The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Is Vampirism a Religion?
What do you think about it?

According to the Temple of Vampire
The Vampire Test on Youtube says that it is a Religion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lpEdDdd9l4

In short, I would say that "vampirisim" is more of a condition of the spirit.And a lifestyle. But a true religion? What or who would be considered the diety?Lillith perhaps? I dont know, but I dont feel it is a true religion.At least at this point.

No. Vampirism is not a religion, rather then a wayof Living. Almost every religion have the dogma of a God or a Goddess, while in Vampirism, the individual must of the time, act alone.

Maybe, if you take the blood of Christ at communion :) #justsaying

CEJ can you elaborate about your comment...

So many religions...it can be I suppose for it is a ritual of rites and beliefs...

I think he meant the wine representing blood.

Vampirism as a lifestyle is a fad, nothing more. Religion or cult being involved will just be secondary and just as irrelevant.

religion is mostly based on a faith in something someone or a god or other divine or some sort of out of this world superior being, most of them at least, so it all depends of what you consider a vampire or vampirism, is it for you a faith or not?
If it is a sort of faith then yes you can say it is a religion, if it is not then no, its not a religion

Vampirism is more of a way of life than a religion set or cult. A condition of society in which over recent years because of the fables of movies more people have adapted it as their life. A faith or belief i dont think so in my opinion

Vampirism is not a religion, it is a condition.

Condition? Explain, Please...

Real life vampires need to feed from energy because they lack it. Some believe this to be a condition of the soul or body or mind.

Anyone claiming something to be sacred in nature usually does so these days for the revenue involved in congregations from tithes and dues.

I go with it is a lifestyle... what someone chooses to do/ to be. Like a subculture; alternative lifestyle. Which I see nothing wrong with as long as no one is hurt when they take blood from someone to drink. As for energy well I believe there are many emotions that can give one energy... such as love. Happiness. As a religion I have herd of Vampire Churches... but from what I have read there more meeting places and that the churches distances itself from notions of religious affiliation. To join it is $75 for first three months.

http://www.equinoxpub.com/blog/2012/03/vampire-churches-vampire-images-and-invented-religions/

Being a vampire is not a lifeforbidden (life s t y l e). Were it such, then anyone could be a vampire simply be adopting a new wardrobe, buying fake fangs, pretending/acting as Humans imagine a vampire does ... and joining a "vampire community" inside which to find others willing to so regard them.

By the same logic, one could likewise become a wolf or a bear or some other animal simply by adopting the appropriate costume, pretending/acting as Humans think such an animal does ... and joining a "furry" community inside which to find others willing to so regard them.


And religion is simply a form of community founded on shared theological beliefs and practices... nothing more.

Being a Vampire is absolutely all about the inherent "condition" (more accurately, the genetic inheritance as a direct descendant of those falsely demonized as "fallen angels") for which Vampires were and are actually known and for which condition they were likewise demonized falsely by Christianity (... as fictional undead blood-drinkers/energy-feeders). And unless someone actually and demonstrably has such condition by birth, he is most certainly not an actual Vampire.

No matter how strongly is the belief (delusion) that they are actual Vampires, yet if they do not possess the inherent and highly distinguishable trait ... the "Dark Gift," to use the fictional parlance ... of the Vampire of History, then hey are nothing more or less than Humans playing a part, pretending to be what they most certainly are not.

That's a really vague question. The words vampirism and religion cover a lot of ground. Can you elaborate a little more on what you mean by vampirisim. How you define religion is also important. For example anything you do daily can be considered religious and you could make your own religion out of that. That doesn't mean it would or wouldn't be recognized by anyone else as a religion. You can't absolutely say a religion of 1 is not a religion because almost every religion started with 1 person and then others followed. There are many organized religions with lots of people that are not considered recognized religions, they are usually called cults. To the people in them they are a religion to the government or even the general public in many cases they are not. Who is correct in those cases?

Are we basing this discussion on Temple of The Vampire... because in my opinion it's a cult, a crock, and a money making scheme. You buy a vampire bible, you buy all the books and supposedly the more you buy into t (plus empty your wallet) the more you advance as a Vampyre. So if you're only referring to T.O.V. than yes, it's a religion, much like the Catholic Church, Islam, etc.

The answer lies in the question.
Religion by definition is theocracy, a theory, a faith based ideology in the origins of our existence. Regardless of what you believe vampirism to be it is not a starting point for creation but a product of it.
As Dabbler, Upir, Murdrakus, and many others have pointed out in this thread you can worship, love and even have faith in the existence of anything you wish but without a connection to the Universe's creation it is more (by definition) a cult than a religion.

"Some of the earliest evidence of Ritual Vampirism comes from Tartaria in Transylvania and stems to the fifth millennium BC. Remains of a human body were found buried in a fire pit along with clay tablets upon which were inscribed the names of the ’Sumerian’ god Enki and the ranking number of Father Anu. The language was subsequently termed ’proto-Sumerian’ and represented some of the earliest written artifacts yet to be found.

The descendants of these early vampires were the Sacred Ubaid Race who, one millennium later, settled Mesopotamia and founded the Anunnaki religion of the Sumerians in 3500 BC. Their Transylvanian ancestors were the Anunnaki Gods themselves."

Therefore, Vampirism is a religion unless you do not believe the Sumerians existed.

Simply, they were witches that used human blood in their religious ceremonies, invocations and rituals.

no it's not religion but it is spiritualism and even occultism, well to some it could be religion if their is a vampire deity they worship and give omage to so i am sure for each practitioner it can be very personal, i know some do practice vampyre witchcraft, the world of vampirism is vast and wide

Doru: "Some of the earliest evidence of Ritual Vampirism comes from Tartaria in Transylvania and stems to the fifth millennium BC. Remains of a human body were found buried in a fire pit along with clay tablets upon which were inscribed the names of the ’Sumerian’ god Enki and the ranking number of Father Anu. The language was subsequently termed ’proto-Sumerian’ and represented some of the earliest written artifacts yet to be found.

"The descendants of these early vampires were the Sacred Ubaid Race who, one millennium later, settled Mesopotamia and founded the Anunnaki religion of the Sumerians in 3500 BC. Their Transylvanian ancestors were the Anunnaki Gods themselves."


Although uncited by Doru, this quote is from a revisionist history and conspiracy book called "The Dragon Legacy: The Secret History of an Ancient Bloodline" and is inaccurate and convincing only to those of dogmatic mindset who accept without actual evidence all that is being claimed.

The quote above makes reference to "ritual vampirism" yet provides no evidence for any such. A body found in a fire pit (if such was the case) gives no evidence of having been a vampire. So... without any evidence for vampires nor for anything ritualistic practiced by vampires, how can the claim be made for "ritual vampirism" in Transylvania in the Fifth Millennium BC?

The Tartaria tablets are real, of course. However, the writing on them has no relation to vampires and, while conjectured to be proto-Sumerian, they have never been translated... so how can they be said to have anything to do with Enki?

The quote then goes on to dogmatically (dogma=belief without evidence and, in fact, contrary to evidence) that vampires were members of the "sacred Ubaid" race (there is nothing declared "sacred" about them by Sumerians) and claimed they founded the "Annunaki religion". Which religion is that... exactly? And how does any such claimed religion have anything to do with being the religion of vampires, I wonder?

Ironically, the authors are kinda on the right track in a way (those demonized later as "vampires" are, indeed, directly descended from the "Watchers")... but have veered way off the path of actual evidence and onto a religious path of their own creation contrary to the evidences.

For those interested in learning the scientific facts about the fascinating Tartaria Tablets (and with nary a single vampire reference): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C4%83rt%C4%83ria_tablets

well stated Wolvie I recommend any book by Margret Thaler Singer to clarify what makes a cult a cult as opposed to a sect of an organized religion. Severus makes a fine point with his post. A key factor in cults is usually a living figure head. For example I am a Sub Genius a self professed cult that has a one time tithe and "Guaranteed Salvation or Triple Your Money Back." Our Salesman is "B.O.B." JR. Dobbs.

So while there is sometimes a grayness as to an organizations classification cults, cults tend to stand out eventually for what they are.

There are even self help groups that are cults.

I just have to mention this.

There are plenty of differences between what is considered a "cult" and a "religion". Other than the ordinary literal differences between these two words, therein lies a difference that only those experienced could say and that is:

Faith opens up many doors/possibilities, but Religion closes those doors, leaving one to breed in a single, if not fundamentalist, view.

I do not know if this is a religion, but there is a fundamental difference between cults (usually with a negative connotation - as they are associated with a closed group of beings) and Religions (usually with a positive connotation - as they are associated with a rather large following).

Religions stand through the test of Time, but not cults. Cults are transitory, but religions are not. I'm not saying that cults don't survive, but again, it is in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

cult
kəlt/Submit
noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.
"the cult of St. Olaf"
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
"a network of Satan-worshiping cults"
synonyms: sect, denomination, group, movement, church, persuasion, body, faction
"a religious cult"
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing.
"a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"


re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
"consumerism is the new religion"

Too me, the definitions are the same except that religion is a cult on a larger scale

IMO, the term "religious cult" as you have defined seems to be more of an adjective rather than a noun.

A religion can never be a cult on a large scale. That idea goes against the very definitions you have listed. Some call them "isms... If you think about it, these isms are also political ideologies. I may be spewing nonsense here, but a religion tends to propagate its ideologies (be it political or not) ... A cult does not normally do that. I wouldn't chalk it up as semantics; they're different.

I interpret those definitions very differently than you do.

I'm not seeing your side at all. To me, both definitions are pretty much the exact same thing. The only part of the cult definition that rubbed me the wrong way was that it was given in a negative view while the definition for religion was more objective (and imo that's not to offend the large part of the world's population that does practice a religion in one way or another).

Once again I recommend reading any of Margret Thaler Singers books on cults. Yes in fact some political groups are actually cultish, just as some professed self help groups are. Most cults have a living figure head that "has the answers" that followers "need to be enlightened". even religions have reformed sects that split off and take liberates with verses to justify their translations.. making them in a sense a prophet.

I just wanted to apologize for veering off the original topic in question (is vampirism a religion).

Cult are notorious for what is known as Thought Reform practices. Which differs from teaching a member tenants. Cults create an Us vs Them.. In Group vs Out Group mentality. Cults encourage/trick followers into forming a dependency on the group/leader(s). Some sects of organized religions are borderline cults. I have seen Evangelical groups that are so fanatical that even other Evangelical churches speak of them (if at all) as if they were that weird uncle that is never invited to family events. It is very common for individuals seeking to fleece people to use existing religious material, and tenants as a launch for their spin, or interpretations. That does not make them any less a cult I have read of a person who went from leading a bible study through a Baptist church into recruiting for their own group. Falon Gong in China started as an exercise group.. now the leaders are posh with cash while more former members and current members are coming out to speak of the mental abuse they endured. I feel that the aside for this topic is warranted if indeed this Temple Of The Vampire qualifies as a cult, or if it is simply an organization capitalizing on a fad, I am sure they are guarded regarding their justification, as to what credible sources they cite to support their claims regarding what makes "vampirism"a religion.

Personally I say what ever as long as none of the following is happening in the organization.

http://www.culteducation.com/group/1153-margaret-thaler-singer-ph-d/1942-report-of-the-apa-task-force-on-deceptive-and-indirect-techniques-of-persuasion-and-control-s.html

"Definitional Issues

Some scholars shun the word cult, preferring instead the term new religion, presumably because of the negative connotations of cult (Bromley & Shupe, 1981; Kilbourne & Richardson, 1984; Robbins & Anthony, 1981). Although this view is appealing in certain ways (because some of the several thousand known "cults" seem essentially harmless), it is misleading. New religions are not essentially like old religions, except for their newness. There are many other differences, not the least of which is the presence of institutionalized mechanisms of accountability. Furthermore, if all groups called cults are termed new religions, what happens to the term cult? Is it banished from the English language? Is a group like the Manson family a new religion? And what about non-religious cults, e.g., the Symbionese Liberation Army, or the growing number of nameless psychotherapy cults to be described later?

Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged, 1966) provides several definitions of cult, among which are: (1) a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; (2) ... a system for the cure of disease based on the dogma, tenets, or principles set forth by its promulgator to the exclusion of scientific experience or demonstration; (3) ...a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing...the object of such devotion...a body of persons characterized by such devotion.

These definitions clearly describe many cultic groups, characterized by extremist tendencies of one form or another, for which the term new religion would be inappropriate."*

*An excerpt from the above URL.

"The first myth on vampires predates back to roughly 4000 B.C.E. from the ancient Sumer civilization. The ancient Sumerians existed in Mesopotamia and facts prove that by 3100 B.C.E., their culture brought the earliest archeologically proven dynasty; the first cities were built along with establishing the city and state religions were set up and practiced. The Sumerians is the first civilization to receive our attention as the first and oldest myth of a vampire-like being that is the Ekimmu."

From the following link:
http://hellhorror.com/vampires/vampire_mythology/

"The Phaistos Disc is generally accepted as authentic by archaeologists. The assumption of authenticity is based on the excavation records by Luigi Pernier. This assumption is supported by the later discovery of the Arkalochori Axe with similar but not identical glyphs.

The possibility that the disc is a 1908 forgery or hoax has been raised by two or three scholars. According to a report in The Times the date of manufacture has never been established by thermoluminescence. In his 2008 review, Robinson does not endorse the forgery arguments but argues that "a thermoluminescence test for the Phaistos Disc is imperative. It will either confirm that new finds are worth hunting for, or it will stop scholars from wasting their effort.

A gold signet ring from Knossos (the Mavro Spilio ring), found in 1926, contains a Linear A inscription developed in a field defined by a spiral—similar to the Phaistos Disc.[8] This is considered as evidence that the Phaistos Disc is a genuine Minoan artifact."

From the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc

Thank you, Doru, for bringing this thread hopefully back on track. This forum question is not about delineating between religions and cults... but whether or not Vampirism is a religion.

To that end and with respect to the quotes you provide, Doru, I'm not seeing any attempt in arguing on either side of the question posed. And a Minoan artifact would not seem to have anything to do with either vampires or any claimed religion they might have or might not have had.

My post about cult vs religion are to address the actual organization mentioned The Temple Of The Vampire. To me it has no apparent deity, and it's web page has little insight into just what they believe, or practice.. which to me shows that the previous post about them promoting books, and such is their sole agenda.

Here is how Merriam-Webster defines vampirism:

Dictionary
vampirism
noun vam·pir·ism -ˌpī(-ə)r-ˌi-zəm
Definition of VAMPIRISM
1
: belief in vampires
2
: the actions of a vampire

First Known Use of VAMPIRISM
circa 1796


(Medical Dictionary)
Medical Definition of VAMPIRISM
: a sexual perversion in which gratification is obtained by the drawing of blood

-end


Ghilcoiurphyr, exactly what part is being asked if it is a religion?

Upir, to answer whether or not vampirism is a religion it is important to agree on what a religion is.

Doru, is anyone currently following those ancient Sumerian beliefs or those of the other ancient societies you mentioned?

It depends on the individual vampire. Some vampires are very religious about their vampirism. They worship self, so it could be considered a religion. However, other vampires are more primal and less based on tradition and practice, so they probably would consider themselves a part of a religion.

You can't use definitions of vampires from a dictionary or encyclopedia because that is speaking of the folkloric type of vampire which includes pure superstition and not what they are talking about. Since I am a member of the VVC I can only answer for myself. Most don't think so, the general community. There are those who think differently like the ToV but they are considered by most to be a cult and they are a legal religion. Some have filed as a religious group or non profit in the US to get the exemption if they are an organization like Michelle Balanger's group. No one agrees on what it is, and I mean no one. People have done studies for years and come up with some hair brained conclusions and I am speaking of those that don't consider themselves vampirics.

I would say go here and see what many believe. The VVC is an International organization and people have different viewpoints. I will put the link at the bottom. The ToV and Aset Ka are outside of the mainstream vampire community and I'm speaking of the world wide community. The ToV have vampire gods. It is the only group I know of like this and they are predatory. They believe blood drinking to be unevolved and will not let anyone into their group that drinks blood. They say they feed on the astral. They wrote the Vampire Bible and they have a Creed and it applies only to that group.

http://www.veritasvosliberabit.com/vvc.html

There are those that write about the community and call it a religious movement but I can assure you that most would say NO. I personally think it is the nature of the individual and will say nothing more. The majority do not drink blood and now even the Stregoi Vii look down on it and why some in the community shun them to a degree. I've been around for so long I pay little attention to any of this stuff because frankly I don't care.

The Temple of the Vampire is a standalone group started by Satanists. They are not apart of the mainstream that consider themselves "the community." They consider themselves to be a religion and have written a Creed and the Vampire Bible. All of these things including their test applies to their group only and no one else. If you are a sanguine type vampire you will not be accepted. They consider blood drinking unevolved. They only allow energy feeders in their group. They say they feed off the astral plane and are predatory. So if you are looking for what some know as named "the community," it wouldn't be the ToV. Definitions in dictionaries and encyclopedias deal only with superstition so are not usual in speaking about the modern vampire community or any other group on its finges.

I meant fringes and of course they would say vampirism is a religion because what they believe is a religion of their own making. Sorry for the second post. There are a lot of theories about what vampirism is or is not but none so far have any facts to them, just opinions.

I Think no. There exist multiple religions that go by vampiric traditions, have vampiric customs and so on and so forth, but Vampirism itself, in my opinion, is not a religion. It does not make much sense to call vampirism a religion, to me. It would be like asking "Is being (enter race) a religion?) Or, "Is being (enter sexual orientation) a religion?"

Such things are individual and not chosen, as is the state of being a Vampire. Whatever one's beliefs of it's origins or it's current state in the VVC or in general, I am sure most of us here understand that one does not simply wake up one day, clap their hands together and say, "Poof. I am now a Vampire." We could go into a discussion on the psychology of schizophrenia and the Mind's ability to be under the illusion to such things, but it would be a waste of time (I also do not mean to say I discredit Awakenings, these, I believe, are legitimate in every sense by most accounts. I mean that one does not "choose" to be a Vampire unless they are under a form of illusion, but one may choose to be Vampiric.)

If we are speaking of the practice of vampirism itself, then that, I think, would draw the same conclusion.

Summary example for clarification:

- Does taking life-force in whatever form from another Thing stamp me religious? no.

- Am I religious if I take life-force from another Thing? perhaps, if said religion endorses these practices.

In conclusion, these situations are very circumstantial and depend on individual interpretation when examining the "small areas", but generally speaking, overall, no, Vampirism is not a religion.

A condition. And a lifestyle.
A religion? No. Although I could see blood-letting and drinking as a ritual in some religions.
My two cents, anyway.

Actually I would say yes because Vampirism is a cult which can be considered as a religion in many ways is similar to devil worshipping, think about it virgins and animals are sacrificed in both just to give an example.

vampire is not a religion

Cult... religion... spiritualism... it is all secondary to the real question here.
In order for any of us to ask "is vampirism a religion" we would first have to define what exactly is vampirism.
Since I highly doubt any of us can reach a consensus on what makes someone a vampire there isn't really a way to go into the question of whether or not vampirism is a belief system.

Excellent point, Severus... exactly so. The question of what is the foundational definition of the Vampire must first be investigated and answered before anything else can be, including this topic's question.

That said, regardless of that still-unanswered question (at least an answer well evidenced enough to be more universally accepted), there still remains any evidence submitted that vampirism is founded on or dependent upon a particular belief system (religion). And simply forming or becoming part of a "community" of others who choose to identify as vampires does not make any of them actual vampires.

Upir as always well stated. But your thought as a particular belief system. For many beliefs hold no meaning and yet are not stated as religious culture nor a community. Trekkies or other such followings are not a religious order. Yet we class vampirism as a religious state and not a way of life or lifestyle so taking it as this vampirism religious or a society based following

I agree with everyone else, it's a way of living, not a religion.

In my Humble town, two more churches just open up. I assumed there wil be many who will believe in the preachers, including the 10 percents of the monthly eraning. Mmm, Should I open a Vampire Church??? Why not. I will teach the Intelectuality of being a Gentlemen Vampire. As How to treat women, with respect and Tons of Love.

Well depending on who you talk to some folks believe that vampirism is a blood disorder... if you want to follow that line of thinking then Leukemia can't be ruled out as a religion either.

If you believe it is it is and if you believe it isn't it isn't.

I never heard anything good about TOV and secondly a "Vampire Test" already sounds like a joke. I suppose i can see why people would mistaken it to be a religion when you have figureheads preaching vampirism at gatherings on weekends. A congregation of sorts. Much like a preacher in church teaching their flock the way to heaven.

Vampirism isn't taught as a religion.

There are several mistakes people make when TRYING to connect "vampires" to some of the Old Gods, but the fact is, even Lilith herself was never a Goddess. She was mortal. So what if she mated with something more divine than herself? That still doesn't mean she was ever a vampire figurehead.

People often get vampire literature confused with realism, and some people do not take the time to dig deeper into their own religious origins.

Jesus offering his blood wasn't vampire related either.

It's sort of along the lines of what Upir is saying about the "Fallen Ones".

The divine beings play a role in why humanity carries certain traits, even the darker aspects. It's been happening for a very long time.

If you want to learn more about vampirism, you may want to start with the angelics, and that includes Lucifer himself because the answers lie there.

no it is not some say I can be but its my studies that it is more a condition of a virus in your blood that causes one to be a vampire but I do belive I will look into that more .

In most polytheistic faiths demons are gods, its only in mono based religions they become demi gods.
So in all fairness to true historical fact Lilith is a Hebrew translation and depiction of a much older character before Jewish mythology. She is a god like demon of Sumar and Babylonian origin.
This is a fact for which Jewdism is open and honest about in regards to where they took this mythology from when they used it in their version of the Talmud.

This is also why some scholars believe the Catholics carefully removed her mention out of their version of Genesis.

Well in all fairness, not everything you read is correct and she was NEVER a God. lol

Severus: "Lamashtu (Sumerian) was a very similar Mesopotamian demon to Lilitu and later Lilith..."


Actually, Lamashtu was not Sumerian but Akkadian and, thus, the attributes that follow in the quote are those of later Akkadian mythology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamashtu).

The Sumerian name for this goddess was, Dimme. Her Sumerian attributes are not that well known though it would make sense that at least in very general terms at least (not specifics), they probably resembled the Akkadian myth. And it is likely this later myth was probably founded on, though likely not identical to, the original and far-earlier Sumerian myth... just as the later Roman goddess, Venus, generally though not specifically, resembled the far-earlier Greek goddess Aphrodite.

You will find Dimme mentioned here (vss. 46-51): http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.4.22.1&display=Crit&charenc=gcirc&lineid=t4221.p5#t4221.p5

Now Upir you full well that last post is disingenuous
Since the town empires shared every aspect of their languages and cultures to the point that they were practically the same civilization.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

Wow... I hate typing things on my phone.
Let's try that again.


Now Upir you know full well that your last post is disingenuous.
Since the two empires shared every aspect of their languages and cultures to the point that they were practically the same civilization.

Example:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumer

Whoa, Severus....back up and begin again without the accusations. You would do far better to ask questions, instead. The Sumerians were very different from their Akkadian conquerors. Their languages, cultures, etc. were very different...they were even of different races!

Yes, the Akkadians adopted Sumerian civilization just as third-world cultures adopt those of the first-world civilizations they emigrate to even today...But as a people, they were just as different as immigrant cultures coming to and integrating into American society are. And when the Akkadians rose up one night and killed the Sumerian kings, their benefactors, and so treacherously enslaved and slaughtered the Sumerians who had let them become citizens...then the Akkadians continued to use Sumerian ways, sciences, writing system, etc., as all were far superior to their own. And they adapted Sumerian religion and mythology, etc., to suit their far-more violent and bloodthirsty culture...just as the Romans did to Greek religion and mythology.

Before attacking others as "disingenuous," study the subject at hand, Severus. Unlike you, I have no ax to grind here, no "community" or life forbidden (s t y I e) to defend. I seek and state only the facts. Now, if you wish to seek and present actual facts (not beliefs) counter to my own, I'll welcome all such

Ok... bare with me as I babel for a minute.

Upir you and I are friends... friends that love to debate I might add.
We have known each other for a good amount of time and we have fought some of the same battles in the vampire community... and we have even fought each other occasionally. I know very well that your technical expertise and understanding in the field of vampiric lore is unmatched... at least on this site.
And that is the reason why I see your reply as some what disingenuous, because it omits the fact that the Akkadians and Sumerians were neighboring states who had one people and many changing governments and rulers between them. They shared the same writing, language, goods, trade routes, cultures and mythologies across the board, much like upper and lower Egypt did. Anyone who has read the Sumerian Kings List would know that fact... the fact that the Akkadian empire was not a separate civilization with it's own roots but was in fact a regional dynasty which ended the same way it started... some one stronger came in and took power. Again if we look to Egypt we see multiple dynasties and when a new Pharaoh came into power the names and mythologies of their Gods for that period also changed.
Much as Atum became Atem and then became Atem Ra and finally became Rah. Similarly Iusaaset becomes Iusaas and finally becomes known as Isis. All these gods have have different names and there own mythology yet are the same deity.
So to say that Lamashtu and dimme, Lilitu and Lilith are different because their related origins communicated across different dynasties and cultures can't be the same thing is like saying that Saint Nicholas and Santa Clause can't possibly be the same thing... that the story of Nosferatu couldn't have come from the story of Dracula because they don't share the same character name.

Regardless, the point of that excerpt was to point out that in the origin story of the character known to us in modern times as Lilith WAS seen as a God figure in ancient times. Whether or not her lore supported a religious sect who's worship was strong enough to be called anything beyond a cult is anyone's guess.
With that being said and it being a possible origin story for vampirism I still don't think that alone makes Vampirism a religion.

Without speaking to much about our nature in an open forum such as this I will say that in my opinion vampirism is not and can never be a religion because by definition vampirism is a state of being. You are either vampiric or you are not... you can no more wake up and decide to be a vampire or have someone else change you into a vampire than I could decide to become an Asian woman tomorrow.
Religion is a following of faith, a belief in an ideology. Vampirism is neither of these things, individually or in a covenant .
People tend to think that because vampirism is spiritual in nature and has roots in spiritualism that it must have a religious order or functionality to its components. That often comes from our need and desire as human beings (and pack animals) to categorize, label and break down everything into groups, and nothing to do with the nature of the thing itself... in this case vampirism.
You may find a church or a temple dedicated to vampires. You may find knowledge you didn't know before in that church... you may even find other vampires, but I promise you will never find vampirism in a temple or church because vampirism isn't a person, place, or object... just as it isn't a faith in a person, place, or object.

Severus -- "And that is the reason why I see your reply as some what disingenuous, because it omits the fact that the Akkadians and Sumerians were neighboring states who had one people and many changing governments and rulers between them."


I "omitted" this, Severus, because it's simply not true.

You need to study history more completely and not limiting yourself to reading the single introductory paragraph found at Wikipedia on the subject of the Akkadian Empire... as you apparently only did or else you would not have made such a neophyte mistake. Had you, instead, followed and read the entire article ... or even only the introductory Wikipedia article on Sargon, you would have realized your mistake:

"Sargon of Akkad, also known as Sargon the Great "the Great King" (Akkadian 𒈗𒁺 Šarru-kīnu, meaning "the true king" or "the king is legitimate"),[1] was a Semitic Akkadian emperor famous for his conquest of the Sumerian city-states in the 24th and 23rd centuries BC."

Thousands of years into the Sumerian Empire, Sargon treacherously conquered the Sumerian city-states that had adopted the indigenous peoples of the area (later called "Akkadians") into their great civilization... which people benefited enormously from Sumerian techonology, sciences, philosophy and culture.

Then one night, the man later calling himself "Sargon" ("true" king) led his traitorous group in a sneak attack at night and murdered all the Sumerian Kings in all the Sumerian cities ... while they slept. He betrayed the very people who had kept his own people from starvation and who had taught them and accepted them in as fellow Sumerian citizens. Only after this were Sumerians (those that survived the slaughters that occurred as the Akkadians took full control) and the Akkadians living side by side... much the same way as the Germans were living "side-by-side" during WWII with the Austrians after they conquered them... though at least the Germans were of the same race, culture and language with the Austrians. Not so with the Sumerians and Akkadians.

As I stated, the Akkadians were a race of people indigenous to the area who benefited greatly from the Sumerian Civilization and who became citizens of it. The Sumerians were not indigenous to the area and who exactly they were or where they came from, we still to this day do not know. What race the Sumerians were, we still don't know.

The Akkadian language (a Semitic language) was completely different from the Sumerian language, their race was completely different, their culture was entirely different.

Only AFTER Sargon's conquest of Sumer by treachery did the Akkadian Empire come into existence. Prior to that event, there was NO Akkadian Empire. After the conquest, the Akkadians lived in Sumerian homes, took over their magnificent buildings, and adopted and then adapted as their own the Sumerian accomplishments (writing, sciences, rites, religion and mythology)... and the man who did all this then changed his name to "Sargon"= "legitimate/real king" so as to attempt to legitimize himself as the "real king" of Sumer instead of the backstabbing traitor he really was (talk about hypocrisy and disingenuousness!).

Thus... getting back to the subject at hand, the Akkadian demoness you referenced was the Akkadian version of the Sumerian "Dimme" (again... the languages were entirely different despite Sargon adopting Cuneiform as their writing method in which they wrote in Akkadian, not Sumerian). Thus... the traits they gave to this demoness were different from the earlier Sumerian equivalent, called in Sumerian: "Dimme."

Again... you need to study more. Especially if you are going to start accusing "friends" of being disingenuous.

As it has been a long time since I last studied Sargon, I went back and re-read texts online... that differ from the books on the subject I have.

Regardless, all state in agreement that Akkad and the Akkadian Empire began with Sargon thousands of years after the establishment of the Sumerian Empire. The Akkadian Empire did not exist until AFTER it had conquered the Sumerian Empire. The Akkadians then adopted and then adapted all of Sumer's accomplishments, even its cuneiform writing system and its religion and mythology, as its own.

The point being that the Akkadians, beginning with Sargon, were the conquerors of Sumer... though prior to that they had been "neighbors" (though primitive neighbors) in the sense that they were indigenous to the area while the Sumerians were not. However, their languages and cultures were very different ... until Sargon and his people conquered and then took as his own all that was Sumerian.

Here's a great website that provides a much better detailed and documented history of Sargon of Akkad... and the founding of the Akkadian Empire that he created:

http://www.ancient.eu/Sargon_of_Akkad/


And at least in one thing we agree: Vampirism is not a religion.

I think anything can be turned into a religion if people want to. Hence the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The Sumerian religion and practice of religious vampirism still exists in and through numerous religious practices today.

"The Sumerians were the authors of many “firsts.” They were the first to engage in large-scale irrigation agriculture; the first to live in populous urban settings that we call city-states; the first to develop stratified societies with specialized occupations; the first to organize and maintain standing armies; the first to develop mathematics and writing; the first to propagate laws and formulate the concept of property. They were also the first to engage in systematic and organized spiritual practices that fit the definition of what we today call “religion.”

This latter point is critical to the historian of religion. As Samuel Noah Kramer (1963:112) observed in his classic The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character:

In the course of the third millenium B.C., the Sumerians developed religious ideas and spiritual concepts which have left an indelible impress on the modern world, especially by way of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. On the intellectual level Sumerian thinkers and sages, as a result of their their speculations on the origin and nature of the universe and its modus operandi, developed a cosmology and theology which carried such high conviction that they became the basic creed and dogma of much of the ancient near East.

One can, in other words, find much of Sumerian religion in all near eastern religions that followed: Akkadian, Babylonian, Judaic, Greek, Roman, Christian, and Muslim. None of these religions sprouted sui generis from new revelations or prophets — all simply built upon and revised the Sumerians’ original formulations.

Sumerian theologians and priests developed several concepts that became key components of these later religions. First, they conceived of the gods in anthropomorphic terms — the gods were like humans but divine. Second, the cosmological or heavenly order was modeled on the earthly order."

From the following link:
http://genealogyreligion.net/sumerian-spiritualism-the-earliest-organized-religion

Thnx upir and servo us and duro for the information. My thought it was more of a lifestyle than a religious practice. Yet info has given a new light. Yet common to the old days the practice of vampirism is more o society fad or way compared to the practices of old.

To me, religion is all about telling a story.
It's not YOUR personal spiritual story....it's someone elses.
So is it really a bad thing to write what events or what stories you have to share that possibly happened in your lifetime?
I don't think it is.
However, when people take stories and uses it as a weapon, or to impose upon other people's belief systems for their own gain...
That's when people really need to take a step back and think.
One shouldn't lose their free thinking mind to replace with someone else's story.

Wow. KIT, absolutely so...well stated. And yet another reason why Vampirism should not be regarded as a religion. Being a Vampire...if you actually are such, and that is extremely doubtful in anyone's case...Is about that state of inherently being; it is who you are and not your mindset, your philosophy, your clothes or anything put on or fake about you (fake fangs, anyone?)....but who and what you truly are.

And unfortunately, when all you truly think you are in real life is...a character found only in fiction...Wow! Oh, Vampires actually do exist now as they did historically...but they sure as Hell neither look or act as portrayed and depicted on screen or in novels.

All religion's are based on common belief's and lack fact as a bases for their origin, yet stand the test of time. A Christian, Jew, Buddhist, ect... is just an individual that shares a common belief. It does not change their appearance or magically gives them super powers, it does however, make them a Christian, Jew, Buddhist, ect... and yes, even a "Vampire".

I don't know if i'd say they lack facts as a bases for ALL religions because i know the Vatican is home to many written old texts and books, some not even revealed to the public's eyes because it would interfere with certain belief sets, which has typical been world-wide spread and if it got out, then not only would it be a shock to the masses , but enlightenment at the same time. So really, there's more out there than you realize that can prove why some religions got their starts in the first place.

If someone is only a Vampire, doru, because they choose to believe they are and regardless of facts or evidences, then I guess Vampirism could be considered a religion, as well.

However, is that all a Vampire is? Is a "Vampire" simply anyone who chooses to believe they are... as also is a Christian, a Buddhist, etc.? I think the answer to that question is a resounding, "no!"

An actual Vampire is far more than this requiring possession and exhibition of the key characteristics for which the Vampire is identified and for which Vampires have always been known. Were this not so, Vampires would have been known since the beginning as nothing more than a group of believers in a particular set of beliefs (e.g., Druids, Pagans) and not supernatural beings in possession of specific and otherworldly abilities.

Additionally, as I have pointed out many times before: as per the "Oration of St. Gregory" in the 11th Century CE (the second earliest direct mention of actual "Vampires"), Vampires were so otherworldly, so inherently different from Humans, that the pre-Christian Slavs actually worshiped them, making Vampires their deities. Now, there's a belief system! hehehe

Thus, Vampirism (i.e., being a Vampire) cannot be a belief system, itself, and ... thus... a Vampire cannot simply be a follower of that belief system.

According to one American Supreme court, a "religious organization" is merely an organized association of persons dedicated to religious purposes. Therefore, if the organization is animated by religious belief, it cannot, by definition, fail to be a religious organization. Ordinarily, however, the American government and the courts have been reluctant to examine the content of religious belief... as a result the legal term for "religion" itself is not defined for any certain set of ideals. This is why Scientology is considered a religion even though they do not have any god or deity... the individual is the one who is transcendent.
So even though I see the point Doru is making I have to again agree with Upir as to the fact that an "ism" in this case vampirism can not be a religion, because as stated earlier, vampirism is a state of being... and thus can not be a religion anymore than being Asian could be a religion.
So even tho ancient cultures may have worshiped vampires, there is no evidence that vampires worshiped themselves. You would need to remove the vampirism and inject a faith in Lilith or some other worship above the individual vampire in order for vampirism to fall under the legal definition.
Basicly it would require that vampires practice the act of vampirism as a belief, and not a necessity of their existence.
If you remove the need and the thirst for blood or spiritual essence and make that need a belief you gain a religion faith but loose the definition of what it means to be a vampire.

Then why can other people be considered Christians, Jew's, Buddist ect... merely because they believe in those religions. It is no different and you are speaking out of emotion, not logic.

"The Sumerians were the authors of many “firsts.” They were the first to engage in large-scale irrigation agriculture; the first to live in populous urban settings that we call city-states; the first to develop stratified societies with specialized occupations; the first to organize and maintain standing armies; the first to develop mathematics and writing; the first to propagate laws and formulate the concept of property. They were also the first to engage in systematic and organized spiritual practices that fit the definition of what we today call “religion.”

And try 4,500 BCE for the first mention of vampires and vampire religious ceremonies.

Doru,

Firstly, human beings celebrate their own birth every year... that's an annual ritual ceremony which celebrates the miracle of life. Does that mean that being human is a religion because we have such rituals??
No, of course not. An annual right or ritual ceremony needs to be based on other factors to be considered a religion.
As a human being, seeing and believing in the divine origin of your form can be a faith because there is some thing beyond the self. The faith is in the origin or creator whether its Jesus or Lilith. The fact that it's a belief and not a state of being is why you can be a Christian today and decide to be a Buddhist tomorrow. It only requires a change in ideology.
Being human or vampiric isn't an ideology... that's why Human beings can't (with any logic or reason) loose faith in humanity and decide to stop being human. No amount of faith will transform you into a fluffy white poodle if you decide you don't like being human. No more than a vampire can decide being a vampire is to much of a burden and so I'm going to ignore my vampiric needs.... Of which the need and follow up act of feeding is the definition of vampirism.

"Being human or vampiric isn't an ideology." Couldn't have said it better, Severus.

Being a vampire... is just that: inherently being what a vampire is and in possession of the preternatural gift(s) and trait(s) for which a Vampire is defined. A Vampire is as intrinsically imbued with such in the same way a wolf is imbued with all that is a wolf, an eagle as is an eagle... and supernaturally, for example, a ghost as is a ghost. None of these or any other being has Thing One to do with a belief system or following such.

It's just that simple... that undeniably logical... that incontrovertibly irrefutable.

Because Vampirism is a religion to some, everyone that follows the faith is considered a vampire. It is pretty simple if you follow societal accepted values for identification, a person who believes in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is called a Roman Catholic, therefore, if you believe in the teachings of Vampirism you are called a vampire. You just need to let go of Hollywood to accept these simple truths..

Severus stated, "No amount of faith will transform you into a fluffy white poodle if you decide you don't like being human."

Being called a vampire does not imply you have transformed into anything other than being identified as a believer of the religion. Obviously you are still watching your dvd of Underworld and can't come to grips with reality.

Religious beings believe in faith, it is part of their teachings. Faith is defined as: " A strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Most of the world relies on faith when practicing their religion. Example: Mary's virgin birth of Jesus.

Doru has a good point. Sometimes, making a literal idea into an abstract concept defeats the purpose of identifying whether a set of beliefs is to be considered a religion or not. Like Doru said, it is a simple, literal "truth" to say those things about followers and their beliefs.

However, to side-track a bit... religions are not based on "truths". No one can stand up and declare their religion to be the one true religion. It is common to instill such fundamental concepts, however, to foster a stronger bond between the follower and their object of prayer. How can anyone actually say that their religion is based on truth? There would be a worldwide catastrophe and we'd all be back in the Dark ages!

Being a human is not an ideology. It is a state of being. However, if you were to follow the tenets of vampirism, it is a state of becoming. Or at least, I think so. In the process of becoming, one becomes something else other than a human... Be it literal or not. No one saying that this is a truth. It merely depends on subjectivity.

Religions, in my opinion, can be explained objectively. Can vampirism be explained objectively? Clearly not. It is entirely based on one's subjectivity. Thus, it cannot be considered a religion, in my opinion.

Yet, again most religions condemn the others as fake or lacking fact. Depending on the definition you choose to use a cult is religious practice, thus, all religions are cults. The delusions of one person is insanity, delusions by a few a cult, and by many a religion.

The Im Kheperu prayer taken from the ancient Egyptian Text The Modes of Ra:

" Kheper-i kheper kheperu, kheper-kuy,
m kheper n khepri kheperu m sep tepy."

“I became, and the becoming became. I became by becoming the form of Khepra, god of transformations, who came into being in the First Time. Through me all transformations were enacted.”

I believe it's more of a lifeforbidden, though some can argue otherwise. If a person who is into vampirism believes it is a religion then to them it would be one. But to others it's just how some people live their lives

its a way of life

"Some will say that there are two main different methods of feeding on life-force energy; sanguine and psi; and that all other forms of feeding are subcategories or specializations of psi feeding. Others will say that each feeding method is a different form of feeding, hence different "types" of vampires.

Sanguine vampires (or sanguinarians) are vampires who feed by drinking blood. However, it is not the blood itself that they are feeding on. It is the life-force energy contained within the blood. Blood drinking is arguably the most potent form of feeding on life-force energy, and many sanguinarians can thrive for many weeks from a single feeding. (A single feeding is often about an ounce or two of blood taken from a willing donor.) Sanguinarians often describe blood drinking as a very fulfilling, very powerful and somewhat intoxicating experience. It also tends to be a rather intimate form of feeding.

Psi (or psy) vampires are vampires that feed psychically on life force energies. Psi feeding (in any form) can be done from an individual (most often a willing donor) or from the ambient energies of a group or crowd. However, psi feeding can also be done from a person without the person realizing that they are being fed from, although many may consider it to be unethical to do so. Generally though, the person being fed from is not harmed by the feeding in any way. It should be noted that there is no difference between a psi vampire and a psy vampire, other than the spelling. As for the difference in spellings, the only conclusion I have been able to reach is that psi is an abbreviation of psionic, while psy is an abbreviation of psychic. However both terms, psionic and psychic, refer to psychic phenomena. Psi vampires used to be referred to as psychic vampires, but the field of behavioral psychology has co-opted the term psychic vampire to describe a person who has a psychological need for attention and will do whatever they can to get that attention from anyone and everyone, leaving those that interact with them feeling drained. Psi vampires avoid using the term psychic vampire to differentiate themselves from the behavioral psychology psychic vampires. Some will also refer to psi vampires as pranic vampires, derived from the term prana, a Sanskrit term literally translated as life-force energy.

Empathic vampires are vampires who feed on emotional life-force energies from the emotions of people. There are those that will say that vampires that feed on negative emotional energies (anger, fear, etc.) are negative/chaotic vampires and are a subcategory/specialization of empathic vampires. Others will say that negative/chaos vampires are separate from empathic vampires. The reason is that empathic vampires will usually feed on whatever emotions a person is feeling without necessarily causing those emotions. However, often negative/chaos vampires will cause situations where negative emotions and chaotic energies will be stimulated and then feed off of those energies.

Sexual vampires are vampires who feed on the life-force energies generated from having sex, especially the excess energies generated at the moment of orgasm. They can do so psychically and/or from bodily fluids. Female sexual vampires are sometimes referred to as succubi (singularly, succubus), and male sexual vampires are sometime referred to as incubi (singularly, incubus). Some will also refer to sexual vampires as tantric vampires. Others will refer to sexual vampires as pranic vampires. There is sometimes debate within the vampire community if referring to sexual vampires as pranic vampires is correct or not as there are some within the vampire community that refer to psi vampires as pranic vampires, which could lead to some confusion when talking about pranic vampires. Those that support referring to sexual vampires as pranic vampires argue that pranic energies and prana are two different things, and that pranic energies are energies related to sex while prana is just life-force energies. There are those that think the use of the labels tantric and pranic in reference to sexual vampires is an attempt by some within the vampire community at political correctness who feel that the term sexual vampire is derogatory and/or offensive or simply think that tantric and pranic "sound" better than sexual. However, it is also possible that those who use tantric or pranic when talking about sexual vampires are doing so to differentiate them from any link to behavioral psychology which seems to also be co-opting the term sexual vampire to describe a person who has a psychological need for attention (much like a psychic vampire) through sex.

Soul vampires are vampires that are able to feed directly off the energy of a person's soul. As a result of soul feeding, soul vampires will sometimes gain some or all of the abilities of the person they are feeding from. Soul vampires will also sometimes receive memories, thoughts and desires of the person that they are feeding from. Soul feeding is a very intimate form of feeding, even more so than sexual and sanguine feeding. Soul vampires are also sometimes referred to as soul devourers.

Elemental vampires are vampires that are able to feed on the life force energies of the elements; earth, wind, fire, and water. Some will say that elemental vampires are elementalists who are able to manipulate elemental energies and then convert those energies into consumable life-force energies. Others will say that elemental vampires feed directly from elemental life-force energies. There are also those that will say that vampires who feed on life-force energies from plants and animals are also elemental vampires. However, there are those that distinguish such vampires as nature vampires. Another method of feeding often considered a subcategory or specialization of elemental feeding is electrical feeding; the indirect feeding on energies in electrical fields and lightning. Others will distinguish such vampires as electrical vampires.

Astral vampires are vampires that are able to travel through the astral plane and feed off of the life-force energies of other entities within the astral plane, and/or they are able to materialize in astral form and feed off the life-force energies of people that are usually asleep.

Dreamscape vampires are essentially astral vampires that are able to enter into a person's dream, and feed from the life-force energies within the dream. They can be invisible observers in the dream, or they can manifest themselves within the dream. Some are able to influence the course of the dream.

Magickal vampires are vampires that are able to feed on and manipulate magickal energies.

Vampires who only use one method of feeding are referred to by the way that they feed (i.e., sanguinarian, elemental vampire, sexual vampire, etc.). Vampires who are able to feed using some but not all psychic methods but are not able to feed sanguine are referred to as adaptive psi vampires. Vampires who are able to feed using all psychic methods but are not able to feed sanguine are referred to as eclectic psi vampires. Sanguine vampires that are also able to feed using some but not all psychic methods are referred to as adaptive vampires. Sanguine vampires who are also able to feed using all psychic methods are referred to as eclectic vampires."

http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/enygma_real_vampires.shtml

Thanks for the laundry list of claimed "vampire" types created solely by the modern vampire community to attempt justifying anyone calling him/herself a "vampire." None of this has anything to do with the actual Slavic Vampire nor anything to do with this forum question.

I have to agree with Upir.
The modern world is easy to try and manipulate the masses into labeling themselves based on symptoms that are most likely medically sound.
Not everything you go through or experience physically or spiritually speaking is tied to anything vampiric.

If you are "feeding" as you put it from other people because they are an energy source, AND you are aware of it, then that simply makes you a bad bad person and those people should be aware that such acts doesn't go unpunished and one day those people may cross paths with the wrong person to feed from. Control yourselves. You don't do it because you HAVE TO. You do it because you have turned people into fast food joints and you like how it feels. Ok so you learned a mind-trick. That doesn't act like a CHILD with it.

doesn't mean*

Vampirism is not a religion it is a physical condition within the body

Your response is getting predictable. Cynical answers just shows your true nature. Be well.

Because others disagree with you, Doru, doesn't make them either "cynical" or "emotional" or "illogical." Making accusations like this in an apparent attempt to discredit their arguments and the points raised, however, does at least smack of you being all three.

As many have pointed out and against which you have not provided any contrary evidences, there is nothing inherent to being a Vampire that requires or even promotes either having or following a belief system.

If you disagree, please provide us any evidence that the Slavic Vampire (that is where the term "vampire" originates, after all) ever practiced any specific belief system or, more to the point, that they were identified by any such.

Unless you can do so, your argument does not hold water... logically.

Where are your facts? I do not see anything but cynical remarks. And yes, I am all three, live with it.

If you actually read my post you will understand that I have provided facts, yet your biased and illogical prejudices keep you from simple understanding. I know it is difficult accepting what you do not choose to believe, you are the perfect example of that fact.

Nonetheless, I have provided the following:

Sumerian Vampires

"Vampires are a subject that has fascinated many people through the centuries. This is particularly true among people interested in ancient Sumer. A number of books have touched upon the topic, but none have gone greatly into depth on the subject. The reason for this is that vampires are not a particularly dignified subject for Assyriologists to focus upon. Neo-pagans on the other hand have the interest, but tend not to be qualified to write much on the subject."

From the following link:
http://templeofsumer.org/share4a.html

Vampires are much older than your Slavic focus.

The Sumerians obviously did not have the word vampire. This would come much later in a region somewhat to the north that would have had no contact with the Sumerians, but who might have had contact with the descendants of the Sumerians. They did however have the concept of demonic creatures that consumed the blood of the living.

The concept of a vampire is a vague one. It is agreed in some circles that a mythological creature is a vampire if they drink blood. On the other hand a lion will readily drink blood. Sometimes cannibalistic creatures are lumped in with vampires. The main difference here is that these drink the blood of the dead rather than the living.

Confusingly it is not agreed upon in all circles that a vampire needs to drink blood. Some creatures that draw energy from individuals are also categorized as vampires.

Doru, you keep avoiding the question:

Where in history, any history, do you find vampires defined as followers of a belief system or religion?

Some believe it is a religion, some believe it isn't. I personally, don't care what others think. It is their choice to believe as they wish.

I think vampirism is something wholly made up as fiction by humans.

There are many people who thrive on the attention they receive from pretending to be something they clearly aren't. Either by consuming human blood, or acting as if they can take energy from others.

Again, I really don't care. People are entitled to believe and practice as they wish, within the boundaries of law.

As I see it, this is just another post for me to boost my count total. >:D

Upir, If you can get by your own arrogance and read my previous posts you will find the answers to your query. Nonetheless, I will not re-post for your convenience.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.