Judas: A True Blue Hero

[dwid]

Forgot to add this. It seems kinda sad to me that this Easter is celebrated by all sorts of bizarre, misconstrued news items clearly intended to cast doubt on Christianity in general. This whole Judas thing came riding on the heels of an almost completely scientifically worthless study about prayer and heart patient recovery. Before you go thinking that prayer doesn't work for heart patients, you should know two things about the study. First, the patients' prayers for their own sakes were never asked about or studied in any way. Second, the people who did the praying were random strangers who knew only the first name and face of the afflicted. Those two items completely invalidate the study as most people would agree that it is a completely different scenario if you pray for your own sake and if it is your family and close friends praying for you.

I know this is mostly irrelevant to the bulk of this thread, but I feel compelled to comment on it nonetheless. First, the prayer study, whatever its scientific shortcomings, is an attempt to further investigate claims based on more poorly designed studies that claimed that prayer led to better health outcomes. Lots of hardcore Christian types loved this previous research, and I didn't hear a lot of criticism on flaws in its design from the many Christians that I heard refer to it when it was news. I also remember hearing a lot more in the media about this study than about the more recent one.

Secondly, I would think most sensible Christians would be glad to be rid of the notion that prayer makes people have better health outcomes. This idea is, in fact, a slippery slope that leads to people blaming God when they don't get the medical outcomes they ask for. I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer.

Anyway, for the record, as I will no doubt be considered anti-Christian by some for these remarks, I was brought up Christian and had Christian education k through 7th grade. I am not a Christian, but I respect many people who are (including my wife). I just think that many Christians have a tendency to feel persecuted by things like the study in question, when in fact, such items are just by-products of the innate curiousity of human beings. We investigate. Sometimes you will like the results and sometimes you won't.

[Anthony]

"It seems kinda sad to me that this Easter is celebrated by all sorts of bizarre, misconstrued news items clearly intended to cast doubt on Christianity in general."

This Easter?.....try EVERY Easter.

I think I can still remember last years ridiculous headlines. Your statement is pretty much what it all comes down to. A well made documentary or written article, no matter what it's based on (fact or fiction) will always sound like truth because it's on TV or in Time or Newsday. The ones who make/write them obvioulsy don't go out of their way to say that it's based on nonsense because people just wouldn't watch. They try to make it sound like there's been some amazing discovery......yeah right. Every year around Easter or Christmas there's an "amazing new discovery" about Christianity that might "change the way you see the religion for ever." I guess to make money they have to make it sound like it's something that nobody ever saw or heard before. There will be another one next year too.

Like you said, it's just sad. It confuses Catholics who study the Bible but aren't necessarily well versed in Theology (I would know alot less myself if I didn't go to college) and it gives fuel to the monkeys who are so quick to believe in anything that they can use against you. For example, my grandmother read the Bible every day (that I noticed). She's from the "old country" and her generation didn't have much schooling. I doubt she knew anything about Christianity other than what was in the Bible or from going to church. What would she be able to say if someone brought up some made up nonsense to her? Nothing.

[MasterKiller]

I love celebrating the risen saviour by eating chocolate bunny ears.

Easter is not about Christ, just like Christmas is not about Christ. Christians have a nasty historical habit of latching onto any holiday they want in an effort to subvert non-Christian celebrations.

Next thing you know, Halloween will be the day Jesus ate his first pumpkin pie.

[Anthony]

As far as "prayer=better outcome always," I was taught to pray but was never taught that as a fact. You also hear that "God has a plan that you may not understand." Peoples individual interpretations are subject to slight differences.

"I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer. "

Did you tell those people that they were being naive when they were praying? I'm not sure I fully understand your comment about time spent at a hospital and what it's supposed to proove but it sounds like your judging people who are going through a tragedy (when all they may have left is prayer) or at a time when their faith is most tested.

Maybe if you caught up with them a few years later you could find out if they still bame God or if they were just caught up in the emotion of loosing a child.

[Anthony]

"Easter is not about Christ, just like Christmas is not about Christ." - MasterKiller

Everyone already knows that Easter is about the Easter Bunny, and Christmas is about Santa Clause and Presents!.......derrrrrrr.

[dwid]

"I think there is a childlike naivete in assuming that God has this level of involvement in people's lives, as it is certainly not evidenced. Disagree with me? Spend some time, as I have, in pediatric inpatient units at hospitals, or working with people who have lost children to cancer. "

Did you tell those people that they were being naive when they were praying? I'm not sure I fully understand your comment about time spent at a hospital and what it's supposed to proove but it sounds like your judging people who are going through a tragedy (when all they may have left is prayer) or at a time when their faith is most tested.

Maybe if you caught up with them a few years later you could find out if they still bame God or if they were just caught up in the emotion of loosing a child.

The point is regarding the slippery slope of believing prayer will improve the likelihood of a loved one's health improving. If you believe God heals some kids, then you are forced to wonder why not others.

And no, I did not tell people they were naive for praying, nor would I. As stated above, the point is not whether these specific people were praying or not, the point is simply that when you place the responsibility on God for making you well, then it logically follows that God is responsible when he does not make you well.

Also, regarding: "God has a plan that you may not understand." This has always struck me as a bit of a copout. Simplistic statements like this and like "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answers are not the ones we want," etc... don't really explain anything, they merely attempt to divert from the discussion.

[KC Elbows]

It goes to free-will--the option to believe or not to believe and then the option to follow or not follow. Angels don't have free-will and demons are nothing but fallen angels, right? But the demons chose to revolt under the leadership of Lucifer; to try to overthrow heaven. So they developed free-will at some point; didn't they?

I prefer to think that they were built that way: note that in the stories involving Satan that are thought to be representations before the fall, his job is still the tempting of humans. I think of it as a clever omnipotent beings built in way of giving an example to men of the nature of evil, that it is often a hair breadth from the nature of good. Who watches over the souls in hell? The reminder of the warning. Always a task for the angels, fallen or otherwise. They'd make great office workers.

[mantis108]

The Vatican has a relatively new Pope. I don't think people has warmed up to him yet. The previous Pope was coined "the People's Pope" but what kind of Pope is this Pope going to be? Sometimes, these talks and challenges from the interested parties are meant to draw a response from the "reigning" Pontiff. I think there are people out there that wanted to see how this Pope going to hold up to these types of challenges to "authority".

It's interesing to keep watch. May be they could have a reality show/soap opera called - Vatican Watch.

Mantis108

[Anthony]

"....the point is simply that when you place the responsibility on God for making you well, then it logically follows that God is responsible when he does not make you well. "

Like I said above I really think this a matter of how the individual feels about prayer. I don't think the Church gives you any definites as far as what you should "expect" God to do when you pray so I don't think they teach you to make God responsible. I hate to bring up the obvious but if they were fully dependent on God they wouldn't be in a hospital in the first place. I think any anger toward God for "doing this to me" is probably a result of emotions running high.

"Simplistic statements like this and like "God answers all prayers, but sometimes the answers are not the ones we want," etc... don't really explain anything, they merely attempt to divert from the discussion."

There are plenty more expressions "God works in mysterious ways," or "God's testing you," you've probably heard them. The only goal of that discussion that I can see is to learn what God is thinking and that's impossible so I don't see the point of it. I think prayer will always remain subjective. If it's naive to assume that God doesn't get involved in people's personal lives then, on the flip side, wouldn't it be incredibly arrogant to assume that he definately doesn't. I mean (for arguement's sake), if God's the almighty creator than who are we to say we understand how he acts.

[KC Elbows]

All that aside, why does all this always come out at Easter every year? No one addressed that point with an argument.

It's the same reason that they don't play Rudolph's Baby New Year in June. No sex, no guns, you people are lucky you get TV time at all.

[Wood Dragon]

Exactly. Considering that the gnostics set, as a goal, achieving the path of Jesus(recognizing God in themselves, etc), it would be hard to call them anything other than christians.

Not even close. The Gnostics held that Salvation was only available to pre-selected "in group", not all Humanity.

Also, the whole "Aeon/Yaldaboath/Demiurge" concept was wildly varied from anything previously held by the Early Church, or it's Jewish precursors.

[Judge Pen]

I prefer to think that they were built that way: note that in the stories involving Satan that are thought to be representations before the fall, his job is still the tempting of humans. I think of it as a clever omnipotent beings built in way of giving an example to men of the nature of evil, that it is often a hair breadth from the nature of good. Who watches over the souls in hell? The reminder of the warning. Always a task for the angels, fallen or otherwise. They'd make great office workers.

Interesting perspective. I always thought that the fall occurred before the creation of man; I never considered otherwise. As for the book of Job, I always thought it was neat that even though Satan and God were enemies they engaged in these debates over the nature of man.

How do you reconcile this perspective with the book of Revelation that says that Satan and the demons will also burn in the lake of fire?

[Shaolinlueb]

gnostics werent people. it was a time period i though. anyways is christianity today peters church? there was a form of christianity popular before peters but it was whiped out. it was one of the disciples but i dont remember. anyone got any info on it? i dont have the book on me.

[The Willow Sword]

Yeah i watched that show and whereas i was intrigued by it all. it still doesnt change my opinion that "religion" in of itself is a propagated mentally ill concept.

i mean yeah i can acknowledge and respect people's "right" to believe in whatever they wish to believe(if you want to believe that daisies and dog food are creations of the divine then by all means believe). What really gets my goat is when these "religions" start getting so radical and fundamentalist that they choke the very nature of "spirituality"(which in my opinion is far different from what "religion" is")

For Centuries the clergy in all facets of organized religion have spawned some of the worst atrocities upon humankind(and i dont exclude judaism and the muslim faith.of course christianity takes the cake on becoming such an oppresive and totalitarian religion/its right up there with how the old pagan regimes of the time oppressed everyone). i dont buy in to all that gentleness and tolerance and acceptance that i hear resonate throught the christian world and yet the actual PRACTICE of these concepts i rarely EVER witness. Seems like christ's "teachings" dont really resonate in the way that supposedly he wanted them to.

As for the Gospel of Judas. What we see here is a text that tells a different perspective on that whole christian ideology, and remember,,this text was written 200 years AFTER the supposed time of christs life. SO THAT should tell you that it is a "perspective" and not necessarily a "gospel Truth". But TRUTH has a different definition for everyone. so my truth isnt going to be yours and certainly this would also apply to some gnostic writing his "truth" about Judas and then storing it away. As we saw from that show,,the clergy in power at the time dismissed it as heretic writings because it did not fit with what the gospels of john and matthew etc. were saying.
Hey dont get me wrong,,just because i dont follow christianity and i feel like it is mentally ill doesnt mean that i dont believe that these events ever happened. and i am no atheist. like i said i can respect everyone's "RIGHT" to believe what they want. But when those beliefs become so fanaticle that millions have been murdered to propagate it's "teachings". i tend to just see these religions for what they are "political tools to control the uneducated simple minded masses".
i know what your thinking( he is a communist) nope wrong again.
Just a "mystic" that has seen and experienced alot and follows his own "path" rather than travels a path that is littered with sorrow tears and blood.

As always,,TWS

[Anthony]

"But when those beliefs become so fanaticle that millions have been murdered to propagate it's "teachings".......etc."

Your not the only one who dislikes many atrocities that happened in the past in the name of religion. The last Pope appoligized for many of those things that the Church did.

Anyway, it seems that your judging a religion itself based on a certain contingency of it's proponents (many muslims disagree with modern day terrorist acts). There are so many off-shoots and sub-groups of some religions and there are different interpretations among them, even among individuals. If you have a corrupt lawyer for instance (or several), are you going to do away with the entire legal system because it's controlling you? It's just not good logic.

Also, if your judging based on attrocities, at least don't be one sided, you could mention all the missionary and charity work being done around the world that would indicate that the concepts are being put into practice by many. Non-religious people never seem to know or mention these things....how curious.

I don't have a problem with you not being religious or with your opinions (their yours). For a non-religious person to have a knowledge only of all the "bad" and to ignore all the "good" in order to make their point is extremely typical and, in my opinion (to use your own words), "uneducated and simple minded."