Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, and God

“you atheist basturds need to leave the good christians alone.

santa, the easter bunny, and god are all silly, illogical figments created to make kids behave better.

whether it's for a new tonka truck on x-mas morning or to avoid burning in hell for eternity- if belief in magical omniscient beings is required for certain individuals to play nice within our society, then that's what it takes.”

“I was wondering where you were just a bit ago sacco. I guess I conjured you from my imagination.”

“Look who's back and with guns blazing. How's the new job Sacco?”

“tis the season to go trolling”

“Was Dracula a Christian Hero?
Elizabeth Kostova's new best-seller offers readers a Dracula concerned not just with blood, but with the fate of his soul.

Interview by Rebecca Phillips



To fans of the Bram Stoker novel "Dracula" or the dozens of Hollywood adaptations that have followed it, Dracula, the legendary Eastern European vampire, is usually viewed as an enemy of Christianity. But in her new best-selling novel, "The Historian," Elizabeth Kostova offers a surprising look at a Dracula whose choices are often informed by faith. Kostova's Dracula is based partly on the Stoker legend and partly on the 15th century Balkan ruler known as Vlad the Impaler who inspired Stoker's 1897 Dracula tale. Her book tells the story of a father and daughter in search of the real Dracula, taking readers on a journey through contemporary Romania and Bulgaria, Ottoman Turkey, and medieval Christian Europe. Along the way she reveals a great deal about the historical relationship between Christianity and the Dracula legend. Dracula's name, for instance, came from the Order of the Dragon, originally founded to protect Christian Europe from invasion by Muslim Ottomans. In Kostova's book, Dracula helps build monasteries, befriends monks, and ultimately is concerned not with blood or young women, but with his own salvation. Kostova recently spoke with Beliefnet about the Christian leanings of this longtime horror-story favorite.

What attracted you at first to the Dracula story?
I've been drawn to the legend of Dracula since childhood. Like a lot of children, I was intrigued by it, and then kind of forgot about it for many years. Then about 11 years ago when I was writing and publishing short work and just beginning to think about writing a novel, I remembered Dracula tales that my father had told me while I was traveling with my family as a child in Eastern and Western Europe, and how much I had loved these tales, which were loosely based on the Hollywood classic films that he grew up with. I wondered if they would make a good structure for a novel.Was it the scariness of the stories that drew you in?
Yes, I liked the creepiness of the Dracula legend, as many children do. But I think what really drew me in was that I associated Dracula with travel, and with history and beautiful historic places because of the settings in which I had heard these stories. I also had already spent a lot of time in Eastern Europe, since childhood, and I wanted to find a way to write about that history.

Is the Dracula story still a big part of the culture of Romania?
The Dracula legend was known for centuries in Eastern Europe through folk songs and epic poetry. It was reintroduced in its new supernatural form by Hollywood. Now Romanians are very aware of Dracula because he's become a major export and a tourist attraction. For some Romanians that's a discouraging thing, but for others it's a way to attract western tourists. Many Romanians are proud of Dracula as a national hero. The historical Dracula is a very complicated figure.

The historical Dracula, who most historians think the Stoker novel was based on, was a cruel ruler who tortured thousands of people. It's hard to know about Vlad Dracula's history as a torturer and impaler and reconcile that with thinking of him as a hero.
That's true. One of the things that really interested me in examining Eastern European history for this book is how wildly perspectives on one figure or event vary, according to the ethnic group you ask.

For Romanian Orthodox Christians in the Byzantine tradition, Dracula was a hero who held back the invading Ottoman armies longer than most leaders managed to do. He was a Christian hero, in spite of his sadism toward his own people. Of course for the Ottomans he was a barbarian, who was attacking the fringes of their civilization. It's very interesting to see him from all these points of view.

Your book gets deep into the history of the Christian origins of the Dracula legend. Even his name comes from the Order of the Dragon, which was supposed to protect Christians from the invading Ottomans.
Yes, that's right.

It's pretty clear in your book that the historical Dracula considered himself a pious Christian. Can you tell me anything more about Vlad Dracula's actual beliefs? How much of this part of your book is based on history?
It's very hard to know what the actual beliefs of a medieval figure were, unless that person was a cleric or a religious writer who would be likely to record those beliefs. There are stories about Dracula that were written down by his contemporaries, or diplomats who went to his court, or scribes.

One thing that several different sources report about him is that he did have some doubts about where he was going to end up after he died. He seems to have been aware that his deeds of torture and murder of his own people, at least--and who knows how he felt about torturing and murdering Ottomans, he may have felt very differently about that--caused him some doubt about whether or not he could actually enter heaven, as it was viewed in the traditions of the time. He gave a great deal of money to several monasteries to rebuild them or to enrich them, including the monastery where he's buried, as you saw in the book.

It's hard to tell from the record whether he was genuinely pious, or just a shrewd leader who was worried about what was going to happen to his soul.

So if the inspiration for the Dracula legend was a believing Christian, why did it become traditional for religious people to wear crucifixes to ward off vampires?
Well, that's a completely separate tradition. Nobody believed, in Dracula's lifetime or in many centuries after his lifetime, that he was a vampire. That connection--putting the Dracula name on a vampire--was completely invented by Bram Stoker, in his 1897 novel "Dracula." But there was, and still is in places, this very strong Eastern European belief in vampires. The vampire is an incarnation of evil in East European folklore, and can be opposed only by a mixture of rituals, some of which are Christian and some of which probably pre-date Christianity.

The non-Christian ones include the use of garlic?
Yes, like the garlic. The idea of the vampire appears in world history long before Christianity. Many of the regions of Eastern Europe probably had vampire beliefs that came out of just being agricultural societies, long before they converted to Christianity. So Bram Stoker took all these different elements and conflated them. But actually in life, Vlad Dracula would have been much more likely to have worn a Christian symbol himself.”

“It would explain the whole blood thing. Get it? WHOLE blood? Bawhahahahahaha! Now that's my TYPE of humor! Sorry I don't mean to be A NEGATIVE kind of guy here!
last edited: 7/19/05 12:24:56 PM”

“Sounds like someone is trying to mimic the Davinci Code phenom.”

“I'm A Positive...........jerk”

“Oh yeah............saaaaaaaaay, sacco !!”

“hey guys

new job is keeping me pretty busy - so far anyway.

i did feel a strange pull today. maybe it was the power of DH's imagination.”

“zac, do you work downtown?”

“I work in downtown Troy. About 10 miles north of Albany.”

“that's so funny, dayhiker...i was just thinking myself, good thing that good-for-nothing Sacco hadn't been hanging around much! what a coinkidink.”

“I've been watching this & been reluctant to jump in, but can't resist.

First, I'm not a Christian & I don't believe in organized religeon (for me, personally)... I tend to agree with those who point out all of the ills throughpout the ages that have resulted from these man-made bodies. I personaly tend to believe in science, in Quantum Physics in particular, more than anything else.

HOWEVER, I think it's pretty insensitive to tell someone their belief system is akin to believing in Santa or the Easter bunny. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean you should question the integrity and/or intelligence of someone who has chosen to "have faith" in something which "can't be proved", scientifically. These "belief systems" have also helped develop some pretty powerful human assistance programs from which a great many have benefitted over the ages.

So... I guess I'm sticking up for those members of organized religeons... they have a "right" to believe whatever they choose without being labled as stupid, ignorant or childlike.

Just something to think about... I'm sure most socialy mature adults don't want to be percieved as arrogant, know-it-all a$$holes who can't tolerate someone believing something they don't.

Do they?”

“easter bunny it not real?

damn you sacco

damn you to hell!!!”

“agreed, wandy. i think saccos just after shts and gggles”

“wanderer's schittin' and I'm gigglin'


(I can't help myself)”

“For you Mark O...

"I'm sure most socially mature adults..."

Socially Mature??? What the #%#^@# could that mean?

What that means is "getting along with others". If you have a positive, salient point, then by all means, share it! If however, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, perhaps you're better off keeping your big mouth shut since the more you talk the more people realize you don't know what you're saying?”

“I've been thinking about this even more, and the more I think about it, the more I've reached a point where I beliieve I can accurately define what people mean when they use the "Northeast elitist liberal" label!

If I make some comment about how I think we "should all get along" and "respect other's beliefs", whether we accept them as our own or not...... MarkO & his ilk seem to think that means that I am "lower", "less intelligent" or "ill informed". They can't seem to understand that different people may have different belief systems or perspectives.

It's the "their way or the highway" approach. AND... it's BENEATH THEM to actually discuss the differences. You, as a "lesser human" aren't equal to them, and they therefore don't have to even talk with you! All they have to do is belittle you for not being like them - you poor, unfortunate being!

So, MARK-O, here's my challenge: PLEASE prove me wrong and actually enter into a debate / INTELLIGENT discussion of belief systems / religions, etc. OR, substantiate your standing as one who "laughs" at those who don't believe as HE does, and are therefore inferior.

Your call. Become a member of the Human Race, or, continue on as you have.


Call me names, or debate me on the issues. Your response will clearly indicate what type of human being you are.”

“youre a poopyhead”

“Thank You, CB! :)”

“so maybe it wasn't DHs imagination, but lyra's thoughts of me that brought me back.

CB, hush

wanderer, maybe some northeastern elitist liberals do judge others for their belief system. maybe some northeastern elitist liberals think all christians are less intelligent.

wanna know what i think is worse?

all the christians who believe everyone else in the world is going to hell whilst they alone get to hang out in heaven with all the other good christian folk.
so lighten up ya non-christian, going-to-hell-in-an-easter-basket freak.

and maple, you can believe in the easter bunny all you want. i'm sure no one will judge you. least of all wanderer.”

“Sacco, I agree with you... personally I feel kinda' sorry for all the "believers" who are convinced that, just because you don't believe as they do, that you're gonna burn in hell or whatever crazy stuff they believe.

I just happen to think that being the opposite kind of extremist isn't the answer. Calling the believers stupid, moronic, folks who believe in fairy tales insults them & shows a lack of understanding I find surprising from so-called "enlightened" folks such as yourselves.”

“sacco - Your characterization of what Christians believe is mind-boggling, but I can understand it since I was a non-Christian the vast majority of my life. I know how it seems, but trust me, it's not that way at all. This statement: "all the christians who believe everyone else in the world is going to hell whilst they alone get to hang out in heaven with all the other good christian folk" is completely off mark.

Christians are concerned that they themselves are not worthy of Heaven. Even with Jesus as our Savior, it's difficult to believe we'll be accepted into Heaven. That's the nature of a Christian. Any Christian without that burdoning thought most likely isn't a Christian at all. Upon truly understanding who Jesus is the Christian often drops to his knees in humble disgust with his own relationship with God.

You've completely mis-characterized reality.”

“Lo, there do I see my father.

Lo, there do I see my mother,
and my sisters, and my brothers.

Lo, there do I see the line of my people,
Back to the beginning!

Lo, they do call to me.
They bid me take my place among them,
In the halls of Valhalla!
Where the brave may live Forever!”

“ Even with Jesus as our Savior, it's difficult to believe we'll be accepted into Heaven

thats the first time ive ever heard that”

“wanderer - don't worry too much about sacco, that's just his charming personality. Seriously though, he's chimmed in a good bit on this subject from a serious standpoint. I took his post as more of an over the top sort of "Iiiiii'm Back!!!"

lyra - which did you agree with? Conjuring sacco out of the depths of imagination or that the Dracula thing seemed to be an attempt to take-off Davinci without explicitly doing it?”

“wanderer, I'm touched.

I do not live in the northeast, I live south of the Mason Dixon Line by about thirty miles.

Look here, sour-puss, Crash Bang set it up and I delivered the punch line.

You were schittin'/bytchin' and I got a giggle out of it.

Like I said, "I can't help myself."

“For you Mark O...

"I'm sure most socially mature adults..."

Socially Mature??? What the #%#^@# could that mean?"

Are you attributing that to me?

That's not something I said.

But I will say that as a happy fool in my fifties, one of my goals in life is to become less mature as I grow older and to enjoy what's left.

Lighten up, poopy head.

And sacco really is a mean mojo man.”

“sarge, perhaps my understanding of christianity is severely lacking. please clarify:

1) don't most practicing christians read, follow, and believe in the new testament?

2) doesn't the new testament proclaim in numerous places that your actions matter little (or atleast much less) in comparison to your belief in and submission to god and jesus christ?

therefore, practicing christians must believe that all non christians are going to hell. correct?

3) dayhiker called me charming.teehehehee”

“1. yes.
2. Vast over simplification, but yeah, pretty much.
3. Doesn't that just give you a warm fuzzy feeling?”

“People get too bent out of shape about this stuff. How do I know? Because it used to get my goat. Worship a tree, worship dirt, hell, worship your own fecal stool like MarkO (nyucknyuck!) for all I care. Say whatever you want about my faith, I don’t care.”

“

Obey Beer God”

“I adore good Irish and Scotch whiskey.

However, I will only drink Catholic Irish hooch.

Flame on, you Orangemen bastards!!!”

“http://www.beerchurch.com/

Making the world better...one beer at a time.”

“Blasphemious cretins!!

Beer should be free......free from the strictures of organized credo!!!

Free Beer!!

Free Beer!!”

“sacco - I think you either misread, or didn't read my post which you responded to.

I gave you a specific reason why your post was misguided. I don't know, should I repost it for you? Try scrolling up. I don't think I didn't say the New Testament doesn't say that you have to be a Christian to get to Heaven. The part of your post that I said was misguided was your characterization of Christian attitude, specifically: "all the christians who believe everyone else in the world is going to hell whilst they alone get to hang out in heaven with all the other good christian folk".

Let me put it a completely other way.

Let's assume for a moment that the Bible was what Christians believe, but they take your "suggested" attitude regarding it. That is, let's assume that even though the Bible, which is entirely what their religion is based upon, says that you have to be "saved" to get to Heaven, that Christians, um, discounted that. Simply ignored it.

What good would their faith be then? What would be the basis of their religion?

In your world, their basis would be their own desires.

As a Christian, I desire ALL people to get to Heaven. But, because I am a Christian, I know that won't be the case. I know that because my faith, i.e. - the Bible, tells me that it isn't the case.

So, basically you are suggesting the Christians should have a very weak, or unsubstantiated, faith in order to be considered acceptable.

That's absurd!

Christians are very unselfish. They have to be. They have to resist their own desires and rely on their faith in God for what is right.

That's what Christians do when they say that only saved people will get to Heaven. They rely on their faith in the Bible.

Anything else would be weak faith. Anything else would be a self-made religion. You would not respect that now would you? That's immature and baseless faith.”

“"Christians are very unselfish. They have to be. They have to resist their own desires and rely on their faith in God for what is right."

That's idealistic, at best.”

“"That's idealistic, at best.”

Oh yeah sure. And a guy with a 12 pack is all unselfish with his beer too. Sha, right! :) OK, maybe if it's Budweiser.”

“sarge,

i'm honestly pretty sure that you do desire for all folks to get to heaven.

but since you base your faith on the bible, that means that you desire for all other people to become christians (so they have a chance to get to heaven) just like you.

being the socially adjusted fellow and the good christian that you are, i can understand how it would make you more comfortable to put various spins on your faith, but:

the bottom line is if you believe in the bible, you believe that everyone else who does not follow your religion is going to hell. gandhi may have been a nice guy and all, but since he wasn't a christian he's burning in hell for eternity.



i never suggested christians take any attitude regarding their beliefs, just making a point.

i do feel that all religions are really self made, but not immature or entirely baseless.


zac, honey brown rocks. one of my favorites.

DH, please explain how charming i am to sarge. i'm not sure he's absorbing it all.”

“Sacco worships at the Temple of the Royal Coachman.”

“sacco - I know sarcasm when I see it. I don't necessarily accept it though. My reason is that much of liberal argument comes from a fantasy land, tongue in cheek, I'm just being silly, I know it's a lie, but ... type of attitude. I don't accept it. If you'll take note, liberals use many political cartoons to enforce their point. The reality is, that fantasy land is where they truly have their beliefs rooted. If you're going to argue from a sarcastic point of view, that's nothing new to me to face. It's just how liberals are. You may mean it as a joke, but it's also where you get your beliefs from. From that joke/fantasy land. Unfortunately, as a conservative, that's all I have to debate against. So, that's what I do.”

“MarkO - If you think it's idealistic, at best, then you must think it's inaccurate. How so?”

“acutally, i'm more of a Royal Wulff guy but good guess!”

“sarge, what are you talking about?

my last post was completely upfront and serious.

the very last line was not serious, but still true upfront - i don't think you find me as charming as dayhiker :)”

“sac - You said that you "can understand how it would make you more comfortable to put various spins on your faith, but: the bottom line is if you believe in the bible, you believe that everyone else who does not follow your religion is going to hell. gandhi may have been a nice guy and all, but since he wasn't a christian he's burning in hell for eternity."

In what way am I spinning my faith?

If you're referring to the "spin" that you have to be a Christian to be saved, please explain how I should "spin" this:

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

and

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

and

I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain

and

For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Forget about my spin. What do you think those versus mean?”

“you're not spinning the bible.

unlike most modern christians who like to "soften" the messages from the bible and be more "understanding towards other faiths", you are sticking to your guns sarge.

no problems there.

my bottom line is truthful and direct.
no matter what else you may like to say or how you'd like to word it -the fact is, that you feel that anyone who doesn't conform to your (christian) beliefs will burn in hell.

us non- believers may pick on christians or even insult their intelligence, but i would never be so presumptious as to tell them where their souls will spend eternity.

and for the record, i don't think christians are any less intelligent. i just figure if they're gonna judge my soul's destination, then i can at least pick on them about it.”

“Ok, maybe you're trolling here, but you said that I'm not spinning the bible and that I'm sticking to my faith ... then you follow-up with " i just figure if they're gonna judge my soul's destination, then i can at least pick on them about it".

Again, you're probably trolling, but I am not "judging" your soul's destination. I'm simply stating a fact. God, the creator of the universe, will not allow you into Heaven according to His Word.

Is that a Christian judging a non-Christian?

Of course not.

The bottom line is your argument against the Christian is baseless. Your complaint should be against God's Word, the Bible. That is the source of your insecurity about your future.”

“"MarkO - If you think it's idealistic, at best, then you must think it's inaccurate. How so?”
Sarge
11:12:20 AM

To say that "Christians are very unselfish", is idealistic at best and at worst it is a knowing lie.

I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to youthful idealism.”

“LOL! "youthful"?

You skipped the reasoning for their unselfishness. Of course, that's used for purposes of the context in which it was used only.

"They have to resist their own desires and rely on their faith in God for what is right."

That statement is true. As a non-Christian, you rely on yourself and your own desires. As a Christian, you must put your faith in God. That's unselfish, by definition.”

“That's your definition of "Christian", dude.

I just think the statement was hard to defend.

There are plenty of un-unselfish Christians out there in the real world.”