Hello friends its been a long time I posted here mostly because the topics became a lot more insignificant and not really interesting.
So in the spirit of striking up an interesting topic I thought I should ask how do christians view Judas Iscariot, I know this always bothered me a bit when I was a christian because I always thought the role he had to play was very important to the salvation of christians.
I remember somewhere Jesus says it would have been better that he was not born, so guys really looking at it he saved the asses of christians today, so how do you see him, Hero or Villan?

I don't really know if he's either an hero or villian, but all i can say is that Christ gave his life for
the remision of our sins and to create a closer relationship between man and God, and he was to
be betrayed by one of his deciples, Judas through his selfishness and love for money created a way for that
which is wrtten to come to pass, so he was used to bring the crucification of Jesus to pass.

Have you read "The gospel of Judas"? the book was recently discovered in 1979 and interpreted in 1995. he was depicted as a hero in that book and it sure makes a lot of sense.

Imagine if Jesus had not been crucified - Christian would not have benefited from his blood of salvation. So the blood of Jesus was important for the souls of the christians.

So who are the people instrumental in ensuring that Jesus shed his blood for Christians? I think there are God, Jesus, Judas, Jewish Priests, Pilate, Roman Soldiers, etc, etc. I submit that these individuals should occupy a special place in the hearts of Christians for ensuring that Jesus's blood was shed for them.

Now, imagine if Judas had not performed his role so perfectly. The roman soldiers would have been unable to identify the real Jesus and may have picked up someone else, say Peter, and crucified him instead. Would the blood of Peter have had the same salvadic powers that of Jesus?

The major problem we have here is that there is no record of Judas Iscariot apart from the Bible and the Gospel of Judas.
My take on it is that we have to go on the Bible here and look at Judas as a villain - allbeit a complex one.

I agree with Huxley to a point but the question as to what would have happened if Judas had not played his part is irrelevant - there is no way of telling what would have happened. Jesus may have worked out another way to reveal himself to the Romans or it's even possible that one of the other disciples may have stepped into Judas' shoes. But like I say, that question is irrelevant and what has to be concentrated on is Judas' role.

The Bible states that he did what he did for money but the Gospel of Judas states that he did it for Jesus' grand plan. Looking at it logically, the money side wins and he was a villain. Otherwise, why did he not stick around afterwards? Why just take the money and run? Why take the money at all if he was innocent? The fact that money changed hands seems to over-ride any excuse that he was just following orders.
On this subject, I tend to sway more towards the Bible's interpretation than that of the gnostic scripture.

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

it has already been written, and moreover the heart of Judas has already been consumed
by his selfish desires if not so, even when Jesus said it in his presence dat one of his deciples was going to betray him, dat alone was enough to change his mind if not dat he had already made up his mind to do it.

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

Not necessarily. Most views have it that Jesus "wanted" to be crucified as this was his purpose here on Earth. It was his destiny. But just because that is what he wanted, it does not make Judas' act any more reprehensible and he may have just seen Judas as a means to an end - an evil to make true an act of good. That is certainly the impression that the scriptures give.

Remember, what we're looking at here is the story itself, not the physical facts. Start looking for those physical facts and you run into an immediate brick wall - we can't even tell for sure that Judas existed let alone if a physical Jesus existed and was crucified. All we have is the story. We have to look at what it means and take the liklihoods from there.

I have to admit that I tread very warily around books such as the Gospel of Judas. These were likely written when the first great schisms appeared in Christianity and when there was a war between othodoxy and gnosticism. I believe that sometimes, authors reworked stories and made them the exact opposite of the original just so that they could distance themselves from the other side.

Chrisbenogor:

Hello friends its been a long time I posted here mostly because the topics became a lot more insignificant and not really interesting.
So in the spirit of striking up an interesting topic I thought I should ask how do christians view Judas Iscariot, I know this always bothered me a bit when I was a christian because I always thought the role he had to play was very important to the salvation of christians.
I remember somewhere Jesus says it would have been better that he was not born, so guys really looking at it he saved the asses of christians today, so how do you see him, Hero or Villan?

Hi Chris. Welcome back and it is good to read your post. Your post raised a very interesting point. My view is that Judas sinned against the laws of God by betraying Jesus and so do all others who contributed to the murder of Jesus. Thus the crucifiction of Jesus on the cross is murder, a dastardly crime against God. It is also my view that the blood of Jesus or the death of Jesus did not bring salvation but burdened humanity with a sacrilege. Murder is a sin and their is no way sin or product of sin (blood) will bring salvation (good). It is a contradiction for some to accept that what Judas did is evil  but at the same time declare that the consequences of this evil act by Judas will bring salvation. An evil seed cannot produce a good fruit, neither can a good seed produce and evil fruit. My perception is that God does not use evil either as a means to an end or an end in itself. Neither did Jesus came to earth to die. His mission is to bring the word of God the Father to humankind. Humankind rejected the Truth brought by Jesus and sealed their hatred against God by murdering the son of God since the Truth Jesus brought irked those who are in authority at that time, particularly the religious leaders. Having murdered the physical body of the son of God, their is no rational justification for such a crime, thus an invention was made and that is that Jesus came to die and his blood washes sins. Cheers

Hello bastage, huxley et al
Like you guys pointed out this is already a complex issue that has ramifications reaching pre destination.
It looks as though Jesus knew from the onset that Judas was going to betray him and that brings me to this question, bastage, if he was a villan like you said, why did Jesus choose him as an apostle then if not to fulfil that which he had been chosen to do?
Why did he kill himself?
So many things do not add up.

m_nwankwo:

Hi Chris. Welcome back and it is good to read your post. Your post raised a very interesting point. My view is that Judas sinned against the laws of God by betraying Jesus and so do all others who contributed to the murder of Jesus. Thus the crucifiction of Jesus on the cross is murder, a dastardly crime against God. It is also my view that the blood of Jesus or the death of Jesus did not bring salvation but burdened humanity with a sacrilege. Murder is a sin and their is no way sin or product of sin (blood) will bring salvation (good). It is a contradiction for some to accept that what Judas did is evil  but at the same time declare that the consequences of this evil act by Judas will bring salvation. An evil seed cannot produce a good fruit, neither can a good seed produce and evil fruit. My perception is that God does not use evil either as a means to an end or an end in itself. Neither did Jesus came to earth to die. His mission is to bring the word of God the Father to humankind. Humankind rejected the Truth brought by Jesus and sealed their hatred against God by murdering the son of God since the Truth Jesus brought irked those who are in authority at that time, particularly the religious leaders. Having murdered the physical body of the son of God, their is no rational justification for such a crime, thus an invention was made and that is that Jesus came to die and his blood washes sins. Cheers

So you're saying the foundation of your religion is based on a lie? That jesus didn't come to die for your sins?

@Pinky lady, you're just dancing around the question!!!!

I think the story doesn't make sense.  Judas is viewed by xtians as a villian and it's a travesty, because without him, jesus wouldn't have been arrested and "died for your sins". He deserves to be sainted.
If jesus was god, all he had to do was turn himself in and spare judas the eternal shame.
The jesus story has way too much holes in it to be true. If jesus existed, OJ didn't kill those two people.

@m_nwankwo
Your views always make the most sense and fit with reality if the books of the bible are to be taken seriously.
But again are we sure Judas was presented seriously? I read and watched a documentary on the gospel of judas and it did raise serious questions. How are you sure of the christian accounts of the life of Jesus is correct, do you have other sources?
Also I would love to discuss the ramifications of murdering Jesus.
Cheers.

@martian
Hi,
M_nwankwo is not a christian.

Chrisbenogor:

@martian
Hi,
M_nwankwo is not a christian.

My apologies M_nwankwo, I put my foot in my mouth.

why did Jesus choose him as an apostle then if not to fulfil that which he had been chosen to do?
Why did he kill himself?

Look at Jesus' life and you'll see that it is all about fulfilling prophesy. To my mind, Judas was merely another tool used to complete the prophesies. In that respect, he was chosen. Chosen for his weakness.

As to Judas killing himself? There are conflicting accounts in the Gospels. One says he hung himself and another says he fell to the ground and burst his guts open.

I see your point bro, it leaves the gaping hole like Mr nwankwo pointed out of using evil to achieve a good purpose.
Furthermore why did it have to be one of the close 12 apostles, no sane person who really believed that Jesus was God would betray him for money if you get my drift .
Thanks for your inputs though.
Cheers.

Chrisbenogor:

@m_nwankwo
Your views always make the most sense and fit with reality if the books of the bible are to be taken seriously.
But again are we sure Judas was presented seriously? I read and watched a documentary on the gospel of judas and it did raise serious questions. How are you sure of the christian accounts of the life of Jesus is correct, do you have other sources?
Also I would love to discuss the ramifications of murdering Jesus.
Cheers.

Hi again Chris. My view is that the life of Jesus as recorded in the bible is a mixture of Truth and Legend. That means that some of things that the authors of the bible wrote about Jesus is correct while others are wrong. One of such wrong things is what we are discussing. The basis for all my views is that Justice, Love and Perfection are intrinsic attributes of God. Images or reflections of these attributes are to be found in all Gods creations. Any objective person can easily recognise acts of love and justice without much ado. This image of justice and love is also hardwired in the human spirit and an alert spirit can easily recognise when an event, a report contradicts justice, love and perfection. Even at the age of 8 I know that this story of the blood of Jesus washing away sins is not correct. Why will God require a physical blood to save his creatures? Did God create human beings with blood? Is there flesh and blood in heaven, the kingdom of God. Why is it the will of God for Jesus to die and yet it is not the will of God for Judas to betray him. If it is the will of God for Jesus to be killed, then the betrayal, the mockery, the trial, the blasphemies and then the crucifiction are also the will of God. Thus if this erroneous view is correct, then Judas, the high priests, the mocking crowd etc are also fufilling the will of God and should have a place in heaven. Why will God destine his son to die and then turn round to condem those that helped in fufilling the destiny. Why will Jesus who have not sined take away the sins commited by others. It is akin to an earthly Judge convictiong an innocent person of murder and allow the murderer to go scot free on the assumption that the innocent man is paying for the murder commited by the murder. I am sure that even the proponents of shedding of blood stuff will recognise the injustice in letting the criminal free but convicting the innocent man. Yet when it comes to religion, such glaring injustice is ignored or expalined away as the "mysterious ways of God". Whenever human beings invoke mystery to explain the obvious, it is clear that they have no answer and are afraid of the consequences of facing up to the Truth.

Jesus was sent by his Father to bring the word of God to mankind. The truth Jesus brought exposed the lies of the religious leaders who imagined that they have the keys to heaven. It became clear to these pretended servants of God (religious leaders) that Jesus is indeed the Master and his teachings and his power will lead to death of their influence and power among the people, but to the spiritual liberation of humankind. Wipped up by the darkness, these religious leaders did all to undermine Jesus. First they labelled him as unlettered, then spread lies and rumours and when all failed, they conspired to murder the son of God and Judas was a willing accomplice in this macabre drama. Jesus was murdered because the Truth he brought to mankind was irksome to those who hold religious authorities at that time.


The murder of Jesus is a literal as well as symbolic rejection of God by humankind. Having rejected the word of God and nailed the bringer of this word of God to the cross, humankind can expect nothing but evil in all its ramnifications. It is a sin to murder a fellow human being but it is a sacrilage to murder the son of God. Thus those who murdered Jesus including Judas paid and some are still paining for their crimes in subsequent earth lifes (reincarnation). The rise in evil activities of all kinds as well as in the increasing number of genuine stigmatas are some of the consequences of the murder of the son of God.

Had humankind not rejected the words of Jesus, Jesus will not be murdered and he would have lived to a ripe old age bringing to humankind the power and the truth of God. His physical life was brutally cut short and his death is not the will of God the Father but it is as a result of the free will of men. Jesus brought the Truth to humanity even though he was aware of the dangers. Like a loving Father who entered to save his childeren from a house engulfed with fire, Jesus is the love of God and that love made him to bring salvation to humankind in his words even at the risk of personal dangers. Cheers

it leaves the gaping hole like Mr nwankwo pointed out of using evil to achieve a good purpose.

No. That quote about nothing good ever coming out of something evil may sound grand but it's really empty and vaccuous.
Good comes out of evil all the time and vice verca. It's the way of the world.

The murder of Jesus is a literal as well as symbolic rejection of God by humankind, Had humankind not rejected the words of Jesus, Jesus will not be murdered and he would have lived to a ripe old age bringing to humankind the power and the truth of God,

Interesting theory but definitely not what the Bible is about - it's automatically assuming that a physical Christ existed who adhered to the Biblical description but if that's the case, the argument is fatally flawed. The Bible tells us Christ was prophesised to die for mankind. If he had lived, the whole thing would have been irrelevant. His whole story revolves around the fact that he had to die and be ressurected. Without those two elements, he's not the Son of God but just another man.

Martian:

My apologies M_nwankwo, I put my foot in my mouth.

Hi. You have nothing to apologise. I do not belong to  christian religion but I am a christian. A christain in my recognition is one who lives according to the laws of God, that is, "Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbour as your self" Cheers.

No. That quote about nothing good ever coming out of something evil may sound grand but it's really empty and vaccuous.
Good comes out of evil all the time and vice verca. It's the way of the world.

Hi Bastage.
First define what you mean by good and evil and then show why my assertion that good cannot come from evil and vice versa is "empty and vacuous".

Interesting theory but definitely not what the Bible is about - it's automatically assuming that a physical Christ existed who adhered to the Biblical descroption but if that's the case, the argument is fatally flawed. The Bible tells us Christ was prophesised to die for mankind. If he had lived, the whole thing would have been irrelevant. His whole story revolves around the fact that he had to die and be ressurected. Without those two elements, he's not the Son of God but just another man.

I have not said that my views are based on the bible. My premise is that the story that Jesus was sent to die and the blood shed by his death will wash away sins is wrong and I have given reasons for that stand in my posts on this thread. Thus you are welcome to dispute what I stated therein. Stay blessed

First define what you mean by good and evil and then show why my assertion that good cannot come from evil and vice versa is "empty and vacuous".

I think that in this case, we've got to say that good and evil are based on what we as human beings believe is morally right or wrong. It really is the only basis we have for comparison between the two. Agreed?

In that case there are plenty of goods that have come from evil. Take the ending of the 2nd World War by dropping the atomic bomb for example. An evil act, but by that act, countless lives were saved from further fighting.

I have not said that my views are based on the bible.

And I do respect your views - you've obviously thought them through and applied logic. But my problem with the premise you put forward is that, although you state they're not based on the Bible, a major part of them are. It can't be any other way as the Bible is just about the only literature we have regarding Jesus. Because of this, you fall into a trap if you just cherry pick pieces of the allegorical tale as you have. With the allegorical tale of Jesus, it's all or nothing. The tale we've got is that Jesus died for mankind and that it was prophesised. We don't have the evidence that he was here to spread the Word alone and that his death was the downfall of mankind. We can't take a little bit of the story and twist it like that because that's simply not how it's written and, as it is all we have, it's illogical to do so. It's like taking a Shakespeare play and giving it a different ending.
What we can do though, is look at historical evidence and apply that but in this case, as we're talking about the meaning of Christ's death and not the physical facts, it's irrelevant.


Returning to the question of good and evil and it's basis in morality, I would like to point you to a moral puzzle:

A mad-man has tied 4 people to a train track and there is a train coming down the line. The line forks and there are three people on the fork where the train is heading and one on the other fork. You are unable to untie them but you have the power to throw the switch on the tracks. Do you let the three people die or do you redirect the train so that just one dies?
Take that a bit further, imagine the one person is a child. What would you do then?
And then consider the same sort of scenario with a twist. You are on a bridge and there are a dozen people tied to the train track. This time you cannot reach a switch and the train is going to run them over. But just then, a fat man walks over the bridge. Your only way of stopping the train from killing those dozen people is by throwing the fat man over the bridge, onto the tracks and derailing the train. Would you do it?

My point is that good and evil are not always black and white. Sometimes they are interchangeable and sometimes the line between them is so blurred as for them to be indistinguishable between one another.

pinky lady:

I don't really know if he's either an hero or villian,
Judas through his selfishness and love for money created a way for that
which is wrtten to come to pass, so he was used to bring the crucification of Jesus to pass.

Was Judas really selfish? also was his act of betrayal driven by the desire for money?
Or was Judas a freedom Fighter prwepared to use whatever means at his disposal to free his people?

pinky lady:

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

it has already been written, and moreover the heart of Judas has already been consumed
by his selfish desires if not so, even when Jesus said it in his presence dat one of his deciples was going to betray him, dat alone was enough to change his mind if not dat he had already made up his mind to do it. 

If Jesus is the son-of-man/God and he had already ordain Judas to be the initiator of his demise, then Judas really had done nothing wrong!!! He was carrying out the perfect Will of God.
When you do the perfect Will of God then you are a Saint!! by the reasoning put forward, Judas was in fact a Saint and not the much Maligned betrayer disciple Christian make him out to be.
Secondly Judas saw Jesus as the perfect incendiary to spark a revolt against Roman Rule; thus Jesus was nothing more than  Collateral Damage.

But Jesus knew he was going to betray him and yet he allowed it, is that not evidence Judas had his approval?

it has already been written, and moreover the heart of Judas has already been consumed
by his selfish desires if not so, even when Jesus said it in his presence dat one of his deciples was going to betray him, dat alone was enough to change his mind if not dat he had already made up his mind to do it.

This is the lie that christians have been allowed to perpetuate for centuries, where was it written that jesus will come, die and rise from the dead after three days? there is no such thing in the christian old testament or in any of the jewish text(Tanakah). the gospel writters (matthew)just made the claim out of thin air but the problem is that there is NO where were this is EVER written . if there is then christians should please go ahead and provide it.

Judas was certainly no hero, other wise the other disciples should have acknowledged his heroism.

paulipopo:

Judas was certainly no hero, other wise the other disciples should have acknowledged his heroism.

Maybe because there was envy and rilvary amongst the disciples.

@Bastage

Thank you for your well reasoned response to my previous contributions on this thread. Find below my response to your last post

I think that in this case, we've got to say that good and evil are based on what we as human beings believe is morally right or wrong. It really is the only basis we have for comparison between the two. Agreed?

In that case there are plenty of goods that have come from evil. Take the ending of the 2nd World War by dropping the atomic bomb for example. An evil act, but by that act, countless lives were saved from further fighting

I do not agree that good or evil is determined by what human beings believe to be morally right or wrong. My position is that good or evil arises as a result of obedience or disobedience to the will of God by creatures that possess free will. And man is one such creature that have free will. What then is the will of God? and where does the free will reside?. The will of God is the laws of God and a guide to those laws was summed up by Jesus when he said "Love God with all your heart and soul and love your neighbour as yourself" That means that one should live in such a way as not to bring harm to the the spirit, soul, mind, or body of his neighbour either in his spiritual voilition, motives, thoughts, imagaination, words and actions. It is the spiritual voilition of humans that is evil or good. Thus the spiritual voiltion is the core while motives, thoughts, imagination, words, actions are external shells covering the core. To judge correctly wheather something is good or evil, one has to be able to sense the core (spiritual decision), the motive, the imagination, the thoughts, the words and the actions. Unfortunately, most of us are only able to make judjement based on the the shells particularly words and actions and then we go astray. That means that we rely on the human brain to judge and the human brain in itself cannot recognise the will of God, that is it is incapable of differentiationg good from evil except it is directed by the human spirit. Thus for one whose spirit is alive, their is no bluring between good and evil. Niether is their a moral relativity where good can be evil and evil can be good because one whose spiritual faculties are not dead can see the spiritual decision (the core) that gives rise to the forms (thoughts, imagination, words, actions etc). Most people however judje by the forms since the brain can understand the change of forms but but not the power that gave rise to those forms. If a spiritual decision is in accordance to the will of God, then it is good and have permanence but if it is in disobedience to the will of God, it is evil and emphemeral. The forms of this evil may appear to be good but they only appear so because of the limitation of the brain to make judjement beyound the earthly limitation of time and space.

With the example of the atomic bomb, this is my view. Second world war came to be as a result of disobedience to the laws of God as manifested in racial prejudice, lust for power, propensity to dominate others, hatred etc. Had we loved God and loved our neighbour as our selves, such monstrosity as second world war will not arise in the first place. The building and use of atomic bomb is evil because he who loves does not misapply the power of God that resides in an atom to build a bomb capable of destroying his fellow human beings. The use of atomic bomb lead to death of thousands of people and the radiations as a result of it did irreparable harm to the human DNA as well as the enviroment. Their is no good in the use of atomic bomb. Sure the war war ended and countless human lives were saved because fighting stoped. But it is not the use of atomic bomb that saved lives. How can atomic bomb save lives. Those who dropped the atomic bomb want to win the war and not to save human lives. The end of the war is dealing with symptons and not the causes which lies in the disobedience of the laws of God. End of the second world war is like a headache caused by brain tumor and instead of removing the tumor, you are giving the patient panadol. Sure the sympton of the headache may go aware temporarily but then the tumor develops and the patient wil have a reoccurence of more painful headache until finally the patient dies. Same is for these wars for after the seconnd world war, how many wars have been faught and many more will be fought in the future with loss of millions of life. Thus taken holistically, the appearance of good as a result of the end of the second world war is only a mirage, and not real.

And I do respect your views - you've obviously thought them through and applied logic. But my problem with the premise you put forward is that, although you state they're not based on the Bible, a major part of them are. It can't be any other way as the Bible is just about the only literature we have regarding Jesus. Because of this, you fall into a trap if you just cherry pick pieces of the allegorical tale as you have. With the allegorical tale of Jesus, it's all or nothing. The tale we've got is that Jesus died for mankind and that it was prophesised. We don't have the evidence that he was here to spread the Word alone and that his death was the downfall of mankind. We can't take a little bit of the story and twist it like that because that's simply not how it's written and, as it is all we have, it's illogical to do so. It's like taking a Shakespeare play and giving it a different ending.
What we can do though, is look at historical evidence and apply that but in this case, as we're talking about the meaning of Christ's death and not the physical facts, it's irrelevant.

I do not rely on books to make spiritual decisons. I rely on the faculties of my spirit and these faculties are capable of looking into the book of life and draw from it events that has happened in the past. Thus I look at spiritual history rather than physical history. Jesus, the son of God did not write anything down himself but his words 2000 years ago are living and any person who seeks can find it. I have given reasons why I said that Jesus did not come to die and that his death is salvation. You are welcomed to challenge those points and the argument of cherry picking is not challenge to the points I raised.

mad-man has tied 4 people to a train track and there is a train coming down the line. The line forks and there are three people on the fork where the train is heading and one on the other fork. You are unable to untie them but you have the power to throw the switch on the tracks. Do you let the three people die or do you redirect the train so that just one dies?
Take that a bit further, imagine the one person is a child. What would you do then?
And then consider the same sort of scenario with a twist. You are on a bridge and there are a dozen people tied to the train track. This time you cannot reach a switch and the train is going to run them over. But just then, a fat man walks over the bridge. Your only way of stopping the train from killing those dozen people is by throwing the fat man over the bridge, onto the tracks and derailing the train. Would you do it?

The scenarious you mentioned are not real. However I will aswer them. I will act as God guides me and if it is according to his will that all we be saved, God will provide the scenarious not mentioned in your hypothetical question that will result in me saving all of them. Thus for me, Life is sacred and a gift of God. No one life is more important than the other.

My point is that good and evil are not always black and white. Sometimes they are interchangeable and sometimes the line between them is so blurred as for them to be indistinguishable between one another.

I see your point but I do not agree with it as I have explained above. Good and evil is black or white and their are no greys for one who can look beyound the shadows and into the core of all human decisions. Having given you my views on your questions, I ask you as follows. Can rape, peadophilia, murder, falsehood, genocide, ethnic cleasing be good and if so explain. Stay blessed.

@m_nwankwo,

He meant evil can sometimes be relative, as you very well know. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There are things we instinctively feel to be evil. Oh say,OJ. We know to kill is wrong, but is all killing wrong? If all killing's wrong, who determined that? Say I were in my home with my family, and some Islamic fundamentalist decides the world isn't big enough for all of us and attacks us. Say I own a gun and I kill him in self defence; have I done evil? Says who? It was his decision to attack, to leave his own sphere and come into my own with the intention to do harm. I did not go to his harem and shoot him dead amongst his wives. And yet, I have killed someone. I'm not sure good and evil is black and white. Isn't it how we experience it that determines whether a thing is god or bad? If I had a drug that could save one kid when two lay dying, wouldn't I be 'good' to the one who got the drug, and 'evil' to the child who didn't? I know I'm oversimplifying,but you get my drift.

Exactly how do you determine which parts of the Bible's legit, and which were doctored?

Mad_Max:

Exactly how do you determine which parts of the Bible's legit, and which were doctored?

Jesus already indicated that a number of prophets that came before him were false but that point is missing on the church who continue to copiously qquote these prophets.

John 10:8:
8All others who came [as such] before Me are thieves and robbers, but the [true] sheep did not listen to and obey them



Little wonder Jesus was always at war with the pharisees who insisted on these old teachings. little wonder they conspired to murder Jesus christ. For me any part of the bible that does not agree with Jesus christ teachings and commandments (Love god + love your neighbour) i take with a pinch of salt

Mad_Max:

@m_nwankwo,

He meant evil can sometimes be relative, as you very well know. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. There are things we instinctively feel to be evil. Oh say,OJ. We know to kill is wrong, but is all killing wrong? If all killing's wrong, who determined that? Say I were in my home with my family, and some Islamic fundamentalist decides the world isn't big enough for all of us and attacks us. Say I own a gun and I kill him in self defence; have I done evil? Says who? It was his decision to attack, to leave his own sphere and come into my own with the intention to do harm. I did not go to his harem and shoot him dead amongst his wives. And yet, I have killed someone. I'm not sure good and evil is black and white. Isn't it how we experience it that determines whether a thing is god or bad? If I had a drug that could save one kid when two lay dying, wouldn't I be 'good' to the one who got the drug, and 'evil' to the child who didn't? I know I'm oversimplifying,but you get my drift.

Exactly how do you determine which parts of the Bible's legit, and which were doctored?

Hi Mad_Max

I do not accept that good and evil is relative. Read the first part of by penultimate post and I gave the reasons why. I clearly differentiated spritual decsions which can be evil or good from the manifestations of those decsions when filtered through the human brain. Thus an earthly action or thought or imagination or words is not the starting point, the starting point lies in the spirit and he who is inwardly alive will see through the shells of thoughts, words, imagination and get to the core, that is the spiritual decision. Their is no moral relativity in the spiritual decisions, it is either good or evil. Viewed from the human angle, that is the brain, a terrorist to one man may be the freedom fighter to another but not according to the laws of God. Jesus has already summed up the laws of God when he said " Love God with all your heart and Love your neighbour as yourself" I have explained what it means in my previous post and that is the foundation for any genuine worship of God. In your question already lies the answer. Your motive was not to kill the fundamentalist but to defend yourself.  Thus in this case you did not kill the fundamentalist for the sake of kiilling but the fundamentalist died because you defended yourself. Besides if you are inwardly alive, the circumstances that will bring fundamentalists to your presence can be eliminated or atleast highly reduced. Civilians who keep guns are actually attracting such scenarios but to go into it will digrace from the topic of discussion. Thus murder is the spiritual decision to kill ones fellow human beings for reasons other than self defence. I hope that is clear enough.

It is not how we experience things that  makes it good or bad, rather it is wheather what we do is in obedience or disobedience to the laws of God. Thus moral relativity is an illusion which sadly most people think it is  reality. You cite examples as if the circumstances just arose. Just like we cannot say that it is the way we see tomato or mango that makes mango. Evil or good like apples and oranges are distinct species that can be recognised. If we live according to the laws of God, then the circumstances you cited with the two kids will not arise in the first place and even if it arose their are provisions in the laws of God to take care of whatever scenario. Each person knows in his heart when he does evil and good. If he does not, then it is game over for his spirit is already in the process of spiritual death.

I am always relunctant to comment on the bible or sacred books of world religions. My view is that without books or training, one can attain to the recognition of Truth. In the human spirit lies the faculty for that. We just have to use it. If one has a pure understanding of justice, love and perfection, it will be easy to separate the chaff from the wheat in any teaching wheather spiritual or scientific. My advice to people is to learn to experience with your spirit and a gate will open giving you knowledge and recognition of God. One can argue till eternity about the existence of life after death but if you have seen souls of departed (which I am blessed to see from childhood), you smile at the arguments of those who think that life ends with death and allow them to be. What I mean is that personal spiritual experience brings conviction and knowledge and not treatises written in books wheather scientific or spiritual. Stay blessed.

The scenarious you mentioned are not real. However I will aswer them. I will act as God guides me and if it is according to his will that all we be saved, God will provide the scenarious not mentioned in your hypothetical question that will result in me saving all of them.

No they are not real. But they are feasible and have been used as philospical question about morality for years.
You say that you will answer them but I can't see an answer. You say that God will guide you but what I'm looking for is an explanation of who you would save and why (if you would save anyone at all).

A couple of other points:

Those who dropped the atomic bomb want to win the war and not to save human lives.

Is winning a war not saving the lives of those on your side. There's no doubt that the atomic bomb was dropped because US war planners had calculated that millions would die if Japan had to be physically invaded.

I clearly differentiated spritual decsions which can be evil or good from the manifestations of those decsions when filtered through the human brain.

But I'll bet your decisions are almost (if not entirely) identical to those based on the system of morality. Don't you think that's a bit of a coincidence?

To judge correctly wheather something is good or evil, one has to be able to sense the core (spiritual decision), the motive, the imagination, the thoughts, the words and the actions.

Unfortunately this has not been bourne out by history. Mankind's sense of good and evil has changed over the years. What may be seen as wrong in some evil in some cultures may be seen as goodness in others. By taking your interpretation, one would have to say that the spiritual goalposts have moved.

I do not rely on books to make spiritual decisons.

That doesn't make sense. If you are a Christian (however you use the term), you must have based some large part of your belief system around the New Testament. Even if you say that you don't rely on books, you cannot deny that you have at least been influenced by them.

e. Good and evil is black or white and their are no greys for one who can look beyound the shadows and into the core of all human decisions. Having given you my views on your questions, I ask you as follows. Can rape, peadophilia, murder, falsehood, genocide, ethnic cleasing be good and if so explain.

I do not deny that there are extremes of what we consider evil and extremes of what we consider to be good and that they stand in the black and white areas. But there are shades of grey and these have concerned philosophers and law-makers for millenia.
You bring up falsehood. What if someone tells a lie because they know that a tragedy will be averted - let's say Jane tells John that she can't find his car-keys when he is unfit to drive because of alcohol, even though she has them in her pocket. She has told a lie and committed an evil act has she not? But in doing so, she may have saved John's life. Is she guilty of evil? I would propose that she has stopped an evil - if she had told the truth and given John his keys, he may even have got in his car and run down an innocent bystander.
We cannot deny that there are shades of grey.

Honestly I am in knots here, but I think I will sway towards bastage on the issue of good and evil mainly because ones spiritual experience would be a sum total of the environment in which you find yourself.

@m_nwankwo,

You say good and evil isn't sometimes relative, and yet the cold hard reality of our lives is that it is. There are things we would all agree is evil,no matter the spin. A man beating a child to death for no other reason than he could, say. Others things appear to be a matter of perception. All killing except in self defence is murder, you say? What if the above mentioned man were caught and, as punishment for his crime, the judge issues him a death penalty.The guy's killed. He didn't attack the judge and the judge isn't defending himself, and yet he's ordered a man killed, by the power vested in him by the state. Since it isn't self-defence, by your defintion the judge's commited murder,right? What about the men carry out the judges's orders and put the man to death? And I see in the Old Testament God would tell Israelites to kill. And not in self-defence either. By your definition that makes the Old Testament God what? Or are those parts of the Bible doctored as well? I hope you're not saying whichever parts of the bible fits in with your beliefs are genuine, but those that don't, are not?If there are aspects of the bible that aren't legit,and I agree no book is human-proof, surely you must have verifiable proof that meddling took place?

@Bastage
Again with the US dropped the bomb on Hiroshina to save more lives thing? Once I could take, but twice? It's driving me crazy! The US dropped the bomb on Japan after the war was practically won, because
1. They'd spent $2000 billion on it,and they had to justify the expense. You know how much money that was in 1944?
2. They were curious to see exactly what it could do.

They'd been fighting for years, Japan on one hand and Hitler on the other, and war tends to deaden people's moral perceptions. The US governement is comprised of people,not saints.Apart from Pearl Harbour, at no time did Japan have the upper hand in the war. They'd exhausted the element of surprise with that. And the US broke their communications code early in the war,without Japan being aware. So the US had access to their military plans and strategy. The knew of every attack in advance, and would move their troops out of the way, or lay an ambush. The war dragged on for four years. As at the time those bombs were dropped everyone in the US Govt knew Japan was going to surrender a month or so earlier. So they hurriedly dropped the bombs,somehow maniaging to 'misinterperete' Japan's concession as 'contempt'. They wiped out three crowded cities. Whose lives did the bombs save exactly?  Yes yes I know you're using that as an example, but, there was no nobility on the part of the US here, and they're not getting assigned one just like that.