Judas: A True Blue Hero

[neilhytholt]

I'm not going to say anything bad about people's religious beliefs, but I'm going to write something addressing the institution of religion, in churches and organized religion.

These institutions by nature are corrupt because they are run by men (or sometimes women). They are political institutions where the purpose many times becomes the advancement of certain people's interests over those of over people's. For example, state sponsored religion where you have to join that religion or else bad things happen to you, either persecution or being put in jail, or losing out due to social or economic stigma, etc.

The fact that we can even engage in an open debate about this is something relatively rare, because in past history it was the usual mode that religion was sponsored by the state.

Anyway, to say that the Catholic church is correct vs. another church being correct is just a matter of politics. A group of men got together and said this version of the Bible is the correct version. Okay, so how did they decide? It was all political. But fundamentalist types will say it was the 'divine will' or something like that, and then that's where all the fights start. The fights start when one person says their particular religion is correct and somebody else's isn't correct and then they start fighting with other people.

It just seems kindof stupid, because obviously there is no proof that any religion is 'correct'. But humans are obviously political creatures who tend to put their interests ahead of others.

[The Willow Sword]

The last Pope appoligized for many of those things that the Church did

.

Whatever. it will take a heck of a lot more than a dead popes "apology" to correct the "wrongs".

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.

i am "judging" as you write BASED on what i have studied in History and what i see and experience today. Yes you do have all these "off-shoots" of this and that and the other having to do with christianity and islam and judaism, blah blah. yet we really dont see any of these "offshoots" being dealt with if the Main Authorities of these religions feel that they are "not the way it is supposed to be followed or expressed". it just proves my point about what i stated about "mental illness". Bringing up the "LAW" is a poor example in my opinion because the very nature of "LAW" is extremely corrupt and corruptable. the "LAW" and its authors seem to have this "do a little evil to do good" mentality, and i think THAT is more mentally Ill than religion.

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

.

Another thing i find arrogantly presumptious about religion especially all the "good missionary work" you mention, is that these "missionaries will go in to poor and oppressed areas of the world and "set up shop" and bring the "good news" and all that other happy horse manure,,yet this goes to the HEART of what i state about "atrocities". take the native americans who had to be forced to follow the "missions" and their " good work" or else be either killed or imprisioned and enslaved(which they became anyway due to the political policies of the time that DIRECTLY correlated with the Missions( i speak of the early times as well as the 1800's and beyond.
Or how about the other Missionary work that is done where YES, i will agree that they provide medical assistance to the sick and food and such,,however i wonder if these impoverished people would still get the same attention if they did NOT convert? i hardly think so.
There always seems to be a "hidden agenda" with respect to any religion. that agenda to "spread the word" and to "convert", those so called "heathans".
How arrogantly presumtious to think that ANY religion be thought of as the "true" way just because some fanatical apostles said it was so. or because some book written 1500 years ago tells you what is "true" and the "way".
Quote scripture to me all you want. its not going to change what i see right in front of me, and what do i see? i see a whole HOST of charlatans and snake oil salesman and radical ultra conservatives who seek not to do anything more than empower themselves by brainwashing the simple masses who will blindly follow their way because they need to "feel better" about their lives because they are suffering and whatnot. It seems callous of me i know,,,but it is my opinion that any system of organized fundamentalist religion does NOT seek to work in your benefit to save your soul, or to do anything really other than brainwash and control YOU.

Man i love easter time,,,gettin out all that pent up religious constipation. Peace,,TWS

[mantis108]

I tihnk Neilhytholt brought up a good point on state sponsored religion.

I believe that SSR is a mean for the ruling class to delegate and even totally off load it's responsibility to educate the people. Education for the mass costs huge amount of money. It most likely not going to fit the ambition and agenda of the ruling party. Look at most of the third world countries and middle east countries. Education is quite low on their pirority. If the people of these country realize that they are being ripped off by their own government, I think they will revoke their own government just as hard as they would in fighting those that don't share their "faith". Here's the rub, it's a Sin to kill your own kind of the same "faith" (almost all monothesitic traditions agreed on that one). But it's more than okay in their view to practically murder those who are deemed non believers. Redirect the anger of the people/followers caused by the incompetency of the Church and State (oldest play in the book). Sure it's also a Sin to kill but who knows they "think" that the big guy upstairs wants you to do His will. Any organized religious doctrine (well, policy for that matter) is subject to interpretations - Yin and Yang. Double standard is a game the so called statemen and politicians are good at. Well, religious leaders play that game too.

As long as a well balanced education opportunity is not a basic human right for whatever reason and/or excuse. The government can trump its people with state sponsored religion which more than likely won't bite the hand (pun intended) that feeds it. Poor human resources only breed poor states. It's a vicious cycle.

Watch the movie "Paradise Now". You might fight it interesting how people live and think in those regions.

Mantis108

[Brad]

That's just how people are. People that label themselves christians, muslims, jews, athiests, etc... you'll allways find groups of people hating others because of what they believe (or don't believe). Get enough armed like minded haters together under some sort of leader and you end up with these violent masacres. People in general are just fundamentally flawed, and so is everything we touch/create (including our religious groups). Whether or not the bible is the literal truth/only way, etc. the one twp parts I really like is the idea that no human being is born perfect, and that anyone can be forgiven.

Also, on the idea of instant forgiveness making people "moraly lazy" that was talked about earlier, I disagree. If someone uses that as an excuse to be a jerk 6 days a week, odds are they'd act like that anyway. On the bright side, maybe their going to church on Sunday is saving some others from grief at least one day a week Being forgiven isn't just about going to church on Sunday or saying a prayer to wipe the slate clean. You have to really recognize that you've done something wrong and make a REAL effort to become a better human being. It also means being about to forgive others for what they've done. The happiest people I've met tend to try to be like this in some way.

[neilhytholt]

I tihnk Neilhytholt brought up a good point on state sponsored religion.

I believe that SSR is a mean for the ruling class to delegate and even totally off load it's responsibility to educate the people. Education for the mass costs huge amount of money.

Mantis108

All systems of government that humans have designed (okay, maybe there are some counter-examples, but I don't know them) seem to be designed for the elite to control the masses and basically sponge off of them, except communism.

And when or where was there ever pure communism? In socialism the elite still had higher status than the masses and still sponged off of them.

So various systems have been designed to keep the lower classes down. Slavery, through force, or caste systems, etc. Lack of education was just a part of this. But how efficient were the past systems? Having a basically uneducated work force obviously worked for trades in the past, but as technology advanced, it requires more education for the workers.

Also, when people are kept down, that lowers their morale and they have a tendency to rebel. Especially in slavery, you incur problems with morale, overhead with having to feed and clothe a large group of people, and manage all of that, and there's the constant threat of insurgency.

Therefore, our current system seems to be an experiment in the illusion of freedom. The elites keep control, but everybody has an illusion of freedom. Are you truly free? No. Who you elect is chosen by the elites. The politicians get money from the elites and are put in power by the elites. You still have to follow certain laws, pay certain taxes, and most people have to work a job making money for the elites to survive, but there is this illusion of freedom and this illusion of equality.

Obviously, it is just an illusion of equality or else everybody would be living in big houses like Bill Gates and driving Ferraris, right? Is there upward mobility? Not for people who are born poor and lack a lot of education, as the persistent poverty and ghettos attest. Most of these people will never move up. But there is less chance of rebellion and insurgency because there is no hard and fast system keeping people down. As long as people have a basic set of needs met and the illusion they can get more (reinforced through the media and through the lottery, etc.) they will not rebel. If a few do you have a huge police force and army in place to quell the insurgency.

And now we have replaced religion with science. Most people never understood religion. Most people now don't understand science. They think they do, but they accept it like they would a religion without understanding the basic premises or doing the experiments for themselves.

So I guess we'll see if this system lasts, if it is better than nobles and slavery and castes and all of that. We are still in the beginning stages because obviously not everyone in the world lives in a system like that, and that poses a threat when somebody brought up under a more totalitarian government with a SSR like like Islam can affect somebody brought up under so-called 'Democracy'.

[Anthony]

"yet we really dont see any of these "offshoots" being dealt with if the Main Authorities of these religions feel that they are "not the way it is supposed to be followed or expressed".

There are no "main authorities." That's why they are offshoots, because they broke "off." from the main (at least the ones I'm thinking of). And there are too many to mention. My point was not to blame the whole....hence the terrorist example.

"There always seems to be a "hidden agenda" with respect to any religion. that agenda to "spread the word" and to "convert", those so called "heathans". How arrogantly presumtious to think that ANY religion be thought of as the "true" way just because some fanatical apostles said it was so. or because some book written 1500 years ago tells you what is "true" and the "way".

Well, that's the definition of religion (that you believe in it). If you didn't think it was right, you wouldn't be religious. So if people do missionary work to "save souls" as arrogant as it sounds to you, the person doing it believes they are right (yes, they are putting forth their own agenda and that bothers you). Your point makes no sense to me. It's like your saying that religious people shouldn't believe in their religion or else their arrogant. So, I guess they are arrogant. And yes tragedy has resulted throughout history because of that. Bar rule: "no religion, no politics." I guess that's why because of the arrogance and anger it generates.

"Whatever. it will take a heck of a lot more than a dead popes "apology" to correct the "wrongs".

Yes...whatever. I don't think some wrongs can ever be corrected (until we invent a time machine). So there we have it.

"what do i see? i see a whole HOST of charlatans and snake oil salesman......etc. "

What can I tell you....you'll see what you see. When I said missionaries and "good" works I mean that in a broad sense and wasn't referring to any specific acts of charity or goodness. I see alot of goodness and I know the bad. If you see more bad than good or only bad, it's fine with me. I'm sure as hell not gonna go tic for tak with you and for every bad thing you cite I'm gonna cite a shining example of morality.

If I understand your posts correctly (I may not), your main problem is that religious people (any religion) believe that they are right, and, that organized religions (or any institutions) have an agenda. I agree on both counts. Happy Easter.

"....gettin out all that pent up religious constipation"

yeah...what's up with that?.....relax a little.

[Shaolinlueb]

christianity different today then it was 2000 years aog. noooo you say? lol

of course it was different. so many things changed. judaism is way different too. religion changes over the years.

some people believe early christianity had sexual sacrimants.

[Sihing73]

christianity different today then it was 2000 years aog. noooo you say? lol

of course it was different. so many things changed. judaism is way different too. religion changes over the years.

some people believe early christianity had sexual sacrimants.

Hello,

Chrstianity is a Faith not a Religion per se. The many chrches which have sprung up in its name are mans reflections of what that "faith" entails. While the church today, at least mans perspectve has changed over the years, the basic belife system and the Bible has not changed.

The books of the Bible compliment one another and lend support to the story of Man and Salvation, as told in the Biblical Faith. The only changes to the Bible are those which modern men have put in place to support their own ends. However, the end result does not fit with the original thus the reaon for some "books" not being included. For example the book of Macabees(sp?) which is a nice histor8ical account whihc includes the event at Masada.

As to Christ having gone to India and lived out the rest of his life there, I think this is a fantasy which can never be proven. What can be proven are some things directly related to Christs' life, Death and Resurrection.

1) Christ definitely was a historical figure and lived a litle over 2000 years ago.
2) Christ was either a Madman a Liar or the Son of God. I have heard several ewish and other Relgious authorities claim that Christ was a Great Prophet. However, there is no way he could have been a great prophet or teacher. He claimed to be the Son of God. If he was not the Son of God then he was either a Liar or Insane.
3) Christ fullfilled all of the prophicis of the Old Testament in both his life and death.

One of the most interesting arguments for Christ being the Son of God and having risen from the dead is in the change in the lives of his Apostles. To a man they all deserted Christ whn he was arrested, tried and crucified. Peter even denied knowing Christ. So please explain to me why these same people would preach a dead Mesiah and gladly go to their deaths, as all but one died as Martyrs? Why would someone who was cowering in fear when their leader was captured and killed suddenly make a full 180" and preach his word after his death??? Especially when one considers the penalites for doing so.

The very idea that Christ faked his death and ressurection is hard to fathom. The Romans were very good at crucifiction and the guards aroudn th tomb would have been killed for letting anyone steal the body after it was buried. Add to that the fact that Christ did not appear only to his own disciples but to literaraly thousands of people after his death and the resurrection becomes harder to dissprove.

No matter what you or I believe there is one thing which is an fact: One day we will know the answer for sure.

[FuXnDajenariht]

I think the son of god is meant as a metaphor. I dont think his being a great prophet is under dispute by anyone. You can't judge him based on his followers. even Islam, the historical and ideological rival of christianity sees him as a great prophet and as an enlightened man.

Thats besides the point though. The concepts in the bible like being the son of god and heaven and hell and the concept of salvation through christ etc etc are all metaphors and should be taken as such. Meaning they dont have literal meanings and thats where people **** up. Hes basically saying wake the **** up and take responsibility for your own life and your own salvation but use me as an guiding example of someone who has done it, and see that it is possible. Hes saying a man can make a heaven or hell of his existence all based on his own perceptions to put it simply. dont be fooled by rosy or poetic language. Other religions convey their message the same way. Look at how confusing Daoism can be for instance if you take things literal. Thats how they spread their message to large audiences of mostly uneducated people, by telling stories or parables.

When you see it that way i dont see how anyone can say religion is faith based. It has nothing to do with blind faith.

[FuXnDajenariht]

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.


...............

I used to think the same way but then i realized people are inherently greedy, selfish and stupid. We will ALWAYS and i means always find a reason to justify the wrongs that we commit against other human beings. Its out of necessity that we're able to delude ourselves into believing certain things It just so happens that religion is much more convenient in justification because it pushes blame away from a person. No one can honestly prove or disprove god, or the concepts we attach to him by extension. You can philosophize on just about anything you want and just pass it off as the will of god and if people question their labeled as heretics. So religion is very versatile in that regard. Christianity has its fair share of the blame just for the sole fact of popularity but it could of been any faith. Look at some communist countries. They claim atheism so they certainly dont need god to help them torture and kill. But if not for religion the justifications would of landed somewhere else. Patriotism, Politics, Science, Philosophy..... We have a gift for reasoning the evil **** we do.

[Sihing73]

I think the son of god is meant as a metaphor. I dont think his being a great prophet is under dispute by anyone. You can't judge him based on his followers. even Islam, the historical and ideological rival of christianity sees him as a great prophet and as an enlightened man.

Thats besides the point though. The concepts in the bible like being the son of god and heaven and hell and the concept of salvation through christ etc etc are all metaphors and should be taken as such. Meaning they dont have literal meanings and thats where people **** up. Hes basically saying wake the **** up and take responsibility for your own life and your own salvation but use me as an guiding example of someone who has done it, and see that it is possible. Hes saying a man can make a heaven or hell of his existence all based on his own perceptions to put it simply. dont be fooled by rosy or poetic language. Other religions convey their message the same way. Look at how confusing Daoism can be for instance if you take things literal. Thats how they spread their message to large audiences of mostly uneducated people, by telling stories or parables.

When you see it that way i dont see how anyone can say religion is faith based. It has nothing to do with blind faith.

Hello,
Faith is not blind nor should it ever be such. As to everything being a metaphor, with this I would dissagre. While there are metaphoric expamples and illustrations used in the Bible. Christ made it quite clear that he claimed to be the Son of God. As tp hisbeing a great prophet how can that be when his claims would be blasphemy if they were untrue? You can't have it both ways. Either he was as he claimed or he was a liar or insane.

[SimonM]

And when or where was there ever pure communism?

Band level societies. That's where. They exhibit EXACTLY what Marx hoped to create with organized Communism. The problem is there are too **** many people and population pressures create these inequal situations.

[Ultimatewingchun]

I don't believe this new "evidence" about Judas anymore than I believe all the nonsense about Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.

Hoax.

[Shaolinlueb]

where in the bible does jesus claim to be the son of god. or was this a title given to him?

[neilhytholt]

After having an argument about this on the weekend I have to say that the old bar rules should apply. No politics and no religion. Anything else just seems to lead to a lot of arguing and fighting.