Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[OneSheep]

, since you reject the Church Teaching that there is such a thing as mortal sin.

Since I have never said this, but you keep repeating that I have, it is possibly slanderous. It is also against CAF guidelines:

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

Your name says you are a “forum supporter”. Please refrain from uncharitable accusations, and continue the discussion. If you are incapable of/unwilling to answer my questions, simply say so, or simply stop responding.

 

[OneSheep]

It does not escape my notice that we have an example right here on this thread of the sort of occurrence that happened to Judas. Judas may have “known” that betrayal was wrong, just as forum participants “know” the rules.

However, “knowing” is more than just hearing. “Knowing” is at least true appreciation of value and importance of people (value) and rules (consequences). People who violate forum rules and disrespect others with accusations and/or insults do not know the value of the person they are disrespecting or they are blinded to their value. After all, would such individuals interact this way with their own children, who they (hopefully) value greatly?

Would Judas have done something to harm Jesus if he valued His life and well-being? No.

The other option is that Judas did not know the consequences of his action, that is, he did not know that turning Jesus in would lead to His torture and death. Indeed, does a person who treats another disrespectfully on the forum realize the consequences of his actions? When we Catholics (who are hopefully “holy”) treat one another with disrespect, we testify to others that we are just as respectful as any other non-religious Joe. In addition, when we treat each other disrespectfully, we may hurt others feelings, and we are also communicating that such behavior is acceptable.

If a perpetrator of ill-will says “their hurt is their problem” this may only be a rationalization for continued behavior that goes contrary to the Gospel. If “their hurt was not intended, my accusations are more important than the others’ feelings”, again, this does not reflect the merciful God we know.

 

[NM505StKate]

Let me make a point. Seeing how the Gospels were written far after the events that were purposed to happen we cannot be sure of their authenticity. There are many hypothesis on which came first and whom copied whom. I will take back what I said about Luke and Acts being anti Jewish. They were pro the church set up by Peter and Paul. That is why they are different compared to Matthew’s author(s).

 

[tonyrey]

Let me make a point. Seeing how the Gospels were written far after the events that were purposed to happen we cannot be sure of their authenticity. There are many hypothesis on which came first and whom copied whom. I will take back what I said about Luke and Acts being anti Jewish. They were pro the church set up by Peter and Paul. That is why they are different compared to Matthew’s author(s).

A summary of a very good, short article on their authenticity:

"The manuscript evidence for the New Testament, when compared to other historical works, is overwhelming. There are more than 5,300 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 early portions of the New Testament – a total of over 24,000 manuscripts. For Homer’s Iliad there are just 634, for other works of that era the number is much less. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from within 100 years of the original writings. Sir Fredrick Kenyon, former director and principal librarian of the British Museum, said about the New Testament:

      1. The interval, then, between the dates of composition and  the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact  negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures  have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been  removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of  the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.,The gospel writers certainly claimed to be writing history. Luke  begins his gospel saying he’s ‘carefully investigated’ what he’s  writing, his ‘orderly account’ has come from talking to ‘eye witnesses’.

1. 
   *]The writers were either themselves eye-witnesses (Matthew and John), or closely connected with eye-witnesses (Mark associated with Peter, Luke travelled with Paul).
   *]Most scholars (liberal and conservative) date the gospels within 60-70 years of Jesus’ death (which happened around AD30). Conservatives typically date Matthew, Mark, and Luke-Acts to the 60s and John to the 80s or 90s. They were written while other eye-witnesses were still alive meaning if there was any embellishment of the truth, people could and would have spoken up to correct them.
   *]The memory of Jews and Greeks of the time was much better than most of ours! They were used to passing on their stories, traditions and history verbally. Before the gospels were written, Jesus’ followers passed on the message orally so that the stories became well known within the faith community.
   *]You could say that because they were followers of Jesus, the gospel writers were likely to be biased. But equally you could argue that as they were devoted to him, they would take particular care to preserve the truth about him. Some of them gave their lives for their beliefs about and devotion to Jesus – whatever else they were, they were certainly sincere.
   *]The gospels don’t always paint the apostles in a favourable light. For example, they include arguments about who was the greatest, Peter’s denial and the disciples’ desertion of Jesus.
   *]The writers clearly didn’t feel free to distort their material to make Christianity more attractive. The gospels include sayings of Jesus which were hard for the early church to explain, such as his statement on eating his flesh and drinking his blood (John 6:53-54).
   
   The testimony of non-Christian writers, particularly Josephus, supports many details of the Gospels and Acts. In all about a dozen ancient Jewish, Greek, and Roman writers mention Jesus. Together their writings detail various events from Jesus’ life, as well as other names and places mentioned in the New Testament."
   
   evangelicalmagazine.com/article/how-historically-reliable-are-the-gospels/
   
   It seems highly improbable that the world’s largest religion with two billion followers worldwide is based on a pack of lies about a man who lived in the Middle East two thousand years ago…

 

[tonyrey]

Judas went on his own to meet with the Jews and devise a plan for what he was going to do. He did this before Satan entered into him. Jesus did not tell him to set up the betrayal this way.

Satan can and does enter a person more than once…

Once that plan was in place, Jesus told him to do it quickly. So what speaks for itself?

The fact that Judas obeyed his Master unquestioningly.

“I have betrayed innocent blood” is irrefutable evidence of repentance.

I don’t see how this is evidence of repentance. He knew he was betraying innocent blood before he did it!

On the contrary, if he had thought of that he wouldn’t have been shocked on hearing Jesus was condemned.

There was a vast difference between their betrayals. Judas had every reason to despair… I’m sure if you had been in his position you would have thought you deserved to go to hell. I know I would…

Yes, of course, but Peter felt the same way.

Peter can’t have felt the same way because he hadn’t betrayed Jesus to the extent Judas had.

Jesus forgave his executioners because they didn’t know what they were doing. I’m sure He forgives Judas for the same reason.

Speaking of no evidence…

?

True self sacrifice for Judas would have been to set aside his pride that he could atone for his own sins and throw himself upon the mercy of God.

A man in a state of despair is not proud but thinks he is worthless.

Jesus had just told the apostles quite clearly.

He told them a lot of things, but they did not understand. The text is clear that the Apostles did not understand what was happening about Judas.

They understood that Jesus was going to be betrayed.

But they understood what he said.

No, they did not. They did not “get it” until after the resurrection. AFterwards, they were able to put it together, but they would not have been cowering in the upper room if they understood.

They understood that Jesus going to be betrayed.

This is my point about how Judas and Peter handled their betrayals quite differently. Peter humbled himself, and threw himself on the mercy of Christ. Judas realized he could not atone for his actions himself, and despaired.

There was and is a vast difference between an act of treachery and telling lies.

People often commit sins without thinking they are rejecting God.

Yes, but when one has been catechized that one is rejecting God in committing the sin, there is no excuse.

There is no excuse in the eyes of one who is a harsh, pitiless judge.

If he was possessed he didn’t need to convince himself. He was blinded to the truth by Satan.

This is true, but he made the plan before “satan entered into him”.

Satan can and does enter a person more than once…

Indeed. WE cannot presume that any soul is in hell.

Thank you for agreeing we cannot know Judas is in hell.

Satan can only enter those who have rejected the Holy Spirit.

People are not usually aware they are rejecting the Holy Spirit. That is a theological concept.

Those who are in Christ are kept by His grace, and the evil one cannot snatch them out of His hand.

Anyone can fall from grace in a moment of weakness.

Since Judas didn’t mean to harm Jesus he was definitely not guilty.I don’t think he got the intended result. I think he believed Jesus would take control of the situation and prevent Himself from harm. This does not mean he lacks culpabiity, though.

He was certainly culpable but not to the extent of knowing Jesus would be crucified.

The Last Supper
…20And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl. 21"For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.” Mark 14:21
Why did Jesus say this?

Because He knew how much Judas would suffer when he realised what he done. Unlike many people in this world He had great compassion for sinners and condemned the self-righteous who are quick to condemn others…

Speculations need to be consistent. The very fact that you believe Judas didn’t mean to harm Jesus implies that he was not as evil as you imply, that his repentance was utterly sincere and that he is certainly not in hell.

I have never implied or stated that Jesus was “evil”.

?

His regret over the outcome does not absolve him of guilt. Plenty of people regret the outcome of their actions, but not the actions. The prison is full of them!

Judas hated what he had done: “I have betrayed innocent blood”.

I have speculated about the thread topic. I think Judas betrayed Jesus because he wanted position and power in a temporal Kingdom in which Jesus would rule. He thought he could force Jesus into taking over the Kingship by manipulating the circumstances. When the opposite occurred, he regretted what he had done.

A speculation which has no foundation in fact. “I have betrayed innocent blood” are not the words of a man who lusts for power. “regretted” is a gross understatement. Judas was tortured by the thought that he had betrayed his Master and could think of nothing else. He was crushed by a sense of guilt, utterly convinced his treachery was unforgivable and hanged himself in a state of utter despair. He was fully justified in thinking there was nothing he could do to atone for his crime because repentance is not enough. That is why Purgatory exists but that was a doctrine Jesus hadn’t mentioned for obvious reasons… Judas thought it was a question of heaven or hell - and there was no doubt in his mind about which he deserved…

 

[guanophore]

The contention is that you are saying that Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed Jesus, and I am saying that I cannot find the possibility of such knowing and willingness.

I fear I must be getting misled by Scripture. I have spent so much more time with it than I have the psychotheology of OneSheep that it is difficult for me to disregard it for another theory. Here is where I am getting hung up:

‘He (Judas) went away and discussed with the chief priests and temple police how he could hand Him over to them. 5They were delighted and agreed to give him money. 6He consented, and watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to them when no crowd was present.’(Luke 22)

Now all these actions cannot be taken without knowledge and planning aforethought. It is likely that Judas had thought about this for some time, and it was not a spur of the moment decision. In reading some commentaries on this subject, I encountered one that suggested he may have been in league with the Sanhedrin before he infiltrated the Apostles!

To have a discussion about a course of action (plot) requires acts of the will, decision making and problem solving. These are all actions of the intellect that involve “knowing”. Judas is the main “actor” in this process. He initiated the conversation (to the delightful surprise of the Jews) and suggested a plan. He watched for the opportunity. He plotted to make it happen when the crowds were not present because he KNEW it would cause a ruckus “because the crowds believed he was a prophet”. He then “consented” to the money.

You seem to want to make it sound like Judas did all this in his sleep, and was not conscious and responsible for his actions.

   So, the point of filling in the blank is to shine the light of awareness on what could have possibly been going on in his mind such that he knowingly and willingly betrayed.

I, Judas, betrayed Jesus because _________________________.

Again, if you cannot answer for what could have been possibly going through his mind, your assertion is not applicable. Are you hiding from the light? If not, simply fill in the blank.

I have already answered this. It is ok if you don’t agree. I realize that it is pure speculation.
I also have conceded that none of us are in a position to answer this question, since none of us can know his heart.

"Confirmation bias" is what happens in the mind of the observer.  So, yes, I could look at your evidence and debunk it in my own mind, and you could disagree.  The problem is, guanophore, that you have yet to provide any evidence to consider, only assertions.  If you finish the sentence, we can investigate, and you could provide your biases and I could apply mine.

I think you have lost track of the thread, OS. We have already covered this ground.

Perhaps that jaunt down the rabbit trail of concupiscence distracted you?

So, try again, or continue to make excuses for not trying:

I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because___________________________.

OS, if you did not accept my responses (there have already been several) what would make me think you will accept them if I type them a second time? Perhaps you don’t remember my theory, or perhaps you are just frustrated so you accuse me of making excuses.

The bottom line is that we can’t “investigate” because all of our proposals about his thoughts and motives are sheer speculation, as noted in this post.

As you have not contested, hearing is not knowing. In addition, we have examples every day of family members knowing each other for a lifetime and disowning each other over some issue. Yes, it is unfortunate, but very common.

I am not sure I am getting your point. I agree that Judas disowned Jesus by his betrayal (but so did Peter). I have a hard time swallowing the proposal that, after spending three intimate years with Jesus where he “explained everything” that Judas only heard without understanding. In fact, I think he went to the Jews because he did understand. He understood Jesus was the Messiah, and intended to set up an earthly Kingdom, one in which a seat of honor was promised to the 12.

…27Then Peter said to Him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” 28And Jesus said to them, "Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne,** you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. **29"And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life.…Matt. 19:28

Perhaps Judas wanted to get on the judging throne immediately! Maybe he thought Jesus plan was too slow, or ineffective, and his was a better plan.

 

[guanophore]

   Wait a minute.  Are you saying this as part of a different scenario?  If Judas wanted Him killed, how could he have possibly simultaneously wanted Jesus to be in power?

You are the one taking the position Judas saw Jesus as a threat. Are you suggesting Judas did not know what happened to threats against Rome? Or do you think Judas did not take Rome into his reckoning?

I don’t think he wanted him killed. I think he wanted him to set up an earthly kingdom.

I am aware of your scenario,

Then I am lost about the reason for filling in the blanks.

 your scenario has yet to describe a person knowingly and willingly rejecting Jesus as God. If he knew that Jesus was so valuable, and yet turned him to the authorities, then please describe his reasoning.  So far, you have not.

You don’t accept my reasoning, and that is ok, because all of us are making “sheer speculations” here.

But my conviction that Judas acted knowingly and willingly is not based on my scenario, but on Scripture. Jesus said “woe to that man”. The innocent do not get “woe” from Jesus.

Matthias Replaces Judas
…24And they prayed and said, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all men, show which one of these two You have chosen 25to occupy this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.” 26And they drew lots for them, and the lot fell to Matthias; and he was added to the eleven apostles.Acts 1:25

I know you consider these parts of Scripture to be “human” rather than theopneustos but for me, this is the Holy Spirit speaking truth to us through the writing. It says that Judas had a ministry and an apostleship (also called an "office) that he turned aside from to “go to his own place”. He chose. He made a decision to reject what Christ had given him.

Yes, he had a different mindset after he saw what they were doing to Jesus than he had before, when he turned Jesus over. What happened in the mean time? What did Judas learn that triggered his feelings of regret for what he had done?

I think he believed Jesus would be taken before the Sanhedrin, declare His Kingship, depose them all, and install the Apostles in their place. He learned that they took Him to the Romans, and that he was flogged, then sentenced to death.

Let's shine the light on this guanophore.  Please, do not run away from the questions, for then your assertion remains unsupported by what can actually happen.    What did the rest of the apostles know that Judas did not?

All of my assertions about Judas motives and thinking are unsupported, because we don’t have that material in the historical record. Go back and read the OP.
Default Why did Judas betray Jesus?

1. Did he foresee what would happen?
2. Why did he return the money?
3. Why did he kill himself?
4. Did he regret what he did?
5. Could he have been possessed?

We have no “evidence” so demanding it from me does not really forward the discussion.

I have already addressed this question comparing Judas with the other Apostles, especially Peter, who also was grief stricken about betraying Christ. I guess my answers are not what you are looking for, so you keep asking them over and over, hoping maybe I will be able to put on the psychotheological lenses of OneSheep?

 

[guanophore]

Since I have never said this, but you keep repeating that I have, it is possibly slanderous. It is also against CAF guidelines:

It is never acceptable to assume or say you know what another person thinks or needs.

I don’t mean to be slanderous at all, and perhaps I can find a better way to express this. The Church teaches that mortal sin requires knowingly and willingly rejecting God, so I equate the two. You created a whole thread, in which you consistently defended that, if one knows, then one will choose God. I think you have repeated that concept in this thread as well. If people know, they will choose rightly.

You have acknowledged that mortal sin is a theoretical possibility, but perhaps you are not using the Catholic definition?

As to assuming what you think or need, on the contrary, in studying your posts and your line of thinking I have become fully persuaded that you need to believe that all sin is committed through ignorance and blindness so that you can forgive others. You have explained that coming to this position is what has freed your life from resentment, and I will respect your need to think this way, even though I disagree with it. It has obviously enriched your life and allowed you to be a more loving person.

Your name says you are a “forum supporter”.

That just means I contribute money so that people like you can have a place to accuse me of wrongdoing.

Please refrain from uncharitable accusations, and continue the discussion.

Is is uncharitable for me to saye that you don’t believe people can knowingly and willingly reject God? I thought you were proud of this enlightenment?
Does that mean every Catholic who believes what the Church teaches about sin is being uncharitable to you?

If you are incapable of/unwilling to answer my questions, simply say so, or simply stop responding.

Have you stopped offering your hand in fellowship? :hug1:

 

[OneSheep]

To have a discussion about a course of action (plot) requires acts of the will, decision making and problem solving. These are all actions of the intellect that involve “knowing”. Judas is the main “actor” in this process. He initiated the conversation (to the delightful surprise of the Jews) and suggested a plan. He watched for the opportunity. He plotted to make it happen when the crowds were not present because he KNEW it would cause a ruckus “because the crowds believed he was a prophet”. He then “consented” to the money.

Good Evening, guanophore!

Yes, all of these points are supported by scripture, but they do not describe what Judas knew, nor what he was thinking at the time. He (probably) knew that he was betraying Jesus. Philosophically speaking, this is a propositional knowledge. However, in order to know what he was doing, affectively, we have to enter into the possiblities of what was going through his mind, what was the scope of his “knowing”. Yes, we have been through this many times now. I am using the word “know” in the way Jesus did from the cross. He said “they do not know what they are doing”, he did not say “they know that what they are doing is morally wrong”. The former is more all-inclusive, emotional knowing (value) is a knowing. This goes back to the question you are consistently avoiding to answer. “What did the crowd who hung Jesus not know?”

I have already answered this. It is ok if you don’t agree. I realize that it is pure speculation.
I also have conceded that none of us are in a position to answer this question, since none of us can know his heart.

Nothing in that post addresses what was going on in Judas’ mind, what he actually knew, and what reasoning he had to do what he did. If it is there, copy and paste it here for me.

I think you have lost track of the thread, OS. We have already covered this ground.

That link did not work.

OS, if you did not accept my responses (there have already been several) what would make me think you will accept them if I type them a second time? Perhaps you don’t remember my theory, or perhaps you are just frustrated so you accuse me of making excuses.

Again, nothing in that post had Judas responding for himself, at least a possible response. All of the references are to assertions that remain unsupported.

Look, here was what I asked to fill in the blank:

I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because___________________________.

Here, I will fill it in for you, and you can either accept it or modify it.

“I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because Jesus is a radical troublemaker who has the nerve to call himself God when he is not, and says he can rebuild the temple if we knock it down, among many other blasphemous words. He should have known better, he had it coming, and if I don’t do it someone else will.”

Now, guanophore, does that fill in the blank for you? If not, modify it.

The bottom line is that we can’t “investigate” because all of our proposals about his thoughts and motives are sheer speculation, as noted in this post.

This entire thread is mostly speculative. We can, indeed shed light on all the possibilities, though. I am asking you for just one, one in which he was knowingly and willingly rejecting Jesus/God. I’m still waiting.

I am not sure I am getting your point. I agree that Judas disowned Jesus by his betrayal (but so did Peter). I have a hard time swallowing the proposal that, after spending three intimate years with Jesus where he “explained everything” that Judas only heard without understanding. In fact, I think he went to the Jews because he did understand. He understood Jesus was the Messiah, and intended to set up an earthly Kingdom, one in which a seat of honor was promised to the 12.

Perhaps Judas wanted to get on the judging throne immediately! Maybe he thought Jesus plan was too slow, or ineffective, and his was a better plan.

In other words, “I, Judas, understand that Jesus is the Messiah, He is our King, and I think His life is of infinite value, but I am turning Him over to you, against Jesus’ wishes, because this is the way that I know Jesus will come to set up the earthly Kingdom.”

Is that what you are saying that he was possibly thinking? If not, please modify it!

 

[OneSheep]

You are the one taking the position Judas saw Jesus as a threat. Are you suggesting Judas did not know what happened to threats against Rome? Or do you think Judas did not take Rome into his reckoning?

I don’t think he wanted him killed. I think he wanted him to set up an earthly kingdom.

Yes, these are the questions I am trying to get you to answer. What did Judas know? What were his reasons for turning Jesus over?

“I, Judas, do not see Jesus as a threat, I am turning Him over to set up an earthly kingdom, even though it is obvious that Jesus disapproves what I am doing, and the Romans are sure to kill Him.”

Again, either accept or modify.

Then I am lost about the reason for filling in the blanks.

If we can come up with a possibility of what was going through his mind, we can analyze whether or not he* knew* (affectively) what he was doing, and what was his will.

You don’t accept my reasoning, and that is ok, because all of us are making “sheer speculations” here.

It’s not that I do not accept your reasoning, it is only that you have not presented a concise reasoning. You keep moving the target, guanophore. Let’s address one scenario, okay?

But my conviction that Judas acted knowingly and willingly is not based on my scenario, but on Scripture. Jesus said “woe to that man”. The innocent do not get “woe” from Jesus.

“Woe” is a lament for a person. For example, I cannot imagine what it is like to have accidentally killed someone on the freeway (because of my error). How does a person live with themselves? It must be awful, woe to the person, they will wish they have never been born. This is what would happen to me. Suicide would be very tempting.

I know you consider these parts of Scripture to be “human” rather than theopneustos but for me, this is the Holy Spirit speaking truth to us through the writing. It says that Judas had a ministry and an apostleship (also called an "office) that he turned aside from to “go to his own place”. He chose. He made a decision to reject what Christ had given him.

Yes, he rejected. “I, Judas, reject what Christ has given to me because it holds no value. What is needed is to overthrow the Romans, not forgive them, and certainly not love them.”

Again, either accept or modify.

I think he believed Jesus would be taken before the Sanhedrin, declare His Kingship, depose them all, and install the Apostles in their place. He learned that they took Him to the Romans, and that he was flogged, then sentenced to death.

“I, Judas, did not know that Jesus would not dispose the Sanhedrin. I wanted Him to come to power, but I was not knowing what would really happen. I thought Jesus would thank me some day. Now that I know what has happened, I realize I made a huge error in my decision. I was completely wrong.”

Accept? If not, modify. I hope this helps. I must not have been clear enough with my questions.

We have no “evidence” so demanding it from me does not really forward the discussion.

What you have been saying all along is that Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God. If you can respond to this thread and the previous one, we can possibly come to the point of demonstrating that such qualified rejection was a real possibility.

It really does seem like we are getting somewhere, just very, very slowly!

 

[guanophore]

You have brought forth the forum rule that members should not assume they know what another thinks or needs. I am not making assumptions, but just reading your posts.

I was saying that "forgive them, for they know not what they do" refers to His enemies, and the crowd was his enemy.  Of course, they bore part of the responsibility, and Jesus forgave them.  **This forgiveness is one of the most important parts of the entire passion, in my view.  It is this forgiveness that taught me and inspired me in** forgiving all people I hold anything against, regardless of their repentance.

In this and other posts, you have made it clear that finding people ignorant and blind helps you to forgive them, something that has radically changed your life.

 When people get the whole picture, they make the right choice.  Judas never got the whole picture, at least not from what is evident in the Gospels.

This statement is similar to other statements you have made that, were a person to “know” and “see” they would not offend. It constitutes a contradiction to the Catholic faith, which is that people do willingly and knowingly reject God. When you make statements like this, it seems that you are rejecting the Catholic teaching on mortal sin.
You have accepted no instance where any person living or dead has ever willingly or knowingly rejected God.

So perhaps there is a better way for me to observe that your position seems to be in opposition to what the church teaches.

I agree that Acts 7:51-53 has a condemning tone.  Condemnation is the opposite of forgiveness, so those words do not reflect God's love, but instead expresses the frustration and sentiment of those who wrote those passages.  They are human.

This statement, along with others you have posted that Scripture is not inspired and inerrant, but contains the fallen sentiments of humans, rather than the Word of God. This is a position contrary to the Catholic faith.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13737075&postcount=109
OneSheep;13754343:

Yes, all of these points are supported by scripture, but they do not describe what Judas knew, nor what he was thinking at the time.

So it seems we are in agreement that we can only speculate, and therefore the “evidence” you keep demanding we “investigate” is not actually present.

He (probably) knew that

he was betraying Jesus. Philosophically speaking, this is a propositional knowledge. However, in order to know what he was doing, affectively, we have to enter into the possiblities of what was going through his mind, what was the scope of his “knowing”. Yes, we have been through this many times now. I am using the word “know” in the way Jesus did from the cross. He said “they do not know what they are doing”, he did not say “they know that what they are doing is morally wrong”. The former is more all-inclusive, emotional knowing (value) is a knowing.

I am realizing that your ideas are really more compatible with humanism than Catholicism.

Moral wrongdoing is not a matter of subjectivity. There are certain actions that are morally wrong, no matter what “affectively know”. Feeling it is not required as part of the knowledge that determines culpability.

This goes back to the question you are consistently avoiding to answer. “What did the crowd who hung Jesus not know?”

I responded to it, you just don’t like my response. I have been having a very hard time staying on topic, and I cannot see how this question relates to the thread topic. In addition, I have stated several times that the crowd did not hang Jesus.

Nothing in that post addresses what was going on in Judas’ mind, what he actually knew, and what reasoning he had to do what he did. If it is there, copy and paste it here for me.

We can’t know, can we.

I suspect you want me to make a guess, or speculation so you can then demonstrate that he was in an unknowing and unwilling state?

That link did not work.

Sorry I will try again.

I can continue to speculate, and I am sure I could produce an entire work of fiction on the matter. It is irrelevant here, because there is no amount of humanistic persuasion you can use that will enable me to jettison what the Church believes and teaches on the matter.

 

[guanophore]

Again, nothing in that post had Judas responding for himself, at least a possible response. All of the references are to assertions that remain unsupported.

Do you honestly think it is possible to support (empirically) our speculations about what someone might have been thinking and feeling 2000 years ago? You need something here, but I am not sure what. I guess it is bolstering for your position. Does it help if I concede that my political gain theory is unsupported speculation?

It seems very important to you that I put words into Judas’ mouth, and speak his motives and thoughts for him. Not sure why.

“I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because Jesus is a radical troublemaker who has the nerve to call himself God when he is not, and says he can rebuild the temple if we knock it down, among many other blasphemous words. He should have known better, he had it coming, and if I don’t do it someone else will.”

Honestly, OS, this does not seem at all consistent with Judas’ admission that he had betrayed innocent blood.

Now, guanophore, does that fill in the blank for you?

No, it does not.

I have to go with e_c on this one.

I think Judas believed Jesus would never allow Himself to be tortured and crucified.

This entire thread is mostly speculative. We can, indeed shed light on all the possibilities, though. I am asking you for just one, one in which he was knowingly and willingly rejecting Jesus/God. I’m still waiting.

I am quite certain that, since you cannot accept what is theopneustos, there is nothing I an add that will be convincing.

Yes, these are the questions I am trying to get you to answer. What did Judas know?

He knew that the Sanhedrin were opposed to Jesus and wanted to silence Him. He knew that anyone claiming to be a king would set themselves against Ceasar and be considered treasonous. He knew that Rome crucified the rebellious.

What were his reasons for turning Jesus over?

I can’t really think of anything to add to what I have already speculated. He wanted to force the time table.

If we can come up with a possibility of what was going through his mind, we can analyze whether or not he* knew* (affectively) what he was doing, and what was his will.

No need for that, OS. I will stipulate that whatever was in his mind and heart, you will find that he acted in ignorance and without freedom of his own will. Does that help?

It’s not that I do not accept your reasoning, it is only that you have not presented a concise reasoning. You keep moving the target, guanophore. Let’s address one scenario, okay?

No, OS, I have not moved any targets. I have not provided any “reasoning” at all, concise or otherwise. I have provided a purely fictional and speculative scenario that has insufficient evidence to validate. I responded to the thread topic.

“Woe” is a lament for a person. For example, I cannot imagine what it is like to have accidentally killed someone on the freeway (because of my error). How does a person live with themselves? It must be awful, woe to the person, they will wish they have never been born. This is what would happen to me. Suicide would be very tempting.

IT seems to have been entirely persuasive for Judas.

 I hope this helps.  I must not have been clear enough with my questions.

Your questions were clear. The words you are putting in his mouth are also clear, if somewhat preposterous at points.

I hope stipulating helps.

What you have been saying all along is that Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God. If you can respond to this thread and the previous one, we can possibly come to the point of demonstrating that such qualified rejection was a real possibility.

I will accept that this is not a reasonable outcome to expect.

It really does seem like we are getting somewhere, just very, very slowly!

I am certainly making progress in accepting your position, and become content with it. I have met many humanists, but always secular humanists. I don’t think I have ever met a “Catholic” humanist.

 

[OneSheep]

This statement is similar to other statements you have made that, were a person to “know” and “see” they would not offend. It constitutes a contradiction to the Catholic faith, which is that people do willingly and knowingly reject God.

Guanophore, I have already asked several times for you to put forth an instance where the Catholic Church has pointed to a specific instance of a mortal sin (not just a definition or a description) and you have come up with nothing. So no, it is not part of the “content of the Catholic faith” that people knowingly and willingly reject God. All you have cited is something you heard on EWTN. Sorry, guanophore, a person’s opinion on EWTN does not constitute the Catholic faith. Our CCC describes how a mortal sin can happen, it says absolutely nothing about whether it ever happens. If nothing else, the definition is a guide for our relationship with God and others, it has its purpose, and has its place.

When you make statements like this, it seems that you are rejecting the Catholic teaching on mortal sin.

So perhaps there is a better way for me to observe that your position seems to be in opposition to what the church teaches.

Much more charitable, thank you! Yes, that was a “better way”, there were no accusations at all, there was nothing establishing yourself as the authority of what I think and my “rejecting”. The wording above shows humility.

I am realizing that your ideas are really more compatible with humanism than Catholicism.

Now you are slipping again, guanophore. This is a “borderline” statement. Let’s try it going your direction, and you tell me what you think. I do not mean this, but I will say it:
“I am realizing that Guanophore’s ideas are really more compatible with Calvinistic fundamentalism than Catholicism.” Does that sound charitable to you?

Let me word it in a different way, and then tell me how it sits with you: “In my opinion, the idea that people are basically bad is more Calvinistic than Catholic.” You see, there I am not accusing you of having that idea in the first place. Also, I am addressing the premise, not the person. Do you see the difference?

You have accepted no instance where any person living or dead has ever willingly or knowingly rejected God.

It is not a matter of my “acceptance”, guanophore. I have not seen such an instance demonstrated. I am going to give you an opportunity to do so, let’s see if you can finally put it together!

I responded to it, you just don’t like my response. I have been having a very hard time staying on topic, and I cannot see how this question relates to the thread topic. In addition, I have stated several times that the crowd did not hang Jesus.

You are here addressing my question, “what did the crowd not know?”. I cannot find your response, guanophore. Could you please provide it again? It is pertinent, because Judas was an “enemy”, as the crowd was, and Jesus saw that the crowd did not know what they were doing. You have contested that Jesus’ words were not referring to the crowd, but you have absolutely no basis for this, it is your opinion. I provided the Bishop’s reference, and you seemed to ignored it. The crowd was partly responsible for Jesus’ death. Try to engage that idea this Palm Sunday.

On my next post, you will have an opportunity to prove your point, that Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed God!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Guanophore!

Have you stopped offering your hand in fellowship? :hug1:

Not at all! Will you grasp it?

I don’t mean to be slanderous at all, and perhaps I can find a better way to express this. The Church teaches that mortal sin requires knowingly and willingly rejecting God, so I equate the two. You created a whole thread, in which you consistently defended that, if one knows, then one will choose God. I think you have repeated that concept in this thread as well. If people know, they will choose rightly.

This is what I observe, yes. I am still waiting for a counterexample, and you have begun to demonstrate such, so let’s keep it going. Thank you for your more charitable wording.

You have acknowledged that mortal sin is a theoretical possibility, but perhaps you are not using the Catholic definition?

I am using the Catholic definition. Thank you for your charity, that was much better.

As to assuming what you think or need, on the contrary, in studying your posts and your line of thinking I have become fully persuaded that you need to believe that all sin is committed through ignorance and blindness so that you can forgive others. You have explained that coming to this position is what has freed your life from resentment, and I will respect your need to think this way, even though I disagree with it. It has obviously enriched your life and allowed you to be a more loving person.

Jesus said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Understanding others is the path to mature forgiveness, guanophore. A big part of understanding others is in realizing what they did not know when they did evil acts. Understanding others enables us to forgive, yes. This idea does not originate with me at all, I got it from the Gospel and many priests, lay people, therapists, people of all religions and cultures will say the same thing. Is it new to you?

Is is uncharitable for me to saye that you don’t believe people can knowingly and willingly reject God? I thought you were proud of this enlightenment?
Does that mean every Catholic who believes what the Church teaches about sin is being uncharitable to you?

Every Catholic who points his finger at me and says “You reject Church teachings” as you did, guanophore is being uncharitable. An apology would be an appropriate Christian behavior. Enough about this, though, you seem to be improving!

Now, before I go on, let us start with this statement:

No need for that, OS. I will stipulate that whatever was in his mind and heart, you will find that he acted in ignorance and without freedom of his own will. Does that help?

First of all, people have freedom of their will. Unfortunately, they may have a deeper “will” to which they have little access. In addition, the choices we make are limited by what we know of those choices, i.e. which choices are available. Secondly, it is you who is trying to prove that Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God. I have provided many means of showing that this was not the case, but you have never shown how his thinking could demonstrably support your assertion. So, if you are “stipulating” that your assertion is unsupported in that it has no foundation in actual human thought, we can drop the whole endeavor to prove “Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God”. It will simply remain an unsupported accusation.

So, here are some possibilities that you can entertain. Please pick one or more of these that support your position, or modify one so that it supports your position. Criticizing these is not going to prove your point. If these do not work for you, provide a line of thought that is consistent with your premise.

1. “I, Judas, convinced myself that the ends (eliminate a threat, gain power) justify the means (betrayal) because Jesus is a radical troublemaker who has the nerve to call himself God when he is not, and says he can rebuild the temple if we knock it down, among many other blasphemous words. He should have known better, he had it coming, and if I don’t do it someone else will.”
2. “I, Judas, understand that Jesus is the Messiah, He is our King, and I think His life is of infinite value, but I am turning Him over to the Sanhedrin, against Jesus’ wishes, because this is the way that I know Jesus will come to set up the earthly Kingdom.”
3. “I, Judas, do not see Jesus as a threat, I am turning Him over to set up an earthly kingdom, even though it is obvious that Jesus disapproves what I am doing, and the Sanhedrin will turn Him over to the Romans, who are sure to kill Him.”
4. “I, Judas, reject what Christ has given to me because it holds no value. What is needed is to overthrow the Romans, not forgive them, and certainly not love them.”
5. “I, Judas, did not know that Jesus would not dispose the Sanhedrin. I wanted Him to come to power, but I was not knowing that Jesus would be put to death… I thought Jesus would thank me some day. Now that I know what has happened, I realize I made a huge error in my decision to force the time table. I was completely wrong.”

I will grant that what you have said so far begins to demonstrate Judas’ thinking:

He knew that the Sanhedrin were opposed to Jesus and wanted to silence Him. He knew that anyone claiming to be a king would set themselves against Ceasar and be considered treasonous. He knew that Rome crucified the rebellious.

I can’t really think of anything to add to what I have already speculated. He wanted to force the time table.

These statements you made seem to support #5, but if #5 does not look like what he was thinking, please modify it.

God Bless your day.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, I have already asked several times for you to put forth an instance where the Catholic Church has pointed to a specific instance of a mortal sin (not just a definition or a description) and you have come up with nothing.

They don’t keep a database, you know.

What made you think that the Church would ever “point to a specific instance of mortal sin?” First of all, the Church does not uphold sinful behavior for public scrutiny. She holds up saints who have led a holy life to “point to specific instances” of how to conform ourselves to the will of God.

There are copious lists of potentially mortal sins in the Scriptures and the Catechism. These are all behaviors that are considered grave matter, such as abortion. It seems that you are unwilling to accept these specifically identified behaviors as constituting grave matters. Instead you want the Church to post a "wanted " photo of a sinner? It seems like a very strange request.

I suspect that, if there were such a hall of shame for sinners, you would work your way down the list and find reasons why everyone on it did not willingly and knowingly reject God.

So no, it is not part of the “content of the Catholic faith” that people knowingly and willingly reject God.

You have reached a false conclusion based upon a false premise. The fact that the Church does not publish a full page ad of everyone who has committed mortal sins every week in no way indicates that the Church does not 1) teach that there are mortal sins 2) people are at risk on a daily basis of mortal sins 3) we are to avoid even the near occasion of sin 4) if we have fallen from grace we are to proceed as immediatly as possible to the sacrament of reconcilation.

All you have cited is something you heard on EWTN.

LOL. I think that was actually Immaculate Heart Radio. Well, that topic on the thread we were in, in addition to this thread, would carry us off topic. If you want to start a thread to champion your position that the Church does not teach this, then I will be happy to post more resources.

Sorry, guanophore, a person’s opinion on EWTN does not constitute the Catholic faith.

Actually, the statements made on that program exactly reflected the Catholic faith, as they often do. Our CCC describes how a mortal sin can happen, it says absolutely nothing about whether it ever happens. If nothing else, the definition is a guide for our relationship with God and others, it has its purpose, and has its place.

Indeed yes, because mortal sins happen every day, all day, the faithful are in need of firm guidance and direction in this area. I am curious why you would think the Catechism would need to address this, if it never happens?

, I am addressing the premise, not the person.  Do you see the difference?

You are right, and I did give this more thought later. It is not really very accurate to call these ideas “Catholic”, since they are not. But it is certainly a form of religious humanism, rather than secular humanism. It is so religious in fact, I don’t think other people in the parish would even recognize that it is humanism. Such a person could appear outwardly as a “good Catholic”.

You are here addressing my question, “what did the crowd not know?”. I cannot find your response, guanophore. Could you please provide it again? It is pertinent, because Judas was an “enemy”, as the crowd was, and Jesus saw that the crowd did not know what they were doing.

No, I did not address that question. It is off topic, so you will not find a response from me. It is not pertinent.

I am not sure why you are referring to Judas as an “enemy” here. Jesus chose him to be one of the 12. Jesus commanded him to “go quickly” to do what he had to do, and Judas immediately obeyed.

You have contested that Jesus' words were not referring to the crowd, but you have absolutely no basis for this, it is your opinion.  I provided the Bishop's reference, and you seemed to ignored it.  The crowd was partly responsible for Jesus' death.

Of course the crowd had a role in his death, but that is not the topic of the thread. Neither is the crowd the subject of Jesus’ words, since they were not present at the time. Jesus forgave his excecutioners. They were Roman soldiers, doing their job.

 Try to engage that idea this Palm Sunday.

More homework? This statement has an an imperative tone.

On my next post, you will have an opportunity to prove your point, that Judas knowingly and willingly betrayed God!

I think not, OS. I have accepted that there is no “proof” that will meet your standards, so that would turn out to be a useless exercise, as were all the posts on your thread with this topic.

 

[guanophore]

This is what I observe, yes. I am still waiting for a counterexample

Yes, if I find a yearbook of mortal sins published with an imprimater, I will send you a copy.

 Jesus said, "forgive them, for they know not what they do."  Understanding others is the path to mature forgiveness, guanophore.  A big part of understanding others is in realizing what they did not know when they did evil acts.

It can be, but another big part of understanding humans (ourselves as well as others) is in realizing when they DO evil acts deliberately.

Is it new to you?

Yes. I have never met anyone who does not acknowledge that human beings are capable of, and commit great evil, willingly and knowingly. It is an extreme form of humanism, and my first exposure to religious humanism.

Every Catholic who points his finger at me and says “You reject Church teachings” as you did, guanophore is being uncharitable. An apology would be an appropriate Christian behavior.

Well, I do apologize if my wording is offensive, because it is not my intention to misrepresent your position. Your position is not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is not an uncharitable statement. In fact, it is uncharitable to withold the truth. You may choose to power forward in your humanistic framework, ,but others who might be reading the thread will hopefully see that this is not Catholic.

Now, before I go on, let us start with this statement:
First of all, people have freedom of their will. Unfortunately, they may have a deeper “will” to which they have little access.

This does not seem like their will is very 'free" in that case. If they are enslaved by a deeper, inaccessible “will” then free will is only an illusion.

Secondly, it is you who is trying to prove that Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God.

I don’t think so, OS. I was responding to the thread topic, and I speculated about Judas’ motives. Besides, I realized that trying to “prove” a religious article to someone who rejects that foundations upon which the article is based is not possible.

Clearly is Judas had willingly and knowingly rejected God, he would have his own billboard annoucing it to the public, would he not?

His name would be included in the list of “specific instances” published quarterly by the Vatican of everyone who commits a moral sin!

    I have provided many means of showing that this was not the case, but you have never shown how his thinking could demonstrably support your assertion.

Actually, you have not. You have done the same as I, which is to speculate about his thoughts, motives and actions. What you have “shown” or “demonstrated” is conjectures that cannot be verified.

I have made no assertions to demonstrably support, but if I had, I am quite certain that my fantasies about what Judas may have been thinking and feeling would not constitue a valid support in any case.

So, if you are "stipulating" that your assertion is unsupported in that it has no foundation in actual human thought, we can drop the whole endeavor to prove "Judas knowingly and willingly rejected God".  It will simply remain an unsupported accusation.

I am not sure why it is so important for you to manufacture a conflict about this topic. I have made no assertions. You yourself are the one that inserted “human thoughts” into the thread as to the mental process of Judas. Your projection of “human thoughts” is conjecture, along with all the theories proposed in this thread.

If Judas did knowingly and willingly reject God, it is not an “accusation”. But this statement does shed some light on why this subject is so sensitive. If a person who knowingly and willingly rejcects God is worthy of “accusation” it is a very good reason to work so hard to maintain that such a condition does not exist, either in oneself, or others. From a humanistic point of view, “accusations” are not good for the self esteem, are they?

 If these do not work for you, provide a line of thought that is consistent with your premise.

You are asking me to fantasize about what Judas was thinking. You seem to want me to do this so you can use my fantasy to “prove” that Judas did not knowingly and willingly reject Jesus.

I am sorry that none of your fantasies about what Judas was thinking ring true for me.

I will grant that what you have said so far begins to demonstrate Judas’ thinking:…

I don’t think so. I think it is just a statement of the general knowlege that all Jews living in Palestine at that time would have.

These statements you made seem to support #5, but if #5 does not look like what he was thinking

No, none of the statements fit how I imagine it happened.

I will agree to disagree with you on these matters, OneSheep. The Catholic Church teaches that there are grave sins that are committed every day, and human beings who knowingly and willingly engage in them (or even support those that do) risk their eternal life.

The Church teaches that sin separates us from God (not just our sense of God within ourselves).

The purpose of being able to distinguish responsibility and culpability is not so that people can be “blamed” (blame does not serve any life giving purpose) but so that the faithful can be freed from slavery to sin, and live free in Christ. Claiming that mortal sin only exists in theory, and that it cannot happen to the faithful is counterproductive.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, if I find a yearbook of mortal sins published with an imprimater, I will send you a copy.

Yes, the Church has never made the kinds of specific accusations that are so freely thrown around on this thread. Readers need to know that Catholics are called to be charitable and non-judgmental about people’s motives and thoughts. We are also not to label other people’s legitimate Catholic views (or views that are not un-Catholic) as contrary to Catholicism in some way.

It can be, but another big part of understanding humans (ourselves as well as others) is in realizing when they DO evil acts deliberately.

Yes, people deliberately do evil acts. What I have observed is that people do them without knowing what they are doing. I pray that you will someday see the difference. When we see this, we become much less likely to cling to negative judgments of others.

Well, I do apologize if my wording is offensive, because it is not my intention to misrepresent your position. Your position is not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church. This is not an uncharitable statement. In fact, it is uncharitable to withold the truth. You may choose to power forward in your humanistic framework, ,but others who might be reading the thread will hopefully see that this is not Catholic.

Thank you for your apology. Yes, I truly believe you have never heard the Catholic Church say that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God. However, you have also never come up anything from the Church that says that my observations were not consistent with Catholic teachings, so your judgment of “Truth” in this case, is the opinion of Guanophore. It is uncharitable to proclaim that someone is speaking against the truth unless you have air-tight evidence. As can be seen on the many pages of this thread, you do not have such air-tight evidence.

This does not seem like their will is very 'free" in that case. If they are enslaved by a deeper, inaccessible “will” then free will is only an illusion.

It is not the deeper will, from the true self, that enslaves. It is our superficial will, the ego, the parts of ourselves that want and judge, those are the parts of ourselves that enslave.

I have made no assertions to demonstrably support, but if I had, I am quite certain that my fantasies about what Judas may have been thinking and feeling would not constitue a valid support in any case.

Using the Gift of Understanding, putting yourself in someone else’s shoes, is not about “fantasies”, guanophore. It is about shedding the light on a situation.

I have made no assertions.

The irony! Even that statement is an unsupported assertion! You said right here on this post that my “positions are not consistent with the teachings of the Church”. You have made several unsupported assertions on every post! You must be joking!

If Judas did knowingly and willingly reject God, it is not an “accusation”. But this statement does shed some light on why this subject is so sensitive. From a humanistic point of view, “accusations” are not good for the self esteem, are they?

Guanophore, if you were to point at any human on earth or who ever lived, and said “that person knowingly and willingly rejected God”, without truly knowing what is going through his mind, it is an unfounded accusation.

Self-esteem is a superficial matter. For adults, we don’t generally avoid unfounded accusations because of the self-esteem issue, we avoid doing so because they are presumptive in a negative way, they are judgmental and uncharitable.

I am sorry that none of your [examples of possible reasoning] about what Judas was thinking ring true for me.

No, none of the statements fit how I imagine it happened.

Well, I asked that you would modify one so that it would “ring true”, but it looks like you have refused. I think perhaps you realize that your assertions hold no water.

The Catholic Church teaches that there are grave sins that are committed every day, and human beings who knowingly and willingly engage in them (or even support those that do) risk their eternal life.

Actually, many in the Church say that active sins are only symptoms of the separation that has already occurred. A person who is not in relationship with God “risks” having a superficial life, a life of slavery to his or her appetites.

The Church teaches that sin separates us from God ).

God is always with us, and nothing can separate us from the love of God. That is scriptural.

The purpose of being able to distinguish responsibility and culpability is not so that people can be “blamed” (blame does not serve any life giving purpose) but so that the faithful can be freed from slavery to sin, and live free in Christ.

On the other hand, blame does serve a life-giving purpose. When we communicate non-acceptance toward a child when he misbehaves, in the form of blame, he may change his behavior in order to please his parents, he will remember not to run into the street, for example. It is quite natural, actually, in higher mammals.

When we make accusations of others, it is a blaming. “You should have known better”. is a very common accusation.

I will agree to disagree with you on these matters, OneSheep.

I will do more. I will say that nothing you have said makes your ideas any less Catholic than mine. Indeed, your views are all acceptable in the Catholic church, as far as I can discern. (maybe you don’t take that as a compliment! )

Now that we can agree to disagree, and that is okay, can we shake on it?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, the Church has never made the kinds of specific accusations that are so freely thrown around on this thread.

I don’t see that anyone on this thread has made any kind of accusations. People responded to the topic with speculations.Did you think anyone here was “blaming” Judas?

  We are also not to label other people's legitimate Catholic views (or views that are not un-Catholic) as contrary to Catholicism in some way.

It is not uncharitable to recognize that certain perspectives are non Catholic, or anti Catholic. I agree that these views are still “legitimate”. No poster here is requred to have Catholic perspective, but a person who presents themselves as Catholic while posting non-Catholic ideas can create a scandal.

v

. Yes, I truly believe you have never heard the Catholic Church say that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God.

That is because the Church affirms the existence and occurance of mortal sins.

However, you have also never come up anything from the Church that says that my observations were not consistent with Catholic teachings, so your judgment of "Truth" in this case, is the opinion of Guanophore.

Another thread, another time, perhaps?

The forum does not require anyone to hold a Catholic point of view. You have many other members in your company that do not.

  It is uncharitable to proclaim that someone is speaking against the truth unless you have air-tight evidence.  As can be seen on the many pages of this thread, you do not have such air-tight evidence.

Well, we have different standards, have we not? The Truth is the Truth, whether certain persons choose to reject it, or not. The Truth remains what it is, even if your personal standard of being vaccuum packed cannot be met.

Using the Gift of Understanding, putting yourself in someone else's shoes, is not about "fantasies", guanophore.  It is about shedding the light on a situation.

I think you are suggesting that my fantasies about what Judas was thinking are equivalent to the "light " that comes when one exercises the Gift of Understanding. Perhaps if I fantasize properly about Judas’ motives I will be able to forgive him, becuase I will convince myself through my imagination of his motives that he was blind and ignorant?

You said right here on this post that my "positions are not consistent with the teachings of the Church".  You have made several unsupported assertions on every post!

Oh, well, those are just off topic extraneous comments. I thought you were talking about Judas. I have not asserted anything about Judas.

Guanophore, if you were to point at any human on earth or who ever lived, and said “that person knowingly and willingly rejected God”, without truly knowing what is going through his mind, it is an unfounded accusation.

We see it differently.

Well, I asked that you would modify one so that it would “ring true”, but it looks like you have refused. I think perhaps you realize that your assertions hold no water.

You seem to be referring to the imaginary dialogue occurring in Judas’ head. I did not make modifications to any of the examples you gave. I also did not make any assertions about Judas’ motives. I merely speculated, in response to the thread topic. I did not modify any of your imaginary internal dialogue because it is a useless exercise. You have already given the result in advance:

Well, like I said, Jesus observed from the cross that those crucifying Him did not know what they were doing, and we take His word for it.  However, upon investigation, the same can be found true for every case we investigate, including that of Judas.

So, the conclusion has already been made before beginning.

 

[guanophore]

Actually, many in the Church say that active sins are only symptoms of the separation that has already occurred.  A person who is not in relationship with God "risks" having a superficial life, a life of slavery to his or her appetites.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

Don’t let it concern you, OneSheep, that your views are not consistent with what is taught in the Catechsim. It is not a requirement here on CAF for you to have Catholic beliefs. Religious humanists are also welcome.

God is always with us, and nothing can separate us from the love of God. That is scriptural.

God still loves us, even when we are separated from Him by sin. In His love He died for us while we were yet sinners. His love is so great, He allows us to choose to be separated from Him by our sins, if we so choose. It would be a mistake to equate being loved with being in a state of grace.

On the other hand, blame does serve a life-giving purpose.  When we communicate non-acceptance toward a child when he misbehaves, in the form of blame, he may change his behavior in order to please his parents, he will remember not to run into the street, for example.  It is quite natural, actually, in higher mammals.

I don’t think so OS. In fact, I think blame of children by adults is particularly damaging. It does not enhance the need for children to take responsibility for their actions. Blame only drives people to defensiveness, in which state they are even less likely to accept the consequences of their choices.

I will do more. I will say that nothing you have said makes your ideas any less Catholic than mine. Indeed, your views are all acceptable in the Catholic church, as far as I can discern. (maybe you don’t take that as a compliment! )

The Church has not definitevely taught anything on the motives of Judas to betray Jesus, so my speculations are neither here nor there.

The other information I have posted about certain religious humanistic perspectives being anti-Catholic are not my own opinions, but taken from the Catechism.

You seem to have spent many years and much study, prayer, and spiritual direction discerning a way of looking at things that enables you to move forward with a happy and productive life. Why concern yourself if they are not entirely Catholic ideas, so long as they work for you? Why is it somehow insulting to you if someone notes they are not Catholic? Is it not more important that you came by them honestly through deep searching and that they make sense of the world and yourself in a way that is liberating for you?

 

[tonyrey]

I have not asserted anything about Judas.

?