Better if Judas had never been born?

[Simca]

Why do you think Jesus said this about Judas?

It was always God’s plan for Jesus to die as our sin offering.

Do you think Jesus was talking about Judas personally? Do you think the same can be said for anyone who ends up in Hell–that it would have been better for them if they had never been born?

Or, even if someone does end up there, they must have done some good in their life which would have benefited others…so there could have been some meaning to their life, where, in the long-run, it was better that they HAD been born… ?

What thinkest thou?

 

[Gorgias]

Do you think the same can be said for anyone who ends up in Hell–that it would have been better for them if they had never been born?

What thinkest thou?

I thinkest that Jesus isn’t asserting explicitly that Judas is in hell, just as the Church doesn’t make that assertion.

Or, even if someone does end up there, they must have done some good in their life which would have benefited others…so there could have been some meaning to their life, where, in the long-run, it was better that they HAD been born… ?

But, the quote is “better for him” not just “better” (period).

 

[Ignatius]

Why do you think Jesus said this about Judas?

I’m of the opinion that Jesus knew what He was talking about.

 

[Nongpogi]

I always somehow doubted whether Judas is in hell. Somehow someone should play the role of Judas, for salvation to begin. Probably Judas should be given some slack and not be condemned to hell, since he did all of us a favor by taking that role. In the same token, Pilate and Herod played their roles in salvation .

Nongpogi

 

[COPLAND_3]

Fr. Most thinks that it’s possible that it could have been a Semitic exaggeration, as there are examples in Scripture of exaggerations. I hope so!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich had a vision showing Judas Iscariot in Hell. It is entirely tenable that Judas was condemned to Hell, since he died by committing suicide, which is a grave sin. (Though not every suicide condemns a person to Hell; it has to be an actual mortal sin.)

If Judas had died in the womb, he would have had eternal life, due to the universal salvific will of God.

If you propose that Judas spent a very long time in Purgatory, and then went to Heaven, perhaps it would have been better if he had died in the womb and thereby avoided very great suffering in Purgatory.

Is it better never to have been conceived, than to spend eternity suffering in Hell. I think so.

Therefore, Jesus was not exaggerating or using some type of rhetorical figure. It would have been better for Judas if he had never been born, or never been conceived.

 

[Gorgias]

Is it better never to have been conceived, than to spend eternity suffering in Hell. I think so.

Is non-existence better than existence? IIRC, medieval philosophers debated this topic; as I recall, they decided that existence is better.

It’s difficult to see how you’d reach this conclusion. Is eternity in hell a pleasant thought? Of course not. But, your train of thought has terrifying implications: if you’re correct, then a merciful God would cause a person ‘destined’ for hell to never be born, right? No, that doesn’t hold up. So, no – it is not better never to have been conceived than to spend eternity in hell.

 

[Simca]

Jesus said there will be mourning and weeping in hell. I wonder if this will be constant for each person, or if there will only be periods of it. It it is constant, I can’t imagine how being born and ending up there would be better than non-existence.

 

[Nongpogi]

I believe Jesus is telling us of the biggest tragedy and waste if we end up in hell, so much so that He states that its better not to have been born. And for that matter, Jesus is implying this for all who will go to hell and not only for Judas. As the good old Baltimore Catechism, states that we were created to know , love and serve God and to BE WITH HIM FOREVER IN THE NEXT, which means that if we ARE NOT WITH HIM FOREVER IN THE NEXT , THEN OUR VERY EXISTENCE IS USELESS, WHICH MEANS BETTER NOT TO HAVE BEEN BORN…
Of course although God can see the future , God cannot contradict Himself and change His creation, which because of FREE WILL given to us ,
So God’s saying of " better not to have been born " is His way of stating his frustration, as he sees all of His creation in one time.

Nongpogi

 

[Gorgias]

As the good old Baltimore Catechism, states that we were created to know , love and serve God and to BE WITH HIM FOREVER IN THE NEXT, which means that if we ARE NOT WITH HIM FOREVER IN THE NEXT , THEN OUR VERY EXISTENCE IS USELESS, WHICH MEANS BETTER NOT TO HAVE BEEN BORN…

Not ‘useless’, just ‘failed’. What you’re saying is that having the opportunity to choose God is worse than never existing and never having had that opportunity? That doesn’t stand to reason.

Of course although God can see the future , God cannot contradict Himself and change His creation, which because of FREE WILL given to us ,

No – the question isn’t “changing creation” – that is, ‘uncreating’ an existing person – but rather, not creating a person in the first place.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Is non-existence better than existence? IIRC, medieval philosophers debated this topic; as I recall, they decided that existence is better.

It’s difficult to see how you’d reach this conclusion. Is eternity in hell a pleasant thought? Of course not. But, your train of thought has terrifying implications: if you’re correct, then a merciful God would cause a person ‘destined’ for hell to never be born, right? No, that doesn’t hold up. So, no – it is not better never to have been conceived than to spend eternity in hell.

CCC 1037 “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.”

Hell is just and merciful punishment from God. Eternal punishment is a terrible thing.

 

[Gorgias]

CCC 1037 “God predestines no one to go to hell; for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end.”

Agreed! But that’s not what I said…

There’s a difference between actively ‘predestining’ and knowledge of what ‘will’ happen in the ‘future’. God doesn’t do the former (as you’ve pointed out); God knows the latter. My point is simply that, given that knowledge, aren’t we really saying that God allows a person – who will go to hell – come into existence? Therefore, by that very logic, it’s clear that an omnibenevolent God disagrees that it’s better never to exist than to exist and end up in hell.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Agreed! But that’s not what I said…

There’s a difference between actively ‘predestining’ and knowledge of what ‘will’ happen in the ‘future’. God doesn’t do the former (as you’ve pointed out); God knows the latter. My point is simply that, given that knowledge, aren’t we really saying that God allows a person – who will go to hell – come into existence? Therefore, by that very logic, it’s clear that an omnibenevolent God disagrees that it’s better never to exist than to exist and end up in hell.

You assume that God does not allow what is worse, only what is better. I would say He allows what is worse because that result is due to free will.

 

[rcwitness]

It is worse than our natural or first state to have believed in the Messiah, and recieved His forgiveness and then continue against His will.

Luke 11

25 And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. 26 Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first.”

1 Tim. 5

7 Command this, so that they may be without reproach. 8 If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Hebrews 10

29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

 

[PeterK]

We are created for union with God, life eternal. That’s the offer and goal. The potential resides within our free will to fully reject God and eternal life. For one who does so, it would be better fo have not been born.

That’s not difficult for me.
But, you got me thinking about Judas…

One of the telling details of Judas’ behavior, for me, is that when he realizes he has wronged an innocent man, betrayed the trust of Jesus and his brother apostles/disciples, where does he go? Does he go back to Jesus or the apostles? To the ones he has wronged? He makes no move to return to that group. He instead returns to the Jewish authorities to try and fix things and himself. He seeks reconciliation from the wrong group. Perhaps Judas didn’t know to what end his selfish actions and true allegence would lead. But, given the gospel testimony it is clear that from a very early point in Jesus’ ministry that Jesus and company were hearing of death threats coming from Jerusalem. Why was Judas allying himself with those who did not hide their enmity against Jesus? Who knows. But, we hear that he evidently divested himself of the disciples and presumably Jesus long before the Passion played out. So, that Judas didn’t seek any kind of reconciliation with the disciples or even with Jesus, though that would have been difficult at this point, is telling to me, and also tragic not just for Judas, but all Christians. For we were all denied what might have been the most emotionally moving station of the cross - The #th Sation; Jesus meets Judas his betrayer and forgives him on the way to his death.

I am not promoting his damnation as fact. Only that the Gospels don’t leave much room for hope.

Neat question. I hope I contributed something helpful.

Peterk

 

[Gorgias]

You assume that God does not allow what is worse, only what is better. I would say He allows what is worse because that result is due to free will.

That only holds up to scrutiny if “the result due to free will” is better, not worse, than a result that does not proceed from free will. That is, unless you posit that the effects of free will are greater than the effects of deliberately-enforced non-existence, then you’re denying God as omnibenevolent.

In other words, it only holds up if free will is better than the lack thereof. Another way of saying this is that free will – that is, existence even if it leads to damnation – is better than lack of existence.

So, if we agree with your assertion here, we reach the conclusion that, due to the goodness of free will, existence is better than non-existence. Thanks for helping demonstrate my point.

 

[abucs]

Fr. Most thinks that it’s possible that it could have been a Semitic exaggeration, as there are examples in Scripture of exaggerations. I hope so!

I hope so too Copland.

I guess the thing is we really don’t know a lot about Judas. He could have been the most evil person under the Sun or he could have been a good man who got caught up in events he didn’t understand and made a wrong decision.

I just don’t know, I’d like to think the latter and God will be merciful, but I just don’t know.

 

[rcwitness]

I am not promoting his damnation as fact. Only that the Gospels don’t leave much room for hope.

Peterk

They certainly don’t! I believe that he is in hell. Do I claim to know? Not strictly speaking, no.

The Church has determined to not claim anyone personally to be damned to hell as a principle. I can respect that. But in the case of Judas, its extremely difficult to deny.

**John 17 (RSVCE)

12 While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled.**

perdition
noun per·di·tion \pər-ˈdi-shən
: the state of being in hell forever as punishment after death
1.)
a: archaic : utter destruction
b: obsolete : loss
2.)
a : eternal damnation
b : hell

And here is another biblical application of “son of perdition” used by St. Paul:

2 Thessalonians 2 (RSVCE)

2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.[a] 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness**[c] is revealed, the son of perdition, 4 who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.**

 

[PeterK]

deliberately-enforced non-existence???

Wha… This can be enforced?

Things have gone categorically awry with this line of questioning.
With deliberately enforced non-existence one would have to know what they were deliberately enforcing, so, even if only potentially, something exists. You cannot enforce or act in any way upon nothing. Nothing, the noun, cannot be a planned act of any will. Standing still is not ‘doing nothing’ it is the doing of standing in stillness.
Non-existence cannot be evaluated (because it is nothing) much less compared to existence. The comparison is flawed and to state that this is the crux of Jesus’ statement about Judas is to put words in his mouth that are not his own. Jesus wasn’t getting his ‘metaphysical’ on. It broke his heart that Judas betrayed him and he would forgiven him anytime up to and including his hanging on the cross had Judas turned to him. Jesus was talking about human life that is born, not matter, not entities. The essence of his statement is, ‘Judas wasted his life’. And more, one of the rarest and most precious lives to ever live - a life that walked side-by-side with Jesus, the Christ during his ever so brief public ministry. A life with a reserved front row seat at all the miracles and sermons. Personal direct access to the Messiah. The life Judas tossed aside was not just his own life, it was his life his friendship with Christ who hand picked him from anonymity.

Pardon non-philosopher me, but I think you’re missing the point.

Peterk

 

[Gorgias]

deliberately-enforced non-existence???

Wha… This can be enforced?

Well… by God, right?

With deliberately enforced non-existence one would have to know what they were deliberately enforcing, so, even if only potentially, something exists. You cannot enforce or act in any way upon nothing.

You’re right – this is (at its heart) a philosophical discussion. And, as it turns out, it’s the crux of the debate about God’s ‘knowledge of counter-factuals’. The question is this: if God is all-knowing, does He only know the things that actually are, or does He also know the things that potentially might be but which do not (ever) exist?

If God knows everything – actual and potential – then He knows that, if he creates a person, what that person’s eternal destiny is. Therefore, if – as Ron Conte has asserted – “non-existence is better than existence for those who will be condemned to hell”, then it would be better for hell to be empty: that is, it would be better never to have been created than to have been created and have gone to hell. So, if even one person or fallen angel goes to hell, then that says something particularly monstrous about God.

Ron countered with “well, there’s something better that is obtained: free will.” But, this doesn’t work, either: if free will is better than no free will, then existence (with free will) is better than non-existence (without the possibility of free will).

So, I’m really just arguing that the statement “non-existence is better than existence (followed by an eternity in hell)”. In other words, to keep us on topic: “It would be better for that man if he had never been born” doesn’t imply Judas’ eternal destiny; rather, it seems to be speaking to the ‘woe’ which befalls him.

The essence of his statement is, ‘Judas wasted his life’. … The life Judas tossed aside was not just his own life, it was his life his friendship with Christ