----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:53 PM Subject: Re: The Gospel Of Judas
>> "Robert G. Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > <snippage> >> Was Judas a villain? >> >> I don't think so myself. If one believes that Christ >> was divine and >> that God has a plan then Judas was just a part of >> the plan and cannot >> be faulted for advancing the sacrifice. Indeed, >> advancing the >> sacrifice and the plan for salvation are grounds for >> sainthood. > > As a child, I felt Judas was the worst sort of person; > that view wasn't challenged until I saw 'Jesus Christ > Superstar' - 'you told me to do it!' IIRC. These words had impact on me at the time: Jesus! Youve started to believe The things they say of you You really do believe This talk of God is true And all the good youve done Will soon be swept away Youve begun to matter more Than the things you say Judas' POV had never been operative in my mind in any way before I heard these words, even with a predisposition towards lenience. Modeling the mind of Judas was enlightening and broadened my concept of salvation. I think it is central to "the meaning of life" and the idea of salvation that some sort of villiany/moral-quandry is required in order for there to be a choice and it is not always clearly defined what "rightness" requires us to do. In terms of morality and ethics *why* one chooses can be more important than *what* one chooses. > But I have > problems with the 'planned betrayal,' as this makes > Judas a stool pigeon, and God an underhanded schemer. Many many times I have thought this. But further reflection leads me to think that if "THE GREAT PLAN FOR SALVATION" were laid out in front of everyone, life would be like a paint-by-number portrait. And to extend the art metaphor, there would then be no "bad" art, and there would be no masterpieces either. Life would then be a narrow spectrum characterized by blandness. > Indeed, it brings to mind the entire Garden bit as > another planned betrayal. Again, something I've felt myself, but in this case I find the idea a bit solipsistic (maybe narcissistic is a better word). Not being much on Bible literalism, I feel that the Garden story is a metaphor for the birth of human self-awareness. In that sense the shame of loosing the Garden is akin to a longing for the "golden-age" where we didn't have to think so much.(As Homo Sapiens it is our nature to think about things even when those things pain us.) > > As a child, Frankenstein's creature was a horrible > monster who probably deserved to be hunted down and > burned; as an adult, it is Dr. Frankenstein who ought > to be censured for his abandonment of his faulty > creation, once it goes from being lovely to hideous. > It didn't ask to be made thusly. >From a very early age my younger brothers and I would watch those old monster movies and sometimes one or another of us would cry when the monster died. The monster (Frankenstien's) was "the child" who did not understand the world and lashed out as a child will with a childs anger albeit with an adults strength. We *knew* the monster was us and we felt the creatures alienation and desire for acceptance or at least the desire to be left alone (let be). We were the wolfman too. We knew that desire would overwhelm us (for cookies or stuff) and that we could lose control and do bad things. We knew there was redemption in killing the desire (the wolf within). We knew Dracula too. Dracula was evil and unredeemable, but he was also the coolness of pursuasion, the tool of desire and an unconscious precursor of our male sexual awakening. The Mummy was the embodiment of revenge, of the rage that smoulders deep inside until opportunity presents itself. Those old films were effective to a great degree because they reflected the emotions of the inner child and are metaphors for our earliest feelings. > >> xponent >> The Heresy Of Rob Maru > > I find myself more a heretic than ever, as I mature. > "Because I said so!" is perhaps appropriate for a 2 > year old's petulant demands, else you'd have no time > to work, let alone think. But it is a lousy answer to > a thoughtful query by anyone over the age of 5. > Maturation comes in stages. <G> xponent Feeding My Inner Child Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
