Find Judas, where is he who is called Iscariot

[Ozymandias]

Where do you think Judas the betrayer is? Why? Heaven, hell, or purgatory? Sounds a bit like a theology paper, yes, but i want your views, since my own are rather unorthodox.

[sophiepsyche919]

Well, Dante thinks he's stuck in the deepest circle of hell, sticking out of one of Lucifer's three mouths as his bottom half freezes to death. The ninth circle, by the way, is for traitors; the last is for traitors of one's country/ruler/etc.

I disagree. If I were to believe in God, heaven, the immortal soul, etc., etc. (this is hypothetical b/c I am agnostic; please put away your pitchforks, I'm really quite harmless), I would have to say that he would be in heaven. An all merciful and forgiving God would not put any of his subjects in hell. Simple as that. I particularly think so b/c he repented before his death--the man was truly ashamed of himself, from what I gather.
In truth, the entire concept of hell or purgatory irks me. It just doesn't work with everything else the Christians ask you to believe about God.
I think I'm going to make up my own religion; I can't fully agree with any that exist.
However, I am in admiration of Dante's punishment for flatterers. heh. If you don't know what I am referencing, pick up a copy of the inferno (the allen mandelbaum translation is the best).

Having risen to your bait, ozy, I beg of you; please reply.

[Ozymandias]

I agree that he is in heaven or in purgatory. I believe that he was a closeted zealot who betrayed Jesus to spark a revolution to get the romans out. It obviously did not go as planned. This is the view of a little known play called "Judas" which starred Basil Rathbone. It only had 11 performances when it opened in 1929.

I now reference Matthew 27:3-6

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

This passage could show an early form of confession and repentence. But since the priests were only after Jesus's death, they didn't punish Judas in the proper manner which would probably have been death, since he broke one of the Ten Commandments. They did say "see to it yourself" which could have been taken to mean, "go execute yourself." That takes care of the treachery, but what about the suicide? Who says that he couldn't have repented while hanging himself. There weren't gallows, so it was death by strangulation, which takes a while and is hard to reverse once it is started.

I want to know what tickles thinks.

This post has been edited by Ozymandias on Jul 25 2005, 04:49 PM

[Aisuru]

well, i don't believe "jesus" was actually betrayed or actually died. i'm more in favor of the idea that he was merely a priest and a man, not a god. i'm too tired to make all my points at the moment, but pick up a copy of the Hiram Key (the best reference i've found, although there are others) for a compelling argument.

in regards to this post, if jesus was never betrayed, it is rather pointless to argue where judas went. one might as well debate the location of bob the roman farmer.

[Ozymandias]

Wouldn't it be "Bobius" ? And this is really supposition. Whether or not you follow to the letter everything your religion has shoved down your throat. If you don't follow it at all, i was rather hoping for an objective opinion at least. no matter.

[sophiepsyche919]

yeah, i figured not to touch with a pole the whole question of whether or not Christ was legitimate. Still, even betraying his trusted friend would be loathsome...however, a merciful god would still forgive him.

[Ozymandias]

This is interesting. Sopie doesn't believe in God, Aisuru doesn't believe in Christ, and I don't believe in Heaven or Hell (not really anyway, although if there is a life after this one there will be plenty of bitching on my part).

I guess i just have a soft spot for traitors with legitimate reasons.

[sophiepsyche919]

teehee. What a great group of folken we have here. Between us, we don't believe in anything.
Except for tickles. Now where is she? i would like to see her response, as well.

[Ozymandias]

I suspect it will be full of disappointment, shock, and/or dismay at our lack of faith.

[KnightofShadows]

Didn't Judas commit suicide? What I learned in my theology classes is if you commit suicide, you automatically go to hell. Of course, at the second coming, Jesus will go down to hell again and let those who repent go up to heaven so Judas still has a chance.

[delightfullyeccentric]

WTF ARE THEY TEACHING YOU AT JESUIT?????!!?!?!?!? that not what they are teaching at BL!!!!!!! but of course i don't remember what they tought us last year...

[sophiepsyche919]

Yes, Judas hanged himself.
The Church has changed its opinion on suicides. While they were formally considered damned for having taken life, which is a privelege only possessed by God, after Vatican II it decreed that those who were sad and unfortunate enough to off themselves were not in their right minds and were not responsible for their actions; i don't know whether they are supposed to get heaven or purgatory. At any rate, it is not the suicide alone that is considered to determine their fates.

You are the first faithful sounding person to post. Congratulations.

This post has been edited by sophiepsyche919 on Jul 28 2005, 08:57 AM

[Ozymandias]

Oh, gods! A jesuit kid?! no faffing wonder he can't exercise outside of the tiny box built by the bible. The Jesuits were the main force behind the Inquisition, for those who don't know, and still stick to the absolute letter.

But still, yes Judas hanged himself, but it was probably death by strangulation rather than breaking his neck. he could have asked forgiveness from God while dying, since it is hard to turn back when your dangling there.

And Christ cannot enter hell. Hell exists as a plane untouched by God or any manifestations thereof. it would be like trying to move mercury, always dodging about.

Vatican II pretty much screwed over the God-fearing attitude that worked for the roman church for nearly 2000 years. Sin stopped being a fear, because you can't really fear God while singing hymns by tonedeaf nuns at guitar masses.

Anyone want to try to contradict the history scholar who is also High Church Anglo-Catholic? I didn't think so.

[sophiepsyche919]

Aw, flaming the poor peasant already? you'll scare him away, ozy!

haha, i'm not sure that i agree with you but at least you dissed vatican II in an amusing manner. I don't think that religion should instill fear; rather, it should give hope and direction to its disciples. I know that fear is the easiest way to control someone, accomplishing what I think is the other purpose of religion--that of making human beings more moral and considerate of others--but I believe that is a base and rather despicable way of getting the job done. However, the alternative doesn't always seem terribly effective in deterring sin either. Who are either of us, though, to say that fear did a better job than this does?

I just have a problem with the fact that the post-Vatican II Church allows people to shirk responsibility for their actions, just like everything else these days, meaning I'm torn in two over it's more liberal position on suicide. That they pardon the people, great! That they say it's b/c it's not their fault, it's their chemicals or their madness or whatever, I'm not sure I always agree. We are always in control of our actions to an extent. It really angers me, so I'd best drop the subject before I get up on a soapbox.

[KnightofShadows]

Don't worry sophie... there's not a lot of things that scare me.

Ozy, have you heard the Apostles Creed in a while? It says "He (meaning Jesus) descended into hell." He stayed in there for 3 days then ascended.

Lette, we learned that in middle school! (You don't remember what Mrs. Lucas said?) Oh well...

[Ozymandias]

I know the creed in three languages, but if you studied theology at all, you would know that it wasn't hell so much at the anteroom of heaven. The concept of purgatory hadn't really been developed, and again i say, Hell is eternally a place without the precense of God.

and Sophie, you're a pacifist, so you're against using scare tactics, but I believe Machiavelli thoroughly proves the point of ruling through fear, as long as it is balanced by moderate mercy. This concept is what kept people in religion for a few centuries, then Vatican II hit. Look at church attendence in recent years.

[sophiepsyche919]

I know, I know, I know. But is religion really a good thing if it rules the hearts of its disciples through the same means as a tyrant?

Granted it would get the job done as far as morality and church attendance went, blah blah blah, to a certain extent. However, it definitely falls short of the existential faith described by Soren Kierkegaard (as you can see by my sig, i'm a fan of him)--he speaks of faith as a terrific paradox, of being "intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy thousand fathoms of water, still preserving my faith"; of believing in the impossible not as a "god will provide" sort of thing but of being perfectly content to do any horrible thing that God requires of you but knowing in your heart of hearts that, in spite of all logic against it, that horrible thing won't actually happen. He gives Abraham as an example--the story where he was supposed to sacrifice isaac and did not hesitate but retained faith and god saved him from having to commit that atrocity--b/c only through terrific faith could all be made right again...everyone should read it. It's beautiful, and it's horribly difficult, but it's infinitely superior to the scare tactics for which the tyrannical church settles. It's also a lot to ask of a person; but if you can't fit the bill, or can't even take the resignation of which Kierkegaard also speaks, i think that religion is not your route to humanism.

Religion should accomplish two purposes: it should inspire the faithful to greater humanism and make them feel more at peace with and as though they have a greater understanding of the world. I don't think that Machiavelli's tactics are a suitable means to this end.
We might not be of one mind on this issue, but I'd like to know what others think.

[KnightofShadows]

*wonders if Sophie is existentialist*

[Ozymandias]

The problem is, sophie, that you cannot SEE the results of religion when and where it matters. All you can see is the amount of people going, how much cash it's raking in, and how many cathedrals it has. It is the eternal duplicity of man. Trying to believe in and follow the high standards set down by an unseen deity, while requiring proof that the religion itself isn't a hokey POS. This is why I say, screw God. I'll live my life by the standards of the society i belong to. Of course, that society died out with chivalry and deuling, but I still use it.

Just a random thought: So many people argue God doesn't exist because there's no proof he does. How many people argue that he DOES exist because there is no proof he DOESN'T?

[sophiepsyche919]

...*decides to leave Knight wondering*

I think that if you can't manage faith as set down by Kierkegaard or that if you need fear to act in a correct manner, religion is not the route for you. You should establish your own morals and adhere to them--not conform to society either. but more power to you, ozy, for that.

And yes. Soren Kierkegaard's interpretation of faith as a paradox does approach those lines, but it's a bit more complicated than that. you should read it--it's thick stuff, but very interesting and beautiful.

[Ozymandias]

I am not a philosopher nor a student of it. I prefer history to philosophy.

And the reason i cling to a now dead society's morals is because they relied on loyalty and honor, two things I hold in great regard (although I'd risk my life for loyalty first).

[delightfullyeccentric]

Knight- SHORT TERM MEMORY!!!!!!!

i agree with ozy; yes the creed says that "he decended to the dead" BUT the concept of pergatory had not yet come about. for all we know, since the nicene creed was written in what, 400 something, they could have forgotten the fact that hell hadn't existed until AFTER Christ's death and ascenstion.

i'm willing to bet knight, that ozy knows a lil bit more about the creed than you considering the fact that A) he's older therefore has more experience B) his parents are professors (is/was your dad one??) and C) he enjoys reading much more than you do... i sry but tis true

[sophiepsyche919]

The Nicene Creed says "He descended to the dead..." while the Apostle's Creed says that he "descended into Hell." The former is more commonly known, as it is said every week in church; it's purpose was to more firmly delineate the lines of the Christian faith (so that Constantine could more firmly control his subjects...sorry, but that's the truth of why he adopted Christianity).

[ticklequeen]

first off: HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY! A theological debate!!!!! YES! my life is complete!

now: on to the 1sts 2nds... of the argument.

for the time being i refuse to put out my definite POV, for it is necessary to immerse myself in it and to carefully consider everything. but i will say a few things.

1. judas died before christ. the church teaches that those who died before Christ went to sheol, jewish for the abode of the dead. when Christ descended into hell (which i interpret as sheol), he set free the souls of the departed and opened the gates of heaven (and i would presume then, the gates of hell, so to speak).
so we know for sure that judas was in sheol.

2. the church does not automatically excuse people for commiting suicide. the subject of heaven or hell in regards to suicide is a very touchy matter no matter who we're talking about. on one hand, the church says that ending your life is the greatest sin one can commit, because only god has the right to end life, his most precious gift to us other than our redemption. on the other hand, the church says that in order to commit suicide one must be suffering from a depression so great or be so deranged that we cannot condemn him for committing suicide because it cannot be his fault. therin lies the debate over the destination of the souls of suicidal persons.

3. another part of the debate is the idea of repentance at the point of death. in my opinion, if a person commits suicide and while waiting for their actions to complete, truly understands the gravity of they're sin, repents very humbly and sorrowfully, and totally regrets starting the process, then God very well could choose to send the person to heaven, provided that they lived their life morally and as best a person as they could. on the other hand, he could send them to purgatory if he believed him or her unfit to enter heaven at the time. or he could send them to hell because they were so ungrateful for his generously bestowing life upon them. even if they didn't live the best life, God could send them to heaven b/c he can do anything. but i doubt that he would.

i think that it is most likely that a person who has been baptized of the heart (that is to say, by their good deeds and the manner which they lived their life, has been restored of grace) and who committed suicide would probably be sent to purgatory. i think that in the end it will be what we have done for god and the way we lived for him that will determine our sentence the most. besides, a person who has truly lived for God and committed suicide probably had a problem mentioned in 2.

now- getting on to judas, he was jesus's disciple for years, but he did betray jesus to the romans and jewish authorities. after that he realized his wrongdoing, repented, and seemingly sincerely tried to make up for it (penance). but after making up for it as best he could, he killed himself in despair. if he repented before his suicide was completed, and had lived up to then with little sin (not counting his huge screw up by betraying Christ, because in this case he was sincere) then i think God may well have sent him to heaven. If he didn't regret his actions to kill himself, but still lived a good life (minus betrayal= sincerely repented) then God is probably keeping him in purgatory until his soul is cleansed. If judas had not sincerely repented and made penance, then commited suicide and regretted suicide, God perhaps had mercy on him and sent him to purgatory because judas may not have had time to comprehend the wrong he had done. Lets keep in mind that God would know for sure if judas had had time to comprehend his wrong or if he was just "heartless". If judas was indeed heartless, that is to say, he did not sincerely regret his betrayal of Christ, and he did not repent his suicide (he basically threw it in god's face and was spiteful), i think it would be fair for God to send him to hell. but we are talking about the ever loving God who wants us to be with him.

remember- if we're still talking about catholics idea of God, we're talking about God whose judgements are always just. I think we can trust him with Judas' case.

[Ozymandias]

Lette, neither of my parents are professors, but my mother is the reference librarian for SMU's theology library, my dad has read a lot of saints' writings and recieved the award for best theology student in the honors convocation when he was at Lynch being taught by priests and nuns. Also, I have gone to a High Anglo Church all my life, so I've picked up a thing or two.

Tickles makes good points. It all depends on what he did at the end of it all.