(of course, in reference to my, above, answer) I do not believe in "bad" people or, even, in the concept of actual evil.

That was hilarious. =D

This is generating some good response, I'm seeing some points that make a lot of sense.

I believe that, agreeing with the story of Christ for the sake of argument, Judas knew he had to betray Jesus or the prophecy would not be fulfilled; I don't think he went to the Pharisees with the intent of hurting his guru. I just think it's been two thousand years, and the story's been warped to show it that way. They both (Judas and Jesus) knew what they were doing.

Give up on what exactly? That was certainly a sudden outburst

EDIT: RK, that still blows my mind, have you gone over any sort of explanation of that somewhere?

I think Judas was the fulcrum of the lever with which Christianity moved the world. He was a tool - as good as any other.

If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, Jesus would probably have lived to a ripe old age, writing obscure scrolls for a quaint little sect that modern historians would consider an offshoot of Judaism that briefly flourished and then died out. The rest of us would currently be pagans or atheists or insurance brokers.

Had Pontius Pilot caught Judas on a good day, Judas might well have said, "No way, man!" But the rent was probably due, the car was in the shop, and baby needed a new pair of sandles. Judas figured those 20 pieces of gold would come in handy.

Is the butterfly who flaps his wing in the Amazon and causes a hurricane a villain or a hero? Don't ask the butterfly, a parrot ate him months ago.

Of which later the story goes Judas felt guilty and took back the money but the priests would not accept blood money because it was unclean. The priests bought a plot of land which later Judas died on perhaps by hanging humself. We don't know.


Also Judas may not have been an apostile anyway so other storys go. I think Bruce might be right. He might be another intelligent design scapegoat for the Church. Maybe he was a mole from the church? lol

Anyway I don't know if he was a villian or not. Living is messy business.
He might just be away for attention to be off Pontius Pilot who didn't want to stand up to an angry Jewish mob for political reasons?

A couple of times. The very, very, short version:
There are several aspects of it... a human cannot be as simple as "bad" or "good".
As a Buddhist I think our spiritual nature is altruistic at heart (as far as what our inner-self wants). Scientifically, this follows for a pack-animal. The universe is a mechanical structure, trying to assign animistic attributes to anything such as "evil" or "benevolent" is just lazy.
But, as an atheist (not all Buddhists are atheists, I happen to be, just making sure no one jumps to conclusions) I just don't see the benefit of such mythology and self-delusion. Evil/benevolence is just a way of hiding from having to figure out the deeper meaning/connections in what has happened.

"good" and "evil"
 

One fundamental problem with "good" and "evil" is that they are subjective. As quick labels to slap on things, for a sloppy description, I think we all understand what they mean, but the problem is that nobody agrees on what the parameters of the supposed two distinct categories are. Lazy thinking shouldn't be relied upon, unless you're okay with shoddy results. People lean on these words like immovable objects, basing huge decisions on them, but in fact they are so vague as to almost be arbitrary. More often than not, they are purposefully exploited.

Exactly, you can't argue with a blanket label like that, one that makes no sense.

If it is something you talk about, why atheism over agnosticism? I'm actually reading my third book in a row on Buddism. So far, I find it very healthy for the individual but have some concern that the society that develops from it may lack the drive to improve. This may just be from my cursory reading of it so far, though, and not a valid criticism.

You can be both. Atheist: lacks a belief in gods.
Agnostic: theres no way to tell whether there are gods.

Whether you think it's possible to know is a different question from what your opinion is on the matter, which is different from whether you have religious faith in that opinion.

You have to personalize abit, you can't know ALL aspects of someones life, but you don't have to. If your relationship with someone is professional then you judge them based on their actions as a professional. If someone is a really lousy worker or does things which negatively affect you in that professional context then they come out as having a net negative. If they then go home and are a great dad/mom that's irrelevent to your opinions about them because you never come in contact with their personal life. Humans are a sum of parts, some parts of a person are productive while others are a drain on things around them, we're all a mix. The difference is whether the sum is positive or negative. And again, the crucial thing is that not every part of a person is relevent in the decision, only the parts that you can quantify.

I hadn't parsed it that way. Thanks for the insight. g

John 13:26-27 proves that Judas was only a pawn; Jesus predicts that whomever takes the bread Jesus has dipped into the bowl will betray him.

A loose quote, I'm not sure it's exact, but: "As soon as Judas took the bread, the devil entered him."

So, interesting.