Question for Christians about Judas

[rev45]

God, presumably, does not poop.  And he is a perfect being.

^If he does not poop, why does he have an ass?  Is it there just to moon Moses?  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+33%3A17-23&version=KJV

God: Hey, hey Moses.
(god pulls down his underwear and gives Moses a broadside view)
Moses: God dammit! 

[velkyn]

thinking about things last night, I was still wondering about how SC could have forgot about Gethsemane.  You are Catholic right, SC?  wasn't there some new thing like the stations of the cross that added this?

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi albeto,

They are incredible claims, aren't they.  They quite upset me when I realized I couldn't pretend I didn't learn about them.  And yes, the historical evidence is valid, none of this is based on hearsay.

Thank you for bringing these claims to my attention. While you haven’t presented any evidence, I realize that this is a digression and your intention was not to argue for their truth, but to give reasons for your journey. I also don’t have any reason to doubt you, so I believe that you believe all these things to be true, though I don’t know how much time you spent in verifying them and in looking at all sides of the issues. Since these points are not the topic of discussion, I’ll not respond to them. However, I assure you that I will research them. I know that while the Catholic Church is holy, people in it are sinners, as certainly am I. Though our sins are horrible and hurt me deeply, I have tried not to hide from them. As in myself and the people around me – family, friends, etc – I try to love the good and accept the bad, always working for less bad and more good.

My position is that the bible and the Church are silent about any attempt to persuade Judas to reconsider his plan.  My question is why is this?  Why would such an important piece of information, a characteristic of the man/god be lost to history? 

I see your point. However, there are a lot of things the Church and Bible are silent on. “Why” could be as simple as “we don’t know” or as important as “it’s not important”. You say it’s important to you, and have tried to explain why it’s important in the message of the gospel, but you haven’t made the case.

. . . There must be a sacrificial victim and that means death.  The man/god character would be no good dying a natural death.  Whether or not Judas or anyone betrayed him is of periphery importance maybe, but the fact is there is no direct support for the hypothesis that Jesus tried to stop Judas, and there is ample support for the hypothesis that Jesus would have accepted Judas as part of the divine plan to offer Jesus as the paschal lamb to himself

With the addition of the bolded word above, I agree with this statement. Likely even without the word “direct”, but it makes the distinction clear. However, accepting Judas doesn’t mean he liked the fact that it was Judas (He called him friend even at the end) and it doesn’t mean that he didn’t try to dissuade him. There were others that he tried to reach and they turned away. It is each person’s own decision.

I would argue there's more reason to believe he needed to be executed to fulfill the divine plan as is referenced in Genesis (chapter 3, maybe?).

Yes, his death had to be a sacrifice.

Stopping Judas would have put his divine plan on hold and the man/god character Jesus would have to be sacrificed in another way.

Maybe. Not necessarily. The responsible Pharisees would have found another way. How long “on hold” and “eventually” would actually be, if any time at all, can only be opinion.

Eventually, someone would have to offer him as the perfect victim.  Whoever that someone or someones would be would inspire the same question - knowing the consequence of killing god, why would god allow anyone to take that on? 

I think you don’t mean “someone would have to offer him. . . “ You did a good job of describing the Church’s teaching before and as I think you said, Christ is the High Priest and the sacrificial lamb.

I realize you’re not a fan of free will, but let’s assume for the moment that people do get to decide their own future. Yes, someone would order the killing, and someone would actually kill him, and maybe someone would betray him. Who has the most culpability? You know the requirements for mortal sin. How culpable are each of the parties?

And their eternal fate depends on their decisions, not only at that time, but in the times afterwards. Judas did repent and we can hope that he is not in Hell. (The same hope we have for anyone!) I can easily imagine a scenario where none of the people involved are eternally damned. It seems unlikely for some of the participants (for example, Herod, in particular), but I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

Oh, and btw, your last post made me giggle too.  I only assumed your movie was in support of the christian religion and that religion is what I consider detrimental.  If your movie was about something completely unrelated then I can only imagine the confusion.

I work for a statistical consulting company. Our projects are helping businesses and scientists in their work. We took Minority Report and translated it to our own environment, with our hero saving projects from being killed. It has inside jokes, outside jokes, lame jokes, etc. We have a lot of fun.

[velkyn]

Maybe. Not necessarily. The responsible Pharisees would have found another way. How long “on hold” and “eventually” would actually be, if any time at all, can only be opinion.

I know that SC will not respond, but this ignores that a prophecy was made about a certain set of actions.  How could the "responsible pharisees" have done something different?

I realize you’re not a fan of free will, but let’s assume for the moment that people do get to decide their own future. Yes, someone would order the killing, and someone would actually kill him, and maybe someone would betray him. Who has the most culpability? You know the requirements for mortal sin. How culpable are each of the parties?

and then again, neither is your bible and by that, your god. 

[changeling]

God, presumably, does not poop.  And he is a perfect being.

Then from where does holy sh#t come?

[riley2112]

God, presumably, does not poop.  And he is a perfect being.

Then from where does holy sh#t come?

I don't who thinks what, That is some funny stuff.

[albeto]

I see your point. However, there are a lot of things the Church and Bible are silent on. “Why” could be as simple as “we don’t know” or as important as “it’s not important”. You say it’s important to you, and have tried to explain why it’s important in the message of the gospel, but you haven’t made the case.

Of course "It's a mystery" must be the fallback position.  Faith must have mystery to it or it wouldn't take faith.  Ultimately there are things that simply cannot be explained and this is one of them.  Nevertheless, the message we are left with neglects any implication that Jesus tried to stop Judas. 

With the addition of the bolded word above, I agree with this statement. Likely even without the word “direct”, but it makes the distinction clear. However, accepting Judas doesn’t mean he liked the fact that it was Judas (He called him friend even at the end) and it doesn’t mean that he didn’t try to dissuade him. There were others that he tried to reach and they turned away. It is each person’s own decision.

We have no reason to believe he tried to dissuade him but for our own imaginations to conform the character of Jesus to a morally acceptable character by today's standards.  I suspect this is why the Church hasn't put any effort in the past to work this out - only recently would this have been unacceptable. 

Maybe. Not necessarily. The responsible Pharisees would have found another way. How long “on hold” and “eventually” would actually be, if any time at all, can only be opinion.

This would have deflected the question to the next responsible party.  If not Judas, then someone else would have committed the crime of killing god.  Naturally such a crime would weigh insurmountably on one's soul and the question would still be pertinent: why would Jesus allow such a thing to burden a person he loves when he could do something about it? 

I think you don’t mean “someone would have to offer him. . . “ You did a good job of describing the Church’s teaching before and as I think you said, Christ is the High Priest and the sacrificial lamb.

If Jesus could have offered himself and spared Judas his fate, why wouldn't he have?  That makes no sense with our moral code today, our moral code the of which the Church claims to be the divine repository. 

I realize you’re not a fan of free will, but let’s assume for the moment that people do get to decide their own future. Yes, someone would order the killing, and someone would actually kill him, and maybe someone would betray him. Who has the most culpability? You know the requirements for mortal sin. How culpable are each of the parties?

For the record, I don't think an absence of "free will" as understood by centuries of theology means there is no decision making abilities so I do get your point but just wanted to lay that out there.  I am a little familiar with human behavior, having been a party to behavior therapy for years to address challenges that come with autism.  What I learned is that no behavior is made "just because."  We may be aware of the function like grabbing an apple when hungry, or unaware like grabbing a chocolate when anxious, but aware or ignorant, each behavior has a function.  Each behavior is inspired by something. 

Inspiration can come from external sources, like wanting to please someone or avoid an unpleasant consequence, or it can come from internal sources like avoiding things that make us anxious or by seeking pleasure.  As an example of this you might think of the roller coasters at your favorite amusement park.  The most extreme roller coasters of the park will be interpreted by some as dangerous and scary and by others as exciting and adventurous.   Some of these things we can learn but much of it is simply the chemical balance in our brains and the memory storage of past events and the emotional responses assigned to such events. 

So you ask who would be most culpable in a situation like you illustrate and I begin to wonder, what's the function of the behavior of each of these options?  The one who orders the killing would do so based on years of conditioning, being taught to respond with emotional pleasure at seeing what would have been called justice.  Is that person culpable for having learned well what was taught to him?  If he had no opportunity to build a moral code outside the reference of his immediate world, would he be judged by that foreign moral code?  For what reason would the person doing the actual killing not stop himself seeing a man suffer so?  Likely the same things, if not a greater desensitization after killing so many people, after all, he'd have grown up in a world where people were killed not only for minor infractions but for sport.  Would god fault him for having internalized a moral compass that was taken for granted as being natural and right?  We are now starting to understand just why the brain can separate moral choices between "us" and "them" and protect "us" and feel a moral outrage when one of "us" suffers but not apply that same moral outrage when one of "them" suffers.  Surely your god would have known that two thousand years before neurologists were clued in on the mechanics of consciousness.  Surely Jesus would know that Judas was doing what he thought was right, which means he's not morally culpable of grave sin because he wouldn't have done it knowing it was a grave sin.   Which leaves us with the question - why wouldn't Jesus have stopped someone from growing in despair when he not only knew it was inevitable, but it wasn't valid? 

And their eternal fate depends on their decisions, not only at that time, but in the times afterwards. Judas did repent and we can hope that he is not in Hell. (The same hope we have for anyone!) I can easily imagine a scenario where none of the people involved are eternally damned. It seems unlikely for some of the participants (for example, Herod, in particular), but I don’t know. I’m just guessing.

Which then only begs the question - how could anyone be in hell?  If one is ignorant of the gravity of their actions, truly ignorant of the reality of what they're doing, how can god punish them?  So purgatory would be full until people realize they're only hurting themselves, throw off their last sin (self-love), and embrace god (pure love).  But who would go to hell knowingly?  Purposefully? 

Only, universal salvation isn't a Catholic ideology.  I suspect in the next few years it will be, and Catholics will adopt the rather recent Orthodox ideology of universal salvation, explaining that everyone goes to heaven only for some who don't recognize god's greatness it will feel like hell.  The fire burning of love for one would be the fire burning of fear for another.   That certainly makes more sense against our moral code today, and really the Church must evolve to the preferred moral code if she will survive.  She will go as extinct as every religion before her otherwise and she knows it. 

I work for a statistical consulting company. Our projects are helping businesses and scientists in their work. We took Minority Report and translated it to our own environment, with our hero saving projects from being killed. It has inside jokes, outside jokes, lame jokes, etc. We have a lot of fun.

That does sound like it would have been fun and probably not detrimental in the least. 

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi albeto,

Let me give a summary as I understand it of your position.

• The Bible and Sacred Tradition are silent about whether Jesus tried to dissuade Judas or not.
• Therefore, we have to make our own judgment.
• Jesus is God, so he could have stopped Judas (or whomever) from betraying him / killing him.
• Betraying / killing would cause heavy burden / eternal punishment, so Jesus should have stopped him.
• However, Jesus needed to be sacrificed so it makes sense that he chose not to stop Judas.

Is that a good summary? I want to understand the logic of what you’re saying. If it’s not rude to ask, would you mind modifying the statements above if they’re wrong? Some people will go into a long post rehashing old material and bringing in new, and they never lay down their points clearly. I think there are problems with your argument, but I want to make sure I understand it first, before I say that.

Along with the above, I do have another question. You say

We have no reason to believe he tried to dissuade him but for our own imaginations to conform the character of Jesus to a morally acceptable character by today's standards.

I think I understand what you’re saying here. With other things in our post, I take this as meaning that Jesus is not a morally acceptable character by today’s standards. You say this because Jesus allowed Judas to have the heavy burden and maybe eternal damnation. Right?

Finally, I wanted to point out something that we’ll get back to later. I had said. . .

let’s assume for the moment that people do get to decide their own future.

Then you said. . .

For the record, I don't think an absence of "free will" as understood by centuries of theology means there is no decision making abilities so I do get your point but just wanted to lay that out there. 
. . .
Each behavior is inspired by something. 
. . .
Some of these things we can learn but much of it is simply the chemical balance in our brains and the memory storage of past events and the emotional responses assigned to such events. 

I’m not a philosopher, so maybe your response is the same as the Catholic idea of free will. However, I don’t think so. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of free will . . .

Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility.

In your description, the freedom is not rooted in reason and will, but in biology and history, so that a person does not own responsibility for their actions.

[albeto]

Hi albeto,

Let me give a summary as I understand it of your position.

• The Bible and Sacred Tradition are silent about whether Jesus tried to dissuade Judas or not.
• Therefore, we have to make our own judgment.
• Jesus is God, so he could have stopped Judas (or whomever) from betraying him / killing him.
• Betraying / killing would cause heavy burden / eternal punishment, so Jesus should have stopped him.
• However, Jesus needed to be sacrificed so it makes sense that he chose not to stop Judas.

Is that a good summary? I want to understand the logic of what you’re saying. If it’s not rude to ask, would you mind modifying the statements above if they’re wrong? Some people will go into a long post rehashing old material and bringing in new, and they never lay down their points clearly. I think there are problems with your argument, but I want to make sure I understand it first, before I say that.

That's a fair summary.  Well done, carry on. 

I think I understand what you’re saying here. With other things in our post, I take this as meaning that Jesus is not a morally acceptable character by today’s standards. You say this because Jesus allowed Judas to have the heavy burden and maybe eternal damnation. Right?

I would argue that because Christians must maintain Jesus as the epitome (in fact, the author) of morality, he *must* be morally acceptable.  For this reason we must infer different ideas from the silent text than Christians have done throughout history.  One such idea is that he would have tried to stop Judas rather than maintain the traditional opinion that Judas was simply self-serving, if not a bit evil after all. 

In your description, the freedom is not rooted in reason and will, but in biology and history, so that a person does not own responsibility for their actions.

I argue that responsibility is complicated and whereas behavior might be more easily controlled by one person, it might be more difficult to control by another person.  I'm sure you'd agree with me and recognize that a senior citizen with dementia isn't as culpable as a young adult with strong executive functioning skills.  Where science has found the root to behavior in biology and history (natural), Catholics maintain the root to behavior is in some way bound to god (supernatural).  The idea of "sin" is really an idea that some sense of justice has been missed.  Catholics will call this "divine justice" although history illustrates this concept is fluid and the ideology of justice evolves in time.   For this reason we can interpret Judas' actions as logical according to what he would have understood to be logical.  If he wasn't fully intent on doing the second greatest sin ever (killing god), then his despair was unjustified.  How could Jesus have let him take that course, knowing the future and the intimate thoughts of Judas as he would? 

[Brakeman]

Also SimpleCaveman,

What could explain the failure of a disciple such as Judas, forgetting to pray to jesus for forgiveness? Surely he knew of jesus' forgiving nature didn't he? NO ONE, who knew that jesus was god and that he faced a eternal hell if he didn't ask for forgiveness, would forget and go on to kill himself.

Unless of course he really knew jesus wasn't god, and that there was no way jesus could ever forgive him because he's dead.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi albeto,

If it’s not offensive, Merry Christmas! I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas and are having a joy-filled Christmas season.

• The Bible and Sacred Tradition are silent about whether Jesus tried to dissuade Judas or not.
• Therefore, we have to make our own judgment.
• Jesus is God, so he could have stopped Judas (or whomever) from betraying him / killing him.
• Betraying / killing would cause heavy burden / eternal punishment, so Jesus should have stopped him.
• However, Jesus needed to be sacrificed so it makes sense that he chose not to stop Judas.

That's a fair summary.  Well done, carry on. 

Thanks, albeto.

#4 is where we disagree, and I think our differing ideas on free will and the value of the individual determining their own future is the source of our difference. As we’ve been doing, I’ll continue with the teachings of the Catholic Church. (CCC nos. 1730-1742) God places enormous value on us making our own choices. From being made in his image and likeness we can determine our own actions based on reason and will. He calls us to choose Him (Sir 15:14-20) and allows us to choose otherwise.

Isn’t that how a good parent would behave? As my children grew older they had to make their own choices in more areas. They knew the good choices. If they made bad choices, then they accept the consequences. I don’t force my will upon them. If my son, God forbid, were to get involved in drugs and end up in jail, my heart would be ripped apart, but those are his choices. I would not lock him in his room or similar in order to stop him from that behavior.

However, according to you, that would be the appropriate behavior for me. Jesus should have forced his will upon Judas to stop him from betraying Jesus. You argue that the negative consequences Judas (or others) would experience outweigh the submission of their freedom, and that God should have made the choice for him, or, in other words, controlled his behavior. With your explanation of “freedom,” that can make sense because your description is in actuality not freedom.

If, as according to your description, my behavior is rooted in biology and history, then I am not free to choose my own future. In fact my future was essentially chosen before I was even born, and, taking that thinking to its logical conclusion, before anyone was born! Where we are today and where we will be in the future was written in the stuff of the Big Bang.

For this reason we can interpret Judas' actions as logical according to what he would have understood to be logical.

Well . . .  maybe . . .  regardless, though, logical doesn’t mean right.

First, Judas knew the difference between right and wrong. He was able to make his own choices and was responsible for those choices. He did not have autism or dementia.

Next, Judas chose to be a disciple of a teacher. This demands a particular relationship between the two, not unique to Jesus, which includes obedience. For a disciple to betray the teacher would be a terrible wrong. Today we may not think that way, but back then everyone would have thought that.

Finally, Judas was with Jesus, his teacher, for three years. He heard and saw the same things that the other eleven Apostles heard and that the women heard and that the many other disciples heard. He saw the miracles of healing, forgiveness of sins, walking on water, bringing back to life. He heard Jesus teaching about repentance, mercy and the Kingdom of God. He knew that Jesus was here to fulfill the Law. He knew that Jesus taught love of God, love of neighbor, and love of enemy. He heard Jesus’ command to love others as Jesus has loved them. That command implies a stronger, deeper love of Jesus for everyone that Judas would have experienced constantly in those three years. To betray someone who loved you that much is clearly wrong in any time and place.

But Judas wanted something other than what his teacher, who loved him completely, wanted or taught. People suggest that it was money or political upheaval, though those motives don’t seem to make much sense. Whatever it was, it was something that Judas wanted regardless of what his master wanted, or what the people would think.

If he wasn't fully intent on doing the second greatest sin ever (killing god), then his despair was unjustified.

That statement seems unjustified to me. People fall into despair and kill themselves over a lot less than killing God. Getting his teacher, who loved him very much, killed certainly could do it. Unfortunately, Judas did not believe in God’s mercy. He thought that his sin, whatever it was in his mind, was something that God could not forgive. If he had believed in God’s mercy, taught and demonstrated many times by his teacher, then he might have still kept the office of an Apostle.

How could Jesus have let him take that course, knowing the future and the intimate thoughts of Judas as he would?

I think we see now that our different understandings of free will are the source of our differences in answering this question. You see less value in individual freedom and responsibility, and that forcing someone to do something for their own good is acceptable. Of course, the logical extension is that becoming robotic slaves is okay as long as we are happy. I see that our individual freedom and responsibility is a gift from God and whether we are happy or not depends upon the choices we make.

I don’t think we have to agree on how to answer the question, but I think we can agree on how and why we don't agree.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi albeto,

I wanted to respond to a couple of other statements you made.

So you ask who would be most culpable in a situation like you illustrate and I begin to wonder, what's the function of the behavior of each of these options? 

Your answers to these questions make sense given your definition of “free will” and I’m not arguing against them under that condition. I just want to explain how I see them based on my understanding of God’s revelation and the Church’s teaching.

The one who orders the killing . . .

Justice must be served. If a person is guilty of a crime then that person must pay for the crime. It seems that Pilate knew, however, that Jesus was innocent and he wanted to let Jesus go. It seems that it was only because of fear of what the Jewish leaders would do that he ordered Jesus to be killed. That is not justice. If that is what happened, then Pilate would have done wrong by sentencing an innocent man to death and he would be culpable for that wrong. It has nothing to do with a "foreign moral code."

For what reason would the person doing the actual killing not stop himself seeing a man suffer so? 

For the same reasons as Pilate, Justice. Moreover, the person doing the killing would be following the orders of his governor and it was right for him to do so. Maybe if he thought the man was innocent he should have done something different, but I don’t know. However, how he carried out those orders would be his choice for which he would be responsible. If he chose to torture the condemned, for example, then that would be wrong and he would be responsible. Yes, he may have learned to like it, but that does not remove culpability.

If one is ignorant of the gravity of their actions, truly ignorant of the reality of what they're doing, how can god punish them? . . . But who would go to hell knowingly?  Purposefully?

I don’t think any of us are truly aware of the full implications of what we do, either good or bad. Only God sees that. However, that doesn’t mean that we don’t understand the immediate impact of our actions and make choices accordingly. (As before, all of this assumes that we have free will. If we go by your definition, then these comments are likely inaccurate.) A person who knows that murder is wrong and kills another is guilty of mortal sin. They don’t even have to think it’s wrong because God said so. The state says it’s wrong even to the point of the death penalty in places. They, in all likelihood, also know it’s wrong in their own conscience, though they may readily ignore their conscience.

We hope and pray that very few people are in hell. I don’t think that people go to hell purposefully. They don't just say one day “I’m going to kill this person so that I go to hell.” They say I’m going to kill this person so that I can steal their money, or get my revenge, and they ignore the “go to hell” part. When they spend their lives doing only what they want (self-love), then why would they want to do what someone else wants? They would not submit their will to another person even if that person were infinite love and good.

[velkyn]

But Judas wanted something other than what his teacher, who loved him completely, wanted or taught. People suggest that it was money or political upheaval, though those motives don’t seem to make much sense. Whatever it was, it was something that Judas wanted regardless of what his master wanted, or what the people would think.

and more adding to the story and ignoring the details to the contrary in the bible. 

[12 Monkeys]

Maybe. Not necessarily. The responsible Pharisees would have found another way. How long “on hold” and “eventually” would actually be, if any time at all, can only be opinion.

I know that SC will not respond, but this ignores that a prophecy was made about a certain set of actions.  How could the "responsible pharisees" have done something different?

I realize you’re not a fan of free will, but let’s assume for the moment that people do get to decide their own future. Yes, someone would order the killing, and someone would actually kill him, and maybe someone would betray him. Who has the most culpability? You know the requirements for mortal sin. How culpable are each of the parties?

and then again, neither is your bible and by that, your god.

In the last part there about ordering or carrying out killings,is it OK for God to order killings and for his followers to carry out the killings(as per the Bible) a command from God to kill people he dislikes is hardly using your free-will.

 I seem to recall when a king was ordered by God to kill EVERTHING in a neighbouring village,he failed to kill everything God was angry about it. Killing by command of God is hardly free-will.

[kaziglu bey]

In the last part there about ordering or carrying out killings,is it OK for God to order killings and for his followers to carry out the killings(as per the Bible) a command from God to kill people he dislikes is hardly using your free-will.

It also begs the question: If God is all powerful, why does he need people to always do the dirty work for him? If God so badly wants someone smited, surely he can like shoot them with lightning, or send a meteor after them? He is like George Bush, declaring war against Iraq, and then staying home while other people go out to die for his cause, and then smugly declaring "Mission Accomplished" when he didn't do a damn thing himself. I think a God who actually is on the front lines would be more worthy of worship, or at least admiration. But what good is God in the front line if he can't beat those pesky iron chariots? What chance in hell would he stand against an M-1 tank, which is like 70 tons of steel and iron armor?

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

I seem to recall when a king was ordered by God to kill EVERTHING in a neighbouring village,he failed to kill everything God was angry about it. Killing by command of God is hardly free-will.

I’m confused as to why you say “killing by command of God is hardly free-will.” Suppose that God gives a command, whatever the command is doesn’t matter, we can obey the command or not. That is the free will that we have. We can choose our course of action and we take responsibility for that choice.

The king you describe was exercising his free will. If he chose not to obey God, then he takes responsibility for those actions.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi kaziglu bey,

It also begs the question: If God is all powerful, why does he need people to always do the dirty work for him? If God so badly wants someone smited, surely he can like shoot them with lightning, or send a meteor after them?

Yes. Yes he can. But God chooses not to. Instead he chooses to include us in his plan. He elevates us beyond just pawns and gives us the glory of participation in our salvation.

[Ambassador Pony]

Hebrew soldier: "Man! Killing these babies is so awesome! I am sooo not a pawn right now *stab stab stab*"

[12 Monkeys]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

I seem to recall when a king was ordered by God to kill EVERTHING in a neighbouring village,he failed to kill everything God was angry about it. Killing by command of God is hardly free-will.

I’m confused as to why you say “killing by command of God is hardly free-will.” Suppose that God gives a command, whatever the command is doesn’t matter, we can obey the command or not. That is the free will that we have. We can choose our course of action and we take responsibility for that choice.

The king you describe was exercising his free will. If he chose not to obey God, then he takes responsibility for those actions.

you missed the point....Obey the commands not of your free-will,God rewards you....where do you think the guy is who dis-obeyed God right now, heaven?

 God either loves ALL his creation or he does not........picking one group over another because they obey better is the sign of a weak god at BEST.

 My race has been around the northwest coast for about 12,000 years I am sure glad BibleGod did not choose us as his race of choice,I for one would be very embarassed.

[12 Monkeys]

Hi kaziglu bey,

It also begs the question: If God is all powerful, why does he need people to always do the dirty work for him? If God so badly wants someone smited, surely he can like shoot them with lightning, or send a meteor after them?

Yes. Yes he can. But God chooses not to. Instead he chooses to include us in his plan. He elevates us beyond just pawns and gives us the glory of participation in our salvation.

BULLSHIT God destroyed his creation in a GLOBAL flood.......men,women,children....most of whom were NOT evil(well the women and the children) Get your fucking facts straight. The world as you see it now is less evil than it was or more? Another global flood on the way?

[One Above All]

Another global flood on the way?

Judging from the way the ice caps are melting, yes.

[12 Monkeys]

Another global flood on the way?

Judging from the way the ice caps are melting, yes.

What will all the believers think when we have another mass extinction.....and only the insects and rats survive?

[One Above All]

What will all the believers think when we have another mass extinction.....and only the insects and rats survive?

:S Your question is illogical. There won't be any believers left to think.
Although some of them don't think at all when they're alive in the first place, but you know what I mean.

[dloubet]

What would have been the problem with presenting the Judas character with an INFORMED decision? Let him know exactly what would befall him and Jesus if he turned Jesus in, and what would happen if he didn't.

If the information one has is crap, then the decisions one makes based on that information are crap. Why are we held guilty for acting on crap information? That's not free will, that's a guessing game. That's being victimized by incomplete and incorrect information beyond one's control.

[riley2112]

What would have been the problem with presenting the Judas character with an INFORMED decision? Let him know exactly what would befall him and Jesus if he turned Jesus in, and what would happen if he didn't.

If the information one has is crap, then the decisions one makes based on that information are crap. Why are we held guilty for acting on crap information? That's not free will, that's a guessing game. That's being victimized by incomplete and incorrect information beyond one's control.

Keep in mind that Judas was predestined just as Jesus being born at this time was predestined. Jesus chose Judas knowing his purpose; that prior to Satan entering Judas, his sins were really not much different than the other apostles. Many of our perceptions of the Creator and His Plan come from our religious traditions and not from the Scriptures. Judas fulfilled his purpose for being born, and when we get to that grand banquet, he will have "returned to his own place." (Acts 1:25)

[riley2112]

Hi kaziglu bey,

It also begs the question: If God is all powerful, why does he need people to always do the dirty work for him? If God so badly wants someone smited, surely he can like shoot them with lightning, or send a meteor after them?

Yes. Yes he can. But God chooses not to. Instead he chooses to include us in his plan. He elevates us beyond just pawns and gives us the glory of participation in our salvation.

BULLSHIT God destroyed his creation in a GLOBAL flood.......men,women,children....most of whom were NOT evil(well the women and the children) Get your fucking facts straight. The world as you see it now is less evil than it was or more? Another global flood on the way?

Flood? Have you not seen the rainbow? 

[riley2112]

But Judas wanted something other than what his teacher, who loved him completely, wanted or taught. People suggest that it was money or political upheaval, though those motives don’t seem to make much sense. Whatever it was, it was something that Judas wanted regardless of what his master wanted, or what the people would think.

and more adding to the story and ignoring the details to the contrary in the bible.

Christians villainized Judas so much that Papias, Bishop of Heirapolis in about 140 A.D., claimed that Judas was so swollen that where a wagon could go through easily, he could not go through; nay, he could not even insert the mass of his head.  According to this "Bishop" who claims to have known John, the apostle, Judas died in his own place, which, because of the stench, has remained deserted and uninhabitable to the present day. This kind of gross exaggeration to the point of lying is not unusual of Christian circles, ancient or present day.   Be careful where you place Judas. He did the will of the Father and fulfilled the Scriptures. Peter, who we all love, tried to prevent Jesus' crucifixion and was called "Satan" by our Lord. Peter, who was not mindful of the will of God, was restored. Was it not Jesus who said, ""For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Matthew 12:50) Be careful about placing Jesus's brother, Judas, in Christendom's "hell."(Gary Amirault)

[kaziglu bey]

Yes. Yes he can. But God chooses not to. Instead he chooses to include us in his plan. He elevates us beyond just pawns and gives us the glory of participation in our salvation.

I disagree. God doesn't ask their opinions about his plan. Believers don't get to offer God feedback on his plan. They are not permitted to question whether this plan is right or wrong.

So, if God tells them to kill babies and rape teenage virgins, they just do it. No questions asked. Just God's little automatons, doing what they're told. Sounds like being a pawn to me.

What about Noah's Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? God didn't have any problem doing that himself. Why didn't he have his slaves followers do this for him? Surely if Noah and his family were capable of collecting and maintaining members representing every species of living thing on earth today, they would also be capable of killing the human population while God sits back with some popcorn and watches the show?

The glory of participation in our salvation you say. By doing God's dirty work, murdering innocent people and babies. I think I'll pass on your "salvation".

And just out of curiosity, how is it that YOU are aware of what GOD chooses to do?

[velkyn]

Yes. Yes he can. But God chooses not to. Instead he chooses to include us in his plan. He elevates us beyond just pawns and gives us the glory of participation in our salvation.

wow, so killing people for god is the "partipation in our salvation".  Good to know. 

yeeeeeeeesh.