The Vilification of Judas Iscariot

[Politesse]

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40

You keep leaving out the most important part of the story.

Jesus was God. Came down from Heaven to die and resurrect for the Salvation of Humanity.

A bunch of mere mortals doing this I understand completely. That would make Christianity a pile of Greek style myth.

Which is what I believe to be the case. Partly due to incoherent claims like Judas was a bad person.
Tom

So the hypothetical moral rule you're positing is that it's wrong to villify a person who commits a crime if:

1. The victim was a god

and

2. World peace was achieved during the forty days following the crime.

?

Nope.
Not even close.

But I do understand your position well enough.

Tom

My position? I don't even have one. This is your thread and your argument.

But perhaps you could clarify your position, which so far seems to be getting only more muddled and inconsistent the more you post about it. Some clarity would be helpful.

What, exactly, is the general moral standard or rule that you are trying to apply to this situation? When is it acceptable to criticize someone for committing a crime, and when is it inappropriate to do so?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Welllll, if they really believed an election was sto---oops, wrong thread.

 

[TomC]

But perhaps you could clarify your position,

That the Gospels are incoherent, ethically primitive, and essentially non-theist.

Any other questions?
Tom

 

[Tharmas]

Ah, you read!

Thanks, but I must admit, it's been many years since I've cracked a Gnostic text, with the exception of The Gospel of Thomas. That one bears re-reading. I consider it barely Gnostic if at all. The other Gnostic texts I've read have sort of melded all together in my memory. As I said, it's been many years...

 

[Politesse]

Ah, you read!

Thanks, but I must admit, it's been many years since I've cracked a Gnostic text, with the exception of The Gospel of Thomas. That one bears re-reading. I consider it barely Gnostic if at all. The other Gnostic texts I've read have sort of melded all together in my memory. As I said, it's been many years...

I would not consider Thomas to be a Gnostic work, no, though our only full copy comes from a Gnostic scriptorium as you probably know, so there are always those questions about how much they may have altered. The Gospel of Judas, on the other hand, is about as Gnostic as they come. If you want a primer on Gnostic thinking, it's a succinct presentation of the big ideas. It goes without saying that it is therefore a strange, often baffling and incomplete work. Fascinating artifact of early Christian intellectual diversity.

 

[Politesse]

But perhaps you could clarify your position,

That the Gospels are incoherent, ethically primitive, and essentially non-theist.

Any other questions?
Tom

So your moral claims about the situational justifiability of betrayal, participation in mob violence, and rape are irrelevant to your position? Or how are they relevant?

 

[steve_bank]

Without Judas the plot stalls. Nothing abut ethics, the gospels are a fiction probably based on different people and events that were circulating orally.

Judas was probaly a dramatic embellishment, as was Peter's denial. Look at the gospels in terms of today's fictional dramas that can be loosely based on actual or alleged events with composite characers and fictional dialogue to convey a point or perspective on events.

How many fictionalized movies and TV series have there been on Henry 8th and Queen Elizabeth?

There was no media hanging around recording facts of events.

 

[DBT]

The real Villain in the plot is God Himself. The rest are just pawns in the game.

 

[Politesse]

Without Judas the plot stalls.

Surely true of any story's antagonist. Is this what makes them "good" or "bad" as characters? Is it even useful to characterize a person as "good" or "bad"? As an unashamed fan of virtue ethics, I tend to think it can be, but only if you are thinking very clearly about the purpose and goal of ethical rules.

 

[steve_bank]

Us humans do not fit neatly into black and white dichotomies, and you know that.

Lyeraturee is filled with gray characters. In the old westerns the cowboy hero who is not entirely good or bad.

Shakespeare is still read because it reflects the spectrum of human behavior.

As a moral tale the gspoels are one of many, but I doubt there is much historical accuracy.

There is a TV drama show running on a digital TV station about Jesus. Forgot the nae, I call it 'The Adventures Of Jesus'. Ttaolly fictionalized.

The Gnostic and other writers presented a version of Jesus that supported their beliefs.

If someone says they represent a superior morality and ethics I'd say their beliefs have never been tested in the real world. Like being in a situation where doing the right thing has meaningful negative consequences for you.

Who knows, in 2000 tears people might think Sherlock Holmes and Rambo were real people.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The more I think about it the more I think the gospels are an almost compete fiction

Gosh, surely not!



The only reason that this isn't an almost universal opinion is that humans are unbelievably stupid, and disinclined to think about, or question, anything that is told to them by an authority figure.

The gospels are not just obvious fiction, they're bad fiction, written by a committee (or rather, four committees), and then heavily edited by a variety of fan-fic authors who wanted the source material to better fit their new stuff.

If they ever contained a grain of "based on actual events", it's long since been buried under a mountain of fresh bullshit.

Even some of the settings are historically inaccurate and full of anachronisms.

Patton Oswalt does a choice bit about Jesus' superpowers and how they evolved in the writing. He describes the powers as a random, mismatched set of abilities: on the one hand, casting out demons, raising the dead -- on the other hand, turning a little food into a lot of food. He says he's always imagined that the food power must have belonged to another character originally, an acolyte of Jesus that the writers and re-writers of the gospels decided to eliminate, in order to streamline the narrative. "Why don't we lose Sandwich Joe?" is how Patton has them phrase it. They give Joe's food magic to Jesus, and they have a more direct story line.
Patton tells it better than I just did. See it on Youtube under Patton Oswalt Jesus's Superpowers and the Avengers.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Rhea]

One needn't condone forcible rape to argue that that particular rape was spectacularly good in the end.

So you would argue, in that case, that the rapist and the crime that they committed are being unfairly "villified", as per your OP title?

You are missing his point completely. Yet you know this story well. So why do you miss the point?

So you believe that is possible to unfairly "villify" a person who has committed a crime, but only if that crime results in acheiving world peace within forty days?

In that case, I do not see how this could apply to Judas Iscariot, as his actions did not result in world peace being achieved within 40

You keep leaving out the most important part of the story.

Jesus was God. Came down from Heaven to die and resurrect for the Salvation of Humanity.

A bunch of mere mortals doing this I understand completely. That would make Christianity a pile of Greek style myth.

Which is what I believe to be the case. Partly due to incoherent claims like Judas was a bad person.
Tom

So the hypothetical moral rule you're positing is that it's wrong to villify a person who commits a crime if:

1. The victim was a god

and

2. World peace was achieved during the forty days following the crime.

?

And you are leaving out the salient point that Tom clearly included.

The hypothetical moral rule is that when

1. The victim is God
2. The victim CHOSE to use rape as part of it’s plot
3. The Victim CAUSED to rapist to rape
4. World peace was achieved during the 40 days following the crime
5. The victim fails to report that they chose the rape to happen, chose the rapist, and then made them rape

Then, yah, it’s wrong to vilify the rapist who was chosen on purpose to do the thing and then allowed to be psycologically coerced into doing the rape.


Surely you saw Tom highlighting these conditions that are present in the Iscariot story. Why do you ignore them?

 

[TomC]

But perhaps you could clarify your position,

That the Gospels are incoherent, ethically primitive, and essentially non-theist.

Any other questions?
Tom

So your moral claims about the situational justifiability of betrayal, participation in mob violence, and rape are irrelevant to your position? Or how are they relevant?

This is where morality was brought up in this thread:

"Important" is not necessarily the same thing as "good".

It wasn't me.

Tom

 

[Politesse]

But perhaps you could clarify your position,

That the Gospels are incoherent, ethically primitive, and essentially non-theist.

Any other questions?
Tom

So your moral claims about the situational justifiability of betrayal, participation in mob violence, and rape are irrelevant to your position? Or how are they relevant?

This is where morality was brought up in this thread:

"Important" is not necessarily the same thing as "good".

It wasn't me.

Tom

Took you a while to figure out how to dodge that one, but the important thing is that you got there in the end.

I guess you can "win" the "argument" on a rhetorical point of order, but if we haven't had an interesting discussion along the way, has anyone really come out ahead?

 

[TomC]

But perhaps you could clarify your position,

That the Gospels are incoherent, ethically primitive, and essentially non-theist.

Any other questions?
Tom

So your moral claims about the situational justifiability of betrayal, participation in mob violence, and rape are irrelevant to your position? Or how are they relevant?

This is where morality was brought up in this thread:

"Important" is not necessarily the same thing as "good".

It wasn't me.

Tom

Took you a while to figure out how to dodge that one, but the important thing is that you got there in the end.

I guess you can "win" the "argument" on a rhetorical point of order, but if we haven't had an interesting discussion along the way, has anyone really come out ahead?

Props where they're due.
It was @Rhea who did the heavy lifting concerning the dodge.
Tom

 

[steve_bank]

If it were a silent movie the audience would hiss and boo for Judas and cry when Jesus died. Judas would be dressed in black with a sneer. Jesus would be dressed in white.

That is what drama is supposed to do.

 

[Politesse]

If it were a silent movie the audience would hiss and boo for Judas and cry when Jesus died. Judas would be dressed in black with a sneer. Jesus would be dressed in white.

That is what drama is supposed to do.

Luckily, both musical versions adopted a more nuanced perspective on the character.

 

[steve_bank]

This is all mostly entertainment and passing the time for me.

I never watch videos people post on religion from either side. It is all opinionated comentary on a mythical 2000 year old dead Jew. Comentray that has been running continuously for 2000 years.

 

[lostone]

I think of the Judas story as part of the invented fiction that is found in so many places in the NT. It really doesn't make much sense. If ole JC was viewed as that much of a threat, then surely many of the Romans knew what he looked like. Judas would not have had to identify him. JC was not supposed to have been underground.