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

I'm not trying to drive anyone away. There are not many of us here, so we might as well all say what we please. But it honestly does strike me as odd. Even a murderous and amoral peasant can understand the difference between a being who just wants to say hello and maybe offer some good advice (as some Roman pagans maybe expected of their ancestors and household gods); and a being who wants to leave him a lifeless and bloodless corpse by the side of the road. It's about survival in a dangerous world, if nothing else. One hardly need appeal to the highest ideals of the Judeo-Christian ethic to have some basic understanding of the concept of a malevolent spook, as distinct from a benevolent one. I am too old fashioned to have learned the lessons taught by postmodern academia, that I must erase the ancient and cross-cultural concept of "evil" from my mind and vocabulary, on pain of having to endure postmodern lectures. But the ivory tower academics teach doctrines that make sense only in the protected environment of the ivory tower. If they were to emerge from the safe environments of their ivory towers, and encounter real danger, they would have trouble dealing with the idea of an evil bandit -- never mind the evil spook. They would be forced to conceal such concepts behind polysyllabic substitutes, and the bandit would have slit their throats before they got to the fourth syllable.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jan 22 | 11:37AM by Platypus.

d oPlatypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @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.

Yes. Except that I'd refine the part about writing about vampires (and other unsaved undead) being an actual heresy, but it would be *describing* a heresy. I have not enough knowledge about Christian doctrine(s) to know if merely mentioning the existence of a heretical scenario, but not endorsing it, is itself a heresy.

Thanks for sticking with this. I truly appreciate this, although it may at times seem otherwise.

>
> 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.

Agreed. Birds of a feather flock together.

> 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.

Sounds accurate enough for government work.

>
> 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.

I see no more more problem with devout Christians reading about actual historical heresies than reading about vampires. To my current knowledge Christians can read about heresies; the line is drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of heresies.

So the way I see it, it's fine for a mainstream Christian to read about any heresy, so long as they neither practice it, or espouse it.

This may be incorrect: I don't know at this point yet.

> 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.

Right here I'm having troubles with your logic, stated above. I'm seeing it as saying that in order to approve of the stories and the writers ("...like the ghost
> stories and the ghost story writers fine..."), the readers would also have to approve of the events and characters in the story ("...they are only mad at the ghost? Huh? That makes no sense at all.").

I've read many works of fiction that I found admirable in every way, but these works were written by authors for whom I have little personal regard (Mailer would be one). And these same fictional works can contain characters whom I profoundly dislike (..."mad at the ghosts...").

So the content stands apart from like/not like the characters and authors.

So yes, it nakes sense to me, and I'd be surprised if you only liked works that were written only be authors whom you admired, writing about characters you admired.


> 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?

Because reading about a fantastical scenario for pleasure is not the same as encountering the same scenario in actuality. The whole scenario is a "what if?"

It's why we here on ED like to read all these fantasies--what's the French term? Frisson? Frisson is not prohibited, is it? After all, a real, corporeal vampire would concretely demonstrate a heresy, but reading about an imaginary vampire is simply describing a situation that would, if it existed, constitute a heresy. It doesn't--but what if it *did*?

Just like in the film Cloverfield: the invasion would be an existential threat to humanity (frisson) *if it existed*. But it doesn't...so no existential threat in reality.

If simply mentioning a heresy in writing would in fact be heresy, it would be impossible for the church to make a list of heresies to caution the faithful against, the list, itself being a heresy.

>
> 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.

I spent some time last night looking at overviews of various Christian doctrines, and you are correct in saying that none mentions the undead specifically. There is a lot written about what resurrection means, specifically, and when (or if) corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in some denominations the only chance for any kind of resurrection is by accepting that church's doctrine.

Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate that only the saved will be resuurected, with the others being apparently left permanently dead and souless, while yet other denominations think that everyone will be resurrected, all right, and it's not simply so that the saved can enjoy everlasting life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously vindictive, in a way.

So by implication any exceptions to this definition of resurrection would be blasphemous.

Again, I found no doctrinal denial of the possibility of the unsaved undead, but that by strong implication if one were to encounter the unsaved undead it would be evidence of a heresy.

This disproves, for me at least, that my contention that instances of the undead would tend to disprove Christian doctrine. It would not--it would simply be an example of heresy.

>
> 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;

Yes. From my reading last night, this would be how some denominations would view it.

> or
> alternately, perhaps grandpa was not so righteous
> as he supposed and has been sent by the devil from
> the bad place.

In short, a demonic possession or under demonic imperatives.

Many denominations would seem to view this as possible.

>
> 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.

Seems like a reasonable conclusion if you take the scriptures at face value, as representing a consistent reflection of reality.

I'm not going to pry into which sect or denomination you adhere to, but merely note that many sects/denominations would indeed conclude that that representation of Samuel was indeed a fallen angel or demon.

There are many paradoxes in Christianity, that's for sure, starting with the debates about the nature of the trinity.

--Sawfish

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

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin Wrote:
> > That's alright. I am not really that much
> > concerned to press my point further. I'll leave
> > the discussion to you two gentlemen.
>
> I'm not trying to drive anyone away. There are
> not many of us here, so we might as well all say
> what we please. But it honestly does strike me as
> odd. Even a murderous and amoral peasant can
> understand the difference between a being who just
> wants to say hello and maybe offer some good
> advice (as some Roman pagans maybe expected of
> their ancestors and household gods); and a being
> who wants to leave him a lifeless and bloodless
> corpse by the side of the road. It's about
> survival in a dangerous world, if nothing else.
> One hardly need appeal to the highest ideals of
> the Judeo-Christian ethic to have some basic
> understanding of the concept of a malevolent
> spook, as distinct from a benevolent one. I am
> too old fashioned to have learned the lessons
> taught by postmodern academia, that I must erase
> the ancient and cross-cultural concept of "evil"
> from my mind and vocabulary, on pain of having to
> endure postmodern lectures. But the ivory tower
> academics teach doctrines that make sense only in
> the protected environment of the ivory tower. If
> they were to emerge from the safe environments of
> their ivory towers, and encounter real danger,
> they would have trouble dealing with the idea of
> an evil bandit -- never mind the evil spook. They
> would be forced to conceal such concepts behind
> polysyllabic substitutes, and the bandit would
> have slit their throats before they got to the
> fourth syllable.

I can agree with this statement about the actual nature of mankind, that some are good and others are bad. It's probably actually an individual admixture, where the elements of both are in everyone, but which trait (good/bad) is generally ascendant is important.

I like to argue/discuss the finer points of ethics simply as an exercise in metaphysics: where do my own person ethics/morality (and these are probably very much like your own, in many ways) come from?

I'm convinced that they're from my parents, who got them from their parents, all the way back to my Balkan knuckle-dragging hillbilly forebears, and that these values and ethics were the successful behavioral traditions that permitted mutual, group survival.

My behaviors/values allowed my forebears to survive multiple generations within their environment. I'm less certain that if I practice these values in the current social environment, indiscriminately and without qualification, I'd survive and prosper. This is to say that a lot of what I value requires at least the possibility of reciprocal behavior by the others I interact with, and I've found that increasingly, maybe for the last 30 years or so and especially in the last 10, this is getting to be a very risky assumption.

So I practice my values among those who have demonstrated the possibility of reciprocity (a woefully small group!) and with everyone else it's ad hoc.

I'm not happy about this, but I'm determined to make it thru intact.

--Sawfish

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 27 Jan 22 | 12:39PM by Sawfish.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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.


Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the vampire is well documented in both literature and film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul finally finds peace.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > 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.
>
>
> Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the
> vampire is well documented in both literature and
> film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul
> finally finds peace.

Quick but significant divergence here...

Everyone knows--or thinks that they do--that unless killed by prescribed means, a vampire lives forever. But what about werewolves? II know that to *kill* one prematurely you have to use certain prescribed means, but if these are not employed, would a werewolf, too, live forever?

--Sawfish

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

The "evil" of the vampire lies in its inability to connect with others. Since it cannot receive and share with others, it knows no other way than to take. Deep down it is a tragic position.

After Ninety Years by Milovan Glišić.

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------
> I see no more more problem with devout Christians
> reading about actual historical heresies than
> reading about vampires. To my current knowledge
> Christians can read about heresies; the line is
> drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of
> heresies.

Sure. Well, let me put it this way. If an actual revenant were a heresy (which I don't really agree with, but some might), and if a story were to portray a demon pretending to be a revenant, that would be analogous to a story describing a heresy without actually endorsing the heresy (the demon is a heretic and the demon is lying). And, perhaps, if a story were to feature an apparition, without exploring the question of the nature of the apparition (demon or revenant) that might not be so bad either. And this could be a factor in the Western tradition of the evil spook.

Do you think that's close enough to a meeting of the minds that we can handwave the rest?


> I spent some time last night looking at overviews
> of various Christian doctrines, and you are
> correct in saying that none mentions the undead
> specifically. There is a lot written about what
> resurrection means, specifically, and when (or if)
> corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in some
> denominations the only chance for any kind of
> resurrection is by accepting that church's
> doctrine.
>
> Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate that
> only the saved will be resuurected, with the
> others being apparently left permanently dead and
> souless, while yet other denominations think that
> everyone will be resurrected, all right, and it's
> not simply so that the saved can enjoy everlasting
> life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get
> their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously
> vindictive, in a way.
>
> So by implication any exceptions to this
> definition of resurrection would be blasphemous.

This logic seems to ignore the idea that the Day of Judgment is still to come. What if ghosts and demons (and evil bandits) could roam the world before Judgment Day, but were confined to Hell afterwards? But I guess that's okay. Because many do indeed often forget that the Day of Judgment is supposed to be in the future, when they discuss such issues. So I won't deny any possibility that such logic could effect Western cultural thinking on spooks.

> I'm not going to pry into which sect or
> denomination you adhere to, but merely note that
> many sects/denominations would indeed conclude
> that that representation of Samuel was indeed a
> fallen angel or demon.

I am Roman Catholic, which is one of the more conservative denominations. Many Protestant demoninations seem to take pride in having attitides toward the supernatural that are more modern and up-to-date. Since you got me curious, I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft contains the following:

In the Holy Scripture references to witchcraft are frequent, and the strong condemnations of such practices which we read there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of fraud as upon the "abomination" of the magic in itself. (See Deuteronomy 18:11-12; Exodus 22:18, "wizards thou shalt not suffer to live" — A.V. "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".) The whole narrative of Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (1 Samuel 28) implies the reality of the witch's evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon them", we should naturally infer that the divining spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same impression (Galatians 5:20, compared with Apocalypse 21:8; 22:15; and Acts 8:9; 13:6). Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an idle superstition, it would be strange that the suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of these practices only lay in the pretending to the possession of powers which did not really exist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 10:42AM by Platypus.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Platypus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > 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.
>
> Shortly, I think the pain and suffering of the
> vampire is well documented in both literature and
> film. It is only by being destroyed that its soul
> finally finds peace.

I would not say that that idea is particularly well documented. The goal of 18th-century vampire hunters was to stop vampires from murdering people, and not to do the vampires themselves any particular favors.

Moving into the 19th century, which is when most Vampire literature begins:

I know of only 2 references to vampires being set free by destruction: (1) Thalaba's wife in THALABA THE DESTROYER; and (2) Mina's speculations about Dracula in DRACULA. In Thalaba, the wife's soul is apparently set free by the slaying of her demon-possessed corpse. But what about the poor demon? For all I know, perhaps the poor fellow is having as much fun as he has had for the last 30,000 years, and is now being sent back to a place of torment and confinement. Mina's kind thoughts about Dracula are a bit atypical, since most of the other heroes understandably view him as simply a monster who must be destroyed; and her idea that his soul will be set free is rendered dubious by the many hints that he was (perhaps unlike Lucy) plenty wicked in life as well.

In CARMILLA, it is said (by the first Baron Vordenburg) that the vampire's soul will NOT be set free by destruction, but propelled to an even more horrible state of existence. The first time I read this, I assumed that Le Fanu was hinting at the flames of hell. But I now suspect that maybe Le Fanu had something more specific in mind, and that destroyed vampires might become moon-phantoms (such as the hag who attacked the sailor, or perhaps the various members of Carmilla's mysterious moonlit entourage). For the Blood is the Life, by F. Marion Crawford (early 20th century) also features a destroyed vampire who survives as an almost powerless moon-phantom.

Polidori's Lord Ruthven is never successfully destroyed. I have read only parts of Varney. I have heard said, that he is the original "sympathetic" vampire, in the sense of having opportunities to present his own point of view.

I don't recall 19th century texts, or early 20th century texts, focusing on the pain and suffering of the Undead. Carmilla is compared to an "epicure" -- that is, a person who derives pleasure from savoring her food. She is also, however, implied to be acting under a compulsion. As for pain, she seems to derive pain from Christian hymns. Which, I suppose, proves either that Carmilla is evil or that Christian hymns are evil, depending on your point of view. The rationale of the vampire-hunters for destroying her is clear -- they are avenging the death of loved ones and executing her for murder. The first Baron Vordenburg, who loved Carmilla and was unwilling to propel her into a more horrible state of existence, balked at doing what needed to be done, causing the deaths of many. But even he repented toward the end of his life, and left a memorandum that his descendant was able to follow

One 19th century text where ghosts are explicitly said to be in torment is THE TURN OF THE SCREW (1898), by Henry James. Quint and Jessell are explicitly said to be experiencing the torments of the damned and driven by a desire to drag others into the same misery (an idea that can certainly be extended into vampire lore). However, there is no prospect in this story of releasing or rescuing the damned souls of Quint and Jessell. Rather, it is the souls of the Children that the governess tries to save, with dubious success.

It is largely modern vampires (mid 20th century onwards) that focus on vampiric suffering, and this often coincides with a tendency to no longer regard them as evil. Not that the ideas are necessarily inconsistent. The old gothic horror serial DARK SHADOWS largely managed to balance the sympathy and wickedness of Barnabas Collins. But it seems an unfortunate fact of human nature, at least in modern times, that if you allow the monster to present his own point of view, half the viewers/readers/fans are going to side with the monster.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 01:38PM by Platypus.

The Sojourner of Worlds Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After Ninety Years by Milovan Glišić.

Thank you for this. I had never heard of it, which is perhaps not surprising, as it was not translated from Serbian until 2015, though it was I understand written in 1880.

I managed to read a summary. It contains some elements I was familiar with. It seems in some ways to echo the story of the Vampire of Liebava, which Calmet reported in the second edition of his treatise, and which Le Fanu adapted into CARMILLA as the account of the Moravian traveler. The use of a black horse to detect vampires was also reported by Calmet, on the report of a French officer who observed such proceedings in Wallachia.

I'm not too familiar with the butterfly tradition. I was just discussing with Knygatin whether a vampire is necessarily released when it dies. This story seems to be another example of the vampires evil spirit not being destroyed, but rather being reduced to a less powerful state, rather like Sauron at the end of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

-- AN EVENING'S ENTERTAINMENT (1925) by M.R. Jaimes, a pagan sorcerer is murdered by his assistant, who then commits suicide. They two are buried at a crossroads, as it is judged they cannot be buried in the churchyard. The grandma telling the story tells the children that it is perhaps not surprising that such dead should walk, given the way they lived their lives.

Sawfish Wrote:
> Quick but significant divergence here...
>
> Everyone knows--or thinks that they do--that
> unless killed by prescribed means, a vampire lives
> forever. But what about werewolves? II know that
> to *kill* one prematurely you have to use certain
> prescribed means, but if these are not employed,
> would a werewolf, too, live forever?

Unclear. A werewolf is a shapeshifter, whose other form is a wolf, as the word implies. There is not necessarily any other defining characteristic.

In French lore, a werewolf is likely to be a sorcerer, who has made a pact with the devil. I suspect, though, that the Hollywood idea of a werewolf as a disease transmissible by bite, is also not entirely devoid of basis in folklore, though I have not yet tried to trace this tradition. The real-world basis for such beliefs might be the effects of rabies (hydrophobia) on humans, which I understand is almost always fatal, but which can be preceded by madness and violence.

Sorcerers, like suicides, may return as vampires after their death. It would make sense if a werewolf-sorcerer would also return as a vampire. Would he retain his shapeshifting powers in undeath? Dracula is the earliest story that I know of a vampire who is also a werewolf, though of course CARMILLA, who was earlier, was a vampire who take the form of a back panther.

THE SHUNNED HOUSE, by HP Lovecraft, combines the many traditions. His vampire emanates from the corpse of a Frenchman who, in life, was reputed to be a sorcerer and a werewolf. Moreover, his victims often go mad, and acquire wolflike characteristics before death, which invokes the idea that a werewolf's bite is transmissible.

Insofar as I can tell, the tradition about silver bullets is not necessarily specific to werewolves, but applies to witches and sorcerers generally. In THE BOOK OF WEREWOLVES by Sabine Baring-Gould, he recounts an incident where a man loads his firearm with a silver button and fires it at two cats who he evidently suspects are witches. THE WOLF-LEADER by Alexandre Dumas references the use of silver bullets against a wolf believed to be demonic, and is the earliest reference I know of silver bullets specifically in relation to werewolves.

Then there is the demonic ghoul, who is immortal by virtue of the fact that it was never human to begin with. In Middle Eastern folklore, its animal shape is likely to be that of the striped hyena, whose vocalizations and maned head can seem eerily human in the right circumstances, and who shares the ghoul's habit of digging up dead bodies. The ghoulish werewolf in THE PHANTOM SHIP is possibly a monster of this type, but, since it is a habitant of Europe rather than the Mid East, it is only natural that it's alternate form would be a wolf.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Jan 22 | 06:31PM by Platypus.

Quote:

I'm not too familiar with the butterfly tradition. I was just discussing with Knygatin whether a vampire is necessarily released when it dies. This story seems to be another example of the vampires evil spirit not being destroyed, but rather being reduced to a less powerful state, rather like Sauron at the end of THE LORD OF THE RINGS.

It's hard to make sense of this stuff because traditions tend to erode with time and you end up with a bunch of seemingly random and unrelated practices.

For instance, in my village when a person dies their coffin is placed on top of a table somewhere inside their house where it's supposed to spend the night before the funeral. Sounds random, right? Well, not really, because later you hear that in some other parts of Serbia they add a bucket of water underneath the table so that the spirit can move into it. Afterwards, you're supposed to empty the bucket into running water. Better yet, an obviously related ritual follows even when cutting down certain trees, probably oaks or something, except this time it's the spirit of the tree that moves to the bucket before being sent back to brooks and rivers. This also provides some clues as to why certain traditions forbid vampires from crossing running water.

It could all just be a Slavic thing, of course, but I like to believe that it goes back even further, back to when our Indo-European ancestors were still just fishermen from Volga and Dnieper and before the horse, the wheel and the wagon turned them into conquerors. Back then, rivers were the source of food and therefore life for them while seas were distant legends, if not the very domain of the dead.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> -------------------
> > I see no more more problem with devout
> Christians
> > reading about actual historical heresies than
> > reading about vampires. To my current knowledge
> > Christians can read about heresies; the line is
> > drawn at practicing or perhaps approving of
> > heresies.
>
> Sure. Well, let me put it this way. If an actual
> revenant were a heresy (which I don't really agree
> with, but some might), and if a story were to
> portray a demon pretending to be a revenant, that
> would be analogous to a story describing a heresy
> without actually endorsing the heresy (the demon
> is a heretic and the demon is lying). And,
> perhaps, if a story were to feature an apparition,
> without exploring the question of the nature of
> the apparition (demon or revenant) that might not
> be so bad either. And this could be a factor in
> the Western tradition of the evil spook.
>
> Do you think that's close enough to a meeting of
> the minds that we can handwave the rest?

Yes, close enough.

Where we may be philosophically out of sync is that I sense that you may think it possible to passively commit heresy simply by observing it. Perhaps there's a duty to intervene--I don't know.

But for me, it's hard to think of an instance where one can be a passive heretic; I see the key as actively and knowingly committing a heresy.

This is why I see both the author and the reader of not only tales of the undead (if in fact the undead are a heresy) but actual heresies, like an examination of Arianism, as OK, permitted.

But practice or sincere espousal of Arianism would be a heresy in fact.

>
>
> > I spent some time last night looking at
> overviews
> > of various Christian doctrines, and you are
> > correct in saying that none mentions the undead
> > specifically. There is a lot written about what
> > resurrection means, specifically, and when (or
> if)
> > corporeal bodies will be resurrected, and in
> some
> > denominations the only chance for any kind of
> > resurrection is by accepting that church's
> > doctrine.
> >
> > Interesgtingly, some denominations postulate
> that
> > only the saved will be resuurected, with the
> > others being apparently left permanently dead
> and
> > souless, while yet other denominations think
> that
> > everyone will be resurrected, all right, and
> it's
> > not simply so that the saved can enjoy
> everlasting
> > life and bliss, but so that the unsaved can get
> > their just comeuppance. Kinda humorously
> > vindictive, in a way.
> >
> > So by implication any exceptions to this
> > definition of resurrection would be
> blasphemous.
>
> This logic seems to ignore the idea that the Day
> of Judgment is still to come. What if ghosts and
> demons (and evil bandits) could roam the world
> before Judgment Day, but were confined to Hell
> afterwards? But I guess that's okay.

I'd expect that the actual appearance of the undead prior to Judgement Day to be an overt signal of heresy.

Alternately, it could be the first signal that today, right now, *is* Judgement Day...gulp!

> Because
> many do indeed often forget that the Day of
> Judgment is supposed to be in the future, when
> they discuss such issues. So I won't deny any
> possibility that such logic could effect Western
> cultural thinking on spooks.

Sounds fine.

In skimming over the ideas of resurrection I saw where at least one sect thinks there'll be *two* (count 'em...two) Judgement Days.

>
> > I'm not going to pry into which sect or
> > denomination you adhere to, but merely note
> that
> > many sects/denominations would indeed conclude
> > that that representation of Samuel was indeed a
> > fallen angel or demon.
>
> I am Roman Catholic, which is one of the more
> conservative denominations.

My understanding of Eastern Orthodoxy is that it's quite conservative; I believe that this cultural influence permeated my paternal and maternal lineages, and it's probably why I find so many current social beliefs and practices extremely repellent right from the get-go.

Homosexual marriage?

Not really "marriage" as I understand it...

Gender self-identification?

What won't they think of next?

I think these attitudes I have are damned near hard-wired.

> Many Protestant
> demoninations seem to take pride in having
> attitides toward the supernatural that are more
> modern and up-to-date. Since you got me curious,
> I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on
> the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft
> contains the following:
>
> In the Holy Scripture references to witchcraft are
> frequent, and the strong condemnations of such
> practices which we read there do not seem to be
> based so much upon the supposition of fraud as
> upon the "abomination" of the magic in itself.

That's what I labeled as "heresy"--perhaps inaccurately.


> (See Deuteronomy 18:11-12; Exodus 22:18, "wizards
> thou shalt not suffer to live" — A.V. "Thou
> shalt not suffer a witch to live".) The whole
> narrative of Saul's visit to the witch of Endor (1
> Samuel 28) implies the reality of the witch's
> evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from
> Leviticus 20:27: "A man or woman in whom there is
> a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them
> die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon
> them", we should naturally infer that the divining
> spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions
> of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same
> impression (Galatians 5:20, compared with
> Apocalypse 21:8; 22:15; and Acts 8:9; 13:6).
> Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of
> these practices only lay in the pretending to the
> possession of powers which did not really exist.

Yes, I've come to see it that way, also, in that while there may be no direct prohibition, mere mention of undead in a negative light implies their existence. If they did not exist and hence were not a problem, why mention them, at all?

--Sawfish

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

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked this up in the Catholic Encyclopedia on
> the New Advent website. The article on Witchcraft
> contains the following:
>
> ...
> Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an
> idle superstition, it would be strange that the
> suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of
> these practices only lay in the pretending to the
> possession of powers which did not really exist.

Not really. Christianity uses fear and guilt associations to manipulate and control people.