• If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread
  • Check out Tickling.com - the most innovative tickling site of the year.
  • The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us.
  • >>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
    Don't forget to include your username

Toons by "Redder" (X10)

Vladislav Dracula said:
I'm truely sorry you never got to experience christianity as it really is. 🙁

Experience goes a long way. No one person on this earth can look at anything in exactly the same way as the next, even if they agree on the bare essentials. Its what makes us human, independent thought. It means something different to everyone.

Unfortunately I see the Catholic church as the most oppressive and controlling force in the modern world. You see it as its greatest gift. All nothing more than opinion and as anything within human capability, nothing we say or write or realize is ever the complete truth. (of course the church tried to get around that with that whole "what you hold true on earth I shall hold true in heaven" which basically just means if they say it, its gods will and therefore true.) There will always be things we don't know, especially with issues of spirituality and the here-after, but in the end its that strive to uncover the truth about things that is among the most admirable human traits to exist....

Part of me always envied people like you, being able to find so much solace and comfort in something so intangible. As hard as it is to believe, I was raised Irish Catholic, was in a church choir, an altar boy and have read the bible front to back at least 3 times and found more inconsistancies and contradictions every time, but again its all in its inerpretation......its unfortunate one can't be both logical and spiritual without an inner conflict of interests....

You know why this thread has gone on as long as it has? BOTH OF US ARE SO STUBBORN WE HAVE TO GET THE LAST WORD! LOL.
 
Last edited:
One thing- I never said or thought or implied that the catholic church was the world's greatest gift. I'm well aware of the hypocracies, but thats everywhere, even in your religion I'm afraid, but I choose not to follow them, and was brought upright. I do my best to not let political motivation stir my feelings, nor history as it would have it.

In truth, I live in the church of today, not the church of the dark ages or the church it seems you grew up in. I can breathe easy, I can worship God how I want to, and I have His inspiration to work with. This is not a false sense of security, nor is any wool over my eyes. I see the truth and the truth is Christ. The Bible never was a book of morals, its a pedigree. A priest mentioned this also in mass a while back. But it's teachings via the word Christ are absolute. There is nothing hypocrital in Christ and his words have not been altered. This has always remained intact, and thats good.

Haven't you noticed that throughout the Bible Jesus is the only neutral character? There are times when he gave Ceaser his dues, and knew when it was right to step up and say something for or against his enemies. He was and is an early day Buddha. As pious and he was meek and humble.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- there is only one God, and I believe God/Jesus, Buddha, and some of the other legitimate ones to be one in the same no matter where they have been placed and in what light. Spiritual enlightenment doesn't come with following a particular religion, it comes with knowing the God figure or head and having a personal relationship with him.

The enemy, in all his forms, will do his best and use people to bring you down, fill you with doubt, and hint out the hypocracies he himself worked hard to create so long ago. God is perfect, humans are not. And its an unforunate fact that even in this day and age splits within a perfectly fine religion(s) such as catholicism or even some sects of Buddism are present in often very subtle ways.

The solice and utter happiness amidst this truth is that God is good and He seems all the more better and understandable when genuine efforts are made to know Him and His. You can't go wrong with Him. I see young catholics and young protestants these days being brought up right and it makes me so happy.

"Catholic" literally means "universal". We are all one universal apostolic church in Christ, and that is good. Thats all it was ever meant to be. The creation of a religion was fine, but things became needlessly complicated. While there are advantages and good points to have set dogma for educational purposes (as simply saying to a child "theres a god, pray to him" isn't enough), there always lies the potential to twist it around and use it for any number of purposes.

People are at war with eachother, not God, not faith, not even religion. They are at war with themselves, when the answers are so clear and right in front of them. They have been the entire time.

The ancient war in the Middle East is a god-forsaken war, and God is not there. They think they are withholding principles of their faith, but thats a farse. They are killing for land they say is rightfully theirs. They are locked in eternal combat over desolate, poor, and meager land that in the end I feel neither side will possess.

Things are better in Ireland, thank God. People are coming to their senses and the evils there are being driven out, slowly but surely. In the Middle East, its much more tricky, but even that will be cured.

This generation will be doing its part and is doing future generations a favor, here, there and everywhere.

Its really a collective responsibility of this planet's inhabitants to create a better world. And it doesn't come in building a better economy, it doesn't come in work-related benefits, and it doesn't even come in creating a better government, it comes in establishing a relationship with the one and only supreme being. As corny as it seems, it really is just a matter of spreading this love so that others can see it, come to know it, and be happy also. Its working, too fast for some, and too slow for others, and for others just right.

That fear of change that I mentioned earlier is perhaps one of this planet's greatest advisarys. It would be much easier if more people would tell that little weiner to shut his trap! 😛 LOL


As for getting the last word, nope. Its not about that for me. My problem is in finding something further to comment about it. Since I'm definitely getting my word across and my fair share of it, theres no need for me to have the last word or to feel like I need it. I don't need to show anyone up, and if it looks like I have showed people up, like you for example, then well, I guess that reputation I seem to have as a skilled debator isn't all hype afterall. 😛 LOL. Like all other topics, as they are discussed they will sooner or later exhaust their potential. We've just about reached that exhaustion. You'll lose interest and so will I. It will take care of itself after that. If you have already lost interest and want to stop, then you can of course. You don't need to feel like I'm getting the last word if you do that, because you've gotten your point acrossed. It would be different if the situation were different or if others got involved in this ammount of detail. Obviously people have been smart and have left us alone to settle this. I honesty believe that if this continues much longer it will be because of outside imput in the midst of discussion that had reached it's conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Not challenging your faith, just based on your personal beliefs, how can you be so sure there is ONE supreme being? There have been just as many polytheistic religions if not more than the monotheistic. And what of the animistic faiths of Asia and Native America with the earth and animal spirits? In my opinion there is just as much relevance and creditability with them as there is with the "supreme being" of the Judeo-Christian faiths. There were many much more ancient religions that predate Jesus' time as well. I saw something on, I believe it was the History Channel about one of the oldest known relgions that was centered around a belief that those who started it actually lived with their "God" that they refered to as a "father of all" who created all that they saw from nothing. A physical god like being? Fascinating yes? And why not a female supreme being? The concept of a female as the creater of all life makes a bit more sense than a male, women are the creators of life among man after all.

The only thing that seperates religion and myth is believability. Once a religion falls out of practice and a few hundred years pass it becomes a legend. One day in the far future people may put Jesus in the same category as figures like Heracles or Helen of Troy (hey, they were also the offspring of a god and a human, ever think of that?) And by that point in time, a new religion will have taken its place....in the end religion really is just a way to explain where we came from, why we're here and where we're going after we're done, based on the beliefs and social structure of the current time period......imagine living in a time when Zeus and Hera were your personal saviors. (of course those gods apparently tormented people all the time with plagues and famine and what not, LOL)

Heres a funny thought. What if ALL the gods are real? Like up in the heavens theres some big United Nations or Congress type organization with representatives of all the religions debating and being just as petty as us. Up at the front you'd have the major ones with Jesus for the Catholic Church, Mohammed for the Muslims, the triad (Brahmma, Vishnu and Shiva) for the Hindu, Buddha, etc. and in the back collecting dust like so many aging political figures are the old Greco-Roman and Egyptian gods goin "What'd he say? Eh? Eh?" ROFLMAO

Either that or they're all sitting back and watching us like some reality TV show and laughing their asses off....

If I had to percieve a "supreme being" as you put it, I believe it would be something so beyond our comprehension that to even come close to understanding it would cause your head to explode. A cosmic force...perhaps a being of pure thought and energy, devoid of any earthly form or gender.....I just for some reason find it hard to believe that the being that created the universe looked like one of us; "God created Adam in his own image".

Yes, I agree with you though that most of the modern day people who fight these so called "holy wars" really are just full of crap. If they were so damn religious they would have more value for human life....

And just one last thing.....please don't compare Buddha and Jesus....I'm not saying one is better than the other, but just dont........bad karma......😛

PS: There is one denomination of the Catholic Church I do find very fascinating. They are very rare and obscure, known as the "Cainites" who believe that Caine was the favored son of God, not Abel. The idea that Caine was made immortal and invulnerable so he had to live with the sins of his brothers death forever (I believe I got that right) was re-interpreted as he was rewarded with it for killing him...

PSS: Wow....a lot of random thoughts in this one.....interesting......(plus I love hearing your rebuttle.....black knight takes white bishop... 😉 )
 
Last edited:
Cheshire_Cat_21 said:
I saw something on, I believe it was the History Channel about one of the oldest known relgions that was centered around a belief that those who started it actually lived with their "God" that they refered to as a "father of all" who created all that they saw from nothing. A physical god like being? Fascinating yes? And why not a female supreme being? The concept of a female as the creater of all life makes a bit more sense than a male, women are the creators of life among man after all.

According to some scholars religions revolving around the Mother Goddess *did* predate male-centered pantheons.

Marija Gimbutas theorized that older [original?] matriarchal culture had been conquered by Kurgans, a male-worshipping, cairn-building horsemen civilization - around 3500 b.C.

-> http://www.geocities.com/gardenofdanu/the_kurgan_waves.htm


Cheshire_Cat_21 said:
The only thing that seperates religion and myth is believability.
Once a religion falls out of practice and a few hundred years pass it becomes a legend. One day in the far future people may put Jesus in the same category as figures like Heracles or Helen of Troy (hey, they were also the offspring of a god and a human, ever think of that?) And by that point in time, a new religion will have taken its place....in the end religion really is just a way to explain where we came from, why we're here and where we're going after we're done, based on the beliefs and social structure of the current time period......imagine living in a time when Zeus and Hera were your personal saviors. (of course those gods apparently tormented people all the time with plagues and famine and what not, LOL)

A thing that separates religion from myth is living worshippers - believability is not an issue: as long as a religion or god/goddess is being worshipped and prayed, it is a religion. When worshippers die out, faith becomes a myth.

In this sense, V-VI A.D. are pivotal centuries, when old pagan faith finally dies out and christian [not yet catholic] faith takes its place.

Pagan historians and priest even "made up" miracles to fight on the same terms with superseding christian religion - because to them it problably wasn't myth yet, but living faith.

It must be noted, Roman republic, and then Roman empire used to be strictly religion based: politics revolved around omen and patron deities, and it is suggested older faith had been abandoned because newer religions appeared.

Christian religion "won over" because aristocracy embraced it; army used to be Mithraic - a war cult from near-east - and general population worshipped a mixed pantheon of older and newer deities.

Also, christianism wasn't as whole as many believe it to be: it used to have a lot of sects - one of them, arianism, was the main religion of Gothic invaders, and then Lombard rulers.

Older catholic Church supported the enemies of Lombards, Franks, because their rulers used to be catholic since V A.D. - and also because the orthodox eastern empire threatened to take western Church over.

That's why arianism died out and catholicism won - and became chief religion of the new founded holy roman empire. 🙂


Cheshire_Cat_21 said:
PSS: Wow....a lot of random thoughts in this one.....interesting......(plus I love hearing your rebuttle.....black knight takes white bishop... 😉 )

Red Tower moved in. 😉


Reg's.
 
Cainites? Huh. Why am I suddenly reminded of "Vampire: the Masquerade?"

I would post some stuff on the actual topic at hand, but (no offense) I've found that all religious debates eventually degenarate to the state of a great, cosmic pissing contest. It seems that religions, which should be unifying forces in people's lives, only tend to separate people all the more.

In the end, all that matters is the message, not the messenger, you know? And even then everything gets twisted due to misinterpretation.
 
I haven't seen this stuff in a while. Thanks for the post. Some classic images.
 
Tomato Dragon said:
I haven't seen this stuff in a while. Thanks for the post. Some classic images.

Holy monkey spleen....an actual on topic reply! LOL
 
Mine was on topic. I just took the time to answer a question. If you had had any type of foresight, it might have been better that you didn't ask it, no? 😛

Afterall, Jake Redder would not be the first that something like this would happen to, and certainly not the last. As for whether its a good or bad transition is up to the person and in how they seek out this information and enlightenment. There are definitely right and wrong ways to do things, and wrong people and right people to go to for help.

My only worry for Redder is that he is a first time christian. But if he embraced the right principles of christianity, then theres no reason to fret for him or his having left or why. More and more people are converting, not because people are making them or people are even going to them, but because it becomes a moral dilema for them in a very personal way and/or they recieved some sort of sublime calling, vision or blessing. He also had been in the unfortunate position of having lost a relationship and marriage to this fetish, something I'm sure, that if he could, would go back and redo and relive a different way.

Once more, I'm certain he's in a better way now. From what I saw on that religious christian webforum, he seems to know alot about Jesus and was focusing on him first, and he's definitely on the right track as far as the practices and faith in concerned. He already seemed to be pretty knowledgable. A good start. Good for him. 🙂

This isn't to say that becoming a person of faith or religious belief means you cannot have or indulge in a fetish however. But each case is unique and no two cases are identical. So for Redder, it must have been an extreme circumstance he was under, to such a point where he felt the only way to get himself back together was to leave the fetish community entirely- something that was apparently a temptation to him. He simply wasn't strong enough at that point to have it both ways and so he chose to rebuild his identity by associating himself with God and getting to know Him. A choice I believe was the better choice, better then coming back here because theres no help to be had here. Sometimes you need to go outside yourself and your world to make a proper evaluation of where you are, and the guidance he sought was the best guidance there is. A guidance that will help him in not just one way, but all ways.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to buck the trend and not speak on either topic. But I have to say I LOOOVE your new siggy pic, TD!!
 
I was meaning to say that also when I saw it when he posted. The colors are vibrant and really make it stand out. :happy:
 
Ditto on the sig pic, and ditto on the thanks to Cheshire for posting these.

Vlad: You and Cheshire both make good points with regards to religion in a social context, and what you have said in the last post is quite true. In reality, it could have been a lot worse for everyone...a similar instance happened to me with an RPG site I went to awhile ago and, while I won't get into the details, the end result was the site being taken down and replaced with a "Praise Jesus" type of Born Again propaganda site. At least Redder left his past material with us (or, at least, people had the foresight to copy it while they could).

The only thing that worries me is that if he was so into a fetish as to let it control his life to the point of destruction, would he not be prone to doing the same thing with religion? I mean, I obviously don't know him and have never met him, but it just reminds me of the old example of an ultra-rebelious teen becoming an ultra-conservative adult...no happy medium.

But, again, what do I know?

Oh...and nice SN, btw. Long live the king of all vampires.
 
Ah, but he sought christianity the right way- through Jesus. You can never get enough of him. Remember, faith and religion are two different things and how you pursue them is very instrumental in where you will be.

And thank you for the compliment. Alot of people don't seem to know that Dracula has a first name. He's always just been called "Count Dracula", thats too informal for me. Seeing as how Vladislav Dracula was a real person, it makes sense.
 
Vladislav Dracula said:
Ah, but he sought christianity the right way- through Jesus. You can never get enough of him. Remember, faith and religion are two different things and how you pursue them is very instrumental in where you will be.

True, true. Hopefully, he is happier than he once was and, as I said, things could be worse. Everyone has their own path, I suppose...

And thank you for the compliment.

Don't mention it. It's rare to find non-goth Dracula fans these days (not that there's anything wrong with being a goth).

Alot of people don't seem to know that Dracula has a first name. He's always just been called "Count Dracula", thats too informal for me. Seeing as how Vladislav Dracula was a real person, it makes sense.

Indeed it does. Hollywood has been...less than kind to both aspects of Dracula (man and myth) and, sadly, has done a great diservice to Stoker's work on many occasions. Thanks a lot, Anne Rice. *shakes head*

Ray McNally is probably spinning in his grave.
 
Vladislav Dracula - aka Vladislav Jr, Vladislav Son of the Devil, Vlad the Impaler; the historical "Count Dracula".

His father, Vladislav Sr, was known in Walacchia/Walachia as Vlad Dracul [Vlad the Devil, or Vlad the Dragon] from the currency he had coined, celebrating his investment as a knight of the Order of the Dragon [around 1430], and bearing the figure of a dragon-like beast.

Historically, both Vlads - Dracul and Dracula - were champions to christian faith - and it's quite interesting their name has been associated with their own very nemesis.

...

Totally off-topic post, just to show off [just joking... 🙂 ] and to ponder on the choices we make when choosing screen-names. 😉



Reg's.
 
Last edited:
Kalamos my friend, I know all about Dracula already. If you should have learned anything about me, its that my SN is a complete contradiction of who I am, and I like it that way. Its different and unique unto who I really am. I wouldn't just ignorantly choose an SN because based on a character just because it seems cool, without investing first. 😛

So basically, as far as your history lesson goes...well...."duh". LOL ^__^

Thanks for posting it though. I wasn't planning on going into detail about it unless someone ever asked me.

EDIT:

Although considering "Damien" which is my real name by the way, as some of you know, is also the name of the devil's son in the Omen series (made famous by Sam Neil (Jurassic Park, etc.).

So thats a cool coincidence that goes along with my choice of SN in that Dracula is fabled to actually be the son of the devil and in some circles is believed to be Lucifer himself. Also, a friend told me Richard Roxford (the actor in my avatar as the role of Dracula in Van Helsing) looks alot like me. So thats another coincidence I suppose.
 
Last edited:
There's a world of informations worth learning.

Have you ever paid a visit to Sighisoara or Bran? Especially the latter is of interest to any real-Vlad's fan.

I had the chance to meet a romanian researcher; he had just published a pamphlet on Vlad and the role of Bran Castle. It was insightful.


Reg's.
 
I always found it interesting that Vlad is still considered a hero in many parts of Romania, even though history teaches that he was perhaps one of the more brutal rulers of the region.

Although I've never been there, I'd love to see Romania one day. It has a strange pull to it. Bran Castle, you say, Kalamos? Would this researcher happen to have been Radu Florescu?
 
Midnight Circus said:
I always found it interesting that Vlad is still considered a hero in many parts of Romania, even though history teaches that he was perhaps one of the more brutal rulers of the region.

Although I've never been there, I'd love to see Romania one day. It has a strange pull to it. Bran Castle, you say, Kalamos? Would this researcher happen to have been Radu Florescu?

Sorry for hijacking the thread, guys. 🙂

He is: in fact he halted Turkish invasion for a while - and among the people he had [brutally] punished, were former local rulers who had been vexing the populance.

It is possible that part of the family's "evil" legend comes from the dragon/devil like device Dracul and Dracula bore and coined. From what I've read, it really scared off some of the most superstitious people.

The researcher I met wasn't Mr Florescu: as far as I know, Radu Florescu delved into history looking for the origins of myth.
The person I met published about the historical Vlad and Castle Bran only: he seemed more interested in hard facts than later fiction - maybe because Castle Bran itself is quite different from the "typical goth vampire mansion", and most Drac-fans come out rather disappointed. 🙂

[I personally I really liked it: a well preserved XV cent. stronghold, later restored and refurnished - around XIX cent. - like most castles from continental Europe]

Besides, sorry to disappoint you too. If you'd like, I can PM you with his name and book. 🙂


Reg's.
 
Disappoint me? Far from it! I only dropped Florescu's name because a) he's the only Romanian researcher that I know of who has become moderately famous due to his association with the Dracula legend and the late Dr. Ray McNally, and b) I know of no one else.

If you could give me the title and author, I would be more than happy to check it out! =) Thank you!
 
Very informative Kalamos, as always :happy:. Don't worry about hijacking the thread. This is at least a step up from where were we before, and people can still pay tribute to Redder if they want to.

I'm interested in both the legend and local lore as well as the actual historic record. Although I do like the character of Dracula as he is portrayed in the movies. He's coy, he's got charisma and charm, he's handsome, much like myself LOL, and there are aspects of his personality I can identify with.

Its not that he's evil or a vampire at all that I like that character, moreover, its his personality and mood. I especially like the version of his character in Van Helsing. Even though others thought the movie flopped, I loved Roxford's performance. And Dracula new look for this movie was a step in the right direction, as it made him look even more handsome (long hair, etc.), to the point of being androgynous. Any more handsome or charming and he would have seemed feminine.

I liked his role as a seducer as well, and his sensitive side was accurately shown in the sense that he's forever cursed with the pact he made, lamenting his existance in a world he has control over, well a land, which is like his own world.
 
Too much info, sometimes, I suspect. 😉

Guys and girls... you'll eventually brand me as some kind of nerdish history geek. 😉

[If I could only track that booklet down I'd send Midnight Circus the full author's name...]
 
Kalamos said:
Vladislav Dracula - aka Vladislav Jr, Vladislav Son of the Devil, Vlad the Impaler; the historical "Count Dracula".

His father, Vladislav Sr, was known in Walacchia/Walachia as Vlad Dracul [Vlad the Devil, or Vlad the Dragon] from the currency he had coined, celebrating his investment as a knight of the Order of the Dragon [around 1430], and bearing the figure of a dragon-like beast.

Reg's.

I seem to remember hearing his original name (at least the historical individual, minus the vampire stuff) was "Vlad Tepes" (pronounced "tep-ays")....may be yet another variation....
 
Cheshire:

Forgive me if I am incorrect on this, but I believe that the name "Tepes" (pronounced many different ways, really; my violin instructor, an immigrant from Europe, pronounced it "Tzeh-pish") means "Impaler." But you're right...that is the name by which he is most commonly known (next to Dracula, of course).

Vlad:

To be honest, I too enjoyed his portrayal in Van Helsing. While the writing could have been a bit better, many people don't seem to realize that the root of this film lies in the old Universal "monster rally" films of the mid-to-late 40's (House of Frankenstein and the like). Therefore, I fear this film will go greatly under-appreciated and be, on the whole, misunderstood.

As far as Dracula's sorrow and lamentations over his existence...well, we have Anne Rice to thank for those little "revelations" into vampiric existence. Personally, I tend to like the more emotionally-dead and largely amoral vampiric characters of classical literature (Lord Ruthven, Countess Mircalla, etc.). To me, they represent my own views on immortality and what the vampire should be; that is, a disease that sweeps across the land without mercy or consideration for those that are left in its wake. While there is certainly some merit in making vampires more human (especially plot-wise), I tend to think that it makes them more angst-ridden and less monstrous than they should be. But, again, that's just me. What can I say? I'm a sucker for the classics.

Kalamos:

There's no hurry, my friend. Please don't break your neck on my account. =) I thank you for your troubles, though.
 
-> Midnight Circus


I just realized you are under the 10 msg limits - so your account won't allow for PMs yet.

I'll be sending those infos as soon as possible. 🙂
Keep posting.


Reg's.
 
Last edited:
What's New

2/12/2025
Check out Clips4Sale for the webs largest fetish clip location!
Door 44
Live Camgirls!
Live Camgirls
Streaming Videos
Pic of the Week
Pic of the Week
Congratulations to
*** brad1701 ***
The winner of our weekly Trivia, held every Sunday night at 11PM EST in our Chat Room
Back
Top