|
|
Post by Crystal on Apr 21, 2012 10:49:32 GMT -5
Zombies? Wow, I got me one heck of a boring translation, you guys. =[ I think somebody needs to write this version of the Bible. Jesus and Miracles AND ZOMBIES. Oh man. You know what... that would be kind of awesome. But yeah, so about the Bible and zombies. xD The full context of that verse is something like this: God sends two prophets to stand in Jerusalem to prophesy and perform miracles for a certain amount of time. Then they are attacked and murdered. After three and a half days they are resurrected from the dead. That's about it - not to mention this is in Revelations, which is kind of in obfuscated code half the time. Jesus was also dead for three days, and I don't know if I'd call him a zombie by any stretch of the imagination. xD Pretty much, in the Bible, there are a whole lot of miracles to do with resurrecting someone from the dead. But it's really more like divine CPR or something, rather than zombification. The person comes back to life, and they're alive, not reanimated. As for me and killing zombies... bam, headshot. xDDD |
|
|
|
Post by Gav on Apr 21, 2012 19:09:16 GMT -5
Silly Crystal, killing things with headshots? You aren't a pirate, you should be sneaky-stabbing them. XD
But pretty much, yeah, no zombies. I think even the translators back then had no idea what a zombie was.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2012 0:36:00 GMT -5
Lol, zombie Jesus. Jo is my hero. <3
Okay but seriously, I think the Bible is pretty clear that resurrections are bodily. Even heaven isn't just fluffy clouds and floating spirits, but we end up in a new creation with new bodies that resemble but are better than our current ones. But they're still bodies, they still are able to run and jump and eat, etc. Jesus, apart from the residual wounds on his hands, feet and side, did just these things, I believe. ^^
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 22, 2012 1:02:32 GMT -5
Lol, zombie Jesus. Jo is my hero. <3 Okay but seriously, I think the Bible is pretty clear that resurrections are bodily. Even heaven isn't just fluffy clouds and floating spirits, but we end up in a new creation with new bodies that resemble but are better than our current ones. But they're still bodies, they still are able to run and jump and eat, etc. Jesus, apart from the residual wounds on his hands, feet and side, did just these things, I believe. ^^ Actually not necessarily. The first resurrection is to a spirit body. This takes place on Christ's return, the dead in Christ rise, but are raised as spirit. That's what happens to the two witnesses (although there'll be a brief moment of physical resurrection first, but Christ returns three and a half days after their martyrdom). The second resurrection is to a physical body, though. This one is for everyone else, essentially. Raised physical, given a chance at a new life in learning God's way, as the Earth is refreshed and the Millenial rule starts. At least in my branch of theology. Not sure how other Christians tend to take end-time theology, Revelation, and so forth. I've always been a little murky on where my friends stand with that, because most of the time they don't even know. |
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Apr 22, 2012 7:44:29 GMT -5
But pretty much, yeah, no zombies. I think even the translators back then had no idea what a zombie was. I'm pretty sure the ancient Roman's didn't know what a house was, but they knew what a domus was. A zombie is just a reanimated corpse. I pointed out a reanimated corpse passage to segway into this discussion. That is all. Now this is just getting ridiculous, but what about vampires? I'm not sure how much vampires are a part of Christianity, but Christianity is a big part of vampirism. They are also the walking dead, but they are much more intelligent than zombies. And about Jesus, well, I would call him a zombie, but he never stayed alive after his "ressurection." he died again shortly after. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 22, 2012 8:35:01 GMT -5
I'm pretty sure the ancient Roman's didn't know what a house was, but they knew what a domus was. A zombie is just a reanimated corpse. I pointed out a reanimated corpse passage to segway into this discussion. That is all. If you want to get pedantic about it (and that house/domicile bit is pretty pedantic), zombies as you describe them are a fictional construct that didn't exist before Night of the Living Dead in 1968. Traditional zombies from West Africa, and later Haiti, are reanimated by a sorcerer and are entirely at the will of the person who raised them. So based entirely on the fact that Jesus was able to speak and make decisions, I'd say he's still a reanimated corpse, but not a zombie.  |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Apr 22, 2012 9:49:50 GMT -5
But pretty much, yeah, no zombies. I think even the translators back then had no idea what a zombie was. I'm pretty sure the ancient Roman's didn't know what a house was, but they knew what a domus was. A zombie is just a reanimated corpse. I pointed out a reanimated corpse passage to segway into this discussion. That is all. Now this is just getting ridiculous, but what about vampires? I'm not sure how much vampires are a part of Christianity, but Christianity is a big part of vampirism. They are also the walking dead, but they are much more intelligent than zombies. And about Jesus, well, I would call him a zombie, but he never stayed alive after his "ressurection." he died again shortly after. Right? I don't think that Jesus' ascension into heaven after his resurrection counts as a death, though. There was a guy in the Old testament who didn't die - Enoch, his name was - because one day God decided to just literally lift him up into heaven. He didn't leave a dead body behind. Neither did Jesus. So Jesus and Enoch are essentially living bodily in heaven... or at least that's how I see it. Vampires... I don't know what to say about them because they vary so much between fictional universes. And I haven't really read many stories about them. Except, shamefully, Twilight. xD I wouldn't know what would become of a vampire or what you should do with a vampire unless I could get answers to all of these questions: - Do they have a soul? If "no" - then how are you sure?
- Can they continue to live without causing the death of a human being? (Are they a predator of humans, or simply a parasite?)
- If they can exist without killing, do they have the moral reasoning capacity to choose not to kill?
- Do they have enough self-restraint which enables them not to kill (if they really try to exercise it)?
Basically, I'm fine with vampires as long as they don't have to kill people to survive. And in the case that they can live and let live, I'd be willing to believe that they could probably get salvation too. Because I can't see how anyone could prove that a vampire is soulless. I mean, you can't even prove that a human has a soul. And if they have an intelligent mind like a person, they can understand things like forgiveness and faith. And I doubt that Jesus would withdraw his kindness and grace from a willing believer simply because he or she had the body of a vampire. ((I think it was in Twilight that I heard the argument "vampires are immortal, so they don't get to go to heaven," but that was silly because in Twilight if you hate a vampire you can kill it by burning it. And there is no way that a vampire which can die by being burned will live for infinity, because sooner or later the sun is going to become a red giant and consume the earth. Or at least they're going to get burned up in some kind of catastrophe. So, essentially I think every vampire is just as mortal as anyone else, because accidental and violent deaths are going to have to happen to everyone if natural causes won't kill them. So they all need to deal with death.)) But I reckon a lot of accounts of vampires in fiction seem to make them act like real people internally, the only difference being that they just have to deal with violent cravings because they're vampires. (but don't a lot of humans have that too?). When a vampire's like that, I don't care how sparkly/pale/fanged they look, they're essentially human in vampire costume. Now if it were the case that the vampires were amoral, found it impossible to grasp the idea of ethics, could not survive without killing, could not prevent themselves from going on a killing spree every time they were tempted, then I would say such a creature lacks proper free will and can't be allowed to live when the inevitable consequence of it continuing to live is the deaths of many. It would be like a crazed antisocial pitbull which has killed several people and is going to kill more. It should be put down, for mercy's sake. But if there was any slightest indication that vampires could act like humans and choose to live moral lives, I would much rather find a way to "rehabilitate" them and find a place for them in society than dare to kill what may well be a real person. I'd even encourage them to take up positions in church, if they're inclined to the faith, although taking communion could be difficult... EDIT: Actually I want to revise my position on killing vampires who kill. I find it hard to get a distinction between a vampire and a really, really mentally unstable person. And even if they are irrational and amoral, I can't quite be sure that they don't still have their souls, and the soul is just dormant. So I would advocate putting them in some kind of protective custody. In practice it would be a bit like a cross between a prison and a mental home, and I'm sure it'd be expensive. So it might not be possible to do things that way if there was a sudden plague of vampirism spreading around quickly. But if the cases were isolated, I'd want to err on the side of caution and not let there be a state-sanctioned kill of undesirable people. I think if vampirism happened in real life, I'd find it very difficult to accept that the vampires were really "inhuman", instead of more like "changed humans". |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 22, 2012 10:00:56 GMT -5
A vampire that wanted an active role within the church would be pretty tragic, since according to a lot of legends they can't actually enter one. In Dracula the Eucharist burned like any other religious icon, so communion would not only be difficult, but probably fatal. Poor religious vampires.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Apr 22, 2012 10:16:33 GMT -5
A vampire that wanted an active role within the church would be pretty tragic, since according to a lot of legends they can't actually enter one. In Dracula the Eucharist burned like any other religious icon, so communion would not only be difficult, but probably fatal. Poor religious vampires. Question then - what about a Charismatic church that rented a theatre on Sundays? It's not a designated church building, and there are no crucifixes. No holy icons. Just preaching, music, prayer, tithing... and there would have to be the occasional Eucharist/communion, I guess, but that's about it. Would a vampire be able to stand that? Or is the mere gathering of believers on Sunday in itself a holy kind of thing? I lol when I think of a vampire making a really good Charismatic Christian... :'D |
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 22, 2012 10:36:02 GMT -5
Question then - what about a Charismatic church that rented a theatre on Sundays? It's not a designated church building, and there are no crucifixes. No holy icons. Just preaching, music, prayer, tithing... and there would have to be the occasional Eucharist/communion, I guess, but that's about it. Would a vampire be able to stand that? Or is the mere gathering of believers on Sunday in itself a holy kind of thing? I lol when I think of a vampire making a really good Charismatic Christian... :'D XD I have no idea how you'd even begin to figure that out. I guess a rental hall would get a pass since it's not consecrated? I guess they could do the Amish thing and rotate the weekly service among the houses of the parishioners? Though then the vampire would end up being invited in to all the houses. XD Good thing the theoretical vampire is a moral one! |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 22, 2012 10:36:30 GMT -5
Okay, I have to say, this discussion is getting decidedly ridiculous. I humored the zombie thing, but now vampires?
This is still the D&D thread guys. Let's try to keep some level of seriousness to the discussions here. A lot of these are completely non-issues and have nothing to do with religious apologetics or even discussing religion--just contriving out of left field fictional situations and asking about Christianity's take on that. Not exactly the point here.
|
|
|
|
Post by M is for Morphine on Apr 22, 2012 10:46:41 GMT -5
Okay, I have to say, this discussion is getting decidedly ridiculous. I humored the zombie thing, but now vampires? This is still the D&D thread guys. Let's try to keep some level of seriousness to the discussions here. A lot of these are completely non-issues and have nothing to do with religious apologetics or even discussing religion--just contriving out of left field fictional situations and asking about Christianity's take on that. Not exactly the point here. Aww, but ridiculous hypotheticals have been a long-standing part of religious discussion. The old "rat and the Eucharist" joke is so old that it's in the Book of Kells.  It's always been treated as a silly and light-hearted topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Apr 22, 2012 11:31:26 GMT -5
It's not that I'm against off-the-wall hypotheticals. I'm just not sure that this thread is really the place for it. They are quite... Derailing. It's not even one off-the-wall then back to legit discussion, it's just a series of them right now.
So maybe someone can set up a weird hypotheticals thread if they want to do that, but I don't think derailing a religious apologetics thread (set up for honest and serious religious questioning and discussion) with patently silly questions is the place for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Apr 22, 2012 16:56:18 GMT -5
Yeah, I'm kind of with Stal here. Vampires are one of those made-up creatures that have wildly different rules depending on the author. You might as well go, "What about Christians and dragons?", considering how dragons can be anything from an omnipotent god to a fireproof lizard. It just kind of feels a teeny bit disrespectful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on Apr 22, 2012 17:38:01 GMT -5
I guess you guys have a point about wanting to keep to serious discussion topics. For me, it's more a sign that I've been trying a little too hard to procrastinate on an essay I need to crank out. Wanting to distract myself. Sorry, I'll try to be more respectful of the discussion next time.
|
|
Furgo 
Michael. 
