Vampires are demonic and thereby demons. It is every bit as much a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater for a Christian to dismiss them.
No, no it's not. Not when there's a context for such things. Vampires are not merely demons. They are demon-inhabited corpses. That drink blood. And infect others, in kind.
Your idea of an exorcism, in this case, is driving stakes through a corpse's heart. I maintain that this is not exactly a Scripturally-based way of exorcising people.
Let me ask you this though, Arch, is it necessary for a Christian to believe in the existence of vampires? How integral is the belief in such beings for one's own salvation?
You probably wouldn't because most churches, including the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, are very liberal today. This was not the case in centuries past. Thus most churches today are full of people who don't want to believe in the existence of the supernatural, least of all demons and the Devil, assuming they believe in anything at all. Traditionalists keep to what was held to be true down the ages and such believers still exist in both clergy and laity in all the mainstream denominations. Unfortunately, they are now a minority.
Yes, and history is a testament to how "traditional" many Christians have been over time. I will not deny, however, that the (Christian) belief in the supernatural is slowly being eroded through liberalism. I, personally, do not side with that camp. Nor do I believe that others need to label themselves as "traditionalists". If that's the case, what does it make of fundamentalists, etc.
The overwhelming majority of Christians in the world are either Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox. It is within these denominations that research and investigation into vampirism has been carried out and acted upon across centuries.
Yep, and I've mentioned a few names along those lines, too. Calmet, Davanzati, Prospero Lambertini, all highly-regarded Catholics - all critical of vampire belief.
It is clearly outside your sphere of experience and expertise. How many traditionalist priests have you ever communicated with? I doubt you have had contact with any.
Traditionalist...what, exactly? Are you saying you
, Archangel Michael, have more "experience and expertise" than myself? What are you getting at here?
If you're gonna throw it back to the vampire thing, then, by all means, reveal some names and writings that show them endorsing the vampire belief.
I have had and still have contact with a considerable number of them. Insignificant sects outside the mainstream have their own ideas. Some of the are fundamentalist; some of them manufacture their doctrine. Whether these tiny "churches" believe in vampires/demons is immaterial. I understand you belong to one of them.
Wow, a dig at me being Baptist.
If I'm not mistaken, you seem to be dismissive of these "insignificant sects" because...they don't tend to uphold vampirism for the masses? Are you kidding me?
But since you're trying to assert superiority over my
branch, then, by all means, what church do you belong to, Arch?
You seldom express your thoughts as being just "your views." You express them as received wisdom which everyone else should acknowledge.
Um, hypocritical much?
You come across as charmless and extremely irritating; made worse by your being a novice; something which is apparent to anyone with half a brain. Your arguments are laboriously pedestrian and no more than conjecture without any real substance. You are frequently patronising to other members, including myself, and your comments are invariably laced with prejudice. Whoever you might think you are, informed you are not.
I'll let the irony of your comments sink into your noggin for a bit.
At least keep in mind, Arch, that I've provided a few sources. You haven't really extended the same courtesy.
What you've done, instead, is latch onto Caled's responses like a lamprey. Also, your demeanor is hardly as angelic as you make it out to be.
Which brings me to a question you've conveniently dodged: why have you named yourself after an archangel?