Did Jesus betray Judas?

To play the apologist's advocate, I can see how an omniscient god could set this sort of thing up without violating Judas's free will or causing something similar to entrapment.Lets assume for the moment that the Christian god judges people based on their thoughts rather than their actions. (I know this is contradicted some places in the Bible, and causes big problems for gratuitous suffering, but bear with me.) Someone with the "heart" of a murderer would be judged the same whether or not they are in a position to actually commit such a sin.God actually does need to set things up so that Jesus will get betrayed, but arranging for Judas to be in such a position isn't really going to affect Judas's eventual judgment. It is like if you wanted to be mugged and decided to hang out in a really bad part of town; you are not making the people there any more muggers than they already were. In this same way, Judas isn't made any more a murderer by actually being able to commit the act.You could even argue that being put in that position was a blessing for Judas. According to Acts 1:18 he basically pops (presumably a smiting from God), but Matthew 27:3-6 says that he repented, made an offering at the temple, and hanged himself. Assuming repenting of your sins meant anything at that point, Judas might have been given the opportunity to repent for his thought-crimes and allowed entrance to heaven, rather than likely never asking forgiveness.

Well, yes. It doesn't really explain that predestination element. I suppose if you believe in souls then you believe there is a part of someone that isn't tied to their experiences on Earth. The implication then would be that while the soul is created by God, its form and behavior is freely decided by itself.This seems to be a paradoxical sequence, but that is easily explained by omnipotence. "Goddidit."

See now, that is a big theological problem. How can someone be held responsible for breaking a law they don't know about or understand?The Christian god is by no means clear on its supposed policy or even existence. Any rules it sets up are to a great extent hidden; the interpretation varies widely, and there isn't really an effective method to coordinate beliefs in laws and commands. (I know someone is going to say prayer works for this, but it is clearly objectively useless for pretty much anything but calming down.)Rules which people are supposed to have broken are just as important as the method of getting out of the punishment, as knowledge of these laws is required in order to reasonably expect obedience. Some sects even believe that there is no punishment without acceptance of Jesus, just no reward. This "hidden rule" seems to me to create an intractable problem; how do you justify punishment based on a secret law?

Its because God hates nachos.Hehe, but seriously, the general claim is that God cannot/will not change his mind. Why he often seems to do that in the Old Testament isn't really explained by this theory, but it is basically the position of "I said people would die because of this, so I'm not going to be happy unless there is some killing done!"Ok, so we didn't really get away from the bloodmonger incarnation. Presumably omnipotence doesn't allow him to do *anything* he likes.

What is it about killing something else, or something else bleeding, that forgives the transgressions of another? A sacrifice is giving up something of value to yourself, which is why you have a sacrifice of goods (including animals, as they were particularly valuable). Jesus wasn't a sacrifice in that sense because humanity didn't own him and lost nothing by giving him up. It was just needless brutality.If someone murders your child, would you consider it justice if someone else died on behalf of the murderer? I wouldn't! This would be a "thought crime", a concept almost universally considered to be unjust. This is particularly relevant to moral judgments, as I will explain.In order for someone to be held morally accountable they need to be a "moral agent", or "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong". This means that in a given situation they need to understand the difference between right and wrong, and be able to distinguish the results of their actions in that regard.For example, in order for someone to be considered guilty of murder they would need to understand the difference between right and wrong, that murder is wrong, and that they were committing murder. If they lack any of those they would be considered either insane, wildly misinformed, or that their actions were accidental.Moral agents must be able to conceive of immoral actions in order to really be making moral judgments. The merit of being moral lies in restraining oneself from taking immoral actions that would otherwise be pleasant or beneficial. Nobody is given much credit for avoiding immoral actions that they wouldn't want to do in the first place.This is what makes the "sin of lust" so unjust: the restraint of preventing action based on his desire was a moral decision. Lack of desire isn't a moral decision in the same way that a rock's lack of desire to murder isn't a moral decision. God assigning punishment based on the presence of desire would simply hit everyone capable of making a moral decision, regardless of fault. There would literally be no way to be moral.

Well heck, I don't need Jesus's help to die. I think everyone can probably handle the after-death judgment on those terms.But if Jesus did his thing, then why do you still die then?