Ambivalences

General Discussion on the Twilight Universe

Moderators: December, bac, Bronze Haired Girl, cullengirl

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules

Re: Explorations

Postby Violet Sunlight » Sat Dec 17, 2011 8:42 pm

To ~ Tornado Please brace yourself this is AGAIN a super duper long post. But, again at least I don’t post long posts every day. Sorry.

:D I owe you big, for bringing this subject up for me. Like I said before, more often than not, I accept or reject something because of my Christian beliefs and, a lot of the time I consciously don’t know why, though I subconsciously know exactly why, I accept or reject something. And again, you have unlocked my sub-consciousness with your post to me, which in turn, made so many reasons come flooding into my consciousness, like a roaring river. Thank you so much. :D

Before, I begin, I know most of you already know, but I would like to say it again, I do NOT have a problem with the way Bella became a vampire. The way Bella became a vampire lines up nicely with my Christian beliefs. (Only one’s author/creator of one’s life has the right to end or change the format of one’s life). In my opinion, the Bella story/saga ended perfectly. Bella was changed due to her imminent death circumstance (medical purposes) hence the ending of her human life was, in my Christian opinion, way better than what she originally had planned. :clap:

Okay, here we go. I actually don’t have a problem with #1 or #2 of your list. I will explain:

RE: Your reason #1 ~ as you and December have pointed out, being temporarily or permanently separated from your family is normal/natural way of life. It’s sad, but normal. You are right, I have NO problem with reason #1 of your paragraph.

RE: Your reason #2 ~ I also, have NO problem with reason #2 of your paragraph. I believe a person canNOT lose their soul because of anything done to their body, even with their consent. As I said before, C.S. Lewis has so brilliantly said, “You don’t have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body”. I couldn’t agree more. Of course, he gets this reasoning from the Bible.

RE: Your reason #3 ~ YES, as a Christian, I have a problem with reason #3 of your paragraph. I would also, like to add another factor to your #3 reason. As a Christian, changing into another being without the author’s/creator’s consent is wrong too. In my opinion, we do not have clearance to change into another being of our own volition. If we did, God would have given our bodies the power to do so, from the beginning. And, thank goodness, God doesn’t, if He did, there would be NO human beings left, we would ALL be vampire beings.

Speaking for myself, it is more comfortable, as a Christian, to accept supernatural/magical beings in fairy tale, when they are born that way. Which means their author/creator gave them clearance to be so. And even, when the supernatural/magical being wants to change to a human being, again, it’s okay and right with me. This choice/decision also, lines up very nicely with my Christian beliefs/reasoning. When the author/creator of the supernatural/magical being wants to or, does change this being/creator’s-creation into a human being, means the author/creator wants to change this being into his/her own image/likeness, which of course, fits very, very, well with Christian/Biblical beliefs/reasoning. After all, the Bible teaches we ourselves are made in the image/likeness of our Creator, God.

Which brings me to the two reasons you stated in your Reason #3 ~ You stated, 1. “The human will want to kill people, and” 2. “may slip up and actually kill one or more people”. Okay, if we humans are created in the image of our Creator, God, than how can a painful, bodily-reflex/THIRST for human blood, be what God wanted for us/human-beings, His creation, made in His image/likeness? It would mean He set us up for failure from the very beginning.

The Bible teaches, “walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish”. Then it goes on to list the 17 works of the flesh and then it goes on to list the 9 Fruits of the Spirit that overcome/defeat the 17 works of the flesh. The 17 works of the flesh are mentally/morally at work within us. And one of the 17 works of the flesh is murder. Therefore, how could the Holy Spirit help us defeat/overcome murder if it is a bodily-reflex? He can’t. He wouldn’t. It would be like the Holy Spirit trying to stop me from using the bathroom, sneezing, coughing, crying etc. The Holy Spirit canNOT do that. He has the power to stop us from doing mental immoral things, NOT stop our immoral bodily-reflexes like the vampires have. We obviously, do not have immoral bodily-reflexes and our bodily-reflexes are not capable to FREELY commit an immoral act and especially against our mental moral will. Again, another reason why a vampire being is not a human being.

Also, if God is against murder than how can He build/create us to destroy/murder each other? He can’t, He wouldn’t, He didn’t. I also, would like to say, being that we are made in God’s image/likeness is the very reason why a vampire being will never be a human being ever again. God would not build/create something to destroy Himself, and He, most certainly, would NOT build/create something to kill and destroy us. Especially, being that we are made in his image/likeness. (We on the other hand, most certainly would, could and do.) One must remember SM created/designed the vampire outfit/body, with their camouflaged beauty to lure humans to the vampire for consumption, NOT God.

But, as we well know, God is more than merciful, gracious, loving and patient with ALL of us. God made a way for the soul to be saved, even before Adam’s disobedient actions caused Adam to sin and curse himself and the whole human race which caused us all to be separated from God. God promised Adam & Eve that one day, through them (human race), a Son/Savior would come and fulfill the promise of having the payment of sin be paid and make, their and ours, sins as white as snow and make us right with God once again.

Therefore, like I said before, for the sake of the game we are playing, both vampire beings and human beings, have souls and both have the same rights and opportunities to a happy and prosperous earthly and eternal life. But, this does NOT change the fact that God never intended the vampire life for anyone. It just means every supernatural being in the Twilight universe, has to do what we do, make the best of their lot in life. And just because God forgives murder, doesn’t mean we should put ourselves in the path of committing it or be tempted by it. That would go against Jesus’ teachings. The Bible also says one should flee the desires/lusts of the flesh. Murder is listed as one of the lusts of the flesh. Hence, in my opinion, for a Christian, wanting to be a vampire or wanting someone else to be a vampire, of any kind (yellow eyed or red eyed) for any reason, is against Jesus’/Biblical teachings.

Now, in the Twilight universe, if a person does NOT know or, is unaware of the Christian Way/Gift, let’s say like Carlisle, (I know the books say Carlisle has a Christian background but, I really think Carlisle did not read or understand the New Testament in the Bible at all), then it would be understandably reasonable for someone like Carlisle and the Cullens, to see their existence on earth as the only option for them. Hence, prolonging their lives, and others they care about, on earth would be a priority for them, so much so, the use of their venom as a medical means, (for what they, understandably, perceive as saving someone’s life), would be a tolerated form of medical assistance/means for the dying human and, especially one that has consented to the change beforehand.

For me, venom is like a super strength IV of Chemo Therapy. For a dying cancer patient, it is vital to have the chemo therapy be administered as soon as possible. Administering the super strength chemo therapy to a dying cancer patient is, morally and medically right and just. The doctor and patient are trying to save the person’s life on earth by treated/curing the body from what ails it. Even though, Chemo Therapy kills the good and bad bacteria of one’s body. It is necessary administer the chemo therapy to save the body and life of the dying patient. Hey, I wonder is Chemo Therapy an example where the end justifies the means? In any event, accepting venom as a means to medically help/save someone’s life on earth, when the person administering it is unaware of everything that Jesus Christ means, lines up nicely with my Christian/Biblical beliefs. One CAN’T judge a non-believer harshly, “they know NOT, what they do”.

Now, if a person/patient is 100% healthy, hence has zero cancer, administering a super strength IV of chemo therapy would definitely be murderous, even with the consent of the person/patient, because the person would surely die or the patient/person would certainly be seriously harmed. I would guess the harm would be permanent if not fatal.

Venom kills ALL the good and bad physical stuff that makes one human and has the power to change the human to a (vampire) being, that now painfully craves/THIRST for the very human blood the patient/person once had and tried to heal/cure to save their existence/life on earth. Yes, the venom enhances mental/physical abilities but, the venom does NOT STOP there, it continues to change the very essence of the human being. The former human being is now immortal because of the power of venom in them. And the former human being now has a murderous THIRST for HUMAN BLOOD. God created us to live an immortal life in a moral world with NO painful continuous murderous THIRST. God would not want us to live an immortal-like life, in a frozen-like sinful state and, in a sinful world, and separated from Him for who knew how many millenias. In my opinion, that would be horrible, sad and tragic for anyone who became a vampire, especially knowing about the GIFT God has offered us and other beings with souls.

Now, in my opinion, the veggie-vampires are not aware or don’t believe, in and/or about, the free Gift of God (Jesus Christ), so for me, it is tolerable to enjoy their vampire existence on earth. But, when and if, the day comes that the veggie-vampire becomes aware, and/or believes in and/or of, the free Gift of God, that veggie-vampire will be rightfully devastated that they will have to wait an unknowable amount of time to be joined with God. So for now, I choose to enjoy their ignorance and live in their fantasy/HEA, that ALL is better than well.

Finally, I want to respond to your last paragraph of your 12/15/11 post to me.
Just because Bella has been successful in her first 4 months as a NEWBORN vampire, that does NOT justify any future risks of changing anyone else into a veggie-vampire. Also, Bella’s success would NOT have justified a reason to change her with her consent, either. There is no way of knowing what Bella would do for the whole time she is a vampire. And as we know Alice can see things once the person has decided what to do. Alice would never know, when or if, Bella was going to make a, spur of the moment, decision to feed on a human. Carlisle has NO way of knowing what anyone is capable of doing beforehand. Hence, any reason Carlisle has to change a healthy person into a vampire, even with their consent, is immoral and unethical and like I said many posts ago, Carlisle would be going against his oath as a doctor and, against his beliefs that the human life is sacred, if Carlisle or any other Cullen would have complied with Bella’s original request.

We need to remember Carlisle changed Edward, and Edward did great as a NEWBORN vampire, even without the fore-knowledge of what it meant to be a vampire. And I am sure Carlisle was pleased that Edward did not get angry with him for changing Edward. But, Edward unpredictably rebelled against Carlisle’s veggie ways and became a vampire vigilante and unpredictably did so about 10 yrs after being changed. Before, Edward became a vampire vigilante, one of the reasons, Carlisle changed Esme was because, of Edward’s success and Edward was not angry with Carlisle because of the change. Though, Esme as well was not angry with Carlisle for the change, Esme did NOT do as well as Edward, at ALL. After Esme, Carlisle had in mind to change one more person only, and that was so Edward can have a mate. He felt he owed Edward. Hence, he was willing to take a risk/chance, one last time, with someone else without knowing beforehand what that other person would do or how they would feel about becoming a vampire. Hence, because he felt he owed Edward, when Rosalie’s circumstance opened the door to what Carlisle thought was a good idea for him and Edward. (Carlisle as Edward’s father wanted to see Edward happy.)

Carlisle unknowingly, (Carlisle did not know how angry Rosalie would be about becoming a vampire, and Carlisle did not know how successful Rosalie would be as a veggie-vampire), went forward with his plan to change dying Rosalie. Rosalie was so upset with him, Carlisle decided NOT to change anyone else. In spite of the fact that Edward and Rosalie did not have romantic feelings for each other. But, when Rosalie begged Carlisle to change dying Emmett for her. I think she even said the magic word “you owe me”, Carlisle gave in. Now ironically Emmett was NOT angry in becoming a vampire but, he did miserably as a NEWBORN veggie-vampire, and I think, but I am not sure, he did poorly a little after his NEWBORN state. In any event, the point was Carlisle was NOT going to change anyone else. And he surely was NOT going to change a healthy person, and I believe, even with their consent.

Okay, when you say, “To save their lives, yes, but in the process he was putting many more lives at risk due to their thirst. With this in mind is it really justified for him to do that when it puts others at risk?” In my Christian opinion, NO it was NOT justifiable for Carlisle to change any of them, NO matter how just he thought his reasons were. But, being that Carlisle is unaware of what God offers through Jesus Christ, it is understandably reasonable for someone in Carlisle’s position to do what he did. He had spent about 300 years by himself, he was lonely. And he was sure others could do as well as him or, would try to do as well as him, with few if any risks and/or slips. And for a while Edward proved him right. Esme however, proved him wrong. And ironically, Rosalie proved him right but, proved him wrong in gracefully accepting her vampire essence. Hence, like I said before, after Rosalie, Carlisle planned, NOT to change anyone else. But, Carlisle changed/gave Emmett for Rosalie as a gift he felt he owed her. And ironically again, Emmett gracefully accepts his vampire essence but, does the opposite of Rosalie in the risk/slip department.

Now, you say, “There is clear evidence that many more people have died as a result of his actions. He saved four people. Between them those four people have killed many. So why are his actions so much better just because he did it when they were dying?” My first reason as a Christian is, Carlisle does not know what Jesus Christ means and, my second reason is that only one’s author/creator of one’s life has the right to end/change one into another being, not anyone else, not even oneself. And my third reason is, that I see venom as a strong medicine to save the person’s body/life on earth, and I feel Carlisle feels this way too.

Also, true between the 4 people that Carlisle turned to vampires, many lives were lost due to the vampire THIRST. I don’t count Rosalie’s murders as a result of the vampire THIRST. But, I like to think those rapist will not be raping anyone else and potentially ending other lives. And Edward’s murderous THIRST/slips were done to murderers themselves. Again, I like to think, these murderers will not be murdering anyone else. In both of these cases, I like to think that many lives were saved due to Edward’s and Rosalie’s actions. Esme and Emmett were the failures/downfall of why one should NOT change anyone to a vampire. Whether someone is mild or wild as a human, it does NOT matter the potential for evil is there. Hence, Esme’s and Emmett’s, regrettable actions, STOPPED, I believe, all the Cullens from changing future humans to vampires (Bella excluded), hence, more lives saved.

Also, if it were NOT for Carlisle’s actions and veggie way of life, would Alice/Jasper want to join Carlisle by himself? As I understand it, Alice joined the Cullens because of her vision and I believe she wanted a family and to be part of a family. And Jasper, of course, will follow Alice wherever she goes. If there is no Cullen family, what would be Alice’s motive/reason to stay with Carlisle? Maybe at first to learn the veggie way, but I think she would leave shortly after. If Alice & Jasper would NOT have joined the Cullens, wouldn’t there be many, many more deaths? (Including Bella.) Especially, in regards to Jasper? Again, Carlisle’s decision to have a family does have very good benefits and results. Although, like I said before, they all have to live with the burden/handicap of the vampire THIRST until who knows when.

Another point I want to make, just because Bella has been successful as a NEWBORN vampire, because of her preparation, that does NOT mean that it is a good reason to change anyone to a veggie-vampire. Just because it seems to spare many more humans than the way Carlisle does it. One NEVER KNOWS what someone else is capable of or what someone else’s limits are. And one can NEVER know what the individual will in the course of their whole vampire life. And one should not risk OTHER people’s lives to find out. Anything could happen, what if the person who consented to being a veggie-vampire changes their mind once they are a vampire? That person would be, as or more, bitter and pessimistic than Rosalie and Edward ever were. Because, they would have no one else to blame but themselves. Again, ANYTHING can happen.
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Explorations

Postby mainhoonemily » Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:13 pm

Violet Sunlight wrote:
Before, I begin, I know most of you already know, but I would like to say it again, I do NOT have a problem with the way Bella became a vampire. The way Bella became a vampire lines up nicely with my Christian beliefs. (Only one’s author/creator of one’s life has the right to end or change the format of one’s life). In my opinion, the Bella story/saga ended perfectly. Bella was changed due to her imminent death circumstance (medical purposes) hence the ending of her human life was, in my Christian opinion, way better than what she originally had planned. :clap:



It's interesting that you say that. When I first read Breaking Dawn I thought Bella's becoming a vampire to save her life would absolve Edward of the guilt of taking her life needlessly, but then the more I re-read I find myself wondering whether that's really true. Because Bella would never have been at death's door, needing an emergency vampirization, if she hadn't been pregnant and given birth to a half-vampire baby. So in a way she and Edward are still "guilty", since it was their decision to sleep together while she was still human which brought her to the point of "change or die".

IF, I should say, you believe that becoming a vampire is a sin, for lack of a better way to put it. I'm more inclined to agree with Tornado, who said something earlier about vampires still having souls and vampirism not damning you - my apologies, I can't find her post now, but I remember reading it. It must be farther back than I thought!

Maybe I should make it clear too that, as far as the real world is concerned, my own beliefs line up with yours. Doing good and trying hard don't get you into heaven; belief in Jesus as savior does. BUT. With all due respect, I think trying to make real world religion line up with a fictional world is tricky and mostly useless. In the real world there are no vampires, so trying to fit them into beliefs that don't apply to them just doesn't make sense. It's like debating whether characters in Harry Potter went to heaven - pretty much irrelevant. I mean, if we're going to go there, why is no one concerned about the wolves and their immortal souls? Werewolves are traditionally just as damned as vampires, as far as I know. ;)
User avatar
mainhoonemily
Wandering Through Town
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:56 pm

Re: Explorations

Postby Violet Sunlight » Mon Dec 19, 2011 6:57 pm

Greetings to ALL, especially New Comers to the thread, :wave:

In this post, I will be addressing Smitten by Twilight first and then Corona.

To ~ Smitten_by_Twilight Greetings and thank you for responding to my post.

Okay, I always try to be careful when I share my personal opinions. And I must admit, sometimes when my thoughts start flowing and I start typing, I assume everyone understands my intentions. And I also, try to be so clear and so thorough with my feelings and personal interpretations, so much so, that I forget to go back and plug in phrases like the ones I am about to list, to every paragraph. I try, especially now, to say more often, “speaking for myself, as a Christian or; in my opinion; or I believe or; I think or; I guess or; in my Christian beliefs . . .”, usually in the beginning of a sentence or, paragraph or, thought.

Also, I have stated in the past I always only speak for me, myself and I and no one else, or group. That’s one of the reasons I like to say, “in my Christian beliefs”, because I am very well aware there are many Christian denominations and/or interpretations of the Bible, that are NOT the same as the one I hold. Which is another reason, why I like to be thorough when I am asked, or feel that I am being asked, why do I, personally, believe or hold a certain point of view.

Therefore, in light of what you have advised me, I can certainly start saying, “speaking for myself, and as a Christian, only, and not for any other Christians, in my opinion, . . . . . .”, instead of just saying, “speaking for myself”. Or I kindly say, maybe, since religion is a sensitive subject, for many, and also, my different views on other matters are a sensitive subject, as well, maybe I should put a disclaimer in the beginning of every post. Saying something like, “***Please note: everything I am going to say in this entire post is MY personal opinions, views and outlook, ONLY. I do NOT speak for anyone else, at all. Including my own religious group, other religious group or women and parents and the author, as a whole and in general. I strictly ONLY speak for me, myself and I.***” Maybe, this way I can cover myself better, in case I forget to plug in phrases like, “in my opinion” or “speaking for myself” or in case, no one has read what I previously posted.

Okay, regarding what I said about Carlisle, that was just my personal opinion/observation/outlook on the matter. And I believe, I did state it was “in my opinion” or “I think” both times. If not, I am sorry, I meant to say “in my opinion”.

Okay, this is the end of my response to your post to me. Thank you.

********************************************************************************

To ~ Corona Again, very good question and theory. Okay, I would like to start by saying, when it comes to philosophical matters in Twilight, my personal Christian filter is going up. Sorry, I can’t go about it any other way. My Christian filter helps me resolve many philosophical matters in the Twilight universe. And, I also, wish I could say, I do this all the time in my life, but I don’t. It’s one of my many, many faults/flaws which leads me personally into messy troubles. But, for Twilight I can easily throw my Christian filter up. Anyway, thank you again, for kindly bearing/tolerating me and all my Christian beliefs and different personal opinions on characters, interpretations, etc.

Firstly, when you say, “God works in mysterious ways. Perhaps Edward was going to be damned anyway, so God allows this affliction to be visited upon him?” Okay, speaking for myself, only, and NOT for any and all other Christians, in my opinion, YES, God works in mysterious ways. Also, remember I said before, there is one author to Twilight and two creators within the Twilight story, SM and God. SM created her vampires with their murderous thirst for human blood, NOT God. Yes, God allows disease and other very, unpleasant and painful things/trials to happen to us all, for His purposes, and sometimes we are privileged to know the reasons why, while here on earth and many times we are not. But, I have NO example in the Bible and in the Real World, where God allows, one or, any of our bodily-reflexes to 1. make/force us to crave for human blood and 2. makes/forces us to want to act on killing/murdering anyone else apart and/or independently from our own FREE mental/moral will.

Though, viruses/diseases and things of this nature, in our bodies, do want (virus’ intentions) to spread and consume on anything in its path. But, that is NOT the intentions of our bodily-reflexes. And the viruses/diseases in our bodies, do NOT supersede our mental/moral desires/will to make/force us to act against our own FREE mental/moral will. Therefore, my personal answer, to your question is NO, God does NOT allow the vampire thirst to afflict Edward because the vampire thirst was NOT created by God. THOUGH, SM definitely and certainly, allows the vampire thirst to afflict Edward and uses it to turn deeply-pessimistic Edward into optimistic/gracefully-accepting-his-lot-in-life Edward by the end of the Twilight story.

Okay, now regarding your theory, in my personal opinion, I kindly say, just because Edward and Carlisle are in the dark about who really put them in their situations (SM), does not mean I have to be. Since, I am outside the story, I can see everything objectively. Unlike, all the characters in the story. And especially, unlike Edward, who thinks he is damned by God, when in fact, he is not. Because, as I keep saying, Edward still has the same opportunity to have his soul be saved, that I do. Therefore, if you, hypothetically speaking NOT actually (I am not asking you to literally change anything, I just want to make a personal point), take out the name of God in your theory and insert SM’s name instead, I can agree with your theory a lot more, almost fully. Also, when you use the word “fate” to mean the cause of Edward’s deep pessimism, (not every time you use the word fate, only when you mean it as the cause of Edward’s pessimism) if you could use SM’s name instead, that would make your theory even more agreeable to me.

Now, again, speaking for myself and as a Christian and NOT for any other Christians, in your theory when you say, “And then Bella comes along, God’s own perfect design for testing Edward.” I kindly say, this is definitely, a place where I, personally, would have to take out the name of God and insert SM’s. The God of the Bible, tempts NO one. Yes, He does tests us with trials and such, but, in the trial there is NO bodily-weakness/temptation for the individual. But, for Edward, Bella is his temptation/bodily-weakness for two reasons 1. Bella’s human blood (weakness for any vampire), and more so, 2. Bella is Edward’s singer. If one’s weakness is, let’s say alcoholism, the Bible teaches that God would advise that someone to flee the bars and alcoholic surroundings, as fast as that person can. Especially, before one can deceive oneself into thinking it is a good idea to stick around the temptation. According to the Bible, God would NEVER advise someone to stay in the bar to see/test the extent of their will-power. That of course, also, goes for any bodily weaknesses/illegitimate-desires. In other words, I personally and playfully, interpret the Bible to say “run FOREST, run away” from the lust of one’s flesh/body. ;)

Okay, I also, somewhat agree with you, when you say, something like, Bella is Edward’s salvation. In my opinion, SM does use Bella as Edward’s salvation from his pessimistic outlook of himself, though, not as salvation from anything else.

Finally and lastly, when you say, “I can see where SM, though, wanted to make Bella a complete person instead of the device for saving Edward. And, in the process, finally decided she couldn’t keep Jacob as merely a symbol either, hence the mixed messages.”

:o Wow, this was enlightening for me. I never thought of, or categorized, Bella as a device to save Edward, from what I like to call, Edward’s very pessimistic outlook of himself. Very interesting. Well, I guess, speaking for myself, only, I can also see how instead of everything and everyone being created and allowed for Bella’s benefit, everything that happened was actually for everyone’s benefit. Kind of like real life. Everything doesn’t revolve around one person, (although in Real life, as individuals, we sometimes think it does, and I guess some characters in the Twilight story thought so too) but, everything in Twilight (every detail, even the mixed messages, painful outcomes, etc.), is actually working out for the greater good for all involved. Whether, we and the Twilight characters, are informed of the reasons/knowledge while Bella is mortally human, or later in Bella's immortal-like vampire existence. Or, even later than that, in one of SM's FAQ statements. In my personal opinion, kind of like, in Real Life where things happen to us without, what we deem not a rational reason, and then later in eternity all actions and intentions are revealed. Also, speaking for myself, in Twilight, I see how everything and every choice was connected and, allowed by SM, to touch every characters' lives to accomplish the greater good for all involved. Very nice, HEA for everyone. :clap:
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Explorations

Postby Tornado » Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:34 am

Violet Sunlight wrote:Now, you say, “There is clear evidence that many more people have died as a result of his actions. He saved four people. Between them those four people have killed many. So why are his actions so much better just because he did it when they were dying?” My first reason as a Christian is, Carlisle does not know what Jesus Christ means


I disagree. I think there is ample evidence in the books that Carlisle was fully aware of Jesus Christ from his youth. The bible that his father was likely to have used to preach from in the pulpit is the same version that many use today. Carlisle's father was fully aware of the existence of evil - that's why he was after witches and vampires and the like, because he considered their existence evil, according to God's laws. There is every reason to believe that Carlisle has always been fully aware of what the bible says.

And even if he didn't know it when he was changed, why do you think he wouldn't have encountered it since then? There's been plenty of time to read it and commit it to his infallible vampire mind. Even if he hadn't read it in his father's lifetime, it's unlikely that he wouldn't have read it over two hundred years later, when Edward was changed. And had he not heard about it in the 1920s when Esme was changed, or the 1930s when Rosalie and Emmett were changed?

And if we are to assume that Carlisle was truly ignorant of Jesus' teachings when changing all these vampires, do you assume that they still have no knowledge of it now? I guess you must, because you said yourself you are happy that Bella was changed when she was dying, and it's a HEA for you, and that you "do NOT have a problem with the way Bella became a vampire. The way Bella became a vampire lines up nicely with my Christian beliefs". but if you believe, as you said above, that Carlisle was wrong to change anyone, then how can you find Bella's change acceptable no matter when or for what reason she was changed?

Violet Sunlight wrote:my second reason is that only one’s author/creator of one’s life has the right to end/change one into another being, not anyone else, not even oneself.


Then you must believe that Carlisle was wrong to change anyone for any reason. And then it follows that Edward was wrong to change Bella, even when she was dying. He should have let her die.

Violet Sunlight wrote:And my third reason is, that I see venom as a strong medicine to save the person’s body/life on earth, and I feel Carlisle feels this way too.


But by your own argument if it ends their humanity it is clearly wrong for him to use that kind of medicine. So it must be wrong of him to do that.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Also, true between the 4 people that Carlisle turned to vampires, many lives were lost due to the vampire THIRST. I don’t count Rosalie’s murders as a result of the vampire THIRST.


I actually view Rosalie's murders as more serious than the others' struggles with thirst. I have a big problem with someone killing for no other motive than revenge. It is extremely wrong. Edward's killings come close to the mark, but he regrets them, even though his victims were murderers. He recognises that killing them made him no better than his victims. It's clear that Rosalie, even now, is very happy with the fact that she killed seven men, torturing some of them to death, and doesn't see this as a problem. I find this callousness very disturbing, and is a large part of the reason that I don't like Rosalie.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Esme and Emmett were the failures/downfall of why one should NOT change anyone to a vampire. Whether someone is mild or wild as a human, it does NOT matter the potential for evil is there. Hence, Esme’s and Emmett’s, regrettable actions, STOPPED, I believe, all the Cullens from changing future humans to vampires (Bella excluded), hence, more lives saved.


But it's likely that Esme slipped up before Rosalie was changed (although I can't be sure of that) so Carlisle should have seen how much of a problem it could be, and not created anyone else. Certainly, Edward had gone off and been through his rebellious phase, coming back likely upset by what he had done, and clearly regretful. So why does Carlisle feel he's justified in creating another vampire in Rosalie at all?

Violet Sunlight wrote:Also, if it were NOT for Carlisle’s actions and veggie way of life, would Alice/Jasper want to join Carlisle by himself? As I understand it, Alice joined the Cullens because of her vision and I believe she wanted a family and to be part of a family. And Jasper, of course, will follow Alice wherever she goes. If there is no Cullen family, what would be Alice’s motive/reason to stay with Carlisle? Maybe at first to learn the veggie way, but I think she would leave shortly after. If Alice & Jasper would NOT have joined the Cullens, wouldn’t there be many, many more deaths? (Including Bella.) Especially, in regards to Jasper? Again, Carlisle’s decision to have a family does have very good benefits and results. Although, like I said before, they all have to live with the burden/handicap of the vampire THIRST until who knows when.


But you said nothing justifies ending someone's humanity: "it was NOT justifiable for Carlisle to change any of them, NO matter how just he thought his reasons were." And there's no reason to think that Alice wouldn't have just seen Carlisle himself, just without his family (or perhaps with the Denalis, if he'd met them by then), so she would have waited for Jasper and they would have joined Carlisle anyway. So he would have got a family without ending anyone's humanity at all.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Another point I want to make, just because Bella has been successful as a NEWBORN vampire, because of her preparation, that does NOT mean that it is a good reason to change anyone to a veggie-vampire. Just because it seems to spare many more humans than the way Carlisle does it. One NEVER KNOWS what someone else is capable of or what someone else’s limits are. And one can NEVER know what the individual will in the course of their whole vampire life. And one should not risk OTHER people’s lives to find out. Anything could happen, what if the person who consented to being a veggie-vampire changes their mind once they are a vampire? That person would be, as or more, bitter and pessimistic than Rosalie and Edward ever were. Because, they would have no one else to blame but themselves. Again, ANYTHING can happen.


Absolutely. So it seems that, according to your viewpoint, there is no justification for Carlisle's behaviour at all. He should have realised that what he was doing flouted God's laws, because there's no reason to believe that he wasn't familiar with what the bible says. Even if he didn't know that, he should have never changed anyone after Edward and Esme both killed people, especially since they had already given him the family he wanted. And if he had just been patient and waited he would have found a family anyway, in Alice and Jasper, and also in the Denali clan.

And if Carlisle was not justified in changing anyone into a vampire even when they were dying, as you said above: "it was NOT justifiable for Carlisle to change any of them, NO matter how just he thought his reasons were", then why is Edward justified in changing Bella when she was dying? If you really believe that about Carlisle, then Bella's transformation has to fall under that banner too, so it can't line up with what you believe.
Image
Tornado
Drag Racing With Alice and Edward
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Violet Sunlight » Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:14 pm

In this post I am responding to mainhoonemily’s 12/19/11 post to me first then, Tornado’s 12/20/11 post to me.

Before I begin, I would just like to say to ALL, I do NOT speak for all Christians as a whole. I just speak for me, myself and I, ONLY. This goes for everything I am about to say in this ENTIRE post. Thank you.

To ~ mainhoonemily Greetings and thank you for responding to me.

I try not to quote too much because as you can see my posts are usually way too long. I am responding to your 12/19/11 post to me.

Okay, my response to your second paragraph is, I too agree that vampirism does NOT damn anyone. I believe, again I do NOT speak for any other person at all but myself ONLY, personally, everything is forgivable by God. The only thing that would keep someone permanently separated from God would be rejection of Jesus Christ in their life. So I believe I am in agreement with your second paragraph. Also, this would go for the wolves and hybrids and especially being that they both were born with their supernatural essence. Unlike vampires who have to be bitten to become a supernatural being. But, again it does NOT matter how they all became supernatural beings, they all still have the same opportunity to get right with God that I have.

Lastly, my response to your third paragraph is, I kindly say, I am NOT trying to, as you say, “make the real world religion line up with a fictional world” I don’t have the power to make it do that. I just pointed out some similar points of the Cullen’s moral standards that already line up with some of my own, (although, NOT ALL, just a few). I usually just say I do or don’t agree with something because of my personal Christian beliefs and then someone else, kindly asks, the magic question “why?”, then that is when I go into my long detailed explanation, which in turn, brings out more questions, and so on.

Now the Harry Potter point you brought up is interesting but, I have only seen the first 3 or 4 movies, (I can’t remember), I have not read the books, and also, I don’t think this is the site for that discussion. Not that I think you think that. Also, I don’t know if heaven and hell and the Bible is mentioned in that movie, so I can’t comment on those movies/books at all.

This is the end of my response to you. Thank you.

********************************************************************************

To ~ Tornado

In my personal Christian opinion, and again I do NOT speak for any and all Christians, I speak for me, myself and I, ONLY, I excuse/pardon Carlisle and Edward for changing anyone, because in my personal opinion, they were operating from a different moral standard than my own. And the reasons why they are operating from a different moral standard, really makes no never mind to me. The point for me is, that they just are. Therefore, I CAN’T hold them accountable for not keeping up with my own personal moral standards/beliefs.

However, I CAN only hold them accountable for holding/keeping up their own moral standards/beliefs. And the reasons Carlisle and Edward changed others to vampires, of course, was due to the imminent death circumstances that each character found themselves in, which lines up with their moral standards and, two of the principles they used for their reasoning’s, lines up with my own personal standards/beliefs (of course, NOT ALL). The two reasons/principles are: 1. Only, the author/creator of the story has the right to change/end their character’s/creation’s existence with any circumstance the author/creator wishes, NOT the Character themselves and; 2. One of the reasons, behind the characters deciding to change others into vampires, was with the intentions of saving the individual’s life/existence on earth, with venom, hence medical purposes.

Knowing what I know now, about the workings of the fictious, Twilight vampires, and if I were to, hypothetically and fictiously speaking, be allowed to enter the Twilight universe with all of my Christian beliefs and, if someone were to ask me, to become a vampire, I would say NO. Hypothetically speaking, if I already was a veggie-vampire and someone asked me to change someone else, who was healthy, into a vampire, I would say NO again. Even with the healthy person’s consent. Even if the person was dying, even if they were my relatives, I would still say NO. I would say NO to all of this, because of all my personal Christian beliefs. Because, I (again, I do NOT speak for any and all Christians, I ONLY speak for me, myself & I, personally), unlike Carlisle and Edward, am NOT in the dark about all the Biblical Christian beliefs/standards/interpretations that I currently hold.

Now, if I were, hypothetically and fictiously speaking, allowed to walk into the Twilight universe and SM deleted/canceled all my Christian beliefs, and the choice that was given to Bella was given to me as well, I would be forced to work off another set of moral standards. And I most likely, would have followed the moral standards that Carlisle and Edward followed, or maybe a combination of Edward’s, Carlisle’s and Bella’s moral standards would work for me, in regards to purposefully changing others or, volunteering to change oneself, into vampires as a form of medical assistance and/or prolonging one’s and other’s lives on earth.

Lastly, I also, would like to say, the other side of the power of (fictious) venom is, changing into a being that craves/thirst for human blood. This is the side of the (fictious) venom that does NOT line up with my personal beliefs. Hence, this is the main reason, why I would NOT personally recommend/approve of anyone changing into a veggie-vampire, ever. Therefore, being that 1. The Cullens are working off another moral standard different than my own, hence, I CAN’T hold them accountable for NOT keeping my own standards/beliefs and 2. Being that this is a fairy tale ONLY, not real life, I can afford to watch the Cullens keep, disregard and/or amend their own moral standards as these (fictious) veggie-vampires do, for the sake of what they deem is their HEA.

Therefore, for the reasons I have mentioned in the past and above, I can enjoy the fairy tale story and view the veggie-vampire existence as a form/type of Happily Ever After for them, NOT that their HEA would be a HEA for me, personally.

Okay, now regarding Rosalie, these are just my personal feelings on the matter, again, I ONLY speak for me, myself and I and NO other, I do have somewhat of a problem with what Rosalie did. Yes, as the Bible teaches, vengeance belongs to God. But, if Rosalie would have survived the grievous criminal assault, she would have been able to take them to court and get some justice. But, there grievous assault, in my mind, killed her. If it were not for Rosalie, those men would have gotten away with what they did and they would have possibly did the same thing to who knows how many more victims. Rosalie was now a newborn vampire, she could not present herself to her community and family and take those 5 men to court, she was very well known, surely they all would have noticed the difference in her appearance, she would have been risking exposure to herself and probably the rest of the Cullens if she would have chosen to take them to court.

I wish Rosalie could have had the chance to go to court and seek justice and I also, wish she would have found a way not to kill those two guards. The two guards were not at fault for what happened to her. But, I guess in the heat of the moment, she wasn’t thinking rationally to begin with, so I can understand how she thought she could not help it. Also, I thankfully CAN’T empathize with all that happened to her, but I can surely sympathize. I guess my sympathy for her allows me to like her, in spite of the 7 murders. I mean because of what those 5 men did to her, her life as a human ended and because of their assault/crime she was changed into a vampire. Both actions were done without her consent.

Also, I really like that Rosalie has a strong character trait. Thanks to her tenaciousness the human lives in her proximity are being saved daily. And I also love the advice she gives Bella on why Bella should NOT become a vampire. As you can well imagine, at least when it comes to characters in books/movies etc., I like to look past the aura of the character’s personality and take to account motives and intentions, more. Of course, in Real Life, one can never know the extent of the individual’s motives and intentions, hence, this style of assessing the character of an individual does NOT apply for me at all.

Okay, regarding Carlisle’s reasons for changing Rosalie. As I said in the beginning of this post, Carlisle is operating on a different moral standard than that of my own. Also, in the guide pg94 it says, “Struck by the waste of a beautiful young life, Carlisle brought Rosalie home and transformed her, hoping in the back of his mind that one day she might be a companion for Edward”. In my own personal Christian opinion, when one is the master of one’s moral standards one has the freedom to keep them or not and make amendments to them at one’s own whim/will.

I am under the understanding, for about 278 years Carlisle thought it would be a bad idea to turn/doom anyone to a vampire life, then along comes dying Edward who has a dying mother that says something like, do everything possible to save my son, then on that day it was a good idea to change Edward, and I am inclined to believe Edward’s success with the vampiric veggie-way-of-life, and Carlisle’s success, led Carlisle to change Esme. It also says in guide pg94, “Carlisle now had more than the companion he’d longed for; he had a family”.

And of course, if Carlisle had happiness with his new family and mate, then it goes to follow he would want the same for his son Edward. So I figure, and in my opinion ONLY, if a female veggie-vampire would not be made available for Edward or, even if there was an available female veggie-vampire it doesn’t mean she was going to be a match for Edward and vice versa. Hence, it goes to follow that Carlisle would want to create one for Edward his son, just like he did for himself. And when that day would come, it would also, be okay to go against his moral standards of dooming anyone to a vampire life for the sake of Edward’s potential happiness. After all he understandably, already made exceptions to his standards for the sake of having companionship, then for, what I believe to be, fondness and, next he was going to make, what he thought, would be his final exception to his moral standard for the sake of Edward’s happiness/mate. And also, I am inclined to believe, Esme failed in her NEWBORN state only NOT after (although, I too can’t be sure of that, either).

Well changing Rosalie sure took an interesting turn of events, she did extraordinarily well with her vampire thirst, but man, was she upset that she was; 1. Turned into a vampire and 2. For Edward. Ironically her human life ended because of men and her vampire life was started because of one. And like I said before, both without her consent. Hence, Carlisle being the compassionate person he is, and I like to think Carlisle and Esme saw Rosalie as a daughter, hence Carlisle would also want to give Rosalie her happiness too, and also wanted to make amends to her when she came with dying Emmett and requested to have Emmett changed for her, so it goes to follow, Carlisle would want to comply with Rosalie’s wishes too. In my personal opinion, Rosalie, like Carlisle did the following; 1. Went against their own moral standards of dooming anyone to the vampire life hence, putting other humans at risk and 2. took a chance/risk that someone else/Emmett would accept the veggie-vampire way of life and all that it entailed. And of course, thankfully, Carlisle’s and Rosalie’s risk had great results for everyone in the family, of course, not for everyone who was about to lose their lives to Emmett’s vampire thirst.

Now regarding Alice and Jasper, I do see how it is possible that maybe Alice and Jasper could have joined Carlisle and the Denali’s but, the family dynamic would be very different. The Denali’s see themselves as sisters and I like to think they see Eleazar and Carmen as sister and brother, too. Hence, I feel Carlisle would have been a brother to them as well. Definitely, not the leader/father, because Tanya is the leader of that family and Carlisle would be joining her family, not the other way around.

So Alice/Jasper would be sister and brother to everyone in the Denali family. Now, Alice/Jasper had something similar (NOT the same) to the relationship they had with Peter and Charlotte and they did not stay with them. Granted Peter and Charlotte are red eyed vampires, so the dietary difference was definitely reason enough to separate from them. But, would a sisterly bond ONLY be enough to make Alice stay with the Denali family? In the Cullen family dynamic, Alice had the daughter and sisterly bond in the family, and of course, she also had a special bond with Edward, being that Edward could also see her visions, she no longer felt that she was alone. Therefore, since family is a big deal for Alice, I would wonder if Alice would go in search of the Father and Mother figure for herself. Not for the special bond that her and Edward had, because if she never had it, she would not know what she is missing. But, I would definitely wonder if she would go in search of the Father/Mother figure. Or maybe, not in search of it but, if the opportunity presented itself to her, would Alice take it?
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:44 pm

Violet Sunlight wrote:However, I CAN only hold them accountable for holding/keeping up their own moral standards/beliefs. And the reasons Carlisle and Edward changed others to vampires, of course, was due to the imminent death circumstances that each character found themselves in


But it seems clear from the story that their (or Edward's, at least) moral standards change over the course of the books. Certainly, a belief that Bella would be damned if she became a vampire was the reason Edward left in New Moon, but that comes into play whether she is changed when she is healthy or when she is dying. For Carlisle, considering the hope he has in life after death for their kind (which seems also to be his only issue with vampirism), changing Bella while she is healthy does not seem to be the huge hurdle that it is for Edward.

Of course, Edward comes around to the idea of changing Bella when she is healthy because he begins to have the hope that Carlisle has. In fact, by the end of the books, he seems to have this hope cemented in him. So, although changing Bella was an issue for Edward early on, it does not seem to be one by the end of Eclipse, and so changing her, whether she is healthy or dying, seems to be something he has come to terms with within his moral framework.

Certainly, at no point in the books that I can think of is the suggestion that they shouldn't change Bella because she might kill people presented by Edward or any member of the Cullen family as a strong argument against the change (although Jasper and Emmett joke about it), so it seems it is not a huge moral problem for them, probably because they know she doesn't have to kill anyone if they're careful.

Violet Sunlight wrote:The Cullens are working off another moral standard different than my own, hence, I CAN’T hold them accountable for NOT keeping my own standards/beliefs and 2. Being that this is a fairy tale ONLY, not real life, I can afford to watch the Cullens keep, disregard and/or amend their own moral standards as these (fictious) veggie-vampires do, for the sake of what they deem is their HEA.


If that is the case, then you shouldn't have a problem with them changing Bella when she is healthy if it is something that they have come to terms with within their own moral framework.

Violet Sunlight wrote:But, if Rosalie would have survived the grievous criminal assault, she would have been able to take them to court and get some justice.


Absolutely. But, in my mind, revenge is not justice. As much as she might have liked justice for her attackers and as much as it would have hurt to not be able to get that, taking revenge the way she did didn't do anything except reduce her to their level. Certainly, it is possible the men may have done that to someone else as well, and that is a huge concern, but perhaps it would have been more advisable for Cullens to watch them, and gain evidence on them of criminal activity (if Royce was not adverse to raping and murdering his fiancee I'd say he was involved in other criminal activity as well) and then handed that information over to the law, allowing him to be prosecuted in that way. That would have been a more just way, *Midnight Sun reference * rather like Edward and Carlisle do with Lonnie, the man who planned to rape and murder Bella, and who had already raped and murdered others. In his case, of course, there were already existing charges for him to face, but I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long for Royce to do something illegal that they could pin on him, possibly without even another loss of life. Perhaps they could even have found a way to pin Rosalie's murder on him and his friends, which would have resulted in their being brought to justice for what they did to her, rather than she simply carrying out their murders in an act of revenge.
Image
Tornado
Drag Racing With Alice and Edward
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Violet Sunlight » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:39 am

To ~ Tornado

Yes, like Carlisle, Edward does come around to accepting and approving changing healthy Bella into a vampire. And that is where any similarities between their moral standards and mine end. They are free to follow, disregard and make amendments to their moral standards. I am not. Nor do I want to. I am NOT saying, I am perfect in keeping every single one of my standards ALL the time, but, in this case/story, it is very easy for me to do so. However, the few similarities between their and mine moral standards pick up again when the imminent death circumstance comes into play. That is why, in my personal opinion, Bella’s transformation was as perfect/acceptable to me, as it could have been, because of the two reasons that are similar to my own personal moral standards that I mentioned in my previous post. The alternative (Bella consenting to the change, while healthy, and other’s approving of it) was not acceptable for me and my personal Christian beliefs/standards, at all.

AGAIN, I ALWAYS, ONLY SPEAK FOR ME, MYSELF, & I, PERSONALLY, AND NO OTHER PERSON(S) OR GROUP(S).

Regarding Rosalie, I think Bella’s Port Angeles potential assault scene is very different than Rosalie’s actual rape assault and murder scene. In Bella’s case, it was way different. It was easier for Edward NOT to do physical harm to the potential rapists because Bella was NOT harmed. And even still, I am inclined to believe, Edward was going to do exactly what Rosalie did if, Bella would not have talked him out of it. Therefore, when the criminal physical offense has NOT occurred, it is easier to think rationally and take the proper measures to insure justice, but in Rosalie’s case that was a luxury NOT afforded to her. That’s the reason why, I never thought of comparing Bella’s Port Angeles potential rape scene to Rosalie’s actual rape assault and murder scene. In my mind, they are poles apart. Consequently, I personally, don’t judge her harshly for killing the 5 men that raped and killed her. However, I do judge her harshly for killing the 2 guards that did not harm her at all. I want to guess, she could have tied them up so they wouldn’t get in her way or something. In any event, I think this is another matter that we will have to agree to disagree.
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Jazz Girl » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:02 pm

Violet Sunlight~ I think what causes mass confusion for me is the fact that you've repeated over and over and over again that, in your opinion, no one other than the Creator has the right to change any person's state of being for any reason, period. And yet, you then say it's acceptable for Carlisle and Edward to have changed others when they were already facing certain death. You are contradicting yourself repeatedly, and then using circular logice to talk yourself, and attempt to talk us, into supporting those beliefs multiple times in one post. Consequently, it's hard to process your arguments because you contradict yourself several times in one post. I'm just trying to get clarification so that I can form a valid response.

As for the issue of Rosalie's vengence on her attackers vs Carlisle's and Edward's visiting of justice upon Lonnie, what I see you overlooking is that Lonnie wasn't brought to justice regarding Bella's attempted assault. He was brought to justice regarding the previous crimes he'd committed specifically because Carlisle took the approach of 'vengence is mine sayeth the Lord'. Rather than visit vengence upon a man that they KNEW had raped and assaulted several women, they handled it in a way that Lonnie would be held accountable for all of his crimes and answer for if not to all of his victims. Rosalie took ruthless and violent vengence upon the men who attacked her. Believe you me, I'm on her side in the need to do so. However, as Tornado pointed out, the sadistic and cruel way in which she made them suffer in doing it served only to make her a stronger and more capable version of them. Even in 1920's America, she did have a few options; several I might add that likely would have been considered more fitting of their crimes than the suffering they endured at her hands. I'm just trying to understand your rationale for seeing the two issues as separate and distinct and using the same argument to justify one set of actions and condemn the other.
“Directing 7 Cullens at once=herding cats" :ROTFLMAO:
C-Dubs is TwitterRoyalty
Image
Turning Page is Gospel~Ashley=MiniMe~HHBS
User avatar
Jazz Girl
Making beautiful music with Edward as only I can
 
Posts: 5119
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:25 am
Location: Rob's HalfwayHouse, shacked up with some FicWard.

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Tornado » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:26 pm

Violet Sunlight wrote:However, the few similarities between their and mine moral standards pick up again when the imminent death circumstance comes into play. That is why, in my personal opinion, Bella’s transformation was as perfect/acceptable to me, as it could have been, because of the two reasons that are similar to my own personal moral standards that I mentioned in my previous post.


You also mentioned in your previous post that Carlisle was not justified in changing anyone for any reason, so how can you say that any transformation is acceptable in your belief system?

Violet Sunlight wrote:1. Only, the author/creator of the story has the right to change/end their character’s/creation’s existence with any circumstance the author/creator wishes, NOT the Character themselves


From this, I take it to mean that you believe SM decides what is right in that world because they are her characters (it's such a confusing sentence that I'm guessing that's what it means!). If that's the case then she has the right to let Bella decide that she wants to become a vampire even while she's healthy, and then allow Edward to agree to do it, or even do it, if it is how SM wants the story to go. She is the one who ultimately decides what the characters do. You can't say that it's okay for her to let Edward change Bella when she is dying, but it's not okay for her to let Edward change Bella when she's healthy.

I'm guessing you'd argue that because she gave Edward the 'out' of doing it when Bella was dying that shows that she wasn't happy with her becoming a vampire when she was healthy, so that supports your case, but there's no evidence that that is the reason she went that way. The fact is, she made Edward agree to do it when Bella was healthy, and he seemed to have overcome all his objections to that. In my mind, that is tantamount to SM saying that it was acceptable. So if she decided to let Edward agree to that, then, if you believe in what you wrote above, you should be okay with it.

Violet Sunlight wrote:The alternative (Bella consenting to the change, while healthy, and other’s approving of it) was not acceptable for me and my personal Christian beliefs/standards, at all.


Then you cannot agree with statement 1, because SM let her protagonists agree to do exactly that. It does not matter that they did not actually get to do it. They agreed to it, so were clearly okay with the idea.

Violet Sunlight wrote:Regarding Rosalie, I think Bella’s Port Angeles potential assault scene is very different than Rosalie’s actual rape assault and murder scene. In Bella’s case, it was way different. It was easier for Edward NOT to do physical harm to the potential rapists because Bella was NOT harmed.


I don't agree with that at all. Simply knowing what the man was intending to do (and would have, if Edward hadn't appeared), especially seeing the inside of his mind, would have made it just as hard to not kill him.

Violet Sunlight wrote: And even still, I am inclined to believe, Edward was going to do exactly what Rosalie did if, Bella would not have talked him out of it.


Absolutely. The difference is that Edward would have, by nature of his character, eventually regretted it, just as he realised, once he had calmed down, that he couldn't kill the man. He knew it was wrong. However, there is every reason to believe that Rosalie still believes that what she did was right, and that she'd do it again if she had the opportunity.

Jazz Girl wrote:Rosalie took ruthless and violent vengence upon the men who attacked her. Believe you me, I'm on her side in the need to do so. However, as Tornado pointed out, the sadistic and cruel way in which she made them suffer in doing it served only to make her a stronger and more capable version of them.


Absolutely. And she doesn't regret it even for a moment. That just doesn't sit right with me. I understand why she would want to do that, and I'd probably feel the same way in that situation, at least at first, but to still believe that it's just fine and that she was justified in acting that way I cannot view as right. Her joy in her murder is one of the things that puts me off her as a character.

Jazz Girl wrote:I'm just trying to understand your rationale for seeing the two issues as separate and distinct and using the same argument to justify one set of actions and condemn the other.


Yes, I too wonder why you are so horrified at the idea of Edward changing healthy Bella into a vampire at her request, but are quite understanding of Rosalie's delight in torturing men to death.
Image
Tornado
Drag Racing With Alice and Edward
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 7:06 pm
Location: The Land Down Under

Re: Ambivalences

Postby Violet Sunlight » Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:14 am

To All ~ MERRY CHRISTMAS

Before I begin, I only speak for me, myself and I always and NO other person(s) and/or group(s).

In this post, I am responding to Jazz Girl’s 12/22/11 post to me & Tornado’s 12/22/11 post to me. Sorry it took me so long, I was held up with Christmas stuff.

To Jazz Girl ~ Thank you, for responding to my post.

Okay, I am sorry I am not expressing myself clearly. Unfortunately, it is one of my many faults. I have never chatted with people/friends online and especially people/friends I don’t know in person. This is my first time ever. Usually, when I express myself to my friends about matters of this nature, of course it is in person and they understand me fairly quickly. I guess they do so because of the history between us. In any event, this site is a guinea pig for me. But, I’ll keep trying, as much as you want me to.

Okay, I am going to try to explain my feelings in another style, so I kindly ask that you please continue to bear with me a little more. Thank you.

In MY OWN personal opinion, these are the two POSITIVE reasons and aspects of why I think Bella’s Vampirization lines up nicely with my Christian beliefs:

1. Only, the author/creator of the story has the right to change/end their character’s/creation’s existence with any circumstance the author/creator wishes, NOT the Character themselves. Therefore, in my opinion, in the Twilight universe like the real world, anyone else ending someone else’s life is homicide/murder and someone ending their own life is suicide. In the real world, when the Author/Creator of oneself end’s one’s life it means, for me, that it is just time for the person to die and move on to eternity and immortality. Hence, when I think of what I just said as being one of the POSITIVE reasons/aspects of Bella becoming a vampire in the Twilight fairy tale created and authored by SM, it fits very nicely with MY OWN personal Christian beliefs that Bella’s imminent death circumstance was the event/device that the author/creator of Twilight (SM) decided to use to have Bella step into not only immortality, but also, had Bella’s body/essence be transformed into another type of being. (Vampire being.)

2. Also, in my opinion, one of the (fictious) venom’s POSITIVE affects is the medicinal factor of healing the body and prolonging the individual’s life on earth in the Twilight fairy tale. Just, like I said in my, Chemo Therapy IV analogy in the real world. (Strong medicine that almost kills you but has the potential to save someone’s body/existence on earth.) Hence, in my opinion, when one VIEWS using (fictious) venom in the Twilight fairy tale as a form of medicine used for saving someone’s body/life on earth is, the second reason I am in agreement with Carlisle, ONLY when Carlisle & Edward VIEW the (fictious) venom as medicine to help save someone from their imminent death circumstance.

In MY OWN personal opinion, these are the two NEGATIVE reasons and aspects of why I think Bella’s Vampirization does NOT line up nicely with my Christian beliefs:

1. Since, in MY OWN personal Christian opinion, the Twilight vampire was NOT part of God’s plan/design and would NEVER be, because of everything (not just the positive aspects but, especially the negative aspects) ALL the Twilight vampire/vampirization encompasses, I, personally CAN’T ACTUALLY approve and recommend the fictional vampirization to myself and others in the Twilght fairy tale. Although, like I said in MY positive outline, I find some similarities, in the moral standards’ of the characters that choose to do so. Hence, I find it understandable to me, why someone else, who is NOT Christian, would ACTUALLY choose the fictious vampirization as a form of a strong medicine to save/prolong their beloved’s life/existence on earth.

2. Also, Carlisle & Edward are NOT working off my own personal moral/belief standards, whether because they don’t want to or because they are unaware, for whatever the reason might be, the point is, Carlisle & Edward are working off their own moral standards, not my own. Hence, I don’t and can’t judge Carlisle & Edward harshly for using the (fictious) venom as medicine, and also, I can’t judge Carlisle & Edward harshly for NOT seeing/understanding that the NEGATIVE aspects of the venom/vampirization is, in MY personal Christian opinion, is the very reason why they should consider parting with their beloved and/or people they care about or could care about. I guess a better and more specific way of putting my feelings would be, it is very understandable to me how a NON-CHRISTIAN changing someone ONLY in an imminent death circumstance with the fictious venom/medicine as right because there is no one in the story sharing MY personal specific Christian beliefs/standard with anyone at all. Hence, the individual performing the change is unaware of what I personally consider the Truth. Because, my personal Christian beliefs/standards are a moot point in the Twilight story. So I feel can root for the lesser wrong of the two intentions that are behind the motives of changing Bella.

However, what I would do myself as a Christian, in and/or out of the fairy tale is, after exhausting ALL normal forms of medicine to save my beloved friends and family and still the person’s medical condition could not be improved upon, I would let, what I deem as, God’s will come to pass and pray for Devine strength and peace to hold me together when the person’s death would come. Also, I personally believe God would remind me of one of His many promises to me, which is, I will see the beloved person who has died again, in heaven, one day and that the person is finally home, in heaven, face to face with my and their beloved Lord God. Yes, Christians, of course, cry at funerals but, we cry because of the temporary separation of our beloved friend and/or relative, while we are still here. But, we DON’T cry as those who believe the beloved person is lost to us forever or non-existent anymore. Therefore, because of what my personal Christian beliefs teach me about ALL the NEGATIVE aspects and principles of the power of (fictious) venom/vampirization mean to God and myself, again, I CAN’T ACTUALLY approve and recommend the fictional vampirization to myself and others in the Twilght fairy tale.

Which brings me to the next point you brought up,

Now when you say “any” I think you are talking about my 12/16/11 post when I said the word “any” in the end of this paragraph, (I just now bolded the word Christian in this paragraph). Maybe it will make more sense in lieu of what I said above.

“Therefore, like I said before, for the sake of the game we are playing, both vampire beings and human beings, have souls and both have the same rights and opportunities to a happy and prosperous earthly and eternal life. But, this does NOT change the fact that God never intended the vampire life for anyone. It just means every supernatural being in the Twilight universe, has to do what we do, make the best of their lot in life. And just because God forgives murder, doesn’t mean we should put ourselves in the path of committing it or be tempted by it. That would go against Jesus’ teachings. The Bible also says one should flee the desires/lusts of the flesh. Murder is listed as one of the lusts of the flesh. Hence, in my opinion, for a Christian, wanting to be a vampire or wanting someone else to be a vampire, of any kind (yellow eyed or red eyed) for any reason, is against Jesus’/Biblical teachings.

************************
To ~ Tornado

I think I have responded to most of your post to me with the above responses to Jazz Girl, except the next one.

Okay, Regarding SM’s intentions for how Bella was to become a vampire, I am inclined to believe, that SM meant for Bella to become a vampire from an imminent death scene caused by Bella’s birth scene. Didn’t she say something like, Renesmee was always part of the plan since Forever Dawn? I think, I am not sure but, SM’s publisher said something like, SM should get rid of the Renesmee character, and SM adamantly said NO, she wanted to keep her. Also, in the birth scene, she stopped many people from committing murder and stopped Bella from, in my personal opinion, committing suicide. Therefore, for me, all these things are NOT coincidences, in my personal opinion, SM purposefully planned it that way from at least the beginning of Forever Dawn. I am not sure, what the original idea was for, how Bella was suppose become a vampire if the whole story would have just been one book.

*************************
To ~ Jazz Girl and Tornado

Now, regarding Rosalie, like I said before, I CAN’T compare Bella’s POTENTIAL rape scene to Rosalie’s ACTUAL rape and murder scene. Like I said before, they are poles apart for me. I respectfully ask, what if Bella would have ACTUALLY experienced the rape and murder scene that Rosalie ACTUALLY experienced, would Edward still have did the exact same thing he did for Bella’s POTENTIAL rape scene? I personally say NO. I am inclined to believe, Edward would have been even more extreme than Rosalie. But, that's just me.

Also, being that Rosalie was a vampire when she committed those murders, wouldn’t she also have to deal with the NEWBORN intensity of feelings being more powerful than even a regular vampire's feelings?
Violet Sunlight
Jump Starting Bella's Truck
 
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 5:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Quench Your Thirst

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests