Is Judas in Heaven or Hell?

[Kurmudgeon]

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/21/my-take-is-judas-in-heaven-or-hell-god-only-knows/?hpt=Sbin

"By Craig Gross, Special to CNN

I heard a news clip promoting my recent speaking engagement at a church, and they mentioned that I deal with some of "the greatest sinners of all time."

I thought to myself: Do I? Would people who are caught up in porn and sexual sin addictions consider themselves some of the greatest sinners of all time? Probably not.

Without a doubt, Judas, the biblical disciple of Jesus, is considered the greatest sinner of all time because of what he did to Jesus."

[brooklynite]

1. Didn't Judas save billions of people from Hell?

and didn't God/Jesus know he would?

[independentpiney]

3. No- there is no hell or god(s)

[brooklynite]

9. (I wasn't being literal...)

[BIGFOOTSDADDY333]

22. are you sure? links?

jk. it was my understanding that even though it was god's plan to have Christ die on the cross. it didnt have to be because of judas. judas used his free will to turn jesus over, he could have easily used his free will to not. judas turned jesus over to the romans of judas' own free will not God's and then got paid for it. then there was the suicide, which should have landed him in hell.

[whathehell]

33. And he knows this for a FACT!

Or, we could say,

he's just a True believer, lol


What I like about Agnostics, is that they KNOW what

they do NOT know.


It's more intellectually honest, IMO.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

60. I think you've got the wrong idea about the definitions

of atheist versus agnostic. And you think it's funny.

[whathehell]

62. I imagine you do think that...

but I don't think I do.

I'm not sure I think it's "funny"

except, perhaps, in a "better to laugh

than cry" sense.

I've been on this merry go round before.:eyes:

[ChadwickHenryWard]

72. Why is it that only atheists and skeptics are required to doubt?

Plenty of people have given opinions in this thread, but you have only challenged non-believers as to the source of their knowledge. So those who do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, or the afterlife have a burden of proof, but those who do, don't? Why is it that those who hold some belief that he is, or isn't, don't need to support their view logically or empirically, while those who are skeptical do?

[Demeter]

2. Since Judas Was a Jew, And Jews Do Not Believe in Heaven or Hell

this is stupider than how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[whathehell]

17. In my conversations with Jewish friends, they are not so definite about that.

so it may be less "stupid" than you think.

In any case, Judas was a follower of Jesus

and Jesus did speak of a heaven and a hell...Sorry.

[Ken Burch]

4. The argument has been made that Jesus actually CHOSE Judas to betray him

Because, without a crucifixion, the whole story really doesn't come to much. No one would have regarded Jesus as the Son of God if He'd married Mary Magdalene and died at age 90 in a cozy retirement cottage on Cyprus or Crete.

Judas could well be in Heaven as a reward for a job well done.

And here's a somewhat different musical take on Judas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1irXjtkD1Y

[DavidDvorkin]

5. "Is Praximoomie a friblligack or a mongix?"

That question makes just as much sense.

[Kurovski]

7. I'll translate:

"Judas is dead and long gone."

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Judas never existed

Just like Jesus.

That's what makes my nonsense question logically equivalent to the one asked in the OP.

[whathehell]

27. And you know that....How?

Don't tell me -- You had a "past life" and have first hand knowledge.:rofl:

[DavidDvorkin]

30. The burden of proof is not on me.

[whathehell]

32. Do you disbelieve in every person mentioned in an ancient book?

or just those who left no first person "Jesus was here"! sort of record?

[DavidDvorkin]

34. Not if there's ample evidence of their existence

For Jesus and the gang, that evidence does not exist.

[whathehell]

37. How 'bout Abraham and his gang?

I would posit that there's as much "evidence"

of his reality as others going back that far

and further..Please.


You have to admit that,

whatever the "concrete evidence"

he made a hell of an impact

for someone who "didn't exist"

[DavidDvorkin]

42. Abraham is a myth

Moses, Noah, etc. It's mythology. It's more accurate to say that there is as little evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for the existence of Moses.

The mytical people in Old Testament have had a hell of an impact on the world, as well. That's irrelevant to the question of their existence.

[Ken Burch]

55. "Abraham is a myth" "Yeth?" "No, Myth..." "Yeth?"

Sorry...don't get too many chances to work in MUPPET MOVIE references these days...

[Kurovski]

64. LOL

:D

[whathehell]

57. Impact is a significant factor that argues in favor of existence.

To declare impact as irrelevant to an argument for existence, you will have to explain yourself.

The impact of a proton colliding with a neutron is much of the current evidence for the existence of otherwise invisible particles.

The impact of the teachings of Jesus is what spread his name and his values throughout an obscure corner of the Roman empire. A generation or so later stories about Jesus were collected into the early gospels. Some of these stories were embellished into miracles involving curing the sick and raising the dead, but that does not mean that Jesus did not exist.

Improbable events associated with a person do not argue against that person's existence. We are watching Ronald Reagan turn into legend before our eyes, including economic miracles that never happened. If you follow this trajectory, the right wing nuts will have him turning water into wine in a couple more decades. Yet Ronald Reagan did exist.

[LAGC]

69. The problem with your line of reasoning is...

That any story that speaks of super-natural "miracles" as if they were common-place, naturally brings the rest of the fable into doubt. I mean, if you can make things up about people coming back from the dead and talking snakes and people healing the blind so they can see, how hard is it to lie about a few personalities while you are at it?

I put more stock in Socrates/Plato/Aristotle's existence than I do in the characters of the Bible, because at least they had many solid collaborating witness testimonies from many historians.

The Bible gang? Not so much.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

73. If I tell you that a madman chopped up your whole family and burned your house down

and you run home and everything is just as you left it, you know the madman never existed, but he certainly impacted your day, didn't he? It's possible for a story whit no factual basis whatsoever to have a huge impact on life, if enough people believe it. In the Malleus Maleficarum the authors cite as evidence for the existence of witches the ubiquity of belief in them. Surely all of Christendom could not be mistaken about something that so affected their daily lives? And yet, 500 years later, that seems to have been exactly the case.

As far as Jesus is concerned, the only evidence that we have that he existed is in the Bible, which contains various historical and scientific inaccuracies. If we can't trust the Bible on matters so easily confirmed as history and science, how can we trust it on matters that it alone attests to? Surely we could just discard the miracles and focus on only the mundane happenings, but that would require us to trust the reliability of a book from which we have already excised significant portions because the events recounted in those sections could not possibly have happened. If we regard the bible as not reliable on the matter of the resurrection, how can we regard it as reliable the crucifixion mentioned on the same page?

Now, it's surely possible that a man named Jesus preached a heretical mix of Pharisaic Judaism and Neo-Platonism. The name was very common in that time and place, and the influence of those ideas was strong. And the Romans certainly crucified plenty of troublemakers. But that doesn't mean that any one of them is directly mentioned in the bible. It's easy to create a character 50-70 years later based on what you know about the time and place where the events were supposedly set (although the Gospel writers certainly got plenty wrong.) The long and the short of it is that, while it's possible that a man bearing some rough similarities to the Jesus of the bible did exist, there is no strongly compelling reason to think that that was the case.

[Goblinmonger]

100. I don't believe there was a Grendel, either.

And he's in an old book.

[Renew Deal]

58. Maybe, but you attack christians out of fear.

Deep down you are afraid of being wrong and the consequences of that fear. If you were confident in being right, you wouldn't attack others.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

61. That's the stupidest thing I've read on DU in a long time

The ignorance is strong in this one.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. Pshaw! He is neither. He's a marfanoodin!

Every clontepikak knows that!

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Well, shnoodligek to you, too!

[GodlessBiker]

6. Neither. He's on my Aunt Saddie's mantle in a small Prince Albert can.

[whathehell]

28. Maybe that's your intended resting place

..or do you preferred to be buried on

your "godless bike", in which case

there'd be a space problem>:rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

49. I note all of your mocking little comments and the wee emoticon

which denotes the respect you give to the subject at hand and to others.

[whathehell]

56. I don't note a lot

of "respect" given to anyone or anything

in this thread.:shrug:

[golddigger]

8. Not really, because Jesus and Judas never existed.

Every story that has a hero, also has a villain, so it was necessary to the plot line.

[RandomThoughts]

10. I would hope I would not throw a stone at Judas either.

although part of that story was in the matrix. heh, the same mechanics, not the same thing.

Oracle: I'd ask you to sit down, but, you're not going to anyway. And don't worry about the vase.
Neo: What vase?
Neo turns to look for a vase, and as he does, he knocks over a vase of flowers, which shatters on the floor
Oracle: That vase.
Neo: I'm sorry...
Oracle: I said don't worry about it. I'll get one of my kids to fix it.
Neo: How did you know?
Oracle: Ohh, what's really going to bake your noodle later on is, would you still have broken it if I hadn't said anything?


Did the giving of the dipped bread lead to the event?


I have seen many miracles, not sure how my faith can be different then it is, the more I learn, the more it makes sense. Even if it includes not knowing for sure, or claiming to be able to tell someone with certainty. And from that being nice to people seems best. When not messing up.

:shrug:

I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences.

[islandmkl]

12. wherever Judas is, beyond the cold ground...

he was not 'the traitor' in the crowd...he was the FACILITATOR for the whole story to take hold...

Dale versus Rusty/world, Brutus versus Popeye, Lex Luthor versus Superman...gotta have the bad guy or the good guy has no story...

IF there is a heaven, as con/perceived by Christians...Judas probably has about the second place of honor...he set the stage...

[colorado_ufo]

38. I want a pillow

for my tummy! That pup looks sooooo comfortable!

[ngant17]

13. The Gospel of Judas

has him coming out smelling like a rose, thank you.

But from the bigger picture, Judaism and especially Christianity are the random products of religious syncretism, specifically from the marriage of pagan polytheism (Yahweh, Ishtar, Mithra, ect.) with classic 18th-dynasty Egyptian monotheism (sun worship). There's a little ideological mixture in all of it to please most everyone. Isn't Christianity wonderful?

[Sadena Meti]

82. Dante's Opinion

According to Dante, he is one of the 3 people being constantly chewed by the Devil in the lowest circle of Hell.

[Caretha]

16. There is a gospel

called the Gospel of Judas. It was found in Egypt in the early 1980's, and it was written by the Gnostic's' sect. It is from the same sect and era that the Gnostic scrolls that were found in the 1940's in Israel came from. The Gospel of Judas scroll is believed to be the same as those according to the papyrus & carbon dating testing. They do not know how it got to Egypt. It was written in the 2nd century AD and found in a casket in a cave in an area of a known Gnostic group. It was painstakingly pieced back together and translated. According to the translation of this Gnostic book, Judas was Jesus' most trusted disciple and was chosen by Jesus, very much against Judas' will to carry out his plans for his consequent arrest and crucification. This according to this particular Gospel is why Judas committed suicide.

The tangled webs we weave, when we practice to deceive.

[whathehell]

18. Different theories.

The Christianity I was raised in

held that Judas did NOT go to Hell

as he was greatly repentant of his

actions.


*In point of fact, I no longer believe in Hell,

but I thought it was important to bring out the fact

that much, if not most, Christianity highlights

forgiveness and mercy rather than punishment.

[no_hypocrisy]

19. Neither. If anything, he returned to wherever he was before he was born.

[DCKit]

20. Y'all ^ are completely nuts and uninformed.

He walks the earth, for all eternity.

[whathehell]

21. They don't want to be informed..

They're contemptuous atheists who hold themselves "above"

religion, particularly Christianity,

of which they generally know little, except that it's

"safer" to ridicule than Judaism or Islam, especially on this board.

[DavidDvorkin]

23. All religions are equally absurd.

[whathehell]

25. Atheists, especially those of the "broad brush" persuasion, are equally absurd,

not to mention intellectually limited

by strict empiricism.

You, in particular, are guilty of more:

A. Disingenuousness in trotting out the

theory that "all religions are absurd" without noting

the obvious practice here of denigrating Christianity exclusively.

B. Aggressive, if indirect, proselytizing, through ridicule

and the fraudulent portrayal of "Opinion" as "Truth".

[Renew Deal]

59. The reason for this...

Is fear of being wrong.

[skepticscott]

68. The fact that the religious

accept MORE things as true than atheists, because they do not consider themselves to be limited by such things as evidence and logic, does not mean those things ARE true, or even more likely to be so than not. One does not shed intellectual limitations by simply believing things willy-nilly, or because you were told to in Sunday School.

And if Jews, Muslims, Hindus and practitioners or apologists of other religions were as arrogant and aggressive in this country about ramming their absurd and unsupported beliefs down everyone else's throat, then the rationalists would probably give them more attention. For now, keeping all of the absurdities of just Christianity in check is a full time job.

And what but ridicule do claims that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, or that it will end on May 21st, 2011 (among an arkload of others) deserve? Or claims that the myths of a tribe of desert dwellers who lived 3000 years ago should be regarded as unquestionable revealed truth, and the basis for all of our laws?

[whathehell]

26. Then why aren't they ridiculed equally?

[Moostache]

29. Seriously? You make a comment like this and want to have an adult discussion?

Christians loves them some victim card I guess...

The answer to your question is obvious - in America, whether Catholic, Protestant or namby-pamby "non-denominational" - the number of nominal Christians out number everyone else about 8 or 9 to 1 in the USA. The reason they get the majority of religious criticism in America is that they are the majority of religious people in this country.

Get off of the "I'm-so-persecuted" X-tian high horse and realize that stating the obvious - "ALL RELIGIONS ARE RIDICULOUS" - is not a backhanded slap specifically at you but in general terms. Take your pick of these explanations and tell me which one is the least ridiculous:

1) mankind originated from a single male, who gave rise to the female of the species through a magical rib transplant surgery; this original man and woman then had children who incestuously inter-bred and gave rise to the entire species in a few thousand years since a distant celestial event set the whole thing in motion.


or

2) mankind is just the most recent and successful endpoint of an evolutionary chain that has thousands of other branches and outcomes, all driven by environmental conditions and survival competition to only allow the most successfully adapted species to survive over millions of years since a distant celestial event set the whole thing in motion.


If your "religion" requires thinking like example #1 to be the literal and unchallenged "truth", then it IS ridiculous. It is demonstrably false and requires adherents to close their minds and question nothing only "obey". Sick. Twisted. Detrimental to humanity. Depraved. Ridiculous. Take your pick because they all apply in one way or another.

If you can find a way to adhere to your "religion" and incorporate thinking from example #2, then we can have a deeper discussion of meaning and I withdraw the statement that your beliefs are ridiculous. Seeking spiritual or personal meaning from the reality based natural world is sadly NOT part of the religious experience in any church I have set foot in as a former Catholic married to a Protestant woman and now raising our children free from any religion. I can see the potential for interesting discussions along this track, but sadly when an X-tian throws down the persecution card it pretty much shuts off that option...

[whathehell]

35. Seriously...You're fellow atheist David Dvorkin not only takes it seriously,

He agrees with me. Duh.

So you think Christians should be ridiculed "exclusively" because

they are the "majority" religion...Uh huh.


Tht makes about as much sense as saying White people in America should be

ridiculed "exclusively for no other reason than they are "the majority"

Then again, Asians are the "majority" in Asia, so perhaps THEY

deserve the ridicule there...

Sorry, bro...I refuse to have a battle of wits

with an unarmed opponent...See ya:hi:

[DavidDvorkin]

44. We disagree because there is no official atheist doctrine.

[whathehell]

48. My disagreement with Moostache has nothing to do with doctrine.

It has to do with the "fairness" of dumping on one

religion over another.

[BobbyBoring]

46. I like

The frog rains and the talking snakes! Oh, and bloody rivers and parting seas!

[whathehell]

50. I like...

The asshats who claim "guesses" as facts

And btw, most Christians, at least

are not of the "talking snakes" persuasion...Duh.


Translation: They don't believe in a literal translation of the bible..:hi:

[rasputin1952]

66. There are documented cases of "rains" of a host of items that

drop from the sky, to include frogs, fish, stones and other items.

As for "bloody rivers", Red Tides are well documented and kill many types of fish, fowl and people if they eat the "wrong" thing, like a clam.

"Parting of the waters"...there is evidence of numerous times when geological events have stopped up rivers, reversed courses of rivers, pre-tsunami drawbacks and a host of other things.

Quite often, using science, we can understand more easily what was not understood at a certain point in human history. For 800 years, it was thought the city of Troy was a complete myth, until it was discovered in, (I believe), 1858 by a German archaeologist.

We still wonder today at how some structures were built, but we "take it for granted" that some cultures didn't have the "knowledge" to build them, then how did they get there? I get the impression that societies knew about levers and pulleys long before the Greeks.

Artifacts have been found that there is no "rational" explanation for from the time they date to...but they exist none the less.

When we use science, we can understand a lot more from all sides and draw logical conclusions.

[grasswire]

71. weren't there frog rains in connecticut a few years back?

The southerly winds carried them up from the storms in the Atlantic?

[rasputin1952]

75. There was some kind of "fish rain" in TX back in the 1800's...

from what I've read, they never identified the species. Somewhere out West there were several days at a specific time when stones "rained" on the town as well. They weren't meteorites, just "stones". What made it interesting is that this happened for several days at a specific time. Made quite the big to-do at the time, as the stones only fell well within the town, not the outlying areas.

[AlecBGreen]

52. I have to disagree with one phrase

"it is demonstrably false"

As a science teacher, I feel it would be more accurate to say "There is no evidence to support it, though there is a great deal of evidence to support hypothesis #2."

Not to quibble, its just a pet peeve of mine. I get into disagreements with students & colleagues about this: IMO, science doesnt "prove" anything to be "true," it is just the creation and modification of hypotheses, based on evidence in support of or against said hypothesis. Again, not to mince words, that just how I view the world.

Carry on. :)

[DavidDvorkin]

31. They should be. No argument there.

[Kurmudgeon]

39. However, if you got a taste of it, I'm sure you'd scream prejudice or some such.

[DavidDvorkin]

43. Not at all

The religion I was brought up in, Judaism, is just as absurd as the rest of them.

[Kurmudgeon]

51. I was talking about the religion you profess now.

The one where there is nothing higher than man. Takes a certain kind of faith to assume such a thing.

[trotsky]

67. There is not a single atheist who believes that.

Not a one. You made that up in an attempt to drag the conversation down to your level.

[Kurmudgeon]

74. I'm quite amazed by your incredible psychic super powers.

From what I've seen, what a particular single atheist believes can swing wildly from one to another to another.

Heck, I'm obviously Christian, yet I would never assume what a Baptist, Lutheran, Catholic, etc etc, believes on different points of our shared faith. Heck, just look at all the differences between Agnostics, weak and strong Atheists, etc, etc.
Oh well, you keep on with your faith that there's nothing out there, however you care to parse it.

[trotsky]

76. It takes absolutely no psychic powers to recognize a strawman.

It's just that easy.

So you keep on using your strawman because you are evidently incapable of understanding that atheists think differently than you do.

[Kurmudgeon]

77. Nor does it to realize that you're just making excuses.

And you're still speaking for ALL atheists, those are some awesome powers you think you have.

[trotsky]

78. I'm not speaking for them, I'm pointing out YOUR attempt to smear them with a strawman.

You, like many believers, have it in your head that EVERYONE must worship SOMETHING. So therefore, if someone doesn't worship your god, they either worship a false god, Satan, or failing those things, humankind itself. But see, the thing is, NO atheist has a "religion... where there is nothing higher than man." That's your claim. But they don't exist. You manufactured this caricature in order to support your own beliefs - and, of course, perpetuate ridiculous stereotypes of atheists cooked up by ignorant theologians.

If I'm wrong, then find me just ONE atheist who believes that. Should be pretty simple. I'll wait right here. With my superpowers.

[Kurmudgeon]

79. No smear, an observation. One must have faith to believe something they can't prove.

However, your apparent anger leads you make assumptions about my faith.
I don't expect everyone to worship "SOMETHING", I just pointed out that you have no better proof than I do so you are also relying on faith.
My faith is in Jesus Christ, yours is up to you.
Your superpowers expect me to go out and find one atheist who suits your supposition. Convenient for you.
Whomever you find, doesn't change the fact that human reasoning and perception isn't good enough to know everything about reality, no matter how you feel differently.

[trotsky]

80. That's exactly the point you are missing.

No one is making the claim you are making FOR them - that is your strawman. There are quite a few outspoken atheists these days - and lots more on the Internet. The fact that you can't even point to ONE of them as having the position you think MOST of them have (if not all) tells me all I need to know.

[Kurmudgeon]

81. I make no claims for anyone, just pointing out the obvious.

I could dance semantics with you all afternoon, but that would be pointless.
And I'm claiming nothing for any one, just pointing out that those who disbelieve God have no better proof than those who do believe.
Now then do you claim there is no God or not? Yes or No.
Either way, show your proof or admit to having faith.
No more need for you to drag others into your argument, speak for yourself.

[darkstar3]

83. Speak for YOURself.

And stop telling us what atheists believe.

[Kurmudgeon]

86. I already have, and if you're confused about your faith, it's hardly my fault. n/m

[darkstar3]

90. You believe I am confused?

I'm not the one spouting nonsense...

[Kurmudgeon]

92. And now all you can do is respond with an insult.

Maybe YOU should tell me and whoever is reading this what atheists believe.
I'll wait patiently...

[darkstar3]

93. I would say "pot/kettle," but I didn't insult you.

If you wish to continue this discussion, then perhaps you could post why you think atheists believe anything.

[Kurmudgeon]

107. Again, ask athiests what they believe, and why they ignore their faith in the unprovable. n/t

[darkstar3]

108. At this point you are simply refusing flatly to see your own presumption.

Have fun.

[Kurmudgeon]

119. As are you. n/m

[skepticscott]

84. Substitute

"Santa Claus" for "God" in all of that, and you might just see how vapid your argument is.

[Kurmudgeon]

87. Didn't mention Santa Claus,the rest is just typical insults when some can't make their point.n/m

[skepticscott]

89. It's you who has missed the point completely

but that's not surprising. Would you like to be enlightened, or is that too frightening for you?

[Kurmudgeon]

91. You believe nothing though you have no proof of nothing, it's that basic.

If not, then you're not an atheist. You're something else.
Meanwhile, I have better sense to assume you or anyone would be afraid of typing or to imply that you're less enlightened just because we disagree.
That implies that you're either not as enlightened as you think you are or you just can't answer why you have faith there are no gods or God.

[darkstar3]

94. What an example of the common problem of believers not understanding "lack of belief."

Why do you think atheists "believe nothing"? What part of "lack of belief" escapes you? Do you really think that everyone "must believe something"?

[Kurmudgeon]

101. So you automatically default to a null positiion? I expect that's easier. n/t

[skepticscott]

95. If you think that an atheist

is someone who has no convictions, you're even more ignorant than I imagined. If something can be supported by evidence, I require that evidence before I accept it as true. The strength of my convictions is directly related to the strength of the evidence supporting them. It's that basic.

And I don't have "faith" that there are no gods or "God". That's just your uninformed strawman. I find no convincing evidence that "God" exists outside the minds of his deluded believers, and so I withhold acceptance.

Are you sure there is no Santa Claus? If so, what's your evidence, in the face of extensive evidence that there is such a person? If not....sheesh!

Enlightened yet? Ok...not so much, but you can't say I didn't try...

[humblebum]

96. You still tend to display that very limited type of reasoning that

restricts itself solely to the empirical method. Fine for some things, but still limited. you purposely ignore those types of reasoning used by philosophers and others, which can certainly add new dimensions to human thought, along with posing new problems. In any case, if you choose to ridicule others who do not think and reason as you do, then you are actually making your self appear as ignorant. Reasoning is NOT limited to empirical thought and whether or not you say it is, the fact remains that these other "ways of knowing' do exist. You then have a choice to accept or reject them. It's that simple.

[darkstar3]

98. You confuse knowledge and rationalization of belief.

Have fun with that.

[Kurmudgeon]

104. No, I said that athiests rely on faith to accept what they can't prove.

I'd be more fun if you at least tried to stay on point.

[darkstar3]

111. I think you replied using the wrong username.

[skepticscott]

112. As I explained very clearly

but which you obviously can't grasp, is that this is not about acceptance, but about withholding it.

This would be much more interesting if you stopped projecting your strawmen and managed to understand what what atheists think.

[humblebum]

105. And you display a complete ignorance of the existence of other epistemologies

besides (logical) empiricism. As always, If it cannot be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched or felt - it can't or doesn't exist. Let me ask you this. Do you think that more than 5 physical senses exist?

[Kurmudgeon]

106. I know better than to get that far off topic in a discussion, the same goes for your question. n/m

[humblebum]

110. I agree, except when it pertains directly to the differences in

thought processes employed by skeptics or atheists vs. someone who takes advantage of other methods besides straight logical positivism. Understanding that fact explains the differences in conclusions that are reached about the existence of a diety or anything that might be perceived only by observation using the senses.

[skepticscott]

99. There is empirical evidence

and there is reasoning. What in the world "empirical thought" is, I defy you to even define. And what you call "ways of knowing" are simply ways of thinking, a difference you obviously don't grasp. These "ways of knowing" do not produce knowledge, only verbiage. How may things can you name that are understood better now than they were was 50 or 100 years ago because of the "thinking" of philosophers?

Have at it.

[Kurmudgeon]

103. And you can't answer either, so you obsfucate. If you can't prove "nothing", you're using faith. n/t

[humblebum]

109. In fact, "ways of knowing" is a common definition of epistemologies

which are widely accepted by scholars today. Most disciplines have actually abandoned logical empiricism in whole or in part. It is too limited in its scope. I can see that your knowledge of philosophy is VERY limited. You asked "How may things can you name that are understood better now than they were was 50 or 100 years ago because of the "thinking" of philosophers?" In fact, it was philosophy that gave us Logical Positivism, which was the basis for the Scientific Method. Without this type of epistemology, Stephen Hawking (yes he is a positivist), nor anyone else would have hypothesized much of anything concerning a big bang or anything beyond that point in any way resembling an orderly process. Have you ever by chance heard of the Philosophy of Science?

I think we have covered this ground many times before.

[skepticscott]

117. You're arguing that

The only way 'philosophy' can increase knowledge and understanding is through the scientific method (since you are unable to provide any other examples of its having done so, despite your claim of vast knowledge in that field). And yet, also by your own constant claim, scientists are limited to what they can determine with their five senses, which is exactly the limitation that you claim 'philosophy' and all of these other wonderful 'ways of knowing' transcend.

Guess you enjoy tying yourself up in knots.

[humblebum]

120. "only way 'philosophy' can increase knowledge and understanding is through the scientific method"

I actually think you might be smarter than you put on, but I could be wrong. Wonderful strawman BTW.

[skepticscott]

121. If you know another way

let's hear it. But since you dodged the issue last time, I suspect you will do nothing more than flail when the question is posed again.

Put up or shut up...what do we understand better than we did 50 or 100 years ago because of philosophical inquiry? You say there are things outside of science that qualify. Have at it.

[humblebum]

124. I have already answered that question - we have the scientific method thanks to philosophy.

And yes philosophers do use the scientific method. I dodged nothing. your ignorance is astounding. you could start by examining the works of Bertrand Russell, A.J. Ayer, Carl Popper, etc. - all great philosophers.

[skepticscott]

125. Either laughable ignorance or blatant intellectual dishonesty

Here's your own quote from post 96 above:

You still tend to display that very limited type of reasoning that restricts itself solely to the empirical method. Fine for some things, but still limited. you purposely ignore those types of reasoning used by philosophers and others, which can certainly add new dimensions to human thought

And when asked to cite what knowledge these types of reasoning that don't depend on empiricism have produced, your answer is "the scientific method", which (again, by YOUR incessant claim) only operates empirically.

Thanks for playing. We'll have some lovely parting gifts for you.

[humblebum]

126. There is a huge difference between developing the philosophy behind

the SM and the logical empiricism used to implement it. Developing the Scientific Method required the defining of those types of thought that would be excluded from consideration or considered as "non-sensical" such as apriori, intuition, metaphysical, etc. That process required more than operating empirically. You lose. Ontology and teleology are not empiricism.

[Kurmudgeon]

102. You put words in my mouth,l then attack that, pretty good strawman.

I said you have no more proof for you faith than I do mine. In fact, less.
Spare me the Santa Claus riff, we've already been through that.
You may have tried, you just didn't try very hard.

[skepticscott]

118. You have yet to demonstrate

that I take what you claim I do "on faith". Your repeating it over and over so dishonestly doesn't make it so. I need no more proof to not accept the existence of your 'god' than you do to not accept the existence of any of the thousands of others.

[trotsky]

85. You claim that atheists believe there is nothing higher than humans.

You've been running away from the ramifications of this claim (not to mention the knowledge you claim for yourself to make such a statement) for the entire subthread.

My claim is that no one has presented sufficient evidence for belief in gods. I do not believe in your god, just like I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or bigfoot. Does it take faith to reject belief in any of those? If not, then why does it take faith to reject belief in your god?

By believing in the Christian god, you are rejecting belief in all other gods, like Zeus. So let's turn this back on you: show your PROOF that Zeus doesn't exist, or admit having faith he doesn't.

[Kurmudgeon]

88. I have ran away from nothing, you just refuse to realize your faith is based on nothing.

"My claim is that no one has presented sufficient evidence for belief in gods."

My faith is based on the Word of Jesus Christ and by observation that a system as large as total existance could not come about on it's own.

"I do not believe in your god, just like I do not believe in unicorns, leprechauns, or bigfoot. Does it take faith to reject belief in any of those? If not, then why does it take faith to reject belief in your god?"

Believe as you will. However, are you also willing to say that your references are identical? Of course not, so you shouldn't have brought your mythical references since we weren't referring to Greece, Ireland or the Pacific North West of America.

The point you keep dancing around is there is no proof of your nothing that you believe in. Drag Zeus or whatever other fanciful excuses you can dream up. However, Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate, I suppose you don't believe him either, or do you think he authorized fake executions too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

I'll leave Zeus to you, but you'll be happy to know that a new Thor movie is coming out!

[humblebum]

97. The existence of Jesus is widely accepted by the vast majority

of historians. However, the level of belief that he was resurrected and in his miracles is subject to varying levels of belief,as Jesus said it would be. Even the apostles were hard pressed to believe even aften witnessing the miracles. It was not until they actually observed him and his wounds that they believed.

[skepticscott]

122. And we know that

the story of their seeing him and his wounds is nothing more than a made up fable....how? Hard historical evidence from multiple, independent sources proven to be reliable? Right.

[trotsky]

113. You got trapped by your own logic and can't even see it.

LMAO

If I have "faith" that your god doesn't exist, then you have equal faith that every other god ever postulated doesn't exist too. You can't escape this, no matter how hard you try or how much you backtrack or how much you try to change the subject by introducing a tangential character in a story but who happened to be real, but for whom there exists no independent evidence of his participation in your story.

I hope you take solace in your faith that Zeus does not exist, and that it brings you comfort.

[Kurmudgeon]

114. I see you arguing "ifs" and declaring victory for yourself. Have fun with your faith in nothing. n/m

[trotsky]

115. I don't need to declare something that is obvious!

Have fun with your faith in not-Zeus!

[BIGFOOTSDADDY333]

24. agreed . belief in things you cant hold in your hand is hard

esp when bad things happen to good people. my dad died therefore i dont believe. wars happen therefore i dont believe. im poor therefore i dont believe. a lot of it is also that believing in religion means you'll have to stop doing some things that God says you shouldnt do.

[Wait Wut]

36. My expert opinion...

...based on the movied "Jesus Christ Superstar" says, yes...he's in heaven wearing that awesome white fringe jumpsuit.

:hippie:

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wait Wut]

41. "You're" expert opinion.

So, you're saying that I am an expert opinion?
Thanks for the compliment! No one has ever referred to me as such!

[cate94]

45. If Jesus existed

he already answered the question by reportedly saying something along the lines of "judge not".

I suppose this applies to Judas as well as sex addicts. Trying to determine whether a person is now in heaven or hell is the ultimate in judging isn't it?

If you believe that Jesus is God, then I think you would not want to encourage other people to judge anyone- living or dead.

Just a thought...

[BobbyBoring]

47. and a good one!

n/t

[MikeH]

53. Judas reminds me of how one can make a point from the Bible

The Bible says, “And Judas went out and he hanged himself.”

The Bible also says, “Go thou, and do likewise.”

Finally, the Bible says, “What thou doest, do quickly.”

[onager]

65. Except as usual, there's a contradiction.

Oh, I see...you were trying to be a comedian. So I'll also make a point - don't quit your day job.

Anyway, Matthew 27:1-10 says Judas hanged himself.

But Acts 1:18-19 says Judas bought a field, then died when he fell down and his guts burst open.

Brought to you by your friendly local atheist, who thinks all these people are fictional characters, anyway. Even Judas' name hints at that - Judas "Iscariot" seems to be a reference to the sicarii - Judean terrorists, named after the daggers they used against the Romans.

[darkstar3]

54. Is Jadzia in Sto'vo'cor?

[laconicsax]

63. Well she wasn't on the Barge of the Damned...

[skepticscott]

70. Let's just hope

that she didn't wind up in the Blessed Exchequer by mistake...

[Deep13]

116. As an aider and abettor of suicide, and as a suicide victim himself, probably hell.

I'm pretty sure all the major churches still consider suicide to be an unredeemable sin.

[xchrom]

123. there's this:

http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/judas.html

We speak so often of the "Lamb who takes away the sin of the world." This takes us back to Exodus to the Passover lamb. Israel was to put the blood of a lamb older than eight days and less than one year which was unblemished on the door of their house. The death angel or God was going to kill every first-born male in Egypt. Only those houses marked with the blood would be "passed over." But the death angel was not going to kill everyone in the unmarked houses, only the first born males. Later on, we find out that the God of Israel wanted every male that opened the womb as His own, whether it be from the domestic animals, or people. The first-born male children of Israel had to be redeemed, that is, bought back. In other words, when they were born, they belonged to God. The parent had to purchase him back from the Levites for a certain price. A first born-male jackass, an unclean animal, had to be redeemed with a lamb. Money in this case was not accepted.

Our Father and His Son are not hypocrites. They live by the laws They set. Under the Mosaic Law, an owner of land and animals is responsible for what happens on that land. If he digs a pit and doesn't cover it and a neighbor's animal falls into it and dies, the owner of the pit is liable. If someone builds a house with a roof and doesn't put up a railing and someone falls off, you must flee to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest.

The following Scriptures may not seem to fit this article, but they are very important. I cannot go into full explanation of all of this because it would take too much space. I hope the gaps will cause you to study this out for yourselves.

Exodus 21:28-32, "If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned."

Zechariah 11:12-13, "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD."

Matthew 27:3-10, "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, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple (naos), and departed, and went and hanged himself. 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. And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

The Creator of the Universe must abide by His own Laws. He created Adam, placed him in a place where he could be deceived by a Serpent which the Creator also created. Adam and all his offspring fell into a pit and all died. In Adam all died, including you. According to the Mosaic Law, the Creator was responsible for Adam's death and must make restitution. According to the Law, the owner of a beast that has been known to gore in the past, must die along with the beast. However, if a ransom price has been placed upon that man, he may be redeemed. The value the Priest of Israel placed upon Jesus was 30 pieces of silver, which Judas put into the temple. Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver on the ground in the "naos" (Holy Place) part of the temple (Matthew 27:5). Only a priest could enter that part of the temple. Even Jesus could only enter the courtyard because he was not from the tribe of Levi. Therefore, Judas was a priest. This is where the phrase "Judas Priest" comes from.

Lawfully, Jesus, who the Father gave all things to, and who all things are of, to, and through (Romans 11:36), must die because of allowing the serpent to kill Adam and his offspring, but Jesus was redeemed with the 30 pieces of silver. Not only that, but the 30 pieces of silver purchased the Potter's field, which became the "Field of Blood," which became a proper burial place in the land of Israel for foreigner, gentiles, that is non-Israelites. This "field of blood" was located in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, known as "Gehenna" to the Greeks and better known as "hell" in many misleading Bible translations, including the King James Bible. For those of you who want to translate Gehenna as "hell," you should know that Judas purchased that field called "hell" which the Potter's field is in.