The death of Judas Iscariot

[SAT2]

judas had no choice....that is my point.....

Everyone always has a choice, including Judas. If there were no free will, there would simply be no point to this whole humanity experiment at all. What would God need with a planetful of marionettes?

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

I would agree but the key word in your statement is "often". There are most certainly those who without faith would conduct themselves in a manner that was less morally appealing. I am not saying everyone would, but a segment of society would probably do exactly what I suggested.

For me it wouldn't really matter because my theology is such that hell does not exist and neither does sin so I choose to act in a moral way because I have searched myself and concluded that immoral behavior (whatever that really is) does not reflect "who I am" and not out of a fear of God or eternal damnation. But that's me, and my religious views are far away from the mainstream.

But for fundamentalist religious people of any religion it would be catastrophic and I think you would see a good segment of them adopt an attitude of "it doesn't matter anymore....**** it"

I don't think most people are fundamentalists, and yet we don't see what you describe.

 

[Iridescence]

Hmmmm But I am happily a Fundamentalist. ♥ It means far more to me, however than debates on morality and codes of ethics. ♦ As important as those things obviously are... they represent the mere basics.

Back to Judas' death however...

 

[Cecilie1200]

judas had no choice....that is my point.....

Everyone always has a choice, including Judas. If there were no free will, there would simply be no point to this whole humanity experiment at all. What would God need with a planetful of marionettes?

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

I would agree but the key word in your statement is "often". There are most certainly those who without faith would conduct themselves in a manner that was less morally appealing. I am not saying everyone would, but a segment of society would probably do exactly what I suggested.

For me it wouldn't really matter because my theology is such that hell does not exist and neither does sin so I choose to act in a moral way because I have searched myself and concluded that immoral behavior (whatever that really is) does not reflect "who I am" and not out of a fear of God or eternal damnation. But that's me, and my religious views are far away from the mainstream.

But for fundamentalist religious people of any religion it would be catastrophic and I think you would see a good segment of them adopt an attitude of "it doesn't matter anymore....**** it"

I don't think most people are fundamentalists, and yet we don't see what you describe.

Free will? You're having trouble detecting that? Or are you - as is so often the case - babbling about something else entirely and unable to articulate it clearly?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

True, because religious faith is something that led to stuff like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

 

[SAT2]

Everyone always has a choice, including Judas. If there were no free will, there would simply be no point to this whole humanity experiment at all. What would God need with a planetful of marionettes?

I would agree but the key word in your statement is "often". There are most certainly those who without faith would conduct themselves in a manner that was less morally appealing. I am not saying everyone would, but a segment of society would probably do exactly what I suggested.

For me it wouldn't really matter because my theology is such that hell does not exist and neither does sin so I choose to act in a moral way because I have searched myself and concluded that immoral behavior (whatever that really is) does not reflect "who I am" and not out of a fear of God or eternal damnation. But that's me, and my religious views are far away from the mainstream.

But for fundamentalist religious people of any religion it would be catastrophic and I think you would see a good segment of them adopt an attitude of "it doesn't matter anymore....**** it"

I don't think most people are fundamentalists, and yet we don't see what you describe.

Free will? You're having trouble detecting that? Or are you - as is so often the case - babbling about something else entirely and unable to articulate it clearly?

I'm quite articulate. Your pettiness and anger keep you from understanding what you read.

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

True, because religious faith is something that led to stuff like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Religion and state getting mixed up together doesn't end well.

 

[koshergrl]

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

True, because religious faith is something that led to stuff like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Those were BOTH political undertakings.

And how long ago did they take place?

Currently, the only religious atrocities taking place are those inflicted upon people by ISLAM.

 

[koshergrl]

But why are we talking about church and state in this thread? I missed that derailing...

 

[SAT2]

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

True, because religious faith is something that led to stuff like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Those were BOTH political undertakings.

And how long ago did they take place?

Currently, the only religious atrocities taking place are those inflicted upon people by ISLAM.

Islam! Islam! Islam! Never miss a chance to bash Islam!

I hope that someday that you realize that the violence to which you refer is also political in nature.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it was said it's ALWAYS a mistake to mix state and religion, and the lame example was the Crusades and the Inquisition, both political undertakings that took place CENTURIES and MILLENIA ago.

I provided you with a current example. I'm sorry, is Islam somehow exempt from the statement? Didn't you make the statement? Why would you only want to use ancient examples (and in fact, the Crusades were undertaken in response to Islamic invasion of Christian lands, including France and Spain) if you are making a statement, when there are current examples available?

You should be careful about what you introduce into the conversation if you're that touchy. Don't accuse Christians of oppression and whine about the horrible aspect of state-supported religion, but forget that Islam is oppressing people RIGHT NOW.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Atheists and agnostics are often morally and socially responsible people. Religious faith is not necessary for morality.

True, because religious faith is something that led to stuff like the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

Those were BOTH political undertakings.

And how long ago did they take place?

Currently, the only religious atrocities taking place are those inflicted upon people by ISLAM.

You're right........they were political undertakings by people who hid behind the church and their own personal faith, and anyone who didn't believe as they did were persecuted.

Kinda like the GOP of today.

 

[koshergrl]

Uh..yeah...exactly like that.

pfft.

 

[SAT2]

No, it was said it's ALWAYS a mistake to mix state and religion, and the lame example was the Crusades and the Inquisition, both political undertakings that took place CENTURIES and MILLENIA ago.

I provided you with a current example. I'm sorry, is Islam somehow exempt from the statement? Didn't you make the statement? Why would you only want to use ancient examples (and in fact, the Crusades were undertaken in response to Islamic invasion of Christian lands, including France and Spain) if you are making a statement, when there are current examples available?

You should be careful about what you introduce into the conversation if you're that touchy. Don't accuse Christians of oppression and whine about the horrible aspect of state-supported religion, but forget that Islam is oppressing people RIGHT NOW.

State supported religion is horrible. It's of no use to God, and of no use to humans. It's only of use to the state.

 

[koshergrl]

I'm not sure that the state shouldn't SUPPORT religion, but to establish it is something else again.

 

[SAT2]

I'm not sure that the state shouldn't SUPPORT religion, but to establish it is something else again.

It should do neither.

 

[koshergrl]

Well that would depend on the definition of "support". If you think a government is "supporting" religion when congressmen say "Merry Christmas" then I can't agree with that.

 

[SAT2]

Well that would depend on the definition of "support". If you think a government is "supporting" religion when congressmen say "Merry Christmas" then I can't agree with that.

Do you mean saying it with their own words, or sending greeting cards for free?

 

[koshergrl]

Either. We have God's name on our money. I don't think it's that big a deal.

 

[Intense]

So, I'm re-reading Acts, and it seems to me that Judas bought some land with his betrayal of Christ earnings, then either fell or threw himself off a cliff, and BROKE IN HALF, and all his bowels (!) spilled out of him, resulting in the field being called "the field of blood" or some such thing.

Now I don't know why I thought Judas hung himself, so I'm curious if anybody else has any other take on the fate of Judas. Anybody except biblical retards like ABS, Loki, and Dragon, that is. Though I'm sure they'll have something supremely idiotic to say.

So did Judas commit suicide, or did he fall from a cliff, jump from a cliff, or hang himself? When? Years after the death of Christ? Shortly after? He had time to buy land, if I'm reading the passage correctly. It's maddeningly and miraculously ambiguous, as much of the bible is until you really start digging. And do we know his fate in the hereafter? Are there references to it? There is a vague reference to it in the Acts but I haven't really researched it yet.

Here is a take from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Link is included for further study.


St. Matthew is the only Evangelist to mention the sum paid by the chief priests as the price of the betrayal, and in accordance with his custom he notices that an Old Testament prophecy has been fulfilled therein (Matthew 26:15; 27:5-10). In this last passage he tells of the repentance and suicide of the traitor, on which the other Gospels are silent, though we have another account of these events in the speech of St. Peter:

Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus: who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem: so that the same field was called in their tongue, Haceldama, that it to say, the field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take. (Acts 1:16-20. Cf. Psalm 68:26; 108:8)

Some modern critics lay great stress on the apparent discrepancies between this passage in the Acts and the account given by St. Matthew. For St. Peter's words taken by themselves seem to imply that Judas himself bought the field with the price of his iniquity, and that it was called "field of blood" because of his death. But St. Matthew, on the other hand, says: "Then Judas, who betrayed him, seeing that he was condemned, repenting himself, brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and ancients, saying: I have sinned in betraying innocent blood. But they said: What is that to us? Look thou to it. And casting down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed: and went and hanged himself with an halter." After this the Evangelist goes on to tell how the priests, who scrupled to put the money in the corbona because it was the price of blood, spent it in buying the potter's field for the burial of strangers, which for this cause was called the field of blood. And in this St. Matthew sees the fulfillment of the prophecy ascribed to Jeremias (but found in Zechariah 11:12): "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was prized, whom they prized of the children of Israel. And they gave them unto the potter's field, as the Lord appointed to me" (Matthew 27:9, 10).

But there does not seem to be any great difficulty in reconciling the two accounts. For the field, bought with the rejected price of his treachery, might well be described as indirectly bought or possessed by Judas, albeit he did not buy it himself. And St. Peter's words about the name Haceldama might be referred to the "reward of iniquity" as well as the violent death of the traitor. Similar difficulties are raised as to the discrepancies in detail discovered in the various accounts of the betrayal itself. But it will be found that, without doing violence to the text, the narratives of the four Evangelists can be brought into harmony, though in any case there will remain some obscure or doubtful points. It is disputed, for instance, whether Judas was present at the institution of the Holy Eucharist and communicated with the other Apostles. But the balance of authority is in favour of the affirmative. There has also been some difference of opinion as to the time of the treachery. Some consider that it was suddenly determined on by Judas after the anointing at Bethania, while others suppose a longer negotiation with the chief priests.

But these textual difficulties and questions of detail fade into insignificance beside the great moral problem presented by the fall and treachery of Judas. In a very true sense, all sin is a mystery. And the difficulty is greater with the greatness of the guilt, with the smallness of the motive for doing wrong, and with the measure of the knowledge and graces vouchsafed to the offender. In every way the treachery of Judas would seem to be the most mysterious and unintelligible of sins. For how could one chosen as a disciple, and enjoying the grace of the Apostolate and the privilege of intimate friendship with the Divine Master, be tempted to such gross ingratitude for such a paltry price? And the difficulty is greater when it is remembered that the Master thus basely betrayed was not hard and stern, but a Lord of loving kindness and compassion. Looked at in any light the crime is so incredible, both in itself and in all its circumstances, that it is no wonder that many attempts have been made to give some more intelligible explanation of its origin and motives, and, from the wild dreams of ancient heretics to the bold speculations of modern critics, the problem presented by Judas and his treachery has been the subject of strange and startling theories. As a traitor naturally excites a peculiarly violent hatred, especially among those devoted to the cause or person betrayed, it was only natural that Christians should regard Judas with loathing, and, if it were possible, paint him blacker than he was by allowing him no good qualities at all. This would be an extreme view which, in some respects, lessens the difficulty. For if it be supposed that he never really believed, if he was a false disciple from the first, or, as the Apocryphal Arabic Gospel of the Infancy has it, was possessed by Satan even in his childhood, he would not have felt the holy influence of Christ or enjoyed the light and spiritual gifts of the Apostolate.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Judas Iscariot

 

[SAT2]

Either. We have God's name on our money. I don't think it's that big a deal.

True, that's just another mindless GOP stunt. It's not substantively a bit deal at all.

 

[SAT2]

If we were conscious, but lacked free will, then our existence would be torture.