It's always good to have someone explain everyone else what you just said, when it's right there in the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?

It's how straw men are made.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's always good to have someone explain everyone
> else what you just said, when it's right there in
> the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?
>
> It's how straw men are made.

I'm sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your position. But, as I have already said, I don't think I understand your position.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good" and
> "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> interpretations.

"Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only as old as the English language, with origins traceable to similar words used by Germanic pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient Christianity, are much older languages. And their words for "good" and "evil" were the same words used by the Greek and Roman pagans.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 10:29PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good"
> and
> > "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> > interpretations.
>
> "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only
> as old as the English language, with origins
> traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient
> Christianity, are much older languages. And their
> words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> used by the Greek and Roman pagans.

It may well go far back, but I still don't see "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based interpretations by the outside observer, not by the victim itself. What I call "pain", the isolation within a body of matter, often results in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain imagined advantage for itself, that may cause suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it as "evil". Likewise, an individual who has broken his isolation and unites with other life, experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with others, not in conflict, and therefore the others sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not core interpretations of the existential issue.

Knygatin Wrote:
> It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> isolation within a body of matter, often results
> in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> as "evil". Likewise, an individual who has broken
> his isolation and unites with other life,
> experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with
> others, not in conflict, and therefore the others
> sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not
> core interpretations of the existential issue.

Well, in the vampire lore that arose in the late 17th and early 18th centuries, I don't know how many people had any opinions on to what extent vampires experienced "pain" or "delight". And if anyone were to suggest that vampires were driven to break their isolation and unite with other life, that would at least seem highly plausible to many. In those pre-Anne-Rice days, vampires were not then known for giving long introspective monologues to interviewers.

Rather, what people understood or supposed was that vampires, if not stopped, would murder their own children, wipe out their entire families, and then perhaps go on to wipe out an entire village, spreading death like a contagion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 08:11AM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's always good to have someone explain
> everyone
> > else what you just said, when it's right there
> in
> > the thread for everyone to see, isn't it?
> >
> > It's how straw men are made.
>
> I'm sorry if you feel I have misrepresented your
> position. But, as I have already said, I don't
> think I understand your position.

All the more reason not to rephrase it, do you agree?

It's never, ever, ever a good idea to paraphrase another's statements *if those statements as easily accessible and available to the discussion*. It smacks of a crude attempt at manipulation, and manipulation under those circumstances implies an unwillingness to engage in an honest and open discussion.

...and the reasons for *that* are often in defense of an otherwise indefensible position, to which one is irrationally attached.

This is why I took great, great pains to quote your statements, and ask for your clarification. I didn't presume to tell you what your ideas are. I did this repeatedly in our exchange, you'll note.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to superstitious fear of a conscious God and of "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an independent real supernatural force.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 10:35AM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Yes I think so, but I would not call it
> "good"
> > and
> > > "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian
> value
> > > interpretations.
> >
> > "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are
> only
> > as old as the English language, with origins
> > traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> > pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of
> ancient
> > Christianity, are much older languages. And
> their
> > words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> > used by the Greek and Roman pagans.
>
> It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> isolation within a body of matter, often results
> in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> as "evil".

Agreed. Another word they might use is "wrong" (as opposed to "right"). "Unethical" might come up, too.

Yet your close friend might see it at worst as a morally neutral, and you, yourself, may see it as entirely appropriate and justified. At precisely the same time that the sufferer--and *his* friends--have damned you as evil.

(BTW, if you feel *guilt* over these actions, it would seem to mean that you, yourself, recognize the actions that caused suffering as wrong or evil. But if you do not so recognize it, no amount of external social pressure will succeed in making you feel guilty--you can be forced to show repentance or culpability in some fashion, but with hidden resentment and a desire for revenge. At least that's the way I see it.

The whole area of good/bad, right/wrong, moral/immoral is tribal in nature. It is, above all, situational.

Now from this perspective it might sound like I'm suggesting that morals, being not much more than the accepted social conventions of your group or tribe, are objectively interchangeable--and maybe they are--but me, I'm a subjective being, at core, and I have never yet met a person who is not.

This means that I still have my own set of morals, and my ideas of good/bad, and I try hard to stick to them, but mainly for myself: it's an attempt to be true to myself. I am content to live in the knowledge that my own code is subjective and binding upon only myself and others who ascribe to it, as are the codes of all others, whether they see it this way or not.

And if it comes to a contest of whose code is correct, it's resolved by power or by deep affection.

What's more--and perhaps ironic--is that my set of moral/ethical standards is shared by many others--I'm pretty conventional, except for possibility seeing that my own morals have no currency outside of my own group or tribe. They are not absolute, as if given from above. Many, many others seem to think that a sort of divine authority gives their set of morals ascendancy over all others. They may be nice about it, but in actuality it's simply patronizing.

> Likewise, an individual who has broken
> his isolation and unites with other life,
> experiencing "delight", acts in harmony with
> others, not in conflict, and therefore the others
> sees it as "good". But "evil" and "good" are not
> core interpretations of the existential issue.

What do you see as at the core of existential issues, K? For me, it always gets back to survival/success. In fact, as I see it, "success" within this context simply means at what relative level do you survive, with bare subsistence at one end of this scale, and gross and gratuitous consumption at the other.

None of these observations do I espouse as right or correct. All I can say is that after a lifetime of observing, reading, and above all attempting to economically account for what I've seen/experienced/been made aware of. My working conclusions represent the identification of trends, not absolutes.

In short, it's not necessarily "right", but it is the way to bet... ;^)

Do you wish to branch off into "empathy", and what it seems to be, and how it works? For example, do you see empathy as unqualified, not requiring reciprocity, or at least recognition of one's empathy?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.)

I'm superstitious as hell.

It sorta gets down to a fear of tempting fate; I don't tend to think I can induce good luck, but I might invite bad luck, so I do a bunch of really silly things--and laugh about it with my wife.

But I still do them.

> Just as
> Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> independent real supernatural force.

If the old truism about the victors writing history is true, and if there actually was a war in heaven, after which Satan and his supporters were cast from heaven, then that would explain the Bible, wouldn't it?

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sawfish Wrote:
> All the more reason not to rephrase it, do you
> agree?
>
> It's never, ever, ever a good idea to paraphrase
> another's statements *if those statements as
> easily accessible and available to the
> discussion*. It smacks of a crude attempt at
> manipulation, and manipulation under those
> circumstances implies an unwillingness to engage
> in an honest and open discussion.
>
> ...and the reasons for *that* are often in defense
> of an otherwise indefensible position, to which
> one is irrationally attached.
>
> This is why I took great, great pains to quote
> your statements, and ask for your clarification. I
> didn't presume to tell you what your ideas are. I
> did this repeatedly in our exchange, you'll note.

No, I can't bring myself to agree that it is never, ever a good idea to attempt to express another person's ideas in your own words, to the extent that you can understand them.

Yes, it would be bad if I did so as part of a deliberate attempt to misrepresent your position. But I won't plead guilty to any such thing.

I merely made an attempt at a concise restatement of what it was I understood you to be saying, and why I objected to it. And if what I was objecting to was an illusion caused by my own misunderstanding, perhaps that is something that needs to be cleared up.

If you want to accuse me of being too ornery and argumentative, I might plead guilty to that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 12:02PM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as
> Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> independent real supernatural force.

When I started this thread, I was hoping for more talk about evil spooks, and less talk about how y'all are sophisticated adults, who of course do not take such seriously such primitive notions as spooks and moral concepts. Oh well.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Platypus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > "Good" and "evil" are English words, and are only
> > > as old as the English language, with origins
> > > traceable to similar words used by Germanic
> > > pagans. Greek and Latin, the tongues of ancient
> > > Christianity, are much older languages. And their
> > > words for "good" and "evil" were the same words
> > > used by the Greek and Roman pagans.
> >
> > It may well go far back, but I still don't see
> > "good" and "evil" as fully correct terms, because
> > it is easy, shallow, emotionally or socially based
> > interpretations by the outside observer, not by
> > the victim itself. What I call "pain", the
> > isolation within a body of matter, often results
> > in a lack of empathy for others, and therefore
> > egoistic and possibly cruel behavior to gain
> > imagined advantage for itself, that may cause
> > suffering to others. Therefore others interpret it
> > as "evil".
>
>
> Agreed. Another word they might use is "wrong" (as
> opposed to "right"). "Unethical" might come up,
> too.
>

Exactly. And even if society has moved towards materialistic secularization, this still remains the Christian underpinning by which those in control are able to enforce political correctness onto people of Western society.

> What do you see as at the core of existential
> issues, K? For me, it always gets back to
> survival/success. In fact, as I see it, "success"
> within this context simply means at what relative
> level do you survive, with bare subsistence at one
> end of this scale, and gross and gratuitous
> consumption at the other.
>
>

Yes, I think it could be described from that perspective, if that also includes social success, not just material success.

I see the existential core as the struggle between the isolated pain of duality and the delight of unity. The striving for survival and success in life, may be more or less successful in attaining delight of unity. Working, inventing, and creating, may also be a delight in itself, as it makes you part of something bigger than yourself.

OK. I missed this response.

My apologies where they are due.

Below:

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > Oh, I'll definitely own up to diverging
> sometimes,
> > or broadening the discussion. And I wouldn't be
> > the only one on ED to do this.
>
> It's fine. You're the only one talking to me, so
> why not? I can still be a bit confused as to
> where you are coming from.
>
> > But let's see what your original topic was. In
> > your original post you introduced two potential
> > areas for EDers to respond to:
> >
> > Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a
> near-universal
> > tendency across all cultures. And there is a
> thin
> > line between fearing the dead and regarding
> them
> > as wicked.
> >
> > This looks like your thesis, and this the the
> area
> > that I'm responding to.
> >
> > Then you narrowed the statement somewhat,
> focusing
> > on Judeo-Christian views of the topic.
>
> It seems to be more that latter idea that you are
> responding to. Which is okay of course.
>
> > This in turn was followed by an admirably long
> > list of stories you've read that concern the
> > topic, in your judgement. These are very
> valuable
> > because they point to some works that may be of
> > interest.
>
> Thank you muchly.
>
> > Then after the list you ask for additions to
> the
> > list, with special emphasis on CAS. Since I had
> > nothing to contribute to the list, and the
> thesis
> > was of interest, that's what I addressed and am
> > still attempting to address.
>
> All fine and good, so far. I'm not confused yet.
>
> > I have no interest or intention to go
> elsewhere.
> >
> > Again, the topic is yours:
> >
> > Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a
> near-universal
> > tendency across all cultures. And there is a
> thin
> > line between fearing the dead and regarding
> them
> > as wicked.
> >
> > I'm agreeing with you that it's a "near
> universal
> > tendency", ....
>
> I am certainly happy to agree on the things we
> agree about.
>
>
> > ... speculating *why* this is across all
> > religions and cultures, ....
>
> This is I suppose where you begin to confuse me.
>
> > ... then adding an overlay
> > that speculates doctrinal reasons that
> > Christianity might use to reinforce this, and
> this
> > is an attempt to monopolize the means to life
> > after death. So that Christians would have at
> > least two distinct rationales for supposing
> that
> > the undead were certainly unnatural and
> possibly
> > evil: the shared of experience of the rest of
> > mankind that the dead do not walk the earth,
> and
> > added implications that the existence of the
> > undead are an attack on the certainty that
> Jesus
> > Christ is the sole means of life after death.
>
> The question I was asking was: Is a Christian
> culture more likely to regard the undead (ghosts,
> vampires, etc.) as malevolent, and, if so why?
>
> The question you seem to be asking is: Does a
> Christian culture hate tales of the undead as
> blasphemous, heretical and contrary to Christian
> Faith, and if so, why?

Not exactly. I've never stated or implied a hate or revulsion of the tales as blasphemous--your version implies that the hatred is directed at the tales. I never mentioned tales in any context, so far as I recall. I'm dealing with the *concept* of the undead, as understood by Christians, just as it's understood by everyone else, but with an additional layer of revulsion as informed by docrine.


Honestly, I don't see where I ever made this into a hatred of published blasphemy. I'm postulating a fear (not necessarily hatred) of the undead on two levels:

1) That they are uncanny and outside of the realm of normal experience. Note that this is the same criterion shared by all other human groups that fear the undead.

2) The existence of the undead *looks* like a resurrection, and the only possibility of resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus. Therefore, it presents a problem to the common Christian: if I see an instance of what appears to be a resurrected corpse, does this invalidate what I've been taught as a Christian--that there is NO possibility of any resurrection except by act of God (Jesus)?

If the existence of the undead casts doubt on conventional teachings (doctrine), it would seem heretical, blasphemous, to the devout Christian.

You'll also recall that I asked for any instances of mainstream Christian doctrine that recognized any other method of resurrection than by Jesus's salvation, or even the possibility that such a resurrected entity could exist.

I don't recall that you could recommend any, so for now there ae no such references; it helps me to refine my ideas on this.

And if we find any, that, too, will help me to fine my ideas, but along different lines.

You did supply a list of implied support, but while writers or even ecclesiastics can have an opinion on any of this, I don't consider this to be doctrine unless it's formally incorporated by a church. That was the line I was looking for: does it exist in doctrine?

>
> I am still not sure of the answer to my question,
> but I can answer yours easily. Christian culture
> is not, for the most part, opposed to tales of the
> undead.

I've never asked what Christians think about tales or discussion of the undead. I always thought we were talking about the response to the concept of the actual existence of the undead: what would this imply, from the perspective of Christian cosmology?

> You are trying to solve a problem that
> does not exist.

...and that I never asked about.

> Sure, there may well be a few
> Christians here and there who regard ghost stories
> as blasphemous, and believers in ghost stories as
> heretics. But such persons are not particularly
> relevant to this thread for the obvious reason
> that they do not read or write ghost stories.
> Christian culture has produced a huge array of
> ghost stories and vampire stories.


OK, but this was never under discussion, so far as I recall. The only injection of literature was your inclusion of a list of tales and authors.

>
> > Further, I state that materialists would not be
> > swayed by these doctrinal arguments because
> they
> > don't tend to believe in life after death--the
> > implication being that while they may share the
> > common revulsion of the undead (completely
> uncanny
> > and against all experience..."unnatural"), they
> > disregard the Christian overlay.
>
> Sure. Materialists are free to disregard whatever
> Christian overlays exist. But in this case the
> Christian overlay you refer to does not seem to
> exist, at least not in the mind of those
> Christians who have produced a huge array of
> English language ghost stories.

To remind you: the overlay is the intellectual response to the idea of hypothetical instances of the undead, as it interfaces with Christian doctrine.

The overlay is NOT a resistance to tales of the supernatural.

BTW, you're now using the term "ghost stories". Are we now broadening the discussion to include ghosts as well as the corporeal undead--tangible zombies, and the like?


>
> > There. Does that help to refocus on your stated
> > topic? There seems to be no need to inject
> > comparative religions, or speculate about how a
> > materialist author can write about the
> > supernatural, does there?
>
> I certainly don't see the need. When a
> materialist writes a ghost story, he sets aside
> his materialism, and falls back on whatever
> Christian, Pagan, or other superstitions he wishes
> to use as inspiration.

Agreed. To him it's a job, whereas to a spiritualist it may be much more than that.

> The question I was asking
> is whether the Christian-culture attitude towards
> spooks differs from other NON-MATERIALIST
> traditions.


Yes, and I addressed this with the two-layer model a couple of times, at least.


> But it would seem hard to compare
> different traditions, since it is Western culture
> that has produced the vastest body of spooky
> literature.

In detailed description, yes. Most other references are by traditional tales/beliefs, written or otherwise.

>
> > That was exactly my point all along with the
> base
> > case of all cultures/religions, then the
> overlay
> > of the Christian doctrine of salvation. The
> > overlay is the "particular horror" of which you
> > speak.
>
> Right. But again, if my hypothesis is correct,
> the task is to explain why Christian-derived
> culture is more likely to regard the revenant as
> evil, and not why it should be regarded as
> non-existent.

My point was that Christianity might regard the existence of the resurrected corpse as contrary to the will of God, as described in doctrine. This is because, if it's as I current suspect, no mainstream Christian doctrine recognizes the possibility of any form of resurrection other than that promised by Christian salvation. It's mere existence would then call the doctrine into question, and no church I'm aware of tolerates much of this sort of doubt.

>
> > How do "real" and "normal" relate in this
> context?
> > E,g,, I see no logical problem with something
> that
> > is both real and abnormal.
>
> Neither do I. I believe it was you who introduced
> the concept of "normality" into the discussion. I
> don't think it matters how rare vampires are.

Didn't you write (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Platypus
Augustin Calmet, a Christian monk, had no great difficulty discussing, from a Christian perspective, the possibility that ghosts and revenants might in some cases be real. I don't think that many people consider ghosts and revenants to be "normal".

and my direct answer was (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Sawfish
How do "real" and "normal" relate in this context? E,g,, I see no logical problem with something that is both real and abnormal.

I believed that I was explicitly asking for what they mean *in the context of your paragraph* about Calmet.

>
> > The main difference between my statement and
> yours
> > is that mine speculates that Christianity views
> it
> > as blasphemous, while you seem to think it's
> more
> > from a sort of uncategorized horror of using
> > improper means.
>
> Seems like an important difference to me. I am
> merely trying to explain why a Christian or
> Christian-influenced writer might be more likely
> to portray the undead as evil. Assuming that is
> even true, and I don't have much evidence for it,
> beyond the vampire-as-sex-god produced the more
> nihilistic and post-modern culture of the late
> 20th century onwards.
>
> You, on the other hand, seem to be trying to
> explain why Christians regard the undead are
> non-existent, and condemn ghost-story writers as
> heretics and blasphemers.

WHOA!!! WHOA!!!

This is all of your own projection. I've never brought any inkling of how anyone, Christian or otherwise, feels about literature and authors. When speaking about Christian response to the undead, I've always made it a point to maintain that if a Christian ever saw an instance of the undead in actuality, he'd have just hell of time accounting for this under any known mainstream Christian doctrine. It might appear to him that either Christianity ignored this possibility, completely, or that Christianity's insistence that resurrection was within the exclusive province of Jesus was in error.

If you really think that I ever stated or implied that Christians either regard the undead as non-existent, or that I ever stated or implied that they condemn any authors of any material as heretics and blasphemers, I would like it very much if you'd quote it and I will address it.

> And that, as far as I'm
> concerned, is just not a problem significant
> enough to be relevant. If it were a problem,
> perhaps your theory would be a plausible
> explanation.

Of course, since that's not even close to what I was stating, your response is irrelevant.

>
> > In anything approaching mainstream Christian
> > doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a
> > substandard" resurrection?
>
> You mean, like a vampire? Vampires seem to be
> largely products of Christian culture.

Doctrine, not folk tradition, even if it's channeled thru literature.

The reason for this is that here is no consistency in folk and literary speculation: they are highly personal and idiosyncratic. Any one can imagine anything at any time. They can write it down as a personal statement of belief, but it's not doctrine.

Doctrine is at least a attempt to state a consistent position, and so it's worth discussing the hypothetical situation of the undead in the context of mainstream Christian doctrine, since it is consistent, and it reflects the actual, and not assumed, theological position.

> I'm not
> sure what you are even asking here. Scripture
> says nothing about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness
> Monster or the Abominable Snowman or the Unicorn
> either, nor even about the Giant Squid or the
> Rhinoceros, but it hardly follows that Christians
> are forbidden to suspect that such things might
> exist. Scripture never mentions Antarctica
> either, as far as I know.

But the existence of any of these does not threaten the core idea that corporeal resurrection can come only thru Jesus. And that's the important and defining part.

>
> > Is this recognized as
> > even a remote possibility?
>
> Recognized by who?

You cut my query substantially. Here it is in a complete form (bold emphasis mine):

Quote:

Sawfish
In anything approaching mainstream Christian doctrine, is there even a possibility of "a substandard" resurrection? Is this recognized as even a remote possibility? What is state of "substandard resurrection" called, so that I can study up on it, for my own enlightenment?

Doctrine.

As I said before, a treatise is a speculation, and anyone can have one. It is not binding on anyone else.

> Calmet, an 18th century
> Catholic monk, wrote a whole book-length treatise
> on the subject of vampires and other spooks. He
> was often quite skeptical, but he at least,
> thought the reality of vampires was a possibility,
> however remote.

Great! Now we're getting somewhere!

What was the basis for his speculation? Was it from a study of doctrine, or was it simply because there is a lot of hearsay evidence over time?

> I already told you that, and you
> don't seem interested,

I requested a reference to doctrine, that you cut out.

> so what are you asking me
> now?

Official church position on the means of resurrection, just as I have from the beginning, but you seem to keep forgetting.


> You can read the entire text on Project
> Gutenberg. I can give you a link, if you are
> interested, but I don't think you are. Maybe you
> want something from the Pope himself? I don't
> know.

I found the link:

The Phantom World; or, The philosophy of spirits, apparitions, &c, &c. by Calmet

I can at least find out for myself how broadly this is accepted, and if it even *approaches* doctrine.

By doctrine, I mean something like a mainstream Christian church's stated official position on marriage, contraception, acts of salvation, etc. I'm looking for a stated stance on how the individual is resurrected.

>
> > What is state of
> > "substandard resurrection" called, so that I
> can
> > study up on it, for my own enlightenment?
>
> You never heard, for instance, the words "vampire"
> or "revenant"? Surely you have. I don't
> understand the question. Scripture does not
> mention vampires, to be sure, but neither does it
> mention Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. It does
> not mention CPR either.
>
> > If it's accurate to say that a core concept of
> > most/all mainstream Christian doctrine is that
> > resurrection is thru the intercession of Jesus,
> > exclusively, any resurrected example that did
> not
> > rely on Jesus' intervention basically proves
> that
> > there are other ways to resurrection: it is
> > therefore not exclusive to Jesus or
> Christianity.
>
> Your logic seems to be that, since Jesus promised
> his followers bodily resurrection through the
> power of God, and eternal life in the Kingdom of
> God, it necessarily follows that he ruled out any
> possibility of animation of a corpse by a
> sorcerer; or animation of a corpse by a demon. I
> don't see that logic.

OK. This is better.

It would then be possible for there to be resurrections that were not via Christ.

Let's see...now I can try to find any doctrine on necromancy. If necromancy is accepted as possible by a mainstream church, mere prohibitions against it would be an elliptical recognition of its possibility.

I could go from there.

>
> Neither did Calmet. He was very pious and very
> learned, and rather skeptical of vampires. If he
> could have resolved the question of vampires with
> a quote from scripture, he would have been happy
> to do so, I am sure. But it seems he was unable
> to find such a quote from scripture. And I don't
> think you will be able to find one either.

I can see your point here, and will be interested in Calmet's thesis.

>
> In any event, a fair number of pious Christian
> authors have not hesitated to include the undead
> in their works of fiction.

Since about the 18th C I would think that they'd be free to write about practices prohibited by doctrine without much fear of consequences. But since it's never been my point who wrote fiction or speculation and what the church or believers thought about their writings, it doesn't matter to me.

It's how the church officially views the possible actual existence of a resurrected corpse without the aid of Jesus that I'm after.

> They may or may not
> have believed such things to be real (probably not
> in most cases), but they at least were not unduly
> concerned that such fictions would result in their
> being accused of promoting blasphemy and heresy.

This has never been any part of my position.

>
> Re: THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S. Lewis
> > Sounds to me more like a personal speculation
> > rather that a statement of doctrine. It would a
> > lot like me trying to write about the direct
> and
> > personal experience of childbirth in which I
> quote
> > another male author as an authority: pure
> > speculation.
>
> I'm only trying to answer your question. I have
> no idea what you are looking for, or why.

Official church policy toward the undead, as we've been discussing them, and not an individual's personal speculation.

That should be clear by now.

>
> > Maybe the problem here is that I was an
> engineer,
> > and I expect a certain testable logic when I
> > examine concepts. Simply listing others who
> accept
> > the untested conclusion in no way replaces the
> > testing process.
>
> I get the impression you want to debate
> philosophy. However, I was only trying to spark a
> discussion about fantasy fiction entertainment.

You also seemed to invite discussion of this:

Quote:

Platypus
Fear of the dead is, I suppose, a near-universal tendency across all cultures. And there is a thin line between fearing the dead and regarding them as wicked.
I’m interested in a slightly narrower idea – the idea that there is, in many cases, a causal connection, or other correlation, between returning from the dead and being evil.

>
> > Maybe I don't actually fit into this forum very
> > well.
>
> No, I would not say that. Maybe I am the poor
> fit, and maybe so is the topic I wanted to
> discuss. But I do get the impression you are not
> really interested in the topic I proposed.

I'm interested in the thesis statement in your first post, as quoted above.

I explained this before.

> But
> you are the only one responding at all at the
> moment, so you might as well say what you please.

--Sawfish

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

@Sawfish. You are hinting at the germ of what might be a valid idea. But I cannot bring myself to agree with the way you are saying it.

First off, you are conflating two different ideas (1) that vampires are in rebellion against God; and (2) that the very existence of vampires is contrary to God's will to the extent that to write about one in a book would be heresy and to actually meet one would be to prove that Christian doctrine is false.

I'm fine with the former idea. There are all sorts of doctrinal and quasi-doctrinal reasons why a Christian might be inclined to suspect that a spook who haunts the living is probably not on the side of the angels. Rebellion against God, by wicked people, wicked kings, wicked fallen angels, and wicked demons, are an accepted part of the Christian worldview. And I see no particular reason why such ideas cannot be extended to wicked fairies and wicked leprechauns and wicked ghouls and wicked ghosts and wicked vampires and wicked Cthulhu monsters. Debate if you want the "problem of evil", but the question of why God allows wicked vampires to exist is not particularly more troublesome than the question of why he allows wicked human murderers to exist. And to state that a spook is in rebellion with God is just another way (in the Christian worldview) of saying that it is evil.

It is when you move to the second idea that you stop making sense. You say that Christians regard vampires are heretical blasphemy disproving Christian doctrine, and, when I assume this means Christians dislike or are hostile to spooky literature, you deny it. They like the ghost stories and the ghost story writers fine, you say, they are only mad at the ghost? Huh? That makes no sense at all. If they no longer believe in Christian doctrine, because the ghost supposedly disproved it simply by appearing, then it makes no sense whatsoever to be mad at the ghost. Why aren't they thanking the ghost by leading them to the Truth?

Also, you cannot argue doctrine from ignorance or silence, like you are doing. Doctrinal theology is a relatively small and manageable subject. It does not address, and makes no attempt to address, every topic under the sun. If you believe that some Christian doctrine proves vampires cannot exist, then it is up to you to produce that quote. Don't challenge me to produce a specific scriptural or doctrinal text explicitly saying that they DO exist. You will also find no specific doctrinal affirmation as to the reality of CPR, of helicopters, of hippopotami, or elephants, or Antarctica, or a zillion other things. God may be the font of all wisdom and all creation, but nobody ever said the same of Doctrinal Theology.

Now for a germ of a possibly valid idea. Suppose a Christian were inclined to suspect, on quasi doctrinal grounds based on the anti-superstition opinions of his particular preacher, that the blessed dead who die at peace with God do not return to visit the living. And let us suppose that then his grandpa, who he believes to have been a good and righteous man, dies at peace with God. Two weeks after grandpa’s death, grandpa appears before this hypothetical Christian. He might be inclined to suspect, in light of what his preacher told him, either that this is not really grandpa at all but a demon in disguise; or alternately, perhaps grandpa was not so righteous as he supposed and has been sent by the devil from the bad place.

This is at least imaginable. There have been some theologians who are so uncomfortable with the idea that the Witch of Endor would have been able to summon Samuel from the dead, that they argue that it was really a demon that she summoned. But that's their problem, as far as I'm concerned. Because if you take the Biblical text at face value, it really does seem that the Witch summoned Samuel, and that God, for whatever reason, allowed it. Which is rather inconvenient for those who like to argue that Christianity is hostile to the very concept of revenants.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26 Jan 22 | 11:59PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Vampires and evil dead panders to primitive fears
> > and superstitions in Man. (I am no better than
> > anyone else; I enjoy this superstition, it is both
> > an aesthetic pleasure as well as tingling our
> > primitive emotions with a fanciful fear.) Just as
> > Christianity (and Judaism, Islam) panders to
> > superstitious fear of a conscious God and of
> > "evil" in the form of Satan existing as an
> > independent real supernatural force.
>
> When I started this thread, I was hoping for more
> talk about evil spooks, and less talk about how
> y'all are sophisticated adults, who of course do
> not take such seriously such primitive notions as
> spooks and moral concepts. Oh well.

That's alright. I am not really that much concerned to press my point further. I'll leave the discussion to you two gentlemen.