Was Judas Really That Bad?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #1

Post by Purple Knight »

Question for debate: Was Judas Iscariot really that bad?

I don't hate Judas. Nothing about his (admittedly not fleshed-out) character bothers me. I could have been his friend even after the betrayal. That doesn't mean I agree with anyone betraying anyone, and perhaps this is me being messed-up, but nothing Judas did really bothers me to the point I'd cut ties if I knew him.

First I ask myself why he was stealing from Jesus's group. There are basically two unforgivably horrible things you can do in that time where you'd need large sums of money: Drinking, and gambling. I don't think Judas probably did either. Signs point to him being a bit of a fatty so maybe he overindulged in food, but coming from my perspective (I see welfare recipients whip out an EBT card for grocery carts full of what I consider indulgences like $10 tiny little bottles of pomegranate juice and snobby cheeses) that's not really that bad. Reverse two thousand years and maybe the guy just wanted to have meat every day. Maybe the disciples ate mostly grass or often went hungry. Morally right? No. Understandable? To me, definitely. I can't condemn someone for stealing if it's for food.

And what did he do with the blood money he got? He bought a field. He didn't drink or gamble away that money (those would be dealbreakers for me). He bought something that he could invest in that would be useful later. Add some seeds and a couple servants or slaves to a field and you've got a farm. A farm is not a bad thing to want. That's the kind of greed I don't have a problem with. Yes, it was paid for by a life, but lives were routinely bought and sold in those times to pay for whatever you wanted; there was legalised slavery.

No matter how I look at this, I can't really get my mind round to a perspective that paints Judas as a terrible person. And not that this excuses it, but let's be honest, if Jesus was really a wanted man but went about to populated areas to teach, he was going to be caught eventually anyway. From the perspective of Judas, he's probably thinking, it'll happen sooner or later so I might as well have the silver. He might have even been uncomfortable with being a disciple at that point, and wanting it to be over. Or he might have been legitimately scared to be following around a wanted criminal all day, and acting primarily from that. Perhaps he was unsure. If we're unsure, we do tend to default to the law.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #91

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:44 am The point is that preventing someone from carrying a container through the Temple and driving someone out of the Temple would be considered a violation of a free man's personal rights.
And do you have any proof that trading (or even being) on the sacred ground (and thé sacred round of the Jewish temple in particular) was considered a personal right of of every free man?




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #92

Post by Clownboat »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:23 pm
Difflugia wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:44 am The point is that preventing someone from carrying a container through the Temple and driving someone out of the Temple would be considered a violation of a free man's personal rights.
And do you have any proof that trading (or even being) on the sacred ground (and thé sacred round of the Jewish temple in particular) was considered a personal right of of every free man?




JW
Do unto others!
If you fed your family by selling doves at temple, would you want someone to drive your doves away?

I would not, therefore I find it wrong to defend such actions. You defend imoral actions it seems. Why do you do that?

This is what I call the 'with all due respect' defense. You can't just call someone a doody head for example if you tell them 'with all due respect' as a qualifier ahead of time. The offence is still there. Same with noting bad behavior, but adding a 'god works in myserious ways (or what have you)'. The offence is still there and 'with all due respect' and/or 'but god said' does not negate this.

People should not be absolved from evil or justify it by using statements like 'with all due respect' or 'the Bible says'. Such statements do not take away the immorality of the actions.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #93

Post by Difflugia »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:23 pmAnd do you have any proof that trading (or even being) on the sacred ground (and thé sacred round of the Jewish temple in particular) was considered a personal right of of every free man?
If you have a supportable claim to make, please do so. Please see this post.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #94

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 11:44 am The point is that preventing someone from carrying a container through the Temple and driving someone out of the Temple would be considered a violation of a free man's personal rights.
And do you have any proof that trading (or even being) on the sacred ground (and the sacred ground of the Jewish temple in particular) was considered a personal right of of every free man?
Difflugia wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:29 pm
If you have a supportable claim to make ... {snip: evasion}

Do you feel inclined to to answer my question?




JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #95

Post by Purple Knight »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 2:50 am
Purple Knight wrote: Mon Mar 01, 2021 1:02 am I still say it was theft, because when you hold something and control its momentum, you are in possession of it, you have taken possession of it...
There is no record of Jesus holding anything except his own whip. If "controlling the momentum" of something is theft, what is catching a woman before she that trips on the sidewalk or helping her up if she has already fallen? Kidnapping?

Over turning tables (or someone's lunch) is not theft. Theft is when you take possession of something that is not legally yours. Possession is the state of owning, or controlling something.
Emphasis added. I rest my case. But I am not a lawyer in the case of Jesus of Nazareth and neither are you so what either of us says about what is, and is not theft, is completely moot... legally. But since you asked a good question, catching someone who doesn't want to be caught would be the equivalent of theft, which is assault. The reasonability of what you imply (and it is reasonable that you generally have the right to catch people who are falling) rests on the fact that 99.999% of the time, someone who is obviously falling wants to be stopped from falling, so the intrusion isn't an unwanted one. And if the moneychangers had wanted their tables overturned, the same would apply.

This is also just reasonability: You can't grab my stuff and do what you want with it. Anywhere or anywhen. If you would really get in the TARDIS and just assume this was legal, you'd be dead meat on the first stop and you bloody know that. You know that 100%. I know this is a fantastical scenario but the times and places are real, and you know very well that when you step out of the TARDIS, into an unknown country and era with unknown laws, there are certain basic things you wouldn't do to minimise the chances you'd get in trouble. I defend you when you're right, and you often are, but you know this. I know you know this, and I know you wouldn't behave that way in a random era or assume it was legal. You would assume it was illegal, precisely because you're a reasonable person.

I don't even know why you want to argue the law in this case. I have no idea why you think it's relevant or to what. Are you claiming that morally correct revolutionaries won't break laws, so there will be no conflict for a law-abiding citizen?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #96

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:09 pm[...]I don't even know why you want to argue the law in this case
My motives are not up for debate but you are free to continue share what you don't know about them if you wish.



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #97

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:09 pmBut since you asked a good question, catching someone who doesn't want to be caught would be the equivalent of theft, which is assault.
One of the interesting things about Roman law is the distinction over whose rights are violated and when. Intentionality and neglect are important. If you catch someone falling and accidentally hurt them in the process, you're not liable for the injury because you were trying to help them.

Theft only applies to property, but since a slave is property, taking a slave away without the owner's consent would be theft.
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:09 pmThe reasonability of what you imply (and it is reasonable that you generally have the right to catch people who are falling) rests on the fact that 99.999% of the time, someone who is obviously falling wants to be stopped from falling, so the intrusion isn't an unwanted one. And if the moneychangers had wanted their tables overturned, the same would apply.
That's exactly right by Roman standards.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1242 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #98

Post by Clownboat »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 7:21 pm
Purple Knight wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 4:09 pm[...]I don't even know why you want to argue the law in this case
My motives are not up for debate but you are free to continue share what you don't know about them if you wish.



JW
That is not all that was done though. He illustrated that JW's argument is invalid.
"And if the moneychangers had wanted their tables overturned..."
"You can't grab my stuff and do what you want with it. Anywhere or anywhen."

Let's pretend that a person is totally infatuated with this guy named Craig. They even think he is a god of some sort or at the very least an advanced alien.

Even for Craig, it would be wrong to overturn the money tables of those moneychangers that did not want their tables overturned.
It would also be wrong for Craig to grab my cell phone or other personal property whenever he wants.

Followers feelings for Craig do not change his bad beharvior into good behavior. Same for Christ. He was wrong to do what he did in this temple story. We're only human afterall.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #99

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:10 pmFirst I ask myself why he was stealing from Jesus's group.
I was back looking at the OP (we seem to have gone a bit afield) and was thinking about this particular question. It's based on a single pericope in John about the ointment of "nard" when Judas asked why the ointment was wasted on Jesus:
Therefore Mary took a pound of ointment of pure nard, very precious, and anointed Jesus’s feet and wiped his feet with her hair. The house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment.

Then Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, one of his disciples, who would betray him, said, “Why wasn’t this ointment sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?” Now he said this, not because he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and having the money box, used to steal what was put into it.

But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. She has kept this for the day of my burial. For you always have the poor with you, but you don’t always have me.”
Notice that the comment about Judas being a thief is not only out of place, but it reverses the sense of what's actually going on here. A fan of Jesus is pouring some super expensive ointment on him and Judas' first thought is about helping the homeless. Jesus says, "Help the poor later. I smell fancy right now!" John wants to record the tradition, but knows how bad it sounds. Being a total Jesus fanboi (perhaps even implying that Jesus loved him best), he adds the bit about Judas being a thief. Nobody else mentioned that, so did they all just forget? Like they forgot about how much Judas cared for the poor? According to Matthew, Judas felt so bad about the whole "thirty pieces" thing that he threw the money back to the priests. Is that the action of a thief? I don't think so.

Judas is the hero of that story.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Was Judas Really That Bad?

Post #100

Post by Purple Knight »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:13 amOne of the interesting things about Roman law is the distinction over whose rights are violated and when.
They're a lot like libertarians in that way and I have extensive experience researching libertarianism, since a libertarian's only argument is, "lol go read ignoramus you obviously don't understand X."

Despite being something like libertarians, Romans actually had to maintain a government and rule, so they face the restriction of having their laws be reasonable. I use the example of, well, would you ever, ever, step out of the TARDIS and just do that? ...Because you wouldn't. And the laws have to be written that way because not everyone in the ancient world could read. These people will not always know the law. And the law has to be written so that people who have that level of reasonability won't violate it, otherwise everyone would be in jail. That's why, when I fly around in my TARDIS, I can generally expect that if I have an ounce of common sense, I won't randomly and unintentionally violate laws.

All I've been trying to show here is that yes, in hindsight, having access to the story to read about it, we can say Jesus was morally right, Judas was morally wrong, the Pharisees were morally wrong, and the Romans were morally wrong to listen to them, but that is not so easy in the moment. All I can say to implicate Judas when not looking in hindsight is that the reward particularly sticks out as, well, he was probably just greedy and betrayed to get the money. But here's the rub: If the right thing is to turn in a violator of law, does a reward actually reverse that?

What bothers me especially is how easily everyone assesses that Judas was wrong, particularly since I believe there are morally correct revolutionaries among us today, and I am very well supposed to ignore when I think the law is wrong and follow it anyway, but I am simultaneously supposed to correctly assess whether someone breaking the law is in fact a morally correct revolutionary whose morality is higher than the law. This literally requires cognitive dissonance (in the case of myself, Law > Me, but in the case of other guy, Him > Law), or it requires a correct guess when I have absolutely no basis to make an educated one.

I don't want to believe that morality requires cognitive dissonance or is a guessing game.
Difflugia wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 2:12 pmNotice that the comment about Judas being a thief is not only out of place, but it reverses the sense of what's actually going on here.
I wrote the above before I saw this recent post but oddly it addresses it because I believe our thinking is much the same.

I am a psychopath. I have to focus on actions. Actions I can take that will prevent me from being evil, and hopefully, help me achieve good.

But increasingly I believe there are no such actions, when the going rate is to essentially put in, "by the way, he was evil" to completely reverse the morality of what we would normally assess based on actions. Increasingly I believe that an evil person can only do evil deeds, and a good person can only do good deeds, and the deeds themselves don't matter.

Well, sucks to be me.

Post Reply