• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Vilification of Judas Iscariot

Rhea said:
Politesse said:
TomC said:
Rhea said:
Then yah, it’s wrong to vilify the rapist who was targeted, manipulated/coerced and used as a pawn for a god who did not have to scapegoat a mortal to achieve its immortal goals, because it’s a freakin’ god, innit?
Click to expand...

While I think rape was a poor choice of example for the Judas thing, there is one example of it in the NT.
Mary.
She committed adultery by making a baby while betrothed to Joseph. She didn't have a lot of choice in the matter, what with it being God and all.
Tom
Click to expand...
You sound kind of judgemental about that, considering your own argument that saving the world justifies rape and so forth. If your own position is valid, wouldn't it be wrong to villainize God for raping the minor in question, since it had a good outcome?
Click to expand...
No, that is not what he said at all.

Not even - at all.

It would be wrong to vilify MARY for having sex, seeing as the god was the one who decided to do it as a means of world-saving, the god who chose her, the god who coerced her, perhaps by making her think it was okay.

Tom’s point is that MARY should not be vilified.

But in BOTH stories, the god is a monster, scapegoating innocent people in order to play games that he could have accomplished just fine without ruining their lives.
Click to expand...
So in your version of the Gospels, Jesus cruelly forces Judas to betray him, against Judas' will? Sounds like you're writing your own fanfic, at this point.

That is not what TomC wrote, in any case. What he wrote was this:

Nevertheless, suppose Bob were the product of a forcible rape then went on to develop a workable plan for world peace. One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear he means that the rape is spectacularly good, in this case. Not that Bob is still good despite being the product of rape, but that the act itself was a good rape, since it had a good outcome. Bob.
 
Last edited:
If it was the role and fate of Judas to betray Jesus, how could he avoid playing the role allotted to him?

''Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory...'' - Romans 9:21-23
 
DBT said:
If it was the role and fate of Judas to betray Jesus, how could he avoid playing the role allotted to him?
Click to expand...
Is that your position? That we are mere playthings of fate? In that case, what sense does it make to call any of us "good" or "bad" or "heroes" or "villains"?
 
Politesse said:
DBT said:
If it was the role and fate of Judas to betray Jesus, how could he avoid playing the role allotted to him?
Click to expand...
Is that your position? That we are mere playthings of fate? In that case, what sense does it make to call any of us "good" or "bad" or "heroes" or "villains"?
Click to expand...

It's not personal, it was a question based on what is written in the quote.
 
If Satan entered Judas and compelled him to betray Jesus, then in what sense do we condemn Judas?

Or do we not really believe in "The Devil Made Me Do It"™ defense, even when it's specifically spelled out in the Bible?
 
Politesse said:
It's pretty clear he means that the rape is spectacularly good, in this case. Not that Bob is still good despite being the product of rape, but that the act itself was a good rape, since it had a good outcome. Bob.
Click to expand...
No, what’s clear is that he is arguing that the vilification of Judas Iscariot is not justified. Not merely that the betrayal or the rape is, as he clearly says, “in the end” (you left that part out) “spectacularly good”, but that this is the argument why vilifying Judas is unwarranted.


All your straw-manning and squirrelling - are you arguing that it is correct to vilify Judas Iscariot? Because you keep making quote-mined and straw-manned arguments against the premise that Judas Iscariot is not the villian here. If that’s not your point, then what is your point?

You keep misinterpreting Tom’s meaning, even though he’s really been quite clear. Your posts, “so you are saying that…” are all misrepresentations of his point. I know you argue this material quite knowledgeably, so I am wondering why you are misinterpreting and misrepresenting him so badly.

The argument is: Judas is not the villian here - he was targeted, coerced, manipulated and trapped into an act that was deliberately formulated by someone else with a goal. One that that entitly claims was necessary for a magnificent greater good to be achieved, though it is easy to question why that was necessary and the answers are shallow and unsatisfactory. But nevertheless in the story Judas was an unwitting tool used against his own free will and then vilified.
 
Aside… I am wondering why Jesus didn’t just turn himself in. Why did he think his story plot needed him to be betrayed in order to bring substitutional punishment that yields global forgiveness?

Of all the things humans were doing at the time, including the fact that he was already being sought by police, he needed a new fresh crime to put on his story board? Why not just do it right after those pharisees tried to stone the adulterer? “‘Aaaugh! Sin and Badness! I will die now to atone for it!!!”

Instead - the days and days of hair rending and teeth gnashing, the set-up of the patsy, the stage setting for the public flogging, the three hour drama. If he’s powerful enough to wake the zombies from the graves, why not just have a monumental public speech about the pain of all the sins of the world, some fine acting about how much it hurts and requires sacrifice, then explode in a blaze of green light and then appear reassembled in 20 minutes?

I mean, the way he did it left the message pretty moribund for the next 300 years before catching on at all, and now after 2000 years less than 1/3 of the planet believes it at all? I feel like reassembling after a green laser blast would have been more effective and memorable. You know?
 
Politesse said:
Is that your position? That we are mere playthings of fate? In that case, what sense does it make to call any of us "good" or "bad" or "heroes" or "villains"?
Click to expand...
Personally, that's my position concerning reality. We are all driven by circumstances and human nature, things we have no control over. Adolf Hitler was as much a victim of circumstances and human nature as anyone else.

But regarding the OP, God is described as different from us mere mortals. Omnimax and benevolent. But the story of Judas demonstrates in a clear and poignant way just how incoherent the Abrahamic image of God really is. And the Christian version is the least coherent of the bunch.
That's my point.
Tom
 
Back to the free will debate?

One of the Christian views is that there is good and evil and god gave us the freedom to choose.
 
steve_bank said:
Back to the free will debate?

One of the Christian views is that there is good and evil and god gave us the freedom to choose.
Click to expand...
But of course the schizoid Bible gives the Calvinists a bushel of justifications for predestination: Isa. 6:10, which is echoed in Jn. 12:40; Romans 9: 11-21, which gives extensive justification of God forcing behavior on humans; Ex. 4:21 and 7:3; Isa. 63:17; Ezek. 11:18-20; Jn. 6:65; Rom. 11:32; II Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1:11; 2 Tim. 2:25. Those who like to say that you can use the Bible to prove anything have a point.
 
Rhea said:
Instead - the days and days of hair rending and teeth gnashing, the set-up of the patsy, the stage setting for the public flogging, the three hour drama. If he’s powerful enough to wake the zombies from the graves, why not just have a monumental public speech about the pain of all the sins of the world, some fine acting about how much it hurts and requires sacrifice, then explode in a blaze of green light and then appear reassembled in 20 minutes?
Click to expand...
If Jesus had exploded in a blaze of green light and then appeared reassembled in 20 minutes you would still not believe it.
 
Politesse said:
TomC said:
But regarding the OP, God is described as different from us mere mortals. Omnimax and benevolent
Click to expand...
In the Gospels? I feel like you're reading beyond the text, there.
Click to expand...
That's where Christianity comes from. Reading beyond the text.

There is no verse supporting Trinitarians. Nevertheless, it's been the official Christian teaching for all of official Christian history.
Tom
 
lostone said:
Politesse said:
TomC said:
But regarding the OP, God is described as different from us mere mortals. Omnimax and benevolent
Click to expand...
In the Gospels? I feel like you're reading beyond the text, there.
Click to expand...
The early Christian theologians committed that crime against human reason. All of the previous ancient gods had their limits.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I would argue that the Gospels, especially the Synoptics, do not present a very clear theology. GJohn talks the most about God, but is also the most difficult to reconcile with later theological inventions and may have been intended as a "gnostic" work with its seeming division between Jesus' Father and that of the Saducees, etc.
 
I think the trinity as it became traccs back to Nicaea and the Nicene Creed. God the father, god the son, and the holy spirit as a unity. Taught to me in school as mystery.

www.usccb.org

What We Believe

"Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for ...
www.usccb.org www.usccb.org

And the Apostle's Creed

Apostles' Creed

www.crcna.org www.crcna.org

I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to hell.
The third day he rose again from the dead.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty.
From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic* church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
Click to expand...


None of it is biblical.
 
Tigers! said:
Rhea said:
Instead - the days and days of hair rending and teeth gnashing, the set-up of the patsy, the stage setting for the public flogging, the three hour drama. If he’s powerful enough to wake the zombies from the graves, why not just have a monumental public speech about the pain of all the sins of the world, some fine acting about how much it hurts and requires sacrifice, then explode in a blaze of green light and then appear reassembled in 20 minutes?
Click to expand...
If Jesus had exploded in a blaze of green light and then appeared reassembled in 20 minutes you would still not believe it.
Click to expand...
How it is you are comfortable fabricating some made up response and ascribing it to me? This is bearing false witness. How do you sleep at night?

You have no idea what I would believe if I saw someone exploded in a blaze of green laseer and reassembled 20 minutes later.


And even more to your point, I suppose, is why a god would give a care about whether I believe in it anyway? Does it lose health points if people don’t gaze deeply into its eyes? Why would a real god demand such an outlandish thing? That one has always left me puzzled. Such a human desire. Almost as if it were fabricated by a human.
 
But Jesus did not appear to explode.

Gospel accounts which are not exactly the same claimed people saw him executed and claimed people saw him resurrected walking around with a wound in his side from a spear.

The magician Harry Houdini was so good at illusions in his day that in someplace in Europe he was actually charged with witchcraft.

People are as gullible today as back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom