Originally posted by omgchos
. Even if he does have real emotions that doesnt imply a soul. Monkeys have emotions..... but the consensus is that they arent in the "soul" category. Unless your of the hindu culture where everything has a soul on some level. Again tho not philosophy.
Monkeys don't have souls?????
It's fairly accepted that once you die, your soul (considering the soul exist) leaves your body; I think we can all agree with this.
Question: Does a person have to die first, before they rise as a Twilight vampire?
If the answer is "yes", ergo, then they probably are soulless.
Also, the argument seems to be between Edward saying his kind don't and Bella believing they do. All things considered, siding with the person that is the Twilight vampire is more sensible than a naive 18 year old girl.
i dont think he should be using any novel reference for the soul.. missing a soul would negate a lot of emotions normally in various stories both in movies and in books.. the main one usually to go is love..
something i see the twivamps having although an immature childish puppy kind of love but its still there.
now all this speculation of them having or not having a soul is just speculation whether they are a vampire talking about it or bella.. not all the vamps agree and its just metaphysical discussion not a fact for either. i would peg them for having one due to their emotional behavior
hate, anger tends to stay as other strong emotions like passion even when soulless in stories and other mediums. many of those emotions attributed to a lack of soul and unable to temper the emotions or its the demon's natural emotional state which posses the host body.
plus also in other stories they are nothing more then columns neither hate, happiness or any other emotions due to the emptiness and simply functioning off of old memories.
anyways remorse, guilt and regret, compassion seems to be a human soul trait in various stories and metaphysical arguments.
again i stick with them having a soul. plus the transformation in the movie seemed to be caused by a chemical (venom) in the saliva it seems more rooted in the physical world then the ethereal one...
I'm sticking with what Edward said, considering he's the vampire, he's somewhere around100 years old and he knows older vampires.
While Bella's a naive highschooler.
Also, the venom angle is kinda moot, as Bram Stroker's Dracula directly deals with vampirism being a 'blood infection', as said by Professor Abraham Van Helsing. The Twilight vampires still have to die first; then they're transformed. If I'm wrong on this 'death first' angle, I may change my mind.
bram stroker dracula drank blood from a bleeding cross which turned him into a vampire and cursed god and turned his back from him.. thats pretty metaphysical to me what happens after that is him passing on the curse once they consume human blood after he has bitten them.
a twivamp is no more an authority on his metaphysical existence as anyone else like a doctor, scientist, guru nor a country yokel..
u and i can talk about what it means to be alive it doesnt mean u or i are right.. we can talk about our physiology and say we know how it works b/c its our body that doesnt mean squat nor that we are right same holds for edward just b/c he is a vampire doesnt mean he knows what it is to be one or if he has a soul its just his opinion and assumption.
Originally posted by Robtard
Love, hate, anger etc have a lot to do with many vampire stories/films. So I don't think lacking a soul means there would be no emotions.Either way, pretty sure the Twilight vampires are undead, they died human and then came back as a vampire. Leads me to believe they're soulless.
No, the vampires have souls. The writer was a Mormon.
That and the vampires argued the point. Carlisle doesn't believe that they don't have souls.
And, they are not dead: they are very much alive. They are an entirely different species after their vampiric rebirth (despite this, they can still reproduce with human females (males vamps to human females. And, the offspring has 24 chromosomes pairs). They have 25 chromosome pairs instead of 23. They have living cells...those cells just happen to be very very very sturdy compared to human cells.
Best we can come to is that they vampires go through a massive genetic change (true) and arguing on whether or not they have souls would occur before the change, not after. (Atheism versus any form of soul-containing theism, basically.)
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm sticking with what Edward said, considering he's the vampire, he's somewhere around100 years old and he knows older vampires.While Bella's a naive highschooler.
Also, the venom angle is kinda moot, as Bram Stroker's Dracula directly deals with vampirism being a 'blood infection', as said by Professor Abraham Van Helsing. The Twilight vampires still have to die first; then they're transformed. If I'm wrong on this 'death first' angle, I may change my mind.
Oh, well, in that case, they definitely have souls, then. Carlisle is much older than Edward and he thinks they have souls. 🙂
Originally posted by Robtard
Is it specifucally said so by the arthur, or are you interjecting her Mormonism to automatically mean she'd mean something?
It's a joke. 😐 (But probably has truth.)
Originally posted by Robtard
Do the Twilight vampires die human first, or do they transform without dying?
It's never settled so it's semantics, at this point. Some, in the book, believe they have souls, some don't. Concluding either way is not accurate unless you conclude that they had souls before they turned into vamps.
The only evidence of "souls" are the spirit walkers: aka, the Native Americans of La Push. They, quite literally, have souls as they could step out of their bodies and "merge" with an animal's body. They called these typesl "spirit walkers". Later, they find out that they can make their bodies "shapeshift" into wolves, making them werewolves. They haven't been able to change into any other form, though.
My guess is that they have souls, if we assume that regular humans have souls, because vampires are not "undead" in the books, they are living creatures.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do the Twilight vampires die human first, or do they transform without dying?
They never die. Their physiology changes on a microscopic level and some of their organs change function or become useless.
It's something similar to what humans will be able to do with Gene doping/therapy, in the very near future. For real. 😐
Originally posted by Robtard
If they don't die first and they're not undead, then sure, they're basically humans affected with a genetical anonmally.This is what I basically posed/asked in my first post, as I'm no Twilight expert.
Myers' creation is just further shit, imo.
Actually, her explanation is the best to date, imo.
Like I said, the stories are actually good. It's just...her prose suck major bawlz and she puts waaaaaaay over the top cheesy lines in her work. But just the stories' synposis are quite good.
And, Underworld vamps are bascially the same, when it comes to the change, as twivamps. They don't really die but they actually go through a physiological change.
On top of that, so are the Blade vamps.
It's just that their attributes are very much different with the twivamps being the most powerful out of all of those groups, by far.
Edit - Come to think of it, where ARE the classic undead vamps in modern literature/movies? I don't think I've run across the classic version of a vampire in popular cinema, in a while. Even Rice vamps aren't really undead but, instead, are possessed by an evil demon (a portion of it)
Originally posted by Robtard
When then, Ghost Rider Penance Stares them and Edward is especially effected, for being a 100+ year old pedophile. /threadEdit: Pretty sure dieing first and being reborn as a vamp is a part of Anne Rice vampire lore.
True Blood is this way too.
DUH! lol That was basically my post way earlier in this thread.
Yes, but, are they actually dead? Do the retain any bit of consciousness? If they do, then they don't die. And, since the body physically changes and is still 'alive', then they aren't really dying. That's more of a metaphor than a literal death.
Must have missed it.
Been a long time since I've seen IWTV, but I'm pretty certain Louis describes it as death and then rebirth. I somewhat recall when they turn Kristen Dunst, you see her die and Louis says something about "last breaths" and we see her die, as the vampirism is killing her. RJ loves this movie because he has a man-crush on Brad Pitt, he might be able to recall the scenes better.
True Blood is for certain. The vampires have to kill their victim, bury them and then they're reborn undead the following night. There's also plenty of mention of them being "dead."
Originally posted by Robtard
True Blood is for certain. The vampires have to kill their victim, bury them and then they're reborn undead the following night. There's also plenty of mention of them being "dead."
I haven't seen one ep. of Tru-Blood. So, that's an example of the "non-scientific" vampire. Lately, it seems as if they want to make vampires and zombies they way they are due to something that can be explained by science, rather than something supernatural. That mostly what I was on about.
Edit - Yeah, second post of the thread. Said the vampires have no way to win and Scars followed up with the penance stair thing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I haven't seen one ep. of Tru-Blood. So, that's an example of the "non-scientific" vampire. Lately, it seems as if they want to make vampires and zombies they way they are due to something that can be explained by science, rather than something supernatural. That mostly what I was on about.
shame on you sir for not watching true blood 😄