What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

Yes, your posts seem to indicate that some of your views are a significant departure from what the Church believes and teaches.

Hmmm. it is interesting how you bring up “significant departures from what the Church believes and teaches.” Let us examine this teaching:

Matthew 5:42New International Version (NIV)

42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Would you say that the Church teaches that it is loving to give to those who ask of us?

This is not a problem, OneSheep. Non-Catholic, and even anti-Catholic views are still welcome at CAF. The only potential problem is that you have listed your affiliation as 'Catholic". Some people that may not be well educated about their faith may see your posts, and believe that they represent Catholic faith, when sometimes they do not. This can be cause for public scandal, and can be misleading.

There are a multitude of opinions that fall under the parameters of our faith, guanophore. As I once relayed, a priest once told us that in his opinion, no one goes to hell unless they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way. I also relayed a book co-authored by a Catholic priest that invited people to reinterpret anything from scripture that does not sound like “good news” or coming from a God who loves us without limit. Are these also “public scandals”, guanophore?

Another priest told me that the CAF has people who think that they “have all the answers”, that they have a corner on the Truth. You are worried about my writing “representing” Catholic faith: are you saying that your labeling of my opinions as humanistic, and saying my listing of “affiliation as ‘Catholic’ is a potential problem” is representative of Catholics, and is representative of Benedictines, Catholics, Prayer Warriors, Radio Club Supporters, Forum supporters, and Forum elders? Or, is it possible that such pointing to my affiliation as a “potential problem” is in itself a “potential problem”? Do you see the irony?

Is it Catholic to say that we “have all the Catholic answers” and individually give ourselves the authority to point to another person’s views and say that they are anti-Catholic, etc when there is no explicit evidence of a person’s views being anti-Catholic?

I am saying that the revelation of God through Scripture and Sacred Tradition are on a veyr different level than speculations that arise from the human imagination.

Everything you have said in condemning my views is “you imply this” or “you imply that”. From where comes implication, guanophore? The human imagination, perhaps?

You are right, following Jesus and being with him does not in itself evidence that Judas had come to devalue Jesus in any way.

Actually, I changed the sentence but failed to change “devalue” to “value”. But either way, Judas’ time with Jesus does not in itself necessarily lead to either a valuing or a devaluing. The valuing level is a much more complex occurrence than something based on “time spent”. A person can value another, and then a minute later, not.

 

[OneSheep]

I think they would know empathy, have an experience of empathy? We need not experience the exact feelings, experience, thoughts of an individual to be able to understand a person.
Although I do think if we have experienced some hardships/trials it helps us develop empathy, not always though.

Thanks.

Yes, I agree! If they had been able to empathize with Jesus, they would have known more.

However, because they were angry, their empathy was basically blocked. This is what happens when we get angry, right? Those people were probably not psychopaths or sociopaths for the most part, so they would have all had the ability to empathize.

So, the question comes to change a little, but it is still the same question, and I am very interested in your answer. What could the crowd have known such that if they had known, they would have empathized rather than condemned?

For example, if they had known that Jesus spoke the truth, would they have empathized with Him?

thanks again!

 

[guanophore]

It appears that you skipped this question, but responded to my post to Simpleas.

You were rigtht OS, I did miss this question. I glanced by it, thinking it was the previous one, to which it seems very similar.

Are you able-to-respond to this question, or are you irresponsible?

So, I already commented this question has an embedded accusatory and what seems to me, hostile approach. It is similar to asking “when did you stop beating your wife?”

 Can you respond to this question concerning your knowledge of truth?  What you did was say that my views have "vast discrepancies" from what the Church believes.

I thought the previous response I gave was sufficient to address your question, but I will state it again for clarity. It is the CC that is the custodian of Truth. It is she in whom the doctrines of Christ are infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit.

Some, not all of your views constitute discrepancies.

I think you can see in my previous post above, that a person can be asked for a response without condemning the person at all.

While I do agree that it is possible to ask for a response without being condemning, I do not think you post is a good example. It has a condemnatory tone, in that it is accusatory and implicity hostile. I suppose it is possible that the questioner can accuse another of irresponsibility without being condemning, but that does not seem to be the case here.

  If a person is "able to respond" without hesitation, falsehood, denial, etc, and simply state the reasons for their actions, we consider them "responsible".

I have no idea where you got this definition of responsibility, but I think it lacks some critical aspects. A particular case comes to mind of an incident two girls stole money from a nine year old girl scout selling cookies. . This short video meets your criteria. Both girls are honest, do not deny what they did, and simply state the reasons for their actions. Somehow they don’t seem “responsible” to me.

They were unmerciful. I expect you will say that they did not know what they were doing, because they did not consider the victim with any dignity or value.

A person who refuses to respond for their actions or words and continues to make derogatory remarks is behaving irresponsibly, this is the root of the definition.

This is not to say that Jesus’ refusal to respond to interrogation was irresponsible. He refused to respond, I think, because He saw it as part of His mission to die a poor man, a person not rich in popularity. The Truth is, Jesus could respond. However, most of the time that people refuse to respond to a direct question they are hiding something.

I think the girls in the video certainly responded for their actions and words.

Your own example is self refuting of your basic accusation. You have given a very good example of someone who was “responsible” but did not respond to questions. The implication that , if someone does not answer a question with an embedded accusation ( like "when did you stop beating your wife?) is “hiding something” is another accusation without foundation.

I am at a loss about your comment on “derogatory remarks”. Perhaps you find my classification of your ideas as Humanistic derogatory? If so I meant nothing of the kind, only to point out that while there are some overlaps with Humanism and Catholicism, there are also vast discrepancies.

It is puzzling to me that you seem to have your feelings hurt when it is pointed out to you that your ideas are not Catholic. You seem to take these responses of mine as 'derogatory remarks" and interpret them as disrepectful, yet you do not see your own embedded accusation s as condemnatory.

There are very positive aspects of many psychologies and theophisies, including Humanism. Such world views should not be condemed here on CAF, no should “derogatory remarks” be made to Humanists or about Humanist world views. It seems that you consider my responses "derogatory " because you wish to believe that your ideas are Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

 Hmmm. it is interesting how you bring up "significant departures from what the Church believes and teaches."   Let us examine this teaching:

Matthew 5:42New International Version (NIV)

42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Would you say that the Church teaches that it is loving to give to those who ask of us?

I think it depends upon the context. There are times that giving things to those that ask them is contrary to Love.

There are a multitude of opinions that fall under the parameters of our faith, guanophore. As I once relayed, a priest once told us that in his opinion, no one goes to hell unless they go screaming and kicking against God the whole way.

Yes. I must confess that I cannot disagree with what this priest said.

 I also relayed a book co-authored by a Catholic priest that invited people to reinterpret anything from scripture that does not sound like "good news" or coming from a God who loves us without limit.  Are these also "public scandals", guanophore?

Is this the book you claimed that had an imprimataur, but does not in fact have one?

No priest has the authority to interpret the Scriptures in a manner that is not consistent with the Sacred Tradition. Perhaps this priest’s comment is what has given you license to reject certain parts of Scripture as inspired and inerrant?

Another priest told me that the CAF has people who think that they “have all the answers”, that they have a corner on the Truth.

I can certainly vouch for this observation!

You are worried about my writing "representing" Catholic faith:

Actually I am not. There is no problem with writing whatever views you wish to represent. My concern is that you have publicly identified yourself as Catholic, yet champion views that are contrary to the Catholic faith.

are you saying that your labeling of my opinions as humanistic, and saying my listing of “affiliation as ‘Catholic’ is a potential problem” is representative of Catholics, and is representative of Benedictines, Catholics, Prayer Warriors, Radio Club Supporters, Forum supporters, and Forum elders? Or, is it possible that such pointing to my affiliation as a “potential problem” is in itself a “potential problem”?

No.

 Do you see the irony?

No.

The potential problem does not exist in your claimed affiliation, or in the content of your posts. The potential problem exists in the discrepancy between the two.

 Is it Catholic to say that we "have all the Catholic answers"

I do not think so, but it is Catholic to say that the Church has all the answers God considered necessary to our salvation.

and individually give ourselves the authority to point to another person's views and say that they are anti-Catholic, etc when there is no explicit evidence of a person's views being anti-Catholic?

Every Catholic has the responsibility to learn their faith, and to be able to discern when other views are inconsistent with that faith. There are anti-Catholic views on CAF. They are permitted, so long as those holding them comply with the forum rules. I do not see that you have violated any forum rules with your anti-Catholic ideas.

The fact that you do not accept certain evidence does not mean that the evidence does not exist. It seems that you have taken the comments by a priest that you should reinterpret the Scriptures to support your ideas to be your standard. This is certainly your freedom to do, but that does not make it Catholic.

  Everything you have said in condemning my views is "you imply this" or "you imply that"....

I think you have misunderstood me, OneSheep. I am not condemning your views. I am just pointing out that some of them are not Catholic. Why would anyone assume that ideas are worthy of condemnation just because they are not Catholic? Yes, it does seem to be a product of human imagination!

 

[guanophore]

If they had been able to empathize with Jesus, they would have known more.

I agree that empathy does help us know more about others, but God does not require that we have empathy in order to be responsible for our actions. Do you think the girls in the news story I linked above should not be held responsible because they lack empathy?

 However, because they were angry, their empathy was basically blocked.  This is what happens when we get angry, right?  Those people were probably not psychopaths or sociopaths for the most part, so they would have all had the ability to empathize.

I think even Judas had this ability to empathize, as he was filled with grief when he realized that turning over innocent blood resulted in harm to Jesus. He did not have to be scouraged with those Roman whips to know that it was a gruesome and painful experience.

I am not sure what is blocking the empathy of the girls in the news story above, but clearly they lack empathy.

So, the question comes to change a little, but it is still the same question, and I am very interested in your answer.  What could the crowd have known such that if they had known, they would have empathized rather than condemned?

I think it is a mistake to assume that they would act differently if they knew more. They knew sufficient to make the moral choice before them.

The Catholic Church does not teach that we need to have complete knowledge, appreciation of the infinite value of the human person, divine insight, perception or empathetic ability to make right moral choices. We are given sufficient knowlege to make the choice that is before us in the moment.

For example, if they had known that Jesus spoke the truth, would they have empathized with Him?

Do you honestly believe that no one present believed that Jesus spoke the truth?

This is the same crowd that welcomed Him to the city!

 Actually, I changed the sentence but failed to change "devalue" to "value".  But either way, Judas' time with Jesus does not in itself necessarily lead to either a valuing or a devaluing.  The valuing level is a much more complex occurrence than something based on "time spent".  A person can value another, and then a minute later, not.

I agree, but three years of daily interaction with Jesus certainly placed him in a position to know and understand Him (and value Him) much more than the “crowd” that was present and greeting him as He came into the city.

 

[simpleas]

Yes, I agree! If they had been able to empathize with Jesus, they would have known more.

However, because they were angry, their empathy was basically blocked. This is what happens when we get angry, right? Those people were probably not psychopaths or sociopaths for the most part, so they would have all had the ability to empathize.

So, the question comes to change a little, but it is still the same question, and I am very interested in your answer. What could the crowd have known such that if they had known, they would have empathized rather than condemned?

For example, if they had known that Jesus spoke the truth, would they have empathized with Him?

thanks again!

I’d have to think about that, I thought having empathy was the answer to not condemning. Yes we anger easily when we see an evil act, or hear someone spouting off some evil language, but we learn to control our anger, or else there’d be much more killings in this world.
I can only assume that in the time and place, it was unforgivable for any man to claim he was the son of God, and that one can not forgive anyone else’s sins only God could, so the penalty was death, innocent in good works or not.

 

[simpleas]

I wish this were true.

But people that do know God still do terrible things.

It is true that only God can know the mind and the heart. We only know in part, just as the crowd only knew in part.God holds us responsible for what we know, but there are also consequences even when there is ignorance.

I think we want people to recognize their wrongs so they will change them. I do not think punishment is the best method for change.

I suppose it is a matter of speculation, but I think Judas knew Jesus was innocent from the beginning. I think he wanted to force God’s timetable.

I think you lost me here. We are made in the image and likeness of God. Human beings are capable of very holy thinking, as well as very evil thinking. He gave this same ability to the angels, and Lucifer and 1/3 of the angelic host departed from God. How then can we say that their thinking was “God’s thinking”? Jesus was quite clear with the pharisees that they were thinking like their father, the devil!

Certainly, but for Catholics, the witness of the Scriptures and the faith of the Church carry greater weight than the imagination, since we consider these sources revelation from God.

Judas was included with the Apostles in everything Jesus did. He had the same revelation given to each of them. He took the Apostles’ aside and explained everything to them. I think the lack of evidence speaks volumes. The only thing written about Judas during that entire three year period is that he liked to take money from the purse. If the gospel writers had other things to say, why would they not? They even ascribed good motives to him when he exited the upper room. To them, he appeared as one of them, sharing the same faith and ministry, until he turned Jesus over to the Sanhedrin. You are right, following Jesus and being with him does not in itself evidence that Judas had come to devalue Jesus in any way. It seems that Judas believed Jesus was the Messiah, and that he was perfectly able and willing to save Himself from death. He had done it before, and there was no reason to think he could not do it again.

Regarding the lost me bit above.

We are not Angels, they were/are completely spirit as far as I know, so I don’t know how to compare a spiritual human to a complete spirit.
I was thinking along the lines that if people who have brought the faith to where it is now through holy living (and a little bit of unholy) their thinking was mostly in line with God’s thinking, even when their thinking was not so holy.
We share the same mind set as they did to a degree as we agree with what they interpreted as the word of God to be what we now know.

Hope that makes sense…What I think and how I try to write it doesn’t always work for me!

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

I do not see that you have violated any forum rules with your anti-Catholic ideas…

Are you saying, guanophore, that it is the Truth that my ideas are anti-Catholic?

 

[OneSheep]

I’d have to think about that, I thought having empathy was the answer to not condemning. Yes we anger easily when we see an evil act, or hear someone spouting off some evil language, but we learn to control our anger, or else there’d be much more killings in this world.

Hi!

I think that we are using vocabulary in different ways, but not a problem. I look at empathy as a human skill, an aspect of our nature. Even the most evil-doing drug lords usually have the ability to empathize, but they also condemn their enemies and have them killed. In order to kill, our empathy is blocked. The blocking is not chosen, it is a blocking that happens automatically with resentment or anger.

So yes, having empathy is the answer to not condemning, but when a person’s resentment/condemnation has been triggered, it is awareness that will undo this triggered response, right? Once the triggered response is averted, then empathy will immediately go back in place, to the degree that we are concerned about the person we empathize with.

I think that you would agree that “controlling our anger” is not empathy, only a discipline to refrain from acting on an emotion, right? Empathy has to do with actually experiencing the other’s suffering in some way.

I can only assume that in the time and place, it was unforgivable for any man to claim he was the son of God, and that one can not forgive anyone else’s sins only God could, so the penalty was death, innocent in good works or not.

Well, if an act is not forgiven, then by definition the act is resented or condemned. Would you agree that if the people had known the Truth, which is that Jesus is God-incarnate, that they would not have crucified Him? What I mean by “known” is not “they heard this”, but “known” has to do with actually seeing the truth of the statement.

Or, there something else that the crowd could have known that would have changed their decision to call for His crucifixion?

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

Are you saying, guanophore, that it is the Truth that my ideas are anti-Catholic?

Surely not ALL of them, are they? :bigyikes:

But even if they were, anti-Catholic ideas are permitted here, so long as the person purporting them is respectful about it.

Perhaps “anti” is not the best decscription? It means against, or contrary to, which does seem appropriate but I have not seen you attack the Catholic Church like many “anti” folks do, so I did not mean to imply that.

 

[BarbTh]

“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”

For me, this is also where Jesus asks forgiveness for all the sins of the world, past present and future. We do not insight at all the Glory of God and hence we do not fully understand at all, not one bit, just what we are doing when we commit sin.
The above statement of Jesus, is of course, also a request for forgiveness for crucifying Him…which would be included in my first paragraph.

 

[OneSheep]

Surely not ALL of them, are they? :bigyikes:

But even if they were, anti-Catholic ideas are permitted here, so long as the person purporting them is respectful about it.

Perhaps “anti” is not the best decscription? It means against, or contrary to, which does seem appropriate but I have not seen you attack the Catholic Church like many “anti” folks do, so I did not mean to imply that.

I appreciate the possible change in language.

Yes, “anti” means “contrary to” or “against”. So, are you saying that some of my ideas are anti-Catholic, or none of them? Just for clarification.

 

[OneSheep]

“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do”

For me, this is also where Jesus asks forgiveness for all the sins of the world, past present and future. We do not insight at all the Glory of God and hence we do not fully understand at all, not one bit, just what we are doing when we commit sin.
The above statement of Jesus, is of course, also a request for forgiveness for crucifying Him…which would be included in my first paragraph.

Hi Barb(?}

Yes, I agree. I also see enormous meaning in the verse. I look at my own past deeds, and when I did wrong, I did not have a clue what I was doing. Have you looked at your own past and seen the same, that you did not know what you were doing? Paul looked at his persecution of Christians and observed the same.

Thanks!

 

[guanophore]

I appreciate the possible change in language.

Yes, “anti” means “contrary to” or “against”. So, are you saying that some of my ideas are anti-Catholic, or none of them? Just for clarification.

Well, I can only go on those things you have posted, but it seems to me that there are only certain ideas you promote that are contrary to the Catholic faith.

I affirm that there are many parts of Humanism that overlap and can be quite consistent with Catholicism.

Even if they were not, however, any ideas you wish to post here that are contrary to the Catholic faith need to be respected. This is a place for the civil exchange of ideas, and there is no requirement that participants espouse Catholic ideas, even those who represent themselves as Catholic and present opposite ideas (although I personally find it problematic).

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

I think that we are using vocabulary in different ways, but not a problem. I look at empathy as a human skill, an aspect of our nature. Even the most evil-doing drug lords usually have the ability to empathize, but they also condemn their enemies and have them killed. In order to kill, our empathy is blocked. The blocking is not chosen, it is a blocking that happens automatically with resentment or anger.

That would seem to be where true empathy does not exist, if a person can feel empathy for only a certain type of person and exclude the other, they have not developed empathy truely.

So yes, having empathy is the answer to not condemning, but when a person’s resentment/condemnation has been triggered, it is awareness that will undo this triggered response, right? Once the triggered response is averted, then empathy will immediately go back in place, to the degree that we are concerned about the person we empathize with.

I think if a person feels resentment/condemnation then they can’t express empathy at all. They could control their emotion, but they wouldn’t be able to feel another’s pain/experience.

I think that you would agree that “controlling our anger” is not empathy, only a discipline to refrain from acting on an emotion, right? Empathy has to do with actually experiencing the other’s suffering in some way.

Yes I agree, I wasn’t saying that controlling our anger was empathy, I just meant in controlling anger we don’t automatically act in a way that would harm the other.

Well, if an act is not forgiven, then by definition the act is resented or condemned. Would you agree that if the people had known the Truth, which is that Jesus is God-incarnate, that they would not have crucified Him? What I mean by “known” is not “they heard this”, but “known” has to do with actually seeing the truth of the statement.

Or, there something else that the crowd could have known that would have changed their decision to call for His crucifixion?

Could be, but when would they have known that? I mean that Jesus was God incarnate, they seemed to believe he was a prophet and welcomed him into the town, and then turned on him, wanting his death and barabbas to be set free. What did they ‘see’ or know about Jesus when they welcomed him, and what did they come to ‘see’ or know about him when they called for his death?

Thanks.

 

[BarbTh]

Hi Barb(?}

Yes, I agree. I also see enormous meaning in the verse. I look at my own past deeds, and when I did wrong, I did not have a clue what I was doing. Have you looked at your own past and seen the same, that you did not know what you were doing? Paul looked at his persecution of Christians and observed the same.

Thanks!

You got it, Barb it is.
Way back in my past, I surely had no idea what in fact I was doing. Moving on in my journey and coming to understanding a remote something of the Glory of God, I came to some realisation of what sin actually is and therefore something of the full weight of past offences. I think this is why some of our saints who have lived such outstandingly good lives can call themselves terrible sinners. They can see or understand something of what sin actually is even the venial. This is not so much because venial sin is sighted as a terrible matter, rather that they can insight something of God’s Glory and their and our relationship to that Glory.
I don’t think that venial sin is such a light matter so much, rather forgiveness of venial sin in many ways outside of the Confessional illustrates the Glory, The Love and Mercy, of our God.

Something like that anyway. Certainly, the words of Jesus “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” is the story of most of us if not all of us.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Barb!

You got it, Barb it is.
Way back in my past, I surely had no idea what in fact I was doing.

I can totally relate to this. In fact, I am pretty wary of saying that I ever know what I am doing. The dawn came all at once for me, more or less. I realized what a fool I was, and since the awareness was so profound, I know fully what it is like to think that I have All Righteousness and Truth on my side, when in fact with my condemning attitude, I put the Law over People. I had made righteousness more important and more valuable than Love itself, more valuable than mercy, more valuable than forgiveness. I had somewhat a Pauline fall-off-the-horse experience.

Moving on in my journey and coming to understanding a remote something of the Glory of God, I came to some realisation of what sin actually is and therefore something of the full weight of past offences. I think this is why some of our saints who have lived such outstandingly good lives can call themselves terrible sinners. They can see or understand something of what sin actually is even the venial. This is not so much because venial sin is sighted as a terrible matter, rather that they can insight something of God’s Glory and their and our relationship to that Glory.
I don’t think that venial sin is such a light matter so much, rather forgiveness of venial sin in many ways outside of the Confessional illustrates the Glory, The Love and Mercy, of our God.

As you write that I know that you are not diminishing the forgiveness of sin inside the Confessional either, that really all forgiveness, as do Love and Mercy, come from God and illustrate His Glory. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions, where he addresses why people sin?

In your own journey did you come to see as St. Thomas Aquinas did, that people do what they think is best?

Something like that anyway. Certainly, the words of Jesus “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do” is the story of most of us if not all of us.

I am searching for the exception, when it is not the story, actually. Do you gather that Stalin, Hitler and Pinochet knew what they were doing?

Thanks for your response!

 

[OneSheep]

Well, I can only go on those things you have posted, but it seems to me that there are only certain ideas you promote that are contrary to the Catholic faith.

I truly appreciate the charitable “seems to me”.

Thanks, guanophore.

 

[OneSheep]

That would seem to be where true empathy does not exist, if a person can feel empathy for only a certain type of person and exclude the other, they have not developed empathy truely.

Well, to me it is not a matter of “type” when empathy-blocking happens. The blocking I describe is not a willed thing. For example, I do recall your reaction to some people doing cruel things to animals. I make the observation that you have a very healthy and natural empathy, Simpleas, you know how much I admire you. If you are like me, though, when you observed such cruelty your empathy toward the evildoers was “shut off” without your willing it. If so, your empathy is developed, but the automatic reaction still happened. Did it happen?

I think if a person feels resentment/condemnation then they can’t express empathy at all. They could control their emotion, but they wouldn’t be able to feel another’s pain/experience.

Yes, I agree. This is what happens to me.

Could be, but when would they have known that? I mean that Jesus was God incarnate, they seemed to believe he was a prophet and welcomed him into the town, and then turned on him, wanting his death and barabbas to be set free. What did they ‘see’ or know about Jesus when they welcomed him, and what did they come to ‘see’ or know about him when they called for his death?

Thanks.

It could be that some saw a future political King enter Jerusalem, but when they heard such things as “forgive your enemies”, they felt huge disappointment, for the Romans were a brutal occupier. I’m sure that there were many individual reasons, even though the crowd mentality was definitely a factor.

Yes, it would have been difficult for them to know that Jesus was God incarnate, but understanding and forgiving souls could have seen that Jesus was a person of value, infinite value, without knowing that He was someone particularly special in a way different than anyone else. Do you agree?

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Well, to me it is not a matter of “type” when empathy-blocking happens. The blocking I describe is not a willed thing. For example, I do recall your reaction to some people doing cruel things to animals. I make the observation that you have a very healthy and natural empathy, Simpleas, you know how much I admire you. If you are like me, though, when you observed such cruelty your empathy toward the evildoers was “shut off” without your willing it. If so, your empathy is developed, but the automatic reaction still happened. Did it happen?

Yes it happened. It does not happen as much as when I was younger, I see things differently now.

Yes, I agree. This is what happens to me.

You mean you can control your emotions, but you can not empathise?

Yes, it would have been difficult for them to know that Jesus was God incarnate, but understanding and forgiving souls could have seen that Jesus was a person of value, infinite value, without knowing that He was someone particularly special in a way different than anyone else. Do you agree?

Yes I think so. I can only read what is available in the scriptures, but that does not encompass every person who was in discussion with the leaders who were calling for Jesus’ death. I’d like to hope there were many understanding and forgiving souls that were not calling for Jesus’ death.
I tend to believe that it takes only a small number of people to say things in a certain manner that injects anger/fear into those who feel the most threatened, and are likely to take action. (that being the high priests/ Pilate etc)
The crowd could have just followed whoever shouted the loudest. But not being there I can only guess.

Thanks Have a good day