whywontgodhealamputees.com

Main Discussion Zone => Biblical Contradictions => Topic started by: albeto on December 09, 2011, 01:19:22 PM

Title: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 09, 2011, 01:19:22 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell? 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 09, 2011, 01:30:53 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out. Satan wouldn't have wanted God's plan to work out, so he wouldn't have been interested in furthering that plan. Assuming he was smart enough to forsee the consequences of tempting Judas (And come on, how could he not have known? What, he thought God himself could be executed by crucifying the human form he had temporarily taken on? He couldn't imagine that a man could be made a martyr by such a betrayal and subsequent execution?), he should have gone out of his way to not cause the betrayal. Therefore, it's quite logical that in order to further the plan, Jesus would have actively coerced Judas to betray him.
I can't remember where I heard or read this. But it was copyed in one of my files.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Nick on December 09, 2011, 01:40:13 PM
Again, that logic thing gets in the way.  Just believe and move along. ;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 09, 2011, 01:58:16 PM
Again, that logic thing gets in the way.  Just believe and move along. ;)
funny how that works. Logic is just alittle to logical sometimes. :?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 09, 2011, 03:11:14 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out. Satan wouldn't have wanted God's plan to work out, so he wouldn't have been interested in furthering that plan.
So God needs murder to save people.  And Satan was instrumental in getting this to work at least in one gospel (funny how they don’t agree)
Quote
Luke 22: 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.


Quote
Assuming he was smart enough to forsee the consequences of tempting Judas (And come on, how could he not have known? What, he thought God himself could be executed by crucifying the human form he had temporarily taken on? He couldn't imagine that a man could be made a martyr by such a betrayal and subsequent execution?), he should have gone out of his way to not cause the betrayal. Therefore, it's quite logical that in order to further the plan, Jesus would have actively coerced Judas to betray him.
I can't remember where I heard or read this. But it was copyed in one of my files.


Satan works with god constantly through the bible if one is to believe it.  We have Satan necessary for the fall, and evidently god wanted that to happen since he did nothing to stop it, like, oh, keeping the snake out which would have done nothing to any supposed “free will”.  Satan is making bets with Job.  Satan is required to have JC betrayed, if not willingly sacrificed (which seems not since damning someone for doing what you want seems rather unfair, and gee, God isn’t unfair is he?;) )   And in Revelation, God and satan are together again in one more buddy movie getting more people corrupted and killed.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Historicity on December 09, 2011, 03:14:31 PM
In a couple theatrical version Judas figures Jesus does it hoping that it will provoke Jesus to ditch render-unto-Caesar-the-other-cheek bit and just use his full power to waste the Romans.

I forget the details but in Jesus Christ Superstar Judas figures Jesus knows about it and somehow he's just playing along.  In guilt and grief the actor puts a noose around his neck and wails the opening line to Mary Magdalene's love song, "I don't even know how to love Him" and steps off a ladder or rock.

Later on the soul of Judas reappears (sometimes surrounded by dancing angels) and mocks Jesus that he should have waiting until there was electronic media if he wanted to convert the world to a new message.


I saw footage of a Mexican production where the actor, of course, has a harness with a hook behind his neck.  The noose was not a slip knot.  The actor had done the stunt in many performances.  But he made a mistake and the rope somehow didn't get hooked.  Then he stepped off.  Of course the audience thought they were seeing the performance of a man looking like he was strangling but fortunately the cast or crew realized what had happened and got the unconscious man down in time.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Historicity on December 09, 2011, 03:24:14 PM
I once heard someone's report on the Bhagavad Gita.  (I haven't read the book.)

Arjuna has doubts about a war he is going to fight and is advised by his charioteer, Krishna.  Krishna is just a low class enlisted man but somehow -- I don't know what it is about him -- he seems so wise.

Finally Krishna reveals that he is God incarnate (again) and shows Arjuna the supernatural.  He shows him a vision of Heaven and Arjuna is amazed to see a dead warrior -- some distant relative -- in Heaven partying with the gods.  WTF????  I mean that guy was a selfish jerk.  Ah, explains Krishna, he was a born nobleman.  More WTF?  Krishna explains that noblemen are selfish jerks.  They were born that way[1].  That's part of their job assigned to them.  The dead warrior was so good at being a selfish jerk that he was deserving of reward.
 1. Don't be a drag, just be a queen. Don't be a drag, just be a queen.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: free on December 09, 2011, 03:27:27 PM
Interestingly, I think the Christians are trying to turn Judas into a bit of a martyr with the uncovered Gospel of Judas.  It apparently says something along the lines of Judas was acting on Jesus' orders to fulfill Jesus' faith.  Seems a lot like why Snape killed Dumbledore now that I typed it!  I definitely prefer the latter fiction to the former!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on December 13, 2011, 07:04:19 PM
When you look at it this way, the Judas character is the one who performed a sacrifice. Calling what Jesus did a sacrifice is an insult to Judas. Judas selflessly died and went to hell so Christians could have their salvation.

Judas is supposedly suffering eternally for giving Christians what they want most.

That's just fucked up.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 13, 2011, 08:01:30 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out. Satan wouldn't have wanted God's plan to work out, so he wouldn't have been interested in furthering that plan.
So God needs murder to save people.  And Satan was instrumental in getting this to work at least in one gospel (funny how they don’t agree)
Quote
Luke 22: 3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve. 4 And Judas went to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard and discussed with them how he might betray Jesus. 5 They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6 He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.


Quote
Assuming he was smart enough to forsee the consequences of tempting Judas (And come on, how could he not have known? What, he thought God himself could be executed by crucifying the human form he had temporarily taken on? He couldn't imagine that a man could be made a martyr by such a betrayal and subsequent execution?), he should have gone out of his way to not cause the betrayal. Therefore, it's quite logical that in order to further the plan, Jesus would have actively coerced Judas to betray him.
I can't remember where I heard or read this. But it was copyed in one of my files.


Satan works with god constantly through the bible if one is to believe it.  We have Satan necessary for the fall, and evidently god wanted that to happen since he did nothing to stop it, like, oh, keeping the snake out which would have done nothing to any supposed “free will”.  Satan is making bets with Job.  Satan is required to have JC betrayed, if not willingly sacrificed (which seems not since damning someone for doing what you want seems rather unfair, and gee, God isn’t unfair is he?;) )   And in Revelation, God and satan are together again in one more buddy movie getting more people corrupted and killed.
Satan works with God,his right hand man you might say, Hmmmmmm must be why God is reluctant to put him(Satan) in hell. God remembers the good times with his BFF Satan and can't be bothered to lock him up.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 13, 2011, 08:03:07 PM
^^^^ sort of like that Guy on the boards telling us about fine upstanding child molesters,why lock em up,they are good people
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 13, 2011, 08:04:16 PM
When you look at it this way, the Judas character is the one who performed a sacrifice. Calling what Jesus did a sacrifice is an insult to Judas. Judas selflessly died and went to hell so Christians could have their salvation.

Judas is supposedly suffering eternally for giving Christians what they want most.

That's just fucked up.
Was there even a hell before this? Hell is a totally Christian invention isn't it?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kcrady on December 14, 2011, 02:09:04 AM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out.

Why couldn't Jesus just turn himself in?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 14, 2011, 10:42:18 AM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out.

Why couldn't Jesus just turn himself in?

Indeed, submitting voluntarily, rather than being discovered because of "betrayal", would seem to fit the whole "sacrifice" notion a little better. I really see no need for betrayal in order for this to work. Perhaps Judas should talk to Occam about a shave.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 14, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out.

Why couldn't Jesus just turn himself in?
What made it so hard to catch him in the first place?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 14, 2011, 07:02:36 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out.

Why couldn't Jesus just turn himself in?
What made it so hard to catch him in the first place?

Well, Jesus is slippery and flops around a lot, like a fish out of water. Not easy to catch.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 14, 2011, 08:47:38 PM
What made it so hard to catch him in the first place?

Dude, he was the first priest.  He was setting precedent. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on December 14, 2011, 11:05:29 PM
If there was any historicity in the story at all, it was probably a story morph from Jesus and Judas having a gay lover's spat. Wasn't there some kissing involved? The betrayal was probably just a forcing out of the closet. Maybe Jesus wasn't crucified, maybe he was just hung...
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 15, 2011, 06:15:43 AM
maybe he was just hung...

Then why didn't he have more women trying to get in his robe?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Anfauglir on December 15, 2011, 06:20:34 AM
Hmm.  Well, I'm confused - is Judas in heaven or hell?

If he is in hell, and his actions were a necessary part of "The Plan", then that seems a bit harsh, especially if Jesus and Yahweh maneouvered him into it.

Conversely, if he is in heaven, is he not being rewarded for his betrayal?

Where do Christians think Judas went, and why?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on December 15, 2011, 06:59:35 AM
But isn't the bigger question "was Judas a '"true Christian,"'TM?"   If he really believed then he wouldn't have killed himself, he would have prayed about it and Jebus would have told him it's ok that it's part of the plan. If he was never a true christian, how did he ever become an apostle?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: jetson on December 15, 2011, 07:02:34 AM
Jesus was not trying to create "Christianity" as we know it today.  Assuming Jesus was actually real, he was simply telling people that the kingdom of God was coming.  The rest is fabrication at the highest levels, in order to prop up a new religion that wasn't Jewish and didn't require the OT to be followed to the letter.

Pathetic?  Quite.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 15, 2011, 09:08:06 AM
maybe he was just hung...

Then why didn't he have more women trying to get in his robe?

LOL! I'm going to take this silly premise and run with it (that's how religion works anyways, so what the hell?). Let's see what happens.

There was a man named Judas. He lived in the time of the man called Jesus Christ, and traveled in his company. Judas was in fact a very well endowed individual in the penile region. He becomes attracted to the prostitute that follows Jesus around too.  Judas has some spare money, so he has intercourse with Mary Magdalene (she is a prostitute after all, and knows a good ride when she sees one) and Judas ends up falling in love with her.

But MM is more impressed with Jesus, who, because of his alleged divine powers, is "necessarily" awesome in the sack. This makes Judas jealous. MM continues to follow Jesus around, even washing his feet, so slavish is her devotion. Judas gets really tired of seeing his buddy with his concubine, and decides to get back at him by turning him into the Roman authorities.

Jesus, who is still basically a decent guy, feels bad, and realizes his error in snubbing his buddy. He also remembers saying that one of his disciples would betray him and realizes maybe Judas saw this as license to betray him out of spite, in order to fulfill Jesus' words. Jesus, being Jesus, forgives Judas, and admits that he was wrong for boinking his woman, and should have anticipated Judas jealousy and anger.

Judas then watches as Jesus is led away. Judas knows what is coming for JC. He knows that he will be executed using the painful method of crucifixion, all because Judas turned him in. Judas realizes that his vengeance was overkill, and curses himself for his lack of emotional control. He knows that the wheels of death are turning towards JC, and nothing can stop them now. All he has to show for it is a sack of money. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene is disgusted with Judas and doesn't want to have anything to do with him. Judas has now guaranteed that his love will never be fulfilled.

Judas, overcome with grief and shame at having turned his buddy in to be killed, and filled with sorrow for losing his true love forever, realizes that he has totally screwed up everything he loves. He is filled with despair and self loathing.

Then once he cools down a bit he starts thinking: what was Jesus doing having sex with a prostitute? Why would Jesus admit that he was wrong, if he was truly divine? How was he not able to anticipate my reaction? Thinking about this brings up other memories. How can God be love, if Jesus said that the way to God was to hate everyone? Judas thinks back to a lot of the things Jesus said, and sees that there are lots of things that contradict each other. Judas also wonders why Jesus is Ok with slavery and misogyny.

Judas begins to realize that he has been scammed. This Jesus guy wasn't the son of God, or of any god. He sees that Jesus was a con artist. He was just duping people to get a bunch of groupies. What's worse, it worked. There are already a small but dedicated group of individuals committed to spreading this lie. Filled with anger, Judas begins drinking to try to block out all of this insanity. He drinks until he falls asleep. Judas has a dream of the future legions of Jesus followers, and the rabid violence that they bring to all of the world. He sees whole civilizations cut down, man woman and child, in order to spread the "love" of Jesus. He sees cultures destroyed in order to bring Jesus' "salvation". He sees gays and black people being dragged behind trucks in Alabama while their still living bodies are battered and torn apart, all because such "people" are an offense to Jesus. He sees JC being resurrected, nearly 2000 years later, as some guy named "Bernie Madoff", whoever that is. This Bernie Madoff convinces people of false claims in order to take serious advantage of them.

Judas then wakes up, and realizes that this Bernie Madoff character in his dream is a lot like Jesus. Judas is thoroughly disgusted with Jesus, himself, the Apostles, Mary Magdalene, and the future of the world, all because his jealous actions led Jesus' silly prophecies to be fulfilled, strengthening the faith of those who believe, and setting the ground work for a religion that is a lie and will bring great evil to the world. Filled with self loathing and despair, Judas kills himself after going to an unmovable mountain by handling venomous snakes after drinking a vial of poison (as a final "Kiss my ass" to Jesus).

All because Judas was hung like the donkey that Jesus rode into Jerusalem.

The Gospel, according to Kaz.

(Note to theists: This contains as much truth(and speculation) as any of the Gospels, and is just as verifiable and reliable of a source regarding Jesus' life as Matthew, Mark, John or Luke, or any of Paul's old mail. It is also no more offensive than the Bible, which would have us believe things that are just as imagination based and full of violence and rape (and foreskins) as this is. Actually, my Gospel doesn't even contain rape or foreskins, so it is arguably LESS offensive than the Bible.)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on December 15, 2011, 09:53:30 AM
Mary Magdalene (she is a prostitute after all,

probably not.  That is a misogynestic interpretation of chauvenistic old church bigwigs.  There was a prostitute named mary, but it was not necessarily magdalene.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 15, 2011, 10:06:51 AM
Mary Magdalene (she is a prostitute after all,

probably not.  That is a misogynestic interpretation of chauvenistic old church bigwigs.  There was a prostitute named mary, but it was not necessarily magdalene.

Perhaps this is correct. I am merely expanding on what I was taught in church. And after all, it's all just a myth isn't it? I agree that it is misogynistic, but that tells us a lot about the motives of those perpetuate these myths for their own power. Why should it be surprising though that chauvinistic old church bigwigs would merely follow in the misogynistic foot steps of previous religious bigwigs?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 15, 2011, 10:27:36 AM
Wasn't it all part of God's plan?
Didn't Judas merely do what God wanted?
If Judas had not done what he did, wouldn't he have betrayed God?

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: rev45 on December 15, 2011, 10:50:45 AM
^Maybe?  Get ready for some "God is outside of time" reading. 
http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Hatter23 on December 15, 2011, 11:29:23 AM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out. Satan wouldn't have wanted God's plan to work out, so he wouldn't have been interested in furthering that plan. Assuming he was smart enough to forsee the consequences of tempting Judas (And come on, how could he not have known? What, he thought God himself could be executed by crucifying the human form he had temporarily taken on? He couldn't imagine that a man could be made a martyr by such a betrayal and subsequent execution?), he should have gone out of his way to not cause the betrayal. Therefore, it's quite logical that in order to further the plan, Jesus would have actively coerced Judas to betray him.
I can't remember where I heard or read this. But it was copyed in one of my files.

That's why I've wondered why all the crying and moaning over Jesus's sacrifice of just having a crappy three day weekend for your sins, when Judas actually made the real sacrifice, an eternity of torture. Dying and coming back isn't a sacrifice.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 15, 2011, 01:49:21 PM
^Maybe?  Get ready for some "God is outside of time" reading. 
http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/Judas-betray-Jesus.html)

I see, It was just God’s foreknowledge, not his will.
Judas could have changed his choice.
So God did not so love the world that he gave his only begotten son,
He merely knew in advance that Judas was going to get him killed.

That foreknowledge crap has as many holes in it as does free will.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on December 19, 2011, 04:08:53 PM
Has anyone heard a Christian address Jesus with the admonition "You shouldn't have done that! My salvation was not worth your torture and death!"

Didn't think so.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 19, 2011, 09:43:02 PM
Has anyone heard a Christian address Jesus with the admonition "You shouldn't have done that! My salvation was not worth your torture and death!"

Didn't think so.
You may be surprised.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 19, 2011, 10:05:02 PM
Hi albeto,

How are things going? I hope you’ve been well.

I finally have some time. Our movie, a spoof on Minority Report, is done. It was a hit. No revenues, though. :-) The editing took all my free time before, so now I actually have some.

You ask a question that is always interesting.

Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
My first question would be, how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 19, 2011, 10:23:38 PM
Has anyone heard a Christian address Jesus with the admonition "You shouldn't have done that! My salvation was not worth your torture and death!"

Didn't think so.
You may be surprised.

Have you heard it (or said it)?  I never have.  Every Christian I ever heard talk about it was all full of praise for how wonderful the sacrifice was.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Anfauglir on December 20, 2011, 01:41:08 AM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
My first question would be, how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?

My reply would be: was Jesus, the embodiment on earth of the one true god, THAT powerless?  Was he a being that could fail at such a simple task?  That he could walk on water and feed thousands and raise the dead but NOT prevent his betrayal?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on December 20, 2011, 08:24:16 AM
My first question would be, how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?

Suppose he had.  Supposed he succeeded and that allowed jesus H to slip away and avoid arrest by the Romans.  Suppose he and Mary Mags (his nickname for her) went off of Greece, became Platonists, got married and had a few kids.  Then 40 years later he died of old age.  Where's your scapegoat[1] now?  Where is your salvation?  Where is god's grand plan to change the rules?  Right in the shitter, that's where.  No, no.  Even if jesus H had tried to stop Judas, yhwh needed the betrayal.  It was part of The Plan.
 1. whipping boy, human sacrifice, etc
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 10:32:33 AM
Hi Anfauglir,

How are things? Happy Tuesday. I am taking the week off, so have time to respond. I have to go out shopping later, though. This year will be tough. My wife hasn’t dropped many hints. :-)

Tell me something. I don’t know if I get these kinds of responses because people (posters in general and you in this instance) don’t know/remember the response, or because the joi de combat is so strong. My guess is the latter, especially in some of the contexts that the questions occur. It could also be disgenuousness, though in your case I would be inclined to think not.

To me, the answer to your question is obvious. No. Jesus was not that powerless. However, Jesus respects human freedom, so he does not force his will on us.

I’m sure he wanted Judas to not betray him. Judas was an Apostle called by Jesus and Jesus treated him as a friend. I would think that Jesus saw good in Judas, as well as the potential for evil. Just as there is in all of us. Peter, in fact, also wanted to oppose Jesus and what awaited him at Jerusalem. Peter also betrayed Jesus in a different way.

The temptations for evil are there for all of us. The love of Jesus is as well. Both Peter and Judas went through (almost) the same experiences with Jesus. They both learned what Jesus taught, both preached the good news. They both knew what Jesus was about and the love and mercy he had for everyone. It is the difference in each of us that makes the difference. The choices we make are what make our fate.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 10:36:39 AM
Hi screwtape,

Suppose he had.  Supposed he succeeded and that allowed jesus H to slip away and avoid arrest by the Romans.
Hmm, you go quite far afield pretty quickly. Why do you assume that if Judas had not betrayed Jesus that Jesus would try to slip away and avoid arrest by the Jews (not the Romans)?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on December 20, 2011, 11:44:47 AM
Though I did not make an assumption, why not?  It doesn't say he wouldn't.  It doesn't say he wasn't desperate to get away from the Pharasies and Romans.  It makes sense to me that he would.  They were both jamming his vibe. 

It doesn't say he didn't have an elaborate escape plan.  It makes sense that he would go on the lam with all the heat he was getting.  Unless he was a deluded loon with death wish (which the bible also does not say he wasn't).

It doesn't say he did not have a prototype lightbulb design which Nicola Tesla discovered (and Edison subsequently stole).  Or that he wasn't a base jumping enthusiast.  Or that he was really a Roman spy, an agent provacateur, sent to stir up the jooz so they (the Romans) would have a reason to crush them.  Unfotunately, the Pharasies saw through the obvious ruse, but it was the gentiles who were really duped. 

It doesn't say a lot of things. As long as we are playing the "it doesn't say he didn't" game, why not speculate freely?

You use that as an escape hatch, Caveman.  It is a kissing cousin to "can't prove it isn't" and equally bad policy.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 12:05:43 PM
Has anyone heard a Christian address Jesus with the admonition "You shouldn't have done that! My salvation was not worth your torture and death!"

Didn't think so.
You may be surprised.

Have you heard it (or said it)?  I never have.  Every Christian I ever heard talk about it was all full of praise for how wonderful the sacrifice was.
As you have said, Christians are full of praise about the sacrifice, however most Christian come to the point of wondering if they are worth the pain that Jesus went through. My self included. One of the biggest question that Christians face is the question of Am I worth it. Or they believe that they are the ones that God can not forgive. Because they are not good enough.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 12:08:41 PM
That can't be good, psychologically...
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 12:11:18 PM
Maybe not , but then , I would think that alot of people wonder about their worth or many different points. It is kinda funny and sad that people doubt theirselves on so many levels.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 20, 2011, 12:16:13 PM
Tell me something. I don’t know if I get these kinds of responses because people (posters in general and you in this instance) don’t know/remember the response, or because the joi de combat is so strong. My guess is the latter, especially in some of the contexts that the questions occur. It could also be disgenuousness, though in your case I would be inclined to think not.
you get these kinds of responses becuas your claims are ridiculous and need support. 

Quote
To me, the answer to your question is obvious. No. Jesus was not that powerless. However, Jesus respects human freedom, so he does not force his will on us.
  Bwaahaaaaaa.  Funny how that is the excuse used when its never supported.  the gospel of John has a JC that has no problem with being sacrificed and needs it to be done. 

Quote
I’m sure he wanted Judas to not betray him. Judas was an Apostle called by Jesus and Jesus treated him as a friend. I would think that Jesus saw good in Judas, as well as the potential for evil. Just as there is in all of us. Peter, in fact, also wanted to oppose Jesus and what awaited him at Jerusalem. Peter also betrayed Jesus in a different way.
So this JC allowed Satan to take Judas over, his good buddy?  Again, the stories in teh bible cause problems with a Christian who evidently doesn't know them.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 12:21:26 PM
Maybe not , but then , I would think that alot of people wonder about their worth or many different points. It is kinda funny and sad that people doubt theirselves on so many levels.

Adopting a philosophy that states that you are inherently evil and worthless, needing the most extreme act of forgiveness possible from the highest authority one knows in order to avoid the eternal punishment one morally deserves, is sorta worse than the usual depressed thought.

I've been through depression as a teen during which I had suicidal thoughts, but never at any point did my depression reach that ^^ level of self-hatred.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 12:36:24 PM
Maybe not , but then , I would think that alot of people wonder about their worth or many different points. It is kinda funny and sad that people doubt theirselves on so many levels.

Adopting a philosophy that states that you are inherently evil and worthless, needing the most extreme act of forgiveness possible from the highest authority one knows in order to avoid the eternal punishment one morally deserves, is sorta worse than the usual depressed thought.

I've been through depression as a teen during which I had suicidal thoughts, but never at any point did my depression reach that ^^ level of self-hatred.
got nothing to do with self hatred. I would think that any one would feel bad about anyone giving up their life for you. Be it someone pushing you out of the way of a car and getting hit to trying to help someone that is being robbed and getting shot. Them giving their life for your may make you think that your life should have been taken instead of theirs in your place.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 12:40:47 PM
got nothing to do with self hatred.

It does if you believe and feel that it's true.  Feeling that you are utterly evil and worthless is pretty much the definition of "self-hatred".  How would you define self-hatred?

I would think that any one would feel bad about anyone giving up their life for you. Be it someone pushing you out of the way of a car and getting hit to trying to help someone that is being robbed and getting shot. Them giving their life for your may make you think that your life should have been taken instead of theirs in your place.

I wasn't so much talking about that part.  I was talking about the negative self-image that is a part of Christian doctrine.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 12:50:43 PM
got nothing to do with self hatred.

It does if you believe and feel that it's true.  Feeling that you are utterly evil and worthless is pretty much the definition of "self-hatred".  How would you define self-hatred?

I would think that any one would feel bad about anyone giving up their life for you. Be it someone pushing you out of the way of a car and getting hit to trying to help someone that is being robbed and getting shot. Them giving their life for your may make you think that your life should have been taken instead of theirs in your place.

I wasn't so much talking about that part.  I was talking about the negative self-image that is a part of Christian doctrine.
I would define self hatred the same as you . However that is not what I feel as a Christian. And I feel no negative self image about my self nor do I know any Christians that has that feeling with in them. Please understand that I don't know every Christian. ;) I can only speak about the ones I know. I am curious of what would make you thing that a negative self image is part of the Christian doctrine.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 12:58:48 PM
Oh, I suspect that your idea of what Christians feel about themselves is true.  Certainly they don't appear to hate themselves (at least not to that degree).

But that only means that they don't actually believe/feel what they claim to believe/feel.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 01:03:14 PM
Oh, I suspect that your idea of what Christians feel about themselves is true.  Certainly they don't appear to hate themselves (at least not to that degree).

But that only means that they don't actually believe/feel what they claim to believe/feel.
Could you explain to me why you would think or believe that?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 01:27:14 PM
Hi screwtape,

Though I did not make an assumption, why not?  It doesn't say he wouldn't.
You’ve always been honest with me that you are less familiar with the NT. I know you’re busy, but I’m surprised that you wouldn’t do some research before you make these assumptions. The Bible makes it clear that your assumptions are incorrect.

Jesus does not try to get away from the Pharisees once the time is right. In fact, he actually goes to Jerusalem knowing what they will do to him. Along the way, he prophesies the suffering and death that he would endure. The clear message of the NT is that Jesus knew he would suffer death and chose to do so.

There were many things he could have done to get away from the Pharisees and Romans, but chose not to, miracles and displays of power notwithstanding. It was telling the truth that got him crucified.

Some ways that Jesus could have avoided crucifixion
Judas was the catalyst, so to speak, that sparked the events, but not the cause. Who Jesus was was the cause, and the fear and hatred of the authorities against him. Jesus knew the situation. He knew what would happen and he freely walked into it.

Judas didn’t have to betray him. If he hadn’t, the Pharisees would have found another way to do it.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 01:34:21 PM
Because for one to truly believe and feel that one is evil and worthless, to feel that one is truly morally deserving of eternal torture - that necessitates self-hatred.

Consider:  You hear in the news that a man (let's call him Otis) pretended to be a loving partner, so that he could get a woman to trust him.  Then used that trust to give him an opportunity to molest and kill her children, and show them to her, gloating over her foolishness while smiling over what he'd done.  Later he shows pride rather than remorse for his actions.

I'd consider "hatred" to be a reasonable reaction to Otis.  From a retributive moral standpoint, he deserves unspeakable things to be done to him.  He deserves no respect as a human being anymore.  He is evil.[1]  And I don't already hold that he's evil just for being human, like a Christian would.

Now, what would it take to get him to deserve eternal punishment?  To be considered even more evil than I'd consider him to be?  Whatever it took - whatever he'd have to do in order to earn it - would that increase, or decrease, the amount of hatred directed at him?  Increase, if anything, right?

Well, let's transfer that to someone else, from a Christian perspective.  Let's call him Scott.  Scott's just a normal guy.  He deserves not just unspeakable punishment, like Otis does from my perspective (which doesn't include the baseline of human evil that Christianity includes), but eternal, ultimate punishment.  He is worse to a Christian than Otis is to me (and Otis would be unspeakably bad to me, earning hatred and all).  For a Christian to genuinely feel those things about Scott, must entail them hating Scott.  Hating him more than I would hate Otis.

Now, Scott is another person.  But he's just a guy.  He's not really different from us, from a Christian perspective.  We are just as corrupt.  We deserve eternal torture as much as he does.  We deserve punishment to a greater degree than I'd hold Otis to deserve punishment, from a Christian perspective.  Our self-respect as humans is lower, from a Christian perspective, than my respect for Otis as a human would be.  We have to hate ourselves - if we seriously feel that way.

Fortunately, Christians don't seem to seriously feel that way.  Unfortunately, they say they do.
 1. For quibblers who may reference this against my meta-ethical positions:  I speak from my own values and the probably values of our friend Riley.  All value-assertions are with respect to that context.  Maybe I should put *that* in my signature, instead of old Omega's drivel, which is getting old anyway...
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 01:39:37 PM
Hi velkyn,

the gospel of John has a JC that has no problem with being sacrificed and needs it to be done. 
None of the gospels show Jesus with a problem about being crucified. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. “needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.

So this JC allowed Satan to take Judas over, his good buddy?  Again, the stories in teh bible cause problems with a Christian who evidently doesn't know them.
Yes, he did allow Satan to tempt Judas and he did allow Judas to choose to follow Satan’s temptation. That’s what it means to respect human freedom.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 02:00:43 PM
Because for one to truly believe and feel that one is evil and worthless, to feel that one is truly morally deserving of eternal torture - that necessitates self-hatred.

That was all interesting but I still don't see anything that would make me feel that one is evil and worthless just because of them being human. I would think, and please understand that I do not speak for all Christians. Ask four of us and I am sure you would get four different answers. But the simple fact that God would go through all of this for little old me would not make me feel evil but that I am worth his love. As for why I am , wish I could tell you, but who knows.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 02:12:02 PM
That was all interesting but I still don't see anything that would make me feel that one is evil and worthless just because of them being human.

Nor was that something that my post was meant to demonstrate.  I was saying that if one believes that one is evil and worthless just for being human, then one must have self-hatred.

I would think, and please understand that I do not speak for all Christians. Ask four of us and I am sure you would get four different answers. But the simple fact that God would go through all of this for little old me would not make me feel evil but that I am worth his love. As for why I am , wish I could tell you, but who knows.

The reason the "evil and worthless" thing comes up at all is because it is a common Christian doctrine:  Being evil and worthless (as a result of Original Sin, for being "fallen", etc.) is the whole reason why Jesus is supposed to be necessary in the first place:  To atone for humanity's evil.  For justice.  We are still just as evil, and we still deserve our punishment, but it's been "paid for" via scapegoat.  Everything about us that would earn hatred without Jesus is still true with Jesus.  Hence, self-hatred...if the belief was genuine.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 02:26:53 PM
That was all interesting but I still don't see anything that would make me feel that one is evil and worthless just because of them being human.

Nor was that something that my post was meant to demonstrate.  I was saying that if one believes that one is evil and worthless just for being human, then one must have self-hatred.

I would think, and please understand that I do not speak for all Christians. Ask four of us and I am sure you would get four different answers. But the simple fact that God would go through all of this for little old me would not make me feel evil but that I am worth his love. As for why I am , wish I could tell you, but who knows.

The reason the "evil and worthless" thing comes up at all is because it is a common Christian doctrine:  Being evil and worthless (as a result of Original Sin, for being "fallen", etc.) is the whole reason why Jesus is supposed to be necessary in the first place:  To atone for humanity's evil.  For justice.  We are still just as evil, and we still deserve our punishment, but it's been "paid for" via scapegoat.  Everything about us that would earn hatred without Jesus is still true with Jesus.  Hence, self-hatred...if the belief was genuine.
OK, I see your point. But I think you take it to far, We are not really evil , we are just not obedient and if I am reading this thing ( Bible ) right that is really the only so called sin that started it all. It may be possible that some of the wording of the Bible was , well added for control. Not saying that I know that for a fact, but it has crossed my mind. However my believe in God is genuine.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on December 20, 2011, 02:35:40 PM
If you do not believe that humans are evil for being fallen, then your belief does not necessitate self-hatred, and my reasoning does not apply to your case.  But there are a lot of Christians who believe we are.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 02:42:48 PM
If you do not believe that humans are evil for being fallen, then your belief does not necessitate self-hatred, and my reasoning does not apply to your case.  But there are a lot of Christians who believe we are.
As sad as that is, you are right. It seems like that would take away from the desire to be Christian. I wonder how many Christians feel that they are in some way evil. Might make a interesting thread.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 20, 2011, 03:50:03 PM
None of the gospels show Jesus with a problem about being crucified. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. “needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.
None of them?  hmmm.
Quote
luke 22: 39 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.[c]
  If he had no problem with being crucified, then why the request for god to not allow it to be done?  He acquesieces to it but doesn’t go without questioning this god.  The gospel of John of course doesn’t mention this little episode at all, JC is all for being finally “glorified”. And “needs to be done” is my “interpretation: “the gospel of John has a JC that has no problem with being sacrificed and needs it to be done.”?  So, you are arguing that the crucifiction didn’t need to happen, that we could have all been saved without a blood sacrifice in the form of the bloody murder of one man?  Seems that the bible disagrees. 

Your supposed savior predicts his betrayal and his eventual death.  He needs it to happen or uh-oh! he’s wrong and that would be embarrassing since he said that his prophecy is how one could believe that he’s who he claims (John 13).  This chapter of John is pretty entertaining.  We have JC going into detail about who is going to betray him and then the apostles are evidently oblivious to this since they have supposedly no idea on why JC said “what you are about to do, do it quickly”.  I’m also wondering, does JC know that “satan entered into him (judas)” and was that who he was talking to, rather than to the meatpuppet Judas?  Considering that this god works often with Satan, this wouldn’t be beyond his MO.  Another thing, right after sending Judas off, JC seems to be indicating that he and this god are “glorified” by that. 
Then, we have JC saying
Quote
john 14: He has no hold over me, 31 but he comes so that the world may learn that I love the Father and do exactly what my Father has commanded me.
Which does seem to indicate that he was working with Satan, and he indeed must die, doing what his father requires e.g. his death.  He has to “leave the world”.  Now, he could commit suicide but that doesn’t seem to be what this god wants.  There has to be a fall guy. 
And finally, we have
Quote
John 17: None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
So much for free will.  Repeately, the gospel says that things were made to take place to fulfil prophecy.  Judas has no free will, Pilate has no free will, neither do the jewish leaders. All a puppet play for your mad god (if he actually existed and any of these events actually happened)
Quote
Yes, he did allow Satan to tempt Judas and he did allow Judas to choose to follow Satan’s temptation. That’s what it means to respect human freedom.
Wow, SC, I guess you think it’s respectful of human freedom to allow someone to be possessed and just stand by and allow it to make your propheies happen.  My oh my.  We see above that Judas had no choice, the sacrifice had to have been made to keep JC looking good. I’m wondering, do you think your god also so respected human freedom when he allowed Job’s family to be killed by this satan character too?  Or when this god killed the kids of people who didn’t obey him just because they were their children?  Gee, they have such “free will” when up against the whim of a god &) 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on December 20, 2011, 04:06:29 PM
You’ve always been honest with me that you are less familiar with the NT. I know you’re busy, but I’m surprised that you wouldn’t do some research before you make these assumptions. The Bible makes it clear that your assumptions are incorrect.

They are not assumptions.  They are speculations based on "it doesn't say otherwise". 

Jesus does not try to get away from the Pharisees once the time is right.

But he didn't really try, did he?  He didn't even try to talk Judas out oops!  I forgot.  It doesn't say he didn't!  So it follows that maybe he did try to get away because it doesn't say he didn't.

In fact, he actually goes to Jerusalem knowing what they will do to him. Along the way, he prophesies the suffering and death that he would endure. The clear message of the NT is that Jesus knew he would suffer death and chose to do so.

Surely he thought it was possible or even probable that was what could happen to him and he was just acknowledging it.   You know, like when Luke went to save Han from Jabba and he told Han "I used to live here, you know." And Han "prophesied", "You're gonna die here, you know. Convenient." 

And of course the clear message is what it is.  It is retrospective.  And as you pointed out, it doesn't say everything.  Maybe he was being dragged to Jerusalem by the apostles?  Does it say he wasn't?

Some ways that Jesus could have avoided crucifixion

An alternative explanation is, jesus wasn't too bright.

Anyway, my point was not that all those shenanegans I suggested happened.  I don't think any of it happened.  My point was your escape hatch is bad policy and you should stop using it. 

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 05:33:00 PM
Hi albeto,

How are things going? I hope you’ve been well.

Pretty well, thank you.

I finally have some time. Our movie, a spoof on Minority Report, is done. It was a hit. No revenues, though. :-) The editing took all my free time before, so now I actually have some.

Sounds like a satisfying project.  I would be remiss, though, if I didn't take the opportunity to express my wishes that you use your talents towards something that is beneficial to humanity and not detrimental. 

You ask a question that is always interesting.

I know, right?

My first question would be, how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?

Same reason you know:  The Holy Mother Church believes herself to  be the keeper of the faith and the repository of God's Grace.  Information like this wouldn't have been lost. 

But let's look at it theologically.  As a Catholic, and a faithful one, I know you and I can speak the same language.  My apologies to those protestants who will read this with their eyebrows furrowed trying to figure out what I'm saying.  I'm happy to translate as needed, but I know SC will know what I'm talking about.

Sacrifice.

The bible, we know, is divided (quite condescendingly) into "old" and "new" testaments and although Martin Luther made it popular to dismiss the Jewish scriptures as oldy moldy stories, good for knowing the power of God, the RCC has always maintained the bible in its entirety is but one sacred source of divine knowledge.  As one source, no one part of it is more or less important than another, even if the stories and information contained therein are more or less well known.  Catholics know that the roots of the sacrifice of the Mass are as deep as the very first stories in scripture - the sacrifices of Cain and Abel.  The big connection is of course the Passover and the sacrifice of the perfect lamb for the sake of the safety of the inhabitants of those homes with the blood of the lamb covering the door and the events of the meal to be executed just so.  Because yhwh traditionally requires a sacrifice and is ever so merciful that he would allow a scapegoat in lieu of the real perpetrator, Catholics know there needs to be a pure victim for immolation and a valid priest to offer the sacrifice.  Because the man/god character of Jesus fulfills both roles, the church can be satisfied offering the lesser requirement of bread and wine reminiscent of our mysterious friend Melchizedek way back in Genesis (holy cow, google chrome spell check recognizes that name). 

Anyway, the sacrifice of the mass can only be accomplished if the man/god character was the perfect sacrificial lamb as well as the perfect priest.  Without a sacrifice ywhw would still require a scapegoat, and because Paul was determined to make his religion no longer dependent upon Jewish rituals, he encouraged a new rituals.  The breaking of the passover bread became the ritual of the "new covenant," the very last in a line of covenants.  Without Jesus' sacrifice, there would be no covenant to end all covenants and the new religion wouldn't have something over the old one - the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices (well, kinda). 

So he had to be sacrificed and betrayal is as good a way as any to show the love of god and the enemy's power.  Besides, the Jesus story is such a nice mimic of the Horus story that death and resurrection had to be included in some way and no hero dies an old man, incontinent and struggling with dementia. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 05:37:08 PM
As you have said, Christians are full of praise about the sacrifice, however most Christian come to the point of wondering if they are worth the pain that Jesus went through. My self included. One of the biggest question that Christians face is the question of Am I worth it. Or they believe that they are the ones that God can not forgive. Because they are not good enough.

That's one of the natural strengths of any religion.  People are social creatures, we naturally desire to be included into the social network and understand our inclusion to be because we are worthy of it.  To suggest god loves us all ever so much to include us into his social network just strokes our egos in the nicest way.  We get to feel like Steve Martin in The Jerk when he finds his name in The Good Book (phone book) and exclaims, "I'm SOMEBODY!"

But honestly Riley, just because something feels good doesn't make it real.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the only evidence your religion can give you is this feel-good experience.  The thing is, you can get that experience outside your religion, and you don't need to hurt anyone to get it. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 05:42:51 PM
The temptations for evil are there for all of us. The love of Jesus is as well. Both Peter and Judas went through (almost) the same experiences with Jesus. They both learned what Jesus taught, both preached the good news. They both knew what Jesus was about and the love and mercy he had for everyone. It is the difference in each of us that makes the difference. The choices we make are what make our fate.

But see, where Judas shows remorse by trying to give back the blood money he'd earned, while Peter does no such thing for his betrayal.  Judas is understood to be in the pits of hell even now while Peter was given the very keys to the gates of heaven.  Why?  Why is what Judas did worse than what Peter did?  Peter could have vouched for Jesus and perhaps save him.  If he knew he was the living son of god, he wouldn't be afraid to walk into Pilot's court to do what he could to set the story straight.  Instead, Peter is the hero despite his being a coward whereas Judas is the enemy despite his considerable repentance.   Why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff's with Peter when he knew how it would turn out? 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 05:53:10 PM
Hmm, you go quite far afield pretty quickly. Why do you assume that if Judas had not betrayed Jesus that Jesus would try to slip away and avoid arrest by the Jews (not the Romans)?

Do you mean other than the idea he sweat blood and prayed to himself to get out of his predicament that night in the garden? 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 06:00:05 PM
As you have said, Christians are full of praise about the sacrifice, however most Christian come to the point of wondering if they are worth the pain that Jesus went through. My self included. One of the biggest question that Christians face is the question of Am I worth it. Or they believe that they are the ones that God can not forgive. Because they are not good enough.

That's one of the natural strengths of any religion.  People are social creatures, we naturally desire to be included into the social network and understand our inclusion to be because we are worthy of it.  To suggest god loves us all ever so much to include us into his social network just strokes our egos in the nicest way.  We get to feel like Steve Martin in The Jerk when he finds his name in The Good Book (phone book) and exclaims, "I'm SOMEBODY!"

But honestly Riley, just because something feels good doesn't make it real.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the only evidence your religion can give you is this feel-good experience.  The thing is, you can get that experience outside your religion, and you don't need to hurt anyone to get it.
I don't feel the need to hurt anybody and the people that do and use religion for an excuse would find another excuse if it was not religion.  As for the evidence, the only reason I have and the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience. (It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own. Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't. I wish I could share with you the feeling I have even with the doubt that I at times feel.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 06:00:16 PM
I would define self hatred the same as you . However that is not what I feel as a Christian. And I feel no negative self image about my self nor do I know any Christians that has that feeling with in them. Please understand that I don't know every Christian. ;) I can only speak about the ones I know. I am curious of what would make you thing that a negative self image is part of the Christian doctrine.

That's part of the cognitive dissonance.  It's been suggested to you that you were created in such a state that even yhwh couldn't handle being in the same room as you until you apologize to him for being this way and get baptized and "washed clean" of your filthy nature.  That's the whole point of this gratitude - to be accepted by the one who can overlook this crap in you and even go so far as to pay the price so you don't have to.  But that's the cognitive dissonance - he's the very one who made you full of crap, according to your religion, and demands a payment for a guilt he assigned to you. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 20, 2011, 06:06:29 PM
I would define self hatred the same as you . However that is not what I feel as a Christian. And I feel no negative self image about my self nor do I know any Christians that has that feeling with in them. Please understand that I don't know every Christian. ;) I can only speak about the ones I know. I am curious of what would make you thing that a negative self image is part of the Christian doctrine.

That's part of the cognitive dissonance.  It's been suggested to you that you were created in such a state that even yhwh couldn't handle being in the same room as you until you apologize to him for being this way and get baptized and "washed clean" of your filthy nature.  That's the whole point of this gratitude - to be accepted by the one who can overlook this crap in you and even go so far as to pay the price so you don't have to.  But that's the cognitive dissonance - he's the very one who made you full of crap, according to your religion, and demands a payment for a guilt he assigned to you.
wow. kinda sounds like my teenage son. I love him but he need to calm the hell down. &)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 20, 2011, 06:11:02 PM
I don't feel the need to hurt anybody and the people that do and use religion for an excuse would find another excuse if it was not religion. 

You don't have to want to feel any need to hurt anyone to be hurtful.  Religion isn't a neutral thing.  It teaches people they are worthless and to be grateful for being accepted anyway.  It teaches people to suppress their natural curiosity and their natural moral growth and to be obedient or face an eternity of punishment.  It justifies whole scale suppression and oppression and encourages people to look the other way when others suffer.  It retards intellectual and moral growth and that negatively affects everyone. 

As for the evidence, the only reason I have and the single strongest reason, I feel, for believing in God, comes from personal experience.

That's not evidence, though.  That's not how evidence works.  Evidence is objective.  It's gained through neutral means.  Feeling something strongly isn't evidence for it's validity any more for you and your religion than it is for Nancy Reagan's astrology.   

 
(It also seems to be the only major reason (apart from social pressures or convenience) for changing religions.) Many people feel that God is watching out for them--they've discovered blessings in their lives because of keeping God's commandments, for example, or perhaps they've received powerful answers to prayers. They've heard voices of warning or had feelings of premonition, cautioning them against danger. They've had feelings of peace or happiness as they go to church or read the scriptures. Others have had other inexplicable, incommunicable "religious experiences". Perhaps words are given or ideas suddenly appear from an unknown source--a person says something or does something spectacular and admits that it felt as if "something (or someone) else" was working through him. Such personal experiences are commonly found throughout the religious community. I've noticed myself that of the atheists I've known, most of them are atheists due to a complete lack of any such experiences or "evidences" of God's existence. Conversely, most of the strong theists I know have had many such experiences. Some rely almost wholly on the experiences of others, but even with such, they've experienced some little "evidences" of their own. Perhaps the theists are just deluded or feigning these experiences. Perhaps the atheists have many such experiences but they choose to ignore them. Honestly, I don't really know. It seems likely to me that, truly, the theists do experience such things just as factually as the atheists don't. I wish I could share with you the feeling I have even with the doubt that I at times feel.

I know that feeling, I was once a very faithful Christian.  Each one of these ideas you suggest can be explained using objective, neutral means, means that have nothing to gain or lose for a change of mind.  They all happen to be easily discredited but are maintained as evidence because of the powerful emotional experiences.  This is one of the reasons religions are harmful - they encourage (if not celebrate and reward) ignorance and unconditional loyalty to whatever authority has convinced you they are worthy.  Think about it, of all the Christians in the world, why are those you know and trust right whereas others are wrong?  That doesn't make sense of there is a god of truth and his spirit is leading others. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 10:25:07 PM
They are not assumptions.  They are speculations based on "it doesn't say otherwise".
If I go back to your original post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg465328.html#msg465328) I can see that maybe you were trying to be sarcastic. Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t work well in the forums. I try to use a <sarcasm></sarcasm> tag (or the square brackets, if you’d like) to make that clear.

So please fill me in on your intention in that post. There are a few possibilities and maybe more than one of them intended. I see now that you might be responding in a sarcastic way to my question “how do you know that Jesus didn’t try to stop Judas from betraying him?”

Another is that Jesus might want to avoid arrest by the Romans. Maybe you didn’t care about that in particular, just using it to make the point. Were you?

Then the point about “. . . yhwh needed the betrayal.” Or was that just the sarcasm again?

If the other points were only for the sarcasm, then we can ignore them. If not, then we can discuss.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 20, 2011, 11:59:12 PM
Hi velkyn,

If he had no problem with being crucified, then why the request for god to not allow it to be done?  He acquesieces to it but doesn’t go without questioning this god. 
Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had your memory. He does ask for the cup to pass if it be the Father’s will. However, doing the Father’s will is the most important thing. He had no problem doing it if it was the Father’s will.

So, you are arguing that the crucifiction didn’t need to happen, that we could have all been saved without a blood sacrifice in the form of the bloody murder of one man?  Seems that the bible disagrees.
Whether God needed it to be done this way is an interpretation. We certainly needed it for our salvation.

As for the rest of it, velkyn, I’m sorry. I’m willing to talk about any one thing with you, but not the half dozen or more things you bring up in your post. I don’t even know where to begin. And when I do, we can’t go into any depth because there are a half dozen more things that come up in the next post. I appreciate your passion and would love to discuss these things with you. But I won’t do it that way.

If you want to pick one point related to the original question, then I will discuss it with you. When we’re done with that we can move to the next.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 12:33:14 AM
I would be remiss, though, if I didn't take the opportunity to express my wishes that you use your talents towards something that is beneficial to humanity and not detrimental. 
Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.

I’m very impressed with your post. Up to a point I would give the same explanation, though sometimes different words. You stop short of transubstantiation, though. Why? Nothing to do with the discussion, I’m just curious. The rest was well said.

You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.

But even if there did have to be a betrayer, it doesn’t seem to me to necessarily follow that it had to be Judas. Maybe there’s some deeper importance in ancient Jewish culture that I don’t know about so that someone from the “inner circle”, i.e. the Apostles, would be needed. Other than that, I would think that anyone who knew Jesus could have done it. Judas did know that he would be at Gethsemane, though. Maybe that was something only the Twelve would know?

But those really aren’t the point of my question. Judas spent three years with Jesus. Besides seeing the miracles and hearing the teachings – enough for thousands of other people – do you really think that Jesus would not have talked with Judas during that time? According to the Catholic “party line” Jesus knew who his betrayer was going to be. Given what the Bible says about Jesus I don’t see how that wouldn’t have torn him up. Not that he would be betrayed, as much as that Judas’ soul was lost. (If it was.) He loved Judas as much as any of us. He died for Judas, too. I can’t imagine Jesus not trying to reach Judas at least once in those three years.

You’re right. It’s not in the Bible and the Church doesn’t teach that he did. I’m just saying.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 12:52:50 AM
But see, where Judas shows remorse by trying to give back the blood money he'd earned, while Peter does no such thing for his betrayal.  Judas is understood to be in the pits of hell even now while Peter was given the very keys to the gates of heaven.  Why?  Why is what Judas did worse than what Peter did?  Peter could have vouched for Jesus and perhaps save him.  If he knew he was the living son of god, he wouldn't be afraid to walk into Pilot's court to do what he could to set the story straight.  Instead, Peter is the hero despite his being a coward whereas Judas is the enemy despite his considerable repentance.   Why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff's with Peter when he knew how it would turn out?
Couple of things. Maybe people think Judas to be in hell, but the Church does not say that he is. The Church doesn’t say that anyone is in hell. Yes, Judas did repent! That’s part of why we can hope that he is not in hell. However, it was his despair that seems to be what did him in. He lost hope in the mercy of God.

Yes, Peter’s fear and cowardice got the better of him. (Hmm, reminiscent of another conversation. :-)) However, we don’t know what Peter did to repent of his betrayal. Going by the stories, he did something. screwtape won’t like this, but just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. (The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom. Makes you think they were on Star Trek. :-)) Peter is with the Apostles Saturday night/Sunday morning. When Jesus appears, he does not smite Peter. Somehow, Peter repented.

Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ambassador Pony on December 21, 2011, 06:30:33 AM
Quote
The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

AFAIK, yes, it does. When it's not making rules about where and when to pinch a loaf, it has it's central characters doing fucked up things with their feces, from cooking with it to rubbing it in people's faces.

Sounds like an artifact of a language-using primate species closely related to bonobos (who, by the way, bang constantly).
 

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on December 21, 2011, 07:27:08 AM
Quote
The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

Jebus was a jew and jews at his time had very explicit instructions on how to poo, I've been told.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on December 21, 2011, 08:23:32 AM
I can see that maybe you were trying to be sarcastic.

It was not so much sarcasm as it was an attempt to show you the flaws of your own argument (the bible doesn't say X didn't happen...).  I dunno what you call that.  Reverse psychology? 

I made some obviously preposterous claims and then used your defense, which is admittedly difficult to work around.  I can admit that the bible does not include every bit of information pertaining to yhwh, jesus et al. But that does not give license to you, me or anyone else to suggest what those missing parts are without evidence.  And that is good advice even if you think the bible is an accurate chronicle of history. 

Another is that Jesus might want to avoid arrest by the Romans. Maybe you didn’t care about that in particular, just using it to make the point. Were you?

Yes.  Well, sort of.  It was one preposterous claim after another, but I cannot imagine the actual jesus[1], if there was one, actually wanted to die.  I can imagine a deluded David Koresh kind of guy who was caught up in the jewish rebellions and the popular messianism of the day. 

I can imagine that his grip on reality was tenuous and he had grandiose ideas about saving his people from the Romans.  He saw himself as that messiah and quite possibly thought he was invincible.  He gathered a few gullible idiots around him who bought into his delusion and wandered around rattling cages.  Then the Romans killed him. 

I do not think any of those prophesies are real.  I think they were made up after the fact because his followers were so stunned that he actually died, they needed a way to rationalize it.  "Well, he didn't really die.  He'll be back.  He planned it all anyway.  Remember that time he said 'they're gonna kill me'?  It's like he knew it was going to end this way.  Spooky."

I'm not saying that is how it was.  I'm just saying that is a plausible scenario we have actually seen play out in our lifetimes.

Then the point about “. . . yhwh needed the betrayal.” Or was that just the sarcasm again?

No, that was an actual point.  No Judas, no salvation.  If salvation was the plan, ywhw needed Judas (or someone) to do the dirty work.  That applies equally to all the traditional villains in the jesus story.  The whole point was to kill jesus.  Without that, there is no scape goat, no sacrificial lamb, no payment of sin.  What would have happened had jesus not been able to find someone to kill him? 
 1. non-miracle working, itinerant rabbi, otherwise regular man, who shot his big mouth off and made a lot of authorities pissed
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Anfauglir on December 21, 2011, 08:52:18 AM
.....I cannot imagine the actual jesus[1], if there was one, actually wanted to die......
 1. non-miracle working, itinerant rabbi, otherwise regular man, who shot his big mouth off and made a lot of authorities pissed

Actually, having thought about it, I can - whether he was "really" the Son of GodTM or just believed he was.  This would be the crowning pinnacle of his earthly life, after which he would go to heaven and god's right hand and gain (or regain) all the power imagineable.

If he really was who he claimed to be, then (as many Christians have pointed out to me) a great deal of his sacrifice was the way he had been "shut off" from his godly status for the last 33 years.  So if that WAS such a bad deal for him, then I'd expect that death - with the certain knowledge of a return to "big cheese" status - would be something he'd be quite looking forward to, regardless of any "plan" there might be.

Perhaps his base earthly nature was giving him enough of the "okay then, lets get this plan over with so I can back to being omnipotent" to make him do everything in his power to move things along?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 21, 2011, 09:06:32 AM
Quote
The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.

AFAIK, yes, it does. When it's not making rules about where and when to pinch a loaf, it has it's central characters doing fucked up things with their feces, from cooking with it to rubbing it in people's faces.

Sounds like an artifact of a language-using primate species closely related to bonobos (who, by the way, bang constantly).

The bible also tells them clearly where to poop.
God told them to poop outside the camp so he wouldn't step in it when he walked around in the camp.

Deuteronomy 12You shall have a place also without the camp, where you shall go forth abroad: 13And you shall have a paddle on your weapon; and it shall be, when you will ease yourself abroad, you shall dig therewith, and shall turn back and cover that which comes from you: 14For the LORD your God walks in the middle of your camp, to deliver you, and to give up your enemies before you; therefore shall your camp be holy: that he see no unclean thing in you, and turn away from you.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Anfauglir on December 21, 2011, 09:17:47 AM
Quote
The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom.
The bible also tells them clearly where to poop.

Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   ;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 11:17:01 AM
Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   ;)
LOL

Yes, when I don’t check my statements I can be wrong about the Bible. I am glad when others correct my statements. I don’t want to be wrong about it and I’m learning new things about the Bible all the time. And when I’m right, I hope others learn, as well. However, in my defense that verse is related to what I said, but not the same. While it gives instructions on how, it’s not explicitly describing anyone that did. So, technically I wasn’t wrong, and I know how you all like to be technical. :-)

Now, can we get away from the scatological posts and get back to the eschatological ones? :-)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 11:38:08 AM
Thanks for explaining.
I can admit that the bible does not include every bit of information pertaining to yhwh, jesus et al. But that does not give license to you, me or anyone else to suggest what those missing parts are without evidence
Your response was to a question I asked albeto. If you read our follow up discussion (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg465667.html#msg465667) (last night), then you see the direction I was actually going.

I'm not saying that is how it was.  I'm just saying that is a plausible scenario we have actually seen play out in our lifetimes.
My comments are more than speculation. They are based on the description that the Bible gives us about Jesus. One of the Bible’s point about Jesus is that he’s not like anyone else. Given the description of Jesus in the Bible your claims are very far afield.

No, that was an actual point.  No Judas, no salvation.  . . .  What would have happened had jesus not been able to find someone to kill him?
Please see my post to albeto (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg465667.html#msg465667). The Sanhedrin had it out for Jesus from early on. He threatened their status quo, called them to the carpet, and showed how they were not living the fulfillment of the Law. It seems to me to be possible that they would have found a way even without Judas. Maybe not, though. I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 21, 2011, 12:18:54 PM
Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.

I don't say this lightly, SC.  I took my faith very seriously, I honestly, genuinely believed there is an entity beyond our natural world who is both the epitome of perfect love and the creator of it (and all things, ultimately).  I smiled when I heard those "Catholics come home" commercial on Catholic radio.  I loved the idea the Church founded orphanages, developed the scientific method, founded universities to study nature based on the scientific method, led the way with philosophical arguments to protect the natives of newly discovered lands. 

But what I was ignoring is the treatment children still get in Catholic orphanages and institutions today and although I recognize child rape isn't limited to Catholics and the children in their care, the utter dismissal of the children's physical and mental health to pursue the legal safety of the perpetrators is horrifying and without excuse.  The scientific method was not developed by Catholic monks alone but was simultaneously being developed in Muslim lands.  Meanwhile, in Europe, the budding scientific method was utilized in conjunction with systematic, formal antisemitism as the devil was considered a part of science and the Jews brought demons into Europe with them, terrorizing and threatening otherwise "good" people.  The idea that natives were respected by Catholics as evidenced by Charles I I think, dismisses the violent oppression of the natives, protestants and Jews.   I don't know if you're familiar with Pat Condell but he can explain it better than I, if you have a few minutes to listen.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKg4HLsu5gE

I’m very impressed with your post. Up to a point I would give the same explanation, though sometimes different words. You stop short of transubstantiation, though. Why? Nothing to do with the discussion, I’m just curious. The rest was well said.

No reason.  My focus wasn't on the mechanics of the operation but the function of it. 

You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.

But even if there did have to be a betrayer, it doesn’t seem to me to necessarily follow that it had to be Judas. Maybe there’s some deeper importance in ancient Jewish culture that I don’t know about so that someone from the “inner circle”, i.e. the Apostles, would be needed. Other than that, I would think that anyone who knew Jesus could have done it. Judas did know that he would be at Gethsemane, though. Maybe that was something only the Twelve would know?

I don't suggest there had to be a betrayer, I'm asking why, if Jesus knew the betrayal would happen and the consequences of that betrayal (Judas losses his faith in god's mercy and being relegated to hell for that), why wouldn't he try to stop him?  I would stop one of my kids from doing something terribly dangerous and deadly even if it turned out to be convenient to me.  Why would a god of love do less than that? 

But those really aren’t the point of my question. Judas spent three years with Jesus. Besides seeing the miracles and hearing the teachings – enough for thousands of other people – do you really think that Jesus would not have talked with Judas during that time? According to the Catholic “party line” Jesus knew who his betrayer was going to be. Given what the Bible says about Jesus I don’t see how that wouldn’t have torn him up. Not that he would be betrayed, as much as that Judas’ soul was lost. (If it was.) He loved Judas as much as any of us. He died for Judas, too. I can’t imagine Jesus not trying to reach Judas at least once in those three years.

We can speculate about this but ultimately it there is no explanation that can justify Jesus' abandonment of Judas.  Satan entered into Judas and for that reason alone god abandoned Judas because god could have stopped Satan.  Jesus/god sitting right next to him telling him to go and do what he must do is an illustration of god abandoning Judas.  There's no reason offered in sacred scripture or sacred Tradition to believe Jesus tried to stop Judas.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 21, 2011, 12:32:50 PM
Couple of things. Maybe people think Judas to be in hell, but the Church does not say that he is. The Church doesn’t say that anyone is in hell. Yes, Judas did repent! That’s part of why we can hope that he is not in hell. However, it was his despair that seems to be what did him in. He lost hope in the mercy of God.

Today we understand emotions so much better than we did even a couple generations ago.  How is it that god, who created emotions, would be unable to recognize the reason Judas lost hope? 

Yes, Peter’s fear and cowardice got the better of him. (Hmm, reminiscent of another conversation. :-)) However, we don’t know what Peter did to repent of his betrayal. Going by the stories, he did something. screwtape won’t like this, but just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly mention it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. (The Bible doesn’t say anything about anyone going to the bathroom. Makes you think they were on Star Trek. :-)) Peter is with the Apostles Saturday night/Sunday morning. When Jesus appears, he does not smite Peter. Somehow, Peter repented.

Screwtape isn't the only one who doesn't like it.  This argument from ignorance is illogical and therefor useless to bring up.  Sacred Tradition teaches only that Peter became the first pope, so of course there was something about him, but we need not assume it was something Peter did.  After all, Jesus struck S/Paul down without his invitation because he supposedly had plans for him.  We are told god works in mysterious ways so Peter's cowardice could easily have been a lifelong condition and his repentance never forthcoming.  We really don't know but we do know that Judas repented and was still blamed by the Church, the repository of the faith, for his betrayal.

Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.

Besides the fact that "free will" is a misnomer and a god who created neurology would know that, we see violations of this idea all the time from the pharaohs with Moses to S/Paul, not to mention any time a Saint intervenes for prayer for another person this concept is violated.  I used to pray for my son all the time, ask that your god would bring the right therapists into our lives but that right there violates their free will because this supernatural "nudge" they would follow would be first planted without their approval.  They could decide to follow or ignore it, but to have it implanted into their thinking would be against their will simply because it wasn't a part of their will before your god made it a part of their will.   This doesn't even touch the idea of extortion against one's free will to "freely" believe this god is good or face an eternity of torment. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 01:08:25 PM
Wow. That’s pretty harsh. Detrimental? I hardly think so. Not sure why you would say that.
I don't say this lightly, SC.  I took my faith very seriously, . . .
LOL. . .  I’m sorry to laugh, but the sentence structure (“project” to “talents” to “detrimental”) in your post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg465579.html#msg465579) made me think that you were saying that our movie was detrimental to humanity. I was pretty shocked. :laugh:

I almost responded with something like “Not sure why you would say that about our movie. You haven’t even seen it.” That would have cleared it up right away. You know, these forums are interesting, but, as I’ve said way too many times, they don’t make it easy to communicate. I try to use more nouns and less pronouns or indirect references when I communicate. Just another example of why. :)

I’ll respond to your other points later, but wanted to share that laugh with you.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 21, 2011, 01:51:13 PM
But what I was ignoring . . .
Wow. You make a lot of incredible claims here. Some I’ve heard before and others are new to me. I’m sure you’ve done all the research to verify the scientific and historic evidence of each of these. You wouldn’t just believe these things without that evidence, would you?

I don't know if you're familiar with Pat Condell but he can explain it better than I, if you have a few minutes to listen.
Wow. Can I say he’s a nutter? Is that allowed? It’s like he’s taken every bizarre attack against the Catholic Church (in this case. I realize he hates all religions) and throws them all together into one groundless diatribe. He’s not your evidence is he?

I don't suggest there had to be a betrayer, I'm asking why, if Jesus knew the betrayal would happen and the consequences of that betrayal (Judas losses his faith in god's mercy and being relegated to hell for that), why wouldn't he try to stop him?  I would stop one of my kids from doing something terribly dangerous and deadly even if it turned out to be convenient to me.  Why would a god of love do less than that? 

We can speculate about this but ultimately it there is no explanation that can justify Jesus' abandonment of Judas.  Satan entered into Judas and for that reason alone god abandoned Judas because god could have stopped Satan.  Jesus/god sitting right next to him telling him to go and do what he must do is an illustration of god abandoning Judas.  There's no reason offered in sacred scripture or sacred Tradition to believe Jesus tried to stop Judas.
You’re using the argument from ignorance yourself. It’s like the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Rather than just saying “we don’t know whether Jesus tried to stop Judas or not” you jump to the conclusion that Jesus did not try to stop him, which is contrary to what the Bible does tell us about Jesus.

When I ask why, all you answer with is “there’s no reason . . . offered to believe” that he did. While there are no definitive statements saying that he did, there’s plenty of reason to believe.

A side note. I was in this discussion because the debate between screwtape and I was going to be delayed. It sounds like that debate can move on. As it does, I’m going to drop these.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 21, 2011, 01:55:28 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. I wish I had your memory. He does ask for the cup to pass if it be the Father’s will. However, doing the Father’s will is the most important thing. He had no problem doing it if it was the Father’s will.
I do have an excellent memory, but you don’t need to in order to know some of the very basic things in your supposed handbook on how to please god.  You just need to actually read it.  You also need to remember what you initially claimed “None of the gospels show Jesus with a problem about being crucified. I didn’t say anything to the contrary. “needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.” which was false.  You have a person who doesn’t want to be crucified and that is the most important thing, that he questions this god, which makes little sense if he is god or he knows the purpose of this act.  Yes, he will do it if it is god’s will, but that never indicates that he doesn’t want to do it. 
Quote
Whether God needed it to be done this way is an interpretation. We certainly needed it for our salvation.
  And hmmm, you said earlier ““needs to be done” is your interpretation of what the gospels say.”  I love your trying to ignore your bible.  Pretty amusing.   Gee, everything that you dont’ like suddenly is just someone’s “interpretation”.  Well, dearie, your interpretation is what?  Show me how you support that my interpretation is somehow wrong.  if your god didn’t need it to be this way, why did he make it happen this way?  Pesky omnipotence, omniscience gets in the way when you want to play word games.  And as I pointed out, to be the prophesying wonder that JC claimed to be, it needed to be done just like was claimed.  Prophecy is a problem since it sets things in stone in theory. 
Quote
As for the rest of it, velkyn, I’m sorry. I’m willing to talk about any one thing with you, but not the half dozen or more things you bring up in your post. I don’t even know where to begin. And when I do, we can’t go into any depth because there are a half dozen more things that come up in the next post. I appreciate your passion and would love to discuss these things with you. But I won’t do it that way.
Nice running away here, SC.  What a pathetic whine.  Start at the beginning, that’s where most people start.  You have my post, address it as you can.  I’m not in a hurry.  and yep, your bible is full of problems which lead to other problems.
Quote
If you want to pick one point related to the original question, then I will discuss it with you. When we’re done with that we can move to the next.
They are all related, despite your baseless claims that they are not.  You make me grin, SC with your attempts to get out dealing with the problems of your bible.  You make ignorant false claims and you are shown how you are wrong.  I take the time to show you even further on how you are wrong and how ignorant you are of your bible.

As the others have also shown, your claims about Judas don’t work if one reads the bible and its various claims on what happened. We have a god that needs things done in a certain way.  We have a fall guy, Judas, whose actions are anything but those of someone with free will.  I have taken the time to point out where in your magic book it supports those conclusions.  You seem to want to do no more than make believe that they don’t exist, by trying to cast me as some villain who overwhelms you with tangential points.  You have yet to show them as tangential, irrelevant or inconsequential, other than waving your hands and saying that they are.  They are directly involved with the discussion about Judas and his eventual fate. You are the one who has brought up the claims about free will and I have merely shot them down.  And I have pointed out where your bible has nothing to do with free will considering the actions of your god which allow no free will.  You make claims, I’m quite happy to show how you are wrong.  You don’t want to be called on those claims then do some research before you make them.
Quote
You gave a good enough description of why there had to be a sacrifice. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there had to be a betrayer, though the passages velkyn quoted do indicate that. I say not necessarily because it sure seems like the Sanhedrin would have found a way even without a betrayer.
I love this.  Gee, velkyn shows verses that do indicate that a betrayer is needed this but magically SC knows better than his bible.  Then we have baseless claim after baseless claim, trying to invoke some magical mysterious information that might make you right, SC.  Funny how it’s been, what, 2000+ years and that still hasn’t magically appeared.  You sound like the creationist idiots who are real sure that real soon now they’ll get their evidence.  Again, we have a Christian unable to come to grips that his bible is flawed and that humans need to constantly make up things to make this primitive nonsense valid. 

According to the bible (and the catholic party line) yep, JC did know his betrayer.  Pointed him out right to the apostles who were “huh?”  And had to have that betrayer.  Your god picked this betrayer out.  And again, we have no free will as claimed.  As JC himself says, there are people intended to be damned.  Poor Judas and poor everyone else who doesn’t get the magic grace bestowed.

You consistently make appeals to emotion, that surely surely your god isnt’ so viciously stupid and surely surely JC did try.  But the stories as presented don’t follow.
It’s also funny when you want it to be the fault of Judas.  I’d certainly lose hope in the mercy of god since well, it’s not to be seen.  Funny how this god fails at actually demonstrating anything claimed about it.

The stories of the bible are just that, and having been written by different people at different times they are like the worst game of “telephone” ever, for supposedly being “divinely” inspired.   You try to excuse this mess by making claims like
Quote
Finally, you ask why would Jesus have let Satan enter Judas while being bff’s with Peter. . . ? Satan can’t violate anyone’s free will. Satan was able to enter Judas because Judas let him. Jesus won’t violate anyone’s free will, so he let Satan do that. It’s another interesting question (for another thread) as to whether Jesus would have stopped Satan from entering Peter’s heart or just whether Jesus didn’t need to. Fear and cowardice isn’t the same as submitting to Satan at that level, though I suppose it might lead to it.
wow, forget Job much?  You really do need to read your bible, SC.  Satan violated Job’s free will, his family’s free will, etc, and your god just watched on.  There is as usual, *nothing* to support your claim and plenty to support the opposite. 
Quote
My comments are more than speculation. They are based on the description that the Bible gives us about Jesus. One of the Bible’s point about Jesus is that he’s not like anyone else. Given the description of Jesus in the Bible your claims are very far afield.
And we have seen you focus on only one description of Jesus and ignore the ones that don’t fit into your nonsense.



EDIT: alas, I have been informed by SC that unless I obey his requirements for a discussion he won’t answer my questions and points.  take that as you will. &)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 21, 2011, 04:20:41 PM
Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

What interests me is that SimnpleCaveman was quite specific about the Bible.  And he has been shown to be wrong.  I have to confess - it does make me wonder how correct he is on other parts of the Bible.   ;)

It is even more interesting that god created man to have to poop,
but he would turn away from his chosen people if he even  saw their poop.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 21, 2011, 05:05:31 PM
Wow. You make a lot of incredible claims here. Some I’ve heard before and others are new to me. I’m sure you’ve done all the research to verify the scientific and historic evidence of each of these. You wouldn’t just believe these things without that evidence, would you?

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. 

Wow. Can I say he’s a nutter? Is that allowed? It’s like he’s taken every bizarre attack against the Catholic Church (in this case. I realize he hates all religions) and throws them all together into one groundless diatribe. He’s not your evidence is he?

I'd like to think I can trust you to listen to what he says and ignore the emotional presentation.  The information he provides is accurate to my knowledge, including the fact that Jews were forced to wear yellow hats and sometimes scarves in public to identify themselves (I believe this was laid out in the Council of Basil or Florence, I can't remember which but it's easy enough to find the Church documents themselves if you're curious). 

You’re using the argument from ignorance yourself. It’s like the difference between agnosticism and atheism. Rather than just saying “we don’t know whether Jesus tried to stop Judas or not” you jump to the conclusion that Jesus did not try to stop him, which is contrary to what the Bible does tell us about Jesus.

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?  Because you and I know the RCC is rooted in the sacraments, with the sacrament of the Eucharist as the pinnacle of her responsibility and privilege, we know the need for Jesus to die as a perfect victim.  No other way would be consistent with yhwh and his relationship with his chosen people of the past.  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 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 (himself as god the father, which is where it gets even weirder and Catholics are encouraged not to ponder that part too much.  After all, it's a mystery why god would demand he be sacrificed to himself as payment for a crime in humanity he created (sin), but I digress. 

When I ask why, all you answer with is “there’s no reason . . . offered to believe” that he did. While there are no definitive statements saying that he did, there’s plenty of reason to believe.

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

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. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ambassador Pony on December 21, 2011, 05:06:41 PM
My Oxford study bible informs me that the idea of sin in Deut. is kind of like cooties. If you touched a girl at certain times you got it, if you were near poop at the wrong times...etc and you had to do all sorts of magical things to make them go away.

Again, not far beyond what one would expect given the population making up the rules and attributing them to their preferred magic sky man.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Anfauglir on December 22, 2011, 04:50:21 AM
Deuteronomy 23:12-14, to be exact.  I had to check this to make sure it was real.  Wow.

It is even more interesting that god created man to have to poop,
but he would turn away from his chosen people if he even  saw their poop.  :laugh:

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

Why would a perfect being create an imperfect being that has to poop?  Surely this is simply deliberately adding something a bit nasty into his creation - like you say, Yahweh doesn't evn like to be around poop.  And yet he made it anyway - seems thoroughly bizarre to me.

But then again the whole idea of creating things in a state that is different to the state he actually wants them to be in is quite ridiculous.  Its why the Bible is, from page one, such a silly and unbelievable book.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: rev45 on December 22, 2011, 09:50:47 AM
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 (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! 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 22, 2011, 12:25:20 PM
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?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 22, 2011, 02:32:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 22, 2011, 02:37:20 PM
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?
Quote
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. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on December 22, 2011, 03:01:51 PM
God, presumably, does not poop.  And he is a perfect being.


Then from where does holy sh#t come?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 22, 2011, 03:04:53 PM
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. :laugh:
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 22, 2011, 03:30:30 PM
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 22, 2011, 08:51:33 PM
Hi albeto,

Let me give a summary as I understand it of your position.
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 . . .
Quote from: CCC paragraph 1731
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on December 23, 2011, 02:08:37 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on December 23, 2011, 02:57:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 28, 2011, 11:07:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 28, 2011, 12:09:28 PM
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.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 28, 2011, 02:35:56 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 28, 2011, 04:43:14 PM
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 28, 2011, 05:03:41 PM

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?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 28, 2011, 08:04:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 28, 2011, 08:14:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ambassador Pony on December 28, 2011, 08:58:04 PM
Hebrew soldier: "Man! Killing these babies is so awesome! I am sooo not a pawn right now *stab stab stab*"
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 29, 2011, 01:24:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 29, 2011, 01:28:15 AM
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?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: One Above All on December 29, 2011, 01:32:08 AM
Another global flood on the way?

Judging from the way the ice caps are melting, yes.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 29, 2011, 01:41:01 AM
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?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: One Above All on December 29, 2011, 01:49:54 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on December 29, 2011, 06:05:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 08:51:58 AM
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)

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 08:54:19 AM
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?  ;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 09:04:53 AM
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)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 29, 2011, 09:30:54 AM
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?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 11:04:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 11:05:31 AM
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)

gee, there goes SC's free will.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 11:15:14 AM
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)

gee, there goes SC's free will.
I sometimes wonder about the free will thing, I mean it seems like it should work , but as you point out sometimes it doesn't , That is why I have problems with the Bible. It says one thing and then says something else. What is a person to believe?  :o
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 11:21:27 AM
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)

gee, there goes SC's free will.
I sometimes wonder about the free will thing, I mean it seems like it should work , but as you point out sometimes it doesn't , That is why I have problems with the Bible. It says one thing and then says something else. What is a person to believe?  :o

we think and act as if we have free will.  It's how humans are, though we do know to self-edit since we know we can't stand inside a nuclear reactor and not die horribly.  A concept of total free will, of course is false in a strict sense since physics prevents us from doing "anything".  We aren't omnipotent nor omniscient.   The bible never says we have free will. It always says that god has absolute control.  Many Christians invoke "free will" because it is an attempt to excuse this god and is generally applied to the problem of evil.  Unforunately, if we take the bible as an accurate depiction of this god and its desires, this invocation fails miserably.  It takes Christians making up things extra-bibically, claiming they got more info from this god, to make it work.  Of course, Christians all claim that they have some lock on what this god really is saying and of course can't support that any more than the next theist.   You've hit the major problem with using a badly compiled book based on a primitive belief system that has no evidence for it.   One can believe in a "god" making it vague enough. But when yuo start adding attributes claimed as "true" then it fails.
 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on December 29, 2011, 11:28:14 AM
I sometimes wonder about the free will thing, I mean it seems like it should work , but as you point out sometimes it doesn't , That is why I have problems with the Bible. It says one thing and then says something else. What is a person to believe?  :o

And then all of the thousands of denominations of Christian followers say something else yet still. Some of it is cut and pasted from the Bible, but ignores things that are inconvenient to them (typically referred to as the Old Testament). One could hold any variety of completely batshit insane ideas, and likely find a verse in the Bible to justify it.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Hatter23 on December 29, 2011, 11:31:11 AM
I sometimes wonder about the free will thing, I mean it seems like it should work , but as you point out sometimes it doesn't , That is why I have problems with the Bible. It says one thing and then says something else. What is a person to believe?  :o

Have you ever read the original, unabridged Grimm's fairietales? It includes multiple version of several well known tales; What is a person to believe? Even scholasticly speaking, which is the original, or the widest told?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 11:36:49 AM
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)
It would seem that free will would contradict God's omniscience. gee, there goes SC's free will.
I sometimes wonder about the free will thing, I mean it seems like it should work , but as you point out sometimes it doesn't , That is why I have problems with the Bible. It says one thing and then says something else. What is a person to believe?  :o

we think and act as if we have free will.  It's how humans are, though we do know to self-edit since we know we can't stand inside a nuclear reactor and not die horribly.  A concept of total free will, of course is false in a strict sense since physics prevents us from doing "anything".  We aren't omnipotent nor omniscient.   The bible never says we have free will. It always says that god has absolute control.  Many Christians invoke "free will" because it is an attempt to excuse this god and is generally applied to the problem of evil.  Unforunately, if we take the bible as an accurate depiction of this god and its desires, this invocation fails miserably.  It takes Christians making up things extra-bibically, claiming they got more info from this god, to make it work.  Of course, Christians all claim that they have some lock on what this god really is saying and of course can't support that any more than the next theist.   You've hit the major problem with using a badly compiled book based on a primitive belief system that has no evidence for it.   One can believe in a "god" making it vague enough. But when yuo start adding attributes claimed as "true" then it fails.
 
If Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, how could God know what Judas would do before he did it? If free will actually existed, then nothing about Judas's decision could be known until it happened, not even by God. God could, at the very most, know the consequences of every decision Judas (or you, or me, or anyone) could make, but he could not possibly know which decision, exactly, he would take until he took it. Therefore, God can not be omniscient, or we can not have free will. Funny how things work out once you start really thinking about them.
So I am beginning to agree with some of your conclusions. Incidentally, even in a Universe without God, free will is still meaningless and is nothing more than an illusion based on our limited perceptions of the workings of the Universe. If the Universe was suddenly reset to its initial condition, or a duplicate Universe was made with the same blueprints, everything would happen in exactly the same way, including every decision every person makes. Everything is determined.
 Does that make any sense

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 11:53:39 AM
If Judas could have chosen not to betray Jesus, how could God know what Judas would do before he did it? If free will actually existed, then nothing about Judas's decision could be known until it happened, not even by God. God could, at the very most, know the consequences of every decision Judas (or you, or me, or anyone) could make, but he could not possibly know which decision, exactly, he would take until he took it. Therefore, God can not be omniscient, or we can not have free will. Funny how things work out once you start really thinking about them.
well, first Riley, it is a story :D  Yes, if one goes with Judas being predestined since God already knows what will happen, then yes there is a problem.  SC tries to get around this by saying “well, it would have been done somehow” but ignores the prophecies that are inconvenient for him.  This variations between Christians and how they all claim to know the “truth” about what God “really” meant is part of why I find belief in any version of theism ridiculous.  You’ve got it, the problem of omniscience and free will.
Quote
So I am beginning to agree with some of your conclusions. Incidentally, even in a Universe without God, free will is still meaningless and is nothing more than an illusion based on our limited perceptions of the workings of the Universe. If the Universe was suddenly reset to its initial condition, or a duplicate Universe was made with the same blueprints, everything would happen in exactly the same way, including every decision every person makes. Everything is determined.
 Does that make any sense
  That’s pretty much how I see it.  I just go on with my human flawed brain and make the decisions I do, for whatever reason, but I do try to make all of them with as much objectivity and facts as possible.  I know I’ll sometimes fail, but I also often be right.  Now, after a “reset”,  I do think that there is some changes possible *if* some of the thoughts about quantum theory are right.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 11:57:03 AM
Of course you could look at it this way also,would predicting the future robs those who's future you predict of free will. They still choose to do something, its just that the predictor already knows what they will choose.
You could toss this around so many different ways.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 29, 2011, 12:03:34 PM
Well Yaway doesn't have free will:

Free Will and Omniscience

The two are mutually exclusive. If God has free will, He can make choices. If He can make choices, then He is not all knowing.  God can never choose if He is all knowing because there is nothing to choose from. God already knows everything that He will ever do, so there can be no choice. If He changes His mind, then God was wrong about His previous choice, so He is not all knowing. If He knew He would change His mind then there was no choice at all, so He does not have free will.

If God does not have free will, He cannot change His mind and He can not make choices. In this case, He is not omnipotent. If God is not all powerful, then He can not do all things, such as create a two-legged tripod, or microwave a burrito too hot for God to eat. Well, of course not. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 12:08:47 PM
Well Yaway doesn't have free will:

Free Will and Omniscience

The two are mutually exclusive. If God has free will, He can make choices. If He can make choices, then He is not all knowing.  God can never choose if He is all knowing because there is nothing to choose from. God already knows everything that He will ever do, so there can be no choice. If He changes His mind, then God was wrong about His previous choice, so He is not all knowing. If He knew He would change His mind then there was no choice at all, so He does not have free will.

If God does not have free will, He cannot change His mind and He can not make choices. In this case, He is not omnipotent. If God is not all powerful, then He can not do all things, such as create a two-legged tripod, or microwave a burrito too hot for God to eat. Well, of course not. That wouldn’t make sense, would it?
I think Christians believe God can do anything that can be done. A two legged tripod by definition can not be.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 29, 2011, 12:28:38 PM
 Sounds like we agree then?

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 12:35:02 PM
Of course you could look at it this way also,would predicting the future robs those who's future you predict of free will. They still choose to do something, its just that the predictor already knows what they will choose.
You could toss this around so many different ways.

and that would also support that there is no free will.  If the predictor is *always* right, they could not chose to do something else other than that.  There is something, in this example, that holds both actions in place as inevitable.   
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 12:35:33 PM
Sounds like we agree then?
;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 12:38:58 PM
Of course you could look at it this way also,would predicting the future robs those who's future you predict of free will. They still choose to do something, its just that the predictor already knows what they will choose.
You could toss this around so many different ways.

and that would also support that there is no free will.  If the predictor is *always* right, they could not chose to do something else other than that.  There is something, in this example, that holds both actions in place as inevitable.
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 29, 2011, 01:06:12 PM
(Reporter interviewing someone in the future.)

So, how do you like the future?
Well, the future  is not here yet!
Firesign Theater
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 29, 2011, 01:38:26 PM
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

But the outside person would know that that future is the only possible future. The Chooser would never be able to choose differently from that future.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

But if he chooses differently from what he saw, then he never actually saw the future, did he?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 01:53:37 PM
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.
  How?  Can you tell me how he can change his mind and how this would affect the observer? 

[/quote]Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).
[/quote]Again, how can he change his mind if he knows how it will come out?   And you are basing your claims on science fiction?   ;D  I'm quite a science fiction nerd, and I've seen just as many time travel movies, books, etc, where the operant cant change what happens. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 01:54:47 PM
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

But the outside person would know that that future is the only possible future. The Chooser would never be able to choose differently from that future.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

But if he chooses differently from what he saw, then he never actually saw the future, did he?
But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 01:56:47 PM
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.
  How?  Can you tell me how he can change his mind and how this would affect the observer? 

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).
[/quote]Again, how can he change his mind if he knows how it will come out?   And you are basing your claims on science fiction?   ;D  I'm quite a science fiction nerd, and I've seen just as many time travel movies, books, etc, where the operant cant change what happens.
[/quote] I too am a science fiction nerd, ;) As Yoda said "Always in motion the future is." (don't ask me why I'm throwing around Star Wars quotes). If you foresee your death happening a certain way, but you don't follow the chain of events that must take place for you to die at that point, then you won't die in that way. Granted, you could be struck by lightening in London at 6:31, but that would be a different death than what you foresaw.


Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 02:01:14 PM
I too am a science fiction nerd, ;) As Yoda said "Always in motion the future is." (don't ask me why I'm throwing around Star Wars quotes). If you foresee your death happening a certain way, but you don't follow the chain of events that must take place for you to die at that point, then you won't die in that way. Granted, you could be struck by lightening in London at 6:31, but that would be a different death than what you foresaw.

so we just have to determine how time works.  NO problem :D 
Quote
But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.
not according to some versions of how time works.  Most, using the idea of paradox, postulate that you cannot change things e.g. you cannot kill your own grandfather.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 02:05:23 PM
I too am a science fiction nerd, ;) As Yoda said "Always in motion the future is." (don't ask me why I'm throwing around Star Wars quotes). If you foresee your death happening a certain way, but you don't follow the chain of events that must take place for you to die at that point, then you won't die in that way. Granted, you could be struck by lightening in London at 6:31, but that would be a different death than what you foresaw.

so we just have to determine how time works.  NO problem :D 
Quote
But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.
not according to some versions of how time works.  Most, using the idea of paradox, postulate that you cannot change things e.g. you cannot kill your own grandfather.
So even if I want to kill my Grandfather I can't? One more mark against free will. 8)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 29, 2011, 02:11:31 PM
But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.

Except it is no longer (and likely never was) the future.

If it doesn't happen, it isn't the future. You were likely destined to see what you thought was the future, but then you would have automatically been destined to choose differently from what you saw, thus it could never have been what current chain of events were leading up to because the current chain of events includes the very cause[1] and effect[2] that lead to that so-called "future" not happening.


EDIT: In other words: You cannot actually see the future unless you also cannot (or will not) change it, otherwise it wouldn't actually be the future.
 1. seeing the "future"
 2. picking something that avoids that "future"
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 02:15:56 PM
But see, you didn't see the future as it must be, you saw it as what the current chain of events dictated it would be. If you altered just one link in the chain of events, it would no longer lead to that future. Knowing the future gives you the ability to alter the chain.

Except it is no longer (and likely never was) the future.

If it doesn't happen, it isn't the future. You were likely destined to see what you thought was the future, but then you would have automatically been destined to choose differently from what you saw, thus it could never have been what current chain of events were leading up to because the current chain of events includes the very cause[1] and effect[2] that lead to that so-called "future" not happening.


EDIT: In other words: You cannot actually see the future unless you also cannot (or will not) change it, otherwise it wouldn't actually be the future.
 1. seeing the "future"
 2. picking something that avoids that "future"
You really know how to take the wind out of my sails. :-[
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 02:20:45 PM

You really know how to take the wind out of my sails. :-[

ah, cheer up Riley, you can think about multiple universes and really get confused  ;D 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 02:24:01 PM

You really know how to take the wind out of my sails. :-[

ah, cheer up Riley, you can think about multiple universes and really get confused  ;D
confused, what I do best. :laugh:
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 02:33:46 PM
If an outside person sees the future while the chooser does not, then the chooser still has free will.

But the outside person would know that that future is the only possible future. The Chooser would never be able to choose differently from that future.

Also, if the choose knows his own future, he also still has free will. If he sees his future and sees the outcome of a choice, he can then choose differently in the present (there are like 200 timetravel movies with that theme).

But if he chooses differently from what he saw, then he never actually saw the future, did he?
Ok, what about this, The future he saw is neither true nor false. It is simply what is going to happen unless something is altered.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Avatar Of Belial on December 29, 2011, 02:56:08 PM
Ok, what about this, The future he saw is neither true nor false. It is simply what is going to happen unless something is altered.

That... doesn't actually change the scenario.

What he saw is not, and cannot be the future unless he is unable (or simply does nothing) to change it. But his "choice" is a direct consequence of what he saw, both of which are already a part of the chain of events leading to the actual future.

If it doesn't happen, then it isn't a "false future", it just plain isn't a future.

confused, what I do best. :laugh:

We're talking about (essentially) time travel. If you aren't confused, you're doing it wrong. :P
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 03:15:43 PM
you might like this link, Riley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 29, 2011, 03:23:30 PM
you might like this link, Riley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_paradox
Thanks , I will check it out.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on December 29, 2011, 03:49:30 PM
and to get out of the time travel tangent, I think Madbunny's card is appropriate here

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k150/madbunny_2006/gods-plan-counter.jpg)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 29, 2011, 08:50:42 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys (and everyone else),

You’ve all been quite prolific today. I think I’ve caught up and understand the main points.

Killing by command of God is hardly free-will.
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?
Sorry. I went according to what you said above. It seems that you’re now saying that because there are negative consequences for one of the choices that means there is no free will. That’s not what free will is. When we make choices there are always consequences. The fact that we can make those choices based on reason and will and we are not limited to the biology and history is what free will is about.

You may not like the fact that there are negative consequences for some actions. My kids don’t either.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 29, 2011, 08:58:35 PM
Hi dloubet,

Long time no talk to. I hope you’ve been well.

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.
We don’t know how much information Judas had. He may have had much more than we understand. He may have had none. Your question assumes he did not have as much information as you think he should have. It also assumes that he would not have made the same decision. We don’t know those things.

However, from an earlier post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg467401.html#msg467401) I explained some things about what Judas would have known based on our understanding of the times and what the Bible says, which includes that the betrayal of his teacher was a serious wrong. He did have enough information to make his decision. He also knew what happens to people who sin, because his teacher talked about that a lot, too. To say that he didn’t have enough information to make an informed decision, even though he didn’t have EVERYTHING, is to ignore what we’re told about the situation.

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?
Yes, CICO. And you are right, we are not held guilty of mortal sin for acting on crap information. I don’t agree that his information was crap. See above and previous post.

That's not free will, that's a guessing game. That's being victimized by incomplete and incorrect information beyond one's control.
From an earlier discussion I would have thought you had a better understanding of free will. However, maybe it is just rhetoric to say that’s not free will. As I’m sure you know, free will is a characteristic of our being, our existence. It’s not an event in our lives. But maybe you mean something more like “He’s not using his free will, that’s a guessing game,” which isn’t really true either, is it? In a silly example, the contestants on Let’s Make A Deal are using their free will and it’s often a guessing game.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 29, 2011, 09:05:08 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Thanks for the response. Hope all is going well with you. Taking any vacation?

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.
You are correct. But that’s not what I’m claiming elevates us beyond just pawns. God has the plan because he is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc. He could have a plan that doesn’t require our participation. For example, he could have had Jesus incarnated without anyone knowing. However, he asked Mary if she would be the mother of God and allowed her to participate in our salvation by saying “Yes” if she wanted to. All throughout history, people have been active participants in God’s plan of salvation.

Sometimes he does make use of people’s choices without their realizing it. My general statement is just that, general. The Sanhedrin (singular or plural?) were intent on their own evil plans without realizing that they were part of bringing about the salvation of the world. However, what they did they did of their own free will. God used their choices. He did not direct their choices.

What about Noah's Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? God didn't have any problem doing that himself.
Again you are correct. God does intervene directly on his own. He does both.

And just out of curiosity, how is it that YOU are aware of what GOD chooses to do?
Because I read and learn what the Catholic Church teaches – Magisterium, Apostolic authority, all that stuff. :)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 29, 2011, 09:32:18 PM
Hi monkeymind,

My niece was just here. She was asking me to write something over and over again. I had no free will in the matter. :)

Well Yaway doesn't have free will:

Free Will and Omniscience

The two are mutually exclusive.
So, you say. But how do you know? You gave an interesting argument, but that argument is from your intelligent, but not omniscient, mind. Do you know what omniscience is? You don’t. None of us do. We have a definition, but we don’t really know what it is. We can begin to imagine what it is, but we can’t really get very far. We can argue about it based on what we do know and I find that interesting. However, since we don’t know what omniscience truly is, we have to admit that it is possible that free will and omniscience are not truly contradictory. On the other hand, maybe they are. We don’t know.

I’m finding cases where people can, at best, be agnostic about the answer to a question, because there are things about it that we don’t know. But instead people make the leap of faith to say that one side of the argument is true and the other is not. I’m sure I do that, too, I hope without realizing it. When I realize it, then I would hope that I would admit that I don’t know and my leap of faith is baseless. I’m sure most others would, too.

I think it would be interesting to talk about your arguments. However, we have to start with the fact that we’re very limited in what we know, and it’s speculative to get specific about something like omniscience.

So lets talk about your argument. It’s very challenging. I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas. He was a brilliant theologian and philosopher and spent some time on this topic. I haven’t read Aquinas, so this is my own thinking; much, much less brilliant.

If God has free will, He can make choices.
I find the way you started it off to be interesting. Often this discussion is about whether we can have free will if God is omniscient. Kudos on putting an interesting spin on it.

If He can make choices
I wonder about this. Can God make choices? One of the thoughts about God is that he is immutable, that is doesn’t change. If he doesn’t change, then he can’t make choices. Does that mean he does not have free will? I think it does. What do you think?

I’ll do some reading of Aquinas.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on December 30, 2011, 02:38:43 AM
Quote
We don’t know how much information Judas had.

Well, how about you? If you were Judas, with the information you have, would you have "betrayed" Jesus?

And why would anyone even think to call it betrayal? Surely Judas was performing the god's plan, how can that be called betrayal? If you're doing exactly what someone wants you to do, you're demonsterably not betraying them.

Quote
From an earlier discussion I would have thought you had a better understanding of free will.

I do, I don't believe it exists at all, or even can exist. But I still grant the premise for the sake of argument. Just like I grant the premise of a god for the sake of argument. I grant these premises to show where they are inconsistent.

Quote
However, maybe it is just rhetoric to say that’s not free will.

No. It's not rhetoric. Free will is supposedly the thing that makes one responsible for their moral choices. One must be responsible for their moral choices so that they can be judged by those choices. But it falls apart. Your Lets Make a Deal analogy is perfect: Are you really making a moral choice if your options are Curtain Number 1, Curtain Number 2, and Curtain Number 3? Are you really responsible for the random result of your blind choice, even if it employed your "free will"? That's what bad information turns our moral choices into: a crap-shoot. Yet the god supposedly judges us on the results, on the random roll of the dice.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 07:20:37 AM
Quote
Free Will and Omniscience
The two are mutually exclusive.
So, you say. But how do you know? You gave an interesting argument, but that argument is from your intelligent, but not omniscient, mind. Do you know what omniscience is? You don’t. None of us do. We have a definition, but we don’t really know what it is. We can begin to imagine what it is, but we can’t really get very far. We can argue about it based on what we do know and I find that interesting. However, since we don’t know what omniscience truly is, we have to admit that it is possible that free will and omniscience are not truly contradictory. On the other hand, maybe they are. We don’t know.

I think it would be interesting to talk about your arguments. However, we have to start with the fact that we’re very limited in what we know, and it’s speculative to get specific about something like omniscience.

So lets talk about your argument. It’s very challenging. I recommend reading St. Thomas Aquinas. He was a brilliant theologian and philosopher and spent some time on this topic. I haven’t read Aquinas, so this is my own thinking; much, much less brilliant.

If God has free will, He can make choices.
I find the way you started it off to be interesting. Often this discussion is about whether we can have free will if God is omniscient. Kudos on putting an interesting spin on it.

If He can make choices
I wonder about this. Can God make choices? One of the thoughts about God is that he is immutable, that is doesn’t change. If he doesn’t change, then he can’t make choices. Does that mean he does not have free will? I think it does. What do you think?

I’ll do some reading of Aquinas.
So...how's it hangin'? Hope well. How's the wife and kids? Good Xmas? Well,  give the fam my love.

Thing is Simple Caveman, I'm a simple monkeymind & I don't care about what I can't know. I think I'll just go with what I can know, if you don't mind.

I'm sure Tommy is kewl, but I'm really not that interested in philosphic Catholic priests from yesteryear. I prefer people from this century. That way if we get in a bind about what soandso said, we can contact them. Come to thin of it, I'm not interested in current philosphic Catholic priests either. But if you want to report back to me with the low-down on this guy, I'll read it at least.


Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 30, 2011, 10:10:38 AM
Good Morning dloubet,

Thanks for responding, and at such a late (early?) hour, no less.

Well, how about you? If you were Judas, with the information you have, would you have "betrayed" Jesus?
Good question and an important question. Let me start with, if I were one of the Apostles, would I betray Jesus? Well, in fact, from what we know, they all did to varying degrees. From what I recall, all of them abandoned Jesus at the end out of fear for their own lives. To be more specific to your question, would I have turned Jesus over to the authorities? I would hope not. Particularly based on what I had said before about the teacher/disciple relationship and about the teachings and example of Jesus. I think I’m a better person than that. If I had, though, I hope I would have trusted then, because I do now, in the mercy of God, and not despaired.

You seem to be ignoring how much Judas would know about the situation, about the standards of that relationship, about the teachings and example of Jesus, about Jewish faith, about right and wrong. It seems that you want to set Judas up to be an unwitting patsy, but to do so you have to ignore all the information that Judas almost certainly did have.
 
But back to your question one more time. The problem is that we don’t have all the information about Judas. We don’t know why he betrayed Jesus. We don’t know his inner motives or inner demons in that act. More importantly, along these lines we must ask the question, do we know why he despaired and killed himself? We think we do; because he saw what was happening to Jesus and regretted it. He even gave the money back. But why didn’t he trust in the love and mercy of God? We don’t know.

And why would anyone even think to call it betrayal? Surely Judas was performing the god's plan, how can that be called betrayal? If you're doing exactly what someone wants you to do, you're demonsterably not betraying them.
Silly question. Because it was a betrayal. Even if it was a required part of God’s plan it was still a betrayal. I think the late hour was affecting you. :) As before, and this is my own speculation, I don’t think it was a required part of God’s plan. I’ll have to see if the Church says anything about that. It seems to me that if Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, that the Sanhedrin would have still found a way to bring him to trial. Judas’ part was, in one sense, such a small one. He identified Jesus in the garden. The Sanhedrin could have gotten many people to identify Jesus. I wonder if there was a Jewish law that placed requirements on the witness to Jesus’ identity.

No. It's not rhetoric. Free will is supposedly the thing that makes one responsible for their moral choices. One must be responsible for their moral choices so that they can be judged by those choices.
Free will is (a necessary) part of what makes us responsible for our moral choices. However, you are confusing will with knowledge. The 3 conditions for mortal sin are
If a person picks door number 2 and that somehow causes someone to be killed, then they are not guilty of mortal sin. If they pick door number 2 knowing that it would cause someone to be killed, then they are guilty of a mortal sin.

That's what bad information turns our moral choices into: a crap-shoot. Yet the god supposedly judges us on the results, on the random roll of the dice.
You can now see that it is you who have bad information about how God judges us. You can continue with that bad information, if you want. However, since you know that it’s bad, you have more responsibility for your choices.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 30, 2011, 12:41:13 PM
So...how's it hangin'? Hope well. How's the wife and kids? Good Xmas? Well,  give the fam my love.
Low and to the left, thank you. :) Ah, high school was such a good time.

The family is doing great. Yes, we had a wonderful Christmas day (even with the stove going out) and are having a brilliant Christmas season. The weather isn’t great, but we don’t have it as bad as some others.

The fam said the same to you. Thanks. :)

Thing is Simple Caveman, I'm a simple monkeymind & I don't care about what I can't know. I think I'll just go with what I can know, if you don't mind.
Okay. I understand that point. But your post already went with something we can’t know, omniscience. Didn’t it?

It is interesting to discuss it sticking with only what we can, or think, we know, but we have to always realize there’s more than we understand and our conjectures only go so far.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 12:46:25 PM
Quote
It is interesting to discuss it sticking with only what we can, or think, we know, but we have to always realize there’s more than we understand and our conjectures only go so far.

That there is a god and that it is omniscient is not quite even conjecture.

Noun:   
An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

I see no evidence for  god or omniscience.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 30, 2011, 12:58:18 PM
I see no evidence for  god or omniscience.
I understand. I’m not arguing for the existence of either. You were the one who posted about omniscience and free will being contradictory. I was trying to join you in the conversation because I thought it was interesting. Not sure where it went wrong.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: monkeymind on December 30, 2011, 01:30:59 PM
I see no evidence for  god or omniscience.
I understand. I’m not arguing for the existence of either. You were the one who posted about omniscience and free will being contradictory. I was trying to join you in the conversation because I thought it was interesting. Not sure where it went wrong.

Where it went wrong was when you misunderstood "How they hangin'?" That is a customary monkey greeting in reference to bananas. I don't know WHAT you were thinking of.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 30, 2011, 01:37:58 PM
Where it went wrong was when you misunderstood "How they hangin'?" That is a customary monkey greeting in reference to bananas. I don't know WHAT you were thinking of.
LOL!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 30, 2011, 02:27:53 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys (and everyone else),

You’ve all been quite prolific today. I think I’ve caught up and understand the main points.

Killing by command of God is hardly free-will.
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?
Sorry. I went according to what you said above. It seems that you’re now saying that because there are negative consequences for one of the choices that means there is no free will. That’s not what free will is. When we make choices there are always consequences. The fact that we can make those choices based on reason and will and we are not limited to the biology and history is what free will is about.

You may not like the fact that there are negative consequences for some actions. My kids don’t either.
Is God commanding you to kill and punishing you for failing to carry out those commands a suspension of your free-will or not?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 30, 2011, 02:44:58 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Is God commanding you to kill and punishing you for failing to carry out those commands a suspension of your free-will or not?
Free will, if it exists, is a characteristic of our being human. It is the fact that we can make decisions based on intellect and will. It’s not a statement of a particular act, such as whether a decision was freely made or not. I don’t think you can suspend free will. If you hold a gun to my head and say, give me your money or your life, you are not taking away my free will. Maybe you are giving me a very difficult decision to make, but I can make that decision based on my intellect and will.

At the same time, I don’t think that we use our free will all the time. That is, I think that a “suspension” of free will would happen when we make decisions not based on intellect and will. Would habits count then? By the time they get to be habits there’s not much decision making going on. Before that? Maybe.

Then you have instinctive reactions, such as I’m hungry and I eat. I may be making a decision to eat based on intellect and will, but maybe not. I think in that case, making a decision to not eat would be more likely to be based on intellect and will.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 31, 2011, 04:15:15 PM
I think that you are REACHING

 First a commandment of "Thou shalt not kill" followed by a command by God to kill because I don't like this group of people who stand in the way of my believers can't be the same as me demanding your money.

 First off I am dis-obeying a directive from God NOT to kill anybody(remember that commandment) And then I am pissing off God by not killing everything he commanded me to kill.

 So which is the right choice not to kill anything God tells me to kill or to kill everything God commands me to kill? Your penalty for not handing your cash over,a direct elevator ride to heaven,the guy who fails to kill everything at God's command,an elevator ride to hell?

 God himself is contradicting his commandments by ordering the killing of ANYBODY,because they either dont believe in him or they stand in the way of his people steamrolling over all who oppose THEM. God has no interest in land does he,or is God just the invention of greedy people intent in using his name to justify what they do?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on December 31, 2011, 05:01:06 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

(Almost) Happy New Year! Going out tonight? We’re going over to a friend’s house. We get together with a few families and eat lots of food, drink lots of alcohol and play lots of games. It’s a great time. I hope you have a great time, too. Unfortunately, I gave blood today. The giving wasn’t the unfortunate part. Doing it today is! I can’t drink as much. Maybe I’ll be the designated driver for once. We’ll see. :)

I think that you are REACHING
I think we’re talking about two different things.

So which is the right choice not to kill anything God tells me to kill or to kill everything God commands me to kill?
That question (which choice is right) is a totally different question than whether we have free will. Is that the one you’ve wanted to ask all along?

In case it is, let’s look at your question. First, let me ask you, how sure am I that it is God doing the commanding?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on December 31, 2011, 05:45:14 PM
God has no interest in land does he,or is God just the invention of greedy people intent in using his name to justify what they do?
I don't think God is  the invention of greedy people but I do see them using his name to justify what they do over and over again.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on December 31, 2011, 05:58:52 PM
So which is the right choice not to kill anything God tells me to kill or to kill everything God commands me to kill?
That question (which choice is right) is a totally different question than whether we have free will. Is that the one you’ve wanted to ask all along?

(http://badgersportspark.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/dodgeball2.png)

DODGE!

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on December 31, 2011, 06:56:05 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

(Almost) Happy New Year! Going out tonight? We’re going over to a friend’s house. We get together with a few families and eat lots of food, drink lots of alcohol and play lots of games. It’s a great time. I hope you have a great time, too. Unfortunately, I gave blood today. The giving wasn’t the unfortunate part. Doing it today is! I can’t drink as much. Maybe I’ll be the designated driver for once. We’ll see. :)

I think that you are REACHING
I think we’re talking about two different things.

So which is the right choice not to kill anything God tells me to kill or to kill everything God commands me to kill?
That question (which choice is right) is a totally different question than whether we have free will. Is that the one you’ve wanted to ask all along?

In case it is, let’s look at your question. First, let me ask you, how sure am I that it is God doing the commanding?
Either the bible is true,in that case God has given a command to kill or it is made up(like I said) by men who want to excuse their acts of war and domination. The choice to follow God's command but not his commandment (thou shalt not kill) gets you the prize of heaven. The other choice not to kill anything(thou shalt not kill) angers God and gets you a prime table in hell.Both choices,yes but not of free-will,just reward or punishment.

 So I see you are saying the Bible may be written by men to excuse their actions? Did God go against his own commandment ordering his followers to kill? You see by following your free-will(choice) and going against his command but not his commandment,you fall out of favour with God and are hell bound. By ignoring his commandment(thou shalt not kill)and following his command,killing entire villages,men,women,children and livestock you are in the good grace of God and are heaven bound.  How exactly is this a choice of free-will? I either do what God commands and get rewarded or I ignore him and am sent to hell.

 The point is that if I wish to follow God there is no free-will just choice of doing what he says and being rewarded or ignoring him and suffering the consequence.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on December 31, 2011, 09:53:08 PM
Quote
To be more specific to your question, would I have turned Jesus over to the authorities? I would hope not.

And so no crucifixion, no burial, and no resurrection. Excellent. You would condemn 2000 years of Christians to hell. Congratulations.

Quote
It seems that you want to set Judas up to be an unwitting patsy, but to do so you have to ignore all the information that Judas almost certainly did have.

Actually, I would hope that character had all the information because it would make him an awesome character. A guy who trades his place in heaven to save countless souls. Since I don't consider the "betrayal" a betrayal, he simply helped his friend Jesus do what he had to do and played the part of the betrayer. Unfortunately, the fact that he saved the souls of countless people did not remove the guilt he felt for the death of his friend, so in grief he committed suicide.

What an awesome narrative. But the thing is, is that Judas, not Jesus, is the hero selflessly making a sacrifice. If he'd just waited three days before killing himself, he would have seen that the Jesus character was not only fine and dandy, but Master of the Universe. He probably wouldn't have killed himself, but rather been pretty pissed at Jesus for the mental torment he was put through. Oh well.

Quote
Even if it was a required part of God’s plan it was still a betrayal.


Awesome! So the god's perfect plan requires betrayal. Betrayal is a necessary aspect of perfection. Wonderful morality you've got there.

Quote
It seems to me that if Judas had chosen not to betray Jesus, that the Sanhedrin would have still found a way to bring him to trial.

Then the guy who succeeded in getting that trial would be the person we would be talking about. It makes no difference. The guy that precipitates the crucifixion and thus the resurrection is the hero. Without him, there would be no salvation.

Quote
Free will is (a necessary) part of what makes us responsible for our moral choices. However, you are confusing will with knowledge. The 3 conditions for mortal sin are
The action being taken must be of grave matter.
The person committing the action must have full knowledge about it, e.g. that it is grave, that it is wrong, that it is happening, etc. (good vs. bad information)
The person must give deliberate consent. (free will)
If a person picks door number 2 and that somehow causes someone to be killed, then they are not guilty of mortal sin. If they pick door number 2 knowing that it would cause someone to be killed, then they are guilty of a mortal sin.

Since we're not omniscient, we can never have full knowledge. We can only have partial knowledge, which is as good as none to the omniscience of the god character. So since your second requirement cannot be met, no free will decision has ever been made, and thus no mortal sin has ever been committed.

That's actually a fine state of affairs from my perspective, but probably not from yours.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 03:51:31 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

First, let me ask you, how sure am I that it is God doing the commanding?
Either the bible is true
Okay, so we’re talking about God’s commandments in the Bible. I’ve misunderstood you before, so I just want to make sure.

Let’s go to this part of what you say first. (I apologize if it appears that I’m dodging your question. We will certainly come back to the rest if that’s what you’re really asking about.) You say. . .

The point is that if I wish to follow God there is no free-will just choice of doing what he says and being rewarded or ignoring him and suffering the consequence.
This statement is a contradiction. Free will is exactly the fact that we have the choice. What do you imagine free will to be? Choosing without any consequences?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: One Above All on January 01, 2012, 03:53:55 PM
The point is that if I wish to follow God there is no free-will just choice of doing what he says and being rewarded or ignoring him and suffering the consequence.
This statement is a contradiction. Free will is exactly the fact that we have the choice. What do you imagine free will to be? Choosing without any consequences?

I'm not 12 Monkeys, but I think I can explain.

Basically, according to christians, you're not actually choosing anything. At best you could say you're being blackmailed (under threat of eternal torture) to do what YHWH tells you to.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 01, 2012, 06:58:10 PM
If no deviation from a path is possible, there is no "will" at all, free or otherwise, just the path. I would "will" or "desire" whatever was predestined, as my desire would be predestined as well.

If I can deviate from a predetermined path, I have a choice, I can therefore have a "will" to follow one path or the other, but not all choices of path are free.

I can choose to take goods from a store without paying, but the choice is not free, I would have to pay, jail or reparations.

With god, the blackmail choice is not free will, it is coercion. It is "pay or else" will. It is a choice with a direct punishment for one of the options that is not evident in the choice by itself.

If I steal a shirt from the store, I have chosen a path that has an implied punishment and this is not a "freewill" choice. If I chose to buy a red shirt over a blue shirt, that is a free will choice, even if later all red shirted people are punished.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 08:30:24 PM
Hi dloubet,

Quote
To be more specific to your question, would I have turned Jesus over to the authorities? I would hope not.
And so no crucifixion, no burial, and no resurrection. Excellent. You would condemn 2000 years of Christians to hell. Congratulations.
I ask this question sincerely. Do you read the entire post and take all of what I say into account when you respond? I ask that because your statements above are already answered by statements in my post. Statements to which you’ve even responded below. In fact a number of your comments are of that same approach. I really don’t see the reason for your statements above other than to take potshots. They certainly don’t further the conversation. If that’s what you’re doing, then okay. I just have to remember that about you. It would be helpful to put a <potshot> tag or something similar, though. I’m just saying.

Actually, I would hope that character had all the information because it would make him an awesome character. A guy who trades his place in heaven to save countless souls. Since I don't consider the "betrayal" a betrayal, he simply helped his friend Jesus do what he had to do and played the part of the betrayer.
So you don’t disagree with my points about why it’s a betrayal. Instead you make betrayal a good thing. If that’s how you want to rationalize betrayal to keep it consistent with your beliefs, then okay. I’m glad I’m not your friend.

If he'd just waited three days before killing himself, he would have seen that the Jesus character was not only fine and dandy, but Master of the Universe.
Yes. I agree. It would have been better had Judas not despaired and had trusted in the mercy of God.

Then the guy who succeeded in getting that trial would be the person we would be talking about. It makes no difference. The guy that precipitates the crucifixion and thus the resurrection is the hero. Without him, there would be no salvation.
The one who precipitated the crucifixion and the resurrection is God. He is the ultimate hero.  Who are the other players?

Sanhedrin – Out to protect their power and station.
Judas – Greed? Power? As far as he knew it was betrayal, pure and simple.
Pontius Pilate – Fear of Caesar and the Jews.
Roman soldiers – Following orders except those who mocked and ridiculed him.
The mob – probably had no idea of the schemes behind everything. Hailing Jesus as King the week before they too now turned on him.

None of those people are heroes. Instead they are weak, selfish, and small-minded.

Since we're not omniscient, we can never have full knowledge. We can only have partial knowledge, which is as good as none to the omniscience of the god character.
I would be very surprised if you actually think that full knowledge means omniscience. Is that really what you think?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 01, 2012, 08:33:50 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

First, let me ask you, how sure am I that it is God doing the commanding?
Either the bible is true
Okay, so we’re talking about God’s commandments in the Bible. I’ve misunderstood you before, so I just want to make sure.

Let’s go to this part of what you say first. (I apologize if it appears that I’m dodging your question. We will certainly come back to the rest if that’s what you’re really asking about.) You say. . .

The point is that if I wish to follow God there is no free-will just choice of doing what he says and being rewarded or ignoring him and suffering the consequence.
This statement is a contradiction. Free will is exactly the fact that we have the choice. What do you imagine free will to be? Choosing without any consequences?
So the Guy who Chooses NOT to listen to God by not killing everything in the villiage USES his brain to say no to God....gets hell is that what you are saying? If he CHOOSES to listen to God and kill EVERYTHING in the villiage his reward- heaven. So by following his brain he gets punished by God,by submitting to God's command and going against his better judgement HELL.

 God himself is commanding HIS follower to DISOBEY a COMMANDMENT,thou shalt not kill. What "choice"would you make? follow Gods command or his commandment?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 01, 2012, 08:35:49 PM
 You have managed NOT to answer the direct question to ANYBODY posting here.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 08:47:00 PM
The one who precipitated the crucifixion and the resurrection is God. He is the ultimate hero.  Who are the other players?

Sanhedrin – Out to protect their power and station.
Judas – Greed? Power? As far as he knew it was betrayal, pure and simple.
Pontius Pilate – Fear of Caesar and the Jews.
Roman soldiers – Following orders except those who mocked and ridiculed him.
The mob – probably had no idea of the schemes behind everything. Hailing Jesus as King the week before they too now turned on him.

None of those people are heroes. Instead they are weak, selfish, and small-minded.

Not heroes? Without them God could not have seen his plan through. He always relies on those lesser than him to do the dirty work for him. I really don't understand why Christians demonize those people who brought about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus. If it weren't for them, you wouldn't have JC as a human sacrifice to repent for Original Sin. In a way, since it was God's will that Jesus come to earth to die in order to save people from God being an asshole, such entities as you describe above are ACTUALLY DOING GODS WILL. Perhaps they should all be made saints. Weak, selfish and small minded? Well, your God created them that way, didn't he? BTW, Weak, selfish and small minded are EXACTLY the kind of followers God wants.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 09:03:21 PM

 Well, your God created them that way, didn't he? BTW, Weak, selfish and small minded are EXACTLY the kind of followers God wants.
Sorry I hope you don't mind me asking , but do you have any evidence of that statement?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kevinagain on January 01, 2012, 09:08:37 PM
i'm following this conversation from the side, but it's worth pointing out that free will is explicitly supported in christian scripture in at least one place.

sirach has six verses that spell it out:

Quote
Sir 15:11  Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou oughtest not to do the things that he hateth.
Sir 15:12  Say not thou, He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of the sinful man.
Sir 15:13  The Lord hateth all abomination; and they that fear God love it not.
Sir 15:14  He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel;
Sir 15:15  If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness.
Sir 15:16  He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt.


god presents genuine choices, according to this passage, and human beings are free to choose between them.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 09:18:27 PM

 Well, your God created them that way, didn't he? BTW, Weak, selfish and small minded are EXACTLY the kind of followers God wants.
Sorry I hope you don't mind me asking , but do you have any evidence of that statement?

Weak: God does not want people who question his cruelty. He does not cherish independence. God wants slaves.
Selfish: The only reason to do good is for the believer to obtain reward. Take away eternal bliss in heaven. How many followers would there be then? They only believe because they think there is something in it for them.
Small Minded: See Genesis.  God wanted his creation to follow without question, have no knowledge of good or evil, and be obedient little slaves. He did not want those who would questions his lies, motives, or habitual violence. This is also what God's followers must do in order to obtain salvation.

I realize this is more of an explanation than evidence. However, since there is no evidence that God exists, there is no actual evidence of what he really wants. It is my interpretation based on the words of the Bible and actions of the God described therein.

Of course I don't mind that you ask me to support my claim. After all, I am an Atheist  :P
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 09:21:48 PM
i'm following this conversation from the side, but it's worth pointing out that free will is explicitly supported in christian scripture in at least one place.

sirach has six verses that spell it out:

Quote
Sir 15:11  Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou oughtest not to do the things that he hateth.
Sir 15:12  Say not thou, He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of the sinful man.
Sir 15:13  The Lord hateth all abomination; and they that fear God love it not.
Sir 15:14  He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel;
Sir 15:15  If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness.
Sir 15:16  He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt.


god presents genuine choices, according to this passage, and human beings are free to choose between them.

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     

From http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/free_will.html
Quote

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

    "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

    "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

    "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

    "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

We are predestined according to the good pleasure of his will. We are God's toys.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 09:26:48 PM

 Well, your God created them that way, didn't he? BTW, Weak, selfish and small minded are EXACTLY the kind of followers God wants.
Sorry I hope you don't mind me asking , but do you have any evidence of that statement?

Weak: God does not want people who question his cruelty. He does not cherish independence. God wants slaves.
Selfish: The only reason to do good is for the believer to obtain reward. Take away eternal bliss in heaven. How many followers would there be then? They only believe because they think there is something in it for them.
Small Minded: See Genesis.  God wanted his creation to follow without question, have no knowledge of good or evil, and be obedient little slaves. He did not want those who would questions his lies, motives, or habitual violence. This is also what God's followers must do in order to obtain salvation.

I realize this is more of an explanation than evidence. However, since there is no evidence that God exists, there is no actual evidence of what he really wants. It is my interpretation based on the words of the Bible and actions of the God described therein.

Of course I don't mind that you ask me to support my claim. After all, I am an Atheist  :P
Just so I understand , You have no evidence at all to the claim you are making, and being that you are an atheist you have no believe in God or any believe in what he would want. It that correct? If so then is it possible that you are just mocking the other person's claim?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 09:29:23 PM
i'm following this conversation from the side, but it's worth pointing out that free will is explicitly supported in christian scripture in at least one place.

sirach has six verses that spell it out:

Quote
Sir 15:11  Say not thou, It is through the Lord that I fell away: for thou oughtest not to do the things that he hateth.
Sir 15:12  Say not thou, He hath caused me to err: for he hath no need of the sinful man.
Sir 15:13  The Lord hateth all abomination; and they that fear God love it not.
Sir 15:14  He himself made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his counsel;
Sir 15:15  If thou wilt, to keep the commandments, and to perform acceptable faithfulness.
Sir 15:16  He hath set fire and water before thee: stretch forth thy hand unto whether thou wilt.


god presents genuine choices, according to this passage, and human beings are free to choose between them.

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     

From http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/free_will.html
Quote

"And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

    "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

    "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

    "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

    "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

We are predestined according to the good pleasure of his will. We are God's toys.
So you are saying that we ( you and I ) are the toys of someone that you say does not exist. &)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 09:35:19 PM
Just so I understand , You have no evidence at all to the claim you are making, and being that you are an atheist you have no believe in God or any believe in what he would want. It that correct? If so then is it possible that you are just mocking the other person's claim?

Evidence for his claims about the character described in the Bible abounds, and he has declared that he is willing to provide it if you ask.

Evidence that his claims apply to an actual deity does not exist, because the Bible does not evidently describe an actual deity.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 09:38:10 PM
So you are saying that we ( you and I ) are the toys of someone that you say does not exist. &)

Not at all. For a person who does believe in God, that person is essentially God's toy, per the description of God and his followers in God's alleged biography. I wonder if you take every statement in the Bible with comparable literalness and at face value? Perhaps what I said was merely "metaphorical" and "not meant to be taken out of context".    ;D
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 09:39:00 PM
Just so I understand , You have no evidence at all to the claim you are making, and being that you are an atheist you have no believe in God or any believe in what he would want. It that correct? If so then is it possible that you are just mocking the other person's claim?

Evidence for his claims about the character described in the Bible abounds, and he has declared that he is willing to provide it if you ask.

Evidence that his claims apply to an actual deity does not exist, because the Bible does not evidently describe an actual deity.
I would truly enjoy his interpretations of a book that he does not believe in so that I in turn could compare it to all of the people that study the book and still can not agree on what it means. Hell it couldn't hurt.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 09:41:26 PM
So you are saying that we ( you and I ) are the toys of someone that you say does not exist. &)

Not at all. For a person who does believe in God, that person is essentially God's toy, per the description of God and his followers in God's alleged biography. I wonder if you take every statement in the Bible with comparable literalness and at face value? Perhaps what I said was merely "metaphorical" and "not meant to be taken out of context".    ;D
I don't take the book at word for word, They had me then I got sober and came to the part where some guy was in a whales belly for 3 days. That is when I said, Wait a damn min.  8)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 09:45:16 PM
Just so I understand , You have no evidence at all to the claim you are making,
If by evidence you mean something that is demonstrable and meaningful in the real world, then of course not, because God is not a part of the real world. If you mean what the Bible says about God, his actions, behavior, attitudes, and his followers, then yes, as Azdgari pointed out, evidence abounds.
Quote
and being that you are an atheist you have no believe in God or any believe in what he would want. It that correct?
Of course I have no belief in God or what he would want. However there are plenty of folks that do, and they often make the world a worse place because of such beliefs.
Quote
If so then is it possible that you are just mocking the other person's claim?

If by mocking you mean pointing out the absurdity, ridiculousness, and baseless nature of Christianity, then sure, I'm mocking. If you mean ridiculing someone for no reason other than spite, degrade, and humiliate them, then no, you are wrong.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 09:51:23 PM
I don't take the book at word for word,
Why do you hold poor little me to a higher standard than God?:P
Quote
They had me then I got sober and came to the part where some guy was in a whales belly for 3 days. That is when I said, Wait a damn min.  8)
I need to be clear here. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because the tone of your last few comments in regard to mine sound much more like a theist. Typically Atheists assume that when other Atheists talk about God in seemingly affirmative ways,[1] they are just demonstrating the silliness of the Bible and it's God.
 1. such as "we are God's toys"
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:05:32 PM
,
If by evidence you mean something that is demonstrable and meaningful in the real world, then of course not, because God is not a part of the real world. If you mean what the Bible says about God, his actions, behavior, attitudes, and his followers, then yes, as Azdgari pointed out, evidence abounds.
Quote
You are aware that any verse you use to show evidence of your claim, I in turn can find a verse from the same book that shows evidence against your claim, which is why I find this so amusing..you and I both know that that book can be very confusing.


Of course I have no belief in God or what he would want. However there are plenty of folks that do, and they often make the world a worse place because of such beliefs.
Quote
Being that I do not know what you would or would not find worse than what is , I find that to be just an opinion which we all have one to some extent



If by mocking you mean pointing out the absurdity, ridiculousness, and baseless nature of Christianity, then sure, I'm mocking. If you mean ridiculing someone for no reason other than spite, degrade, and humiliate them, then no, you are wrong.
It relieves me to know that I am wrong about my assumption, It can be so hard to tell at times. Don't you agree?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:08:18 PM
I don't take the book at word for word,
Why do you hold poor little me to a higher standard than God?:P
Quote
They had me then I got sober and came to the part where some guy was in a whales belly for 3 days. That is when I said, Wait a damn min.  8)
I need to be clear here. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because the tone of your last few comments in regard to mine sound much more like a theist. Typically Atheists assume that when other Atheists talk about God in seemingly affirmative ways,[1] they are just demonstrating the silliness of the Bible and it's God.
 1. such as "we are God's toys"
I believe in God , I am not sure about the Bible being his true word. I at times find it a little confusing being that at one time it say one thing and then in another it will say another thing.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 01, 2012, 10:20:32 PM
I don't take the book at word for word,
Why do you hold poor little me to a higher standard than God?:P
Quote
They had me then I got sober and came to the part where some guy was in a whales belly for 3 days. That is when I said, Wait a damn min.  8)
I need to be clear here. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because the tone of your last few comments in regard to mine sound much more like a theist. Typically Atheists assume that when other Atheists talk about God in seemingly affirmative ways,[1] they are just demonstrating the silliness of the Bible and it's God.
 1. such as "we are God's toys"
I believe in God , I am not sure about the Bible being his true word. I at times find it a little confusing being that at one time it say one thing and then in another it will say another thing.
So if the OT and NT are made up and misleading,basically flat out lies,what exactly do you have R2112 to base this God character on? Are you on the fence or do you just believe because its easy way to accept the end reward?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 10:25:07 PM
You are aware that any verse you use to show evidence of your claim, I in turn can find a verse from the same book that shows evidence against your claim,
Yes, these internal inconsistencies in the Bible are one of the reasons I[1] think it is BS.
Quote
which is why I find this so amusing..you and I both know that that book can be very confusing.
Yes, it can be, but the overall message is that God is a violent bully. It's pretty consistent about that at least.


Quote
Being that I do not know what you would or would not find worse than what is , I find that to be just an opinion which we all have one to some extent
How about an example then? Acting on God's alleged orders, there are children who die because of Proverbs 13:24. If God did not allegedly order such things, and his followers were not happy to oblige him, there would be less child who are abused or die because of belief in God. Not having children die violent deaths at the hands of their parents because of God's commands would to me make the world a better place. Not a perfect place, a better place. I really don't think that corporal punishment (especially those resulting in severe injury or death) is something that is common for atheists. Even for an atheist who does such a thing, it is not a result of being an atheist, it's because that person is a crappy parent. The Christian doesn't have that excuse, because their Good Book clearly tells them to beat the hell out of their children.

Quote
It relieves me to know that I am wrong about my assumption, It can be so hard to tell at times. Don't you agree?

Yes, I agree that, especially on the internet, it can be very difficult to tell whether someone is mocking another, or just offering a feisty criticism.

 Here is something that is merely meant to be helpful: Please use the preview button to see if your quotes are coming out right. It can be very confusing reading posts that are not properly posted. I have made posts using quotes without previewing them, and it usually doesn't turn out good. :)
 1. and many others
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:27:55 PM
I don't take the book at word for word,
Why do you hold poor little me to a higher standard than God?:P
Quote
They had me then I got sober and came to the part where some guy was in a whales belly for 3 days. That is when I said, Wait a damn min.  8)
I need to be clear here. Are you a believer or an atheist? Because the tone of your last few comments in regard to mine sound much more like a theist. Typically Atheists assume that when other Atheists talk about God in seemingly affirmative ways,[1] they are just demonstrating the silliness of the Bible and it's God.
 1. such as "we are God's toys"
I believe in God , I am not sure about the Bible being his true word. I at times find it a little confusing being that at one time it say one thing and then in another it will say another thing.
So if the OT and NT are made up and misleading,basically flat out lies,what exactly do you have R2112 to base this God character on? Are you on the fence or do you just believe because its easy way to accept the end reward?
I didn't say either was made up , I think it is possible that they once had meaning and maybe still have some today, But it has been a long time , and over the years man may have stuck their wants in there. I don't think I am on the fence, but at times it sure feels that way. Maybe I do believe because it is easier for me to be a good husband , a good dad, better than I was before. I think velkyn put it best. Some of us just needs that carrot on a string to be that good guy that the family needs. Hell I don't know, Maybe I am that guy.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 01, 2012, 10:28:42 PM
Riley,

Once you figure out that mankind wrote all the speeches of god, then you are left with the realization that god isn't contacting you. He doesn't talk to us, he doesn't show his face. He is absent.

When you realize that he is always absent, it's not too far of a shot to the realization that he is so absent that he doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:30:24 PM
Quote

 Here is something that is merely meant to be helpful: Please use the preview button to see if your quotes are coming out right. It can be very confusing reading posts that are not properly posted. I have made posts using quotes without previewing them, and it usually doesn't turn out good. :)
Thank you , I will.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 10:31:52 PM
^^ Irony!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 10:34:28 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

You have managed NOT to answer the direct question to ANYBODY posting here.
“Anybody” is a ridiculous exaggeration. As for your questions, dude, I’m trying. Which question are you asking me? You’ve asked questions about whether something is free will or not, and you’ve asked questions about which choice is the right choice. When I try to understand the latter you go back to the former. When I go back to the former you bring in the latter.

This statement is a contradiction. Free will is exactly the fact that we have the choice. What do you imagine free will to be? Choosing without any consequences?
So the Guy who Chooses NOT to listen to God by not killing everything in the villiage USES his brain to say no to God....gets hell is that what you are saying? If he CHOOSES to listen to God and kill EVERYTHING in the villiage his reward- heaven. So by following his brain he gets punished by God,by submitting to God's command and going against his better judgement HELL.

 God himself is commanding HIS follower to DISOBEY a COMMANDMENT,thou shalt not kill. What "choice"would you make? follow Gods command or his commandment?
You’re looking at commands that God made in two different parts of the Bible for two different reasons and trying to say that there’s a contradiction. There is no contradiction. Without argument at this time, let’s take all the commands that you are referring to at face value. God gives a command in the Decalogue of thou shalt not kill. That’s a general command that God gives to his people to direct their lives. Then, in order for them to conquer Canaan, he gives them another command of herem warfare. Two different purposes.

Do you have kids? If you do, then I think you experience this with your kids. There are certain rules in our house that our kids are to follow, like what time to be in bed. However, there are times when we change that bedtime. Either way, they know that if they break the rule and disobey my command then they have negative consequences. They don’t have difficulty understanding that there is no contradiction in the two.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 10:39:52 PM
I believe in God , I am not sure about the Bible being his true word. I at times find it a little confusing being that at one time it say one thing and then in another it will say another thing.

Confusing? It's absolute rubbish. If the book on which belief in the Christian God is based is more than a little suspect in its consistency, it really doesn't lend support to the conclusion that the Christian God is real.

Let's enter fantasy land for minute. Let's suppose that large part of the information on evolution contradicted each itself.[1] Would you be comfortable saying "I believe in Evolution, I am just not sure that the research which is meant to support Evolution is true". ? I really don't think you would.

It would be like saying you believed that Heimdallr was the guardian of the Bifrost bridge, even though you think the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, and Heimskringla are nonsense.

Let me guess. You base your belief more on your "Personal Relationship with God" than the Scriptures which are supposed to be inspired by him? If so, then why does your "Personal Relationship" with God happen to be the Christian one, and not Heimdallr, or Vishnu, or Anubis, or Damballah?
 1. I really hope you realize that this is not the case.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 10:41:49 PM


 Here is something that is merely meant to be helpful: Please use the preview button to see if your quotes are coming out right. It can be very confusing reading posts that are not properly posted. I have made posts using quotes without previewing them, and it usually doesn't turn out good. :)
Thank you , I will.


Are you sure? :P

Note: It's so bad that when I tried to make fun of it here, it made MY post look messed up! I had to scratch out some quote formatting to make my reply work. Hence, the edit. Seriously though Riley, I'm not trying to be rude. It's just very difficult to follow badly formatted posts. If you need a refresher, I suggest the tutorial http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,16778.0.html)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:42:25 PM
Riley,

Once you figure out that mankind wrote all the speeches of god, then you are left with the realization that god isn't contacting you. He doesn't talk to us, he doesn't show his face. He is absent.

When you realize that he is always absent, it's not too far of a shot to the realization that he is so absent that he doesn't exist.
Something to think about. It would be easier if he would just come on down and say hi or go to hell or something. :-\
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:44:29 PM
Quote

 Here is something that is merely meant to be helpful: Please use the preview button to see if your quotes are coming out right. It can be very confusing reading posts that are not properly posted. I have made posts using quotes without previewing them, and it usually doesn't turn out good. :)
Thank you , I will.

Are you sure? :P
Well, I will try to. ;)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 01, 2012, 10:48:20 PM
I believe in God , I am not sure about the Bible being his true word. I at times find it a little confusing being that at one time it say one thing and then in another it will say another thing.

Confusing? It's absolute rubbish. If the book on which belief in the Christian God is based is more than a little suspect in its consistency, it really doesn't lend support to the conclusion that the Christian God is real.

Let's enter fantasy land for minute. Let's suppose that large part of the information on evolution contradicted each itself.[1] Would you be comfortable saying "I believe in Evolution, I am just not sure that the research which is meant to support Evolution is true". ? I really don't think you would.

It would be like saying you believed that Heimdallr was the guardian of the Bifrost bridge, even though you think the Poetic Edda, Prose Edda, and Heimskringla are nonsense.

Let me guess. You base your belief more on your "Personal Relationship with God" than the Scriptures which are supposed to be inspired by him? If so, then why does your "Personal Relationship" with God happen to be the Christian one, and not Heimdallr, or Vishnu, or Anubis, or Damballah?
 1. I really hope you realize that this is not the case.
You know I have given that some thought, And I would say it happen to be Christian because of the area I live. If I lived in a different area I more that likely would be worshiping God in a different way.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kevinagain on January 01, 2012, 10:49:13 PM
i'm following this conversation from the side, but it's worth pointing out that free will is explicitly supported in christian scripture in at least one place.

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.

. . .     

We are predestined according to the good pleasure of his will. We are God's toys.

that's an interesting approach to the question.

what makes your scripture more accurate than mine?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 10:53:02 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Happy New Year! I hope you had a great night last night. We did.

I really don't understand why Christians demonize those people who brought about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus.
First, my post didn’t demonize them for crucifying Jesus. It didn’t even demonize them. Second, are you saying that those characteristics are to be lauded? Protecting power and station? Greed? Betrayal? Killing out of fear of losing one's position? Mob behavior?

I don’t really think you’re saying those are ideals that we should applaud, are you? It’s for those types of traits that they would be punished.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 10:56:39 PM

that's an interesting approach to the question.

what makes your scripture more accurate than mine?

First of all, it's not my scripture. It isn't even your scripture. If you mean what makes the scripture I quoted more accurate than yours, than the answer is nothing. They are both statements from the same book, allegedly inspired or said by the same being, yet they do not  say the same thing.  In fact they say entirely contrary and mutually exclusive statements. Not exactly what you would expect from something that is supposed to be inerrant truth, is it?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kevinagain on January 01, 2012, 11:09:57 PM

First of all, it's not my scripture. It isn't even your scripture. If you mean what makes the scripture I quoted more accurate than yours, than the answer is nothing. They are both statements from the same book, allegedly inspired or said by the same being, yet they do not  say the same thing.  In fact they say entirely contrary and mutually exclusive statements. Not exactly what you would expect from something that is supposed to be inerrant truth, is it?

hmmn

you're the one who made the assertion that it was trustworthy in its depiction of predestination. then you seemed to be saying that it's not trustworthy, but only in those places where it contradicts you.

which is it?

if it can be trusted, why do you believe it when it asserts predestination, but disbelieve it when it says something else?

if it can't be trusted, then why do you think it's a reliable depiction to christianity in the first place?

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 11:11:07 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Happy New Year! I hope you had a great night last night. We did.
Greetings and Happy New Year to you as well. I had a quiet night with my son watching River Monsters, playing with Legos, cleaning his room and reading. Couldn't have been better, if you ask me.

Quote
First, my post didn’t demonize them for crucifying Jesus. It didn’t even demonize them.
Perhaps demonize is not the appropriate term. How about cast them in a negative light?
Quote
Second, are you saying that those characteristics are to be lauded? Protecting power and station? Greed? Betrayal? Killing out of fear of losing one's position? Mob behavior?
I'm going to have to call Strawman on this one. I didn't say that these were characteristics to be lauded. I said that if these people had not possessed such characteristics, they probably wouldn't have crucified Jesus, thus negating the hope of salvation for believers. Furthermore, since it was supposedly God's plan for Jesus to come here to be a human sacrifice, those people who actually did his dirty work for him were essential in carrying out God's plan. Also, since
Quote
He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5
God had destined them to do such things in accordance with the pleasure of his will, and they had no choice in the matter. They were merely acting as God's puppets. Furthermore, if God is the Creator, then God created such people with such characteristics so that they would be able to carry out his plan.   It really seems like you are trying to seriously misconstrue what I said.

Quote
I don’t really think you’re saying those are ideals that we should applaud, are you? It’s for those types of traits that they would be punished.

No, I am not saying that at all. However, Christians must accept that these things were necessary for their salvation. Where would the Christian be without those responsible for crucifying Jesus? Oh yeah, duh, Christianity wouldn't even exist. No crucifixion=no resurrection=no belief that Jesus Christ died and was risen.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 11:19:29 PM
Hi again kaziglu bey,

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     
The Bible clearly does support free will, that is people making their own decision about their future. You gave some verses that can be confusing I agree, because they bring omniscience into the picture and we don’t really understand omniscience. But let’s look at the Bible as a whole for a minute and what actually happens to the people portrayed there.

There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not. It starts right off from the beginning with Adam and Eve. Regardless of what you may think about the scenario, they had a choice about whether to obey God or not. The people of Israel are given choices about whether to follow God. Abraham was given the choice of whether to sacrifice Isaac or not. Nehemiah had the choice to rebuild the walls or not. David had the choice to marry Bathsheba or not. Mary had the choice to be the mother of Jesus or not. Jesus had the choice to obey his Father’s will or not. Pilate had the choice of whether to crucify Jesus or not. There are obviously many more examples.

All of the people made their own decisions about the future. Some made good decisions and some not.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 11:20:54 PM

hmmn

you're the one who made the assertion that it was trustworthy in its depiction of predestination.
I said no such thing. This is what I said.
Quote from: kaziglu bey
It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.
I did not say that it's descriptions of no free will were more trustworthy than it's descriptions of free will. I was pointing out the contradiction in what the Bible says about free will.
Quote
then you seemed to be saying that it's not trustworthy, but only in those places where it contradicts you.

which is it?
NEITHER! Honestly, I really do not understand why people are having a hard time comprehending what I am saying. It seems pretty straightforward to me. I don't believe in any of it. The contradictions regarding free will are part of the reason for that.

Quote
if it can be trusted, why do you believe it when it asserts predestination, but disbelieve it when it says something else?

if it can't be trusted, then why do you think it's a reliable depiction to christianity in the first place?

Again, I don't believe in the Bible or any gods. It can't be trusted to demonstrate anything meaningful about reality, and I have never once in my history in this forum said that I believe it does. I merely think that the Bible depicts what it depicts, and such depiction is reason enough not to believe.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 01, 2012, 11:36:12 PM
Hi again kaziglu bey,

It's also worth pointing out that Free Will is also not supported by the Bible.     
The Bible clearly does support free will,
Except when it doesn't.
Quote
that is people making their own decision about their future. You gave some verses that can be confusing I agree, because they bring omniscience into the picture and we don’t really understand omniscience. But let’s look at the Bible as a whole for a minute and what actually happens to the people portrayed there.
Oh yes, let's.
Quote
There are many
Many is not all. These three words indicate that you believe there are people in the Bible who did not possess free will. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Quote
places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not. It starts right off from the beginning with Adam and Eve. Regardless of what you may think about the scenario, they had a choice about whether to obey God or not.
Not without knowledge of whether the God they were obeying was Good or Evil. Seeing as he lies to and threatens Adam with death, it doesn't really seem like God is Good.
Quote
The people of Israel are given choices about whether to follow God. Abraham was given the choice of whether to sacrifice Isaac or not. Nehemiah had the choice to rebuild the walls or not. David had the choice to marry Bathsheba or not. Mary had the choice to be the mother of Jesus or not. Jesus had the choice to obey his Father’s will or not. Pilate had the choice of whether to crucify Jesus or not. There are obviously many more examples.
are you saying then that Jesus, who (according to some believers anyway) is merely an earthly form of God, had a choice whether or nor to obey himself? And what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death??!?
Quote
All of the people made their own decisions about the future. Some made good decisions and some not.
  Except for those that didn't, like those whose hearts he hardened, or those to whom he actually showed himself. You implicitly admit that not ALL of the people made their own decisions with those three words "There are many".

Note: I am going to bed, so please do not mistake my silence as an admission of defeat or unwillingness to respond.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 01, 2012, 11:38:25 PM
Greetings and Happy New Year to you as well. I had a quiet night with my son watching River Monsters, playing with Legos, cleaning his room and reading. Couldn't have been better, if you ask me.
Wonderful! Glad to hear it.

Perhaps demonize is not the appropriate term. How about cast them in a negative light?
Fair enough. It happens.

I said that if these people had not possessed such characteristics, they probably wouldn't have crucified Jesus, thus negating the hope of salvation for believers.
Let’s suppose that the conditional is true. There are problems with that conjecture. First, if those people had not possessed such characteristics, then others would have. There were a lot of people without those characteristics already and he still was crucified. It’s just like the point that others are trying to make about Judas. Regardless of which actual people it was, someone in power would not have liked what Jesus was doing and would have tried to shut him up. Since he would not be shut up, it was inevitable that he would be crucified.

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

It really seems like you are trying to seriously misconstrue what I said.
Not on purpose. No. That’s why I asked it as a question instead of assuming you meant it that way and railing on you. I’ve been on the other end of that too much. And done it too much myself. It’s easy to misconstrue on these forums.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on January 01, 2012, 11:53:30 PM
More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.

I thought that salvation was supposedly needed because humans had inherited guilt from Adam & Eve.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 02, 2012, 12:17:03 AM
Note: I am going to bed, so please do not mistake my silence as an admission of defeat or unwillingness to respond.
I would never admit to assuming silence as an admission of defeat. :) And now that you say that I need to go to bed myself!

Many is not all. These three words indicate that you believe there are people in the Bible who did not possess free will.
No, that’s not what I believe. Careful on the misconstruing. I think it’s a good idea for us to call it quits tonight. I will as soon as I’m done here.

Not without knowledge of whether the God they were obeying was Good or Evil. Seeing as he lies to and threatens Adam with death, it doesn't really seem like God is Good.
Here’s that strawman you mentioned.

are you saying then that Jesus, who (according to some believers anyway) is merely an earthly form of God, had a choice whether or nor to obey himself?
Let me check into this one. I may have typed too fast. My thought was that Jesus was fully human and so could have chosen to not do something that God wanted. However, as you say, Jesus was fully God, so he could not have sinned. But does that mean he doesn’t have free will? I don’t think so. Free will is the ability to make decisions based on intellect and will. Because Jesus is God, he had perfect intellect and perfect will, so his decisions would have been perfect. We have choices because we are not perfect and we do not use our will or intellect perfectly.

It’s like doing a crossword puzzle. I don’t know all the answers, so I have “choices” about what to put in. Sometimes I put in right answers and sometimes wrong answers. If I were much smarter than I am, then I’d know all the right answers and I’d make my choices to put them in. I could put in the wrong answers, but I wouldn’t. It would seem like I do not have free will, but really I would have perfect will.

And what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death??!?
Yea, another one of those pesky strawmen. It’s like a Dr. Who episode. :)

Except for those that didn't, like those whose hearts he hardened, or those to whom he actually showed himself.
Ah, good points. We’ll get to those tomorrow. For now, please tell me what you mean by the latter? Do you mean that when God showed himself it forced people to a particular way? I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 02, 2012, 12:30:01 AM
Hi Azdgari,

Okay, fine. Because it’s you I’ll answer tonight. Then I’m going to bed!

More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.
I thought that salvation was supposedly needed because humans had inherited guilt from Adam & Eve.
It’s not so much that we inherit guilt. When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice. Because of that loss, our human nature is wounded in its natural powers, without being totally corrupted. Our human nature is now, among other things, inclined toward sin. That inclination toward sin is why we have those characteristics we’ve been discussing.

To assume that no one would have those characteristics we have to assume that we do not have an inclination toward sin. The only way we’d not have the inclination to sin is if we did not lose the original grace of holiness and justice, that is if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. If they had not disobeyed God, then we would not need to be saved.

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. Thanks for the question.

Good night!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on January 02, 2012, 12:34:52 AM
Seems like something that shouldn't have been allowed to be passed down to their offspring.  I guess God wanted us that way after all.

Too bad Jesus went and undid God's plan for (some of) our corruption.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: changeling on January 02, 2012, 06:37:04 AM
Riley,

Once you figure out that mankind wrote all the speeches of god, then you are left with the realization that god isn't contacting you. He doesn't talk to us, he doesn't show his face. He is absent.

When you realize that he is always absent, it's not too far of a shot to the realization that he is so absent that he doesn't exist.
Something to think about. It would be easier if he would just come on down and say hi or go to hell or something. :-\

Yes Riley, you are absolutely correct.
It would be easier if he would just come on down and go to hell or something.  :laugh:
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 02, 2012, 08:42:59 AM

Wonderful! Glad to hear it.
Thanks.
Quote
Fair enough. It happens.
indeed. language is a funny thing like that.

Quote
Let’s suppose that the conditional is true. There are problems with that conjecture. First, if those people had not possessed such characteristics, then others would have. There were a lot of people without those characteristics already and he still was crucified. It’s just like the point that others are trying to make about Judas. Regardless of which actual people it was, someone in power would not have liked what Jesus was doing and would have tried to shut him up. Since he would not be shut up, it was inevitable that he would be crucified.
I would have to disagree here. You cited several groups that were interested, for one reason or another, in eliminating Jesus. see
Quote from: Simple Caveman
Sanhedrin – Out to protect their power and station.
Judas – Greed? Power? As far as he knew it was betrayal, pure and simple.
Pontius Pilate – Fear of Caesar and the Jews.
Roman soldiers – Following orders except those who mocked and ridiculed him.
The mob – probably had no idea of the schemes behind everything. Hailing Jesus as King the week before they too now turned on him.
However, based on these assertions,  I think it would be difficult for you to find anyone OTHER than those you named who would have had the power/influence/authority to order and carry out an execution. Without the Jewish authorities, Roman Authorities, the Mob or Judas, who else would have been interested in or capable of silencing Jesus and what would THEIR motives be?
Quote
More importantly, the reason that we need salvation is because people do possess those characteristics. If you take those characteristics away, then we don’t negate the hope of salvation, we negate the need for salvation.
I'm not sure I can agree. According to my Catholic upbringing, we needed salvation because of original sin. You state later that
Quote from: Simple Caveman
When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice.
If eating the fruit would make Adam and Eve "like God", and characteristics such as greed and lust for power exist because of their "fall",  it would be reasonable to conclude that God possesses the characteristics of greed and lust for power. Isn't that what God ultimately wants? Absolute power and obedience? Also, this begs the question, why did God not foresee this fall, if he is all knowing and all powerful? It seems like it was really God that dropped the ball here, and he makes his creation suffer eternally for his mistakes (unless you are willing to be mindlessly obedient, killing whoever God wants you to kill, raping whoever God wants you to rape, etc.). It also confuses me how becoming like God would erase Adam and Eve's holiness and justice. That seems like God is not holy or just.

Quote
Not on purpose. No. That’s why I asked it as a question instead of assuming you meant it that way and railing on you. I’ve been on the other end of that too much. And done it too much myself. It’s easy to misconstrue on these forums.

Indeed it is.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 02, 2012, 09:23:29 AM

No, that’s not what I believe. Careful on the misconstruing. I think it’s a good idea for us to call it quits tonight. I will as soon as I’m done here.
Can you please tell me then by what definition the word "many" means the same as the word "all"? When you say that "There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future," the use of the word "many" clearly implies that not ALL people had choices about their future. I don't think expecting the words "many" and "all" to signify a different percentage of people (100% vs. not 100%) is misconstruing.


Quote
Here’s that strawman you mentioned.
Are you suggesting that I am accusing God of doing something he didn't do? He told Adam he would die the same day as he ate the fruit. God is threatening Adam with death for eating fruit. However, Adam eats the fruit, and lo and behold, Adam does NOT die the same day (in fact, he is alleged to have lived a pretty darn long time.) Don't give me that "God didn't mean that he would die physically, but spiritually" crap. Nowhere in Genesis does God say that. He says simply that Adam will die on the day he eats the fruit. Let's not put words in God's mouth. (Note: if God has an ass, he probably has a mouth too). Therefore, God does in fact threaten and lie to Adam. Note that the serpent(commonly believed to be a manifestation of the Devil) did NOT lie, and did not even suggest to Eve that she eat the fruit. The serpent merely gave Eve the ability to make an informed decision. Why would God not want people to make informed decisions? Because he wants obedient slaves. The serpent did not deceive Eve or Adam, God did. I don't understand why a perfect God would deceive his prized creation, unless he has some personality issues (given his jealousy, vengeance, violent tantrums, and cruel indifference to even his own son's suffering, I think that's a safe conclusion).

Quote
Let me check into this one. I may have typed too fast. My thought was that Jesus was fully human and so could have chosen to not do something that God wanted. However, as you say, Jesus was fully God, so he could not have sinned. But does that mean he doesn’t have free will? I don’t think so. Free will is the ability to make decisions based on intellect and will.
Which is precisely what God NEVER wanted his creation to be able to do. Again, why did he not foresee this flaw in his plan?

Quote
Because Jesus is God, he had perfect intellect and perfect will, so his decisions would have been perfect. We have choices because we are not perfect and we do not use our will or intellect perfectly.
Can you give me some examples of Jesus' perfect decisions? By what measure are they perfect? Also, if you say we have choices because we are not perfect, this could suggest that Jesus then, being perfect, had no choices and no free will. Someone who by their very nature has no choice, and therefore has no free will. They would HAVE to make perfect choices.

Quote
It’s like doing a crossword puzzle. I don’t know all the answers, so I have “choices” about what to put in. Sometimes I put in right answers and sometimes wrong answers. If I were much smarter than I am, then I’d know all the right answers and I’d make my choices to put them in.
I don't think this is quite an appropriate analogy, since Jesus is not "much smarter" but "perfectly" smart. After all, Jesus didn't even have a choice as to whether or not he would be perfect.
Quote
I could put in the wrong answers, but I wouldn’t. It would seem like I do not have free will, but really I would have perfect will.
I don't agree. Jesus, being perfect, would not have been at all capable of putting in the wrong answers. His answers would be perfect by default, negating any choice of his in the matter.

Quote
Yea, another one of those pesky strawmen. It’s like a Dr. Who episode. :)
I don't think that's a strawman at all, at least not in regards to what God did. God's plan all along was for Jesus to die. Furthermore, Jesus would have also known that he would be resurrected (for the Catholics, after he spends a short stint in hell.). I don't think it is wrong to question why an allegedly loving and benevolent and all powerful god would require his son to suffer and die just to appease God's own malicious and jealous wrath.

Quote
Ah, good points. We’ll get to those tomorrow. For now, please tell me what you mean by the latter? Do you mean that when God showed himself it forced people to a particular way?
I am saying that it is commonly purported by believers that God does not reveal himself these days, because doing so would violate the free will of those to whom he would reveal, as they are not able to make the choice (free will) as to whether or not God is real or not. They would know that he was by such a revelation.
Quote
I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.
I am not certain what it is you are asking here. Could you possibly clarify?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 02, 2012, 09:34:21 AM
It’s not so much that we inherit guilt. When Adam and Eve were created they lived in a state of original holiness and justice. When they disobeyed God, wishing to become “like God” but without God and not in accordance with God, they lost that original grace of holiness and justice. Because of that loss, our human nature is wounded in its natural powers, without being totally corrupted. Our human nature is now, among other things, inclined toward sin. That inclination toward sin is why we have those characteristics we’ve been discussing.
Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)

Quote
To assume that no one would have those characteristics we have to assume that we do not have an inclination toward sin. The only way we’d not have the inclination to sin is if we did not lose the original grace of holiness and justice, that is if Adam and Eve had not disobeyed God. If they had not disobeyed God, then we would not need to be saved.
so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.

Quote

Hope that clears up what I was trying to say. Thanks for the question.

Good night!

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 02, 2012, 09:39:56 AM
You know I have given that some thought, And I would say it happen to be Christian because of the area I live. If I lived in a different area I more that likely would be worshiping God in a different way.
What do you mean by different area? And do you mean worship the SAME God in a different way, or worship a DIFFERENT god altogether? Doesn't your statement concede that the only reason you believe what you do is because it is what is popular where you live, rather than as a result of any objective truth?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: riley2112 on January 02, 2012, 11:56:32 AM
You know I have given that some thought, And I would say it happen to be Christian because of the area I live. If I lived in a different area I more that likely would be worshiping God in a different way.
What do you mean by different area? And do you mean worship the SAME God in a different way, or worship a DIFFERENT god altogether? Doesn't your statement concede that the only reason you believe what you do is because it is what is popular where you live, rather than as a result of any objective truth?
What I mean by a different area is if I was raised in Iran I more than likely would worship God ( YES, the same God, being that I believe(at this time) there is only one true God) in a different way. However there seems to be a growing amount of Christians all over the world, so it is possible that I would still be worshiping the same. However , one more thing that comes into play it the fact that I am questioning the way I worship God in the same area that I was raised in. Which I think would display some objective truth being considered.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 03, 2012, 01:38:32 PM
SC is in his usual form.  The pharoah had no free will. It' says that repeatedly in this supposedly magic book.  David's son had no free will in that he was murdered by god for no fault of his own.  IF there was a flood, then we have more children with no free will to avoid the punishemnt of their parents.  Same with the various times that this god smote the Israelites who were rebellign agaisnt him. 

Omniscience is defined by humans so we do know what it is and what it means.  It means someone with it knows "everything" always, not some things, not everything part of the time.  This means that if we are to beleive what  Christians claims, god has known, knows and will know everything.  All that happend, happening, will happen.  Knows what each bird is doign at any time, same with humans.  And since he knows everything, including planning, implementation and result of a plan, there is nothing that can be changed or god would cease being omniscient aka all-knowing.  He would be occasionaly wrong.  And gee, I really don't want to be around when God screws up. 

Christians try to depower their god as soon as it becomes inconvenient to have a god that supposedly can do anything, know anything and is omnibenevolent, all words defined by humans.  It's rather related to the claims that since the Bible didn't reaport a second by second account of everything, then we can make assumptions about what we need the characters to do and feel whilst off screen.  I can say that indeed aliens were flying around Jerusalem circa 1 BC and did crash into Pilate's palace.  Or how about saying that there simply must have been a cafeteria out on the plains outside of Jerusalem to feed those thousands and thousands of people?  Why not say that since I simply know that JC wouldn't have been so stupid to allow himself to have died on teh cross, that part wasn't true and he really was rescued by Judas since he just faked his death?  Bible doesn't say he didn't, right?   
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 03, 2012, 07:47:42 PM
 SC is a prime example of a religous person(of any sect or religion) in that once you "believe" you no longer have to think or observe the world. You can just sit back and relax and wait for that golden ticket.  In the meantime,people still starve,die of cancer and other diseases.....But SC no longer has to THINK about that stuff.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 03, 2012, 08:32:58 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. When I tried yesterday it said something about the server being down. I’m also back to work now. Since I have a number of things going on the evenings, I won’t be able to respond as regularly as before. I will respond, though.

At the same time, screwtape and I keep trying to have a debate, if only for the novelty of it, so I should be moving to that soon. Though he’s very patient with me, I don’t want to keep him waiting.

I don't think expecting the words "many" and "all" to signify a different percentage of people (100% vs. not 100%) is misconstruing.
What I had said was
There are many places where people get to make their own choice about their future, sometimes making good choices and sometimes not.
When I wrote that I had intended that the word “many” modify “places” and not “people”. My line of thinking for writing it is that the Bible has lots of things going on in it. In some places there are people making decisions. In other places there are not people making decisions, the Bible is talking about other things.

I try to be clear about what I mean when I post, though I am not perfect at it, to say the least. I hope this clears things up and I apologize for the confusion.

Are you suggesting that I am accusing God of doing something he didn't do?
I am not commenting at all on whether God did or did not do something, whether you are accusing him or not, or (later in your post) what kind of father would want their son to be tortured to death. These are strawmen because they are neither for nor against the idea that we have free will. What you said that God did in the Garden of Eden does not affect whether Adam and Eve had a choice about their future. Whether it was a fair choice, informed choice, etc is another discussion. The Bible is clear that we have free will and Adam and Eve having a choice is an example of that.

You’ve brought up things unrelated to free will. Since our discussion is about whether the Bible supports free will, let’s stick to that. I made the point that because the Bible shows that people get to make their own choice about the future, the Bible does support the idea that we have free will.

I don’t know or remember all the parts of the body. Some think I should and I’m working on it, but for now, help me out please.
I am not certain what it is you are asking here. Could you possibly clarify?
LOL! It was clearly too late at night for me by the time I wrote that. I meant “parts of the Bible” not “body.” :D That’s one for a signature! What I meant was to remind me of where in the Bible you’re referring to.

You’ve addressed that in part, or maybe completely, below.
I am saying that it is commonly purported by believers that God does not reveal himself these days, because doing so would violate the free will of those to whom he would reveal, as they are not able to make the choice (free will) as to whether or not God is real or not. They would know that he was by such a revelation.
I’ve heard similar with respect to other topics, but not free will. Maybe there’s more to the logic, but, as it is above, I don’t think I agree with that.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 03, 2012, 08:44:21 PM
Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)
Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.
Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.

I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ambassador Pony on January 04, 2012, 12:52:10 AM
Quote
Sin is disobedience against God.

Oxford study bible describes it more like ancient hebrew kooties.

Has about as much substance as being "it" in a game of tag, and is of similar origin.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 04, 2012, 01:05:47 AM
Quote
Sin is disobedience against God.

Oxford study bible describes it more like ancient hebrew kooties.

Has about as much substance as being "it" in a game of tag, and is of similar origin.
Sin is an excuse so you can dismiss all the bad things you do,by the excuse "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us"

 Why would anybody think so little of themselves to tie belief on such self loathing?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 04, 2012, 01:12:16 AM
Question: Why is it sinful for a person to chose to kill someone, but not sinful for someone to follow God's orders to kill someone? The commandment was "Thou shalt not kill". There is no fine print. Shortly after declaring "Thou Shalt Not Kill", God sends Moses, Joshua, Aaron et al on a massive killing and rape spree. Why does God consider killing and raping good? (admittedly there is no "Thou Shalt Not Rape" commandment. That of course begs the question, why not?)
Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

so it is holy and just to punish EVERYONE FOREVER for the mistakes of two people? Should we kill all German's because of the bad apples in the Nazi party? I don't think so, yet this is the standard that God would apparently have.
Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.

I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.

I am probably not alone in saying that your approach to asking and answering questions in a non preachy and respectable way is admirable, and for that I thank you. Though we may not agree, at least we can be civil.
Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.
WTF so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill......And how is them recieving a message from God different than how you recieve one?  You see if they truly believe God is telling them to kill,how do you differentiate it from what you "truly" think God is telling you?

 Or do you classify these people as mentally ill,much like I class you in the same light-mentally ill....the only difference is "God's" purpose for them was to save their children the torture of hell,by doing as commanded.  Then there are the people of early God who did this kind of killing on the command of God on a regular basis. Why has God not commanded anybody but GW Bush to kill anybody latley?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 04, 2012, 05:39:26 AM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Sorry for the delay getting back to you. When I tried yesterday it said something about the server being down. I’m also back to work now.

I had the same problem. I think that the server that hosts the forum was having issues. I am currently experiencing a slight case of insomnia, but do not quite have the mental energy to assure a meaningful response. Hopefully I can get back to you during the day or this evening.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 04, 2012, 09:57:04 AM
As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”
and more made up excuses. Hmm, if the bible were true, you’d think SC wouldn’t be able to move for the boils he’d supposedly get.  About the only thing he likely gets right is the adultery (per Deut 22) Funny how his god never says that rape is equivalent to killing or lust and how the rest of the commandments do not treat rape as killing in the least.  It’s always treated as a property loss (Deut 22 also) .  Very much indeed, like that one commandment (in its entirety that Christians often “forget” to notice):
Quote
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
   In war, it seems that as long as you weren’t raping Israelite women, they were also simply property and now “yours”.  Judges 21 even has them taking women from fellow beleivers, Numbers 31 of course beign the classic bit of how this god is perfectly fine with rape and murder. 2 Samuel has god being the instigator of rape, to “punish” others.  Ah, this god and his “fairness” and “justice”. &)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Omen on January 04, 2012, 10:08:35 AM
So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 04, 2012, 02:54:52 PM
So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?
MIND BLOWN.....sit back and wait for the excuses

 In the midst of all the miracles Jesus was performing,Judas must have been less than impressed or he knew it was trickery.
If someone was that "real" as the messiah and convincing beyond question there is NO way Judas could think a few sheckles would be worth it
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Omen on January 04, 2012, 04:29:24 PM
In the midst of all the miracles Jesus was performing,Judas must have been less than impressed or he knew it was trickery.
If someone was that "real" as the messiah and convincing beyond question there is NO way Judas could think a few sheckles would be worth it

I think this is precisely why the Gospel of Judas existed, to rationalize a weak portion of the narrative.  It can't possibly be true that someone who was so close to the lord, someone to witness the presence of the living god on earth, would so easily and pitilessly betray his lord and savior Jesus Christ.

If you're not aware, in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus asks Judas to betray him on purpose and this act of Judas is glorified.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 09, 2012, 09:34:55 PM
Sin is an excuse so you can dismiss all the bad things you do,by the excuse "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us"

Why would anybody think so little of themselves to tie belief on such self loathing?
That’s quite the contradiction in thinking, to be able to dismiss all the bad things we do and, at the same time, consider that “self loathing.”

It seems to me that your view of how we think of sin, i.e. as an excuse, would more logically lead, not to thinking little of oneself, but to thinking too much of oneself. If for me sin is an excuse, as you say, then it doesn’t matter what I do. I can always say "oh well we are sinners by natures and as long as we have Jesus he will forgive us". If I have that “oh well” attitude that you describe, then I don’t have personal responsibility for my actions, and I can do whatever I want.

Of course, that’s not how we think of sin. In fact, the Church has taught for almost 2000 years against that way of thinking. The Jewish faith taught against it before then. If you wronged a friend and insincerely apologized to them, why would they forgive you? Sin is not an excuse. It’s a real wrong done to others and to God. If we are truly sorry for the wrong that we’ve done and we make up for it, then we will be forgiven.

On the other hand, self-loathing is disordered human nature. Christians following God’s gift, God’s will and God’s command would not loathe themselves or one another. On the contrary because we are made in God’s image and likeness we are good and have immense dignity; because we are to be brought into union and communion with God we have majestic purpose and destination for our lives; because we are told to love our neighbor as ourself, love and charity are to permeate everything we do.

Yes, we are nothing compared to God, but that’s hardly a self-loathing. I just made a pot of coffee. That pot of coffee is nothing compared to me, and it was good coffee. We recognize the majesty and the supremacy of God and how small we are compared to the Creator of the Universe. But see the previous paragraph. We are small compared to God, but God brings us to him. He became one of us so that we could become like him.

No, we do not think of sin as an excuse. We do not think so little of ourselves or loathe ourselves. 12 Monkeys, I agree with your sentiments. You argue against the way of thinking that you describe in your posts. I argue against that way of thinking, too. Thank God that’s not what the Catholic Church is about.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 09, 2012, 09:38:43 PM
Hello Everyone,

This post is #777 for me. Without trying to upset anyone, I thought this one should be today’s Gospel reading. Today we celebrate the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. The Gospel is from Mark 1:7-11.

Quote from: Mk 1:7-11
This is what John the Baptist proclaimed:
"One mightier than I is coming after me.
I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.
I have baptized you with water;
he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee
and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open
and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.
And a voice came from the heavens,
"You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."

Thank you for your patience.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 09, 2012, 09:40:15 PM
WTF so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill
LOL. I expected you to go this direction. That’s why I asked the question I did earlier in this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg468530.html#msg468530). Brakeman accused me (http://) of dodging the question. Brakeman, do you see now why I asked?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 09, 2012, 09:41:19 PM
So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?
LOL!

Hi Omen, interesting question. That one’s been hanging out there for quite some time and I think that you’re the first to explicitly ask it. Nice job.

Jesus was very convincing. Many, even thousands of people, followed him. Billions of people still follow him today. I think when we ask this question, we forget free will and personal responsibility, which is what we’ve been talking about this whole time. Jesus put himself out there with love and humility. God lowered himself to our level for the sole purpose of bringing us up to his. Whether we accept or reject that is up to us.

You are correct! Judas did not find Jesus very convincing. Regardless of what others say, it is unfortunate that he did not. However, that was because, and only because, of the kind of person Judas chose to be.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 01:37:56 AM
WTF so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill
LOL. I expected you to go this direction. That’s why I asked the question I did earlier in this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg468530.html#msg468530). Brakeman accused me (http://) of dodging the question. Brakeman, do you see now why I asked?
Well was God talking to them or what?....one person has an imaginary friend ,,,,crazy  a group has an imaginary friend they are worshippers?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 02:35:03 AM
So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?
LOL!

Hi Omen, interesting question. That one’s been hanging out there for quite some time and I think that you’re the first to explicitly ask it. Nice job.

Jesus was very convincing. Many, even thousands of people, followed him. Billions of people still follow him today. I think when we ask this question, we forget free will and personal responsibility, which is what we’ve been talking about this whole time. Jesus put himself out there with love and humility. God lowered himself to our level for the sole purpose of bringing us up to his. Whether we accept or reject that is up to us.

You are correct! Judas did not find Jesus very convincing. Regardless of what others say, it is unfortunate that he did not. However, that was because, and only because, of the kind of person Judas chose to be.
SC ,I love how you don't speculate,you just TELL us what Judas was thinking and feeling like you hung out with him and Jesus.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 02:42:23 AM
In the midst of all the miracles Jesus was performing,Judas must have been less than impressed or he knew it was trickery.
If someone was that "real" as the messiah and convincing beyond question there is NO way Judas could think a few sheckles would be worth it

I think this is precisely why the Gospel of Judas existed, to rationalize a weak portion of the narrative.  It can't possibly be true that someone who was so close to the lord, someone to witness the presence of the living god on earth, would so easily and pitilessly betray his lord and savior Jesus Christ.

If you're not aware, in the Gospel of Judas, Jesus asks Judas to betray him on purpose and this act of Judas is glorified.
Well the way to look if it is a story,then there has to be a bad guy to move the story along,no bad guy,no betrayal,happy ending.
 Now if this were a true to life story,it is Financially benifical for Judas to betray Jesus,because he knows the grift and magic show can no longer sustain itself. Then to top it ,he pays some gaurds off takes the body dumps it and proclaims the Messiah has risen....BAM the myth is off and running....and these idiots are 2000 years and STILL waiting. How long can your dog year excuse hold up? Jesus' year in heaven is like 1000 on earth.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 10, 2012, 09:32:19 AM
Hello Everyone,
This post is #777 for me. Without trying to upset anyone, I thought this one should be today’s Gospel reading. Today we celebrate the Feast of the Baptism of the Lord. The Gospel is from Mark 1:7-11.
This is what John the Baptist proclaimed:"One mightier than I is coming after me.I am not worthy to stoop and loosen the thongs of his sandals.I have baptized you with water;he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
Ah more stories!  Tell us another SC!  Lovely example of where some of the lovely schism comes from in the race to be the OneTrueChristian.  Just how is one "really" baptized.
Quote
It happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
On coming up out of the water he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit, like a dove, descending upon him.
And a voice came from the heavens, "You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased."
Quote
Thank you for your patience.

Hmmm, Matthew and Mark get it fairly close but Luke forgets to mention the "baptism" at all, but it still has JtB making the same initial claims.  And John has no baptism by JtB at all but has that JtB saw this "dove" come down.  Excellent examples on how this bible is nothing more than a bunch of nonsense. 

As for JC having thousands of followers, I have yet to see anyone show that JC actually existed, which is very important to any claim that there were indeed thousands of followers.  I have yet to see anyone showing how the Romans missed these big confabs of 5000 people in the area outside of Jerusalem and why they never bothered to mention these in a military occupied land.  Billions of people do indeed follow him today but they certainly don’t agree on much about how they follow him or what “he” really said.  It’s entertaining to see such claims when each Christian is sure that those who don’t agree with them are going straight to hell. Billions also follow Allah and Mohammed.  When those numbers outstrip those who claim to be Christians, will that be the One True Religion since SC wants to appeal to popularity? 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 10, 2012, 08:04:23 PM
WTF so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill
LOL. I expected you to go this direction. That’s why I asked the question I did earlier in this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg468530.html#msg468530). Brakeman accused me (http://) of dodging the question. Brakeman, do you see now why I asked?

And yet again you continually dodge the question. "I expected.." is not an answer to "so all the mothers who heard "God" telling them to kill their children are OK in your books or are they mentally ill?"

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 10, 2012, 08:36:01 PM
Well was God talking to them or what?....one person has an imaginary friend ,,,,crazy  a group has an imaginary friend they are worshippers?
Was God talking to who? Women who heard God telling them to kill their children? Who were those women?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 09:18:20 PM
ANOTHER DODGE

one example

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/women_killers2/9.html
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 09:22:41 PM
another one...this one killing mouthy children

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/29/florida.children.killed/index.html
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 10, 2012, 09:33:59 PM
this has nothing to do with the command of God unless of course you think they were culling the heathens

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CReISnQDbBE&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 10, 2012, 10:17:17 PM
ANOTHER DODGE
The personal attacks are childish and getting old.

one example

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/women_killers2/9.html
And your question was whether God was talking to them or not? How am I to know that?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 11, 2012, 09:40:55 AM
And your question was whether God was talking to them or not? How am I to know that?

yep, indeed how are you to know that?  No reason to think you know anything about some god either. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 11, 2012, 02:16:47 PM
ANOTHER DODGE
The personal attacks are childish and getting old.

one example

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/women/women_killers2/9.html
And your question was whether God was talking to them or not? How am I to know that?
Does he talk to you? are you dismissing their claims? why the one sentence answers? can you be subjective if you think God talks to you he CAN'T talk to them and be a cruel bastard?  As far as the DODGE goes you asked who these women were when you could easily research it and answer the question......but then again all you answered   HOW ARE YOU TO KNOW? ok do YOU BELIEVE God was talking to them? if no why?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 11, 2012, 02:26:32 PM
SC how bout the last video,,,,,,they were not acting for God either? They were riding the world of heathens....that has to count for something in the eyes of God.

  You see since this JC guy comes down and dies for your cause,your God has turned into a pussy unless of course you include saving a survivor (who is a believer) in a plane or bus crash,telling a Republican to run for the whitehouse,or killing off Hitchens,or giving Hawkings a disease that keeps him prisoner in an ailing body,what has he done?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Omen on January 11, 2012, 04:19:14 PM
So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?


Jesus was very convincing.

You mean like Mohammad?

If this were purely a numbers game, Islam has converted more followers faster than Christianity ever has.  In fact, at the rate it is going Islam will surpass christianity in total numbers in the near future in a shorter amount of time in which christianity has existed.  However, what kind of moron would base the credibility of a religious cultural movement based on how many people believe it?

Quote
You are correct! Judas did not find Jesus very convincing. Regardless of what others say, it is unfortunate that he did not. However, that was because..

These events would be incredible, regardless if they occurred 2000 years ago or today.  If someone so close to the events as to observe them directly and to be immediately impressed with the reality of what was going on can so quickly and obviously act in a manner that is totally indifferent as if the events never really occurred at all, then what does that say about the impact of the events being asserted?

You don't actually respond as if to take the question seriously, you respond by making up an excuse.  You pass over the ease with which someone, having supposedly witness the son of god in a manner so real as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever, acts as if its just another everyday occurrence.  Are we supposed to believe that of the people who escaped in the exodus?  Who saw water magically split apart before them? Who saw columns of cloud and flame that guided them?  Who saw the plagues of egypt? 

Who, once Moses stepped away, immediately fell back on the worship of golden statues?  They didn't seem to find it very convincing either.  It is as if it is either the events never occurred or that its a fictional narrative that stresses credulity to relay some kind of idea.  Ignoring of course that absolutely none of this ever occurred and completely disagrees with every notion of actual historical and archaeological research.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 11, 2012, 08:10:19 PM
Omen SC is in too deep
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: dloubet on January 13, 2012, 07:47:20 PM
Quote
And your question was whether God was talking to them or not? How am I to know that?

You seem to know god was talking to people when it's written in an old book. You just take that third-hand testimony at face value.

Where's this helpless skepticism when addressing the bible?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 13, 2012, 08:25:40 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for the response. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you.

why the one sentence answers?
Because that’s what I have to say at this point. I didn’t know what mothers you were talking about, so I asked. I could have googled it, but even then I’d be guessing which ones you were referring to. I try hard to correctly understand what the other person is saying. In many cases it’s best to ask rather than to guess. You don’t mind do you?

The second one sentence answer I gave was pretty straightforward, too, in my opinion. I don’t know the women. I don’t know their situation. I’m not their spiritual director. Anything I say would be a guess, wouldn’t it? Is that what you’re asking me to do? The question really doesn’t have anything to do with Judas or free will, does it?

ok do YOU BELIEVE God was talking to them? if no why?
Of the three, only the first one was supposedly commanded by God to do what she did. You can probably find others, though, so that’s no matter. Would I guess that Deanna Laney was really commanded by God to kill her children? To make that guess we can look at it from a couple of directions. First, Deanna herself. What was she like? The doctor’s said she was insane, right? What was their reason? Did she have a history of psychotic behavior or anything like that? The accounts of her past behavior and behavior during the trial would seem to indicate so. That type of information would help us.

Second we have to ask about the “commands” she received. The article said she saw certain things and she took them as signs. If there was some sort of outside influence pushing her in that direction, it didn’t have to be God. Another thread was all about how Satan works. This would certainly be the kind of evil and chaos that he is credited with, and Satan wouldn’t care whether she was insane or not.

Finally, we can look at the deeds themselves. The types of things she interpreted as signs are not, as far as I know, consistent with the kinds of signs that God has given in other accounts, such as the Bible and the writings of the saints. I haven’t found much about why she thinks that God wanted her to kill her kids. Have you? Finally, killing her children is certainly not consistent with we know of God from the Bible and writings of the saints. If I’m wrong, then I’m sure someone will correct me.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 13, 2012, 08:28:04 PM
Hi Omen,

Happy Friday the 13th! :)
However, what kind of moron would base the credibility of a religious cultural movement based on how many people believe it?
Are you saying that’s what I’m doing? That’s the argument I made?

You make some assumptions in the next part that I’ve bolded. These assumptions are not supported by the text of the Bible. If you think they are, you’ll have to show me.

If someone so close to the events as to observe them directly and to be immediately impressed with the reality of what was going on can so quickly and obviously act in a manner that is totally indifferent as if the events never really occurred at all, then what does that say about the impact of the events being asserted?
. . .  You pass over the ease with which someone, having supposedly witness the son of god in a manner so real as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever, acts as if its just another everyday occurrence.
You assume that Judas was impressed. You assume that he acted quickly and easily. And you assume that he acted in a manner indifferent to past events. Maybe your assumptions are right, and maybe not. However, they are assumptions not supported by the text.

Are we supposed to believe that of the people who escaped in the exodus?  Who saw water magically split apart before them? Who saw columns of cloud and flame that guided them?  Who saw the plagues of egypt? 

Who, once Moses stepped away, immediately fell back on the worship of golden statues?  They didn't seem to find it very convincing either. It is as if it is either the events never occurred or that its a fictional narrative that stresses credulity to relay some kind of idea.
Are you saying that people who see, or even experience, monumentally important things that greatly impact their lives can’t turn around and “forget” what happened, even acting contrary to the impact that was made? Is that the argument you’re making? That people never do that? If that’s the argument you’re making, then I have to ask how much do you know people, because that happens all the time. It happens on small scales – one person does something good for another and the second turns around and hurts the first – and on large scales – after the attacks on 9/11 everyone in the U.S. was about working together and the common good, and now we’re at each other’s throats again. No, that argument is baseless.

Why is it baseless, though? It is not because of the events. It’s because of the people. What matters is what kind of people we are. The impact that an event will have on us depends on our character. When it rains on the ground, some places will grow fruits and flowers, and some places will grow thorns. That’s not because of the rain. Mud in the sun dries up and hardens, while wax in the same sun will melt. It’s the qualities of the mud and the wax that make the difference. It’s a fact that Alabama won the BCS championship. How people felt about that depended on them. Some were happy and some upset.

Ignoring of course that absolutely none of this ever occurred and completely disagrees with every notion of actual historical and archaeological research.
Yes, of course. Ignoring this. :)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 13, 2012, 08:35:28 PM
Hi dloubet,

How are things? I thought you’d given up on the thread. We had a conversation going before.

You seem to know god was talking to people when it's written in an old book. You just take that third-hand testimony at face value.

Where's this helpless skepticism when addressing the bible?
“helpless skepticism”? Interesting phrase. :)

Since you have an understanding of how Catholics view the Bible, I’ll take the question as rhetorical. Or maybe you don’t?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 13, 2012, 08:38:50 PM
SC killing YOUR children may not be a consistant thing in your Bible but killing others children is consistant with your God of the Bible.  Some have been deemed insane,and as far as I am concerned you would have to be to kill ANYBODY unless it was an extreme situation,let alone your own kids. But some have stated they have heard God tell them to kill,and you seem to be pointing the finger at Satan pretending to be God,if I understand correctly.

 So why would you automatically assume Satan could tell them to do these deeds,while dismissing God and going with the insanity reason?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Babdah on January 13, 2012, 08:46:18 PM
Quote
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?

Could the case be made that Judas assisted in our salvation?  If Judas had not turned Jesus in, would he have been arrested?  Would he have been condemned to die?  How would god have brought about the salvation of the world without Judas?  :P
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: albeto on January 13, 2012, 09:24:28 PM
Could the case be made that Judas assisted in our salvation?  If Judas had not turned Jesus in, would he have been arrested?  Would he have been condemned to die?  How would god have brought about the salvation of the world without Judas?  :P

Ask any ten year old kid for an alternative and not only would it be more moral, it would be possible for an omnifuckingpotent god to do. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 13, 2012, 10:29:31 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

How’s the weather there? We were supposed to get a bunch of snow, but didn’t get too much.

SC killing YOUR children may not be a consistant thing in your Bible but killing others children is consistant with your God of the Bible. . . .

 So why would you automatically assume Satan could tell them to do these deeds,while dismissing God and going with the insanity reason?
Well, I’m not “pointing the finger” and I didn’t “automatically assume.” I just speculated about the possibilities that could be going on in the situation. I also explained why I thought what I did. You even support that with your statements above.

Some have been deemed insane,and as far as I am concerned you would have to be to kill ANYBODY unless it was an extreme situation,let alone your own kids.
I’m not sure if you have to be insane, but I agree with you. A person has to be pretty messed up in one way or another to kill anyone.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 14, 2012, 02:22:45 PM
SC how do you resolve killing by order of God? is it JUST a story? A justification for peoples actions of killing entire citys? Or was it an actual order by a COWARD who did not want his hands dirty?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 14, 2012, 03:40:48 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

SC how do you resolve killing by order of God? is it JUST a story? A justification for peoples actions of killing entire citys? Or was it an actual order by a COWARD who did not want his hands dirty?
That’s a very good question. It’s also a complicated question. Short as it is to ask, it’s longer to answer. I hope you’ll believe me when I say that my purpose here and the following posts is not to dodge, but to give a full answer.

Let me first clarify the question. It’s one thing to ask "how to resolve killing by order of God?”, and another to ask “how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”

The first one is simple. If God orders something you do it. (Truly “God” and truly “ordering,” etc.) That one we’ve addressed before.

The second question is the complicated one. Is that the one you mean?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 14, 2012, 11:29:23 PM
Please SC give it a try,i would like to see your thoughts on this.

 Then maybe we can figure out why a single God is indeed that,and why does it take him more than one try to not exclude all races. In fact why he ordered the killings of other races in the first place,why would God exclude all races for one,only to change his mind and include all by one act from Judas?

 IMHO there was no Judas,or Jesus for that matter,but a construct made by humans so a single God could become universal and not exclude all but the Jews. The single God construct would probably have worked had it not been for those not interested in either a higher power or the rules that bound them to it. So others also adopted said God but changed the rules to suit their needs and desires. Now thare are 38,000 different views of the same God.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 15, 2012, 07:49:40 PM
Good Evening 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for the response. I’m going to assume that your response. . .
Please SC give it a try,i would like to see your thoughts on this.
is in answer to this question.
The second question (“how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”) is the complicated one. Is that the one you mean?
If I’m wrong, let me know.

I’ll try. It’s interesting that our situation here proves my point earlier about Judas. I think that no matter what I say, you’re not going to be convinced. I’ve explained these things to other people, such as in RCIA, and they are convinced. Obviously, I’m not Jesus and you’re not Judas, but I think you see the point.

You ask a few more questions below. They’re not unrelated and we can try to incorporate them into the conversation. However, screwtape and I are working things out for the debate and we hope to start it soon. We’ll continue our conversation until we do. Is that okay? I also have two “assignments” to do. One is to prepare for an RCIA class on Church History from about 1304 AD to modern times. (Fitting all that into an hour and a half is a challenge!) The other is to prepare for a debate on “The Problems of the Bible.” Interestingly enough, I get to be the attacker. Both of those are going to take my free time over the next couple of weeks.

The one question of your response I don’t get is this one. . .
Then maybe we can figure out why a single God is indeed that,. . .
is indeed “what”? I’m not sure what the “that” is referring to. I know references like this seem obvious when you’re writing them, but they’re not always clear when reading. If you don’t mind my saying so, I recommend using fewer pronouns and more direct references. I think it helps the understanding and moves the conversation along quicker. But then, maybe it’s just me. If you help me understand what you’re referring to, then I’ll respond to that question, also.

,and (1) why does it take him more than one try to not exclude all races. In fact (2) why he ordered the killings of other races in the first place, (3) why would God exclude all races for one, (4) only to change his mind and include all by one act from Judas?
Btw, I’m not sure why you’re asking these questions in light of the current thread. You yelled at me quite a bit when I got off topic in your thread about Satan. However, let me respond to your questions, as I understand them, with a few examples. As before, if I’ve misunderstood you, please correct me. I’ve numbered them, except for the first, which I don’t understand, so that I can easily refer to them below.

You ask (3). God has always had the plan for the inclusion of all people into his salvation. (There’s a sub-topic here about people who don’t know Jesus, but let’s not go there. We have enough sub-topics as it is.) Starting from the beginning, we have Adam and Eve who were the parents of the entire human race and the entire human race would have benefited from their obedience. The Bible gives examples of God revealing himself to people outside of the Israelites. Abraham was obviously not an Israelite. Melchizedek, the king of Salem, was a believer. The king of Sodom knew of Abraham’s God. Multiple Pharoahs and the Egyptian people would have known and had opportunity to believe, especially after they saw the power of God. Jonah was sent to Nineveh and the entire city repented. Naaman from Syria came to Elisha to be healed. The Magi from the East followed the star to Jesus. In the Bible there are many places were God revealed himself in one way or another to those outside of Israel.

The Bible prophecies also talk of the nations worshiping God, the covenants with Abraham and Jacob and, for example, as do the psalms. God did not exclude all races for one. In fact, the reason for the one race, Israel, was so that they would be a light to the rest of the nations. By their example the other nations were to have repented and believed. Israel was the firstborn of many nations.

That also answers (4). God did not change his mind. It was always part of the plan.

You ask (2). Since you’re not specific, I’ll take that question as referring to the Canaanites. If I’m wrong let me know. What do you know about the religion, practices, etc. of the Canaanites? Both from the Bible or other sources, we know that the Canaanites were very depraved, and involved in bestiality, incest, molestation, homosexuality, prostitution, and sacrificing their children to idols. God gave them time to repent – the four hundred some years the Israelites were in Egypt – but they did not. Sodom was another city engaged in this depravity. God agreed to spare it if 10 innocent people could be found. They couldn’t and so it was destroyed. This time God was using the Israelites.

By the way, even the Israelites were not immune from this judgment. They worshipped the Canaanite gods and engaged in some of the behavior. Because of that they lost their home, too, and were exiled. They were not destroyed (although the 10 northern tribes are lost) because God is faithful to the covenant.

The Canaanites also knew who God was, that God had given the Israelites the land, and that God had done wondrous things for them. Yet they still did not repent. Some did, the Gibeonites, for example, who knew that God commanded Moses that the Israelites be given the land. They feared the Lord and the Israelites.

The herem warfare wasn’t genocide as some claim. It was done as capital punishment for the sins committed. It also wasn’t intended to be complete, but only for those in the land of Canaan. There were others outside the boundary that were not to be killed in the same manner.

Looking back at “(1) why does it take him more than one try to not exclude all races” I guess I don’t know what you mean by this question, either. What do you mean?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 15, 2012, 09:39:58 PM
The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group. To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.

The single God focusing on one group of people is just small thinking on the part of the peoples who wrote the books in the first place....or God is a failure who has to start over and over again because his humans are a big failure....A single God for the whole world would not focus on one small group.

 IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 16, 2012, 05:21:47 PM
SimpleCaveman: sorry for not getting back to you sooner.


Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.
I think this creates a little bit of a problem: If someone kills their baby, and the say that it was God's command, how could we prove their statement false? God clearly commands plenty of children to be killed in the Bible, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that he would command someone nowadays to kill their child. In fact it's more surprising that he does NOT command many child killings these days. Children are slaughtered in the Bible at God's command left and right, thousands, possibly even millions of children. In what way can a newborn disobey God?

Quote
As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

First of all, the last sentence of that statement is just ridiculous. While rape is certainly a horrible crime, the commandment is not "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person (without the prior approval of God)." That is the commandment you are suggesting, but that is not the commandment given to Moses. Rape is NOT killing (even in circumstances where the victim is killed, as the two are entirely separate crimes). Yet again, we see vast quantities of God approved rape in the bible. You could tentatively re-title the Bible " A Story of the murders, rapes, genocides, adultery, misogyny, and killing of babies perpetrated by the God Yahweh". It would certainly be a more descriptive title. In some situations in the Bible, it even instructs that the rape VICTIMS be put to death How lovely. So very compassionate and just.

Quote
Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

This is simply a false analogy. Losing your personal fortune, and thus your offspring do not receive the money, is not at ALL comparable to suffering eternal damnation for two people eating a fruit a really long time ago. Plus, your children and their children ill still have the opportunity (if they are lucky) to gain their own fortune and become millionaires. This is not through an act of blind faith, as is required by God in order to be spared eternal punishment. Also, in the case of the squandering millionaire, the children are not really being punished. It is merely a natural consequence of the situation.Also, not being a millionaire doesn't mean not being happy. Eternal punishment is certainly not a happy time. The natural consequence of eating a fruit is not eternal damnation. I don't see how you can suggest that a person who does not accept Jesus as their savior will be punished forever, that seems to pretty much be one of the few things that Christians generally agree on. 
Quote
We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.
But if God is God, why would he have to require yet more suffering and death, this time of his own son? Why could he just wave his magic hand and make everything better again? why does God always seem to REQUIRE suffering and death for things that he claims to have foreseen before creation? Why does one have to accept human sacrifice on their behalf in order to be redeemed? God must be a fan of the Saw series.
Quote
I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.
Sure, he didn't abandon us, to the extent that he approves of so much suffering, death, rape and foreskins.

Quote
Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.
At my previous place of employment, I had to make frequent contact both with violent, irrational people and egocentric Judges. Needless to say, dealing with both requires a bit of delicacy.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 17, 2012, 02:19:31 PM
I’m not sure if you have to be insane, but I agree with you. A person has to be pretty messed up in one way or another to kill anyone.
SC seems to have rendered a judgement.   Per the bible, he knows as much about good and evil as this god of his. 

God kills a lot of people per the bible.

God must be the most insane of all with supposedly killing a planet's worth of people, animals, plants, etc.  I'm guessing the excuse will be that this god can do anything it wants.   
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 17, 2012, 02:23:23 PM
Let me first clarify the question. It’s one thing to ask "how to resolve killing by order of God?”, and another to ask “how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”

The first one is simple. If God orders something you do it. (Truly “God” and truly “ordering,” etc.) That one we’ve addressed before.
  and since you can't show that the parents who have killed their children weren't "truly" getting an order directly from this god, there should be no reason to doubt them, other than by the very human reasoning you went though and not the obedience to your deity, without thought, as you seem to be advocating above.

We can't tell that anyone is getting anything "truly" from this god.  Not one single shred of evidence, just theists needing to feel special and to make others think that they are special.


Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 17, 2012, 07:26:26 PM
Let me first clarify the question. It’s one thing to ask "how to resolve killing by order of God?”, and another to ask “how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”

The first one is simple. If God orders something you do it. (Truly “God” and truly “ordering,” etc.) That one we’ve addressed before.
  and since you can't show that the parents who have killed their children weren't "truly" getting an order directly from this god, there should be no reason to doubt them, other than by the very human reasoning you went though and not the obedience to your deity, without thought, as you seem to be advocating above.

We can't tell that anyone is getting anything "truly" from this god.  Not one single shred of evidence, just theists needing to feel special and to make others think that they are special.
How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.

 The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad that I didn’t guess, because I would have been way off base.

The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group.
I hope you read my response to your other questions (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471418.html#msg471418). God did not limit himself to one small group, and you are correct, it was a small group. He did focus on that group in the successive covenants that he made with them, and at each stage the group became larger – couple, family, tribe, nation, and kingdom, until with Jesus it became universal.

I realize you think that was not the best way for God to do that, but our opinions are not sufficient to conclude that there is no God. It goes back to the discussions on omniscience earlier in the thread with monkeymind and kaziglu bey. (Not sure where monkeymind went.) People seem to think that we can understand things at the same level as an omniscient mind. Not sure if it’s a too high regard for our minds or not enough regard for omniscience. If you take the intelligence of all the people who’ve ever lived and combine it all together in, say, a logarithmic fashion and add Deep Blue times Watson times a Turing machine times whatever. Take all that to the 100th power and you still wouldn’t have omniscience. To look at it another way, take our intelligence to the level of a pencil, then God’s would be at the level of Einstein.

Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the description above is a better picture than assuming that we can comprehend the “mind” of an omniscient being. So, to say that “because God didn’t do something the way we think it should be done, he doesn’t exist” doesn’t make any sense.

But let’s look at some of the things you said
To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.
I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.

IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.
Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 08:05:35 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? You and your son doing well?

SimpleCaveman: sorry for not getting back to you sooner.
No worries at all. I understand how it gets sometimes. Thank you for coming back. It’s admirable. Others have stopped posting in the thread. I’m not assuming it means they give up, but it is suspicious.

I think this creates a little bit of a problem: If someone kills their baby, and the say that it was God's command, how could we prove their statement false?
From the sin perspective it doesn’t matter what we can prove. That’s up to those people and God on their judgment day. From a justice perspective, we do what the system does now, checking for mental illness, right from wrong, etc. My personal opinion is that God would not command someone to kill their own baby.

First of all, the last sentence of that statement is just ridiculous. While rape is certainly a horrible crime, the commandment is not "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person (without the prior approval of God)."
You’re right. Those aren’t the literal words of the commandment, but the commandment goes beyond that. Jesus came here to fulfill the law. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says
Quote from: Mt 5:21-22
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."

Plus, your children and their children ill still have the opportunity (if they are lucky) to gain their own fortune and become millionaires. This is not through an act of blind faith, as is required by God in order to be spared eternal punishment.
That’s not an argument against the analogy. We can very easily regain our divine inheritance through Baptism, the other Sacraments and obedience to God. You may consider that blind faith. I do not.

Also, in the case of the squandering millionaire, the children are not really being punished. It is merely a natural consequence of the situation.
Same thing. In the Garden of Eden, we were given a divine life on top of our natural life. When we couldn’t handle, we lost it, and returned to the natural life we had before. It’s not a punishment as much as it is a (super)natural consequence.

Also, not being a millionaire doesn't mean not being happy. Eternal punishment is certainly not a happy time. The natural consequence of eating a fruit is not eternal damnation. I don't see how you can suggest that a person who does not accept Jesus as their savior will be punished forever, that seems to pretty much be one of the few things that Christians generally agree on. 
You’re mixing two different things. You’re completely right to say that the natural consequence of eating the fruit is not eternal damnation. Jesus saw to that. He saved us so that we would NOT be punished forever. If we don’t want that salvation, then we are choosing the punishment. You have before you life and death, which do you choose? I choose life. It’s that simple.

But if God is God, why would he have to require yet more suffering and death, this time of his own son? Why could he just wave his magic hand and make everything better again?
Because God is just. The covenant was broken and had to be restored. He couldn’t ignore the covenant or the breaking of the covenant. But at the same time, in a way, as far as we’re concerned he did just wave his hand. It was God himself who suffered death to restore the covenant, not us. He took it on himself. Why was it suffering and death? In large part in order to show us true love. He took on all the sin and suffering of the world out of love for us. He sacrificed his life for us. That’s the greatest love there is. I would die to defend my country, because I love it. I would die to defend my family, because I love them even more.

Maybe God waving His hand could have freed us from Original Sin, but, as above, it’s not that which gets us to eternal damnation. It’s what we do on our own. By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow. Frankly, if more people in this world weren’t self-centered, but instead looked out for other people, even dying to save others, like those on Flight 93, this world would be a lot better off.

Sorry for the long post. I try to keep these short, since I don’t have much time even with short posts. Thanks for your patience.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 08:15:44 PM
How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.
If I were the DA, I would push for the truth about what happened. If the person is mentally insane, then so be it. However, murder is against our laws and rightly so. You don’t think that God knows that? If he truly asked someone to commit murder, if it was really God who was asking, then don’t you think he’d be taking all of that into account? We are to obey the lawful authority and the laws of our government. Unless God changed those, we would be expected to obey them and he’d take care of the rest. His plan is bigger than a courtroom. It’s even bigger than the United States. His plan is for all people in all time.

The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.
I don’t think that a defense of “God made me do it” (or “devil made me do it” for that matter) is a valid defense. If I was on the jury, and there weren’t other legally extenuating circumstance, then I would find the defendant guilty. Why not? They murdered someone. As I said before, if God truly commanded them to do it, then he’d have the rest figured out, too. Right?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 17, 2012, 08:18:02 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad that I didn’t guess, because I would have been way off base.

The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group.
I hope you read my response to your other questions (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471418.html#msg471418). God did not limit himself to one small group, and you are correct, it was a small group. He did focus on that group in the successive covenants that he made with them, and at each stage the group became larger – couple, family, tribe, nation, and kingdom, until with Jesus it became universal.

I realize you think that was not the best way for God to do that, but our opinions are not sufficient to conclude that there is no God. It goes back to the discussions on omniscience earlier in the thread with monkeymind and kaziglu bey. (Not sure where monkeymind went.) People seem to think that we can understand things at the same level as an omniscient mind. Not sure if it’s a too high regard for our minds or not enough regard for omniscience. If you take the intelligence of all the people who’ve ever lived and combine it all together in, say, a logarithmic fashion and add Deep Blue times Watson times a Turing machine times whatever. Take all that to the 100th power and you still wouldn’t have omniscience. To look at it another way, take our intelligence to the level of a pencil, then God’s would be at the level of Einstein.

Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the description above is a better picture than assuming that we can comprehend the “mind” of an omniscient being. So, to say that “because God didn’t do something the way we think it should be done, he doesn’t exist” doesn’t make any sense.

But let’s look at some of the things you said
To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.
I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.

IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.
Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.
to response #1
The reason the small tribe became a bigger one is from the God ordered killing and following assimilation of the remainders of the conquered people (I am an aboriginal Canadian and have seen this first hand) If you did not assimilate and start following the new God they simply kill you off. After the land has been stolen and resources harvested,,,,,suddenly there is little interest to convert or murder those who say no.
Ommnii everything.....If God were real and as smart as you state,why did he fail right from the first two people(Adam and Eve) through the very rough middle ages to the new world ?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 17, 2012, 08:20:03 PM
How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.
If I were the DA, I would push for the truth about what happened. If the person is mentally insane, then so be it. However, murder is against our laws and rightly so. You don’t think that God knows that? If he truly asked someone to commit murder, if it was really God who was asking, then don’t you think he’d be taking all of that into account? We are to obey the lawful authority and the laws of our government. Unless God changed those, we would be expected to obey them and he’d take care of the rest. His plan is bigger than a courtroom. It’s even bigger than the United States. His plan is for all people in all time.

The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.
I don’t think that a defense of “God made me do it” (or “devil made me do it” for that matter) is a valid defense. If I was on the jury, and there weren’t other legally extenuating circumstance, then I would find the defendant guilty. Why not? They murdered someone. As I said before, if God truly commanded them to do it, then he’d have the rest figured out, too. Right?
So you like the rest of the civilizied world would deem the defendant as insane?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 17, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
To response #2

 As the people came to be murdered and assimilated,did they abandon their gods because the gods failed them ? And did they assume the enemy and their god was stronger?

 Remember if you did not join the program,you usually ended up dead.

  Since we have come out of the "wild west" and the "dark ages" there are a handful of religous zealots who want to kill all who oppose ther god,but most have adopted a live and let live ideal,why have they stopped killing all who oppose their God? It worked well for them in the past.

 Is it the fact there are no more places left for these God lovers to conquer? or is it the fierce resistance of those who still oppose their God that stops them (China and North Korea)?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 17, 2012, 08:34:41 PM
to response #3

1492,,,,,a new world of heathens to "assimilate" the might and power of the lord takes the new world. Do you think they were really interested in sharing the word of God or did the resources make them salivate?

 Do you think Christians and Jews will give up on their God in the next couple hundred years when either a new better God comes along (the Mormons and themuslums have tried to bring them around) or when they realize God no longer works for them?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 08:47:37 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

to response #1
The reason the small tribe became a bigger one is from the God ordered killing and following assimilation of the remainders of the conquered people (I am an aboriginal Canadian and have seen this first hand) If you did not assimilate and start following the new God they simply kill you off.
That is incorrect.The small tribe became bigger because of covenants and marriage. And because of time. They were in Egypt for about 400 years, assimilating with the other people like them and having babies.

Yes, there was a period when they conquered others, just like everyone did in that time and had for thousands of years and did for thousands of years afterwards. But that period was not the sole reason for their growth, nor the primary reason for their growth.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 08:56:50 PM
To response #2
You put this, but I don’t know which response is #2. Do you mean this one?
You ask (2). Since you’re not specific, I’ll take that question as referring to the Canaanites.

As the people came to be murdered and assimilated,did they abandon their gods because the gods failed them ? And did they assume the enemy and their god was stronger?
I’m sure I don’t know. Does it say one way or the other in the Bible?

Remember if you did not join the program,you usually ended up dead.
No, I don’t think so. There were even Israeli laws protecting foreigners, that is people who don’t believe in Yahweh.

Since we have come out of the "wild west" and the "dark ages" there are a handful of religous zealots who want to kill all who oppose ther god,but most have adopted a live and let live ideal,why have they stopped killing all who oppose their God? It worked well for them in the past.
I would look to Jesus himself for this answer. What was he like? What did he teach? How did he live? He is the reason for our religion. When we live like Jesus according to his truths, we are being true to him.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 17, 2012, 09:01:11 PM
to response #3

1492,,,,,a new world of heathens to "assimilate" the might and power of the lord takes the new world. Do you think they were really interested in sharing the word of God or did the resources make them salivate?

 Do you think Christians and Jews will give up on their God in the next couple hundred years when either a new better God comes along (the Mormons and themuslums have tried to bring them around) or when they realize God no longer works for them?
You seem to be taking these topics far off track. Instead of addressing the comments in my post, you come up with other questions that are only tangentially related to the original.

I’m not going to chase you around the world. I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but I think I’m done. I will finish the conversation with kaziglu bey and then move to the debate with screwtape.

Thank you, 12 Monkeys. It’s been challenging and enlightening. I hope to talk with you again.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 17, 2012, 09:35:30 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? You and your son doing well?
Unfortunately we are both a little under the weather right now, but should recover quickly. Thanks.
Quote
No worries at all. I understand how it gets sometimes. Thank you for coming back. It’s admirable. Others have stopped posting in the thread. I’m not assuming it means they give up, but it is suspicious.
The forum being messed up for several days didn't help, and then it took a few days for me to be inspired.

Quote

From the sin perspective it doesn’t matter what we can prove. That’s up to those people and God on their judgment day. From a justice perspective, we do what the system does now, checking for mental illness, right from wrong, etc. My personal opinion is that God would not command someone to kill their own baby.
But like you say, that's just your opinion. You have no way of KNOWING whether or not God would command such a thing. As I have said, the Bible is good evidence that God has no problem killing babies (or having others do it for him). Also, didn't God command Abraham to kill his son? (Granted, his son was not a "baby" and God didn't actually have him go through with it. He still commanded it. Also, how does someone separate mental illness from legitimate commands from God? Why would we have a legal system that punishes things that God could have potentially commanded people to do? I have no answers to these, other than that for me, faith itself is delusion.

Quote
You’re right. Those aren’t the literal words of the commandment, but the commandment goes beyond that.
Please support this assertion. I entirely disagree. I know of nothing in the Bible that says that this commandment means more than "don't kill". There may be places where the prophet of the day (whoever is God's #1 dude at the time) say that it is also God's wish not to do whatever, such as rape or murder or what not, but yet that is meaningless to me because God is constantly having his followers rape and murder people. It's seriously almost all they do. Enslave, rape, murder, repeat. The majority of the content of the bible in 4 words. 
Quote
Jesus came here to fulfill the law.
but "thou shalt not rape" is NOT one of God's laws. Show me where it says that, and if you can, then please explain why thousands upon thousands of females are raped on God's command. How can rape EVER be good?
Quote
In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says
Quote from: Mt 5:21-22
“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.
Mentions NOTHING about not raping people. "Kill" and "angry" and "fool" do not equal rape.

Quote
So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."
and what verse does Jesus actually say that?? Certainly not in the one you posted above. Again, this seems to preclude God approved violence (and there's a LOT of it).

Quote
That’s not an argument against the analogy. We can very easily regain our divine inheritance through Baptism, the other Sacraments and obedience to God. You may consider that blind faith. I do not.
Well that may be what people believe, but it's not what happens in the real world. Furthermore, not being a millionaire is NOT equal to eternal punishment. The situations are not the same at all. The kids who do not inherit millions or not reduced to a worst possible state. They are just at a normal state. Also, the non millionaire kids are not in that state because someone more powerful than them arbitrarily decided to dick them over, which is the case with God. A person could be a millionaire and lose that money for a lot of reasons, but I doubt that one of the reasons is to screw over their EVERYONE ELSE who ever lives for all eternity.

Quote
Same thing. In the Garden of Eden, we were given a divine life on top of our natural life. When we couldn’t handle, we lost it, and returned to the natural life we had before. It’s not a punishment as much as it is a (super)natural consequence.
You've got to be kidding me. It is pretty clear that such things are punishment, and not some (super)natural consequence. Eve (and all other women forever) is punished by having to endure pain in childbirth.[1]

Quote
You’re mixing two different things. You’re completely right to say that the natural consequence of eating the fruit is not eternal damnation. Jesus saw to that.
There were a hell of a lot of people between Adam and Eve and Jesus. So they had to suffer all those thousands of years, but everyone after Jesus gets a free pass as long as they submit?
Quote
  He saved us so that we would NOT be punished forever. If we don’t want that salvation, then we are choosing the punishment. You have before you life and death, which do you choose? I choose life. It’s that simple.
how about this. There are no gods, there is no life after death, it's all a bunch of mind games manipulated by the powerful to strengthen and gain wealth for themselves while oppressing others. It's that simple. The God of the Bible is a cosmic dictator, more cruel and bloodthirsty than Vlad the Impaler, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Milosovic, Mugabe, etc etc combined.

Quote
Because God is just. The covenant was broken and had to be restored.
The Covenant was ällegedly" broken, by TWO PEOPLE. If God was Just, he would have dealt consequences only to the violating party. He could have killed them and made new people, and given them a chance. He could have spared them, but made them infertile, and created another couple that was pure. But no, God has to go to the most extreme measure possible, to ensure maximum suffering, torment, death, rape and foreskins. Should we then kill all Germans because some of them were Nazis? That would be God's type of Justice.
Quote
  He couldn’t ignore the covenant or the breaking of the covenant. But at the same time, in a way, as far as we’re concerned he did just wave his hand. It was God himself who suffered death to restore the covenant, not us.
I'd be willing to bet there were a lot more people (like, in the billions) who have endured deaths far worse than Crucifixion. Sure it would suck, but not as bad as starving to death, or death by dehydration, or Scaphism, or probably a million other things that could be worse than a few hours of ridicule and pain. God is leaving it up to people who were not the responsible party to begin with. Again this is not justice. If a parent drives while drunk and hits a pedestrian and kills them, should we punish the parents children too? That would be God style justice. 
Quote
He took it on himself. Why was it suffering and death? In large part in order to show us true love. He took on all the sin and suffering of the world out of love for us.
Yet there is still suffering in abundance. If you think of the billions of people who have suffered and died horribly throughout human history, the suffering of one guy for a few hours is not really much of an exchange, especially since the guy knew his stay was temporary, and that he would be resurrected and live forever and wield unlimited power. Gee what a sacrifice. Who WOULDN'T take that deal?
Quote
He sacrificed his life for us. That’s the greatest love there is. I would die to defend my country, because I love it. I would die to defend my family, because I love them even more.
Too bad for him, that was his choice. Again, we have to be held accountable for God's choices and the choices of others. What a load.
Quote
Maybe God waving His hand could have freed us from Original Sin, but, as above, it’s not that which gets us to eternal damnation. It’s what we do on our own.
I disagree. The default is damnation. Only by choosing to submit to a God that approves of murder, rape, genocide and slavery can we get supposed "salvation". No thanks. I can be a good person and not have to submit to God. If he has a problem with it, then I submit that he is a dick. Especially since I have never had anyone raped or murdered, you know, like he has.
Quote
  By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow.
But yet again, it was God that CHOSE suffering and death as the means for redemption. It could have NOT included those things. and again, the suffering and death of one guy is not much when compared to billions.
Quote
Frankly, if more people in this world weren’t self-centered, but instead looked out for other people, even dying to save others, like those on Flight 93, this world would be a lot better off.
But that doesn't require any religion. Most people in jail are religious. Most people in jail are probably not there because they were serving the greater good. Why so few atheists in prison? I agree people should help each other more, but religion PREVENTS that from happening. For examples see the Middle East. With the resources and manpower present there, Muslims and Jews (and Christians) alike could all be working together in harmony for each others benefit, and it wouldn't be a bunch of 3rd world countries ravished by poverty and corruption. But, thanks to religion and God's faithful followers, the place has been a hot seat of violence and turmoil since like, recorded history. The Bible (and other sacred texts as well) even encourage war and genocide against those of other faiths. it is for THAT reason that people are not able to work together.

Quote
Sorry for the long post. I try to keep these short, since I don’t have much time even with short posts. Thanks for your patience.
Not a problem, however many words you need to make your point is fine by me. Mine's not short either.
 1. This is actually due to the fact that humans have evolved in such a way that a baby's head is quite large relative to the birth canal. It has nothing to do with God, talking snakes, cursed fruit or original sin.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 18, 2012, 12:59:12 AM
SC when I was talking about assimilate or die I was talking Christians,not Jews......The might makes right works as well for his followers as it does for God of the Bible.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 18, 2012, 10:59:51 AM
Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.
Considering the numerous sects of Christianity, we can see people inventing their own religions right now.  Christainity and Judaism aren't anything special, not when looking at the religions of the time.  They are syntheses of those religions, some things changed as they like them.  Always some new flavor.  Just like Catholics do and protestants do, and the LDS does and JWs do. 
Quote
Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.
  No evidence for the Israelites being slaves or in Egypt.  No evidence that Abraham came from Ur. 
Quote
The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.
See any cult ever to know how wrong this is. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Hatter23 on January 18, 2012, 12:45:43 PM

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

Wow, that's an amazingly dumb statement. If you want to say that, then the only thing anyone followed anything ever is because it is real, and lots of belief and particularly religious cosmologies are contradictory.

What you doing here is an extreme example of special pleading. Hell, it even ignores your own book of mythology where the Isrealites follow other gods!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on January 18, 2012, 02:09:09 PM

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

(technically the jews didn't follow yhwh.  they followed moses and aaron.)

Is that why the arab people followed Mohammed?  Because there was something to follow?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 18, 2012, 08:36:10 PM

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the Manson followers followed Charles Manson was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the mormons followed joe smith was because there was something to follow.

Sounds really stupid doesn't it?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 19, 2012, 08:07:33 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

I see that you were well enough for a loooong post. :) Hope you’re feeling better today. (I think! :))

Also, how does someone separate mental illness from legitimate commands from God? Why would we have a legal system that punishes things that God could have potentially commanded people to do? I have no answers to these, other than that for me, faith itself is delusion.
Please read my post to 12 Monkeys (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471940.html#msg471940). I don’t consider “God made me do it” as a viable defense in our legal system. The post explains.

So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."

and what verse does Jesus actually say that?? Certainly not in the one you posted above. Again, this seems to preclude God approved violence (and there's a LOT of it).
Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.

Well that may be what people believe, but it's not what happens in the real world. Furthermore, not being a millionaire is NOT equal to eternal punishment. The situations are not the same at all.
Okay. I’m not going to argue this with you.

There were a hell of a lot of people between Adam and Eve and Jesus. So they had to suffer all those thousands of years, but everyone after Jesus gets a free pass as long as they submit?
Not sure they would suffer for thousands of years. It seems that time does not exist outside of this existence. If they suffer after death, then it would be the same as people after Jesus, either in Purgatory or Hell. From the earliest years the Church has taught that Jesus descended into hell. By that is meant that he went to those people who died before his resurrection and brought them to salvation, as appropriate.

They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?

You've got to be kidding me. It is pretty clear that such things are punishment, and not some (super)natural consequence. Eve (and all other women forever) is punished by having to endure pain in childbirth.
Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.

how about this. There are no gods, there is no life after death, it's all a bunch of mind games manipulated by the powerful to strengthen and gain wealth for themselves while oppressing others. It's that simple.
Okay.

Yet there is still suffering in abundance. If you think of the billions of people who have suffered and died horribly throughout human history, the suffering of one guy for a few hours is not really much of an exchange, especially since the guy knew his stay was temporary, and that he would be resurrected and live forever and wield unlimited power. Gee what a sacrifice. Who WOULDN'T take that deal?
But no one said that the suffering of Jesus was intended as an exchange for the suffering of humanity here on Earth. His suffering freed us from eternal suffering. We would have suffered for eternity if he had not died and rose from the dead. That’s a tremendous exchange. We got the immensely better end of that deal.

By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow.

But yet again, it was God that CHOSE suffering and death as the means for redemption. It could have NOT included those things. and again, the suffering and death of one guy is not much when compared to billions.
I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.

Most people in jail are religious. Most people in jail are probably not there because they were serving the greater good. Why so few atheists in prison?
Show me your statistics and I’ll show you mine. In fact, most people in prison have a stated religious preference because most Americans have a stated religious preference. That doesn’t mean they practice their religion. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religion prior to going to prison. Let’s not make conclusions based on faulty data.

I agree people should help each other more, but religion PREVENTS that from happening. For examples see the Middle East. With the resources and manpower present there, Muslims and Jews (and Christians) alike could all be working together in harmony for each others benefit, and it wouldn't be a bunch of 3rd world countries ravished by poverty and corruption. But, thanks to religion and God's faithful followers, the place has been a hot seat of violence and turmoil since like, recorded history. The Bible (and other sacred texts as well) even encourage war and genocide against those of other faiths. it is for THAT reason that people are not able to work together.
Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.

Yes, religion may be a delineator between two fighting groups, but a) it’s not the only delineator. There are other factors that differentiate the two groups and cause the violence and hatred. To say that religion is the sole cause or maybe even primary cause is a grave misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.

and b) it’s when they act against the Bible that they get into the violence and turmoil you’re talking about.

FYI, If there’s another round of posts, I’m probably going to skip some sub-topics. These get too long and difficult to follow. Please don’t think I’m dodging anything. By the way, as a general comment to the group (not you specifically), I do take the claim that I’m dodging something as a personal attack. I work hard to understand the questions and answer them fully. Sometimes I may not understand a question or the person may not like my answer, but I do try to answer them. Saying that I’m dodging a question, being deceitful in my answers, or anything like that is an attack on my character. I put up with it because I understand that’s how people on this forum (again not you kaziglu bey) behave. However, I think it’s immature and it does get old. There’s even one person who I won’t communicate with because all of their posts were riddled with those kinds of comments. I offered to be more responsive if they would stop and they refused. I don’t need that.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 19, 2012, 10:14:23 PM
Hello All,

Not sure which specific post to reply to, so I’ll respond to the set of them. I had said
The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.
The responses used analogies (the bane of the forums!) to prove that the statement above is wrong. The problem is that the analogies don’t prove it’s wrong, in fact they prove it to be right. Here’s what we have. . .

Quote
Is that why the arab people followed Mohammed?  Because there was something to follow?

The only reason the Manson followers followed Charles Manson was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the mormons followed joe smith was because there was something to follow.
Yes, in each of those cases people followed Mohammed/Manson/Smith because there was something to be followed. In these cases it was Mohammed, Manson and Smith. So, in that sense the statement is very right. The problem with reading the statement in this way is that it becomes a tautology, and that is of no use to us.

The reason that what I said doesn’t follow into that trap is because the analogies compare apples to oranges. screwtape tried to paint the orange red (or the apple orange, I’m not sure which) by saying that technically the Jewish people followed Moses and Aaron. But that’s a reduction of the situation to false proportions. We’re not talking about a bunch of people who listened to Moses and said we like you Moses. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things.

Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

So what do you say happened? Moses told the stories about the plagues and the parting of the sea and Mt. Sinai and the manna, which as you say didn’t happen, and the people just believed them? It sounds like part of a Steve Martin SNL routine (http://snltranscripts.jt.org/76/76estandup.phtml). He says
Quote from: Steve Martin
This is my thesis -- the public has a short memory and, like-- How many people remember, a couple of years ago, when the Earth blew up? How many people? See? So few people remember. And you would think that something like that, people would remember. But NOOO! You don't remember that? The Earth blew up and was completely destroyed? And we escaped to this planet on the giant Space Ark? Where have you people been? And the government decided not to tell the stupider people 'cause they thought that it might affect-- [dawning realization, looks around] Ohhhh! Okay! Uh, let's move on!

Maybe it was a big conspiracy? When Moses and Aaron would talk about Egypt, the Exodus, manna, and the 10 commandments, all the Israelites nodded and gave each other those sly little winks.

Maybe it was something else? I’m all ears.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 20, 2012, 09:34:19 AM
Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.

However, this supposed messiah said

Quote
luke19:26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”
Quote
They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?
alas, John 3 and Romans 9 disagrees with SC.  One must beleive in JC to be saved.  There is no exception to those who simply didn't get the chance.  And JC in various places, and Romans 9, say that some are prevented by this god from ever being able to believe.  The only time where goodness comes into it might be when JC is speaking about the sheep and goats or when James indicates that works get one saved. 
Quote
Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.
and nice little baseless assumption here.  Poor SC, has to return to the vomit of "but but all atheists are just angry with god". 
Quote
I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.
Hmmm, SC's bible also says to give up all of one's possessions too.  Funny how that also doesn't get done.  Where are the armies of Christians who are clearing land mines in southeast Asia?
Quote
Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.
and the magic decoder ring comes out.  Suddenly anyone not SC has only a “superficial” understanding of the bible.  Well, SC, how about that altar test to see who can get your god to actually respond?  Then we can see which Christian has the “right” way to understand the bible, with all of your claims of all having divine revelation, the holy spirit, “church fathers” etc. Oh and your messiah, he also advocated violence, see above.

and oh my that next post that fails so dramatically.  We see SC claiming a tautology.  Yep, your claim matchs the others, people follow other people.  Again, no evidence of any divine truth here.   It’s quite useful in seeing that your religion is nothing special at all.  They are comparing apples to apples, and your claim that it is oranges is pretty amusing.  None of these people have or had any evidence that the magical claims of their leaders were real.  Christians still don’t.  The only difference between Charles Manson and JC is that we know Chuck existed.  There is no evidence these people experienced anything “powerful” or divine.  That is a baseless assumption you use to support your baseless claims.  People at the People’s Temple also were sure that they felt something.  And they all drank the kool-aid. 

There is no evidence for any “exodus”.  Not one scrap.  Yep, the Jews write about it.  So?  The Greeks wrote about magical event too permeate their culture, that their beliefs were founded on, that have no evidence, does that mean that those events were real too?  Or did people “just believe them”?

It’s just so sad, SC to see you make such ridiculous attempts at arguments.  Egypt has no record of any of the exodus events.  No kingdom that would have taken advantage of any such events in Egypt did so.  The army of Egypt was supposedly destroyed but golly, no one though to do anything about it.  There is no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people wandering around in the Sinai for decades.  No evidence of encampments, no latrines, nothing. 

so, yes, I, and others, are saying it doesn’t exist.  It, and your messiah, are both legends that people wanted to believe.  Humans love to think that they have some magical origins and special snowflakeness, that they are magically “right”.  Heaven’s Gate, Christianity, Islam, Wicca, etc, all the same.   
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on January 20, 2012, 10:39:48 AM
The reason that what I said doesn’t follow into that trap is because the analogies compare apples to oranges. screwtape tried to paint the orange red (or the apple orange, I’m not sure which) by saying that technically the Jewish people followed Moses and Aaron. But that’s a reduction of the situation to false proportions. We’re not talking about a bunch of people who listened to Moses and said we like you Moses. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things.

We could take that same shifted goal post and apply it to our analogies.  Check it:

"the arabs weren't  a bunch of people who listened to Mohammed and said we like you Mohammed. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things. "

"the mormons weren't a bunch of people who listened to Joe Smith and said we like you Joe. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things."

"the mansonites weren't  a bunch of people who listened to Charles Manson and said we like you Chuck. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things."

The analogy still holds.  You may say "nope.  Those groups were deluded,"[1] but then that puts you in the exact position as us, only now you are exercising special pleading.  "Oh yeah, all those other kooks had false beliefs.  But with my beliefs it's totally different.  My beliefs are the Real Deal."

I totally agree with you about those other scoundrels.  The problem is, I find your claims equally dubious and insubstantial.  Isn't it a simpler, more elegant explanation to say all these religious claims are baloney rather than having to carve out one, preposterously improbable exception?

 
Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

Absolutely.  It is a national myth.  It is a story that, while not necessarily true, gives people a narrative[2] about themselves and their nation.  It helps give them a national identity.  In the US we have a national myth as well, and just like the hebrew national myth, much of it is also false.  It is narrative about oppressed, industrious, creative, independent people struggling for liberty.  Of couse, that is not really how it happened.  George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree.  A lot of Northerners were against freeing the slaves.  We were not innocent vicitms at Pearl Harbor. We like to think or ourselves as being a "melting pot", yet we are reluctant to allow immigrants who are too brown different.  etc.  We have untrue beliefs about ourselves that make up our identity as Americans.  So did the hebrews. 

I try to believe what is actually true based on evidence.  As far as I know, the only evidence for exodus is exodus.  And that is some shakey evidence at best. And if we are to take exodus at face value, then why not take the noahide flood at face value too?  Great leapin' jesus, Caveman, next thing you know you will be professing sola scriptura!


Maybe it was something else? I’m all ears.

You really aren't.  You are not interested in believing what is true.  You are interested in showing what you believe is true.



ed: Charles --> Charles
 1. in fact, you did:
"Yes, in each of those cases people followed Mohammed/Manson/Smith because there was something to be followed. In these cases it was Mohammed, Manson and Smith."
 2. people sort of need narratives to understand anything
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Omen on January 20, 2012, 11:10:20 AM
However, what kind of moron would base the credibility of a religious cultural movement based on how many people believe it?
Are you saying that’s what I’m doing? That’s the argument I made?

Yep, that is EXACTLY the implication you just made, otherwise you responded with a red herring that has no impact on any point to be made.

Quote
You make some assumptions in the next part that I’ve bolded. These assumptions are not supported by the text of the Bible. If you think they are, you’ll have to show me.

If someone so close to the events as to observe them directly and to be immediately impressed with the reality of what was going on can so quickly and obviously act in a manner that is totally indifferent as if the events never really occurred at all, then what does that say about the impact of the events being asserted?
. . .  You pass over the ease with which someone, having supposedly witness the son of god in a manner so real as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever, acts as if its just another everyday occurrence.
You assume that Judas was impressed. You assume that he acted quickly and easily. And you assume that he acted in a manner indifferent to past events. Maybe your assumptions are right, and maybe not. However, they are assumptions not supported by the text.

Is it really your assertion or counter claim that Judas just happened to be around the corner every time Jesus was doing something magical and miraculous? 

Is it really your assertion that the plagues of egypt, the giant column of cloud by day and fire by night, mana raining from heaven, the waters splitting before half a million jews in exodus.. didn't have any impact on their sensibilities?

I assume nothing and all of it is in the text, your response is tantamount to special pleading.. trying to reduce the qualification for knowing to a ridiculous and incredulously stupid moniker.

Quote
Are we supposed to believe that of the people who escaped in the exodus?  Who saw water magically split apart before them? Who saw columns of cloud and flame that guided them?  Who saw the plagues of egypt? 

Who, once Moses stepped away, immediately fell back on the worship of golden statues?  They didn't seem to find it very convincing either. It is as if it is either the events never occurred or that its a fictional narrative that stresses credulity to relay some kind of idea.

Are you saying that people who see, or even experience, monumentally important things that greatly impact their lives can’t turn around and “forget” what happened

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

Quote
after the attacks on 9/11 everyone in the U.S. was about working together and the common good, and now we’re at each other’s throats again.

Moses was gone for 40 days and nights, not 10 years.  Plus, people opposed the war early on anyway because they predicted accurately exactly what it would do, be an unnecessary war of aggression and serve no purpose but to provide contracts to US corporations.  9/11 is not an adequate nor even accurate example through analogy and is seemingly informed by your seriously biased perception of what exactly the US did afterwards and what justifications were used to do it.

Quote
No, that argument is baseless.

You're making an argument from personal incredulity based on a false analogy.  Your argument is baseless.

You have to deal with the reality that in 40 days and nights, half a million jews.. simply 'forgot' that all the amazing things they experienced occurred and began worshiping pagan idols again like it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.  The same for Judas, who conveniently forgets that Jesus is the son of god and the only means to be saved or redeemed.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 20, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

So what do you say happened? Moses told the stories about the plagues and the parting of the sea and Mt. Sinai and the manna, which as you say didn’t happen, and the people just believed them?
You weren't there! You believed all of that just like they did, because somebody wrote a book that some con man said was the historical word of god.

If you are not a mormon, do you believe that the israelites lived in north America and had great cities and that the native Americans are the descendants of a mid-eastern clan? Do you believe that a couple of stones with holes in them allowed Joe Smith to translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics found on golden or copper plates?

Why do so many mormons believe all this nonsense? Are the intrinsically different than the old israelites?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Omen on January 20, 2012, 01:27:42 PM
Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

The actual writing of the old testament occurs centuries after the events it is supposed to describe and only isolated to a singular cultural frame.  No other civilization that would have existed at the time the Exodus was to have occurred made any mention of the event, nor do the events in the bible accurately line up with historical narratives from the records of other civilizations that existed in that period.  It is so totally absent of both historical and archaeological support, as a historical 'event' the general consensus among scholars, archaeologist, historians is that it did not occur at all.

This is normal historical academic background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology

"The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22][23] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[24]"

^ a b Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.p.99
^ Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 1880317206.
^ Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw. ed. A dictionary of archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0631235835.
^ Anne E. Killebrew, "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity" (Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) p.176

The actual sources for this information come from leading figures in the field of archaeology, working in the field ( as in actually on their knees digging ), leading state funded digs, and at universities in Israel itself.

There is absolutely no support for the exodus in any shape or form and every evidential basis to suggest that it did not occur.  Much less the tower of babel, noahs flood, the garden of eden, and the rest of mumbo jumbo mythological nonsense.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 20, 2012, 07:23:00 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

I see that you were well enough for a loooong post. :) Hope you’re feeling better today. (I think! :))
Unfortunately still sick, but sick leads to boredom, leads to internet leads to WWGHA.

Quote
Please read my post to 12 Monkeys (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471940.html#msg471940). I don’t consider “God made me do it” as a viable defense in our legal system. The post explains.
Oh come on, your post to 12 monkeys assumes that God always has a perfectly functional plan that takes all things into account. Given that he is Omnimax, that SHOULD be what happens. But in the Bible, God is seen as being surprised, and having plans that don't work out the way he intended (example: creation). Also, since God made his own law that you shouldn't kill, yet commanded his followers to kill, it goes to show that God doesn't really have a problem setting laws aside, even his own.

Quote
Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.
I think that this is taking a terribly liberal interpretation of Jesus' words. Also, what about the physical violence Jesus deployed in trashing the Temple?

Quote
Okay. I’m not going to argue this with you.
:P it doesn't seem like you are going to agree with me either.

Quote
Not sure they would suffer for thousands of years. It seems that time does not exist outside of this existence. If they suffer after death, then it would be the same as people after Jesus, either in Purgatory or Hell. From the earliest years the Church has taught that Jesus descended into hell. By that is meant that he went to those people who died before his resurrection and brought them to salvation, as appropriate.
But if Jesus salvation was necessary to enable an Original Sin Loophole, then all who came before Jesus would have, by default, gone to hell. Even the good people. Also, how could you possibly have any idea what exists outside of "this existence"? Sounds like an Argument from Amazing Familiarity.

Quote
They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?
Then why bother spreading Christianity? We would be better off not knowing anything at all, because we could avoid Hell without all of the guilt and shame. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of believers think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell, even if you aren't aware. Who's right and who's wrong, and how do we tell?

Quote
Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.
Forgive me, but it's not clear to me what you are asking for here. Would you be able to rephrase/clarify?

Quote
Okay.

But no one said that the suffering of Jesus was intended as an exchange for the suffering of humanity here on Earth. His suffering freed us from eternal suffering. We would have suffered for eternity if he had not died and rose from the dead. That’s a tremendous exchange. We got the immensely better end of that deal.
eternal suffering that is because of the actions of 2 people. Let's punish all of humanity for all time with eternal suffering, for the actions of two people. Can't you see that as being a little bit overkill? Should we follow God's example? Why is it that God is always able to do stuff that is considered evil, but when he does it, it's God's Just Will? That is seriously just twisted.

Quote

I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.
An example to follow. Admittedly, Jesus actual behavior is better than his dad's (Jesus himself doesn't really kill or rape anyone or personally commanded ethnic cleansing, like Dear Old Dad). However, should we follow God's example? Should we be vengeful, wrathful, punish those who don't obey us, order rape and genocide, murder children, drown an entire planet of living beings? These are all terrible things, yet when God does them, it's YAY GOD! Again, that is just twisted.

Quote
Show me your statistics and I’ll show you mine.
Wish granted, says the blonde, bearded Genie. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#1997_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_Statistics (http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#1997_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_Statistics)
Quote
In fact, most people in prison have a stated religious preference because most Americans have a stated religious preference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America) The percentage of US prison population who are atheists is quite a bit less than the percentage of Atheists in America.
Quote
That doesn’t mean they practice their religion. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religion prior to going to prison. Let’s not make conclusions based on faulty data.
I did no such thing.

Quote
Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.
OK. so how then does one read the old testament in respect to Jesus in regards to the slaughter of Midianites and the mass rape of their young women/girls? How is Jesus love and sacrifice present in that situation?


Quote
Yes, religion may be a delineator between two fighting groups, but a) it’s not the only delineator. There are other factors that differentiate the two groups and cause the violence and hatred. To say that religion is the sole cause or maybe even primary cause is a grave misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.
I honestly don't know how you can say this. So when Jews, Christians and Muslims declare a Holy War, how is religion NOT the primary factor there? Even the Iraq war was a Crusade, per the President who started it. I'm sorry, but this seems like a pretty naive statement. Jews Christians and Muslims all supposedly worship the same God. Shouldn't they be united under one God then? Why the continuing violence in the Holy Land? It has seen more violence as a result of the Abrahamic religions than probably anywhere else in the world. What a holy place indeed.

Quote
and b) it’s when they act against the Bible that they get into the violence and turmoil you’re talking about.
Could you explain how they are acting against the Bible, when God doesn't really have a problem killing people of other faiths just for being of other faiths?

Quote
FYI, If there’s another round of posts, I’m probably going to skip some sub-topics. These get too long and difficult to follow. Please don’t think I’m dodging anything. By the way, as a general comment to the group (not you specifically), I do take the claim that I’m dodging something as a personal attack. I work hard to understand the questions and answer them fully. Sometimes I may not understand a question or the person may not like my answer, but I do try to answer them. Saying that I’m dodging a question, being deceitful in my answers, or anything like that is an attack on my character. I put up with it because I understand that’s how people on this forum (again not you kaziglu bey) behave. However, I think it’s immature and it does get old. There’s even one person who I won’t communicate with because all of their posts were riddled with those kinds of comments. I offered to be more responsive if they would stop and they refused. I don’t need that.

I will always be happy to clarify my posts if there is a lack of understanding. Just ask.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 22, 2012, 10:04:27 PM
Hello screwtape, Brakeman and Omen, Gentlemen all,

Thank you for the responses. Good, challenging posts. I look forward to this discussion. Contrary to what screwtape says, I am all ears. That expression, by the way, means that I’m eager to hear what you have to say. I am also very interested in believing what is true. On the other hand, I’m as ready to believe what you say as you are to believe what I say.

I hope you don’t mind my responding to all three of you as one. You rightly bring up similar and related objections. I will give explicit references to your posts as possible, but if I try to put all of your comments in it will get too cumbersome.

As I see it, there are two main points to address. If I missed any main point, let me know.
First, let’s look at the analogies. I think, though I’m not sure, that the reason these analogies seem so attractive (and I assume it’s not because you want them to be) is because in comparing them you take a very high level view of the events. Let’s look at how they’re being compared.

You weren't there! You believed all of that just like they did, because somebody wrote a book that some con man said was the historical word of god.
We’re not talking about my beliefs. We’re talking about the beliefs of the people of Israel. With Joseph Smith, no one was there. He was the only one who saw the tablets and no one saw what, if anything, happened those thousands of years ago.

On the other hand, the people of Israel would have experienced or not experienced these things either first hand or in the previous generation. Comparing Joseph Smith and Moses is not at all the same. Comparing Moses and the Steve Martin bit (wasn’t that funny?) is much closer. The national myth doesn’t hold either. We’re not talking about the childhood of one individual and his tree or the “advertising spin” that gets put on events. You’re trying to claim that Moses, Aaron, Joshua etc added whole national level events. It’s one thing to tell people today that we were innocent victims at Pearl Harbor, to use screwtape’s example, and it’s another thing entirely different to say that Pearl Harbor didn’t happen, or to tell people that the Japanese attacked San Francisco at the same time. You try it. They’ll laugh at you. That’s the same reaction that Israel would have had to Moses or Aaron, if the events weren’t true.

The other end of the analogy is this statement by screwtape. . .
"the mormons weren't a bunch of people who listened to Joe Smith and said we like you Joe. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things."
But they didn’t experience powerful things as a group. It was all Joseph Smith. The analogies don’t hold.

Omen claims
The actual writing of the old testament occurs centuries after the events it is supposed to describe and only isolated to a singular cultural frame. 
Unfortunately, at best you can say that this is an open question. However, historians do not agree with you. Not that they all agree amongst themselves, but the majority are closer to each other than you are to them. The compilation may have been later, but the original writing is much, much older. In fact, there is little to argue against Moses having written most of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy might be suspect, but even if Moses didn’t write it, it’s what he said.

No other civilization that would have existed at the time the Exodus was to have occurred made any mention of the event,
And who would that be that would have mentioned it?

nor do the events in the bible accurately line up with historical narratives from the records of other civilizations that existed in that period.
Please share the discrepancies.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 22, 2012, 10:14:26 PM
Hi Omen,

Welcome back to the thread. I wondered where you’d gone. No big deal, just wondering. Things come up for me a lot and I can’t get back to here for weeks (or even months) at a time. I hope everything’s going okay for you.

Long post here and I apologize. However, your question is a good one and deserves an adequate response.

However, what kind of moron would base the credibility of a religious cultural movement based on how many people believe it?
Are you saying that’s what I’m doing? That’s the argument I made?
Yep, that is EXACTLY the implication you just made, otherwise you responded with a red herring that has no impact on any point to be made.
Really? I think you may have lost track of the conversation. Here is the beginning of it. . .

So .. Judas didn't find jesus very convincing did he?
Jesus was very convincing. Many, even thousands of people, followed him. Billions of people still follow him today.
Do you think that “convincing” is the same as “credible” or did you just lose track of the conversation? That certainly happens to me.

Is it really your assertion or counter claim that Judas just happened to be around the corner every time Jesus was doing something magical and miraculous? 
“Every time”? No, probably not. Really I have no idea how often Judas was with Jesus. There were times in the Bible when Jesus went off by himself to pray and times when he was with just some of the Apostles. Judas handled the money, so he would have gone off to transact business as necessary. However, Judas was a disciple of Jesus and more importantly an Apostle of Jesus. Disciples would leave their family and follow the rabbi to learn not only what they taught, but to learn their heart. And we’re talking about three years here. If Judas wasn’t there for a particular miracle or teaching, then he would have had opportunities to witness many others. But then again, maybe he didn’t. Maybe he wasn’t a very good disciple.

But that is beside the point. I said you made assumptions that are not supported by the Bible. I asked you to show me where they are. Please do.

What were the assumptions? Things like he was “immediately impressed with the reality of what was going on.” The Bible gives no indication (other than the betrayal, I suppose) about how Judas reacted to the miracles and teachings. It does say how others specifically reacted, so those verses don’t work. There are places where it tells how the Apostles in general reacted to some of the events, and so maybe you’re saying we take those as evidence of Judas’ reaction?

The other assumptions were about how quickly and easily Judas betrayed Jesus “as if the events never really occurred at all.” Does the Bible say that? I’m sure you know it better than me. Where does it say that?

But even more importantly, by using the phrase “counter claim” you imply that in saying that the assumptions are not founded on the text, I’m contradicting you. Far from it. I allowed that you might be right. I also allowed that you might be wrong. We don’t know. Unless of course, you explain where in the text you get your assumptions. You say that it’s in the text, and I’ve been proven wrong before. I’m willing to be proven wrong again.

Is it really your assertion that the plagues of egypt, the giant column of cloud by day and fire by night, mana raining from heaven, the waters splitting before half a million jews in exodus.. didn't have any impact on their sensibilities?
. . .
You have to deal with the reality that in 40 days and nights, half a million jews.. simply 'forgot' that all the amazing things they experienced occurred and began worshiping pagan idols again like it wasn't anything out of the ordinary. 
Let’s look at the chain of events as the Bible relates them. (Ex 15-32) I realize this is long, and I’m not sure if you’ll read it. I hope so. It helps advance the discussion if we’re specific.

First we start with a people who had lived in the land of Egypt their whole lives. They had worshiped the Egyptian gods along with or instead of their own. They were very comfortable with these gods. These people, the Israelites obviously, had just walked through the sea as on dry land. They saw Pharaoh and his chariots and charioteers killed when the waters returned. They danced and they sang. (And there was much rejoicing. (http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/and-there-was-much-rejoicing.html))

They then traveled for 3 days without finding water. They eventually did find some, but it was too bitter to drink, and so the people started grumbling against Moses. After finding water, they then moved into the desert one month after they left Egypt. Here they grumbled against Moses and Aaron again. Why? In Egypt “we sat by our fleshpots and ate our fill of bread” and now “the whole community [would] die of famine.” They were already looking back at Egypt. They were hungry and thirsty where they were and Egypt was “the good old days.” Their hearts were already hardened against Moses and Aaron. All they wanted was food in their belly. Then the Lord sent them bread from heaven, the manna and the quail. (And there was much rejoicing. (http://catb.org/jargon/html/A/and-there-was-much-rejoicing.html))

They traveled on to another place without water to drink. And again they grumbled. What ungrateful people! They eventually arrived at Sinai 3 months after leaving Egypt. Among the things that happened there, the people witnessed thunder and lightning, trumpet blast and the mountain smoking. They feared and trembled. The Israelites saw the cloud cover the mountain for six days. On the seventh day, Moses passed into the midst and stayed there for forty days and forty nights, just as you said. Then Exodus says that when the people became aware of Moses’ delay in coming down from the mountain, they gathered around Aaron and said to him, “Come make us a god who will be our leader; as for the man Moses who brought us out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what happened to him.” So the full forty days and nights hadn’t even passed before the Israelites looked for Aaron to make them a god. When Aaron made the calf, he said to the people “This is your God, O Israel, who brought you out of the land of Egypt.”

So that’s the chain of events. I think it’s helpful to be specific or we get lost in the ambiguities. What do we have? We have a people who were very comfortable with statues of animal gods because they lived all their lives in Egypt. They are delivered from Egypt, but like in any group, we can easily imagine that some were happy and some not. Some probably didn’t like Moses being in charge and some were very happy with him. They start grumbling right away because they don’t have water and food. They think they’re going to die. They get to Sinai and see something that scares the daylights out of them. Moses goes up there and they don’t hear from him for a long time. They then ask for a god, because they know that a god brought them out of Egypt, and they get a calf because they’re familiar with it.

Why did the people “immediately fall back on the worship of golden statues”? Was it because they “forgot” the events? I think we have some very strong indications that it wasn’t. Your post even supports them when you correct me and say that after 9/11 people weren’t all working together after all. Some never stopped worshiping golden statues. Some were foes of Moses and Aaron. Some only wanted their belly full. Some believed God had done all those things, but wanted a god they could see. It clearly wasn’t everyone, though, or we wouldn’t be talking about this! All of this is supported in the text. I can give specific references, if you want.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 22, 2012, 10:27:14 PM
Good Morning kaziglu bey,

Good cold morning that is. We had spring like weather through the new year. Now it’s making up for it!

Oh come on, your post to 12 monkeys assumes that God always has a perfectly functional plan that takes all things into account. Given that he is Omnimax, that SHOULD be what happens. But in the Bible, God is seen as being surprised, and having plans that don't work out the way he intended (example: creation).
That certainly could be true. It could also be true that these are the ways people understood God. It makes sense that if a people anthropomorphized (wow, that is a word!) God, who they believed was not human and did not have a body, then they would also anthropomorphize his behavior. They might see something that was planned by God and interpret that as reactionary. People do that to each other. Why not to God?

If they did, then God wanted it to be in the Bible that way. But why would he do that? Why would he want to give an impression that he is something he isn’t? Well, if we allow the Christian paradigm, then every impression that we have about God is not what he is. He is something outside of our universe, our existence. We can’t understand what it means to be omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, etc. Even to say those words is inadequate because, as we’ve discussed, our understanding of those words is necessarily incomplete.

But why those impressions and those images? If we look at the Bible as a whole, we see that those images are scattered mostly through the Old Testament and the first parts of the Old Testament. Those are the images because that’s how the people thought. That is the world they lived in. It makes sense that God would use what he had to teach the people, and that he would relate to them on their level. God’s been doing that all along. The greatest example is when Jesus was made flesh and God became man. There are also places in that part of the Bible where God is understood as eternal and unchanging. There are more as time in the Bible goes on, indicating a maturity of thinking.

Some of those examples seem to have been teaching moments. When God told Abraham what he was planning with Sodom, Abraham bargained with God for the lives of the people in Sodom. Did God change his mind along the way? No. Rather he was teaching Abraham the value of life and the magnitude of sin.

I think that this is taking a terribly liberal interpretation of Jesus' words.
Please explain how the verse does not give that interpretation.

But if Jesus salvation was necessary to enable an Original Sin Loophole, then all who came before Jesus would have, by default, gone to hell. Even the good people. Also, how could you possibly have any idea what exists outside of "this existence"? Sounds like an Argument from Amazing Familiarity.
“Argument from Amazing Familiarity”? I have to learn these names. They seem like fun.

Your logic about them going to hell seems sound, the early Church Fathers even wrestled with this topic. But, as they found, it’s not sound when you look at the big picture. Jesus taught the great mercy and love of God. In fact, God is love. That’s his very nature. Starting from there, it’s logical that he would have accounted for the good people who went before him. I haven’t read these parts of the Church Fathers recently, but it’s there if you’d like to.

Then why bother spreading Christianity? We would be better off not knowing anything at all, because we could avoid Hell without all of the guilt and shame. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of believers think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell, even if you aren't aware. Who's right and who's wrong, and how do we tell?
I guess we’ll find out at the end, won’t we. :)

Why bother spreading Christianity? Because knowing God and loving God is so much better than ignorance of him. The logic in that paragraph is like saying that it’s better to not love at all, than to love and have your heart broken. I don’t believe that. It seems that those who do have closed their heart to other people.

Forgive me, but it's not clear to me what you are asking for here. Would you be able to rephrase/clarify?
Sure. Sorry about that. (Actually, I had to go back and read the last few posts because I had forgotten where I was going! You gotta love it.) We’re talking about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and punishment or consequences. I wanted to show the logic within the Catholic framework of what I’m saying. However, you have to be able to assume the Catholic framework. I know you don’t and I’m not asking you to believe it or agree with it or even to assume it for very long. I’ll go ahead, though.

Our ancestors were going along, evolving quietly in their natural earthly life, when God picks two proto-humans and gives them souls, i.e. makes them in his image and likeness. They now have not only their natural life that they already had, but also have a supernatural life of divine presence and grace. Amazing thing. They “walk with God” and he is very close to them. These two then have their obedience tested and, unfortunately, they fail the test. Because they failed, i.e. disobeyed God, God removes himself from them, or removes them from himself, same thing. Now they don’t have the divine presence or the original grace that they once enjoyed. They are returned to their previous state, almost. They still have their immortal souls and are still elevated above the animals.

You could call it punishment. I see that. I also see it as a consequence of failing the test of character. They lost part of what they had gained. Have you heard of the parenting theory of “natural and logical consequences” (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/W00019.html)? You probably have. That’s how I think of it. It’s like if I give my son a new iPhone and tell him that he can keep it as long as he takes care of it. But then he doesn’t take care of it and so I take it away. I understand calling it punishment. That’s just not the way I think of it.

However, should we follow God's example? Should we be vengeful, wrathful, punish those who don't obey us, order rape and genocide, murder children, drown an entire planet of living beings? These are all terrible things, yet when God does them, it's YAY GOD! Again, that is just twisted.
Two things. First, it’s a clear distinction between what we can do on our own, what we can do when commanded by God, and what God can do. The three are not the same. Second, and I think this is one of the biggest things that posters in this forum miss, Jesus, as the Son of God, is the fullest revelation of the Father. All of God’s revelation is to be read in the light of Christ.

We start then with Jesus and his message of repentance, forgiveness, love, mercy, and his actions of, for example, allowing himself to be crucified for our sake. Given that, we look back at the Old Testament and ask if our reading of the OT coincides with our understanding of the Father as revealed to us by Jesus. Where it doesn’t, we then ask how our reading of the OT is incorrect, and we try to gain a deeper understanding of what the OT reveals to us. (We discuss this again below.)

You guys keep bringing up these parts of the OT that are troublesome, and I agree that they are when you do not look at them through the revelation of Christ. That’s why your complaints don’t bother me. On the other hand, if the way you read the OT (without Jesus) were the right way to read the OT, then I’d be on your side, but it’s not and it never has been.

Wish granted, says the blonde, bearded Genie.
Thank you. :)

The freethoughtpedia article you gave got its information from “Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997.” I can find lots of pages that cite her, but not anything that actually shows the original study. Being a statistician I want to see the methods, variables, raw data, etc. I also went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and tried to find statistics and couldn’t. I find it very interesting how much discussion there is on the topic, but very little actual data out there.

Assuming that Denise Golumbaski’s data is real and correct, I will gladly concede the point to you. Thank you for sharing the information.

Let’s not make conclusions based on faulty data.
I did no such thing.
I sincerely apologize. You made your conclusion based on the best data we have. I should not have jumped to my own conclusion.

OK. so how then does one read the old testament in respect to Jesus in regards to the slaughter of Midianites and the mass rape of their young women/girls? How is Jesus love and sacrifice present in that situation?
Hmm, let’s be accurate. The text (Numbers 31) does not say there was a mass rape of their young women/girls. To be honest, I don’t know the answer. As far as I know, no one does. That doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer; we just don’t understand it yet. To read the text from our perspective it is very difficult to reconcile. But we have to take a few things into account. You’ve likely heard these before, but let me list the ones I know of here.

We have to understand that the Bible books are a history, but not the kind of history we understand today. The actual events that, for example, established Israel on the soil of Palestine were much more complex than we read in the Bible. John Bright’s book, “A History of Israel” is a fascinating coverage of the many schools of thought on this topic.

Another thing for us to understand is the character, behavior and standards of the people in the Ancient Near East, particularly with regards to war and conquest, rules and laws. We have to look at the Israelite behavior with respect to the context of the times. What looks barbarous to us may have been a moral improvement. When God reveals himself to humans, he is understood in the terms of the times. To Bronze Age people he will likely be understood in Bronze Age terms. For example, herem – the ancient Semitic practice of slaying everybody and everything in a village may be seen as, ironically, a pious act (“See Lord! I’m keeping nothing for myself!” or “I’m keeping our faith and our culture pure.”) Horrible in our time, but not then.

With our children, we choose to reveal certain things about life to them a little at a time. As they grow older and learn more, then we reveal more. I don’t teach my 3 year old how to run a household, but my 17 year old knows more. I don’t teach calculus or Shakespeare to a second grader. In the same way God has revealed more and more of himself over time. Back then it was one thing, later on it was more, and so on.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 23, 2012, 10:26:21 AM
We’re not talking about my beliefs. We’re talking about the beliefs of the people of Israel. With Joseph Smith, no one was there. He was the only one who saw the tablets and no one saw what, if anything, happened those thousands of years ago.
  Hmmm, no one was there when Moses supposedly got the tablets, nor is there any evidence that anyone was anywhere in the Sinai wandering around for 40 years, tablets or not.  Again, no evidence to support any of your claims, SC.   No evidence that the Israelites even existed in Egypt much less experienced any powerful event. 

It’s always sad to see someone try to claim how funny they were.  Tsk.  Poor SC, has to baselessly claim that his analogy to Steve Martin is the bestest, but again with no evidence.  And ah, the unilateral clkaim that the national myth doesn’t hold either but again, no reasons why, just that SC doesn’t like it.  I’d add another national myth that some people try to promulgate, the lie that the US is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs. That tries to add wholesale events that never happened and we have idiots who believe it just like willfully ignorant Jews who want to believe that their ancestors were somehow chosen by some god.   

Since we don’t have any evidence of the exodus, and we don’t have any evidence that the Japanese attacked San Francisco on the same day as Pearl Harbor, that means that neither happened!  And yep, SC, I’m having a great time laughing at you as you destroy your own arguments. 
Quote
Unfortunately, at best you can say that this is an open question. However, historians do not agree with you. Not that they all agree amongst themselves, but the majority are closer to each other than you are to them. The compilation may have been later, but the original writing is much, much older. In fact, there is little to argue against Moses having written most of the Pentateuch. Deuteronomy might be suspect, but even if Moses didn’t write it, it’s what he said.
Historians do agree with Omen, SC.  There is no evidence that anyone named Moses existed, much less wrote anything.  If you think so, please do present the evidence. 
Quote
And who would that be that would have mentioned it?
The Hittites, Assyrians, etc.  Always amusing to see you depending on your ignorance, SC.  Gee, SC, when did the Exodus occur, the exact date?  Like so many other events in the bible, poor Christians can’t seem to ever agree on any actual dates for them.  They have to try to retcon the events into known happenings, which always fails so laughably. 

There is no evidence that any other kingdoms heard of any massive destruction of the Egyptian armies.  No evidence of any knowledge of any massive death in Egypt.  No messages about plagues haunting Egypt.  No sudden respect for any foreign god in any of these other kingdoms.  No surprise at the exodus of hundreds of thousands of people.  You can find information here on the ludicrous claims of Exodus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Numbers_and_logistics   It’s so fun to watch apologists try to figure out what their god “really” meant, with their trying to claim that the numbers presented in their magic book aren’t what is written down, since it makes so little sense.  Oh those magic decoder rings are just being used constantly, to get all sorts of conflicting claims of what “really” happened. 

As always, SC attempts to ignore any posts that show him to be wrong and blithely proceeds as if no one notices.   Unfortunately for him, he just shows himself to be one more Christian who isn’t concerned with learning anything at all, simply content to repeat easily disproved lies. 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on January 23, 2012, 05:56:21 PM

You weren't there! You believed all of that just like they did, because somebody wrote a book that some con man said was the historical word of god.
We’re not talking about my beliefs. We’re talking about the beliefs of the people of Israel. With Joseph Smith, no one was there. He was the only one who saw the tablets and no one saw what, if anything, happened those thousands of years ago.

No, I'm talking about your beliefs, not the beliefs of long dead people. The Exodus story was recorded hundreds and hundreds of years after the supposed event. So you can't place importance of the event or the number of witnesses the story says it had. If a harry potter movie claimed to have 3 million witnesses to a magic event, would that be evidence that the book series is not fictional?

You have heard the story in a similar way that the Jews of a couple of thousand years ago heard the story, second hand from a man claiming to be a witness for god, telling you what the magic book says. 

Joe Smith claimed to have seen and performed miracles and his followers agreed and claimed witness to his miracles as well. Were they all liars? How many liars does it take to equal one truth?

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 23, 2012, 06:36:56 PM
Good Morning kaziglu bey,

Good cold morning that is. We had spring like weather through the new year. Now it’s making up for it!

It has been a crazy winter here too. Normally, we would be buried under snow right now, but it was like 50 degrees today. Booo. I like my seasons to occur when they are supposed to dammit!
Quote
That certainly could be true. It could also be true that these are the ways people understood God. It makes sense that if a people anthropomorphized (wow, that is a word!) God, who they believed was not human and did not have a body, then they would also anthropomorphize his behavior. They might see something that was planned by God and interpret that as reactionary. People do that to each other. Why not to God?

If they did, then God wanted it to be in the Bible that way. But why would he do that? Why would he want to give an impression that he is something he isn’t? Well, if we allow the Christian paradigm, then every impression that we have about God is not what he is. He is something outside of our universe, our existence. We can’t understand what it means to be omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, etc. Even to say those words is inadequate because, as we’ve discussed, our understanding of those words is necessarily incomplete.
If we are not even able to understand such qualities, how are we able to assign them to anything? How an we recognize these as characteristics of God, if we are so hopelessly incapable of even understanding what they mean?

Also, I disagree. Words exist because people make and use them to describe things, places, events, etc. Our understanding of those words is complete, because we made the words up.[1] I have a pretty good idea what all powerful is. It's really not that ambiguous. And if such language is not adequate to represent or understand God, why did God choose it as the primary means of communicating his message?[2]This goes back to my original point. Why would God have planned that so badly? Of course, you will likely say that god planned it perfectly, and that I, being imperfect, am not able to comprehend his perfection in doing so (even though it obviously didn't work well, or there wouldn't be so many different versions of the Bible, not all saying the same thing) or some other fiddle faddle. Fine, then how do you KNOW that God's plans, though apparently at times flawed, are in fact perfect? You are saying that humans anthropomorphize characteristics onto God (we agree on something!) but aren't we supposed to be created in his image? Wouldn't any characteristics that we then possess also be possessed by the God who created us in his image? Shouldn't we hold God to a slightly higher standard?

Quote
But why those impressions and those images? If we look at the Bible as a whole, we see that those images are scattered mostly through the Old Testament and the first parts of the Old Testament. Those are the images because that’s how the people thought. That is the world they lived in. 
A better question in my opinion would be "Why is an all powerful entity limited to the pathetic means of some tribal herdsmen in the Bronze Age?" Sure it was the world they lived in. But God would obviously not be bound by any limits as to how he could operate. I've said before, why didn't God send Stealth Bombers to take out pharaoh and his chariots? There are so many other ways God could deal with situations, but he chooses to deal with them on the barbaric, inhumane, blood thirsty, and primitive level as his followers. Which leads me to believe that God is an INVENTION of his alleged followers, as a means for the tribal elders to maintain control and power.
Quote
  It makes sense that God would use what he had to teach the people,
Come on, for an all powerful dude, given his behavior as described in his book, he doesn't try very hard. He teaches the people vengeance, genocide, misogyny and division.
Quote
and that he would relate to them on their level. God’s been doing that all along. The greatest example is when Jesus was made flesh and God became man.
But why did he wait SO long? Aften Adam and Eve, and Abraham and Isaac, and Moses, Joshua, Aaron, etc etc, how many thousands of years did it take God to come up with a fairly mundane way of "saving" mankind from God? Did a light bulb suddenly go off in God's head, and say 'Aha! that's it! I can make myself in human form and offer myself as a sacrifice (to myself, to appease my own anger, wrath and vengeance all because two people ate off of a tree that they weren't supposed to, even though I, in my perfect wisdom, lied to them about it). How original and inspired. No God had ever done such a thing before Jesus became flesh. Oh wait.... divine birth, death, resurrection and redemption have been religious themes like, since the beginning of religion. It's not even something that it unique to Yahweh. 
Quote
There are also places in that part of the Bible where God is understood as eternal and unchanging. There are more as time in the Bible goes on, indicating a maturity of thinking.
But if God was inspiring the bible writers, why did it have to wait for a maturity of thinking? Was God's thinking immature? Or was he not able to over-ride the ignorance of the writers? Can you see where I am having issues here? I just don't get how something would be God inspired, and yet increasing in maturity, if God is unchanging. If God's influence moved the pens of the writers, he could have assured that his unchanging wisdom were present from the beginning, rather than coming around later as an afterthought. God's word should start with the same perspective as it ends, if the ultimate author is unchanging.

Quote
Some of those examples seem to have been teaching moments. When God told Abraham what he was planning with Sodom, Abraham bargained with God for the lives of the people in Sodom. Did God change his mind along the way? No. Rather he was teaching Abraham the value of life and the magnitude of sin.
SO God is like a mafia boss, showing a new recruit what happens to those who cross his path. Death, destruction, punishment. Always punishment, always something bad has to happen to make God happy. The only way for God to combat evil is by committing greater evil. Again, don't you see why this is an issue for me?

Quote
Please explain how the verse does not give that interpretation.

Not being angry with someone does NOT mean "don't rape them". Rape is an important issue. Yet Jesus does not say "Thou shalt not rape". He doesn't even condemn slavery. He doesn't say that Moses et al were wrong for the mass rape of the Midianite females. Also, suppose you are right, and it prohibits any form of anger, violence, etc against anyone (again, I don't agree with this position, just for example sake). Why does God exhibit these behaviors and characteristics in abundance? God is Jealous, god is angry, god is wrathful, god commits violence and murder and genocide and orders rape and enslavement. It's all there in the Bible. No person has ever murdered the entire population of the Earth (except one family). Only God is that evil.


Quote
“Argument from Amazing Familiarity”? I have to learn these names. They seem like fun.
Indeed, they are. Here are a few links for your consideration. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html (http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html), http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/)  Amazing familiarity is when the person is arguing something from a position that they can't possibly know. Anything outside of "this existence" is outside of your existence, meaning that it is entirely unknown to you. You can't even know THAT it exists or not, let alone that it exists "outside of" this existence.

Quote
Your logic about them going to hell seems sound, the early Church Fathers even wrestled with this topic. But, as they found, it’s not sound when you look at the big picture. Jesus taught the great mercy and love of God. In fact, God is love. That’s his very nature. Starting from there, it’s logical that he would have accounted for the good people who went before him. I haven’t read these parts of the Church Fathers recently, but it’s there if you’d like to.
But no where does it say that all people who lived before Jesus DIDN'T go to hell. There's no reason to believe they didn't. Honestly, if they didn't, what would be the point of Jesus coming, if not to provide a means to prevent that? Even if those in Hell who were worthy ascended with Jesus, they still had to suffer a lot more than your average Christian, and they DIDN'T HAVE A CHOICE. They couldn't believe in a savior Jesus that wasn't yet known. They couldn't even reject him. And if it's logical to believe that God would have accounted for the good people who came before Jesus (in other words, judge them for their being good rather than having faith) then it is also logical that God could just continue that arrangement since it already rewards the just and punishes the evil, no blind subservience or human sacrifice required. Yet AGAIN we see a case where God had to come up with a cruel way involving suffering bloodshed and death, instead of doing something that would be more just. Because now, even if you are a good person, if you don't believe in Jesus, you go to hell. 3,000 years ago you would have got a get out of jail free card. So much for your "unchanging" god.

Quote
I guess we’ll find out at the end, won’t we. :)
  I can't accept that at all. If believer's can't even come to a consensus about their own stuff, why should I buy into it? Especially since, so far, the only reason believers in any region come to a consensus is bloodshed and eliminating the opposition. Even though, it develops into a denomination, and is not united with the rest of their sheep brethren.

Quote
Why bother spreading Christianity? Because knowing God and loving God is so much better than ignorance of him.
Really? How could we demonstrate that statement in the real world? Are staving children with HIV in primitive regions of Africa "better off" if they are aware of Jesus? A lot of the current problems in Africa are BECAUSE Christianity came there and claimed it as its own? Are they better off than they would have been if Christian nations hadn't colonize and subjected them?
Quote
The logic in that paragraph is like saying that it’s better to not love at all, than to love and have your heart broken. I don’t believe that. It seems that those who do have closed their heart to other people.
If God is love, why does he kill SO MANY PEOPLE!?!?! God is not necessary for love. Are you saying that those who are not Christians have never experienced love? I really hope not, that would just be lunacy.

Quote
Sure. Sorry about that. (Actually, I had to go back and read the last few posts because I had forgotten where I was going! You gotta love it.) We’re talking about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and punishment or consequences. I wanted to show the logic within the Catholic framework of what I’m saying. However, you have to be able to assume the Catholic framework. I know you don’t and I’m not asking you to believe it or agree with it or even to assume it for very long. I’ll go ahead, though.
 
Actually having been raised Catholic I can "assume" the Catholic Framework. It's not foreign to me, I just don't agree with it. But if you wish to argue from that perspective, I would be familiar.

Quote
Our ancestors were going along, evolving quietly in their natural earthly life, when God picks two proto-humans and gives them souls, i.e. makes them in his image and likeness. They now have not only their natural life that they already had, but also have a supernatural life of divine presence and grace. Amazing thing. They “walk with God” and he is very close to them. These two then have their obedience tested and, unfortunately, they fail the test. Because they failed, i.e. disobeyed God, God removes himself from them, or removes them from himself, same thing. Now they don’t have the divine presence or the original grace that they once enjoyed. They are returned to their previous state, almost. They still have their immortal souls and are still elevated above the animals.
I don't remember the Catholic church I went to ever teaching that there were a bunch of people, and that God just gave Adam and Eve a part of himself, making them special. It was always my understanding that having created the heavens and earth and all that jazz, God wanted something representative of himself on earth, and made man from the dust, and woman from his rib. They were the pride of his creation. I don't remember anything about "our ancestors" walking around with Adam and Eve before God gave them some upgrades. Furthermore, God says that because of this, all will be cursed with original sin (again, this is all according to what I was taught in church, and yes, I payed attention!). It's not until Jesus' time that God chills out and decides to give us an escape clause. Also, if Adam and Eve failed, and God created them, doesn't that mean that God himself failed? If I design a car, and it doesn't work, do I blame the car, or myself for not designing it properly?

Quote
You could call it punishment. I see that.
Yes I do, especially when all of the rest of the people have to experience the consequence of the failures of two people. God could have given any one of your proto humans a chance to see if they could get it right. He could have judged each individual based on their own merits.
Quote
I also see it as a consequence of failing the test of character.
A test that only two people failed. Again, why not give the rest of us a chance? Let me guess, you will say that with Jesus, we all have a chance.
Quote
They lost part of what they had gained. Have you heard of the parenting theory of “natural and logical consequences” (http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/familydevelopment/W00019.html)? You probably have. That’s how I think of it. It’s like if I give my son a new iPhone and tell him that he can keep it as long as he takes care of it. But then he doesn’t take care of it and so I take it away. I understand calling it punishment. That’s just not the way I think of it.
But responsible behavior is something learned from experience. I hardly consider one chance as qualifying for experience. Your son also has a reasonable expectation that he might one day, whether through good behavior or by becoming old enough, acquire another iPhone. Adam and Eve didn't get that chance, did they?

Quote
Two things. First, it’s a clear distinction between what we can do on our own, what we can do when commanded by God, and what God can do. The three are not the same.
SO what is "right" depends on whether or not God is having a tantrum today? Again, I need to know then, how do we discern the difference between who is being commanded by God to do evil, who is doing evil of their own accord, and what evil is wrought directly by God?
Quote
Second, and I think this is one of the biggest things that posters in this forum miss, Jesus, as the Son of God, is the fullest revelation of the Father. All of God’s revelation is to be read in the light of Christ.
Ok then, mass rape, slavery and murder is read... how?

Quote
We start then with Jesus and his message of repentance, forgiveness, love, mercy, and his actions of, for example, allowing himself to be crucified for our sake. Given that, we look back at the Old Testament and ask if our reading of the OT coincides with our understanding of the Father as revealed to us by Jesus. Where it doesn’t, we then ask how our reading of the OT is incorrect, and we try to gain a deeper understanding of what the OT reveals to us. (We discuss this again below.)
Again, in what way does being crucified for our sake bring any understanding to the motives of a violent murderer? We miss that on this forum because it doesn't make sense. Jesus talks about love and forgiveness and repentance. Is this God's repentance for the evil he has committed? Why did God not show forgiveness when he killed every living thing on earth (except the alleged contents of the ark)? Why does God have such high expectations of us, but he can't meet them himself? When does God turn the other cheek? He pursues his enemies with blood lust. What kind of example is he setting? The do as I say, not as I do, kind.

Quote
You guys keep bringing up these parts of the OT that are troublesome, and I agree that they are when you do not look at them through the revelation of Christ.
Please then explain to us how mass rape, genocide and slavery are not troublesome with the revelation of Christ.

 
Quote
That’s why your complaints don’t bother me. On the other hand, if the way you read the OT (without Jesus) were the right way to read the OT, then I’d be on your side, but it’s not and it never has been.
But the participants in the OT did not have Jesus, why shouldn't we read it without Jesus? Why is Jesus an afterthought? Did God say "Oh gee, I've been a dick, maybe I should try to do something about it so I can play the victim?" It sure seems like it.

Quote
Thank you. :)
welcome

Quote
The freethoughtpedia article you gave got its information from “Denise Golumbaski, Research Analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, compiled from up-to-the-day figures on March 5th, 1997.” I can find lots of pages that cite her, but not anything that actually shows the original study. Being a statistician I want to see the methods, variables, raw data, etc. I also went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics and tried to find statistics and couldn’t. I find it very interesting how much discussion there is on the topic, but very little actual data out there.

Assuming that Denise Golumbaski’s data is real and correct, I will gladly concede the point to you. Thank you for sharing the information.
I will have to see if I can find anything else.

Quote
I sincerely apologize. You made your conclusion based on the best data we have. I should not have jumped to my own conclusion.
Hey, we all make mistakes.

Quote
Hmm, let’s be accurate. The text (Numbers 31) does not say there was a mass rape of their young women/girls.
Oh sure, it doesn't explicitly say there was. Just says that the men were to take the virgins for themselves as spoils of war. That really doesn't imply good intentions, if you ask me.
Quote
To be honest, I don’t know the answer.
Then how can you tell us our interpretation is wrong? If by accepting Jesus and all that, you are still no nearer an answer to as painful of a question as this, what better off are you than a non-believer, who doesn't even think it likely that such events actually happened as depicted?
Quote
As far as I know, no one does.
Doesn't that bother you at all? If NO ONE knows, in spite of all of the billions of people who have Christ in their corner, then what difference does it make?
Quote
That doesn’t mean there isn’t an answer; we just don’t understand it yet.
You're sounding like a scientist here. The problem for me is that the method you have proposed to understanding such texts (interpreting them in the light of Jesus) fails, by your own admission, to explain such texts.
Quote
To read the text from our perspective it is very difficult to reconcile. But we have to take a few things into account. You’ve likely heard these before, but let me list the ones I know of here.

We have to understand that the Bible books are a history, but not the kind of history we understand today. The actual events that, for example, established Israel on the soil of Palestine were much more complex than we read in the Bible. John Bright’s book, “A History of Israel” is a fascinating coverage of the many schools of thought on this topic.

Another thing for us to understand is the character, behavior and standards of the people in the Ancient Near East, particularly with regards to war and conquest, rules and laws. We have to look at the Israelite behavior with respect to the context of the times. What looks barbarous to us may have been a moral improvement. When God reveals himself to humans, he is understood in the terms of the times. To Bronze Age people he will likely be understood in Bronze Age terms. For example, herem – the ancient Semitic practice of slaying everybody and everything in a village may be seen as, ironically, a pious act (“See Lord! I’m keeping nothing for myself!” or “I’m keeping our faith and our culture pure.”) Horrible in our time, but not then.
I'm seriously laughing out loud. Please explain to me how the situation in the Current Near East is any different than the situation in the Ancient Near East, except with Grenade Launchers and AK-47's instead of Iron chariots and spears. Also, this contradicts your unchanging God hypothesis, as God apparently changes to fit whatever standard exists at the time. Convenient. Isn't it more likely that people created God, and that his morals have instead evolved along with our own?

Quote
With our children, we choose to reveal certain things about life to them a little at a time. As they grow older and learn more, then we reveal more. I don’t teach my 3 year old how to run a household, but my 17 year old knows more. I don’t teach calculus or Shakespeare to a second grader. In the same way God has revealed more and more of himself over time. Back then it was one thing, later on it was more, and so on.

Why would God wait? why reveal himself simply in the context of the times, even if it was primitive and barbaric, when he instead could have taught the primitive and barbaric people how to NOT be primitive and barbaric?
 1. By "we" I mean people in general forming a language.
 2. Going on the assumption that the Bible is "God Inspired'
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 23, 2012, 06:42:30 PM
SC you sir are lame,,,The Raven,where I came from,Haida Gwaii was told to me that he discovered the beginning's of man inside a giant clamshell  on a beach. This story of my "creation" has been told for some 12,000+ years. Do I have any evidence to back this story up,NO.

 It is also told that the Raven released the Sun,stars and moon,do I have evidence,NO,eyewitness testimony,yes. The man who held sun,moon,stars in a box to keep the world dark because he was afraid that if the light escaped into the world his daughter may be ugly. He held the items in a box till The Raven stole them and released it into the world.

 Now your creation story is similar,but different  the world is flat and the sun moon and stars appear on the dome covering the world. Science has explained both the stories can't be really true,but somehow you hold on to these MYTHS to be true,while dismissing mine as only MYTH,why

 Why do you believe your stupid stories from a bunch of stupid goat herders over mine. Both of these stories have the same amount of evidence,NONE. The funny thing about your story is that it was not written down at the time it happened,no evidence of the people or what happened to them,if they even existed. Just stories based on folklore,that's it,written down and used by con-men.

 Would I like the stories of the Raven to be true,it would be nice. Do I have evidence the stories are true,oral tradition and the cerimonial statues of the stories of creation. Would you like your Jesus story to be true,of course. Evidence to back it up,,,,,as much as I have for my Raven stories,a book,not very well written or explained. If you include the OT in that,the books contain the stories of a homicidal maniac seeking revenge on his creation.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 24, 2012, 09:59:35 AM
 
Some of those examples seem to have been teaching moments. When God told Abraham what he was planning with Sodom, Abraham bargained with God for the lives of the people in Sodom. Did God change his mind along the way? No. Rather he was teaching Abraham the value of life and the magnitude of sin.

Unfortunately for SC, if one actually reads Genesis 18, this isn’t supported at al.  This god appears as a human.  Then this god says he’s going to tell Abraham about his plans and says that he has no idea if the claims about S&G are true and he has to go look (rather ruins the idea of omniscience).  Abraham already knows that it’s wrong to kill everyone in a city for the sins of others.  This god seems to not know this (supported by his commandments and promise to damn the children for the sins of the fathers) and has to be taught about justice himself.  There is no teaching moment, no god saying “yes, Abraham, I was testing you”.  Nope, there’s just Yahweh, agreeing with the opinion of a human, after declaring his intentions.  Then we have the two “men” from Genesis 18, who are now “angels”, coming to Sodom and of course the usual good story about how Lot cares so little about his daughters that he offers them to a rapacious crowd (actually a good precedent for loving this god more than your family that JC supposedly said in the NT).  Another problem with this is that Abraham is asking for the city to be spared if there are righteous people in it.  God agrees that if there 10 he won’t destroy it.  I guess 4 isn’t enough?  Or 6 if you count the husbands/fiancées that this god fearing man Lot agreed to give his daughters to?  It’s curious how this story contradicts the story of the lost lambs in the NT and shows how this god really doesn’t care about any collateral damage.  What does it matter a few innocents killed?  Heck at this point, if this god has to go look, how does he know who is who anyway?  God’s power gets increased and decreased by the speed of plot.

And of course, there’s no archaeological evidence at all for any god created disaster.


and nice post, 12 Monkeys.  Much prefer Raven over some pale Galilean.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 24, 2012, 10:29:45 AM
Thanks Veykyn

 Ever notice how a theists will ALWAYS dismiss other creation stories from around the world as myth all the while holding their stories as true. The Bible,both OT and NT full of contadiction and so full of holes,niether can stand if examined.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on January 24, 2012, 01:55:13 PM
Thanks Veykyn

 Ever notice how a theists will ALWAYS dismiss other creation stories from around the world as myth all the while holding their stories as true. The Bible,both OT and NT full of contadiction and so full of holes,niether can stand if examined.

that makes me wonder, do you know of any similar contradictions in Haida myth?  Im a bit more familiar with the mythos of the Greco-Roman gods and the Egyptian ones and they seem to be pretty internally consistent, quite unlike the claims of the bible.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Hatter23 on January 24, 2012, 03:20:40 PM
Thanks Veykyn

 Ever notice how a theists will ALWAYS dismiss other creation stories from around the world as myth all the while holding their stories as true. The Bible,both OT and NT full of contadiction and so full of holes,niether can stand if examined.

that makes me wonder, do you know of any similar contradictions in Haida myth?  Im a bit more familiar with the mythos of the Greco-Roman gods and the Egyptian ones and they seem to be pretty internally consistent, quite unlike the claims of the bible.

They only seem more intentionally consistent because you've been exposed to the watered down, translated and most popular of each mythos. Flaws and variations become more apparent the closer one studies a mythos; we only notice the flaws of Christianity more readily because we are close enough to notice the scotch tape and cracks.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 24, 2012, 03:35:57 PM
Thanks Veykyn

 Ever notice how a theists will ALWAYS dismiss other creation stories from around the world as myth all the while holding their stories as true. The Bible,both OT and NT full of contadiction and so full of holes,niether can stand if examined.

that makes me wonder, do you know of any similar contradictions in Haida myth?  Im a bit more familiar with the mythos of the Greco-Roman gods and the Egyptian ones and they seem to be pretty internally consistent, quite unlike the claims of the bible.

Well,women,much like Eve were an afterthought,as clamshells clamped on to their dangly bits and woman was created. As far as the "creation story",not really much contradicts anything. The Raven found us,was used by others to make the land we live on,what he throws away usually benefits humanity. He is like God in the way he likes to play with his "toys"(humans and other animals). The way he comes across things may be a little out of the timeline that is set out but hardly contradictory.....if something comes along that can't be explained "Ravendidit" works where"Goddidit" works for theists
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on January 24, 2012, 03:43:29 PM
Thanks Veykyn

 Ever notice how a theists will ALWAYS dismiss other creation stories from around the world as myth all the while holding their stories as true. The Bible,both OT and NT full of contadiction and so full of holes,niether can stand if examined.

that makes me wonder, do you know of any similar contradictions in Haida myth?  Im a bit more familiar with the mythos of the Greco-Roman gods and the Egyptian ones and they seem to be pretty internally consistent, quite unlike the claims of the bible.

They only seem more intentionally consistent because you've been exposed to the watered down, translated and most popular of each mythos. Flaws and variations become more apparent the closer one studies a mythos; we only notice the flaws of Christianity more readily because we are close enough to notice the scotch tape and cracks.

Yet like the other myths that have faded into history,this single God based religion(in all its denominations) has managed to keep its head above the dammned water.

 The "other" mythos's have been watered down only because to the victors go the stories,,,and the religous dogmas of God are gonna be the first to fall victim without a major war....as athieism slowly takes over the planet.....the watered down version of this God based religion will be just another story...1000 years or so from now :laugh:
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on January 28, 2012, 11:57:46 AM
Hello All,

As I PM'd the posters last week, this has been a busy week and I could not get back to the thread. Unfortunately, this next week is just as busy if not more so. I sincerely apologize for the delay in getting back here, and will as soon as I can.
 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on January 29, 2012, 04:37:34 PM
Hello All,

As I PM'd the posters last week, this has been a busy week and I could not get back to the thread. Unfortunately, this next week is just as busy if not more so. I sincerely apologize for the delay in getting back here, and will as soon as I can.

No problem, I figured that you were probably busy. Life happens. Take care. I look forward to your response.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 01, 2012, 09:30:08 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? Surprised to hear from me? I completely understand. Thanks to you also for being patient with me. I think that I’ll have some time this week. It’s Spring Break and I’m taking the week off to do some stuff around the house. We’ll see how well that goes. :)

Since it’s been two months (wow, I am very sorry for it being that long! The forum actually warned me that I might not want to reply here since it had been so long), I had to go back and refresh my memory on some of these. I encourage others who read our posts to do the same, i.e. back up a few and catch up on the conversation.

You’ve got a lot of good stuff in this post. However, if you don’t mind, I’m not going to respond to everything. Would you like to pick a couple of points for me to address or would you like me to?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 01, 2012, 09:31:08 PM
Hi Brakeman,

Long time no talk to. Thanks for your patience waiting for me to come back. We’ve had many different things going on over the last few months. I’m not guaranteeing that I’ll be regular going forward, but I am taking some time off and should be able to carry on a conversation for a week or so, if that’s okay.

No, I'm talking about your beliefs, not the beliefs of long dead people. The Exodus story was recorded hundreds and hundreds of years after the supposed event.
It’s easy to make claims when we gloss things over. Please be specific in how you think things happened. Hundreds of years later someone wrote a story that falsely injected into the Hebrew’s history a description of the Exodus, the Sinai events, the desert wanderings, etc. Everyone believed them even though there was no, according to you, tribal traditions, no stories handed down, etc. They believed these suddenly fabricated stories so much that it became the central aspect of their entire culture. Is that what you’re trying to say happened?

Please also tell me why the author of these books could not have been Moses as tradition states (other than the part about his own death maybe).

You can’t just wave your hands without giving logical arguments as to why your side is correct and the other is not. You can stick just to the Exodus story.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 01, 2012, 09:33:26 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

I apologize for the delay in responding to you.

Now your creation story is similar,but different  the world is flat and the sun moon and stars appear on the dome covering the world. Science has explained both the stories can't be really true,but somehow you hold on to these MYTHS to be true,while dismissing mine as only MYTH,why

 Why do you believe your stupid stories from a bunch of stupid goat herders over mine.
First, flat worlds and such are not the Bible’s creation story. I understand that you don’t like the Bible’s creation story, but let’s get the references right. Flat worlds with domes was the Hebrew understanding at the time, as it was the understanding of their pagan neighbors.

Second, I do not hold that flat worlds with domes must be true.

Third, Genesis was not written with a scientific viewpoint, but a spiritual one. It is religious poetry intended to teach religious truths necessary for our salvation, which it does very well.

Fourth, the Genesis story, unlike the Raven and the box story, does a pretty good job, as far as it goes, of coinciding with what science tells us.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: sun_king on April 01, 2012, 10:12:16 PM
Fourth, the Genesis story, unlike the Raven and the box story, does a pretty good job, as far as it goes, of coinciding with what science tells us.

To be on the same page, to which science does genesis story coincide with?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on April 01, 2012, 11:04:43 PM
To this "science", sun_king:  http://www.answersingenesis.com (http://www.answersingenesis.com)
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Quartinium on April 02, 2012, 05:42:10 AM
Judas' "betrayal" is complex on many different levels. On the surface it seems simple. Some guy gets thirty silver for ratting out his mentor. But if you dig a little deeper a few facts/points bear light that reveals the intricacy. First is the temple law of Jesus' time period. During that era to condemn someone required witnesses and testimony before the council of priests. In addition if someone was to come to the council and admit that they had commited sin they could simply make offerings and be absolved of that sin. So, in order for Jesus to be condemned to death someone had to bear witness against him, then he had to be tried. It helps whenever reading biblical passages and stories to bear in mind the time period in which they were written and the customs of the characters in them and the customs of the author.

Additionally the Gospel of Judas is quite different from the biblical version and suggest that Jesus singles Judas out to perform this service for him. Not that Judas betrays Jesus but rather that he does his will. Evidence to support this is the kiss that Judas betrays him with. He loves Jesus, and Jesus' admoniton "Betray me with a kiss?" can be seen in the light of him asking Judas, "Is this how you would normally betray people? Why not just point your finger and say seize him!" That's my take anyway.

I think that Judas' story is almost promethian, in that Judas does what we knows is wrong for himself to advance a greater good for all of mankind. It is as a previous poster said, a kind of sacrifice on Judas' part. I think that the authors of the biblical gospels perhaps missed this point or could not conceive of the idea or simply did not want to have two figures in their narrative with so noble a character (willing to sacrifice themselves for others) and they instead villified Judas and the accounts of his suicide become muddled.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 02, 2012, 06:00:08 AM
Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? Surprised to hear from me? I completely understand. Thanks to you also for being patient with me. I think that I’ll have some time this week. It’s Spring Break and I’m taking the week off to do some stuff around the house. We’ll see how well that goes. :)
welcome back! Hopefully you have been able to keep things under control, I know you were really busy.

Quote
Since it’s been two months (wow, I am very sorry for it being that long! The forum actually warned me that I might not want to reply here since it had been so long),
no need to apologize, you said you would likely be gone for a bit.
Quote
I had to go back and refresh my memory on some of these. I encourage others who read our posts to do the same, i.e. back up a few and catch up on the conversation.

You’ve got a lot of good stuff in this post. However, if you don’t mind, I’m not going to respond to everything. Would you like to pick a couple of points for me to address or would you like me to?

Looking at my last relevant post, I can see what you mean. It's pretty long. I'd be interested to hear your response to any of it, so choose what you like. If I feel that your response brushes over something major, I will let you know.

Glad to hear that things are settling down a little bit for ya, look forward to your next post!
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on April 02, 2012, 10:08:15 AM
oh, the part of writing about his own death isn’t enough evidence that Moses didn't write all of this down?   ;D  Oh such a "little” detail.  There is also that problem with writing as an omniscient narrator, where Moses suddenly now knows what the Pharoah says but is supposedly miles away?  Oh of course, God told him didn’t he?  :D  What a convenient answer!   

No evidence for the Exodus at all.  None in Egypt, none anywhere on the Sinai, nothing.  Supposedly hundreds of thousands of Israelites were supposedly “slaves” in Egypt.  NO evidence of this or the economic problems there would be if they did exist and lef.  There is no evidence that the Israelites left Egypt, carrying all of the treasure of Egypt because this god supposedly forced the Egyptians to give it up.  Supposedly the army of the Pharoah, every chariot in Egypt, was completely destroyed and the civilization was decimated by the murder of the first born of every living thing.  But Jews and Christiansn can’t show *when* this actually happened.  And we see no evidence in any time period where the kingdoms around Upper and Lower Egypt attacked Egypt because it was supposedly so weakened. There have been no encampments ranging over a 40 year period in the Sinai.  And hundreds of thousands of people do have to poop, do have to get rid of garbage (heck they had quail a foot deep), etc and magically there are no latrines to be found anywhere from such a group.   

And the same problems exist for the myths about the global flood, the tower of Babel, the magical battles that god interfered in, the existence of Jesus son of god, the events around the supposed cruxifiction, and the claims of the apostles.

It’s such utter nonsense.  Just more myths indistinguishable from any other religion’s.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kcrady on April 02, 2012, 04:10:28 PM
It’s easy to make claims when we gloss things over. Please be specific in how you think things happened.

This is an illegitimate demand.  We're talking about the distant past, about a society that produced no enduring stone monuments.  The only records we have are translations of translations of copies of copies of copies of perishable scrolls that were probably written-down versions of even more perishable oral tales.  All throughout this long, long game of Telephone, there were kings and priests and holy-men with various agendas who were all in a position to alter or redact the writings.  It may not be possible to provide a minutely-detailed and meticulously proven history of how the stories originated.  That doesn't mean we should believe in talking bushes.

If you are interested in this issue, you ought to at least look into what mainstream scholarship has to say about how what we call "the Bible" was compiled.  In the case of the Torah, scholars have been able to analyze content and word-use, and deduce that there were at least four main sources, the Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly writers (JEDP), and a Redactor (possibly Ezra, who is portrayed "discovering" a scroll of the Torah and mandating that it be publicly read to the people).  These sources in turn were writing down older national folklore.  Those original stories don't have to be any more true than tales of Paul Bunyan, or George Washington chopping down the cherry tree.

It is possible that dissidents and/or runaway slaves from Egypt could have found refuge with the Canaanites who were, from what the archaeological evidence tells us, the original Israelites; there was no Israelite "invasion" of Canaan.[1]  However the Exodus narrative is fiction.  If Egypt had been laid waste by a Hebrew sorcerer, the Egyptians would have noticed.

Hundreds of years later someone wrote a story that falsely injected into the Hebrew’s history a description of the Exodus, the Sinai events, the desert wanderings, etc. Everyone believed them even though there was no, according to you, tribal traditions, no stories handed down, etc. They believed these suddenly fabricated stories so much that it became the central aspect of their entire culture. Is that what you’re trying to say happened?

This is a strawman argument.  Nowhere in the post by Brakeman that you cited, does he suggest that anyone just abruptly made up the Exodus story and inserted it into ancient Israelite history.  There were "tribal traditions, stories handed down" that were incorporated into the narrative and crafted into nationalistic propaganda during the time of the Divided Monarchy and post-Exile periods.  There is an entire body of scholarship in archaeology and critical analysis of Biblical texts that has studied the question of the stories' origins.  If you really want to know the truth, you would do well to avail yourself of it.  The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silverman[2] is a great place to start.  If it's not in your library and you don't want to drop money for a book, then watch the video documentary I linked to in my first footnote.

Please also tell me why the author of these books could not have been Moses as tradition states (other than the part about his own death maybe).

What is your evidence that Moses did write them?  I have to say, I do get a kick out of the way you say "maybe" at the end there.  As if you don't quite want to dismiss the possibility that, after clutching his chest and collapsing to the ground in death, Moses' corpse managed to crawl back to his scribe's table and write "And then, I died" to the end of Deuteronomy.

Evidence that Moses was not the author is abundant.  First of all, the stories are written about Moses, in the third person.  The texts are full of anachronisms (references to places, events, etc. that existed after the alleged time of Moses) and explicit statements of later authorship.  For example:

Quote
Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord's command.  He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows his burial place to this day...Never since has there arisen a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.

--Deuteronomy 34:5-6, 10, emphasis added.

Verses like these are clearly written by an author for whom Moses was a figure of the distant past.  We can also note how the authors refer to "Pharaoh" as if that were a personal name (as in, "Pharaoh, king of Egypt (http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22Pharaoh%2C+king+of+Egypt%22&qs_version=NIV)").  "Pharaoh" comes from the ancient Egyptian word Per-a'a, meaning "Great House," i.e., the royal palace.  It's basically the same sort of thing we do when we refer to "the White House" when we're talking about a Presidential administration: "the White House announced today that the United States will seek to tighten sanctions against Iran."

If someone were to write a book that said, "And Whitehouse, President of the United States, said..." it is a very safe bet that this person is not someone who ever knew any American President personally, lived during the time of American preeminence, or had any but the most dim understanding of the United States government and culture.

You can’t just wave your hands without giving logical arguments as to why your side is correct and the other is not.

Translation: "Pot to kettle, pot to kettle, you're black, over."
 1. For a free video documentary of these findings, see The Bible Unearthed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t440bxhn1qA).
 2. Note the Jewish names.  These are Israeli archaeologists who would have every reason to try to uphold the Exodus narrative if it were possible, since it is the basis for their nation's claim to its land.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ambassador Pony on April 02, 2012, 04:49:54 PM
bm
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: jaimehlers on April 02, 2012, 05:25:26 PM
As an addendum to kcrady's post, I think it's important to point out that we want proof, not words.  It's all well and good to talk about the Bible, but the fact is that for all the reverence that Christians give it, it's still a collection of words.  Remember the old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words?  If a single picture is worth a thousand words, a single piece of hard evidence is worth at least a million.  Pictures can be faked, but it's a lot harder to fake something that can be tested, like an ancient piece of pottery, or a clay tablet, or bones.  And the thing is, the actual evidence we have contradicts a lot of what's in the Bible.

For that matter, the words put down by other civilizations contradict some of what's in the Bible.  There were quite a few cultures elsewhere in the world at the time the Noachim Flood was believed to happen, yet their histories continue through that time period, unbroken.  As kcrady pointed out, the plagues supposedly spread by Moses in Egypt were never so much as mentioned in Egyptian histories, even though the Egyptians were fairly well obsessed with keeping records.  And there were no Roman records of a Jewish miracle-worker during the time frame of Jesus's ministry.  Even given Roman cosmopolitanism, they would have seen the miracles that Jesus supposedly performed as the equivalent of a god walking the Earth.  They would certainly have written about them to their friends and families; the Roman overseers in Palestine would have included them in their reports to Rome, even if they hedged their bets; there would have been some records made.  For that matter, why didn't the Romans bring up the bright star that would have appeared in the sky over the Mediterranean?  I mean, whether it was a nova, a planetary conjunction, or something else, either way it would have been an extremely rare event and would have been written about by the Romans, since they named the planets after members of their pantheon.

I'm sure there's lots more that could be said regarding this, but I believe I've made my point.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Graybeard on April 02, 2012, 07:44:50 PM
Judas' "betrayal" is complex on many different levels. On the surface it seems simple. Some guy gets thirty silver for ratting out his mentor. ... So, in order for Jesus to be condemned to death someone had to bear witness against him,
which, allegedly is what Judas did and walked out with money.
Quote
Additionally the Gospel of Judas is quite different from the biblical version and suggest that Jesus singles Judas out to perform this service for him. Not that Judas betrays Jesus but rather that he does his will. Evidence to support this is the kiss that Judas betrays him with. He loves Jesus, and Jesus' admoniton "Betray me with a kiss?" can be seen in the light of him asking Judas, "Is this how you would normally betray people? Why not just point your finger and say seize him!" That's my take anyway.
What was said and what might have been said are different things.

Quote
I think that Judas' story is almost promethian, in that Judas does what we he knows is wrong for himself to advance a greater good for all of mankind.
He did it on the orders of a man he believed to be the Son of God. How did he die? According to the Gospel of Judas, he was to be stoned by the other disciples - yet a third way of death.
Quote
I think that the authors of the biblical gospels perhaps (i) missed this point or (ii) could not conceive of the idea or (iii) simply did not want to have two figures in their narrative with so noble a character
(i) They certainly did that. I suspect that no one would have believed them. (ii)which accounts for why they missed it - and they are not looking for ideas, they are looking totell what actually happened. (iii) The Bible is filled with patriarchs, one more would not make a difference - and was he so noble? All he did was "follow orders." for which he was paid.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 02, 2012, 10:00:29 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Looking at my last relevant post, I can see what you mean. It's pretty long. I'd be interested to hear your response to any of it, so choose what you like. If I feel that your response brushes over something major, I will let you know.
Thanks for the flexibility. I appreciate it. I picked just some of the topics that seemed to be “bigger,” though the post is still quite long. Maybe someday we can come back to the others.

. . .  why did God choose it as the primary means of communicating his message? . . . Why would God have planned that so badly?  . . . Why is an all powerful entity limited to the pathetic means of some tribal herdsmen in the Bronze Age?" . . .  why didn't God send Stealth Bombers to take out pharaoh and his chariots? . . .  Was God's thinking immature? Or was he not able to over-ride the ignorance of the writers?
Very thought provoking questions. Some think that God uses “faulty” means for communicating with us, but He’s really using appropriate means. When you are discussing things with your son, does it help for you to use language that he can’t understand? That is, assuming he’s young, would you use the phrase “conjectural variations approach” to teach him how to handle his allowance? (I found that phrase online. :)) If a kid were bullying your son, would you run him down with your car just because you can? If you can’t sincerely answer yes to those questions, then you have to re-evaluate the logic and legitimacy of your questions.

God uses appropriate language and means to communicate to us. God is like a father who lovingly guides his son to manhood, though the son may not always understand what the father is doing or why.

And we see that in the Bible. People have problems with the Bible because they make broad generalizations based on a narrow reading of certain parts of the Bible. If instead, they were to look at the whole Bible they would better see the movements of salvation history that culminate with Jesus Christ.

But why did he wait SO long? Aften Adam and Eve, and Abraham and Isaac, and Moses, Joshua, Aaron, etc etc, how many thousands of years did it take God to come up with a fairly mundane way of "saving" mankind from God?
Once we see that God was “guiding us to manhood” then the answer to your question is clear. The Jewish people grew from the pagan understanding of god as vengeful, mercurial and requiring child sacrifice to one who is a suffering servant and who is love. It could be that some of the Greek ideas were also necessary. One could easily guess that the Roman Empire was beneficial as well. It’s breadth, peace and longevity made it a good era for Christianity to spread.

If God's influence moved the pens of the writers, he could have assured that his unchanging wisdom were present from the beginning, rather than coming around later as an afterthought. God's word should start with the same perspective as it ends, if the ultimate author is unchanging.
I’m glad that you see this. And a look back on the Bible as a whole shows this. The people had to grow, yes, but they don’t grow without something to grow to and without someone to guide them. God did that by a series of covenants with humanity that culminate in the covenant of Jesus Christ.

Fine, then how do you KNOW that God's plans, though apparently at times flawed, are in fact perfect?
It follows logically from the premises, starting with “God is love” so that He made us out of love and wants only what’s best for us. Then from omniscience, omnipresence, etc. we know that what he wants, he can make happen. At the same time he respects our free will, which was part of what started this! :)

SO God is like a mafia boss, showing a new recruit what happens to those who cross his path. Death, destruction, punishment. Always punishment, always something bad has to happen to make God happy. The only way for God to combat evil is by committing greater evil. Again, don't you see why this is an issue for me?
Yes, I do see that this is an issue for you. Your compassion is clear.

Not being angry with someone does NOT mean "don't rape them".
Do you disagree that rape is a crime of violence?

Actually having been raised Catholic I can "assume" the Catholic Framework. It's not foreign to me, I just don't agree with it.
That’s good. I actually find very few people on this forum who can accurately describe Catholic teachings.

But the participants in the OT did not have Jesus, why shouldn't we read it without Jesus? Why is Jesus an afterthought?
Good question. The answer is two-fold. First, He’s not an afterthought and, secondly, that way of reading fits with the Jewish way of reading the Bible. Let me explain.

In the book of Genesis we have the proto-evangelium, the early version of the gospels, when God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” God developed the idea of a Savior for the Jewish people through the things that happened to them. Each of the covenants brought them closer to this understanding. So Jesus was not an afterthought and God’s plan for the Jewish people culminates in the person of Jesus Christ. It is critical to the understanding of God to understand Jesus and to know him as a person.

Secondly, when new things happened to them, the Jewish people would interpret those events in light of their scripture and would reinterpret their scripture in light of the new events. One example is when they were taken into exile in Babylon, they had to rethink their scripture and the promises of God in light of the fact that they didn’t have a land anymore! That rethinking took their understanding of the covenant of God to a new level.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 02, 2012, 10:13:58 PM
Hi sun_king,

It’s a pleasure to “meet” you, so to speak.
Fourth, the Genesis story, unlike the Raven and the box story, does a pretty good job, as far as it goes, of coinciding with what science tells us.
To be on the same page, to which science does genesis story coincide with?
Thanks for asking the question first. Many people would just go right in with an attack. I appreciate that you sought to understand first. Note that these are my own thoughts and others more scholarly than I may have thought this through more. Actually, I did a quick search and found a comparison on Huffington post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-wolper/genesis-and-science_b_500201.html) by David L. Wolper. Go figure. He produced a lot of great movies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Wolper), though I’m not sure that makes him a science expert. By the way, I’m not defending what he says, just thought I’d share.

As I had said, Genesis has a different purpose than teaching science. For one thing the Hebrews did not think of religion and science as two different things. Everything was related to religion. So, first let’s look at some of the structure of Genesis.

The first story of creation, Genesis 1, is written for the entire world. God is called Elohim, a name which the other nations would understand. The second story is for the Jewish people. God is called Yahweh and the first covenant that I mentioned in another post is established.

In the first story, we start with the Earth without form and empty. The first 3 days give the Earth form and the second 3 populate it or set “rulers” over the world. God first creates the “structure” of the world and then fills it with living things. The sets of days match up. For example, in Day 1 we have day and night, and then in Day 4 those realms are populated or they are given their “rulers” (two different ways to think of it).

God then rests and blesses His creation, establishing a covenant with creation and especially with us, by establishing the Sabbath. This is referred to in other books later on, as well. In fact, the Hebrew word for “oath-swearing,” which establishes a covenant, is sheba, which is a word based on the Hebrew word for the number “seven.” We see that connection later in the Bible as well.

If we compare the creation account with the accounts of the building of the tabernacle and the Temple, we’ll see that both of these holy dwellings are described in terms very similar to those used to describe the creation of the world. The world is the Temple and the Garden of Eden is the sanctuary or holy of holies where God dwelled. There are other things, too, but that’s enough to show that there’s quite a bit going on in the first few books of Genesis.

How much they intended to write as “science” I don’t know, probably little. However, there are some parallels that I see that are worth mentioning. They’re not rocket science, but they beat a Raven and a box. :) I won’t go into the ones that Wolper has in his post and I didn’t think of. Some of his points do seem logical with what I know about cosmology. I put them into a table hoping that would make it easier to follow, however the table tags don’t seem to allow a border. Maybe if the admins added the mod, Table Plus BBCodes? I made some extra formatting to help keep things straight.

The Bible
Science
  • In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth.
First, the author states that the universe had a beginning. It wasn’t around forever.
  • God said let there be light.
The Big Bang has been described as an explosion of light.
  • God made a firmament and divided the waters that were under the firmament from those above. . . .  and God called the firmament, Heaven.
The “heavens” were created before the earth was formed.
  • And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas.
The bare earth and the oceans would have formed first.
  • the Earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit having seed each one according to its kind.
Wolper points out that this is out of order and that the creatures of the sea would have formed first. However, this order fits with the form and void structure of the story.
  • And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.
Whether the “explanation” given by others is right or not, I don’t know. This order fits the structure of the story that tells the religious truths, which were more important.
  • God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven.
Life in the sea would have been created first. I’m sure the fowls were secretly added by a pagan who sneaked into the copy room.
  • And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds.
The creatures on the earth would have been created next.
  • And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
Humans evolved last.

So, obviously it’s not a scientific paper and it’s not intended to be, but I hope that explains what I meant.
[/list]
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 02, 2012, 10:42:42 PM
Hi kcrady,

Thanks for the response.

It’s easy to make claims when we gloss things over. Please be specific in how you think things happened.
This is an illegitimate demand.  . . .   It may not be possible to provide a minutely-detailed and meticulously proven history of how the stories originated. 
No it’s not, and your response is a cop-out. I did not ask for a “minutely-detailed and meticulously proven history.” I asked for “how you think things happened.” I think that’s a very fair request. I have no problem with him waving his hands a little, but so far he’s making windmills, just as you are. If Brakeman can’t do it, then he can say so and take back his claims. By the way, you point to scholarship later on, but your dismissal of oral tradition is not scholarly at all.

If you are interested in this issue, you ought to at least look into what mainstream scholarship has to say about how what we call "the Bible" was compiled.
Yes, the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) was popular and some still subscribe to it, but you have to keep up with the scholars. About half a century ago, Umberto Cassuto, a Jewish scholar, reviewed the valid observations of the DH. He pointed out problems with the DH and asked the question, “Is there an easier way to explain the difficulties?” His approach is a simpler way of explaining the questions the DH brought up without some of the problems that came with it. You can read about it in his book, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (http://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=Umberto+Cassuto&title=The+Documentary+Hypothesis+and+the+Composition+of+the+Pentateuch&lang=en&isbn=&submit=Search&new_used=*&destination=us&currency=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr). His is a valid alternative to the DH without the DH’s problems that is gaining popularity among scholars.

There were "tribal traditions, stories handed down" that were incorporated into the narrative and crafted into nationalistic propaganda during the time of the Divided Monarchy and post-Exile periods. 
I see your hands moving, but nothing behind them. How did these lies get pulled over the eyes of all the people? They were that gullible? A tribal leader told his children about the story of the Exodus and the other tribes around there just went along with it?

You say in the Divided Monarchy and post-Exile periods. Does that mean that in David’s time these stories weren’t around? Why do the books about those times include Exodus stories? Why are the Psalms replete with Exodus references?

Again, paint me a picture that gives just a little bit of rationality in this giant conspiracy theory.

There is an entire body of scholarship in archaeology and critical analysis of Biblical texts that has studied the question of the stories' origins. 
Maybe so, but it’s certainly not the only “body of scholarship.” If you want to read research from another perspective, “A History of Israel” by John Bright is a good example. He is the Cyrus H. McCormick Emeritus Professor of Hebrew and the Interpretation of the Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary. He gives honest and well reasoned arguments for his conclusions with references to the research literature he bases it on.

Note the Jewish names.  These are Israeli archaeologists who would have every reason to try to uphold the Exodus narrative if it were possible, since it is the basis for their nation's claim to its land.
Really? Every Israeli thinks that the reason they have claim to the land is because of the Torah? Isn’t that just a little racist?

Then I say
Please also tell me why the author of these books could not have been Moses as tradition states (other than the part about his own death maybe).
And you respond with
The texts are full of anachronisms (references to places, events, etc. that existed after the alleged time of Moses) and explicit statements of later authorship.  For example:
And then you fall back on the example of his death. Ahh, you’re quite the character.

We can also note how the authors refer to "Pharaoh" as if that were a personal name. . .   "Pharaoh" comes from the ancient Egyptian word Per-a'a, meaning "Great House," i.e., the royal palace.  . . .

If someone were to write a book that said, "And Whitehouse, President of the United States, said..." it is a very safe bet that this person is not someone who ever knew any American President personally, lived during the time of American preeminence, or had any but the most dim understanding of the United States government and culture.
Yes, we can note that, but we also have to note the rest of the opening paragraph from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh) which says
Quote
The title of Pharaoh started being used for the king during the New Kingdom, specifically during the middle of the eighteenth dynasty.
Or even the next paragraph which says,
Quote
Pharaoh, meaning "Great House", originally referred to the king's palace, but by the reign of Thutmose III (ca. 1479-1425 BC) in the New Kingdom, had become a form of address for the person of the king.
These time periods, the Eighteenth Dynasty which includes the reign of Thutmose III, are about when the Hebrews were in Egypt and before the probable date of the Exodus.

So, you can note that all you want, but I’m not sure what it gets you.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: sun_king on April 03, 2012, 02:04:32 AM
<snip>

SC, I appreciate the long and detailed answer given to my one-line post.

Let us summarize, as per the bible: (Till Day 1, small steps at a time  :))

Till Day 1: God, holy spirit, Jesus, angels, archangels, cherubs, dominions, powers, seraphs etc just existed. Time may have flowed, but there was no defined space.[1] All the above entities existed nowhere. And there was utter darkness, but that probably didnt matter, the divine entities probably didnt need optical spectrum. This is logical because all of them would have been one, extremely dense atom. Phenomenal cosmic powers, itty bitty living space.

Day 1: God creates heaven and earth. Finally the supernatural have some space to set foot on. Visible light is active.[2]. Big Bang is not an explosion, its an expansion[3]

So 24 hours after the biblical big bang, we have heaven and an earth without form, but full of brine. There was a day and night, but no sun, moon and the stars.[4]. Heaven is above the Middle East, a solid mass of unspecified shape, at an unspecified distance. Can't compromise on the length of of a day, day has to be 24 hours, we dont have sabbaths millions of years long, right. One unit needs to have one standard definition, in the science we use. It just wont be science if we define day at our convenience!

I think you should filter out the science and identify what may have been added by pagans sneaking into the copy rooms. You are welcome to correct me if you find mistakes in my inference.
 1.  A viable alternative is that god came to existence just prior to Day 1.
 2.  Having some experience in electro-optics I would love to ask god how light was seperated from darkness. Darkness is absense of light, you cannot seperate it, seperation is applicable for heterogenous items. But saying god reduced light wont make him sound impressive.
 3. Listen to the song by Barenaked Ladies.
 4. Doesnt it make you wonder if the planets, satellites and the stars are redundant.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2012, 07:16:45 AM
This is a strawman argument.  Nowhere in the post by Brakeman that you cited, does he suggest that anyone just abruptly made up the Exodus story and inserted it into ancient Israelite history.  There were "tribal traditions, stories handed down" that were incorporated into the narrative and crafted into nationalistic propaganda during the time of the Divided Monarchy and post-Exile periods.

I just want to add to this.

It is not as if the hebrews had libraries or history books where someone could look up history prior to his lifetime and call bullshit on an outrageous story.  "Oh, you say we annihilated the Egyptians with plagues?  Well, it says right here in this history book that we were never in Egypt...!"  Didn't happen.  All they had was what the priests told them.  And if the priests came out with some new story about how your people so awesomely wiped out the people of say Jericho, you had no way (or reason) to refute it.

 
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: jaimehlers on April 03, 2012, 07:24:26 AM
Even with history books, we still have silly tales like George Washington and his cherry tree.  And, to put it bluntly, oral traditions are not a very good way of remembering history, though they're better than nothing.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on April 03, 2012, 07:34:47 AM
God said let there be light. ....The Big Bang has been described as an explosion of light.

However, yhwh's creation is not described in the same way. It is only described in that "there wasn't light, now there is".  No expansion of space.  No expansion of matter.  No cooling.  No thermodynamics. No nothing.  Just a primitive's understanding, "god turned the lights on".  It really does not parallel reality.

God made a firmament and divided the waters that were under the firmament from those above. . . .  and God called the firmament, Heaven.

do you know what "firmament" is?  Here is the definition from Strong's Concordance:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7549&t=KJV
Quote
1) extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
  a) expanse (flat as base, support)
  b) firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
    1) considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above

Got that?  They sky is a solid and supported waters above it.  Not much like reality, is it?

The “heavens” were created before the earth was formed.

myeah.  No.  That's not what those words meant.  And you know it.  Otherwise you would not have put "heavens" in scare quotes.


And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars.

So, the sun and moon came after plants.

Whether the “explanation” given by others is right or not, I don’t know. This order fits the structure of the story that tells the religious truths, which were more important.

Ah, so it is no longer about how this mythology fits reality, but about religious truths.  It is too bad it is inconvenient for you to be consistent.  I understand.  I was there once myself.  Once you give up Genesis As Analogy and understand it is the creation myth of a primitive people and nothing more, it is much easier.  It is a simpler idea and one that is easier to be consistent about.  If you can find a way to detach that belief from your god beliefs, then perhaps you could try it out for a little while and see how it fits.

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on April 03, 2012, 09:15:12 AM
BTW, a reminder that SC has told me he refuses to acknowledge any in my posts. So if someone wants to see something I’ve mentioned addressed by SC, you’ll have to mention it yourself.  I am enjoying watching everyone bring up the hard questions, and adding to them myself so we can watch SC do his usual thing.
Very thought provoking questions. Some think that God uses “faulty” means for communicating with us, but He’s really using appropriate means.
again with the magic decoder ring.  Since SC can claim that *he* understands it, he must know the magic “appropriate means”.  Poor SC, the problem is that Christians kill each other and other people over who has the “right” interretation so your excuse would mean that your god wants people killed out of confusion.  What a good god! 

Quote
And we see that in the Bible. People have problems with the Bible because they make broad generalizations based on a narrow reading of certain parts of the Bible. If instead, they were to look at the whole Bible they would better see the movements of salvation history that culminate with Jesus Christ.
Oh golly and now we get the usual lies about how “everyone” but SC is misreading the bible and not doing it “properly”. Of course, SC can’t show his version is any more correct than the rest. 

Oh and we even get SC’s claim that the Jews were misunderstanding god, they only had a “pagan” understanding of what this god “really” was.  Hilarious.  Poor God, just can’t make anyone truly understand him.  SC also seems to think that no one but him has read the bible “as a whole” and that if one did, everyone would agree with him.  Alas, I have read the bible as a whole and disagree.  I guess that prayer to god for his claims to be supported failed too.  Oh and the claim that “god is love” when this god fails the definition of love offered in its magic book.  I do like that a lot.  Oh and the claims that god respects our free will, when that’s not supported in any way by the claims about god in the bible or by “church fathers”.  But as always SC will ignore that.   
Quote
Do you disagree that rape is a crime of violence?
Why yes it is and your god is all about letting it happen to women and makes laws that women who are raped have to marry their their violent attackers.  Again, what a good god! 

It’s always amusing to see SC sure that his version of Catholicism is the only real one. We have the claim that the Genesis story is “really” about Jesus but that again is simply retconning the story to excuse the problems in the OT and NT.  The snake story is nothing more than a ‘just-so’ story about snakes and mankind.  There needs to be no other interpretation, and its always amusing to watch Christians disagree on whether it was a real snake or if it was Satan. In any case, it shows a god that either intentionally let its creations be deceived so it could make up this little shadow play, needing to give forgiveness for something it intentionally allowed to happen (rather like a firefighter who is an arsonist so they get lots of praise), or a moronic god that couldn’t keep out supposed “pure evil” from its magical garden.  I even like this better when Revelation points out that JC supposedly gets to rule over a planet of good people since all the evil people were killed but then his daddy simply “must” allow pure evil out again to corrupt more people.  Seems that for an omnipotent, omniscient god, this god sure can’t do much for itself or for the people that it supposed “loves”. 

Oh then SC has to lcaim that there is no problem between the two different origina stories in Genesis.  I do love how he then claims that his version of Christianity is the only right one and of course has no evidence to support that.  Nope, we’re just supposed to look at his posts in awe and nod our heads. Golly, SC you’re right!  Oh and SC, science does not claim that the BB was an “explosion of light”.  Nice lie there.

As usual no evidence for his claims. No dates, no archaeology, nothing.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 03, 2012, 12:22:52 PM
Hi sun_king,

SC, I appreciate the long and detailed answer given to my one-line post.
You’re welcome.

Let us summarize, as per the bible: (Till Day 1, small steps at a time  :))
. . .
I think you should filter out the science and identify what may have been added by pagans sneaking into the copy rooms. You are welcome to correct me if you find mistakes in my inference.
While I found your post funny (I hope in the parts that you meant it to be), I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to make fun of Genesis as science? If you are, then I’m not sure you read my post or at least understood it.

If you’re not, then what is your point?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 03, 2012, 12:24:04 PM
Hi screwtape,   

How’s it going? I hope all is well. I see your boxes (?) are all blue now. I’m guessing that in the view of the forum that’s a good thing. And were you “Global Moderator” last time we “talked”? 

It is not as if the hebrews had libraries or history books where someone could look up history prior to his lifetime and call bullshit on an outrageous story.  "Oh, you say we annihilated the Egyptians with plagues?  Well, it says right here in this history book that we were never in Egypt...!"  Didn't happen.  All they had was what the priests told them.  And if the priests came out with some new story about how your people so awesomely wiped out the people of say Jericho, you had no way (or reason) to refute it.
As I said to kcrady, dismissing Oral Tradition and written documents in the Ancient Near East is not scholarly. Your, and others, description of how information was kept and passed on in the Hebrew culture, or any culture in that time, are at great odds with the science. I realize that this perception is an important one for your viewpoint and not likely to be challenged but encouraged by most posters on this forum.

However, I suggest, being the lover of science that you are, that you do some research into the current understanding of “information management” in the Ancient Near East. I don’t imagine that it will change your viewpoint, but at least your understanding of the period will be a more accurate one.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 03, 2012, 12:25:38 PM
God said let there be light. ....The Big Bang has been described as an explosion of light.
However, yhwh's creation is not described in the same way. It is only described in that "there wasn't light, now there is".  No expansion of space.  No expansion of matter.  No cooling.  No thermodynamics. No nothing.  Just a primitive's understanding, "god turned the lights on".  It really does not parallel reality.
You didn’t get the point of my post either. Oh, well. Never mind.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: sun_king on April 03, 2012, 12:40:07 PM

While I found your post funny (I hope in the parts that you meant it to be), I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you trying to make fun of Genesis as science? If you are, then I’m not sure you read my post or at least understood it.


Spot on SC, I am making fun of Genesis 1 (1) for the audacity to call it science and (2) the abysmally dumb creation narrative. I read your post and tried to understand what it meant, didn't make much progress, hey but that is not my fault. I dismiss whatever Wolper is trying to state, science doesn't have flexible measuring tapes. A day is 24 hours, you can't extend or compress it to match some fairytale. That is why we took extensive pains to define each unit of measurement. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Units_of_measurement)

And I summarized the "scientific" narration of the universe till day 1 and it was good. You are still free to correct me if you find errors in my inference. Since the word "science" is in use, please adhere to a clearly defined and universally accessible measurement system.

Any endeavors to further explain the "point" is welcome.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Azdgari on April 03, 2012, 12:50:06 PM
You didn’t get the point of my post either. Oh, well. Never mind.

If otherwise intelligent people are missing the point of your post, then perhaps you should lower yourself to explicitly stating the point of your post.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on April 03, 2012, 12:53:56 PM
with SC, Genesis isn't supposed to be science (since it's frankly ridiculous) but oh-ho when it comes to magic flood and divine parthenogenesis, then it's true, all true! ;D
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: One Above All on April 03, 2012, 01:00:13 PM
with SC, Genesis isn't supposed to be science (since it's frankly ridiculous) but oh-ho when it comes to magic flood and divine parthenogenesis, then it's true, all true! ;D

This is why I'm glad I'm an atheist. From an impartial PoV, we can see the myths for what they really are.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on April 03, 2012, 04:56:51 PM

As I said to kcrady, dismissing Oral Tradition and written documents in the Ancient Near East is not scholarly. Your, and others, description of how information was kept and passed on in the Hebrew culture, or any culture in that time, are at great odds with the science. ..

Joseph Smith told a wild story about Israelites living in the United states with Jesus visits and great wars between two Semitic peoples. Do modern day information passage modes have weaknesses where the ancients are flawless?  Were the Ancient Shinto, Hindu, and Muslim information modes more faulty than the Hebrew? Is that scientific?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Ice Monkey on April 03, 2012, 05:26:45 PM
Why wouldn't Jesus, who supposedly loves each one of us ever so much, try to stop Judas from betraying him when he knew the consequence would be spending an eternity in hell?
I have heard it told like this, and I could see how it would seem correct to a Christian. Without the betrayal, the most important Christian event would not have taken place. So Judas had to betray Jesus for God's plan to work out. Satan wouldn't have wanted God's plan to work out, so he wouldn't have been interested in furthering that plan. Assuming he was smart enough to forsee the consequences of tempting Judas (And come on, how could he not have known? What, he thought God himself could be executed by crucifying the human form he had temporarily taken on? He couldn't imagine that a man could be made a martyr by such a betrayal and subsequent execution?), he should have gone out of his way to not cause the betrayal. Therefore, it's quite logical that in order to further the plan, Jesus would have actively coerced Judas to betray him.
I can't remember where I heard or read this. But it was copyed in one of my files.

one hypothesis is that Jesus wanted his beloved follower to betray him.  The gospels dont agree on Judas, which is understandable, given the different opinions they held regarding the purpose and point of Jesus in the first place.

Oh, and to deny the blatantly obvious multitude of contradictions amongst the NT writers is to silence their individual voices.  Never understood why Christians insist on denying what their pastors know - the gospels dont agree on much.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on April 03, 2012, 06:43:54 PM
Hi screwtape,   

How’s it going? I hope all is well. I see your boxes (?) are all blue now. I’m guessing that in the view of the forum that’s a good thing. And were you “Global Moderator” last time we “talked”? 

It is not as if the hebrews had libraries or history books where someone could look up history prior to his lifetime and call bullshit on an outrageous story.  "Oh, you say we annihilated the Egyptians with plagues?  Well, it says right here in this history book that we were never in Egypt...!"  Didn't happen.  All they had was what the priests told them.  And if the priests came out with some new story about how your people so awesomely wiped out the people of say Jericho, you had no way (or reason) to refute it.
As I said to kcrady, dismissing Oral Tradition and written documents in the Ancient Near East is not scholarly. Your, and others, description of how information was kept and passed on in the Hebrew culture, or any culture in that time, are at great odds with the science. I realize that this perception is an important one for your viewpoint and not likely to be challenged but encouraged by most posters on this forum.

However, I suggest, being the lover of science that you are, that you do some research into the current understanding of “information management” in the Ancient Near East. I don’t imagine that it will change your viewpoint, but at least your understanding of the period will be a more accurate one.
Please explain about us Indians in North America,if you will. I bet all you can come up with is regurgitations from history books,written by the victors. To most Americans Gen. Custer is a war hero,to me he is a murderer.again history is written by the victors.

 Your belief that only ancient hebrews tell the truth and Islam,and other religions are false is laughable
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 03, 2012, 08:42:08 PM
Thanks for the flexibility. I appreciate it. I picked just some of the topics that seemed to be “bigger,” though the post is still quite long. Maybe someday we can come back to the others.
Sounds good to me.
Quote
Very thought provoking questions. Some think that God uses “faulty” means for communicating with us, but He’s really using appropriate means. When you are discussing things with your son, does it help for you to use language that he can’t understand?
That depends. I think that it does my son a disservice to dumb things down too much. Kids are clever and are learning machines, or as I have heard before, "information sponges". They can soak up a lot of info, and understand it better than we often think. Therefore, while I discuss things in a matter that my son can understand, I also use some more mature language (not swear words, duh!) so that he has an opportunity to ask questions and gain some more knowledge. I explain things in a way that is meaningful and helps him to learn and discover more about the world. I'm honestly not sure how a book that insists that insects have 4 legs could add anything to the knowledge or understanding of the world.
Quote
That is, assuming he’s young, would you use the phrase “conjectural variations approach” to teach him how to handle his allowance? (I found that phrase online. :))
That would be over the top, but that is not what I am asking of the Bible. 
Quote
If a kid were bullying your son, would you run him down with your car just because you can? .
No, but if it was God, he would send bears after them to rip them apart. Like God does to children who "bully" Elisha. I'm afraid you will have to come up with a better analogy than that, considering that God probably WOULD run them down with a car.[1]
Quote
If you can’t sincerely answer yes to those questions, then you have to re-evaluate the logic and legitimacy of your questions.
Here's another problem with this. I am not all powerful. I am not all seeing and all knowing. God should be able to do better than anything I could ever possibly conceive, yet he does not. God solves his problems by violence, murder and human sacrifice. I do not. I am better than God.

Quote
God uses appropriate language and means to communicate to us. God is like a father who lovingly guides his son to manhood, though the son may not always understand what the father is doing or why.
A loving father would never bear a son only to have him tortured and murdered, and would not ignore his pleas while this was occurring. The loving father analogy is really a pretty twisted thing to use here.

Quote
And we see that in the Bible. People have problems with the Bible because they make broad generalizations based on a narrow reading of certain parts of the Bible. If instead, they were to look at the whole Bible they would better see the movements of salvation history that culminate with Jesus Christ.
I think that it is only fair to say that "Believers have no problem with the Bible, because they make broad generalizations based o a narrow reading of certain parts of the Bible. If Believers were to look at the Bible as a whole, they would better see the movements of violence, death and slavery history that has all been done for the sake of the Savior, Jesus Christ".  You are doing exactly this. You are portraying God as a loving father figure, while ignoring the violence and brutality which this loving father has to use in order to get his way.


Quote
Once we see that God was “guiding us to manhood” then the answer to your question is clear. The Jewish people grew from the pagan understanding of god as vengeful, mercurial and requiring child sacrifice to one who is a suffering servant and who is love. It could be that some of the Greek ideas were also necessary. One could easily guess that the Roman Empire was beneficial as well. It’s breadth, peace and longevity made it a good era for Christianity to spread.
The fact that Augustine saw the new belief system as an excellent way of exploiting people and ruling with an iron fist also helped a little. A system that demands servitude on the threat of eternal punishment is really good for doing that.

Quote
I’m glad that you see this. And a look back on the Bible as a whole shows this. The people had to grow, yes, but they don’t grow without something to grow to and without someone to guide them. God did that by a series of covenants with humanity that culminate in the covenant of Jesus Christ.
God's covenants are worthless. Just ask Job. Not content with honoring his side of the agreement (worship me and be prosperous) God is tempted with the possibility of undeserved praise and worship. God, being power hungry, accepts the dare, and allows Job's life to be ruined, in violation of the covenant. Then, when Job rightly asks why, God proceeds to tell him that he is not to question God, God can do whatever he wants, etc etc. What a loving father figure indeed.

Quote
It follows logically from the premises, starting with “God is love”
Do you have anything that supports this premise? Besides error laden documents of questionable origin written by multiple and often unknown authors over the span of thousands of years?
Quote
so that He made us out of love and wants only what’s best for us. Then from omniscience, omnipresence, etc. we know that what he wants, he can make happen.
But what he wants changes. In the OT, he wants people to serve him or die now. There is no talk of punishment after death. Then Jesus comes along, and now it's not good enough for people to suffer and die in this life, they have to do it for all eternity. Only by accepting torture and human sacrifice can we be saved from something that isn't even our fault. Again, not exactly my idea of a loving, wise father.
Quote
At the same time he respects our free will, which was part of what started this! :)
What free will? God has had our destinies set since before the Creation. No room for free will in a set destiny, especially when God hardens peoples hearts as he sees fit.

Quote
Yes, I do see that this is an issue for you. Your compassion is clear.
Considering that you think that God is loving, doesn't the fact that he can only get what he wants through threats and violence an issue for YOU!?!

Quote
Do you disagree that rape is a crime of violence?
I do not disagree, however no such thing is ever stated or even implied in the Bible. Thou shalt not kill does not mean though shalt not rape, or thou shalt not commit violence, or anything other than "Don't kill people". Note that throughout the next few books of the Bible, rape, violence, murder and death are the flavor of the day as the Israelites set out to fulfill their destiny. God approves of them killing and committing all manner of crimes of violence. In fact, he commands them to do so, on pain of death. To suggest that God does not approve of crimes of violence is to suggest that he doesn't approve of his own orders.

Quote
That’s good. I actually find very few people on this forum who can accurately describe Catholic teachings.
It only takes one word: Rubbish.

Quote
Good question. The answer is two-fold. First, He’s not an afterthought and, secondly, that way of reading fits with the Jewish way of reading the Bible. Let me explain.

In the book of Genesis we have the proto-evangelium, the early version of the gospels, when God said to the serpent, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; He will strike at your head, while you strike at his heel.” God developed the idea of a Savior for the Jewish people through the things that happened to them.
You can't honestly be serious here. There would have been no need for a savior if God hadn't done all of the things he did. You can't have an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing creator who has no idea what the hell is going on and doesn't have a part in it, and then eventually comes to realize that maybe he ought to do something.  That's just silly. Also note that no Jewish people (at least, that I have ever heard of) consider Jesus to be their savior.
Quote
Each of the covenants brought them closer to this understanding.
How did God breaking his covenant with Job accomplish this?
Quote
So Jesus was not an afterthought and God’s plan for the Jewish people culminates in the person of Jesus Christ. It is critical to the understanding of God to understand Jesus and to know him as a person.
Hard to know a dude as a person when he's been dead for so long.

Quote
Secondly, when new things happened to them, the Jewish people would interpret those events in light of their scripture and would reinterpret their scripture in light of the new events. One example is when they were taken into exile in Babylon, they had to rethink their scripture and the promises of God in light of the fact that they didn’t have a land anymore! That rethinking took their understanding of the covenant of God to a new level.
In other words, they came to understand that God is a liar who can't be trusted. OH wait, that doesn't happen, because the primitive (even by the standards of the day) followers of God didn't even have enough sense to realize that God doesn't live up to his promises.
 1. On second thought, perhaps not. After all, God's plan for his son were to suffer and die
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on April 03, 2012, 10:29:33 PM
God uses appropriate language and means to communicate to us. God is like a father who lovingly guides his son to manhood, though the son may not always understand what the father is doing or why.
A loving father would never bear a son only to have him tortured and murdered, and would not ignore his pleas while this was occurring. The loving father analogy is really a pretty twisted thing to use here.
Even if god declared his own morals to be perfect, mankind still sees problems with them.
Slavery, misogyny, Genocide, torture, and other "god" morals that mankind do not agree with now pose a problem. If god is the "creepy" boogyman you can no longer trust to treat you with human compassion on this earth, how can you be comfortable in signing up to live with him for billions and billions of years that start eternity. I'd be creeped out having him for an overnight roommate yet the theists make their god up to be someone whom they would be comfortable with, yet by his word he is certainly not that sort of god.  Would you feel comfortable sending your daughter or son to spend the summer with a guy who thinks stoning women to death is an appropriate punishment for loving outside of a forced marriage to her rapist? Would you worry if they were to spend time with someone who has the blood of millions of innocent children on their hands and thinks that throat slitting is an appropriate punishment for childhood gluttony? Would you send your kid to spend the week with a dictator that would kill his own faithful servant because he touched something of his, even if it was only to save it from damage? 

If not, how could anyone tearfully rejoice and take comfort when their loved one dies, under the belief that they are committing them to eternity with the madman?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on April 04, 2012, 07:07:10 AM
Hi screwtape,   

How’s it going? I hope all is well. I see your boxes (?) are all blue now. I’m guessing that in the view of the forum that’s a good thing. And were you “Global Moderator” last time we “talked”? 

It is a recent thing.  I now get to pester people about quoting etiquette anywhere on the forum instead of just General discussion, Science and WWGHA boards.  Pretty soon I'll be King of the Internets.

As I said to kcrady, dismissing Oral Tradition and written documents in the Ancient Near East is not scholarly. Your, and others, description of how information was kept and passed on in the Hebrew culture, or any culture in that time, are at great odds with the science. I realize that this perception is an important one for your viewpoint and not likely to be challenged but encouraged by most posters on this forum.

O ye of little faith.  I want to believe what is true.  If it is true, acknowledging it will not make it worse.

Where do you recommend I find such information?

My perspective is based on the fact that the OT is full of all sorts of lies of history.  Yet, later, when the same people had an opportunity for all sorts of other fantastical fables, tall tales and *ahem* historical creativity - ie the era of jesus H  - they scaled it back several orders of magnitude. 

They did small miracles - multiplying fish, walking on water in front of a dozen people, appearing after death to a select few.  No more biggies like parting the sea, rescuing a nation from bondage, or eradicating their enemies wholesale.  Given the hebrews penchant for self promotion in the OT, you'd think the jesus story would have ended with the utter destruction of Rome[1] after a dozen or so plagues. 

But it didn't because it couldn't.  There was too much evidence for anyone to get away with a lie that big.  The Romans actually kept records and those records were accurate.  Unlike the hebrews, whose primary records were their national myth which was full of magic, romance and, let's face it, big gigantic lies about how awesome they were.

So, if there is something that indicates the jooz were sophisticated and reliable record keepers in the iron age, I'd be interested to see it.


You didn’t get the point of my post either. Oh, well. Never mind.

sorry.
 1. as I understand was predicted in Revelation
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 05, 2012, 12:45:10 AM
Hi sun_king,

Spot on SC, I am making fun of Genesis 1 (1) for the audacity to call it science . . .
First, I did not “call it science.” I said. . .

Third, Genesis was not written with a scientific viewpoint, but a spiritual one. It is religious poetry intended to teach religious truths necessary for our salvation, which it does very well.

Fourth, the Genesis story, unlike the Raven and the box story, does a pretty good job, as far as it goes, of coinciding with what science tells us.
“Coinciding with science” is a long way from “calling it science”.

I also said. . .
As I had said, Genesis has a different purpose than teaching science. For one thing the Hebrews did not think of religion and science as two different things. Everything was related to religion. So, first let’s look at some of the structure of Genesis.

How much they intended to write as “science” I don’t know, probably little.

So, obviously it’s not a scientific paper and it’s not intended to be, but I hope that explains what I meant.
Please explain to me where I “called it science”.

I read your post and tried to understand what it meant, didn't make much progress, hey but that is not my fault.
Really? How old are you?

I dismiss whatever Wolper is trying to state, science doesn't have flexible measuring tapes. A day is 24 hours, you can't extend or compress it to match some fairytale.
So you take a literalistic reading of the Bible?
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 05, 2012, 12:46:12 AM
Hi Brakeman,

Joseph Smith told a wild story about Israelites living in the United states with Jesus visits and great wars between two Semitic peoples. Do modern day information passage modes have weaknesses where the ancients are flawless?  Were the Ancient Shinto, Hindu, and Muslim information modes more faulty than the Hebrew? Is that scientific?
I’m not sure why you’re going down this path except to distract from the other.

And Joseph Smith was an entirely different situation than Exodus. I look forward to an explanation of how they’re the same.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 05, 2012, 12:47:06 AM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Please explain about us Indians in North America,if you will. I bet all you can come up with is regurgitations from history books,written by the victors. To most Americans Gen. Custer is a war hero,to me he is a murderer.again history is written by the victors.
You’re trying to equate an event that a few people were part of, most people only heard about through a limited source, and does not define us as a nation to an event that thousands of people were part of, had many sources of information and defined them as a people, a religion and as a nation. Please explain. Also, please take into account the Jewish concept of truth and covenant in your explanation.

Your belief that only ancient hebrews tell the truth and Islam,and other religions are false is laughable
I understand what you’re saying. To an atheist the idea that any of them are the truth is laughable. Since none of them are true it’s only hubris for a person to say that any one of them is true.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 05, 2012, 12:49:28 AM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Happy Wednesday!

Therefore, while I discuss things in a matter that my son can understand, I also use some more mature language (not swear words, duh!) so that he has an opportunity to ask questions and gain some more knowledge. I explain things in a way that is meaningful and helps him to learn and discover more about the world.
And if your son were to describe those conversations would he see them in the same way you do? I assume he’s pretty bright, but he probably doesn’t understand why you do all the things you do and he probably sees your interactions from a different perspective.

Two other things to think about. . .  If I want my kids to really learn something, then I’ll let them try it their way, figure out the problems with it and then talk them through a better way. Also, I allowed my son when he was 2 to “act out” in ways that were unacceptable at 15. We see these kinds of things in the Bible, but on a grander scale.

Here's another problem with this. I am not all powerful. I am not all seeing and all knowing. God should be able to do better than anything I could ever possibly conceive, yet he does not.
Look at what you say again and tell me that’s not contradictory. If you are not all powerful, all seeing or all knowing, then how are you at all qualified to judge someone who is?

Let’s use the father analogy again (even though I am far from perfect). Suppose I am truly a good and loving father and I tell my 2 year old son that he can’t have something he wants or that he has to do something in a particular way different than the way he wants. How is he qualified to judge my parenting? He’s not and the distance between God and us is infinitely farther than between my son and me.

God uses appropriate language and means to communicate to us. God is like a father who lovingly guides his son to manhood, though the son may not always understand what the father is doing or why.
A loving father would never bear a son only to have him tortured and murdered, and would not ignore his pleas while this was occurring. The loving father analogy is really a pretty twisted thing to use here.
Are you talking about Jesus? I thought you understood Catholic teaching. Please at least argue against an accurate representation of the Catholic teaching.

You are portraying God as a loving father figure, while ignoring the violence and brutality which this loving father has to use in order to get his way.
Hmm, let’s not rehash where we’ve already been. Please look at the bottom of this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg472916.html#msg472916) again. It was a violent and brutal world in ways that are foreign to us. You can’t judge that world by our standards. That’s like judging my 2 year old by the standards of a 20 year old.

God's covenants are worthless. Just ask Job. Not content with honoring his side of the agreement (worship me and be prosperous) God is tempted with the possibility of undeserved praise and worship. God, being power hungry, accepts the dare, and allows Job's life to be ruined, in violation of the covenant. Then, when Job rightly asks why, God proceeds to tell him that he is not to question God, God can do whatever he wants, etc etc. What a loving father figure indeed.
First off, the story of Job (which is a literary composition and not meant as a transcript of historical events and conversations (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Job&ch=)) does not violate the idea of the covenant. If Job were an Israelite, (cf Ez 14:14, 20) then he would fall under the covenant (which covenant by the way? Maybe you’re talking about the Davidic covenant? I'll assume so.), but the covenant does not address the situation of Job one way or another.

On the other hand, the story of Job does go along with what we’ve been discussing above. Job teaches the Israelites about the suffering of innocent people when their thinking was the opposite, i.e. that if a person suffers it was because they sinned. Yes, God does say that he can do “whatever he wants” (as you put it) because he is God who created everything. It’s the lesson that you and I are discussing.

“The lesson is that even the just may suffer here, and their sufferings are a test of their fidelity. They shall be rewarded in the end. Man’s finite mind cannot probe the depths of the divine omniscience that governs the world. The problems we encounter can be solved by a broader and deeper awareness of God’s power, presence and wisdom.” (New American Bible)

It follows logically from the premises, starting with “God is love”
Do you have anything that supports this premise? Besides error laden documents of questionable origin written by multiple and often unknown authors over the span of thousands of years?
My own experience.[1]

But what he wants changes. In the OT, he wants people to serve him or die now. There is no talk of punishment after death. Then Jesus comes along, and now it's not good enough for people to suffer and die in this life, they have to do it for all eternity.
Ignoring the particular spin you put on the story, I agree that (in a different way than you describe) what the Bible says God wants does in some ways change from the Old Testament to the New, and even from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end. You say it’s because God changes. I say it’s because the people changed and God’s interaction with them changed accordingly. Just as my 2 year old becomes a man and my relationship with him changes.

What free will? God has had our destinies set since before the Creation. No room for free will in a set destiny, especially when God hardens peoples hearts as he sees fit.
We spent quite a while in this thread discussing free will. I don’t want to re-hash what we’ve done. We have free will and I gave clear explanations of why. So far people ignore the explanations and find something else to bring up. I’m sure they didn’t do it to purposefully avoid the topic. That’s just how people are here. Except for some individuals there’s no interest in actually debating a topic to come to a conclusion or at least a mutual understanding. People just want to argue. I could say the sky was blue and they’d argue the point. See the other posts here about Genesis and science, as an example. If you want to go back to those earlier posts about free will and start this conversation from there, we can do that.

Considering that you think that God is loving, doesn't the fact that he can only get what he wants through threats and violence an issue for YOU!?!
If that’s what the Bible was actually saying, then yes, that would be a very strong issue for me. But the Bible is not like the “Wrath of the Titans.” God does not punish out of spite or envy, he punishes us for disobeying him. He has many, many reasons to wipe us off the face of the earth and start over because of our recurring disobedience against him, both as a race and as individuals. However, each time he corrects us and builds us up again. He even goes so far as to come to earth himself to make things right.

I do not disagree, however no such thing is ever stated or even implied in the Bible. Thou shalt not kill does not mean though shalt not rape, or thou shalt not commit violence, or anything other than "Don't kill people". Note that throughout the next few books of the Bible, rape, violence, murder and death are the flavor of the day as the Israelites set out to fulfill their destiny. God approves of them killing and committing all manner of crimes of violence. In fact, he commands them to do so, on pain of death. To suggest that God does not approve of crimes of violence is to suggest that he doesn't approve of his own orders.
I realize our previous conversation was over two months (my fault) so staying with the conversation is tough. I have to go back and look at six different posts to catch up with what each piece of this post is referring to! We’ve been over this one before. The last place we left this was me asking why Mt 5:21-22 (posted here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471938.html#msg471938)) doesn’t cover “any form of violence”. You then said here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg473082.html#msg473082) “Not being angry with someone does not mean ‘don’t rape them’.”

However, if rape is an act of violence, as you agree, and the verse from Matthew takes “Thou shall not kill” even to the level of not being angry with one’s brother, then that commandment does cover rape. Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re still arguing this.

That’s good. I actually find very few people on this forum who can accurately describe Catholic teachings.
It only takes one word: Rubbish.
 1. I know you’re not going to start telling me about my experiences. I was yelled at more than once when I first started for telling people about their experiences.
Anyone know why my footnote shows up here ^^^^ instead of at the bottom of the post? Is it because it’s so long?
You know, one of these days I’d like to do a bit of reverse role-playing. I would play the atheist role and someone else play the Catholic role. I’ll bet that no one I’ve met yet could convincingly play the Catholic role. Not because they disagree with it – I disagree with the atheist role, but can do it convincingly – but because no one so far has shown that they know the Catholic position. Albeto has come the closest on a couple of things, but even that was off the mark.

You can't honestly be serious here. There would have been no need for a savior if God hadn't done all of the things he did. You can't have an all powerful, all knowing, all seeing creator who has no idea what the hell is going on and doesn't have a part in it, and then eventually comes to realize that maybe he ought to do something.  That's just silly. Also note that no Jewish people (at least, that I have ever heard of) consider Jesus to be their savior.
Hmmm, can we stay on topic? If you’re tired of the topic or something, just say that. Honestly, chasing others all around is only fun for a while.

In other words, they came to understand that God is a liar who can't be trusted. OH wait, that doesn't happen, because the primitive (even by the standards of the day) followers of God didn't even have enough sense to realize that God doesn't live up to his promises.
Again, you’re going off topic. Let me just say that God’s promises were thought of in a worldly way, but he meant them in a greater way. They were looking for someone to save them from their earthly oppressors and give them a promised land on earth. He was sending someone to save them from their eternal oppressors (sin and death) and give them a promised land for eternity. It’s not God that changes, it’s us.

I don’t want to go on with these many, many topics in each post, especially if we’re re-hashing old points. You’re very good to talk to, but they take way too long. I realize I am to blame as well. However, I don’t want to do it going forward. I’ll let you pick one to respond to and we’ll go forward with that.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 05, 2012, 12:52:55 AM
Where do you recommend I find such information?
Google is a beautiful thing. :) You can search on ancient libraries. Wikipedia has a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_the_ancient_world) that takes you to some of their other pages about the libraries. You’ll see that large libraries have been found dating back long before 1200 BC. If you google some of those libraries you’ll find other references. While obviously not everyone was literate, the ancient world was much more literate than this forum takes it to be. For example, relative to this discussion, since Moses grew up in the Pharoah’s home he would certainly have been able to read and write and there’s no reason to think that he couldn’t compose the Pentateuch.

You didn’t get the point of my post either. Oh, well. Never mind.
sorry.
That’s alright. Azdgari said I should be more explicit. I think he was being facetious, but either way, I think I was very explicit, as my followup post to sun_king shows. Not sure how it could have been clearer. I think people just get into the habit of reading posts in a certain way.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Brakeman on April 05, 2012, 06:04:14 AM

It is not as if the hebrews had libraries or history books where someone could look up history prior to his lifetime and call bullshit on an outrageous story.  "Oh, you say we annihilated the Egyptians with plagues?  Well, it says right here in this history book that we were never in Egypt...!"  Didn't happen.  All they had was what the priests told them.  And if the priests came out with some new story about how your people so awesomely wiped out the people of say Jericho, you had no way (or reason) to refute it.
As I said to kcrady, dismissing Oral Tradition and written documents in the Ancient Near East is not scholarly. Your, and others, description of how information was kept and passed on in the Hebrew culture, or any culture in that time, are at great odds with the science. I realize that this perception is an important one for your viewpoint and not likely to be challenged but encouraged by most posters on this forum.

Joseph Smith told a wild story about Israelites living in the United states with Jesus visits and great wars between two Semitic peoples. Do modern day information passage modes have weaknesses where the ancients are flawless?  Were the Ancient Shinto, Hindu, and Muslim information modes more faulty than the Hebrew? Is that scientific?
I’m not sure why you’re going down this path except to distract from the other.

And Joseph Smith was an entirely different situation than Exodus. I look forward to an explanation of how they’re the same.
Screwtape made the comment that the people of the ancient mid east at the time of the supposed Exodus had few informational sources in which to contrast against the claims of their local priests. You then claimed that this was contradicting the Oral Tradition and the written documents of the era, implying that the Biblical histories would have been kept accurate by those. I replied that the modern examples of religious historical rewrites that show that the Oral Tradition and writings that are very clear and evident today are not sufficient to keep religious stories accurate, and that Screwtape was very correct in that local churches can mislead their flock easily into believing stories that are historically and factually untrue.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on April 05, 2012, 07:31:34 AM
Anyone know why my footnote shows up here ^^^^ instead of at the bottom of the post? Is it because it’s so long?

I've noticed that too.  It seems to happen if you have a nested quote anywhere in your post after the footnote.



Where do you recommend I find such information?
Google is a beautiful thing. :) You can search on ancient libraries.

You are a real help.  I thought you had some specific tidbit in mind that lead you to believe the hebrews were big on accurate history as opposed to history that made them appear more grandiose.

Wikipedia has a page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_libraries_in_the_ancient_world) that takes you to some of their other pages about the libraries. You’ll see that large libraries have been found dating back long before 1200 BC.

I assumed some civilizations had libraries, just not the iron age jooz.  They were barely a civilization, afterall.  The ONLY thing they gave to modern culture is monotheism. No math.  No science.  No architecture. No art.  If you want to count the bible as literature, okay, fine, but understand that is a function of the popularity of their religion.  The greeks added nearly as much in the field of literature and their religion has been defunct for nigh 2000 years.  So if reformed judaism (aka xianity) had not caught on, no one would be reading the torah and regarding it as great lit other than jews.

...since Moses grew up in the Pharoah’s home he would certainly have been able to read and write and there’s no reason to think that he couldn’t compose the Pentateuch.

Had there been a moses and had events occurred as written in the OT, then sure, he probably would have been literate.  But that puts the cart before the horse in a lot of ways, doesn't it? 

Hey, you want to read something funny?  I looked up torah in wiki.  Here is an interesting point I found:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah#The_Torah_and_Judaism.27s_oral_law
Quote
According to classical rabbinic texts this parallel set of material was originally transmitted to Moses at Sinai, and then from Moses to Israel. At that time it was forbidden to write and publish the oral law, as any writing would be incomplete and subject to misinterpretation and abuse.

However, after exile, dispersion and persecution, this tradition was lifted when it became apparent that in writing was the only way to ensure that the Oral Law could be preserved. After many years of effort by a great number of tannaim, the oral tradition was written down around 200 CE...

bold mine.  Two points.  First, they thought it was less reliable to write it down.  The primitive rubes!  They had no idea just how faulty human memory is.  Then, when they got around to writing it down, it was 200 years after jesus H.  Oh man.

As often happens when I peruse wiki, that lead me to an article titled "Moasic authorship".  The first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship
Quote
Mosaic authorship is the traditional attribution of the first five books (Torah or Pentateuch) of the Old Testament to Moses. The tradition is first definitively stated in the Babylonian Talmud, an encyclopedia of traditional Jewish learning compiled around the middle of the 1st millennium CE.  The Torah, however, does not name its author, and the tradition seems to be founded largely on the fact that it does contain five, somewhat vague, references to Moses writing various things. Other elements which went to form the tradition include the practice among later writers of referring to the "laws of Moses", (although it is not clear just what this meant), and the general sense that authoritative writings should be attached to the names of authoritative figures.

bold mine.  So this whole business about Moses writing the Torah is ambiguous and a relatively late invention.  What is a good catholic like you arguing over jewish traditions for?  If you read on, you see that a lot of the "traditions" around this question were entirely created by the fantasies of rabbis in the Common Era.  And it seems like some of them found it to be a dubious claim as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship#Text_of_the_Torah_in_Talmud_and_rabbinic_tradition
Quote
In the Middle Ages, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra (ca. 1092 - 1167 CE) and others observed that some phrases in the Torah present information that people should only have known after the time of Moses.
...
In the 15th century, Rabbi Yosef Bonfils, while discussing the comments of Ibn Ezra, noted: "Thus it would seem that Moses did not write this word here, but Joshua or some other prophet wrote it. Since we believe in the prophetic tradition, what possible difference can it make whether Moses wrote this or some other prophet did, since the words of all of them are true and prophetic?"

Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 05, 2012, 09:18:39 AM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Happy Wednesday!

And if your son were to describe those conversations would he see them in the same way you do? I assume he’s pretty bright, but he probably doesn’t understand why you do all the things you do and he probably sees your interactions from a different perspective.

 This is likely true. Of course his perception of it is different than mine, how could it not be? The difference is that my son actually has the opportunity to ask questions and get immediate feedback. I'm also not in a position that I have to justify all of the heinous acts committed by God. Nor is my son being threatened with eternal suffering if he does not immediately and unquestioningly accept what I say. I encourage him to ask questions to be sure that he understands what is going on. He is pretty bright, and I think that challenging him a bit in reasonable ways (and not by ordering him to kill someone to show his obedience). He has a remarkably strong grasp of language for his age, a good vocabulary, and even has a pretty sharp wit to him already. He's able to see through a lot of BS, and has a skeptical and inquiring mind. He trusts me and listens to me, and I rarely have any behavioral issues with him. He gets compliments from people all of the time as to how well mannered, polite and well spoken he is. He often thinks of others, and is willing to share things and help others out without any thought for himself. All of this without the threats and violence that God uses. All without even having a belief in God forced upon him, or being taught that religion is necessary for morality and good.

Quote
Two other things to think about. . .  If I want my kids to really learn something, then I’ll let them try it their way, figure out the problems with it and then talk them through a better way. Also, I allowed my son when he was 2 to “act out” in ways that were unacceptable at 15. We see these kinds of things in the Bible, but on a grander scale.


There's quite a difference between tolerating a two year old tantrum vs a 15 year old tantrum, and ordering people to throw a tantrum, ad even having tantrums yourself (God) and ORDERING the “2 year old” Israelites to do horrible and atrocious things. Please tell me how a two year old throwing a fit because they can't get a toy on the trip to the store today is equivalent to the Israelites following God's orders to slay the Amalekites. The parent may put up with the tantrum, but they certainly haven't commanded their 2 year old to have a tantrum. Whereas God routinely demands death, rape, destruction and violence. He's nnot just putting up with it. He is saying that it is a necessary part of his plan. “A 2 year old throwing tantrums” is not a necessary part of a trip to the store. This is not a minor difference. It also does not serve to explain why God, as the loving father figure, didn't do more to help cure them of their ignorance and need for violence, instead of encouraging these behaviors to thrive.


Quote
Look at what you say again and tell me that’s not contradictory. If you are not all powerful, all seeing or all knowing, then how are you at all qualified to judge someone who is?
Seeing as when Adam and Eve allegedly ate from the tree, they gained knowledge of Good and Evil, to such an extent that God actually fears that if they eat from the tree of life, they will become all powerful. If I, as an allegedly descendent of Adam, are possessed of such knowledge, I think I am perfectly right to judge God.

Additionally, if God says that you shouldn't kill, this would presumably be because God thinks that killing is immoral. Yet it is his choice method of dealing with everything. His own personal creation irretrievably screwed up? Kill em ALL, except some really old drunk and his family. That means, that given all of the options available to an Omnimax God, God CHOOSES the ones that he himself deems as evil. I don't see how that could ever be misconstrued as Good or Loving or moral. I am not questioning God's judgment, in a sense anyways, I am only asking that he reserve the same (or more strict, considering the vast power difference) judgment for his own actions. A father doesn't tell his son that killing is wrong, and then take him to the mall with a gun and start shooting people and putting a gun in the son's hand and telling him to kill people too. I think it's only fair to expect at least the same from “God the Father”. If we can't reserve similar judgment for God as we would any father, then you should refrain from using the analogy or making any such comparison altogether.

Quote
Let’s use the father analogy again (even though I am far from perfect). Suppose I am truly a good and loving father and I tell my 2 year old son that he can’t have something he wants or that he has to do something in a particular way different than the way he wants. How is he qualified to judge my parenting? He’s not and the distance between God and us is infinitely farther than between my son and me.
If your parenting is far from perfect, who is he NOT to judge your parenting? Though you could certainly be in the right, suppose you say “Let's go outside and play”and he screams “NO!!!” and tell him not to contradict you. The problem is that you are facing away from the window, and looking towards it, and he can see the bear wandering around outside. I realize that is a rather extreme and unlikely example, but lets extend the God as Father analogy, if you commanded your son to kill people, and told him that it was his destiny to do so, and that he would take their land and their women my any means of violence necessary, would you expect him to do that without question? That is what God the Father asked his “2 year old children” to do. Again, if we can not reserve the same judgment for God as we would for a good father, then don't use the analogy.

Quote
Are you talking about Jesus? I thought you understood Catholic teaching. Please at least argue against an accurate representation of the Catholic teaching.
I'll admit that I am a little lost. I'm quite sure that the Catholic Church teaches that God sent his only son to die for us. I really am not sure how I am missing the mark there.

Quote
Hmm, let’s not rehash where we’ve already been. Please look at the bottom of this post (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg472916.html#msg472916) again. It was a violent and brutal world in ways that are foreign to us. You can’t judge that world by our standards. That’s like judging my 2 year old by the standards of a 20 year old.
I can if the standards are set and commanded by God. His 2 year old people behaved exactly the way he told them to behave. If Jesus is God version 2.0, why not have another update? It's been a few thousand years, just like before. God told his two year old children to kill people, to take their land, to rape their women. It's not a random standard, it's a standard that God set, and a standard that the Church has stubbornly refused to abandon. Sure, Pope John Paul II made a whole bunch of apologies for the reprehensible behavior of the Church over the millenia, but the problem is, they were saying the whole time that they knew God's will and was acting it out, and violently punished and oppressed anyone who dared to question their authority. Why would any thinking person think that now, all of a sudden, after having gotten it wrong since Constantine, they suddenly really are in tune with God's will? The Catholic Church got a lot of things wrong over a long period of time, and continue to get things wrong, even today (like, telling people in Africa,, where millions are infected with AIDS, that condom use increases the risk of AIDS). That was from the current dictator of Vatican City. To quote Stephen Fry:”What is the point of the Catholic Church if it says “Well we couldn't know any better because nobody else did”. THEN WHAT ARE YOU FOR!?!?!?” Note that a lot of the evil things that the Catholic Church did, like burning people alive for being “witches” or “heretics” or torturing and killing people in other ways, as well as slavery, maltreatment of women, killing infidels, conquering the Americas, was all down to the teachings of the Bible and it was certainly used as justification for all of these things, which the Church supported in God's name.


Quote
First off, the story of Job (which is a literary composition and not meant as a transcript of historical events and conversations (http://www.usccb.org/bible/scripture.cfm?bk=Job&ch=)) does not violate the idea of the covenant. If Job were an Israelite, (cf Ez 14:14, 20) then he would fall under the covenant (which covenant by the way? Maybe you’re talking about the Davidic covenant? I'll assume so.), but the covenant does not address the situation of Job one way or another.
I have examined the link you posted. It asserts, as you do, that it is not meant to be taken as a literal account of any historical event. I have to ask, on what basis is this assertion made? At what point in Job does it say  “Disclaimer: This story is meant as a metaphor only, and is not meant to be taken literally?” If it does not say that, how do we establish that it is so? I can see the problem you pose, and I concede that Job is not an Israelite, and so had no covenant with God, but I think that this poses a bigger problem, in that someone who has not even entered into a covenant with God, and is not among his chosen people, would be considered by God himself to be “perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil” as well as “this man was the greatest of all the men of the east”. A man more perfect, righteous, and dutiful in his worship of God than any of God's personally chosen people? And this is the guy that God decides to mess with, just so he might have the possibility of undeserved praise? Guess you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. I really don't think that demonstrates a loving father either. I wouldn't kill the rest of my son's family just to see if he will would still like me after the fact.

Quote
On the other hand, the story of Job does go along with what we’ve been discussing above. Job teaches the Israelites about the suffering of innocent people when their thinking was the opposite, i.e. that if a person suffers it was because they sinned. Yes, God does say that he can do “whatever he wants” (as you put it) because he is God who created everything. It’s the lesson that you and I are discussing.
So, in other words, God is entirely free to do evil stuff, and get away with it, because, hey, he's God, man. If he feels like using you for a guinea pig in one of his cruel experiments, yay God!

Quote
“The lesson is that even the just may suffer here, and their sufferings are a test of their fidelity. They shall be rewarded in the end. Man’s finite mind cannot probe the depths of the divine omniscience that governs the world. The problems we encounter can be solved by a broader and deeper awareness of God’s power, presence and wisdom.” (New American Bible)
Just people may indeed suffer, but that doesn't mean that we should cause or permit it that to happen, which is precisely what God did. 


Quote
My own experience.[1]
 1. I know you’re not going to start telling me about my experiences. I was yelled at more than once when I first started for telling people about their experiences.
I am not going to tell you about your experiences, suffice to say that the reason being obvious, I can't know anything about them. However, I think that given specifically that nature, you ought to realize that “your experience” is not a very useful tool to me or anyone besides you in determining the validity of the claim “God is love”. You seem to want me to take your experience entirely on faith that it means what you think it means, and you should know that I just can't really do that.


Quote
Ignoring the particular spin you put on the story, I agree that (in a different way than you describe) what the Bible says God wants does in some ways change from the Old Testament to the New, and even from the beginning of the Old Testament to the end. You say it’s because God changes. I say it’s because the people changed and God’s interaction with them changed accordingly. Just as my 2 year old becomes a man and my relationship with him changes.
But as I've said before, the 2 year old children were only doing what God told them to do. It wasn't just God putting up with their behavior because they didn't know any better. He told them to do it. Again, this is not a minor distinction.


Quote
We spent quite a while in this thread discussing free will. I don’t want to re-hash what we’ve done. We have free will and I gave clear explanations of why. So far people ignore the explanations and find something else to bring up. I’m sure they didn’t do it to purposefully avoid the topic. That’s just how people are here. Except for some individuals there’s no interest in actually debating a topic to come to a conclusion or at least a mutual understanding. People just want to argue. I could say the sky was blue and they’d argue the point. See the other posts here about Genesis and science, as an example. If you want to go back to those earlier posts about free will and start this conversation from there, we can do that.
I think you are slightly confused as to what I am saying. I am referring to Eph.1:4-5 "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestined us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."  Based on this, free will is pretty meaningless, since those who were to be called to him were predestined before the foundation of the world. It is a bold, but unambiguous statement. Naturally, I'm guessing that means that it should not be taken literally.


Quote
If that’s what the Bible was actually saying, then yes, that would be a very strong issue for me. But the Bible is not like the “Wrath of the Titans.” God does not punish out of spite or envy, he punishes us for disobeying him.
What of the “two year old” people in the OT who were punished by God? I thought he was more tolerant back then and was only going along with the standards of the day? Should a loving father punish a 2 year old as severely as God does for disobedience, when they couldn't have known any better?
Quote
He has many, many reasons to wipe us off the face of the earth and start over because of our recurring disobedience against him, both as a race and as individuals.
I think you are missing the point though. Why is that that violence, as in “wiping us off the face of the earth” an acceptable punishment for beings who were created by God and expected to follow standards that God himself can't live up to? If God thinks that killing is bad enough to be one of his Big 10 Commandments, why is it his preferred method for dealing with disobedience? Furthermore, if this God as a Father figure is one that we should try to live up to, why is it that killing is not your preferred method of dealing with disobedience?
Quote
However, each time he corrects us and builds us up again.
Except for when he did destroy nearly everyone and everything. But I guess that the cruel euphemism “corrects us and build us up again” makes it easier to justify God's cruelty and vengefulness.
Quote
He even goes so far as to come to earth himself to make things right.
With a human sacrifice. Really not surprising, considering the Viking Berserker level of blood lust displayed by God. Only through more unnecessary suffering and death can God “make things right”.


Quote
I realize our previous conversation was over two months (my fault) so staying with the conversation is tough. I have to go back and look at six different posts to catch up with what each piece of this post is referring to! We’ve been over this one before. The last place we left this was me asking why Mt 5:21-22 (posted here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg471938.html#msg471938)) doesn’t cover “any form of violence”. You then said here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg473082.html#msg473082) “Not being angry with someone does not mean ‘don’t rape them’.”

However, if rape is an act of violence, as you agree, and the verse from Matthew takes “Thou shall not kill” even to the level of not being angry with one’s brother, then that commandment does cover rape. Frankly, I’m not sure why you’re still arguing this.
Because it certainly didn't mean that in the OT. God's children in the OT are ordered to kill, rape and steal. I have a hard time accepting that is what it means, when in the context of when the commandment was actually given, that was clearly not what it meant. If we do better than that now, it's because we have turned away from God's teachings, from his commands to kill nonbelievers, and take their virgins as war booty. If morality comes from God, which I am guessing you would probably assert that it does, then it shouldn't be changing depending on what PEOPLE think is right and wrong. God established rules beginning in the OT, and only through the enlightenment and secular/scientific advances have we been able to rise above the primitive drudgery of the Bible.


Quote
Anyone know why my footnote shows up here ^^^^ instead of at the bottom of the post? Is it because it’s so long?
I am afraid I don't have an answer for that one, never incurred such a problem before myself.
Quote
You know, one of these days I’d like to do a bit of reverse role-playing. I would play the atheist role and someone else play the Catholic role. I’ll bet that no one I’ve met yet could convincingly play the Catholic role. Not because they disagree with it – I disagree with the atheist role, but can do it convincingly – but because no one so far has shown that they know the Catholic position. Albeto has come the closest on a couple of things, but even that was off the mark.
Again I admit that I am not sure what you mean. IF you could please point out to me what part of Catholic teaching I am getting wrong, I would be happy to correct myself, however I am going based on what I learned at the RC church I was raised in. If it somehow deviates from the norm, I am not aware of it, seeing as it is not some fringe, schismatic Catholic Church, but part of an official diocese.


Quote
Hmmm, can we stay on topic? If you’re tired of the topic or something, just say that. Honestly, chasing others all around is only fun for a while.
Completely lost as to how Jesus, Jewish people or God would be off topic in a conversation about Christianity.


Quote
Again, you’re going off topic. Let me just say that God’s promises were thought of in a worldly way, but he meant them in a greater way. They were looking for someone to save them from their earthly oppressors and give them a promised land on earth.
Yes, that is precisely what God promised them, and indeed destined them to, in the OT. The OT doesn't mention a thing about what you say next.
Quote
He was sending someone to save them from their eternal oppressors (sin and death) and give them a promised land for eternity. It’s not God that changes, it’s us.
No, because suddenly a violent exit from this life is not Good enough, and Jesus has to come to give us the wonderful opportunity of eternal suffering. Just as God liked the idea of undeserved praise for himself, he had to make that undeserved praise never ending, or else eternal suffering and pain and torment. Are these the choices a loving father gives his children?

Quote
I don’t want to go on with these many, many topics in each post, especially if we’re re-hashing old points. You’re very good to talk to, but they take way too long. I realize I am to blame as well. However, I don’t want to do it going forward. I’ll let you pick one to respond to and we’ll go forward with that.

Just one? Couldn't do it sorry, especially since I read through and replied to everything before I read this last part :P I think it is suffice to say that there are a few things (the ones I suspect that you think we are re-hashing) that I just simply disagree with you about, and you with me, and I am not sure that such a point will be reconciled, so we should each assume that the opponent holds that position.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on April 05, 2012, 09:32:17 AM
And Joseph Smith was an entirely different situation than Exodus. I look forward to an explanation of how they’re the same.
Oh, both being stories with no evidence to support them. Just like yours, SC.
You’re trying to equate an event that a few people were part of, most people only heard about through a limited source, and does not define us as a nation to an event that thousands of people were part of, had many sources of information and defined them as a people, a religion and as a nation. Please explain. Also, please take into account the Jewish concept of truth and covenant in your explanation.
  Hmmm, your bible claims that there were hundreds of thousands of people involved in events and golly, no evidence to support those events at all.  I’m fascinated by your claims that the jews has some special definition of “truth” and “covenant”.  What are they? And where are these “many sources of information” you claim that the Israelites/Jews had?   
Your belief that only ancient hebrews tell the truth and Islam,and other religions are false is laughable
Quote
I understand what you’re saying. To an atheist the idea that any of them are the truth is laughable. Since none of them are true it’s only hubris for a person to say that any one of them is true.
I don’t see that SC understands 12 Monkeys’ point at all.  To a theist who doesn’t believe in the stories of other theists, the idea that any of them are true is laughable.  It does indeed take hubris and lies to claim that one of them is true with no evidence.
If I want my kids to really learn something, then I’ll let them try it their way, figure out the problems with it and then talk them through a better way.
Funny how your bible doesn’t have your god doing this much at all. The only times he lets people figure out things on their own, he comes back and harms them for daring to do such a thing (see: Noah (doing without god is wrong, kill you all!), Babel(looking for god in that way is wrong; make you speak different languages), Jesus(being a jew and believing the prophecies as they are is wrong, you’re all damned!)
Quote
If you are not all powerful, all seeing or all knowing, then how are you at all qualified to judge someone who is?
evidence that it exists at all please.  and considering the stories told of your god in the bible, it is not all-powerful, all-seeing or all-knowing. 
Quote
Are you talking about Jesus? I thought you understood Catholic teaching. Please at least argue against an accurate representation of the Catholic teaching.
  Let’s see, the real Catholic version about what happened in the supposed cruxifiction: the son of a god was tortured and murdered so that this would pay for the sins that this god has declared we all do since this god has decided that everyone is responsible for the “original sin” (oh, except Mary of course, she was made without sin. Funny how this can’t be done for everyone).  If this god had simply wanted to, no one would have had sin and no one would need a violent messy sacrifice to pay for this sin. 

And I find it’s hysterical that SC must use the “but it was a different world so we can’t understand it as it was”.  Really does a number on his claims of how all-powerful, all-knowing etc, his god is.  This argument makes his god dependent on humans, and this god cannot advance beyond them ever.

and golly, the magic decoder ring is out again and suddenly Job is only metaphor.  I guess that the resurrection of JC is only metaphor too.  But say that the story in Job is only a story, not a real event; this god is still portrayed as making a bet with his supposed greatest enemy and allows innocent people to be murdered in the process.  This god then admits that it was wrong an tries to make up for it by paying blood money and giving Job a “new” family.  Still not a great image of this god, so needing of respect (what else?) from its enemy, not caring about people being killed, and then trying to cover it up with gifts.  It also has that this god is a moron since, if it already is omniscient, it doesn’t need to test people.  This testing is only sadism.  Your moronic god should know that Job is and will be faithful and souldn’t have to show off.  But we know it loves to show off, from the story in Exodus.

You’ll see that large libraries have been found dating back long before 1200 BC.
And not one by the Israelites and not one containing any contemporary information about the supposed events in the bible.  The Egytptians have no record of your Israelites, SC, so there’s no Moses to write anything. As my thread on information management there is nothing that shows the Israelites did anything like other civilizations at all.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on April 05, 2012, 11:26:55 PM
SC To the last point Velkyn made....we have libraries dating back 12 to 15 thousand years....they are the stories our totem poles have told over all those generations.  Each family has a history lesson in the totems standing in front of their houses. Then you barbarians came along and destroyed it as devil worship

 12,000 plus years and 90% of the population gone by 1862,and you call us heathens
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on April 05, 2012, 11:30:47 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

Please explain about us Indians in North America,if you will. I bet all you can come up with is regurgitations from history books,written by the victors. To most Americans Gen. Custer is a war hero,to me he is a murderer.again history is written by the victors.
You’re trying to equate an event that a few people were part of, most people only heard about through a limited source, and does not define us as a nation to an event that thousands of people were part of, had many sources of information and defined them as a people, a religion and as a nation. Please explain. Also, please take into account the Jewish concept of truth and covenant in your explanation.

Your belief that only ancient hebrews tell the truth and Islam,and other religions are false is laughable
I understand what you’re saying. To an atheist the idea that any of them are the truth is laughable. Since none of them are true it’s only hubris for a person to say that any one of them is true.
As I have stated HISTORY books are written by the victorious....It does NOT make it truth or FACT in any way.....Custer is an American hero,,,unless of course you are an Indian
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: caveat_imperator on April 06, 2012, 02:12:15 PM
Even with history books, we still have silly tales like George Washington and his cherry tree.
And we have people today like david barton making up lies and trying to pass it off as history.

In fact, he has a book coming out this month about Thomas Jefferson.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/rodda/2012/04/02/starting-to-debunk-david-bartons-new-book-the-jefferson-lies/
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 07, 2012, 11:01:54 AM
Brakemen,

I have to say that you are a very patient man. Thank you for your explanation.

Screwtape made the comment that the people of the ancient mid east at the time of the supposed Exodus had few informational sources in which to contrast against the claims of their local priests. You then claimed that this was contradicting the Oral Tradition and the written documents of the era, implying that the Biblical histories would have been kept accurate by those. I replied that the modern examples of religious historical rewrites that show that the Oral Tradition and writings that are very clear and evident today are not sufficient to keep religious stories accurate, and that Screwtape was very correct in that local churches can mislead their flock easily into believing stories that are historically and factually untrue.
Unfortunately, the analogy is not the same. A comparison of the two would show that. It’s similar to what 12 Monkeys is trying to do, but even more extreme. Joseph Smith got his information allegedly through a source that only he saw (and a couple of others later). He was the source of all information. This is being compared to something that thousands of people experienced. It defined them as a people. The Joseph Smith story is not on the same scale at all. Maybe at a general abstract level it is and that’s where the hand waving comes in. Once we get to the specifics it falls apart.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 07, 2012, 11:17:57 AM
Hi screwtape,

I've noticed that too.  It seems to happen if you have a nested quote anywhere in your post after the footnote.
Thanks.

You are a real help. 
You’re welcome. :)

I assumed some civilizations had libraries, just not the iron age jooz.  They were barely a civilization, afterall.  The ONLY thing they gave to modern culture is monotheism. No math.  No science.  No architecture. No art.  If you want to count the bible as literature, okay, fine, but understand that is a function of the popularity of their religion.  The greeks added nearly as much in the field of literature and their religion has been defunct for nigh 2000 years.  So if reformed judaism (aka xianity) had not caught on, no one would be reading the torah and regarding it as great lit other than jews.
I’m wondering what do you picture things were like back then? The Hebrews were not an isolated group. In fact, Palestine was in the middle of things all the time. Everyone wanted to conquer them. They were vassals of some sort for most of their history. As the conquered, it’s no wonder they didn’t do as much as the conquerors. But they did do some things such as, as you mentioned, monotheism and Old Testament. (By the way, I’d be interested in the explanation of where they came up with monotheism.) The Temple of Solomon would be another.

However, that’s a distraction from the main point. The people of that region, even 2500 BC, were much more literate than you give them credit for. The Jews had people who were able to read and write. The Bible references these and documents that were ancient to them. And again, we can’t discount oral tradition. The analogy of the telephone game is highly inaccurate.

Had there been a moses and had events occurred as written in the OT, then sure, he probably would have been literate.  But that puts the cart before the horse in a lot of ways, doesn't it? 
I’m not sure there’s even a horse with that cart.

First, they thought it was less reliable to write it down.  The primitive rubes!  They had no idea just how faulty human memory is.  Then, when they got around to writing it down, it was 200 years after jesus H.  Oh man.
That is a good point. It’s clearly a culture that is entirely different from ours. And that’s all cultures of that time, not just the Hebrew culture. They put a very strong focus on the spoken word and human memory. Do you think they would have done that if their experience didn’t support it? You look at them as “primitive rubes” with “faulty memory” because they lived 4000 years ago, were Jewish and believed in God. How prejudiced is that?

Human memory, when exercised, is very powerful. The problem today is that we don’t exercise it. People, even today, memorize very large portions of text. Think of actors doing one-man plays. And back then they purposefully wrote it in such a way as to make it easier to memorize. C’mon screwtape, you searched a couple of Wikipedia articles, but you didn’t do any real research into these questions. I figured if you found your own sources, you would ensure they were objective and not slanted one way or another. Let me start you off with an article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm) from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1911. Clearly not secular, but gives a good review and discussion of the topic. There’s also Prof. John Bright’s book “A History of Israel” (http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com/Products/0664220681/a-history-of-israel-fourth-edition.aspx), which looks at the history from a scientific and archeological perspective.

bold mine.  So this whole business about Moses writing the Torah is ambiguous and a relatively late invention. 
You should look deeper than just Wikipedia. Even that article refers to other views. Did you dig into them? It’s really not a late invention. The Mosaic authorship was referred to both in the Old and New Testament.

What is a good catholic like you arguing over jewish traditions for? 
Because as a good Catholic I understand that our faith and traditions are a continuation of the Jewish faith and traditions. God’s plan of salvation started with Adam and culminated with Jesus Christ who was a very devout Jew.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 07, 2012, 11:24:01 AM
Hi kaziglu bey,

Just one? Couldn't do it sorry, especially since I read through and replied to everything before I read this last part :P I think it is suffice to say that there are a few things (the ones I suspect that you think we are re-hashing) that I just simply disagree with you about, and you with me, and I am not sure that such a point will be reconciled, so we should each assume that the opponent holds that position.
You’re completely correct. I apologize for not putting that part at the beginning of the post. It would have saved you a lot of time and hassle.

I’m sure you’re right that some of these points won’t be reconciled. I recognize that from the beginning and that’s not my issue with re-hashing sub-topics. Whether we agree or not though, the conversation can move to a deeper level by addressing all the points of each side, rather than re-stating the same points over and over. We’re doing this on some sub-topics, but on others we’re not. My guess is that it’s for two reasons: one is that there was such a big gap and we have to do extra work to “catch up” and the other is that we have so many sub-topics going on in our conversation that, again, it’s extra work to keep things straight. If all this back and forth is only a slam at each other, like it is with other posters, then the extra work is silly and wasted. All the work I do for a single post (and for some posts I do quite a bit of research and thinking so that I am confident what I post is accurate) is silly and wasted.

However, if the conversation is one of sharing our thoughts, experiences and feelings in order to work towards a mutual understanding of where we agree and disagree, even if not complete mutual agreement, then the extra work is required.

<soapbox>
What I call “shotgun posts” made by others do not improve our world or make us better people. These are two kinds of posts, drive-by posts where someone throws something in without knowing the context and then you don’t see them again unless someone fires back. The other “shotgun posts” are the ones with topics, attacks and snide remarks all over the place like the spray of a shotgun. The purpose of each is to disrupt and distract. Their ego is so great that they think they are the only ones with the answers and they don’t listen to anyone else unless that person agrees with them. I don’t want to post like that or respond to them.
</soapbox>

Anyway, I’m done with the soapbox. Thank you for your patience. Let me explain what I mean by the “off-topic” comments. One example is we were talking about how to read the Bible in light of Jesus Christ. (Which, by the way, was already off-topic. :)) You asked “But the participants in the OT did not have Jesus, why shouldn't we read it without Jesus?” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg473082.html#msg473082) I responded with two reasons why (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg493189.html#msg493189). Instead of addressing the reasons and continuing with “how to read the Bible in light of Christ”, I see the response as taking another direction, that is “there would have been no need of a savior if God hadn’t done all the things he did.” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg493472.html#msg493472)

So yes, you are correct. “Jesus, Jewish people or God” are not off-topic in a conversation about Christianity. However, Christianity is a huge topic and our conversations, to be productive, have to be, and have been, much more focused. We can’t come to a mutual understanding of agreements and disagreements about, for example, “how to read the Bible in the light of Christ,” if we don’t stick to “how to read the Bible in the light of Christ.”

With that said, if I can pick the topic of our conversation going forward, then I’d like to stay with that. In fact, I’m going to stop this thread and start a new one. It’s now Holy Saturday and Judas has already done his thing. Tonight begins Easter when Jesus rose from the dead and changed the world forever. Let’s move from the one to the other.

Besides the poetic reason :), here’s the practical reason. When people read the OT parts you keep referring to, they have questions. Everyone does not just atheists. Atheists, or those inclined to atheism, read it and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They rebel (just like Judas) and say, “I am so much better than this God. If this is what he is, then I want nothing to do with him.” And God let’s them have their will.

Theists read these parts and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They submit and say, “You are so much greater than me, God. I don’t understand what this is. Show me more of who you are, so that I can understand.” And God responds with Jesus Christ. He’s the answer to our question and without him God has no answer. It is critical to the understanding of God, the Bible, the world and ourselves to know Jesus Christ. We can explore this in the next thread.

I won’t start the thread today. I’m already late for other things I have to do, like mow the lawn – darn weather :). But I will in the next couple of days. I also will only be spending at most an hour a night on it. That may mean delays, but if I limit myself to that then I can probably post even when things get busy. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing.

Thank you, kaziglu bey, for these conversations. I wish we could be doing this over beers, but we make the best.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: SimpleCaveman on April 07, 2012, 11:24:51 AM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

SC To the last point Velkyn made....we have libraries dating back 12 to 15 thousand years....they are the stories our totem poles have told over all those generations.  Each family has a history lesson in the totems standing in front of their houses. Then you barbarians came along and destroyed it as devil worship

 12,000 plus years and 90% of the population gone by 1862,and you call us heathens
I don’t know what I can say. I agree that our history in the United States has many tragedies and how we treated Native Americans is one of them. I grew up in the middle of a Potawatomi reservation and many of my friends were Potawatomi’s (and a couple of “non-friends”, too.) I understand that there is a great loss in our nation and world. I am deeply sorry for the evil that has been done to your people.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: Graybeard on April 07, 2012, 05:01:53 PM
A sidetrack
I understand what you’re saying. To an atheist the idea that any of them are the truth is laughable. Since none of them are true it’s only hubris for a person to say that any one of them is true.
As I have stated HISTORY books are written by the victorious....It does NOT make it truth or FACT in any way.....Custer is an American hero,,,unless of course you are an Indian
[/quote]
The thing here is that The American Native lived in a superstitious state that demanded war and aggression. To fight bravely was the single goal of the male. The problem was that, in the invaders, the Plains tribes met a enemy tribe more powerful than themselves.

I have not the slightest doubt that had the tribes had the weapons that the invaders had, they too would have used them in conquest.

I give you this quote
Quote
Hoig (1993, 25) also emphasizes that a strong warrior “ethic permitted the killing of enemies, the capturing of slaves, the stealing of horses from other tribes, and the taking of scalps as trophies of war.  [In addition to gains in prestige, these deeds were  … extolled as virtues by war societies, by rituals of personal endurance such as the tortuous sun dance, and by feast-dances that celebrated exploits of warriorship.  The concept of war for the Plains Indians was interrelated with religion.”  One aspect of these religious beliefs was the importance placed on a warrior’s medicine bundle, a “wrapper containing a set of sacred objects indicated by the spirit” (Lowie 1954: 157).  The “spirit” was a supernatural being seen in a vision that the individual purposely sought through isolation, self-mutilation, fasting, and other practices.  Medicine bundles apparently contained a pipe, tobacco, paints, and perhaps many other items, but the precise combination of items was proprietary, as it was believed to provide the bundle owner with power.  Indeed, “Among Plains Indians no medicine was more sought by ambitious young men than war medicine. 
from "Intertribal Conflict on the Great Plains:Cultural Versus Economic Explanations, or is There Really a Difference?" by Bruce L. Benson, DeVoe Moore Distinguished Research Professor, Department of Economics, Florida State University 32306 available at http://www.isnie.org/ISNIE06/Papers06/08.3/benson.doc (MSWord or MSWord Reader required.) /sidetrack.[/i]

Carry on.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: screwtape on April 07, 2012, 06:21:59 PM
I’m wondering what do you picture things were like back then?

I'm not sure how to answer that if it was not meant rhetorically.

Everyone wanted to conquer them.

I'm not sure that is exactly the right way to put it.  They were wimps sandwiched between superpowers, constantly getting squished by one or another of them.  At least that last part we seem to agree on.

By the way, I’d be interested in the explanation of where they came up with monotheism.

It was how they saved face and maintained some kind of... self esteem after the Assyrians trounced them.  The jews believed in a whole pantheon of gods - the elohim[1].  yhwh was one of them.  Baal another.  El another.  Asherah another[2].  When the Assyrians soundly defeated them and burned to the ground the home of yhwh, it was not just a military defeat, but also their god Marduk demonstrating power over the puny yhwh.  You would think the hebrews would, you know, realize yhwh wasn't looking out for them.  But that was too terrible a conclusion to accept.  So instead they doubled down on denial.  They cooked up this story that they must have been punished by yhwh for idolatry [ed -yeah, idolatry, that's the ticket].  It also meant that marduk was a mere puppet to yhwh.  So, in a game of theological one-upsmanship, they declared their god not just the most powerful, but the only.

They solidified their idea of a singular god while in babylonian exile.  Ezra came back with a "new" torah.

There is a book entitled "The Evolution of God" by Robert Wright.  It presents a highly plausible explanation of how the human animal went from spiritism and animism to polytheism to monotheism.  He bends over backward to try to accommodate the possibility of gods because we seem to be making moral progress.  Apart from that nonsense, it was excellent.

The Temple of Solomon would be another.

Are you sure?
Quote
there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple, and no mentions of it, in the surviving contemporary extra-biblical literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple

If it did exist and the OT is accurate, they didn't build it.  They had to import the skills
Quote
King Solomon requested the aid of King Hiram of Tyre to provide both the quality materials and skilled craftsmen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon%27s_Temple#History

Pretty pathetic they couldn't even build yhwh's house themselves.  Kind of like the US having to contract out to India for IT.

The people of that region, even 2500 BC, were much more literate than you give them credit for.

How literate were they?  How literate am I giving them credit for?  I'm not sure I said one way or the other.

The Jews had people who were able to read and write.

I never said otherwise.

And again, we can’t discount oral tradition.

Why not?  If not, what weight should it be given?  Should we call it "inerrant"?  Is that really reasonable?

You treat the evidence of the Bible differently than other books because you don’t believe in God.

How do I treat other books?  What other books are you talking about? 

I treat the bible as I do because it sounds like stories that contain gods you and I both agree do not exist.  I have found no reason to treat the bible as anything other than ancient jewish mythology.

You denigrate the Hebrew people because they did believe in God.

I am not sure I denigrate them any more than I would denigrate, say, the Hittites or any other group of primitives who contributed almost nothing of value to the world.

You say there was a big conspiracy that took place that convinced thousands of people that their fathers experienced something that they didn’t really experience because the Hebrew people’s history can’t be true (see above).

I said what, now?  A "big conspiracy", did you say?

And are you now claiming that the OT is literally true? 

Therefore you have to assume there was no Moses in order to not give any credence to their history.

Ah, no.  I do not think there was a Moses as reported in the bible, because that would be absurd.  There may have been a guy named moses who did something significant around whom many stories arose and to whom later generations attributed all sorts of things.  And I do not need to believe that in order to dismiss the bible as history.  We have history to do that. 

You know, archaeologists used to run around the desert with a bible in their hand trying to use it as a guide for where to dig.  They were not very successful.  Once they stopped assuming the bible was literally true, history started to make more sense.  They used to think all languages derived from hebrew because of the whole Babel story.  Once they stopped that nonsense, they were able to understand how languages actually evolved.


That is a good point. It’s clearly a culture that is entirely different from ours. And that’s all cultures of that time, not just the Hebrew culture. They put a very strong focus on the spoken word and human memory. Do you think they would have done that if their experience didn’t support it?

Who cares if their "experience" supported it?  Their experience was rooted in memory, which is horribly faulty. We know this because we have studies done with the scientific method that pretty conclusively show this to be true.  Against that, their experience amounts to absolutely nothing.

You look at them as “primitive rubes” with “faulty memory” because they lived 4000 years ago, were Jewish and believed in God.

Are you arguing they weren't primitive?  What were they then, modern? 
Are you arguing they weren't rubes?  What do you call people who believe in talking snakes, skeptics?

I really think you are out in the weeds on this one, SC.


Human memory, when exercised, is very powerful.

Not really.
http://voices.yahoo.com/how-reliable-memory-6602648.html?cat=5

Try a book titled The Invisible Gorilla.  The idea that memory is awesome is an illusion.  It is actually terrible.  So is the idea that we have amazing potential, if we only learned how to use it.  They did a study where people were talking to a guy.  As they were talking, someone walked between them carrying a door.  It separated them briefly and completely obscured their view.  They changed guys while that happened.  A minority of people even noticed.

And can you remember my first sentence of this post verbatim? 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11646c.htm
http://www.thethoughtfulchristian.com/Products/0664220681/a-history-of-israel-fourth-edition.aspx

I'll take a look.

You should look deeper than just Wikipedia. Even that article refers to other views.

You mean like the ones of rabbis who stated the obvious, that it was unlikely moses wrote it? <-- the ones you glossed over?

The Mosaic authorship was referred to both in the Old and New Testament.

Yes, referred to, but not explicitly claimed and not so ardently asserted.  Who's given the short shrift to whom now?

 1. yeah, just like the name they used for god.  funny coincidence, that. 
 2. in fact, asherah was yhwh's wife at one point
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: kaziglu bey on April 07, 2012, 10:45:18 PM
Hi kaziglu bey,

You’re completely correct.
I WIN!!!!! lol just kidding. Although, that statement, if taken out of context.... nevermind. Really tired from a long day, so I'm a little silly. 
Quote
I apologize for not putting that part at the beginning of the post. It would have saved you a lot of time and hassle.
Oh no problem at all! I'm unfortunately unemployed, so I have plenty of time on my hands. I prefer mental exercise to physical exercise anyways. I just couldn't believe that you would type all of that, and not expect me to respond. Like, yeah right.

Quote
I’m sure you’re right that some of these points won’t be reconciled. I recognize that from the beginning and that’s not my issue with re-hashing sub-topics. Whether we agree or not though, the conversation can move to a deeper level by addressing all the points of each side, rather than re-stating the same points over and over. We’re doing this on some sub-topics, but on others we’re not. My guess is that it’s for two reasons: one is that there was such a big gap and we have to do extra work to “catch up” and the other is that we have so many sub-topics going on in our conversation that, again, it’s extra work to keep things straight. If all this back and forth is only a slam at each other, like it is with other posters, then the extra work is silly and wasted. All the work I do for a single post (and for some posts I do quite a bit of research and thinking so that I am confident what I post is accurate) is silly and wasted.

However, if the conversation is one of sharing our thoughts, experiences and feelings in order to work towards a mutual understanding of where we agree and disagree, even if not complete mutual agreement, then the extra work is required.
I would say that you certainly do seem to put a lot of thought and effort into your posts. I don't think I could rightly accuse you otherwise. But, on the places where we seem to reach the most fundamental disagreements, I think that it is safe to say that, given two entirely different current worldviews, our perspectives will be different to an extent that we just will not agree.

Quote
<soapbox>
What I call “shotgun posts” made by others do not improve our world or make us better people. These are two kinds of posts, drive-by posts where someone throws something in without knowing the context and then you don’t see them again unless someone fires back. The other “shotgun posts” are the ones with topics, attacks and snide remarks all over the place like the spray of a shotgun. The purpose of each is to disrupt and distract. Their ego is so great that they think they are the only ones with the answers and they don’t listen to anyone else unless that person agrees with them. I don’t want to post like that or respond to them.
</soapbox>
I don't deny that this happens on this forum, but it seems to me at least that the theists are often the more guilty (or, perhaps sinful?) in this regard than atheists. Given what I have said about perspective though, I fully anticipate that you will disagree.

Quote
Anyway, I’m done with the soapbox. Thank you for your patience.
I have the patience of a Jedi.
Quote
Let me explain what I mean by the “off-topic” comments. One example is we were talking about how to read the Bible in light of Jesus Christ. (Which, by the way, was already off-topic. :)) You asked “But the participants in the OT did not have Jesus, why shouldn't we read it without Jesus?” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg473082.html#msg473082) I responded with two reasons why (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg493189.html#msg493189). Instead of addressing the reasons and continuing with “how to read the Bible in light of Christ”, I see the response as taking another direction, that is “there would have been no need of a savior if God hadn’t done all the things he did.” (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20874.msg493472.html#msg493472)

So yes, you are correct. “Jesus, Jewish people or God” are not off-topic in a conversation about Christianity. However, Christianity is a huge topic and our conversations, to be productive, have to be, and have been, much more focused. We can’t come to a mutual understanding of agreements and disagreements about, for example, “how to read the Bible in the light of Christ,” if we don’t stick to “how to read the Bible in the light of Christ.”
Indeed, I thought that you would be discussing this. I think this is where there is a fundamental difference of perspective, and I will demonstrate what it is. You believe that the OT clearly should be interpreted in light of Jesus[1]. In other words, you accept what the Bible says, and the interpretation of it that is most familiar to you[2].  I believe that since the OT writers clearly did not know Jesus, nor were they expecting his arrival, nor were they concerned with worshiping him for fear of hell, and since many of the OT laws and regs were totally not in concordance with what Jesus taught, even though one of the things that he taught was that the OT law was still the real deal, and we can't submit questions to the Celestial Inquiry Panel to clear matters up (which would be, you know, SUPER helpful, and would have prevented thousands of years of bloodthirsty religious violence), and we can't be sure if we are supposed to love our enemies or utterly destroy them, which are two completely opposite positions, yet both are mandated by God in the Bible, who inspired the OT which we are supposed to ignore, but only sometimes, the 10 commandments are cool and all that, but the rest of it is just old Jewish stuff, lets just interpret that in the light of Jesus. DO YOU SEE HOW I AM HAVING DIFFICULTY ACCEPTING YOUR POSITION HERE!!?! LOL sorry for shouting, it's just that I think it really is such an important and essential point to address. That is just a small sample of the issues that need to be rectified before I can concede to say "Yes, let us seriously look at how the rape, ethnic cleansing, and horrific mass murders of the OT are Good and Just and Righteous in the Light of Jesus, Our Lord the Savior." I can't shut off my thought process. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens, I could only currently do what you are asking me, " at the low price of the surrender of my critical faculties".

Quote
With that said, if I can pick the topic of our conversation going forward, then I’d like to stay with that. In fact, I’m going to stop this thread and start a new one.
That's cool with me. Fresh start never hurts. I can kinda see this going nowhere at this point, which is kind of what I think you think too. 
Quote
It’s now Holy Saturday and Judas has already done his thing.
Sure, and every single Christian would be totally fucked if he didn't.
Quote
Tonight begins Easter when Jesus rose from the dead and changed the world forever.
Grab your firearms, its the Zombie Invasion!
Quote
Let’s move from the one to the other.
Sure.

Quote
Besides the poetic reason :), here’s the practical reason. When people read the OT parts you keep referring to, they have questions. Everyone does not just atheists. Atheists, or those inclined to atheism, read it and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They rebel (just like Judas) and say, “I am so much better than this God. If this is what he is, then I want nothing to do with him.” And God let’s them have their will.
Well, that's YOUR interpretation of what happens. Here is mine:
"Gee, this book called the Bible is just nuts. The apparent main protagonist (and, oddly enough, also the main antagonist), God, spends half of the book demanding that people worship and follow him, and completely destroy anyone who doesn't, man or woman, young or old, strong or infirm, sane or insane, born or unborn, good or evil, just or cruel, as well as demanding that animals be needlessly butchered and burned in his name, so that he can delight in the aroma and be entertained by his servants as they splatter animal blood all over everything while praising him for allowing them to do all of this. God gives out 10 commandments, which are supposed to be the absolute basis of morality, of which 4 are nothing but God saying "ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! and have nothing to do with morality at all, just God's Ego Trip. Be nice to mom and dad, ok that's good, but nothing about not abusing children, do not kill, ok thats cool too, but there's no do not rape[3]. Do not steal, good good, don't bear false witness, very good, don't commit adultery, ok that's perhaps good advice, but doesn't really need to be legislated. Then we have what can only be considered thought crime, as in do not covet. It's the very thought of wanting something someone else has. Not even wanting to steal it, just wanting to have it. In other words, a desire for something better than you already have. So there a whole lot of ambition and motivation, driven by a desire to also have nice things that other people have. Note that this commandment also treats women as the property of men, just as an ass or a slave. Oh yeah, I almost forgot, slavery isn't forbidden by this God either. Wow. What a guy. People actually believe that the character, God, as described in this book, is real, and did all of that stuff, and raises people from the dead, and demands foreskins, and will punish you forever if you don't bow down to him, is REAL?!!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! They probably also believe in the talking snake thing, lol, bet they believe Harry Potter is for real too, and they go around hunting Horcruxes HAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

That's a rough idea of what is going in the mind of this Atheist. It's no different than a critical examination of any book. It is just as absurd[4] as believing that Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is real, and that you don't watch out, you will receive the Demetor's Kiss. That is how it appears to me. If you came to me, and told me, in all seriousness, and with utter conviction, and with a warning tone, pointing to a clearly fictitious document as evidence, that Sirius Black had escaped from Azkaban, I would be doing you a favor to have you institutionalized. I'm not saying that you should be institutionalized, I think actually that you are fairly sane and reasonable, but I just think that you have somehow reached a horribly wrong and silly conclusion (Sirius Black prison break,or God is Real) based on horrible evidence (Prisoner of Azkaban, or the Bible), and somehow are just entirely unable to see that. You have to entirely de-activate your BS detector to buy into any of the claims in the Bible. For the love of Pasta, it says that insects have FOUR legs. It says Pi=3. It says giants are totally real, and so are dragons. Snakes talk. A 600 year old guy got over 400.000 species of beetle, from 6 continents, onto a boat 450 feet long[5]. God created the whole universe and everything in it out of nothing. But he didn't realize Adam would need a wife, and had to make her out of one of Adam's ribs. You think that any book that could say such things is the path to eternal salvation? Good luck with that. I sincerely mean it. Good luck.

Quote
Theists read these parts and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They submit and say, “You are so much greater than me, God. I don’t understand what this is. Show me more of who you are, so that I can understand.” And God responds with Jesus Christ. He’s the answer to our question and without him God has no answer.
Whereas to me, this is a complete non sequitur, and I don't understand how yet ANOTHER innocent person suffering and dying is supposed to make things all better again. That is just a seriously twisted idea. And if you seriously believed it to be true, wouldn't it require you, in order to do as much actual good as possible, in order to truly imitate Christ, wouldn't YOU have to ensure that you endured at least as significant suffering as your savior? Are you willing to do that? And if you are not willing to do that, what use could your servitude ever possibly mean to him?
Quote
It is critical to the understanding of God, the Bible, the world and ourselves to know Jesus Christ. We can explore this in the next thread.
Then how come the people who are most against science, who are the loudest protestors of Darwin and true discovery of the world, have always been those most vocally in support of Jesus?

Quote
I won’t start the thread today.
I should hope not, you'd damn well better have some kind of response to that! :P
Quote
I’m already late for other things I have to do, like mow the lawn – darn weather :). But I will in the next couple of days. I also will only be spending at most an hour a night on it. That may mean delays, but if I limit myself to that then I can probably post even when things get busy. It doesn’t have to be an all or nothing.
Whatever you can do, life gets in the way sometimes.

Quote
Thank you, kaziglu bey, for these conversations. I wish we could be doing this over beers, but we make the best.
Yikes! for a minute there, I thought you said bears. God happens to send his ursine familiars after us blasphemers from time to time, can't be too careful. Hope you have a good night, or whatever time of day it is there.
 1.  Whatever that means! I think that there could be a lot of ways to interpret it in the light of Jesus. As evidence, I present to you the thousands of denominations of Christianity and their not congruent state
 2. I believe in your case Roman Catholic, with a little bit of your own flavor likely, here and there. Shall we call it Simple Catholicism, or Roman Cavemanicism?
 3. again, an area where we fundamentally disagree, specifically as to whether the word "kill"="rape" (I contend that they do not)
 4. Actually, much more so, considering that there are quite extraordinary claims, lacking in extraordinary evidence, present in the Bible.
 5. Inspired by a late member of ours, Brian Sharp, who's resting in peace because he will never have to answer the door to Jehovah's Witnesses again.
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: 12 Monkeys on April 08, 2012, 01:13:17 PM
Hi 12 Monkeys,

SC To the last point Velkyn made....we have libraries dating back 12 to 15 thousand years....they are the stories our totem poles have told over all those generations.  Each family has a history lesson in the totems standing in front of their houses. Then you barbarians came along and destroyed it as devil worship

 12,000 plus years and 90% of the population gone by 1862,and you call us heathens
I don’t know what I can say. I agree that our history in the United States has many tragedies and how we treated Native Americans is one of them. I grew up in the middle of a Potawatomi reservation and many of my friends were Potawatomi’s (and a couple of “non-friends”, too.) I understand that there is a great loss in our nation and world. I am deeply sorry for the evil that has been done to your people.
Thanks for the statement of your views,but what does this have to do with the fact that history is written by the victorious?. There is the real version of history and the history written by those who win
Title: Re: Question for Christians about Judas
Post by: velkyn on April 09, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
Unfortunately, the analogy is not the same. A comparison of the two would show that. It’s similar to what 12 Monkeys is trying to do, but even more extreme. Joseph Smith got his information allegedly through a source that only he saw (and a couple of others later). He was the source of all information. This is being compared to something that thousands of people experienced. It defined them as a people. The Joseph Smith story is not on the same scale at all. Maybe at a general abstract level it is and that’s where the hand waving comes in. Once we get to the specifics it falls apart.
oh my, let’s see, we have a book claimed to be the source of all information and then a line of men who have claimed to be the source of all information on this god. 

And more lies on how “thousands of people” experienced anything that the Catholics claim as true, of course with no evidence that this is the case. All of the lies about the Hebrews, funny how none of them are supported by archaeology or the contemporary writings of the real civilizations in the ANE.  No libraries to show how “literate” that SC is sure the Hebrews were.  NO evidence of anything about the exodus, no evidence for anything about the cruxifiction.  Yep, SC, your handwaving makes it all fall apart.  and cute to see you whine about posts that you don’t like.  Ooooh, shotgun posts.  Poor thing, how dare no one not ask you hard questions and expect you to support your basless claims with actual evidence. 

Gee, and we get more of the lies that Christians tell when trying to disregard atheists and people who don’t worshp their particular version of their god.  Really, SC?  The whole lie about everyone who doesn’t agree with you being only “rebellious”?  That’s all you’ve got now?  I suppose it is, when you have no actual evidence, you just have to resort to lying about people. 

Besides the poetic reason :), here’s the practical reason. When people read the OT parts you keep referring to, they have questions. Everyone does not just atheists. Atheists, or those inclined to atheism, read it and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They rebel (just like Judas) and say, “I am so much better than this God. If this is what he is, then I want nothing to do with him.” And God let’s them have their will.
  and again, woooo the conveniences of how your god lets some people have free will and then screws others over. 

Quote
Theists read these parts and ask, “How can a good and gracious God do this?” They submit and say, “You are so much greater than me, God. I don’t understand what this is. Show me more of who you are, so that I can understand.” And God responds with Jesus Christ. He’s the answer to our question and without him God has no answer. It is critical to the understanding of God, the Bible, the world and ourselves to know Jesus Christ. We can explore this in the next thread.
  You know SC, I did exactly this and got no answer! Not a peep. So again we see the Christian make up lies on how their god responds to them and golly agrees with them.  There’s no evidence that JC even existed so your desperate attempt to claim him as an “answer” fails again.