Poor, Poor Judas

Poor, Poor Judas

“In the garden I was playing the tart
I kissed your lips and broke your heart
You, you were acting like it was the end of the world.”

- U2 “Until the End of the World”
( a song written from the point of view of Judas)



Poor, poor Judas. Christians often talk about how sad Jesus is at the state of the world. How he weeps because of the pain and suffering that makes up this physical realm. Let us ignore the fact (for the purpose of this blog) that this reveals more about how Christians view the world, than Jesus would view the world. And yet despite this great sadness, I can think of one who must be filled with greater sadness.

Poor, poor Judas.

Imagine being the one to betray the Messiah. The one who filled with guilt over his deed, did not even keep the thirty pieces of silver, committed suicide. And imagine that for all history your name would be cursed and hated. Imagine the weight of this guilt. Imagine the sadness heaped upon the shoulders of this one poor soul. Now consider this, if you were that man, this essential character in this Divine Tragedy, could you find forgiveness for your own self? Can you imagine anyone more sad than Judas Iscariot?

Has anyone, with the exception of perhaps Lucifer (see my last blog), in the history of mankind been judged so harshly? Is there anyone out there that feels any sympathy for this man? Why is it, that he sacrificed himself (and died hanging on a tree just like the man he betrayed) to be viewed by most people as most assuredly to be burning in hell?

What most people miss is the fact that without Judas, there would be no Saviour. Just like you cannot have heat without cold. I suppose that if it wasn’t Judas it would have been someone else, but the fact remains that it was Judas. Judas was instrumental in Jesus’ final message, a message that not only required his death, but his resurrection (again we will ignore the fact that I see the death and resurrection as a metaphor and not historical fact). Without Judas, there would have been no death or resurrection. No message at all. And one must wonder, what would have become of Jesus had he not died the way he did? His story would certainly not have become as important as it has become. He would have been another obscure prophet in a long line of wise men. Forgotten by history, by time.

It was the betrayal that brought the message into sharp focus, making the rest of the story possible. Quite the large responsibility, don’t you think? Would you have been capable of such a thing?


Prior to the infamous kiss of betrayal, Jesus is reported to have been praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. As the story goes, Jesus appears to have foreknowledge of the horrors that await him. Although willing to go through with it Jesus does ask that this task be taken away from him. This suggests that even Jesus felt fear. Perhaps doubt. And if the responsibility lay completely on his shoulders to complete this task, would he have been able to do it without Judas?

It is far too easy to yank on the rope that Judas put around his neck and keep him tied down and burning in the bowels of hell. One must consider some very interesting points in the entire arc of the story of Jesus. Jesus chose disciples and given his uncanny ability to know things beforehand, you must ask why he chose such a man? Was he chosen to fulfill the very role he ended up playing? It is suggested in the gospels that Judas had a weakness for money, and was also responsible for holding the disciples’ money bag. It also states in the Gospel of Luke that Satan entered Judas. Ah yes, the Adversary. And let us not forget that another name for Satan, is Lucifer, meaning “light-bringer”. Without darkness you cannot have light.

Jesus even calls Judas out during the Last Supper: "One of you will betray me". So why did Jesus trust this man, knowing he was the one to betray him? One interpretation of the events is that Jesus may have asked Judas to betray him. This idea is explored in Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel ‘The Last Temptation of Christ‘. Which I think is a more realistic approach to the story. That the man, Jesus, did not have the strength to follow through with his duty and chose someone who could force him to do it. Someone with more strength and courage than any man.

The Gospel of John tells a story of a woman who anoints Jesus with expensive perfume and washed his feet with her tears. Judas protests arguing that the money spent on the perfume could have been given to the poor. It would seem that Judas’ heart is in the right place. But Judas is rebuked and by stark contrast, he accepts thirty pieces of silver for turning over Jesus to the High Priests.

Judas is a story of weakness to be sure. The debate is over who truly was the weak one? He symbolizes every person, what people do when faced with temptation. He is a symbolic prostitute, accepting money for physical acts. Does he not center out Jesus with a kiss (an intimate act)? He shows us just how hard we are on our own selves. How quickly we move to judge and condemnation - not of others, but of ourselves.

Poor, poor Judas.

If you are to hate Judas, then you are to hate all dichotomies. To deny Judas, is to deny the message of the resurrection. To hate death, denies life.

There is an old Taoist proverb that describes perfectly this relationship of Judas and Jesus.

"It is the space between the bars that holds the tiger in.”

You see a cage is not made only of the physical aspects - the floor, the ceiling, the bars. It is also made of the spaces between those bars. If you had no spaces, they would not be bars, but walls. Without the spaces, the cage is transformed into something entirely different. It is no longer a cage.

Without Judas, Jesus is no longer a hero.

Sympathy For The Ego

Sympathy for the Ego

Paul Shade is a conservative, fictitious host of a Christian talk-radio show. Lucas Campbell is a fictitious spiritual guru.

Announcer: You’ve heard of the greatest psychic of our time. Now meet the greatest skeptic of our time: Paul Shade.

Paul Shade: Hello everybody and welcome to the program. Today I’m talking with Lucas Campbell, author of the book ‘Part-Time Sinner’ and ‘The Rules of Hell’. His latest book is titled ‘Sympathy for the Ego’. Mr. Campbell, welcome to our show.

Lucas Campbell: Thank you for having me, Paul.

Shade: Now for those of you unfamiliar with Mr. Campbell’s work, he describes himself as a Spiritual Being, rather than a Christian, although he was born and raised a Catholic. Much of his work deals with philosophy and can be at times extremely controversial. Now Mr. Campbell, in your latest book it says that you don’t believe in the devil.”

Campbell: That’s correct, I don’t.

Shade: Then it seems to me that’s just another victory for Satan.

Campbell: Yes, that’s a common belief that the devil’s greatest victory and strength is in this idea that no one believe in him anymore.

Shade: And that’s true. That’s why there’s so much sin in the world, because if you don’t believe that he exists, then you can’t stop him, you’re powerless against him. It may not be so much as people don’t believe he exists, rather that people have become complacent in the face of evil.

Campbell: Well, regardless if you believe in the existence of the devil, or Satan, evil does exist, but in illusionary form. And evil should and can be dealt with. If believing in a malevolent form, unseen and endowed with supernatural powers, gives you something to go up against, I do not wish to change that belief. I am simply offering a different way to view the debate, as well as a different, effective way to approach it.

Shade: What does ‘evil exists in illusionary form’ mean? I wouldn’t call Adolph Hitler an illusion.

Campbell: No, nor would I. What it means is this: it is the Christian belief as told in Genesis that God is Good. God is perfect. Now if God is perfect, then he cannot be imperfect. He simply can’t be both. Either he is perfect or he is imperfect. And since God made all of creation, including us, then it stands to reason that we and everything around us is perfect too. Therefore, anything we call ‘evil’ or ‘sinful’ can only be a perception. Perception is not real it is an illusion.


Shade: Wait a minute. You’re saying that Adolph Hitler didn’t do anything wrong? That he’s perfect? Killing millions of people is just our perception? So, should we let tyrants be tyrants and not do anything about them because God is perfect and God made them? That’s ridiculous.

Campbell: Actually, I’m saying that I cannot judge Hitler for what he did do – and he did do those terrible, terrible things. His judgement is reserved for God and God only. We cannot judge on partial evidence – because we weren’t there. God has all the facts because he was there and is everywhere. What I’m saying is that Hitler did those atrocious things because of his perception of the world; a world seen through fear. And that fear is not real – it is something entirely in the mind, an illusion. It was an illusion that caused him to act a certain way, to think that certain races had to be eradicated to purify humanity. If you ask me that was the greatest illusion. Had the illusion been dispelled, or the darkness of fear had been illuminated, our history would have changed dramatically. If his perception had been changed, so too would the illusions and everything that did happen, wouldn’t have.

Shade: I agree with you when you say that God created everything, and it that’s true, then didn’t he also create the illusion? The things you sat that aren’t real? Seemingly that would make God imperfect.

Campbell: Look at it this way. Have you ever driven on the highway and on the roadway in front of you looks like water gathered across the road? The more you drive the further the ‘water’ gets. You can never catch up to it. It looks like water and it looks like its always moving, but in fact there is no water. Just an illusion that the sun and clouds and the blacktop are making. So in a way, God did make this illusion, but he can’t be held responsible for how we perceive things.

Shade: Okay, so back to the devil…

Campbell: Yes, if God is perfect, how can there possible be a devil? To my way of thinking, by putting your belief in a supernatural power that makes you do things that go against your very nature, renders you powerless, helpless. How do you possibly fight something like this and expect to win?

Shade: By proclaiming Jesus Christ as your Saviour. Jesus will give you the power to fight the devil. Through prayer, through scripture. That’s how.

Campbell: Okay, I won’t argue that. Now take for instance a person who has rejected God, rejected Jesus. Does Jesus have any influence in this person’s life?

Shade: Sure he does. He just doesn’t know it.

Campbell: But if he continues to reject Jesus, continues to sin, is Jesus then having an effect on this person’s life?

Shade: Not if he rejects Jesus, no. That person doesn’t allow Jesus to help. That’s not to say that Jesus can’t step in and perform a miracle. I guess at this point it becomes unlikely.

Campbell: Then this person would then be helpless against sin and evil and temptation?

Shade: Pretty much.

Campbell: So if it’s fair to say that by not allowing Jesus into your life, he is rendered powerless….

Shade: Well, I wouldn’t say powerless. Jesus is never powerless….

Campbell: …ineffective then. So if this works against Jesus, why not render the devil ineffective too by not allowing him into your life? By not believing in him?

Shade: Because there’s always going to be temptation to make things difficult. By not believing in the devil won’t make him go away.

Campbell: And this is what I’m getting at. What if the devil is something else entirely? And what if instead of endlessly, eternally wrestling with him, you could actually stop him for good? Temptation may always exist, as an illusion only, but what happens when you reach the point of not being tempted?

Shade: So what is the devil then?

Campbell: First, let me further explain how this way of thinking can be beneficial. By believing in the devil, you place all of your problems and difficulties on an outside source. And as everyone is well aware, no matter how hard you try, you can’t change another person to be what you want them to be. Because they are outside of ourselves. We blame everyone for our problems, a principle that goes back as far as Genesis. Adam blames Eve for eating the apple, Eve blames the snake and the snake blames God.
Now if you shift your focus to something you can control, something inside of you, now you’re faced with the possibility of actually winning. There’s a quote that explains this perfectly:

“I can’t change the world, but I can change the world in me.”

If you’re tempted to sin, and you believe that this is your thought and no one else is to blame (not even the object of your desire) then you are then able to change that thought and thereby overcome the temptation and the sin.

Shade: All right, hold it right there. There’s a bunch of things you said I need to confront you on. Let me just hold off on those for a few minutes and explain to me what is the devil.

Campbell: The devil is just another word for the Ego. And the ego is that part of you that believes illusions are reality. It believes that the shadow on the road is water. It’s that part of you that says ‘my needs are more important than your needs’. It’s not the devil that’s whispering to you, but your own voice. And you can change what the voice is saying.
The ego is that part of you that when in traffic you switch lanes and slow the person down behind you and think to yourself, ‘I’m running late, I wouldn’t normally do this’. Yet when it happens to you, when you get cut off and the other driver is thinking exactly the same thing, you’re incensed, outraged.
The ego believes in punishment rather than solutions. It believes in being right, rather than being kind. It believes in comparison: my story is more painful that your story. It believes in a ‘dog eat dog’ world.

Shade: But we need the ego in order to survive. In some instances, the ego is a positive force. Otherwise we’d all be walked all over. The ego keeps you from starving.

Campbell: Yes, but at what cost? If you kill a man over a piece of bread in order to feed your starving family – could you see Jesus doing this? Of course not. We do not need the ego to survive. The ego needs the ego in order for it to survive. The ego will kill for bread to keep the body alive, because without the physical body, the ego simply cannot exist. What need is there of an ego when you are a spirit? There’s no need for food, no need for work, or for a roof over your head. The ego dies, with the body. You might say that the ego is the body.
Every ancient religion teaches that the spirit is eternal, it cannot die. Yet the physical body does die. It decays. It’s not eternal. I can guarantee that the spirit does not worry about the body dying, because the spirit cannot die. The body is simply a tool, a learning device. I think we can all agree that when we die, we continue in another, as of yet, unknown form. We are not our bodies.
The ego is in constant fear of the body dying because it cannot live without it, so it is in constant conflict to ‘look out for number one’.
If you die of starvation, your spirit simply shrugs and says ‘so what?’ Do you worry when you outgrow your clothes? I mean, to the point where you will do anything, and I mean anything to keep them? Would you kill someone to make your clothes fit. Or would you too simply shrug and buy yourself a new shirt?

Shade: Okay, so if you sat the ego is the devil and we must force ourselves to think differently than our ego, how do we keep ourselves from being walked all over? It sounds to me like you just want everyone to lay down and become a welcome mat.

Campbell: Yes that is precisely the argument the ego would use. It doesn’t want to be walked upon, but do you think the spirit cares?

Shade: So you’re saying forget about our self-esteem, and forget about our dreams because when we’re dead it won’t matter.

Campbell: No, not at….

Shade: I’m very much alive right now. I don’t like pain. Everybody I know doesn’t like pain. I’m not going to shove my hand in a fire and scream and think to myself, ‘this is just an illusion, when I’m dead, it won’t matter’. For the rest of my life, my hand will be scarred, there will be years of agonizing healing and it may never work properly again. That is a simple, plain truth. That is the world we live in. There’s always going to be pain and misery and sorrow. What you’re saying is that if you don’t have an ego, you’ll never be hurt and that’s entirely false.

Campbell: Actually, it’s the ego that would thrust your hand into a fire, to prove to itself that it exists. The spirit, knowing it’s eternal and knows it does exist and does not need proof – would simply not put your hand in the fire in the first place. The spirit is not stupid, nor is it complacent.

Shade: All right, someone grabs my wrist and forces my hand into the fire and even though I struggle and can’t get loose, I still get burned. Am I supposed to just give in and let someone harm me?

Campbell: Not at all. The spirit is not stupid, nor ignorant. In this example, there are so many factors to consider. Such as why would someone want to bring you harm? Was something done to them? They must feel threatened in someway.

Shade: Because some people are just crazy. They don’t need a reason to harm you. Harming you is simply enough for them. And for those kinds of people they actually get a kick out of it. It brings them pleasure.

Campbell: Yes, but what did Jesus do when people threw stones at him?

Shade: He ran away.

Campbell: Exactly. You don’t have to sit there and take it. You ran away for safety sake. You can run, to ensure that this body, this tool remains in condition, for it to serve its purpose. The ego will try and convince you that you’re trying to run away from your problems. The problem with the ego is that we want vengeance, we want justification to throw the stone back. Look how far back in our own lives the ego stretches. Even in the schoolyard, when two children are fighting, one always says ‘he started it’. That’s justification for reacting poorly.
My very good friend, Xavier, once said to me: ‘When someone throws mud at you and sling mud right back, in the end all you have is two people covered in mud’.
The ego thinks, ‘if I’m going to be covered, then you should be too. Why should I be the only one that’s dirty?’ The problem isn’t that you’re covered in mud, the problem is that you muddy yourself by wanting revenge.

Shade: So run from confrontation. What if they keep after you? Chase you down?

Campbell: Oh they won’t stop at times, some egos are relentless. But its more helpful to regroup than it is to react with a knee-jerk reaction. You see when harm came to Jesus he slipped away; he also used his wisdom to avoid places he knew he could not influence. If you’re up against someone who won’t stop, perhaps you’ve willingly and knowingly entered a place you had no way of influencing. Now on the flip side, Jesus didn’t back down from the Pharisees. Instead he was quite harsh with them. But he did this selflessly; he stood up to them on behalf of the people who were under their oppression. He received no personal gain from it, not even glory. He did not do it to throw mud at them, or in self-defense, not even to get revenge. It was done for the benefit of those listening to their venom. And as we discovered it eventually came at great cost to himself. That is what is meant by ‘he died on the cross for us’. He didn’t die to wipe away some celestial book of sins; he died to enlighten out minds to the truth, which is to not succumb to the ego. I mean think about, he’s standing before Pilate and he has the ability to save himself. He could’ve performed a miracle on the spot and freed himself. And then what would have happened? Would he have died of old age as an obscure prophet? How much would the message have changed?
Instead he chose silence, and by his silence to say ‘the message is far greater than myself, greater than this body’, which is essentially the message. We’re free to crucify each other and ourselves until the day we choose to stop. Do you not see that had he saved himself, the message would have then became ‘save your own skin’? The message would have made the ego right. He would’ve been no better than you or I. He died to show us what is important. The message. Or the body.

Shade: Jesus died on the cross for our sins, that’s what scripture says. He died to prepare a way into Heaven for us. And by proclaiming Jesus Christ as your Saviour, can you be saved.

Campbell: Correct. And you can’t get there with the devil at your side or the ego on the inside. Without Jesus’ teachings and his death, we would still be ignorant of the ego and ignorant to the fact that we can overcome it.

Shade: You make it sound like a pretty rotten deal. If we do the right thing, we’ll pay a high price and if you follow the ego, people will leave you alone. Sounds pretty harsh to me. Sounds like Satan’s work from where I sit.
Now I want to jump back a bit when you said ‘not even the object of your desire is to blame’.

Campbell: All right.

Shade: Let me get this straight. If I’m watching a sitcom and halfway through a commercial comes on and in it is a scantily clad woman appearing in a tempting fashion – I’m to blame for lustful thoughts and she, or the advertising company is not?

Campbell: Well, you could change the channel.

Shade: Oh please, I shouldn’t have to change the channel! There has to be some accountability on the other party. You can’t thrust breasts in someone’s face and expect them to close their eyes or look the other way. That’s just not realistic. Can you do that?

Campbell: No, but that’s why I’m a ‘part-time sinner’. Actually I agree with what you just said, I was merely being facetious. You’re correct, there should be accountability, but in the end you are responsible for your own thoughts. But being aroused by an image is not a sin; it’s an illusion….

Shade: How can you say that? Lustful thoughts are sinful. It’s covetousness.

Campbell: It’s not a sin in itself. The sin is when it’s self-serving. When you see an image and you think, ‘boy would I like to ravish her’ becomes a problem because its entirely self-serving and self-gratifying. There’s no thought about the other person and their wishes. That is where the so-called sin lies. And any of these sins, lust, desire, whatever, is simply a symptom of another problem. Wanting something so badly is an indication that there is something missing in your life. Which is another illusion. You have everything you could want; thinking that you don’t is where the problem lies. Being tempted is fine. Acting on it is another story all together. And that is where accountability comes in. You can’t blame the television, or the advertisers, because in the end it is up to you if you act on this desire.

Shade: So they have no accountability then. That’s what you’re saying.

Campbell: Let me put it to you another way. If no one in the world acted on his or her selfish desires, would there be a need to have a scantily clad woman selling chapstick? Of course not, but until we choose to stop, we’ll continue to be faced with temptation. It’s Jesus in the desert. After resisting temptation three times, what use is it trying to tempt him further? The victory is there and the need for temptation is no longer a threat.

Shade: I just don’t have that much faith in the entire world.

Campbell: And you don’t need to. You just need to have enough faith in yourself.

Shade: I just don’t see how being nice and changing my thoughts is going to end something like terrorism. Terrorists don’t care if you’re nice. Thousands of nice people died on 9-11.

Campbell: It is the ego’s belief that it can change another person. It is the spirit’s belief that it need only change itself.

Shade: Be that as it may, how does Jesus factor into all of this? It seems to me that by taking sway the devil, you’re also taking away Jesus. And I’ll tell you there’s already too much of that going on in the world today. That’s another victory for Satan. Are we not supposed to believe in anything?

Campbell: Yes, believe in everything, but illusions. And you are right, if we take away Jesus it is a victory for the devil, the ego. That means you take away hope. It comes down to what you want to choose to do. Believe in the devil or believe in God. Bad versus Evil. Which side do you want to be on? And who is to say that if a woman arouses you you’ve chosen evil? You’ve only chosen an illusion.
I just don’t see how believing in the devil is helpful to my spiritual development. The devil is an outside, intangible device. The ego, on the other hand, is ourselves, it’s internal and it can be changed.

Shade: Hmm, I don’t know, sounds kinda’ new age to me and not scripturally based.

Campbell: Actually this is entirely scripturally based. It was Jesus who said ‘even the very least among you can do all that I have done and even greater things’. The very least among us! That means even a thief, even a pedophile can change. And they can do even more that what Jesus did. The ego would have us believe that because we’ve not seen a pedophile be ‘cured’ means we never will.
Take the forty days and forty nights Jesus spent in the desert and was tempted three times by the devil. Now re-read this story and substitute ‘ego’ for ‘devil’. The story doesn’t change at all, nor the message. Can you imagine how Jesus must have first felt, discovering he power over physical law? That he as this unfathomable wisdom? The temptation comes from within; wouldn’t it be tempting to use this power for personal gain? If he wished, Jesus would never have to worry about starving for he simply could turn stone into bread. He could even be immortal, conquer death, even from leaping from a cliff. With this ability, he would never have to work a day to provide food on the table. With this power, his own power, mind you, not what the devil has given him, but he could even rule the world. To run things the way he thinks it should be run. And as you can see all three temptations are self-serving. They are not for the benefit of others. When Jesus did leave the desert he used his power to feed others, to resurrect others, to empower others.
The story of the temptation in the desert seems to me, at any rate, a story of how Jesus overcame his own self-serving ego. I think it would be unbearably tempting to abuse the power he had for personal gain. The greater the power, the greater the temptation.
And it is no coincidence that it was after overcoming this test, overcoming selfishness, his ego, that he began his ministry, and not before. It was after this incident that he performed his first miracle. He always had the ability, but he chose to not use it, until he was certain his motives were pure and true. So, as you can see, Jesus is the light and the way, he is the blueprint for hope. He is the only one that we know of that has done it.

Shade: Well, it’s a nice philosophy, but really I don’t think scripturally you’re accurate. Jesus had no ego. He was born the Son of God. He was not mortal. The temptation in the desert is about Jesus defeating the devil. That’s what scripture says.

Campbell: I don’t consider it ‘philosophy’. I consider it truth.

Shade: Jesus exorcised devils, scripture is full of these kinds of stories. He cast them out. So how can you say that he didn’t do this? There were eyewitnesses that say someone they knew was possessed. Demonic possession. You’re saying that when Jesus called Lucifer by name, that even he didn’t know what he was talking about. Jesus did not say ‘ego be gone’, he said ‘devil be gone’. If it wasn’t the devil, Jesus would have said so; he wouldn’t have used an improper term. Even the Roman Catholic Church practices exorcism.

Campbell: Well as it’s pointed out in scripture, the so-called devil refers to itself as Legion. ‘We are known by many names’. I would suggest that devil and ego and pride are just a few of the names. And devil and demon were the words of the time. Just as ‘it rained for forty days and forty nights’ or ‘Jesus went into the desert for forty days and forty night’, those were expressions of the time. Not meant to be taken literally forty calendar days. It simply meant that it rained for a long, undetermined time. Similar to using a term like ‘fortnight’ which is about two weeks, or saying ‘I’m starving’ when in fact it’s an exaggeration. A way of saying I’m hungry.
So, no, Jesus was not wrong, he was speaking in terms that the people of the time would understand.
I’m not suggesting that Jesus didn’t know what he was speaking about when he commanded the devil to leave a body. But what if the ‘possessed’ person was simply having an epileptic seizure? And Jesus healed the man of it? The people of the time wouldn’t know what epilepsy was and so to them, a person shaking, screaming and foaming at the mouth inexplicably would seem like possession. A solar eclipse would have been read as a bad omen to these people. And if it was a medical problem, even people today are possessed by medical problems. We’ve simply grown and have a better (but not complete) understanding of things.

Shade: Oh come on, you’re calling demonic possession epilepsy? That’s like blaming the parting of the Red Sea on lunar tides. And there are people today who are still being possessed. As I mentioned, the Catholic Church performs exorcisms, they can tell if the person has a medical problem. And now, you’re determining what Jesus meant versus what he said. So should we change the written word to match our terminology?

Campbell: Oh no, not at all. Keep scripture as it is, but be careful when taking things literally. Sometimes symbolism is an effective way to convey meaning and even scripture uses this device. And sometimes we need to take our historical knowledge and help it to grow, just as we’re growing.

Shade: Scripture is complete, it’s God’s word. God’s truth. God doesn’t need your help.

Campbell: There was a time when our forefathers thought it was a good idea to insulate our grade schools with asbestos. And then along the way we learned it cause disastrous health problems.

Shade: Gut God didn’t tell out forefathers to use asbestos as insulation. That was something we did all on our own. We’re talking about scripture and what it says. I don’t know I’m having a lot of trouble with this. It sounds to me like you’re splitting hairs over calling a rose by another name. It’s still a rose no matter what you call it.

Campbell: Yes it is. And the devil by any other name is still extremely dangerous. I would just like to see our focus shift from the external to the internal. To simply give each other hope that we can change things.

Shade: Then by that rationale, Jesus wasted his time. What’s the point of having a Saviour then? You’re negating Jesus Christ as our Saviour at the same time as negating the devil.

Campbell: Jesus still remains the blueprint. The how and the hope. Can you think of another example of someone who did not once give in to his ego? Even in the end? Even through torturous death?

Shade: The devil is real. Satan exists. The devil will always be here to tempt us and lead us astray. That’s just reality. By saying anything else you’re being misled and you’re misleading others. It’s only through Jesus Christ that we can be saved from eternal damnation. Without the Saviour, there is no salvation for anyone.

(Heavy sigh)

Well, our time is up and I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I appreciate your time….

Campbell: Thank you for having me, Paul. It’s been my pleasure.

Shade: We’ve just been talking to Lucas Campbell. I want to caution my listeners to be careful. Pray for guidance and a clear mind and a clear conscience before you pick up one of his books. And it wouldn’t help to pray for Mr. Campbell. He makes a convincing argument, but I don’t know it’s a little too new age for me. And a rose by any other name is still a rose. The devil is real folks. He exists. Only by proclaiming Jesus Christ as your Saviour can you expect to make it to Heaven. Period. If you think the devil doesn’t exist, you’re only fooling yourselves and I think you’re running the danger of allowing Satan complete control over your life.
Anyway, we’re out of time and I’m out of skepticism, so until tomorrow, take care and God bless.

ANNOUNCER: Tomorrow we’ll be taking your calls on the question: ‘If Jesus were alive today, what kind of car would he drive?’