----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas
>> Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> "Robert G. Seeberger" wrote:
>
>> >> Was Judas a villain?
>> >> I don't think so myself. If one believes that
>> >> Christ was divine and
>> >> that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of
>> >> the plan and cannot
>> >> be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. <snip>
>
> Yet it still tormented him to be in this role, if his
> subsequent remorse and suicide are true stories.
> Furthermore, if suicide is a mortal sin, then he was
> eternally condemned for doing 'what someone had to.'
<G> Since the Bible cannot agree as to *how* Judas died or even
*where*, I imagine the whole idea should be regarded as an open
question.
For all I know Judas went to France with Mary Magdelene and Joseph of
Arimathea.
<G>
> An argument could be made that he ought to have pled
> to be forgiven instead ("The only unforgivable sin is
> not asking for forgiveness"), but in the throes of
> terrible remorse, rational thinking is not common.
> And the notion of Predestination just annoys the snot
> out of me. <grimace>
For me predestination is overtly mechanistic and destroys the idea of
salvation.
How can you be rewarded when you have no choice?
>
>> > As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of
>> person;
>> > that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus
>> > Christ Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC.
>
>> These words had impact on me at the time:
>>
>> Jesus! ...<snip>
>> ...And all the good youve done
>> Will soon be swept away
>> Youve begun to matter more
>> Than the things you say
>>
>> Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in
>> any way before I heard these words...<snip>
>> Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and
>> broadened my concept of salvation.
>> I think it is central to "the meaning of life" and
>> the idea of
>> salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry
>> is required in
>> order for there to be a choice and it is not always
>> clearly defined what "rightness" requires us to
> do...
>
> I also have problems with the whole 'there must be
> darkness for light to shine' concept. It _does_ make
> a sort of sense, but, like wading through Aquinus or
> Aristotle, I feel that there are cleverly disguised
> absurdities - somewhere.
I can see where it might seem paradoxial, but like a good scientific
theory the symettry supplied by duality and opposition are pretty well
required.
>
>> > But I have
>> > problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this
>> makes
>> > Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded
>> schemer.
>
>> Many many times I have thought this. But further
>> reflection leads me
>> to think that if "THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION" were
>> laid out in front
>> of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number
>> portrait. And to
>> extend the art metaphor, there would then be no
>> "bad" art, and there
>> would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be
>> a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness.
>
> Which ties back into predestination, it seems to me;
> not that I would prefer bland-
Well....I would think the metaphor I give above strongly refutes
predestination.
>
> Charlie B: "Precisely. It's yet more of why this
> "loving god" made less and less sense to me. There's
> just too much vengeance and sadism ascribed to this
> deity... just makes no sense..."
>
> My take on that: human misunderstanding, both
> innocent and especially deliberate, of the Divine's
> intent has resulted in elevation of 'evil' desires
> (revenge etc.) to "God's will." Result: slaughter,
> scorched earth, genocide. Of course, that implies
> that *I* have a handle on Er's intentions --hardly
> possible, is it? <wryness>
>
> Max B: "I personally see it as the inherent flaw in
> the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions. I can't
> understand why people would choose to worship a deity
> (Yahweh/God/Allah) that punishes with the one hand and
> simultaneously provides and supports with the other
> hand..."
>
> That _is_ rather Q-like, isn't it?
Distinctly parent-like the way I see it.
> I cannot subscribe
> to the idea that horrible things which happen are
> "God's will," although I do have friends who find some
> comfort there; me, I just get angry.
Yeah.....I feel that randomness and chaos are even more evident than
The Hand Of God. Sometimes sparrows die of old age and not for any
particularly remarkable reason.
> While I do
> believe that good things can be retrieved from horror,
> with much hard work and near-heroic perseverence, to
> think that suffering is *deliberately inflicted*
> toward achieving some goal is anathema. Even though
> that is exactly what we do in medicine, as anyone who
> has watched a loved one undergo chemotherapy can
> attest. I sideslip that one via 'pragmatic idealism'
> - but it *is* a dodge.
>
>> > Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as
>> > another planned betrayal.
>>
>> Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case
>> I find the idea a
>> bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic...
>> Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the
>> Garden story is a
>> metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In
>> that sense the
>> shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for
>> the "golden-age"
>> where we didn't have to think so much...
>
> Not a literalist, as you know, but down through the
> centuries, that story has been used to blame women for
> mankind's ills.
But if it is a metaphor as I attest, then woman was the first to
become self-aware.
That should count for something<G>
> That it offends me is irrelevent;
> that it has been and continues to be a rationale for
> oppressing women in fundamentalist traditions of 3
> major religions is a travesty.
Just another sign that religion has been used to promote individual
agendas and that any scripture that supports such an obvious agenda
should be considered suspect.
>
>> > As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible
>> > monster who probably deserved to be hunted down
>> > ...as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought
>> > to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty
>> > creation...
>
>>From a very early age my younger brothers and I
>> would watch those old monster movies...<snip>
>> We *knew* the monster was us and we felt the
>> creatures alienation and desire for acceptance...
>> We were the wolfman too. We knew that desire would
>> overwhelm us...and that we could lose control...
>> We knew Dracula...evil and unredeemable, but...
>> also the coolness of pursuasion, the tool of desire
>> and an unconscious
>> precursor of our male sexual awakening.
>> The Mummy was the embodiment of revenge, of the rage
>> that smoulders
>> deep inside until opportunity presents itself.
>> Those old films were effective to a great degree
>> because they
>> reflected the emotions of the inner child and are
>> metaphors for our earliest feelings.
>
> Ooh, well-put.
I appreciate the validation. I can get a bit passionate about the
things that occupied my childhood.<G>
> The Enemy Within is always there,
> always dangerous - but not always evil.
>
And not always an enemy, sometimes it is just a child.
xponent
Childlike Enthusiasm Maru
rob
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
