Christ (that is, Goodness, Truth, Rightness, etc.) You can't just accept the negative half the picture, that is, that we're not perfect. I think it's been said that everyone went to a Hades kind of place or Hell or whatever _before_ Christ died for our sins, but since He did, we are washed clean; forgiven; graced. Heaven is "difficult to enter" according to the Gospels but also God is very merciful. It sounds like a contradiction, but, a, it doesn't have to be, and b, so what if it is? As Chesterton said, "The modern man has always been sane because the modern man has always been a mystic," willing to accept the contradiction fully with the truth it contains.
"by nature are sinful"
Just because sin has been a part of humanity for a very long time doesn't mean it's in our "nature", that is, part of us inherently, by design. (Chesterton made this point very well in "Orthodoxy.")
"it seems like you can't see past your preconceptions and your literary interpretation is either extremely literal or very rusty... The nature of vampires as a species is as varied as the authors who write about them...The fact that you and I appear to be working off of two entirely different mythos bases may be lending to the confusion."
Ditto; point taken, but that doesn't change the fact that all they've done is attempt to work within the "vampires are evil" frame and attempt to give them "depth", with horrible consequences; and, agreed. I think. (On the other hand it's 1:30 in the morning so I may read that later and understand it completely differently. It's just this is my last chance to spend any time replying to this, classes are beginning again and life is insanely hectic. So if I don't reply again after this... that's why!)
"Does that make a group of humans who lure a bear or bison into a trap so they can kill it for food, evil...I fail to see how our predatory instincts are "under control.""
No, because of the matter of sentience (which I address elsewhere in this too-long reply.) Also I think in that section I was using a very specific reference from Pratchett's Discworld novels, where Sam Vimes fights his inner beast. Here's an idea I've been playing with, and I'll try not to let haste/tiredness butcher my explanation: Since watching The Dark Knight I've been wondering if maybe the Joker is really the epitome of the kind of evil I seem to find myself getting into debates with people about lately. He represents anarchy, not just against society, but against any code of ethics; an anarchy of the soul, which is exactly what Satan is all about. Vampires, in the traditional soulless-husk sense, are kind of the same thing: they inspire fear and chaos by preying on individuals and societies for their own twisted needs. The "glamorization" of vampires is of the same kind that makes the character of the Joker appealing to some people--maybe not in his actions, but in the funny lines, the almost-humanity, the "I'm-cool-anyway" attitude/persona.
We mentioned before the "evolution" of vampires, from soulless husks to Edward Cullen the Hearthrob, and you said I can't see past my preconceptions, but here's a thought: in the Discworld novels, I don't have a problem with vampires. Well, with Otto, anyway. Like zombies, they're "undead, yes, unperson no!" Terry Pratchett took a few of the familiar "signs" of vampires/zombies--blood and falling apart bodies--and gave them to human characters. I think there's a huge difference between the vampires of any other modern story and the Discworld vampires. The Discworld vampires _are_ just the humans with weird dietary requirements, and, like other humans, can be good or bad (same with the werewolves and zombies.)
You brought up good points with the Rice novels, about the one character wrestling with his decision to become a vampire after the fact, and I respect the attempted resolution of the contradiction within that particular vampire-verse, but that still sidesteps the point. There's still the conflict of inherent good/evil, soul/no soul, and sentient life form preying on sentient life form (see below.)
"If a vampire is not a higher life form than a human, then it is immoral for said parasite to destroy humanity."" - "Not necessarily."
I was attempting to apply Pirsig's "process morality" from his "metaphysics of quality" (in his book Lila) and it's possible I may have done so incorrectly, but if I didn't then your argument is with him, not me; I don't like the idea of "process morality," but I thought using an outside source might be a good idea, so it doesn't sound so much like 'all opinion.' ;) And of course while this is my own logic working here, like I said I'm working with definitions of good and evil based on/taken directly from Catholic theology, because they make the most sense to me. It seems that maybe your arguments are more with those than with my thoughts on vampires, because we seem to be clashing on a fundamental level, not just on application of principles/conclusions.
""There's also the matter of the soul." - "You're touching on some really, really complicated territory with that one."
Of course. But as a Christian I can't accept the conclusion that we're nothing more than apes with clever fingers, which a purely biological interpretation of the world tends to come to, that is, what happens when science tries to answer "why" questions.
"Not should. Are. We don't hold tigers or leeches or hookworms to our standard of morals."
I should have said for different _sentient_ species. In the Star Trek novel "I, Q", Q goes on about how he can't be held accountable to morality or for his actions because he's a "force of nature". You don't blame a hurricane, in the same way, don't blame him, he says. Now, I love Q as a character, but this is complete BS. If you have free will and/or are sentient then you can choose between right and wrong and are therefore accountable. A vampire is not supposed to have free will; the idea of "giving up their soul" is supposed to take care of that; but they're still thinking beings, not the same as a force of nature, or a leech. A leech just occupies its place in the evolutionary niche. I'm sure, arguing from premises you've stated already, you could make a case for vampires doing the same, but my point is that vampires and humans, as thinking beings, are also something _more_ than that place, and therefore have a responsibility. We have tragedy and triumph (to borrow Koontz's line again); we aren't just process. That's why intelligent vampires, who are evil, who do/don't have free will, are such a glaring, annoying contradiction to me.
"For that matter, we can't even hold other human beings to our own, personal, morals."
It's your turn to be in very complicated territory here. Please don't tell me you mean by this that "everything (morality) is relative"...
And, speculation about relativity aside, we DO hold other human beings to our own morals, all the time as a society. Every time, for example, we enforce consequences for lawbreakers, such as murderers and rapists.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
Couple of side notes quick -
1. I deleted your duplicate comments for you. Future reference - the site can be slow at times, so you only need to hit submit once. It might take a little while, but it has reacted to it and will show that it has done so...eventually. =P
2. If you use an outside source, always remember to cite it. This one's kind of a pet peeve of mine, simply because it can get both the reader and the author into an unnecessary argument, and can also cause confusion as to the source of the ideas. Even if you don't have a website to link, naming the book, article, etc where you found it can still be helpful. Also, if it's a book, what I try to do is find the book at like Amazon or something and link it so people know what to look for if they want to find it themselves.
Alright, on to the reply.
I don't really want to debate anymore since, as you also stated, our fundamental views are what are keeping us from seeing eye to eye, and fundamental views are extremely difficult to change. So, we could argue until we reach the limits of this site's database and we'd never get anywhere. I do want to address a couple points, though. I'll try to keep them in more of a sense that doesn't require a response from you, but if you feel compelled to reply, feel free to. I'd like more to offer positions to make you think a little differently about topics you may take for granted.
First, thank you for the information on Living Tradition. I'm pretty sure the idea as a whole is pretty exclusive to Catholicism, since it's one of the few Christian denominations/sects that has a number of traditions without Biblical backing. That might be something worth looking into if you're looking for a well-rounded view of Christianity as a whole - check out Protestantism. Considering it was formed because people didn't agree with the Catholic Church, you might find some intriguing information there that your school didn't teach you.
I also don't believe that any non-Catholic is automatically going to hell.
That's one thing I've seen a lot and never understood. I've seen a lot of people with similar mindsets to your classmate - something along the lines of "any who don't go to my church will go to hell." That was always a really narrow-minded view of something that, like you said, is supposed to be universal.
You can't just accept the negative half the picture, that is, that we're not perfect.
Here's Romans chapter 3 for you to read/reread, which has the verse I've kept quoting. Perhaps it was because I was raised more as a Protestant than a Catholic (I was Catholic when I was young, then Protestant around 10), but it's always been made pretty clear, especially by the Bible, that you have to know about Jesus and the God of Abraham to have faith in them and that faith in Jesus and what he did is required for anyone to enter Heaven.
It's your turn to be in very complicated territory here. Please don't tell me you mean by this that "everything (morality) is relative"...
And, speculation about relativity aside, we DO hold other human beings to our own morals, all the time as a society. Every time, for example, we enforce consequences for lawbreakers, such as murderers and rapists.
Yes, I do believe that, at least some, morality is relative. Not "everything," but a lot of things. We hold other humans to "our own morals" within our society and only to a certain extent.
Yes, we enforce morals such as those against murder and rape, but that is because people who commit these acts violate other people's rights, such as life and safety.
However, morals don't stop at acts that violate other people's rights. For example, many religious people believe that homosexuality is amoral. As such, they have been working very hard to keep gays from having certain rights, such as legal marriage (note the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage). There is, of course, also a number of "camps" and other programs designed to "cure" gays.
There's also the "civilization" of "savages" - generally the tribal people of places like Africa and South America and the ones that used to live in the Americas and even Western Europe. They need to be "civilized" because they, supposedly, don't any morals (despite the fact that they do, in fact, have their own sets of morals).
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Vampires are true evil; true evil cannot love. This is closely related to the section on damnation, because since God is love, an existence without God is existence without love.
The funny thing is that there is probably more evidence that would support a belief in the existence of vampires, than would support a belief in "god." In reality, both of these concepts are just a little bit too "comic book" for me. Sure, being a vampire as described in a great deal of pulp-modern vampire fiction would be pretty cool. Likewise, living forever in a the perfect bliss of "heaven" sounds pretty good when you're reading the books about it. But in reality, neither of these options are particularly realistic, and it seems like a monumental waste of time to be overly worried about either.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
"The funny thing is that there is probably more evidence that would support a belief in the existence of vampires, than would support a belief in "god."
This is an entirely different debate, and not one I wanted to go into here. However when I talk about "God" I'm not limiting myself to the strictly Christian interpretations of Him. A life of evil, such as vampires have, has no goodness; whether you want to go all Star Wars and just call it a usable "force" of good or the Christian path with the person personifying the good, or Indian and talk about the Oneness of everything, the point is that vampires, like the Christian satan, are all about rejecting that; evil. The contradiction between that fundamental quality of what a vampire is, which shows up everywhere in popular conceptions of vampires, and the new "coolness" and "sex appeal" vampires have, is what I see as the problem, and what this essay was meant to attack.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
Since "vampires" are (like "god" and yes, even "the force") for all practical purposes fictional, your assumption that "a life of evil, such as vampires have, has no goodness" is likewise nothing more than a figment of your imagination. Some people imagine "vampires" to be evil, but some stories imagine quite a difference scenario. This whole blog amounts to little more than two elementary school children angrily discussing who is stronger, Superman or the Hulk. If that's your goal, then kudos for the entertaining aside. If not, well...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
but some stories imagine quite a difference scenario
Underworld and Forever Knight come to mind here.
I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do. ~D. Dale Gulledge
Fictional evil and fictional good are representative of real-world evil and good. Any fiction worth its salt, while "lies" in the particulars, holds essential truths in its insights and the humanity of characters. In the words of Stephen King, "Kids, fiction is the truth inside the lie."
I don't see my points here being trivial, as you say, since I'm addressing the very real problem of idolizing evil, particularly the idolization of things badly understood and presented.
--
~ Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been would have appeared to them to be otherwise ~
A fiction is "something invented by the imagination or feigned." It MAY be based in an author's point-of-view about reality, or it MAY be something pulled completely from the imagination. Some fiction is meant purely for entertainment, though I agree that some of the best fiction does have a loftier motivation.
In my opinion, the reason that vampire fiction is so popular is that it deals with the dichotomy of humans as both herd animals and predators. The most famous vampire characters in modern literature (Lestat, Angel) are figures that are seeking to retain their human goodness in a world that expects them to be evil. The stories tend to be complex and subtle, with themes of redemption and fear being most common. This is very different from the older icons (like Dracula) who are relatively one-dimensional monsters that reflect the similarly one-dimensional cultural views of their times.
Assuming that you are referring solely to vampires in a fictional sense, your decision to paint them all as "evil" does not really address the breadth of characters in the vampire genre.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.