What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

I think I understand what you are saying…If a person believes another to be of goodness and holiness they would not condemn that person to death, because they see the beauty of life and goodness in the person and so could not want suffering and death for that person.
Some of us may know or have heard of people who forgive others who have murdered family members, even asked for their pardon, or lesser sentence. One priest I know, ,recently has been putting up on facebook, news reports on cases were families have shown mercy to murderers or people who have caused death by their actions.

The crowd as a whole could have just been “following the crowd”, people can get carried away and join in with the “mob” before they would actually question what it is that is going on.

But where it is uncomfortable is that if some of the high priests saw what Jesus did, they were aware that he was a good and holy man, but one who would go the extra mile and actually sit and talk/eat with sinners, something they themselves wouldn’t do?
There was no limit with Jesus, but there was with them and us at times.

But it was the claim that Jesus was the son of God, not his holiness or any healing’s he did I think, once they knew/confirmed it the priests said “What further need have we of witness? for we ourselves have heard from his own mouth”,

So someone claiming to be the son of God would be put to death, regardless of how holy and good they had been. Maybe.

Well, you again touched on the discrepancy. What did the high priests actually see? Every single miracle can be put into doubt, even the greatest acts of love can be translated into a drive for power, to be self-serving. Jesus was a challenge to their power, and they resented that. He was also a challenge to the norm of holding great resentment toward the Romans, so between these two issues, his popularity was probably always tenuous. I think that we can easily surmise that the high priests found all of Jesus’ merciful acts as suspicious; suspicion is the filter through which we see people doing good things when the person seems to be a threat.

“Miracles? They are a plant, no matter what you hear.” “Good deeds? All that just to be popular.” “He is a fraud, and he blasphemes.” These are the types of thoughts likely going on in the minds of the leadership, not “he is wonderful” or “he is a good, holy man”.

It appears to me that their minds were closed by the threat he posed. He forgave people, which He did not have the authority to do. He challenged rules of the Sabbath, etc. He was challenging the very foundation of Judaism in their view. They were blind. When we are blind, we can’t see miracles. Look at the miracle of the child within the womb! Yet, when the child is seen as a threat, the mother is blind.

So, yes, I agree, the crowd was blind, for a variety of reasons. And yes, though Jesus was “good and holy” to the objective observer, none of those participating in His conviction were objective observers. Anger and resentment blinded them. This is what makes sense in the context of their human nature. Or, am I missing something?

 

[guanophore]

I have seen this homily before. The problem is, we get to this line among others about the mindset of the crowd:

“They knew he was a true prophet, at the very least, and a
holy and wonderfully good man.” I have absolutely no idea where Fr. Most got the idea that this was the mindset of the people who hung Jesus. It makes no sense.

The Scriptures give support for this position, and certainly the triumphal entry does. The same people who acclaimed Him as the Son of David when he arrived are the ones calling for his crucifixion, are they not?

There were at least some present who had come to regard Him as the Son of David, and wanted the Messiah to restore the Kingdom to Israel. Even Jesus HImself said, “if the people are silenced, the very rocks would cry out”. This seems like an awfully strong sentiment of approval.

We do not kill people we see as holy and wonderfully good, no, we kill those we see as worthless and those we condemn. Let us look at the possible thought process:

“Jesus is a prophet, a wonderfully good man, and I think that we should torture him and hang him on a cross.” Does that sound human to you? If this was the case, and humanity behaved in such a random fashion, we would do the same to our own children in the best of relationship. This picture of humanity is simply not what God created.

Do you see what I mean?

This lends support for my contention that Jesus was praying for His executioners, who had not heard Him teach, and did not know He was a good man. They may have heard of Him stirring up the people, but were just putting to death a criminal, which is what they always did, without regard to the person.

That being said, your “picture of humanity is simply not what God created” is not consistent with what God created, either. Human beings have the capacity for great evil, and God created us with that capacity. Pilate wanted to release Jesus, and found no guilt in Him, but had Him cruelly tortured and turned Him over to death anyway, even over and above his wife’s objections!

You seem to believe that “good people” will not do evil things, or only do evil things because they are blind and ignorant, but this is not consistent with what God has revealed to us about human nature.

So, yes, I agree, the crowd was blind, for a variety of reasons. And yes, though Jesus was “good and holy” to the objective observer, none of those participating in His conviction were objective observers. Anger and resentment blinded them. This is what makes sense in the context of their human nature. Or, am I missing something?

Yes, but one must “miss” those “somethings” if one wishes to retain such a concept of human nature. The truths that God has revealed are contrary to it and disruptived. Such a concept of human nature cannot be espoused unless certain facts are not admitted to the equation.

Jesus stated that those who handed Him over had the “greater sin”. This is because they saw more, they knew more. Knowledge increases culpability.

 

[simpleas]

Well, you again touched on the discrepancy. What did the high priests actually see? Every single miracle can be put into doubt, even the greatest acts of love can be translated into a drive for power, to be self-serving. Jesus was a challenge to their power, and they resented that. He was also a challenge to the norm of holding great resentment toward the Romans, so between these two issues, his popularity was probably always tenuous. I think that we can easily surmise that the high priests found all of Jesus’ merciful acts as suspicious; suspicion is the filter through which we see people doing good things when the person seems to be a threat.

“Miracles? They are a plant, no matter what you hear.” “Good deeds? All that just to be popular.” “He is a fraud, and he blasphemes.” These are the types of thoughts likely going on in the minds of the leadership, not “he is wonderful” or “he is a good, holy man”.

It appears to me that their minds were closed by the threat he posed. He forgave people, which He did not have the authority to do. He challenged rules of the Sabbath, etc. He was challenging the very foundation of Judaism in their view. They were blind. When we are blind, we can’t see miracles. Look at the miracle of the child within the womb! Yet, when the child is seen as a threat, the mother is blind.

So, yes, I agree, the crowd was blind, for a variety of reasons. And yes, though Jesus was “good and holy” to the objective observer, none of those participating in His conviction were objective observers. Anger and resentment blinded them. This is what makes sense in the context of their human nature. Or, am I missing something?

I don’t think you are missing anything.

 

[OneSheep]

The Scriptures give support for this position, and certainly the triumphal entry does. The same people who acclaimed Him as the Son of David when he arrived are the ones calling for his crucifixion, are they not?

There were at least some present who had come to regard Him as the Son of David, and wanted the Messiah to restore the Kingdom to Israel. Even Jesus HImself said, “if the people are silenced, the very rocks would cry out”. This seems like an awfully strong sentiment of approval.

This lends support for my contention that Jesus was praying for His executioners, who had not heard Him teach, and did not know He was a good man. They may have heard of Him stirring up the people, but were just putting to death a criminal, which is what they always did, without regard to the person.

That being said, your “picture of humanity is simply not what God created” is not consistent with what God created, either. Human beings have the capacity for great evil, and God created us with that capacity. Pilate wanted to release Jesus, and found no guilt in Him, but had Him cruelly tortured and turned Him over to death anyway, even over and above his wife’s objections!

You seem to believe that “good people” will not do evil things, or only do evil things because they are blind and ignorant, but this is not consistent with what God has revealed to us about human nature.

Yes, but one must “miss” those “somethings” if one wishes to retain such a concept of human nature. The truths that God has revealed are contrary to it and disruptived. Such a concept of human nature cannot be espoused unless certain facts are not admitted to the equation.

Jesus stated that those who handed Him over had the “greater sin”. This is because they saw more, they knew more. Knowledge increases culpability.

It seems that I cannot refuse to respond to your posts, because it would be uncharitable to do so. Are you thinking that you are communicating the truth, and I am not?

God Bless your day

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t think you are missing anything.

Good Morning (oh yeah, afternoon)!

So, what do you think about Judas? Because he knew Jesus better, did he “know” more? And if he “knew” more, does that make him more culpable? As you know, it really depends on what is meant by “culpable”.

Here is the Catholic definition:

Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

So, “culpable” means “blameworthy”, because “moral responsibility” is a given no matter what our mindset is; surely everyone should be able-to-respond (the meaning of “responsibility”) for their acts. When they are not able-to-respond, it has to do with a lack of self-awareness or a lack of ownership of their behavior, which is due to ignorance and denial.

Is Judas more blameworthy? I suppose that depends on who is doing the blaming. It is such a subjective thing, right, whether we think someone is worthy of blame.

Here is an important aspect of the definition:

Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done.

Since “culpability” makes these assumptions, in order to find a person “blameworthy” we have to have already assumed that the person has sufficient awareness and internal consent. However, can we ever make such assumptions? As you know, I have investigated the reasons why people do evil, and I have observed that the more “sufficient awareness and consent” a person has, the less likely they are to do evil, and when a person who is fully consenting with his own inner desire to love, and is fully aware of all the relevant facts, they simply do not choose to do evil. If I remember right, you are uncertain one way or another, correct?

Do you agree with me that either way of looking at this is “Catholic”?

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

Good Morning (oh yeah, afternoon)!

So, what do you think about Judas? Because he knew Jesus better, did he “know” more? And if he “knew” more, does that make him more culpable? As you know, it really depends on what is meant by “culpable”.

Here is the Catholic definition:

Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

So, “culpable” means “blameworthy”, because “moral responsibility” is a given no matter what our mindset is; surely everyone should be able-to-respond (the meaning of “responsibility”) for their acts. When they are not able-to-respond, it has to do with a lack of self-awareness or a lack of ownership of their behavior, which is due to ignorance and denial.

Is Judas more blameworthy? I suppose that depends on who is doing the blaming. It is such a subjective thing, right, whether we think someone is worthy of blame.

Here is an important aspect of the definition:

Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done.

Since “culpability” makes these assumptions, in order to find a person “blameworthy” we have to have already assumed that the person has sufficient awareness and internal consent. However, can we ever make such assumptions? As you know, I have investigated the reasons why people do evil, and I have observed that the more “sufficient awareness and consent” a person has, the less likely they are to do evil, and when a person who is fully consenting with his own inner desire to love, and is fully aware of all the relevant facts, they simply do not choose to do evil. If I remember right, you are uncertain one way or another, correct?

Do you agree with me that either way of looking at this is “Catholic”?

Thanks!

Check out post 263 in the Judas thread, it explains alittle of what I was thinking about Judas.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13776003#post13776003

There’s no doubt Judas knew more about Jesus by being taught by him and experiencing the love and friendship Jesus showed to him and others. What Judas really thought about Jesus we can’t know, but it doesn’t look as though he understood who Jesus actually was at the time he knew him.

Ever heard the expression, ‘where there is blame, there is a claim’.

You are right I am unsure when I should hold people responsible for what they do, there can be so many ripple effects surrounding a persons life, and so to condemn them for a certain act forever makes me uncomfortable. I know God knows what to do, and I can only try to follow in Jesus’ footsteps in regards to mercy and forgiveness.

The thing is, we know people are capable of great evil, but we also know people are capable of changing. So the time they were involved in evil, can be described as moments when they were lost, blind, ignorant, but when something is triggered, when God breaks through so to speak, and they seek goodness, they are no longer lost, blind, ignorant.
But they have got to want it, to seek it too.

 

[guanophore]

It seems that I cannot refuse to respond to your posts, because it would be uncharitable to do so. Are you thinking that you are communicating the truth, and I am not?

God Bless your day

I will not consider it uncharitable if you do not respond, as I have clearly failed to meet the standards you have set for me. It is a consequence of my non-compliance.

You are representing your truth from the point of view of Humanism. We just see things differently.

So, what do you think about Judas? Because he knew Jesus better, did he “know” more? And if he “knew” more, does that make him more culpable? As you know, it really depends on what is meant by “culpable”.

Does it really depend upon what is meant by “culpable”?

Jesus said that those who delivered Him to Pilate had “the greater sin”, because they knew more. Does sin = culpability?

Here is the Catholic definition:

Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

So, “culpable” means “blameworthy”, because “moral responsibility” is a given no matter what our mindset is; surely everyone should be able-to-respond (the meaning of “responsibility”) for their acts. When they are not able-to-respond, it has to do with a lack of self-awareness or a lack of ownership of their behavior, which is due to ignorance and denial.

Glad you are reading your Catholic definitions. Are you saying that one can be morally responsible, even if they are ignorant and blind?

Moral responsibility does not = sin?

Is there no room in this formulation for a refusal to respond? I agree that everyone “should be able to respond”, but we know that people often do not. It is sometimes due to ignorance and denial, but not always. Sometimes it is obstinancy.

Is Judas more blameworthy?  I suppose that depends on who is doing the blaming.  It is such a subjective thing, right, whether we think someone is worthy of blame.

From a Humanistic point of view, yes. But I do not think in this context it is subjective. It is God who decides who is responsible for what.

When the Apostles said Judas left his appointed ministerial office to "go to his own place’ (where he belongs) it seems to indicate that he made choices that had different results than the rest of the Apostles. I don’t want to derail this thread with it, since you already have another thread on this topic.

Here is an important aspect of the definition:

Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done.

Since “culpability” makes these assumptions, in order to find a person “blameworthy” we have to have already assumed that the person has sufficient awareness and internal consent. However, can we ever make such assumptions?

From a Humanistic point of view, yes it is totally subjective and based upon human reasoning, imagination, and assumptions. For Christians there exists a higher source of Truth which sheds light on these matters. Christians accept the Scriptures and inspired, and inerrant, and thus they reveal God’s point of view on events.

As you know, I have investigated the reasons why people do evil, and I have observed that the more "sufficient awareness and consent" a person has, the less likely they are to do evil, and when a person who is fully consenting with his own inner desire to love, and is fully aware of all the relevant facts, they simply do not choose to do evil.

Yes, this is a Humanistic anthropology. It stands in contrast to what God has revealed to humanity.

Do you agree with me that either way of looking at this is "Catholic"?

Thanks!

I accept that you believe your Humanistic views do not conflict with Catholic doctrine.

 

[OneSheep]

You are representing your truth from the point of view of Humanism.

Actually, I am representing truth from my view of Catholicism. So, are you saying that you hold the truth of Catholicism, and I do not?

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I am representing truth from my view of Catholicism. So, are you saying that you hold the truth of Catholicism, and I do not?

I am persuaded that you believe your views are Catholic.

Certainly there are many areas where Humanism and Catholicism overlap.

When your views are compared to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, there are some vast discrepancies.

The Church holds the Truth.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Check out post 263 in the Judas thread, it explains alittle of what I was thinking about Judas.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13776003#post13776003

There’s no doubt Judas knew more about Jesus by being taught by him and experiencing the love and friendship Jesus showed to him and others. What Judas really thought about Jesus we can’t know, but it doesn’t look as though he understood who Jesus actually was at the time he knew him.

Yes, I agree, it does not look as though Judas understood who Jesus was.

As you may recall, my view is that even though we cannot know what Judas really thought, we can examine all the possible mindsets that would lead us to do what Judas did.

Ever heard the expression, ‘where there is blame, there is a claim’.

I had to look it up, its an English term, right? Yes, there was injury.

You are right I am unsure when I should hold people responsible for what they do, there can be so many ripple effects surrounding a persons life, and so to condemn them for a certain act forever makes me uncomfortable. I know God knows what to do, and I can only try to follow in Jesus’ footsteps in regards to mercy and forgiveness.

Well, we have discussed this before, I think. I look at condemnation as more of a triggered reaction. It’s not so much “I think I have decided to condemn this person” rather than the gut working faster than the reasoning: “I condemn”. So, yes, when we are able to disconnect from, or transcend the “gut reaction”, we can think in terms of whether or not our we should allow ourselves to do such condemnation. Note: “holding people responsible” is not the same as condemning them, right?

The thing is, we know people are capable of great evil, but we also know people are capable of changing. So the time they were involved in evil, can be described as moments when they were lost, blind, ignorant, but when something is triggered, when God breaks through so to speak, and they seek goodness, they are no longer lost, blind, ignorant.
But they have got to want it, to seek it too.

Yes, the change is when they are no longer blind or ignorant. The person has forgiven, they have taken the door of conversion, as Pope Benedict says. Pope Benedict wrote that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” is a door to conversion. It is a call to know what we are doing. People who are behaving unmercifully do not know what they are doing, right?

And yes, I agree, God’s grace can come in the form of awareness. As St. Augustine said:

“It is through the Spirit that we see that whatever exists in any way is good.”

Thanks again, Simpleas!

 

[OneSheep]

When your views are compared to what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, there are some vast discrepancies.

The Church holds the Truth.

So, are you saying that you know the truth, and that the truth you know is that my views have some vast discrepancies from what the Catholic Church believes, and that it is also true that your own views do not have vast discrepancies?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I agree, it does not look as though Judas understood who Jesus was.

At the very least, Judas knew that he had betrayed innocent blood.

As you may recall, my view is that even though we cannot know what Judas really thought, we can examine all the possible mindsets that would lead us to do what Judas did.

This is a Humanistic approach to analyzing the situation. It is also a fascinating psychological exercise. For Catholics, though, the Truth is not found in various human “mindsets” but in what has been revealed by God in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

“holding people responsible” is not the same as condemning them, right?

Not at all. Condenmation has a sense of finality to it, as though the person will not, or could not repent of their course of thinking/action.

 People who are behaving unmercifully do not know what they are doing, right?

Some people do not, but many, perhaps most, are willfully and knowingly cruel (unmerciful). For example, Pilate did not find any guilt in Jesus, yet he had Him scouraged and handed Him over to be crucified, to please the Jews. He had political reasons for his actions.

And yes, I agree, God’s grace can come in the form of awareness. As St. Augustine said:

“It is through the Spirit that we see that whatever exists in any way is good.”

Which is why Humanism has many good qualities.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

Yes, the change is when they are no longer blind or ignorant. The person has forgiven, they have taken the door of conversion, as Pope Benedict says. Pope Benedict wrote that “forgive them, for they know not what they do” is a door to conversion. It is a call to know what we are doing. People who are behaving unmercifully do not know what they are doing, right?

And yes, I agree, God’s grace can come in the form of awareness. As St. Augustine said:

“It is through the Spirit that we see that whatever exists in any way is good.”

I don’t think people who are unmerciful can know what they are doing because they wouldn’t be unmerciful if they knew God.
It can be strange to say this, because in so many cases, it seems as though people know exactly what they are doing.

Yes I suppose one can hold someone responsible for a crime, but not condemn them, we seem to want people to recognise that what they did was wrong, so they should be punished for it, but not condemned forever.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by guanophore

At the very least, Judas knew that he had betrayed innocent blood.

But this was after he had committed the sin. Before he knew what he had done he was not intending to think of Jesus as innocent I don’t think…just seems like that.

This is a Humanistic approach to analyzing the situation. It is also a fascinating psychological exercise. For Catholics, though, the Truth is not found in various human “mindsets” but in what has been revealed by God in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

No but we get our teachings interpreted by humans who think, if God is in everyone, then any thinking from a human is God’s thinking to some degree?
Should we not look into how and why people did and thought about God and each other 2,000 years ago?

Thanks

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Guanophore,

At the very least, Judas knew that he had betrayed innocent blood.

Yes, at least afterward he may have known this, before turning him over, there is no evidence of such awareness in scripture. Being with/following is not in itself evidence that Judas had come to devalue Jesus in some way. We have some evidence of the opposite.

This is a Humanistic approach to analyzing the situation. It is also a fascinating psychological exercise. For Catholics, though, the Truth is not found in various human “mindsets” but in what has been revealed by God in Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

So, are you saying that the truth of Catholicism is that we do not consider the thinking, the mindsets, of people, but instead of such consideration look toward scripture and tradition to know what people are thinking? Or, are you saying that Catholics look toward Scripture and Sacred Tradition as evidence of what a person is thinking? In this case, though I am not familiar with the details of “Humanism”, it seems as though both approaches involve consideration of mindset, that is, what people are thinking at a certain time, using available evidence. Are you saying that Catholics through the centuries have not been considering what people are thinking, that this is modern, “humanistic” phenomenon?

Some people do not, but many, perhaps most, are willfully and knowingly cruel (unmerciful). For example, Pilate did not find any guilt in Jesus, yet he had Him scouraged and handed Him over to be crucified, to please the Jews. He had political reasons for his actions.

So, the Catholic Truth is that Pilate knowingly and willingly was cruel to a person at least as valuable as his own child? (If, of course, Pilate had children and was capable of empathy)

Which is why Humanism has many good qualities.

A quote from St. Augustine is evidence that Humanism has many good qualities?

 

[OneSheep]

So, are you saying that you know the truth, and that the truth you know is that my views have some vast discrepancies from what the Catholic Church believes, and that it is also true that your own views do not have vast discrepancies?

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

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

 

[OneSheep]

I don’t think people who are unmerciful can know what they are doing because they wouldn’t be unmerciful if they knew God.
It can be strange to say this, because in so many cases, it seems as though people know exactly what they are doing.

Yes I suppose one can hold someone responsible for a crime, but not condemn them, we seem to want people to recognise that what they did was wrong, so they should be punished for it, but not condemned forever.

Hi!

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

Yes! It does seem like people know what they are doing, but as Jesus observed, they do not. As you said, people acting unmercifully do not know what they are doing.

So, what could a person know, such that they would not behave unmercifully?

Thanks!

 

[simpleas]

Hi!

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

Yes! It does seem like people know what they are doing, but as Jesus observed, they do not. As you said, people acting unmercifully do not know what they are doing.

So, what could a person know, such that they would not behave unmercifully?

Thanks!

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.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t think people who are unmerciful can know what they are doing because they wouldn’t be unmerciful if they knew God.

I wish this were true.

But people that do know God still do terrible things.

It can be strange to say this, because in so many cases, it seems as though people know exactly what they are doing.

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.

Yes I suppose one can hold someone responsible for a crime, but not condemn them, we seem to want people to recognise that what they did was wrong, so they should be punished for it, but not condemned forever.

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.

But this was after he had committed the sin. Before he knew what he had done he was not intending to think of Jesus as innocent I don’t think…just seems like that.

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.

No but we get our teachings interpreted by humans who think, if God is in everyone, then any thinking from a human is God’s thinking to some degree?

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!

Should we not look into how and why people did and thought about God and each other 2,000 years ago?

Thanks

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.

Yes, at least afterward he may have known this, before turning him over, there is no evidence of such awareness in scripture. Being with/following is not in itself evidence that Judas had come to devalue Jesus in some way. We have some evidence of the opposite.

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.

 

[guanophore]

So, are you saying that the truth of Catholicism is that we do not consider the thinking, the mindsets, of people, but instead of such consideration look toward scripture and tradition to know what people are thinking?

No, I did not say that. The church does not discourage an active fantasy life unless it leads a person into sin.

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.

Or, are you saying that Catholics look toward Scripture and Sacred Tradition as evidence of what a person is thinking? In this case, though I am not familiar with the details of “Humanism”, it seems as though both approaches involve consideration of mindset, that is, what people are thinking at a certain time, using available evidence.

I am sure it seems that way to you.

The Catholic faith is based on the mindset of God, not humans. We look to divine sources to see what Truth has been revealed to us.

Are you saying that Catholics through the centuries have not been considering what people are thinking, that this is modern, “humanistic” phenomenon?

It is clear from the writings of the fathers, doctors, and saints that there has been a great deal of speculation about what people think. Not only Catholics through the centuries, but human beings from all walks of like practice such mentalizing.

Humanism is an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural sources of information. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems. One sign of this might be saying that the Scriptures represent “human” points of view, when they do not reveal what a Humanist defines as the right character.

So, the Catholic Truth is that Pilate knowingly and willingly was cruel to a person at least as valuable as his own child? (If, of course, Pilate had children and was capable of empathy)

I cannot see how this Humanistic construction can be forced into the Scriptural evidence.

For Catholics, the Scriptures have a different level of authority than human philosophy or psychology.

The practice of reading one’s own point of view into the Scriptures is called “eisogesis”.

Humanism has many good qualities?

Yes of course! Just because something is man made does not mean it has no good qualities.

Catholics just consider what God has revealed to be of an all together different and higher quality.

It appears that you skipped this question

I did not skip it. I did not respond to it in the framework it was posed, which I found potentially contentious. Sometimes I find black and white thinking annoying.

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

This is a good example of a coercive tactic. It places pressure on the respondent to react to what was posed, or be perceived as "irresponsible.

The truth is that I can choose not to respond to any questions or postings on CAF, but that does not make me “irresponsible”. It actually comes across as rather accusatory.

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.

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

What the Church believes and teaches is found in the Catechism, the Scriptures, and the Teaching of the Magesterium.

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.