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.

This idea may in some way be influenced Jewish and/or Christian religion. First there is the Judeo-Christian belief, founded on the Torah, that necromancy is a forbidden practice. This further suggests that any deliberate attempt to seek out, or contact, or even raise, the spirits of the dead, can only have a bad or tragic result. This is perhaps reinforced by those passage of Christian scripture that suggest that the dead will sleep peacefully until Judgment Day, which may further suggest the thought that, for those dead that don’t sleep in peace, something has perhaps gone rather horribly wrong.

This sentiment may be rationalized in any number of ways. Perhaps the returned dead person is really a demon, disguised as the dead person and inhabiting his corpse. Or perhaps the departed soul, even if not necessarily damned, is temporarily in the grip of Satan, as was often believed to be the case in the case of vampires. Or perhaps the revenant is otherwise suffering under some curse or dire compulsion.

The topic overlaps with my thread on vampires. But is not identical.

A short list of literature exploring this theme in English:

TREATISE ON REVENANTS (1759), by Augustin Calmet, translating his 1746 French edition, discusses an episode where a woman is visited by the spirit of her grandfather, who is ultimately exposed as being the Devil in disguised, resulting in the woman herself becoming possessed. Also in the 2nd edition, translated 1850 under the title of THE PHANTOM WORLD.

THALABA THE DESTROYER (1801): Epic poem, containing an episode in which a man’s wife returns from the dead as a horrible corpse creature, to tempt him to evil and despair. But after the monster is transfixed through the heart, her spirit is set free, and she appears before them crowned in glory, offering hope of salvation.

THE GIAOUR (1813), epic poem by Lord Byron: Features the idea that a mortal who returns as a vampire is cursed by his nature to destroy his own family, including those he loves the most.

WAKE NOT THE DEAD (1823), by Anonymous. In which a man ignores the dire warning that he should not use necromancy to bring back his wife from the grave. The events that follow fully justify the titular moral.

A CHRISTMAS CAROL (1843), by Charles Dickens. In which the ghost of Marley tells Scrooge that his spirit is forced to wander the earth because of his wickedness in life. The implication, in this case, is that these souls of the dead are, if not actually damned, at least in a sort of purgatory.

THE OLD NURSE’S STORY (1852), short story by Elizabeth Gaskell. Featuring the ghost of an innocent child, who, as a ghost, is, at the very least, extremely dangerous to other children.

THE COLD EMBRACE (1860), by Mary E. Braddon. In which it is explained that only suicides and those not at peace with God can come back from the dead.

THE OPEN DOOR (1882), by Mrs. Oliphant. Another story, involving a ghost who is, if not damned, implied to be in a sort of purgatory, and who, if it were at peace with God, would not torment the living.

THE DEATH OF HALPIN FRAYSER (1891), by Ambrose Bierce. In which the mother who loved unconditionally in life assumes a more hateful and deadly aspect in death. Is preceded by the following quote by the apparently fictional author Hali: “For by death is wrought greater change than hath been shown. Whereas in general the spirit that removed cometh back upon occasion, and is sometimes seen of those in flesh (appearing in the form of the body it bore) yet it hath happened that the veritable body without the spirit hath walked. And it is attested of those encountering who have lived to speak thereon that a lich so raised up hath no natural affection, nor remembrance thereof, but only hate. Also, it is known that some spirits which in life were benign become by death evil altogether.”

CARMILLA (1872), novella by L. Sheridan Le Fanu. In which it is explained that vampire infestations are begun by the death of a suicide or other person more-or-less wicked; and has many passages suggesting that vampires act under compulsion, and are not entirely free-willed beings.

THRAWN JANET (1881) short story by R.L. Stevenson. It is hinted that Janet was somewhat wicked in life, but also that, perhaps as a result, in undeath, she has become possessed by the Devil himself.

DRACULA (1897) novel by Bran Stoker. In which Lucy, in particular, has a very different character as a vampire than she did as a living girl, and in which the heroes in destroying her claim to have set her spirit free. This tradition has been carried on in many (but not all) of subsequent vampire literature.

THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST (1897), in Andrew Lang’s PINK FAIRY BOOK, in which a dead girl comes back as a horrendous crypt monster (before finally receiving a more-proper resurrection). A slightly more faithful translation can be found in DANISH FAIRY TALES (1912).

THE MONKEY’S PAW (1904), short story by W.W. Jacobs: In which a son is brought back from the grave. We never find out the dread consequences of this, and the core idea is that you don’t want to find out.

HERBERT WEST: REANIMATOR (1920), short story by H.P. Lovecraft. West’s failed experiments return as monsters, no matter how benevolent they were in life.

MRS. AMWORTH (1922) by E.F. Benson. In which vampirism is explained as a form of demonic possession, which can occur before death, but also allow the corpse to rise after death.

I AM LEGEND (1954), novel by Richard Matheson. In which Matheson sets out to decontruct the idea that the undead (here called “vampires”) are monsters. But he must acknowledge it before he deconstructs it. Despite this and other deconstructions (his vampires are not actually dead, and a host of pseudoscientific explanations are offered for their supernatural qualities), this is probably the original literary prototype for a host of zombie apocalypse movies, starting, perhaps, with Romero’s NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, in 1968.

THE LORD OF THE RINGS (1954), by J.R.R. Tolkien. In which “barrow wights” are said to be corpses inhabited by evil spirits.

‘SALEM’S LOT (1971), by Stephen King. Aggressively old-school take on vampires as inherently monstrous, even when superficially retaining aspects of the mind and memory of their living selves.

THE FAMILY OF THE VOURDALAK (1971) translating a short story by Leo Tolstoy (1838). In which the father, Gorcha, warns his family to take precautions against him should he return as a vourdalak. This clearly indicates, at least in Gorcha’s mind, that he and his vourdalak are in some sense different beings, at least to the extent of having separate goals and desires. Nonetheless, all the vourdalaks of this story seem to have access to aspects of the mind and memory of their living selves.

PET SEMATARY (1983), by Stephen King: A novel which, according to King, was inspired by The Monkey’s Paw. These zombies (if that’s the right word) have mind and memory of their living selves, but something is subtly and horribly wrong. The story has a slow build, where those brought back initially seem relatively benign.

A SONG OF ICE AND FIRE (1991 thru 2011), perpetually unfinished book series by George R.R. Martin. Romero-esque homicidal “ice wights”, who cannot speak, are introduced in the prologue. Later, in book 3, a pair of what we might call “fire wights” appear, the relatively-benign Lord Beric, raised by a priest of the Fire God; and then Catelyn Stark, raised by Lord Beric, who returns from her death at the Red Wedding as the vengeance-mad child-murdering Lady Stoneheart. These wights can talk, and display at least some aspects of their former mind and memory . Later Brienne of Tarth, last seen hanged by Lady Stoneheart, appears at midnight to Jaime, and lures himself off into the woods alone on an obviously false pretext. Jaime then goes missing. An unfinished story is of course a rorschach test on which the reader may project whatever he pleases, but my suspicion at this point is that Brienne and Jaime are now evil undead monsters, whose prior virtues and humanity, if any, are irrelevant to their future role in a developing horror thread of the plot. But in online discussions on certain forums, fans are not only hostile to such ideas – that Jaime and Brienne have become undead, but to the idea that undeath could fundamentally alter anyone’s personality. Even Lady Stoneheart, who is certainly undead, is widely regarded as an understandably-upset woman who just needs a good talking to. They cite Lord Beric as proof that fire wights are not so bad, but I at this point am only thinking of the slow build in PET SEMATARY. I have no idea which of us is right, and it increasingly seems as though future volumes will never tell. But I do wonder if this disagreement reflects the fact that a certain level of fear of the dead has drained out of an increasingly irreligious modern online culture.

--------------------------------------------------x

Any other suggestions books on the list? Note that I am not merely looking for stories about evil ghosts or revenants. For instance, the damned ghosts of Henry James’ THE TURN OF THE SCREW are apparently wicked in death because they were also wicked in life. But the story need not rule out the possibility of benevolent ghosts or revenants, as long as there be a some connection, correlation or causation between undeath and wickedness.

Also, I cannot at the moment think of any examples from the work of CAS. He has a fair number of examples of the wicked dead, but none who can be shown to be any signficantly less wicked in life. Some of his undead are merely puppet servants of sorcerers, rather like Bela Lugosi’s servants in the 1932 film WHITE ZOMBIE. One story that apparently would have met the criteria, judging by its synopsis, is THE YOUNGEST VAMPIRE, had CAS ever gotten around to writing it.

I really must re-read PET SEMATARY someday. Very able handling of the undead. I remember it as my favorite by Stephen King, next to THE STAND.

I want to re-read SALEM'S LOT too, which I for some reason cannot recall anything from. But Tobe Hooper's TV-series adaptation may well be my all-time favorite horror film.

One of the principal differences between Man and the rest of the the animal kingdom is a personal and sophisticated awareness of death, and all that it implies to one's own existence, and one's place in the world.

So when a person dies, regrettable as this is, the natural order, without exception, is that the body remains inanimate and unresponsive, and unless steps to preserve the body are taken, subject to dissolution.

Now, in the vast majority of cases, life is preferred to death, and this is driven by instinct. So the avoidance of death is both a deeply and strongly driven behavior. But ultimately the individual loses (dies), with no apparent exceptions--claims to the contrary as yet unproved--and the expectancy is that the dead stay dead. Again, there are no apparent exceptions, and any such occurrence would be profoundly unnatural and against all expectations.

Totally against nature, in other words.

A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the idea of permanent death--death of the individual ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.

So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal, or otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided. Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved. But in both cases, one must follow the dictates of the religion, otherwise one cannot share in the benefits. This is why in many Christian interpretations, the individual must be "saved" in order to share in life everlasting. We can't very well have all those deceased who failed to toe the line also enjoying the benefits of life everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe revenues.

Given this, any demonstration of life after death is profoundly contrary to the natural order, and hence wrong and perhaps evil.

I wonder if fundamentalist conservative Buddhist traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a timeless state of nothingness, has a less strong reanimation tradition than the western religions.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
> A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the
> idea of permanent death--death of the individual
> ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.
>
> So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal, or
> otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided.
> Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved. But
> in both cases, one must follow the dictates of the
> religion, otherwise one cannot share in the
> benefits.

I would say that "religion" or some form is a near-universal human phenomenon, at least in the sense that, while individuals can perhaps avoid it, cultures cannot. That religions, broadly speaking, say something about life after death, is therefore less interesting to me than what they say about it and how (in this context) how that might affect their attitudes towards the spirits of the dead, or the animated corpses of the dead.

> This is why in many Christian
> interpretations, the individual must be "saved" in
> order to share in life everlasting. We can't very
> well have all those deceased who failed to toe the
> line also enjoying the benefits of life
> everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe
> revenues.

I think you've gone a bit off base here. The idea that Christian doctrines are driven by a desire to limit access to salvation strike me as, at the very least, ahistorical. What was this ancient doctrine of universal salvation that the ancient Christians were rebelling against? Rather the Christians declared that salvation was available to all people, of all nations, and of all social classes, and assured, indeed, that the meek shall inherit. Maybe you have in mind specific Christian sects, some of which have indeed sought to limit the number of the "elect". But still other Christians have given serious consideration to the idea that salvation (eventually, at least) would be universal. One of the latter was George MacDonald, whose writings have had some influence in the history of weird fiction.

But yes, Christians had specific ideas about how salvation was to be obtained. Which of course affected their attitudes towards attempts to obtain salvation by methods that they regarded as inconsistent and improper. For instance, they would be likely to frown on distasteful practices involving mucking around (unnecessarily in their view) with dead bodies, such as the elaborate mummification rites and practices of the Egyptian elites.

And how does Christian doctrine compare to the modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit, but the predator who inherits, at the expense of the vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must be reduced to the level of cattle.

> I wonder if fundamentalist conservative Buddhist
> traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a
> timeless state of nothingness, has a less strong
> reanimation tradition than the western religions.

Yes, the Buddhist approach to the undead would be one of the things I'm interested in. But it is also something that is beyond my expertise. I know some Buddhist traditions have a phenomenon known as "hungry ghosts". But I have little knowledge of stories in this tradition.

Responses below, interleaved...

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > A good part of humanity seeks ways to avoid the
> > idea of permanent death--death of the
> individual
> > ego. This is where religion comes in, I think.
> >
> > So thru adherence to a religion--folk, formal,
> or
> > otherwise--permanent ego death can be avoided.
> > Alternatively, permanent rest can be achieved.
> But
> > in both cases, one must follow the dictates of
> the
> > religion, otherwise one cannot share in the
> > benefits.
>
> I would say that "religion" or some form is a
> near-universal human phenomenon, at least in the
> sense that, while individuals can perhaps avoid
> it, cultures cannot. That religions, broadly
> speaking, say something about life after death, is
> therefore less interesting to me than what they
> say about it and how (in this context) how that
> might affect their attitudes towards the spirits
> of the dead, or the animated corpses of the dead.
>
> > This is why in many Christian
> > interpretations, the individual must be "saved"
> in
> > order to share in life everlasting. We can't
> very
> > well have all those deceased who failed to toe
> the
> > line also enjoying the benefits of life
> > everlasting; it would certainly cut into tithe
> > revenues.
>
> I think you've gone a bit off base here.

A lot of this is simply the logical underpinnings for why I think that religions tend to view the re-animated dead as evil.


> The idea
> that Christian doctrines are driven by a desire to
> limit access to salvation strike me as, at the
> very least, ahistorical. What was this ancient
> doctrine of universal salvation that the ancient
> Christians were rebelling against? Rather the
> Christians declared that salvation was available
> to all people, of all nations, and of all social
> classes, and assured, indeed, that the meek shall
> inherit. Maybe you have in mind specific
> Christian sects, some of which have indeed sought
> to limit the number of the "elect".

No. By my statement I meant that those not included in the practice or worship as deemed correct by any Christian denomination or sect is excluded from some notion of life after death.

It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is largely open to all--this is the basis and justification for evangelism, but unless and until you conform to one of the denominations or sects, the best you can hope for is a sort of non-existence. And *that* was my point.

Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground, such as "well, you don't get to live in permanent bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual torment."

Is the latter conception of salvation contained in any Christian doctrine you are aware of? Possible great reward but no active punishment?

> But still
> other Christians have given serious consideration
> to the idea that salvation (eventually, at least)
> would be universal. One of the latter was George
> MacDonald, whose writings have had some influence
> in the history of weird fiction.

Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared by any recognized denomination or sect?

>
> But yes, Christians had specific ideas about how
> salvation was to be obtained. Which of course
> affected their attitudes towards attempts to
> obtain salvation by methods that they regarded as
> inconsistent and improper. For instance, they
> would be likely to frown on distasteful practices
> involving mucking around (unnecessarily in their
> view) with dead bodies, such as the elaborate
> mummification rites and practices of the Egyptian
> elites.

Too costly, as well. May have been something of a status symbol for the survivors.

>
> And how does Christian doctrine compare to the
> modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal sex
> god? Here it is not the meek who inherit, but the
> predator who inherits, at the expense of the vast
> bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must be
> reduced to the level of cattle.

Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it? Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian, where all the dead are equally miserable and corrupted.

>
> > I wonder if fundamentalist conservative
> Buddhist
> > traditions, with the idea of nirvana being a
> > timeless state of nothingness, has a less
> strong
> > reanimation tradition than the western
> religions.
>
> Yes, the Buddhist approach to the undead would be
> one of the things I'm interested in. But it is
> also something that is beyond my expertise. I
> know some Buddhist traditions have a phenomenon
> known as "hungry ghosts". But I have little
> knowledge of stories in this tradition.

Yes, me too.

Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination with the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these TV shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late teens/early 20s person seeing the original Night of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of evil were secondary to the sense of enclosed entrapment in the beseiged house. It was, therefore similar to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors had to hide out.

I guess it's a symbolic stand-in for any pervasive external threat, like the IRS.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
---------------------
> A lot of this is simply the logical underpinnings
> for why I think that religions tend to view the
> re-animated dead as evil.

Yes, but in the current context, what are we comparing "religions" to? Christianity is the cultural backdrop against which many 18th century, 19th century, and early 20th century ghost stories are written. If there are alternatives for us to consider, these would be other religions. I would imagine most rationalist materialists would be slightly prejudiced against considering the idea of ghosts at all, except, maybe, when they suspend disbelief for the sake of fiction. It seems to me that what we mainly have to compare, when it comes to ghost stories, is a 19th century Christian cultural backdrop, a 21st century post-modern backdrop, and the century in between.

> No. By my statement I meant that those not
> included in the practice or worship as deemed
> correct by any Christian denomination or sect is
> excluded from some notion of life after death.
>
> It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is
> largely open to all--this is the basis and
> justification for evangelism, but unless and until
> you conform to one of the denominations or sects,
> the best you can hope for is a sort of
> non-existence. And *that* was my point.

Okay. But where is the culture or practice that preaches an even more universal afterlife than Christianity does? If you could identify one, maybe we could consider how it affects their ghost stories. Otherwise, I'm not sure where we are going with this.

> Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in
> pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in
> torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like
> it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground,
> such as "well, you don't get to live in permanent
> bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual
> torment."
> Is the latter conception of salvation contained in
> any Christian doctrine you are aware of? Possible
> great reward but no active punishment?

Well, have you read THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S. Lewis? There was no "active punishment" in the vision of hell there portrayed.

> > But still
> > other Christians have given serious
> consideration
> > to the idea that salvation (eventually, at
> least)
> > would be universal. One of the latter was
> George
> > MacDonald, whose writings have had some
> influence
> > in the history of weird fiction.
>
> Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared by
> any recognized denomination or sect?

The doctrine, or hypothesis, is called "Christian universalism" or "universal reconciliation". And yes, there have been and still are denominations called "Universalist". Within certain other denominations, it is seen merely as a hypothesis, neither commanded nor forbidden, involving matters outside of revelation that are essentially God's business and beyond man's ken. Still others regard the idea as heretical.

I don't see how it helps us though. The only Christian universalist I know of who has contributed much to the realm of spooky fiction is George MacDonald, as I said.

> > And how does Christian doctrine compare to the
> > modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal
> > sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit,
> > but the predator who inherits, at the expense of the
> > vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least) must
> > be reduced to the level of cattle.
>
> Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it?
> Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian,
> where all the dead are equally miserable and
> corrupted.

It is no surprise, I suppose, that the "sexy" vampire is also an aristocrat, as often as not.

> Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination with
> the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these TV
> shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late
> teens/early 20s person seeing the original Night
> of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of evil
> were secondary to the sense of enclosed entrapment
> in the beseiged house. It was, therefore similar
> to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors had
> to hide out.

I may have a slightly greater fascination with the evil dead than you do, as you may have guessed from some of my threads here.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> ---------------------
> > A lot of this is simply the logical
> underpinnings
> > for why I think that religions tend to view the
> > re-animated dead as evil.
>
> Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> comparing "religions" to?

Materialism.

I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you? Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief in the supernatural vs those who deny the supernatural? I say this because I'm aware of no significant religion outside of some forms of Satanism (I'd not consider this significant, either, but...) that think that reanimated corpses are a wholesome phenomenon.

> Christianity is the
> cultural backdrop against which many 18th century,
> 19th century, and early 20th century ghost stories
> are written. If there are alternatives for us to
> consider, these would be other religions.

Can we find any that think that the undead are somehow the natural and expected result of death?

This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.

> I would
> imagine most rationalist materialists would be
> slightly prejudiced against considering the idea
> of ghosts at all, except, maybe, when they suspend
> disbelief for the sake of fiction.

It's probably like going into the funhouse with your kids.

> It seems to me
> that what we mainly have to compare, when it comes
> to ghost stories, is a 19th century Christian
> cultural backdrop, a 21st century post-modern
> backdrop, and the century in between.

Again, I'd speculate that any significant religion denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are you aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.

>
> > No. By my statement I meant that those not
> > included in the practice or worship as deemed
> > correct by any Christian denomination or sect
> is
> > excluded from some notion of life after death.
> >
> > It's true that Christianity, unlike Judaism, is
> > largely open to all--this is the basis and
> > justification for evangelism, but unless and
> until
> > you conform to one of the denominations or
> sects,
> > the best you can hope for is a sort of
> > non-existence. And *that* was my point.
>
> Okay. But where is the culture or practice that
> preaches an even more universal afterlife than
> Christianity does? If you could identify one,
> maybe we could consider how it affects their ghost
> stories.

Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that the fear and loathing of the undead dead is universal, and that in the case of Christianity a part of this rejection is that those dead who come to some semblance of life, prior to the resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence casting doubt on the entire theological underpinnings.

This is in addition to, over and above, the natural expectancy, born of uncontested human experience.

> Otherwise, I'm not sure where we are
> going with this.

I've never been sure what you wanted.

>
> > Too, there's the idea of live everlasting in
> > pleasant circumstances, and life everlasting in
> > torment. In many of the doctrines it seems like
> > it's a clear cut choice, with no middle ground,
> > such as "well, you don't get to live in
> permanent
> > bliss, but neither do you suffer perpetual
> > torment."
> > Is the latter conception of salvation contained
> in
> > any Christian doctrine you are aware of?
> Possible
> > great reward but no active punishment?
>
> Well, have you read THE GREAT DIVORCE, by C.S.
> Lewis? There was no "active punishment" in the
> vision of hell there portrayed.

So Lewis described a personal speculation, or described a coherent doctrine that had some level of exposure prior to his publication?

>
> > > But still
> > > other Christians have given serious
> > consideration
> > > to the idea that salvation (eventually, at
> > least)
> > > would be universal. One of the latter was
> > George
> > > MacDonald, whose writings have had some
> > influence
> > > in the history of weird fiction.
> >
> > Was this a personal view, or was/is it shared
> by
> > any recognized denomination or sect?
>
> The doctrine, or hypothesis, is called "Christian
> universalism" or "universal reconciliation". And
> yes, there have been and still are denominations
> called "Universalist". Within certain other
> denominations, it is seen merely as a hypothesis,
> neither commanded nor forbidden, involving matters
> outside of revelation that are essentially God's
> business and beyond man's ken. Still others
> regard the idea as heretical.
>
> I don't see how it helps us though. The only
> Christian universalist I know of who has
> contributed much to the realm of spooky fiction is
> George MacDonald, as I said.
>
> > > And how does Christian doctrine compare to
> the
> > > modern fantasy of the vampire as an immortal
> > > sex god? Here it is not the meek who inherit,
>
> > > but the predator who inherits, at the expense
> of the
> > > vast bulk of humanity who (logically at least)
> must
> > > be reduced to the level of cattle.
> >
> > Yes. It appeals to the elitist, doesn't it?
> > Certainly not very democratic or egalitarian,
> > where all the dead are equally miserable and
> > corrupted.
>
> It is no surprise, I suppose, that the "sexy"
> vampire is also an aristocrat, as often as not.
>
> > Diverging a bit more, the popular fascination
> with
> > the undead, filthy stinking zombies, all these
> TV
> > shows, I don't actually "get" it. As late
> > teens/early 20s person seeing the original
> Night
> > of the Living Dead, the zombies as avatars of
> evil
> > were secondary to the sense of enclosed
> entrapment
> > in the beseiged house. It was, therefore
> similar
> > to the Jurassic Park film, where the survivors
> had
> > to hide out.
>
> I may have a slightly greater fascination with the
> evil dead than you do, as you may have guessed
> from some of my threads here.

It wouldn't be hard.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
> > Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> > comparing "religions" to?
>
> Materialism.
>
> I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you?
> Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief in
> the supernatural vs those who deny the
> supernatural?

How does one write a ghost story or life-after-death story from a materialist perspective? I'm not saying a materialist cannot write a ghost story -- Lovecraft did so -- but he must suspend disbelief in materialism long enough to convince us of the ghost. And we must suspend disbelief long enough to be convinced.

It's a dividing line of sorts sure. It may well be the dividing line between you and me. But it does not seem to be a dividing line that is relevant to the thread. Or have we just veered off topic because you have little interest in the topic of the thread, which is about ghosts, zombies, vampires and the evil dead in general?

> Can we find any that think that the undead are
> somehow the natural and expected result of death?
>
> This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.

Me neither.

> Again, I'd speculate that any significant religion
> denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are you
> aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.

The resurrection of the body is a core doctrine of Christianity. But the thought occurred to me that because Christianity preaches the right way to obtain this benefit, it may have a particular horror of attempts to obtain these results by improper means, a horror that might not be present, to the exact same extent or in the exact same flavor, in cultures not influenced by Christianity. That is the idea I was trying to express originally, no matter how off-topic we have drifted in my attempt to explain my meaning.

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".

> Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that
> the fear and loathing of the undead dead is
> universal, and that in the case of Christianity a
> part of this rejection is that those dead who come
> to some semblance of life, prior to the
> resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian
> conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence
> casting doubt on the entire theological
> underpinnings.

What? Calmet did not see it this way. Nor did Robert Southey. Nor did Sheridan Le Fanu. Nor did the author of THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST. Nor did Charles Dickens. Nor did Mrs. Oliphant. And I don't see the logic either.

I agree only that a Christian, believing as he does in a perfect resurrection, might be less likely to settle for or be tempted by a substandard one, and might have a particular horror of such things. I just don't understand how you think an encounter with a zombie would somehow pull the theological rug out from under him.

> So Lewis described a personal speculation, or
> described a coherent doctrine that had some level
> of exposure prior to his publication?

Lewis never claimed to have had an actual vision of Hell, if that's what you are asking. It was a piece of weird fiction to illustrate an idea. But I am certain he was not the first person in the history of Christendom to ever have this idea. If you want me to back up that suspicion, I would have to do some research. In the text himself, he claims to have been influenced, to some extent, by George MacDonald.



Edited 9 time(s). Last edit at 24 Jan 22 | 10:45PM by Platypus.

Platypus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> > > Yes, but in the current context, what are we
> > > comparing "religions" to?
> >
> > Materialism.
> >
> > I'd say that's the dividing line, wouldn't you?
> > Religion vs materialism? Essentially, a belief
> in
> > the supernatural vs those who deny the
> > supernatural?
>
> How does one write a ghost story or
> life-after-death story from a materialist
> perspective? I'm not saying a materialist cannot
> write a ghost story -- Lovecraft did so -- but he
> must suspend disbelief in materialism long enough
> to convince us of the ghost. And we must suspend
> disbelief long enough to be convinced.
>
> It's a dividing line of sorts sure. It may well
> be the dividing line between you and me. But it
> does not seem to be a dividing line that is
> relevant to the thread. Or have we just veered
> off topic because you have little interest in the
> topic of the thread, which is about ghosts,
> zombies, vampires and the evil dead in general?

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.

But let's see what your original topic was. In your original post you introduced two potential areas for EDers to respond to:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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", speculating *why* this is across all religions and cultures, 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.

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.

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?

>
> > Can we find any that think that the undead are
> > somehow the natural and expected result of
> death?
> >
> > This is not rhetorical. I'm aware of none.
>
> Me neither.
>
> > Again, I'd speculate that any significant
> religion
> > denies the normality of reanimated dead. Are
> you
> > aware f any? I'd like to read up on them.
>
> The resurrection of the body is a core doctrine of
> Christianity. But the thought occurred to me that
> because Christianity preaches the right way to
> obtain this benefit, it may have a particular
> horror of attempts to obtain these results by
> improper means, a horror that might not be
> present, to the exact same extent or in the exact
> same flavor, in cultures not influenced by
> Christianity.

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.

> That is the idea I was trying to
> express originally, no matter how off-topic we
> have drifted in my attempt to explain my meaning.
>
> 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".

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

>
> > Why a more complete afterlife? My point is that
> > the fear and loathing of the undead dead is
> > universal, and that in the case of Christianity
> a
> > part of this rejection is that those dead who
> come
> > to some semblance of life, prior to the
> > resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian
> > conception of resurrection is incomplete, hence
> > casting doubt on the entire theological
> > underpinnings.
>
> What? Calmet did not see it this way. Nor did
> Robert Southey. Nor did Sheridan Le Fanu. Nor
> did the author of THE PRINCESS IN THE CHEST. Nor
> did Charles Dickens. Nor did Mrs. Oliphant. And
> I don't see the logic either.

If the "it" you refer to above relates to my preceding paragraph about:

"...that those dead who come to some semblance of life, prior to the resurrection, demonstrate that the Christian conception of resurrection is incomplete..."

what did you mean by this:

"...the thought occurred to me that Christianity preaches the right way to obtain this benefit, it may have a particular horror of attempts to obtain these results by improper means,..."

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.

Sort of like using your tea spoon to eat your soup, rather than the proper soup spoon.

>
> I agree only that a Christian, believing as he
> does in a perfect resurrection, might be less
> likely to settle for or be tempted by a
> substandard one,

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?

Again, I'm from an arreligious family--while nominally Eastern Orthodox, no actual practice or connection. Something like being given a letterman's jacket by an older cousin: never actually played the sport, myself, but...

I'm familiar with the overall concepts, but not with the intricate doctrinal aspects of Christianity.

> and might have a particular
> horror of such things. I just don't understand
> how you think an encounter with a zombie would
> somehow pull the theological rug out from under
> him.

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.

>
> > So Lewis described a personal speculation, or
> > described a coherent doctrine that had some
> level
> > of exposure prior to his publication?
>
> Lewis never claimed to have had an actual vision
> of Hell, if that's what you are asking. It was a
> piece of weird fiction to illustrate an idea. But
> I am certain he was not the first person in the
> history of Christendom to ever have this idea. If
> you want me to back up that suspicion, I would
> have to do some research. In the text himself, he
> claims to have been influenced, to some extent, by
> George MacDonald.

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.

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.

Maybe I don't actually fit into this forum very well.

--Sawfish

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

Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity of this debate, if we know your individual origins of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and active churchgoer? Is that correct?

I would deviate, and propose that the connection between evil dead and religion, such as Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial. That religion interferes in it, and as wedged authorities of society confiscates the right of interpretation in each culture; but that the issue goes deeper than culturally and ethnically affected religion (I know, every religion thinks its own is the single pure path to Truth, because it is blind to the fact that it is a cultural expression). Back to the Big Bang. I see the evil dead as a symbol (that of making an inner experience graspable) of an issue all life manifested in matter struggles with: that of ego or dualism, versus unity; that of being isolated or cut off, inside of a body, staring out through its eyes at the environment and other individuals which is separated from itself, versus evolving and maturing into experiencing unity with everything else. That is the polarity all manifested life struggle with. The evil dead is a symbol of a person who has not transcended past its ego at all, has not attained empathy and spiritual unity with others in any way, but is locked up in, isolated within, stuck inside and only identifies with its own body and ego. Unable to leave it, ... even after death. And I think that condition results in what we call "evil".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 03:20PM by Knygatin.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity
> of this debate, if we know your individual origins
> of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly
> atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and
> active churchgoer? Is that correct?

Agnostic. I've as yet seen nothing I take as testably valid that unambiguously demonstrates the existence of the divine. Therefore, my working conclusion is that there is none, but since testing is incomplete I cannot categorically state that there is no divinity.

>
> I would deviate, and propose that the connection
> between evil dead and religion, such as
> Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial.
> That religion interferes in it, and as wedged
> authorities of society confiscates the right of
> interpretation in each culture; but that the issue
> goes deeper than culturally and ethnically
> affected religion (I know, every religion thinks
> its own is the single pure path to Truth, because
> it is blind to the fact that it is a cultural
> expression). Back to the Big Bang. I see the evil
> dead as a symbol (that of making an inner
> experience graspable) of an issue all life
> manifested in matter struggles with: that of ego
> or dualism, versus unity; that of being isolated
> or cut off, inside of a body, staring out through
> its eyes at the environment and other individuals
> which is separated from itself, versus evolving
> and maturing into experiencing unity with
> everything else. That is the polarity all
> manifested life struggle with.

Gulp!

You lost me there when you were mentioning the effect of the fox trot on sunspots--or maybe it was vice versa.

I think... ;^)

> The evil dead is a
> symbol of a person who has not transcended past
> its ego at all, has not attained empathy and
> spiritual unity with others in any way, but is
> locked up in, isolated within, stuck inside and
> only identifies with its own body and ego. Unable
> to leave it, ... even after death. And I think
> that condition results in what we call "evil".

Do you think good and evil are universal constants, K? I suspect that they are transient and relative, varying according to era and culture.

--Sawfish

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

Sawfish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gulp!
>
> You lost me there when you were mentioning the
> effect of the fox trot on sunspots--or maybe it
> was vice versa.
>
> I think... ;^)
>

Sorry, I meant that I think this issue goes back to the beginning of the Universe, and therefore is deeper than the fumbling cultural expressions of religions.

>
> Do you think good and evil are universal
> constants, K? I suspect that they are transient
> and relative, varying according to era and
> culture.


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

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?

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

> 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.

> 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. The question I was asking is whether the Christian-culture attitude towards spooks differs from other NON-MATERIALIST traditions. But it would seem hard to compare different traditions, since it is Western culture that has produced the vastest body of spooky literature.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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. 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.

> 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. 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.

> Is this recognized as
> even a remote possibility?

Recognized by who? 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. I already told you that, and you don't seem interested, so what are you asking me now? 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.

> 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.

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Do you think good and evil are universal
> > constants, K? I suspect that they are transient
> > and relative, varying according to era and
> > culture.
>
>
> Yes I think so, but I would not call it "good" and
> "evil", because those are Judeo/Christian value
> interpretations.

The entrapment and isolation inside a body of matter (dualism) is ultimately pain. And unity with other life, the breaking of isolation, is relief from pain, and could be termed delight or pleasure. "Good" and "evil" are shallow, narrow, moralizing terms, intentionally designed to control the masses through fear of God, and do not describe the core of the existential issue.

Knygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Perhaps it would be easier to follow the polarity
> of this debate, if we know your individual origins
> of perspective. Is Sawfish agnostic (possibly
> atheist), and Platypus practicing Christian and
> active churchgoer? Is that correct?

I am a Christian, though I make no claim to be a good one. But I never intended my personal beliefs to be relevant to this discussion.

As far as personal beliefs are concerned, I have no particular belief in ghosts, vampires and other spooks. Nonetheless, I started this thread to spark a discussion primarily about works of fiction. Which I enjoy.

As far as I can tell, Sawfish's idea seems to be that he is not a Christian, but if he were one, he would think that the idea that vampires might exist is heretical, blasphemous and contrary to scripture. This seems to be our point of disagreement. I don't believe in vampires. But neither do I believe that such an idea would be blasphemous, heretical, or contrary to Christian scripture. Nor, apparently, do so many of the Christian authors that I listed at the start of this thread.

> I would deviate, and propose that the connection
> between evil dead and religion, such as
> Judeo/Christian influence, is merely superficial.

Possibly so. But there seems little for me to compare it to. Maybe it is time for me to finally read VIKRAM AND THE VAMPIRE, which is a story about a corpse creature from the Hindu tradition



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 25 Jan 22 | 08:13PM by Platypus.