Topic: when Alucard dies

[Chernabogue]

From "Encyclopedia of Castlevania"

http://castlevania.wikia.com/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_Castlevania

Alucard is the hybrid with human and vampire.
When he dies, human's portion disappears.
Only a vicious vampire remains.
He is not allowed to die.

Sounds cool, thanks for sharing!

[Ahasverus]

Now, THAT would make for an awesome plot.
IGA, why u write plots so retarded with such awesome ideas?

[Kale]

Now, THAT would make for an awesome plot.
IGA, why u write plots so retarded with such awesome ideas?

I have to agree with that. I think the ideas he's got (or got to work with) are awesome, but often poorly executed.

[TheouAegis]

Someone's missing the point of that quote about Alucard's human part dying.

Alucard will not die. If he is ever "slain" as Dracula has been slain countless times, whatever human part of him he has, such as his soul or compassion or bodily organs (the first two are speculative, but the organs is guaranteed) would be necrotized and he would become a full-fledged vampire. He would no longer be a dhampir at all. He would arise again and terrorize humanity just like his father. In order to prevent that from happening - to prevent a war against two Draculas or the continuation of the terror of Dracula - people have worked together to try to prevent Alucard from ever being slain. So if any vampire hunter were to actually slay Alucard out of foolish bravado, he would ultimately fail and doom mankind.

[Nagumo]

Killing Alucard and making him evil would be a pretty cheap way of continuing the story post-Dawn of Sorrow.

 

[Mystic Myotis]

If xtianity is true in the CV world, or in the real world even, then everyone is fuct and going to hell....
... Last time I checked, NOBODY really lives by those tenets, in the CV world or the real one.

That's what repentance is for.
It might differ depending upon the denomination (I don't know) but how I understand it is:
1. you're going to Hell by default unless you accept JC.  This is why denying the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin.
2. you're still going to Hell unless you repent of the sins you commit.  This is because it is (as stated in the Bible) impossible to live a life free of sin.  (Oddly enough,  Enoch and Elijah were said to be free of sin and God actually took him alive into Heaven, despite Jesus saying that no one has ascended into Heaven.  That's a whole mess of contradictions right there. XD)

[Opium]

That's what repentance is for.
It might differ depending upon the denomination (I don't know) but how I understand it is:
1. you're going to Hell by default unless you accept JC.  This is why denying the holy spirit is the one unforgivable sin.
2. you're still going to Hell unless you repent of the sins you commit.  This is because it is (as stated in the Bible) impossible to live a life free of sin.  (Oddly enough,  Enoch and Elijah were said to be free of sin and God actually took him alive into Heaven, despite Jesus saying that no one has ascended into Heaven.  That's a whole mess of contradictions right there. XD)

LOL so all the things that Jesus taught can easily be ignored, as long as you repent before you die.  Why do people even bother to put all that effort into believing it (making excuses, etc) if that's the path they all end up taking, anyways?  I just love that religion, so loony!  Oh, and I totally deny the holy spirit.

[Mystic Myotis]

LOL so all the things that Jesus taught can easily be ignored, as long as you repent before you die.  Why do people even bother to put all that effort into believing it (making excuses, etc) if that's the path they all end up taking, anyways?

Some people might tell you that, but repentance is not as simple as just confessing and saying you're sorry. >_>
And because it's not enough to simply 'say' you accept JC and repent; you have to do it 'in your heart,' or whatever. Basically you have to mean what you say and do. >_>

[Opium]

Everyone has a different interpretation of the rules.  People cherry-pick the things that they like, they interpret meanings as they see fit, and they flat out ignore other things.  There are probably just as many interpretations and explanations for how this belief system works as there are christians.  So i guess it all means whatever the heck people want it to mean.  I tend to look at the whole picture and instead of trying to figure out who has it right and who's doing it wrong, I just conclude that the whole thing is baloney. 
I apologize to the author if they feel that my expression is causing a thread hi-jack, so I'm going to ignore the thread now lest it get further off track.  Peace out!

[darkwzrd4]

Back on topic, if Alucard dies, what will happen to him?  It's really hard to tell.  From what I know about Christianity, by all means, he should go to Hell simply because he is descended from a vampire.  However, based on what he has been doing (protecting humans from monsters) he deserves a reward for all his effort. 

The idea that only his human half will truly die while his vampire side rises from the dead as a full vampire is something I have never heard before.  If that was the case, his human part should go to heaven.  Of course, this all assumes that he will ever be killed.  I'd also hate to fight a full vampire Alucard.  It would be a really dick move if konami killed off Alucard and brought him back as a full vampire enemy.  He is way to awesome for that to happen to him.

[Thomas Belmont]

With this goody-two-shoes thing he has going on, it's gonna be natural causes (heh). Or maybe sacrifice himself like the dhampir Jesus he is.

Ugh..I really feel he is getting wasted as a character in his present state. And now it's probably all Gabricula this and Satan that for years. I am interested in knowing what IGA had planned. Just to see if he actually had something interesting going on.

Hey, it's not like Iga didn't have enough chances.

[K.G. Morder]

So basically, IGA created the LoS leaving your bad behind thing before Cox did.

Huh. How about that.

[TheouAegis]

Dhampir death seems to come from role-playing games, such as D&D. Not sure where it originated, maybe it was a part of the Slavic myths. A dhampir cannot be killed by mundane causes, only those things that could kill a vampire. Of course, having human blood in them makes them more resistant to such attacks. When the dhampir dies, it comes back to "life" after some time as a full-fledged vampire. This also means it loses the protection/resilience human blood gave it.

[Belmont Stakes]

     Could someone please clarify some things to me religilously and otherwise.

1 Is God the only uncaused cause in existence?
2 If 1 is true then what was the cause of vanity, disobedience, pride and all of the other things said to have been inherent in man?
3 If there is an adversarial force to God why was it able to become that way?
4 If God is all loving and does not change i.e. is the same yesterday today and tomorrow where did this angry God come in?
5 Do you think that Alucard should be in a future platform based Castlevania title?

My feelings on Alucard is that he would probably either go to Heaven or be obliterated.

[Mystic Myotis]

I'll answer your last question first since it is the one most on-topic:

5 Do you think that Alucard should be in a future platform based Castlevania title?

Yep. Or any kind of Castlevania, really... <3


Here are my answers to the rest of your questions:

(click to show/hide)

1 Is God the only uncaused cause in existence?

That is the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and it has been thoroughly debunked.  The argument is as follows:
"Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
The universe has a cause of its existence.
If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God, who does not have a cause."

The first problem is that it is contradictory.  "Everything has a cause... except for one thing that caused everything else.  That one thing didn't need a cause."

Other problems include:
1. Quantum Mechanics has proven that something does not need a cause. Therefore, the premise of the argument is false.
2. Infinite regression is possible.  Something does not 'need' a beginning.  That part of the argument is also false.
3. There is no evidence for such a supposition, and therefore no reason to conclude that it is true.
4. Even if we pretend that the premises are true, the argument does not prove that the supposed creator is/was a specific god from a specific denomination.  The creator could be a god that's no longer worshiped.  Or multiple gods.  Or aliens. They all have the same amount of empirical evidence (none).  Therefore, the KCA a non-sequitor (means 'it does not follow,' a logical fallacy).

2 If 1 is true then what was the cause of vanity, disobedience, pride and all of the other things said to have been inherent in man?

The result of the Fall of Man/Satan is the typical answer. *shrugs*

3 If there is an adversarial force to God why was it able to become that way?

In the Bible, God outright states that he created evil (obviously, since he supposedly created everything, including the tree and Satan and all that stuff), so this begs another question; how can a supposedly perfect being be the root of all evil?  Beats me.
But if you're talking about the Castlevania-verse, who knows. As far as I know, there is no basis for why Celia/Alucard said that there must be something in opposition to God.  I could try and figure out where that came from, but I don't know if there's anything to find.

4 If God is all loving and does not change i.e. is the same yesterday today and tomorrow where did this angry God come in?

Someone might claim that:
* God has always been good; he is so good that he cannot tolerate even the slightest sin, and is therefore perfectly justified in being angry.  And God did not change.  He merely created a loophole through Jesus Christ by which we imperfect, unworthy humans may avoid the consequences of God's intolerance of sin.
* It isn't your place to judge God.
* God is allowed to change his mind depending upon the circumstance.
Etc...


More interesting questions that you can pose are:
1. How can imperfection spring from a perfect creator?
2. How can free will exist if a being can know everything?  How can free will exist in a world that operates on cause and effect?  If it cannot, then why would a system of eternal reward/punishment be in place?
3. How do we tell the difference between the work of one creator and the work of many creators?  How do we determine which religion is correct if they all have the same amount of empirical evidence supporting them?