- This topic has 115 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Lol ok yes I’ll laugh with you. I suppose that was a rather funny way of putting things. đ
Yes I did read your first post and if I look back on it, it does state the same thing I just did. And in the case that you feel no twinge then good that’s fine then.
And you don’t offend me either, probably because I can tell you’re not trying to be condescending.
As to the thing about opening doors, well, that’s probably all I’m going to say. I’m glad I didn’t totally get on your nerves but I think it needed to be said. As to talking with your brother I totally agree, we are supposed to keep each other accountable.
I’ve never read Harty Potter, Twilight, Narnia, Hunger Games, or any of the other major books that seemed to have captivated teens and adults around the world. I’ve never even seen the movies. This is another personal conviction because I do not believe in what they stand for. You may and you may like them and that is your prerogative. But if you should want to use them as an example for something I probably wouldn’t understand half of it because I do not know much about them, only enough to not want to read them.
HC
Sorry, Ezra, I probably should have clarified that. “He Came To Set The Captives Free” is sort of like an autobiography, and it is one hundred percent factual. Personally, I disagree with your comment about calling something a zombie, or a witch, or a wizard, when it’s not. I believe it is misleading and it blurs the line between right and wrong. Like Hannah, I have never read or watched The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter, etc., and I do not plan to, so your example from The Lord of the Rings went over my head. To me, just because something happened in The Lord of the Rings doesn’t make it right.
I know from experience that religious and judgmental people have a way of saying the right thing the wrong way, so I understand what you mean. I believe Hannah was right in saying that dabbling in certain things opens doors for demons. (I can’t quote her exactly because, if I go back and read it, this post will get messed up.) From reading your comments, I see that you and I think in different ways, so I’m pretty sure I can’t convince you. (Please don’t be offended! Our minds work differently.) But I firmly believe that using vampires and zombies (or witches and wizards) as fictional fantasy characters is wrong.Wow, if you let a topic go for half a day it completely gets away from you! Let me start at the very beginning. Reagan, all the way up there somewhere— the misunderstanding is entirely my fault. I tend to overstate my positions to make a point, then forget to go back and clarify them later. Also, at the start of this topic I thought we were discussing whether or not zombies and vampires are ought to be promoted, not whether or not they ought to be in our stories. So it was my fault, and I do apologize. I would not write a zombie or a vampire simply because of the cheap horror of it, but otherwise I can see no difference right now between writing an evil zombie and writing an evil sorcerer, if we are simply looking at the wickedness of it.
Ooh… blanket statements. I may have been guilty of that, Ezra, for which I cry your pardon. I generally try not to be annoying… đ If you catch me using that fallacy again, stop me. Logic and the Bible are not in conflict, and I do not want any of my blunderings to send that message. Two heads are better than one. So if you would consent to act my logic police I would be grateful.
And I get what you said about something being a sin for one and not for another. Really I do. But as writers, what do we take away from that? What is the lesson? When our works are out in the world, we will have no control over who reads them. Should we simply place a sticker on the jacket that says ‘if intense or gory violence upsets you, do not read this book, for it will cause you to sin’?
Now I am not an advocate for the complete sanitizing of any and all works so that a three year old could read them without harm, but if the wickedness or darkness is not necessary, why should we put it in our stories? Now often it is necessary— but still, just because it’s necessary doesn’t mean it has to be sickeningly described. We need not wallow in it. It will add nothing and cause many to stumble. I suppose I am advocating a doctrine of caution, which is neither the most inspiring message nor the most glamorous, but God did not say He sent his only begotten Son that whosoever believed upon Him should not perish, but have everlasting glamour. There is nothing glamorous about Christianity. Thank goodness!
And… ‘Now I have to say something. SomethingâŚhopefully cool: Language is amazing. Lemme âsplain.Just cuz something goes by a certain name in a fictional story does not mean it /must/ be all the definitions of that name. Iâll put it this way. Gandalf from LotR is a wizard /In LotR/.
However, that word was applied to him because audiences would associate it with certain things. /Not/ demonic horrible things.
By the definition given in the Bible, Gandalf is /not/ a wizard.
My point is, an author can call someone in his story one thing, because it will create a certain image in the mind of the reader. This does not mean that the author means it to be what the thing /actually/ is. If I wanted my readers to know about people who had a disease that made them sleep walk while their eyes popped out of their heads, I might have my characters call them zombies. That would make sense.
That doesnât make them the traditional zombie. Theyâre not walking dead. But still, Iâd call them that, because it helps the reader connect to my story better.’
… Yeah. You said it. I couldn’t agree more. I do understand what Sarah said about the same subject, but ‘what’s in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet’, to quote Shakespeare, who is not, I acknowledge, an authority on all subjects… but it was very apt in this situation. You could call me anything you wanted. You could call me a bushtailed fox if you wanted, but I would still be Kate inside. It is not what you call your wizard/’prophet’ figure, but how you portray him. Make sure you portray him clearly.First off, I just want to thank everyone for the very respectful nature of this conversation. It has been very refreshing! đ
@Ezra:
Exactly. Gandalf in LotR would be more accurately described as an angel.
@Sarah:
Where does the Bible make a distinction between wild beasts and evil beasts? I have not heard of that. And why does the Bible mention witches and witchcraft, but not vampires and such?
Also, just because something may have a bad origin, it does not necessarily mean the modern form is wrong. For example, Christmas started as a pagan holiday involving human sacrifice, yet most Christians think it is okay to celebrate Christmas today.
I also think we have to be careful not to accept one person’s account over the Bible, and the Bible has depictions of witchcraft in it. So if it is always wrong to depict witchcraft, then we should not read the Bible. Practicing witchcraft is condemned. If just depicting sin is wrong, then we should not depict lying, cheating, murder, etc., either in our stories.
We must be careful not to glorify Satan by taking him too seriously, or giving him more power than he really has. He can only have power over us if we let him. Jesus has already beaten him, and we have the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.
@Kate:
Like Kate points out, we do have to be careful, and I think we should use the Bible as our example. While the Bible depicts terrible sin, it does not go into gory graphic detail. The Bible does not plant terrible images of sin before our minds.
Therefore, I think there are ways to depict evil in our stories without going too far in gory details. That said, everyone is still different, and different things affect people differently. What is wrong for one person, might not be for someone else.
For those who would be negatively affected, we should not flaunt these things in front of them. Like Paul says, we should give up these things in their presence so as not to cause the weak to stumble.
The Bible is black and white on a lot of things, but it also makes it clear there are some grey areas.
My Music:
AndromedaCoastMusic.comLearn Music Production:
OrpheusAudioAcademy.comTwo heads are better than one. So if you would consent to act my logic police I would be grateful.
This is like, the best thing anyone has ever told me.
And I get what you said about something being a sin for one and not for another. Really I do. But as writers, what do we take away from that? What is the lesson? When our works are out in the world, we will have no control over who reads them. Should we simply place a sticker on the jacket that says âif intense or gory violence upsets you, do not read this book, for it will cause you to sinâ?
Now I am not an advocate for the complete sanitizing of any and all works so that a three year old could read them without harm, but if the wickedness or darkness is not necessary, why should we put it in our stories? Now often it is necessaryâ but still, just because itâs necessary doesnât mean it has to be sickeningly described. We need not wallow in it. It will add nothing and cause many to stumble. I suppose I am advocating a doctrine of caution, which is neither the most inspiring message nor the most glamorous, but God did not say He sent his only begotten Son that whosoever believed upon Him should not perish, but have everlasting glamour. There is nothing glamorous about Christianity. Thank goodness!This is something I actually had thoughts on, but forgot to post originally, but then when someone (I think Hannah…) said something about it being our duty not to do stuff that will cause people to sin I remembered…and then I forgot again. And now it’s late.
Short version: I agree.
Long version in which I state my never humble opinion: Tomorrow. Unless I forget again. Which is not like…unlikely.
Sorry I haven’t been more actively involved. I got a facebook message from Kerry Nietz, the Amish Vampires in Space guy. He said that Kate was asking how he got published, and he asked if I would share this article.
Ok I have an interesting question for you lot. What is your opinion of cannibalism? Sorry, but I had to ask. Is it good, is it bad? Is it right, is it wrong? Is it evil or is it misinterpreted and could it really be quite a beautiful thing if interpreted correctly?
Hahaha ok so obviously some of that was sarcasm but I am interested to know.
HC
Ok I’m kinda new here but this is my view on the subject.
We can write about vampires if they are not portrayed as the inherently good guys.
Let me give an example to you. The original vampire story, as far as I know, is Dracula by Bram Stoker. Guys, I loved that book. It was great. But Count Dracula was the BAD guy, i.e. the antagonist. He is portrayed in a manner that will make the reader terrified and in casual terms, grossed out by him. The humans who turn into the undead receive a very carnal, voluptuous look that is definitely sinful but alluring. But I would actually say that the book has rather Christian themes, such as the fact that crucifixes come into play when keeping the vampires away. The characters are excellently fleshed out and I really love that theme running through the book.
Now onto another example in literature concerning the occult and stuff like that. The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is what I’m citing. In that book, there are good witches and bad witches. Now honestly, there is no such thing as a good witch or a bad witch. The term bad witch is redundant because a witch is inherently bad. Describing a witch as being good is deliberately going against what is inherently there. (Forgive me. I like using the word inherently.) If L. Frank Baum wanted to change things around to a Christian standpoint, he would have changed Glinda and that other ‘good witch’ (I forgot her name) to actual people or fairies or magicians or SOMETHING. But you see, Baum was an occultist and I think he wanted to make this point that witches could be good. But they can’t. Yet he wanted to influence people and children through this subtle phraseology.
So what I’m saying is that sure, you can use vampires or zombies or whatnot in your book, BUT make sure you’re not portraying them as GOOD. THIS COULD BE A STUMBLING BLOCK. If you say you are a Christian writer and yet you say these things from the occult are GOOD, people who are not so well-informed could get influenced by it! That’s my opinion on the topic đ
And oh by the way do check out Dracula if you haven’t yet read it. It’s a great read.
Ok I have an interesting question for you lot. What is your opinion of cannibalism? Sorry, but I had to ask. Is it good, is it bad? Is it right, is it wrong? Is it evil or is it misinterpreted and could it really be quite a beautiful thing if interpreted correctly?
Hahaha ok so obviously some of that was sarcasm but I am interested to know.I think this question is rather irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t think anyone is saying vampires are jolly good chaps, and that they are beautiful things interpreted a certain way. I think everyone agrees they are nasty creatures. I think everyone would agree that cannibalism is horrifying and terrible as well.
This is where the discussion lies.
Camp 1:
Vampires are evil.
Therefore, don’t even write about them.Camp 2:
Vampires are evil
But just because something is evil, it doesn’t necessarily follow that we shouldn’t write about it.Everyone agrees on the premise that vampires are evil. The disagreement lies in how this relates to our writing.
My Music:
AndromedaCoastMusic.comLearn Music Production:
OrpheusAudioAcademy.comThe original vampire story, as far as I know, is Dracula by Bram Stoker.
…Who in turn took it from a historical character “Vlad the Impaler”. I forget where he lived…somewhere near or in Russia. That kinda area. (Y’know…his name /is/ Vlad.) He was a real guy though. And I’m fairly certain (though we never could know for sure) he’s about as close to the insane psycho villain Hollywood gives us as you can get. His life goal was to devise new ways to make people suffer.
Really. Icky dude.
to actual people or fairies or magicians or SOMETHING.
This is a bit of a wavering from topic, but I find this kinda…funny. Cuz a lot of people do it.
Fairies, magicians, wizards, etc…are all actually synonyms to ‘witches’. (Maaaaybe not fairies, but if we’re taking the route of things being in the real world…I’d say that a fairy would be along the same lines as those were animals. It ain’t all Tinker Bell Disney.)
Really, that’s just what I’m saying when I talk about how a /word/ can be used, but mean two different things.
‘Magician’ does not necessitate someone who communes with devils, and neither does witch (not in fiction anyway.)
Obviously, Kate (I think it was Kate), has a point: Certain things can /definitely/ be stumbling blocks for others. But that doesn’t mean we can’t touch those subjects. It means we make it clear in our writing what it is we’re using the term to describe, make it clear it has no real life connections…and there it is. That’s our duty. It’s the duty of the reader to be discerning in what they read.
Like eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul said it was fine. Go ahead. But don’t cause your brother to stumble. So /obviously/ if a weaker brother was with you (no, I’m not calling you lot against vampires etc…the weaker brother), you wouldn’t eat the meat sacrificed to idols.
But that doesn’t mean the weaker brother should purposefully place himself in situations where other Christians were eating said meat. Or try and catch other Christians in the act of doing it. That’s not being discerning.
Ok I have an interesting question for you lot. What is your opinion of cannibalism? Sorry, but I had to ask. Is it good, is it bad? Is it right, is it wrong? Is it evil or is it misinterpreted and could it really be quite a beautiful thing if interpreted correctly?
Obviously, cannibalism is wrong. Terribly wrong. Ezekiel 5:10. (And it’s so hard to not break my rule of trying not to assume where someone’s going with their question, and try and make a counter argument…)
But I will ask a question in return: That example I gave about zombies (if you remember), if I used the same /idea/ (the sleepwalking dudes), but didn’t call them zombies (say, called them…Pests), would you still have a problem with them?
Um, Reagan, I am not really in Camp One or Camp Two. Here is my position:
Vampires are evil.
Vampires are real.
We should not write about them as if they were nonexistent, fantasy creatures.The Bible reference I was speaking of is Numbers 26:6,22.
I know most Christians think that it’s okay to celebrate/participate in practices that were originally pagan, but I can’t say I agree. This is a matter of personal conviction.
It’s not wrong to write about evil, but we shouldn’t write about it the wrong way.
Satan hates it when people expose him. He doesn’t want us to know the real danger there is in playing around with things related to witchcraft. He wants us to think that things tied into witchcraft are innocent. It’s not right for us to give life to these evil creatures in our stories. We don’t realize what that does in the spiritual realm. We’re playing with fire when we do that. We are protected from Satan to the extent that we obey The Lord and allow Him to have complete control over our lives. Yes, we have the Holy Spirit, but we must listen to Him and obey Him. If He tells us that something is displeasing to Him, and we ignore Him and do what we want, that gives Satan an inroad into our life. Satan is serious about destroying us, and I can’t take that lightly.
âŚWho in turn took it from a historical character âVlad the Impalerâ. I forget where he livedâŚsomewhere near or in Russia. That kinda area. (YâknowâŚhis name /is/ Vlad.) He was a real guy though. And Iâm fairly certain (though we never could know for sure) heâs about as close to the insane psycho villain Hollywood gives us as you can get. His life goal was to devise new ways to make people suffer.
The country you are looking for is Transylvania, and yes, he was a real person, and Dracula was based on him too I believe.
You also make a very good point about names. At least in fiction, there is a difference between magic and witchcraft.
My Music:
AndromedaCoastMusic.comLearn Music Production:
OrpheusAudioAcademy.comUm, Reagan, I am not really in Camp One or Camp Two. Here is my position:
Vampires are evil.
Vampires are real.
We should not write about them as if they were nonexistent, fantasy creatures.
The Bible reference I was speaking of is Numbers 26:6,22.I’m sorry, I misunderstood your position. So you are okay with writing about vampires, so long as we make it clear in the story that they are indeed actually real evil creatures?
And I disagree that they are real. I don’t see any Biblical evidence for their existence, or any evidence that they exist in nature.
I’m also not sure how that passage from Numbers is relevant.
My Music:
AndromedaCoastMusic.comLearn Music Production:
OrpheusAudioAcademy.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.