So, we have our discussion about "dragons" its time to open up the bloodstained can of worms called "vampires." (All puns intended! Ha!)

I have my opinion, but I would like to hear your ideas first.

My thoughts on the topic of vampires. If they're an evil race: cool! If they're a race of individuals that became vampires because of some kind of curse (for instance the corruption of sin that lots of people seem to be fans of): interesting, could work. Monsters: cliche, but it works.
Otherwise I would advise leaving them out. My reason is this: right now publishers are no doubt drowning in a sea of Twilight-style manuscripts about vampires. One more Vampire story, if not written in a clearly fresh and unique way, will probably share the fate of the others in filling a landfill (unless of course the publishers recycle their paper ).

I don't see the problem in having vampires in your world if you have a valid reason for them being there(i.e. monsters, evil race, etc.). But please, no more attempts to show how not all vampires are truly evil, and how the ones that are evil are just jerks anyways.

I confess to following the show the Vampire Diaries (trying to stop, but my sense of intrigue always wants to know what the idiots are going to do next), and it is a prime example of how the idea of vampires is being used to convey post-modern values of relativity and ambiguity. Explanation: one character is a "good vampire that drinks animal blood," the other is a "bad" vampire, who isn't a truly bad person, just someone with emotional issues, and those two protect the "innocent" love interest (whose best friend is a witch btw) from the other "bad" vampires in the world). The show is rampant with the idea that "vampires are people too, but some are real jerks." It blurs the line between good and evil in almost every episode. I think the same pitfall exists for anyone who isn't careful when trying to put a new spin on these creatures that originally stood as metaphors for evil and were considered the spawn of Hell. It'd be like trying to put a positive spin on demons: very difficult and possibly dangerous.

In Christ,
Jordan

Ok, first of all, I am of the Dracula mindset, which is the original idea of vampires. They are corpses possessed by demons, and therefore they cannot be good. I've read the Twilight Saga, and, in my opinion, it is very well written. Too well. Stephanie Meyer is a good writer, in an appealing, technical sense. I don't think of the books as "good", but rather, "attractive". To a teenage girl, believe me, Edward Cullen is awesome. The problem comes when readers translate the characters of Meyer's secondary world into this world, our primary world, and start believing it. I am against this. However, that is not the point of this topic. If I am going to bash Stephanie Meyer, I should write a review.


So, I believe that the vampires that haunt fantasy and horror stories should be kept evil, otherwise it gets confusing, lines between what is evil and what is just sometimes evil gets blurred (actually, they already have!).

The only time I might condone having a "good" vampire is if it is a real vampire. Yes, there are real vampires. They are not sparkly and they don't turn into bats. It is a psychological "disorder", where a person craves blood, usually human. You can google it. It's called clinical vampirism. As a side note, there is also a clinical lycanthrope. I personally think that both would be interesting in stories.

That's my spiel. Thanks, Neil.

I do not write about vampires simply because they do not interest me, but as long as they are portrayed as evil I'm okay with them. It's when stuff like Twilight comes around that they really start to annoy me.

He mentions them as sevants of Morgoth a time or two in the Silmarillion (particularly in the Lay of Leithian, in which Luthien disguises herself as a vampire in order to gain access to Angband). But as far as an actual description of them, I can't really recall one (though admittedly, it's been a while since I've read the Silmarillion). And I'm fairly certain that they don't show up anywhere in the LOtR or the Hobbit.
In Christ,
Jordan

They aren't in LoTR or The Hobbit (unless I'm mistaken). I haven't read the Silmarillion in a few years, and I've only read it once. I meant to go back and read it again so I could understand it better, but I haven't yet.

I thought that Luthien disguised herself as a were-wolf (I haven't got that far yet, but my dad has told me stories from The Silmarillion since I was really little. Of course, I could be confusing stories. I do that a lot.)

Actually, they are specifically vampric bats, if my memory serves. Luthien and Sauron take on this form.

Seems like I remember seeing the "werewolves" as normal wolves, yet larger. But, I do not remember for sure.

Beren puts on the skins of Charcharoth, who is actually merely a giant wolf. Werewolves are mentioned, but we are never told exactly what he means.

Suaron is describe as a bat that drinks blood, not a vampire, and Luthien is described exactly like a bat, although the word vampire is used...as far as I can remember.

(I really should read the book more often.)

I knew I was forgetting something important!

I don't know why, but for some odd reason I find these last posts incredibly funny.

I feel that portraying vampires as good is always wrong.

In Hebrew, animal life includes only animals with blood. The shedding of blood is the payment of sin, and blood is considered the rightful property of God. Therefor, to consume blood is a form of blasphemy.

Furthermore, to consume human blood is a violation of the sanctity of human life...in a weird way.

I would agree with Neil. In Acts, the council of Jerusalem, which included Paul, Peter, James the brother of Christ and all the early Church leaders, decided that it was a sin to drink animal blood (much less human blood). Likewise, in Revelations, the drinking of blood is one of the practices being committed by heretics within the Church. So, vampiric activity is sin.

God Bless!

I like to think of it's allegorical value as a metaphor for sin coming from it's ability to show the requirement for blood to atone for sin (Hebrews 9:22) and how only the blood of Christ offers true atonement.
And this from a guy who doesn't like allegory...go figure

In Christ,
Jordan

I tend to think that fantasy is more or less free from the rules and laws of our world. If God had created another world and went by a different name there, who are we to say that He would have the same laws for it as for Earth? God is a masterful creator, and as such has incredible creativity. What might be a sin in our world isn't in another because the rules and laws are different there. Thus my premise about werewolves--they are regarded as evil in our world, but in another, who knows?

The problem is that laws are not separate from God. All laws are simply an expression of God's personality. Therefore, what's law for one world is law for all, because otherwise, law and God are relative.

There has been some good discussion here (if someone wants to learn more about JRR Tolkien's vampires, read the Lays of Beleriand: they give a very umm... nice description of them when Huan kills one and gives the skin to Luthien to wear).

You guys are doing good, delineating the various possibilities and dealing with them separately. You are also doing very well pointing out that drinking blood can never be of God.

You forgot (or didn't know about) one kind of vampire though.

The real, non-clinical kind.

The satanic ones.

There is actually a type of satanism called vampirism (if I remember right that is what it is called), in which the practicers behave like vampires (although drinking human blood is a normal part of the regular satanic rituals as well). In a fantasy world, this cult can become even more scary, in that demons can give more power than they generally do to those who give their lives to this sort of service.

Hence the vampires in my story: Ducahoi.

Indubitably.

Wow. That'll keep people awake at night (which as a writer, can be a good thing).

I was all prepared to post a polite disagreement with my reasons for not believing this is so. But I actually have to agree with Neil on this one . With the exception of things like the dietary and judicial laws found in the Old Covenant with the people of Israel, the essential rules about what is good and what is evil are multi-universal principles that don't change.

Me thinks a werewolf thread might be in order

Peter was on the roof of a house and had a vision where animals that had previously been unclean to eat were cleared for human consumption. Thus it is my opinion (rather unresearched, I will admit.) That drinking animal blood for sustenance is not a moral wrong. It's personally repugnant, but I know a lot of people in different cultures enjoy blood in one way or another. (blood pudding, drinks, chilled, etc...)

When this becomes part of a Satanic ritual though, and it is human blood (equalling cannibalism) it then becomes wrong.

In my books, vampires are evil. They were originally dwarves, but they took the good gifts their creator had given them to rule wisely, and they perverted them and created the Forbidden Arts. When a dwarf uses the Forbidden Arts they gain extreme spirit energy and strength. However, normal food cannot sustain them anymore and they need pure life force. Most commonly found in blood.

There is an extreme difference between clean and unclean animals, and eating blood.

The ban against eating blood was instituted at the same time as we were allowed to eat meat at the Noahic Covenant, and has not been rescinded: being reiterated at each change of covenant as being an abomination to God (not particularly to the Israelites, as unclean animals were).

Forbidding to eat blood was one of the three things that was mandated for the Gentile Christians in the NT.

I can give you references if you want. But does that make any sense?

I'd love some references! They'd certainly help.

It is my belief though, that when God was referring to blood in the Old Testament as an abomination, it was because of the way heathen people around the Israelites would use the blood in their pagan rituals, and that kind of thing. It was also meant to set the Jews apart from their neighbors.

In the New Testament, I think it was recommended that Gentile Christians not drink or eat blood because it was a stumbling block to Jewish Christians, not necessarily a moral wrong.

Genesis 9:3-4 Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, [which is] the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

That is part of the Noahic covenant, which was never rescinded.

When God made laws that were specifically Jewish to separate them, He called it an abomination to them particularly. Whereas with eating the blood, God equated it with idolatry, adultery, and murder.

That help?

Hmmm...you definitely have a point there.

Would that mean that our meat needs to be prepared in a kosher manner the, do you think?

Whatever it takes to remove the blood, or at least significantly alter it.

Jay, do we want to mention Nephesh (spelling?), or have you covered that already?

Ironically, I watched an old British Sherlock Holmes episode last night: "The Last Vampire" based on the Holmes story, "The Sussex Vampire".

Vampires=

As in bugs don't count? Haha. Might want to mention some stuff along those lines.

Well, I don't have much to say on this topic. I don't like vampires or books about them. I personally think that when teens FINALLY pick up a book, they go for Harry Potter (I've never read them) or Twilight. I hate everything to do with twilight and all the bloodstained Vampires.... and that's all I have to say.

If it has actual blood in it...I'm afraid so. (That is, I'm against it.)

Ditto.

Super Ditto, I am 100% sure I won't be eating it

(1) Vampires ought to be creepy in books because they are. (oh, that was redundant...)

(2) I hate Twilight - from what I've heard, it's pretty stupid and fairly perilous in romantic mindset on top of that.

(3) The Lays of Beleriand - that's one of the History of Middle-earth books, right? (I've only read three - the Book of Lost Tales and Morgoth's Ring) I got the impression that Luthien took on the form of a bat, and Beren borrowed a large wolf-skin, when they were sneaking into Thangodrim or whatever the current castle of Morgoth was called... I don't remember a specific mention of vampires. But I haven't read the Sil. in a while either. On my to-do list.

(4) eww, even without the restrictions on eating blood, that sausage sounds disgusting.

One of the versions of the story has her clothe herself in vampire form, which is a bat-like creature in his story. You only see it in the Silmarillion though.

When I think of vampires I think of bloodthirsty (literally and figuratively) things that want to kill you.

Yeah... ew, ew, ew.

Acts 15:29a--You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals...

This was offensive to the Jews beause of their kosher laws. I don't believe that this was immoral to do in and of itself, but it was causing other brethren to "stumble" (We see this reasoning in 1 Corinthians 8 with gentiles, and in Romans 14 where the weaker brother was someone who was still holding on to the old laws of Israel.)

1 Corinthians 6:12-- Everything is permissible for me-- but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me--so that I am not mastered by anything.

If it is somehow beneficial to eat or drink blood. (as in nourishment) I think a Christian can do it with a clean conscience. Especially in a survival situation.

Okay, quick: If you don't kill you little brother in five minutes, you will most certainly die.

Don't say anything. Let me explain.

The reason blood was forbidden is not the same as other dietary laws: All other dietary laws say that the forbidden food in question is unclean, whereas, blood is forbidden because it is life. If I remember correctly, blood is closely tied to a Jewish concept similar to what you might call a "Life Force".

The other, far more important reason is that blood is sacred to God, the master of life and death. Blood is the only thing that can atone for sin: because blood is life, and life must be sacrificed to atone for sin.

If I may be so bold: Blood belongs to God. Drinking blood is similar to reaching out to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling: you encroach on God's domain.

"Everything is lawful," is not literal. If it is literal, then you could go kill your little brother, lie to your parents about it, blame your neighbor, and then commit suicide, and not be guilty of sin.

It's antinomianism. The idea that our sins are forgiven so we can go do whatever we want. But we can't.

Blood is forbidden.

That was just what I was going to say yesterday, Neil, but I got busy elsewhere. Thanks! Haha! You did it better than I would have anyways.

I'm not Jewish, and I don't believe in "Life Force". I believe in a soul/spirit, (which is ENTIRELY different from animals) but I don't believe that those are in some special, mystical way tied to blood. (although if you have Scripture to back that view up I'd love to see it!).



This is exactly why I believe that blood was part of the ceremonial/civil law, and not the moral law. Why was the blood of animals sacred in the Old Testament? Because it was a picture of Jesus' blood! Now that Jesus has died, and rose again, that has been rescinded. It is no longer a picture it's simply another part of an animal's body.



So...Paul is talking figuratively? How? I would say that the entire verse rests on the "What is helpful" part. None of those sins would be helpful, not to mention that if I committed them assuming God would forgive me, that would be presumption.



Everything belongs to God. I don't think that blood is some special domain of His. Human blood is precious because we are made in God's image. People staying alive is good because we DO need blood as a way to keep our body working. And our lives have value. that's exactly why cannibalism is wrong.

Animal meat and blood is an entirely different matter.

(Jay, is it alright to have this discussion or does it violate the "no debate" policy?)

I am musing on that question. We don't want debates, and especially not doctrinal ones. This was originally (if I remember right) a discussion on how a Christian should represent vampires in his stories. This is a valid question, and one which is addressed by the current discussion.

So far, I don't see any of the bad effects of debating (defensiveness, anger, personal attacks, etc.), and we are being courteous, as well as helpful in what we are saying (rather than merely repeating ourselves).

So technically we are clear so far. But I think that to be on the safe side we can terminate the discussion (in public at least, we can move it to private messages if we want).

What we have discovered is that there are people who believe very strongly on both sides of the issue. And how that works into your story writing, is up to the author. It is safer to avoid having drinking blood portrayed as alright, because some people will reject your book because of it, and leaving it out does not incense anyone. But that is entirely up to the author, as I said.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does. Thanks.

I've been developing a story idea as a kind of response to the vampire hype. In it I have a vampire who doesn't want to be one and hates the things he does. (Vampirism is disease that originated from a curse in this story) However, the vampire is not the hero, because as creatures of evil, I believe vampires can not be good. In this way I'm casting him as a sympathetic antagonist and also a picture of a person dead and trapped in sin. That's my response to the whole vampire thing.

I think portraying vampires as good is not good. To be avoided. It seems in this age, people are all rooting for the anti-heroes. They are saying "I know it is a bloodsucking, murderous, heartless, demonic creature, but I'm going to root it on anyways." That is not good. I would never put vampires, were-wolfs or witches in ANY story. Also, with the whole Twilight saga going around, I think the world has had enough of vampires for at least a hundred years (Twilight this, Twilight that, arghh!). I haven't actually seen or read any of the books, and have no desire to. My friend's friend seems to have a strange addiction to them. She also says she is evil. I think there could be some attachment between the two. oh! and could you all pray for her? I'm afraid she is going down the long and rocky path that leads to destruction.

In retrospect most of what I put in this hurried post that should be in either Bestiary or Chronicles. So I shall reduce this post to the Theology aspect.

My vampires are a race of demon-possesed bodies that are purely evil.
*can't think of much else theological about them*

If you want to know more you will have to wait for the forthcoming posts in Bestiary and/or Chronicles. (feel free to bug me via PM )

I think (and agree) that vampires should be---can be---only evil. Sucking a person's blood is evil. Because, well, that is not loving your neighbor.

Very true, but kind of funny to say out loud, given the context.

eru

*is very fond of Jay's Vampires, and I generally dislike the use of Vampires in stories *

I will use vampires in the story, but not as the "good guys." To a lot of people vampires are just fictional creatures, but to me they're not. Before I was saved, I used to be heavily involved with the occult, so I interacted with many "vampires" and contemplated being a "donor" at one point. Looking back, everything is just dark, demonic, and Satanic about it. So when I see the fictional kind of vampires, the image I get is of the human sort of vampires, so I could never write about the evil I've seen in a positive way. While they are in my stories, they are slaves of evil, or (in one story), some were spared their souls, but had to be changed back into humans to be "good".

Fond? o.0 Odd pairing of words, that.

But yes, my vampires are quite exceptional.

Finally, someone else who was involved in the occult and backs up what I've said for a long time. No one believes me. *shakes head *

I'm the same way, Cheyenne. That's also why I have issues with Harry Potter, but I've had that/haven't had that argument elsewhere. The occult is very real, and lots of people do not realize how real it is. When we write about magic and demonic practices/entities, we have to be very careful how we portray it.

Yes, Jay, I know I used the word fond.