Heartsick Boy Asks If Atheist Dad Is In Heaven. Pope Francis Reveals The Answer With A Hug.

[Thomas II]

God is the datum. Jesus wants us to understand that there is only One objectively true datum.

Very good indeed!

And that is the first thing the Pope said to the child: "God is the one who says who goes to heaven".

He taught with love and about grace.

This is a good Pope.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

People without faith have no datum to know what "good" is.

Mark 10:18

"And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone."

What is the meaning of this?

God is the datum. The ne plus ultra. If you don't think there even is a "gold standard" then how can you do good works? Jesus wants us to understand that there is only One objectively true datum. (If there were many - if we can all decide for ourselves what is 'good' according to our own post modernism - then the word good becomes meaningless.)...

That is certainly one interpretation of the text, but it is contradicted by the view of most believers that God himself is "good". The problem then becomes that God cannot actually be judged "good" unless there is a metascale of goodness that exists independently of God. IOW, Jesus cannot logically be claiming that God is good without vitiating the argument that God alone defines what is good. If God himself is located on the scale of goodness, then the concept of goodness just spins around in meaningless circularity. What all of us, including believers, really base our value judgments on is an idealized notion of what we think society approves of. As the ultimate social authority, God be used to override social conventions, but those conventions are fully human in scale. So God can command soldiers to slaughter babies and call that act "good", even though modern social convention treats such behavior as inherently bad.

I think that the Biblical passage reflects historical reasoning that held Jesus to be elevated to divine status only after his scapegoat-inspired martyrdom. That is why he asked John the Baptist to baptize him. What would be the sense of that unless Jesus had sins to be cleansed of? Jesus ended up as the ultimate sin-bearer (i.e. "scapegoat") for humanity. This view contradicts most Christian mythology, which has Jesus as divine before crucifixion, but it is compatible with the so-called heretical view that Jesus was just an ordinary human being.

 

[Lion IRC]

God is the datum. The ne plus ultra. If you don't think there even is a "gold standard" then how can you do good works? Jesus wants us to understand that there is only One objectively true datum. (If there were many - if we can all decide for ourselves what is 'good' according to our own post modernism - then the word good becomes meaningless.)
BTW - Jesus tells us that He is the way. The way to get somewhere? (Direction) The way to do something? (How)
Both interpretations imply the need for an ontological 'destination' to actually exist. And an optimum way to efficiently get there.

I have faith that God really is The True North.
But I have no doubt that True North actually exists

That is certainly one interpretation of the text, but it is contradicted by the view of most believers that God himself is "good".

Contradicted?

The problem then becomes that God cannot actually be judged "good" unless there is a metascale of goodness that exists independently of God.

Why must goodness be independent of God if His goodness is intrinsic and is the very reason people see Him as the 'gold standard'. You're arguing that True North must exist independently of True North so that people can judge where True North really is.

IOW, Jesus cannot logically be claiming that God is good without vitiating the argument that God alone defines what is good.

WUT?
If Jesus only ever tells the truth, what else would He say about God?

If God himself is located on the scale of goodness, then the concept of goodness just spins around in meaningless circularity.

On the scale of Good, Better, Best... where would God be located and in what way is is that circularity? Can there BE anything better than the best?
Anselm's ontological argument says no. There is nothing circular about using a superlative scale of goodness where God is the ne plus ultra.

So God can command soldiers to slaughter babies and call that act "good", even though modern social convention treats such behavior as inherently bad.

Social convention has no difficulty with the concept of the end justifying the means.
Is it 'inherently bad' to deliberately inflict pain on an innocent person?
You can't answer can you? Because maybe it's a dentist inflicting the pain.
How many babies were slaughtered at Hiroshima?

I think that the Biblical passage reflects historical reasoning that held Jesus to be elevated to divine status only after his scapegoat-inspired martyrdom. That is why he asked John the Baptist to baptize him. What would be the sense of that unless Jesus had sins to be cleansed of?

You need to go back and read the text. Jesus agreed with John's reasoning that He (Jesus) didn't need to repent, didn't need to be baptised - to have sins washed away. Jesus explained the real reason. "But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he [John the Baptist] consented."

 

[Copernicus]

Lion, I don't think that this is an appropriate thread to debate theology and heresies. I only wanted to make the point that the orthodox tradition is one of many competing versions of early Christianity. So that particular part of the narrative that you cited might well have been interpreted differently in antiquity, when the concept of Christ's divinity was more fluid. I don't expect to convince you of the nature of the contradiction, given your view that faith can override conventional logic. We've had that discussion elsewhere.

 

[Lion IRC]

Lion, I don't think that this is an appropriate thread to debate theology and heresies.

I agree. So can we get back to what the Pope said about good works and what's in your heart and baptism and heaven and hell and God's will and the meaning of "Good" and..........

 

[Copernicus]

Lion, I don't think that this is an appropriate thread to debate theology and heresies.

I agree. So can we get back to what the Pope said about good works and what's in your heart and baptism and heaven and hell and God's will and the meaning of "Good" and..........

I honestly don't think much of church doctrine on the meaning of "Good", nor do I think that those children in the Pope's audience had a grasp of the fine points of church doctrine. They would naturally understand God as a kind of super parent who commands unquestioned obedience, and it makes sense to think of God as holding roughly the same values as their parents. The dilemma for the child was that his father had committed a mortal sin in the eyes of traditional church doctrine, so he would naturally be sent to hell. Pope Francis has been rather consistently trying to shape doctrine into something more benign and tolerant that it has been in the past. As a Jesuit, he is good at navigating the contradictions and flaws inherent in that traditional doctrine. Given that Catholicism, albeit in decline, isn't going away soon, I am glad that he is trying to bring a more modern, tolerant attitude to the religious institution he leads.

The crisis in this situation was caused by the child's religious faith. Most children would be totally traumatized by the loss of a parent, but those who have been taught about hell experience even greater trauma, if they believe that a deceased parent will be sent to hell. The Pope did not explicitly reject the idea of hell as a kind of punishment for rejection of God, but he did find a way to let this poor kid's father avoid the eternal penalty box. Church doctrine does help soften the pain by preaching life after death. Without the penalty box as a spoiler, it makes that aspect of the doctrine more comforting.