Define "good".

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WesleyF said:
How would you define “good”?
Click to expand...
The things that are morally right are good; and since goodness is one of God’s attributes that is inherent in His Being, God’s moral qualities therefore define the ultimate standard of what is good.
 
WesleyF said:
How would you define “good”?
Click to expand...
Excellent question, my friend! Please consider the following personal concepts:

Good is something which attains or spreads the means to attain limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all.

I look forward to further discussion!
 
Flimmy said:
My added question would be, how do you define God? In learning more of the three Persons of the Trinity I guess…
Click to expand...
I would like to share my definition for consideration:

God is The person who is always freely being and spreading the means to freely be perfectly patient, kind, and motivated with all the body, spirit (memory of the person), thoughts, and will equally towards others and the self for the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self.

Using this definition, we can conclude the following:

This person is Jesus Christ: The Holy Trinity: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

His purpose for creation is to spread the means to achieve the experience of limitless happiness with unbreakable peace for all, including the self – Heaven.

As the Father, he is the Creator, Lawmaker and Judge. He is Always/without beginning and without end “freely being and spreading the means to freely be…”
As the Son, he reveals to mankind how to achieve the pinnacle of living by becoming the only begotten son and coming down from heaven. To fulfill the revelation, he must commit an act which on the surface appears to mankind as acting without patience and kindness, specifically the anger in the temple, hence why he is incarnate/assumed human nature by the Holy Spirit. He is assumed as not “always being and spreading the means to freely be…” in that instance of anger.
As the Holy Spirit, he reveals to mankind how free-willed man can become god, specifically “Embracing the Cross.” In essence, there was a time when He was not “perfectly patient and kind…”, then becomes eternally “perfectly patient and kind…” from a point in time by proceeding/learning from the Son and the Father. Although he is “always freely being and spreading the means to freely be…” without end, one could recognize that there was a beginning to becoming godly. This revelation is made to mankind by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

I look forward to further discussion! Thank you very much for the excellent food for thought!
 
hicetnunc said:
Ignoring Thomas becuase you don’t understand him? Hmmm…sounds a bit suspect as a philosophical method if you ask me.😉
Click to expand...
Could be my friend…Maybe it would be better to simply say that Thom’s and I run along different spiritual paths…both narrow and both headed in the right direction…Just different…

(I tend a bit more toward the mystical and the KIS principle)

Peace
James
 
shipwrkd said:
Works for me, If God is good, good is God. It’s simple and i think I’ll use it unless someone proves me wrong…🤷
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. God is love too, but love is not necessarily God. I love my friends. That love is not God, or is it?
 
fred_conty said:
If I remember right, didn’t Jesus say “only God is good”.

Anyway, a good is something we pursue to make us happy.

However sometimes an evil is mistaken for good and we pursue the wrong “good”.

God is the supreme good. The one who will make us perfectly happy.

A thought.
Click to expand...
Yes, this seems right.
 
WesleyF said:
Not necessarily. God is love too, but love is not necessarily God. I love my friends. That love is not God, or is it?
Click to expand...
St John says this in his first letter…
7 Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and he who loves is born of God and knows God. 8 He who does not love does not know God; for God is love. (1 John 4:7-8)
Love is of God…It is grace in action…Loving one another is how we show our love for God.

Peace
James
 
WesleyF said:
How would you define “good”?
Click to expand...
In general terms, the most proper definition of the good is just that which is desirable, that toward which a thing by its nature is inclined, typically for fulfillment. A bit more specifically, it is anything external toward which a will qua will essentially tends (or extends, to be precise), as either the immediate or ultimate end of some mind, such as, say, the Pope’s or even simply God’s. (In fact, the good is primarily good insofar as it’s actually willed by God; secondarily, to the extent it’s a mere potential object of any contingent will; and finally, insofar as it’s actually willed by one or another created rational being.)
hicetnunc said:
In Thomistic philosophy, “good” and “being” are convertible terms (although being is more fundamental). Thus being is good and the good is that which has being.
Click to expand...
Goodness is being-as-willed, or else being-as-potentially-willed, considered in itself or in objective, external reality at least. I get this mostly from Aristotle and Aquinas ( 1.1De Veritate), too.
Second. some [predicates] are said to add to being because the mode they express is one that is common, and consequent upon every being. This mode can be taken in two ways: first, in so far as it follows upon every being considered absolutely; second, in so far as it follows upon every being considered in relation to another. In the first, the term is used in two ways, because it expresses something in the being either affirmatively or negatively. We can, however, find nothing that can be predicated of every being affirmatively and, at the same time, absolutely, with the exception of its essence by which the being is said to be. To express this, the term thing is used; for, according to Avicenna,” thing differs from being because being gets its name from to-be, but thing expresses the quiddity or essence of the being. There is, however, a negation consequent upon every being considered absolutely: its undividedness, and this is expressed by one. For the one is simply undivided being.

If the mode of being is taken in the second way—according to the relation of one being to another—we find a twofold use. The first is based on the distinction of one being from another, and this distinctness is expressed by the word something, which implies, as it were, some other thing. For, just as a being is said to be one in so far as it is without division in itself, so it is said to be something in so far as it is divided from others. The second division is based on the correspondence one being has with another. This is possible only if there is something which is such that it agrees with every being. Such a being is the soul, which, as is said in The Soul, “in some way is all things.” The soul, however, has both knowing and appetitive powers. Good expresses the correspondence of being to the appetitive power, for, and so we note in the Ethics, the good is “that which all desire.” [Emphasis mine.]

Personally, I might characterize the good as volitional extension when taking it to its most fundamental level, that is, as basically the real end of any free extension by a will insofar as the intention in the intellect motivating it has some substantial degree of truth.
 
A being is good on at least three levels.

I will type them from the top down.

Third Level: A being is good when it is fully developed or mature–it has completed or been completed and rests in its final end or goal. From a Christian point of view–complete love of God. For God is Goodness by nature.

Second Level: A being is good when it has additional being or accidents to it essence. Example: the essence of a human is there at conception-- and for sure by birth. When the child develops good work habits, learns how to be just and patient.

First Level: A being is good when it exists, even a new human being–even though she has great potential of growth. But is still just an infant.

Objects outside of a human are good to the degree that they are desired.
Some objects are desired for the sake of getting another thing–money.

Some objects are desired because they are good, virtues of justice and prudence. These second ones are also needed for growing closer to God. They are two in one.

One object is good in the sense that we find our rest or completion in Him.

Please forgive this immature statement, excuse my typing–I am in a big rush.
 
You can spin “no one is good but God” many ways but in the end God is good, and clearly fits the definition in His being. (Mark 10:18)
 
johnnyjones

Thanks!

I agree.

In fact I should have said explicitly, God of His nature is GOODNESS.

We receive our goodness from Him.

The term St. Thomas Aquinas uses to say the same thing is–“We participate in His Goodness. We receive our goodness from Him.”
 
hicetnunc said:
The problem is that if you define ‘good’ as God you run the problem of pantheism. God is of course the source of all good, but God is not identical to his Creation, which Genesis tells us is “good”.
Click to expand...
The Hebrew word used on Genesis has this variety of meanings:
  1. good, pleasant, agreeable
    a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
    b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
    c) good, excellent (of its kind)
    d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
    e) good, appropriate, becoming
    f) better (comparative)
    g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man’s sensuous nature)
    h) good understanding (of man’s intellectual nature)
    i) good, kind, benign
    j) good, right (ethical)
Creation was “good” as “what God intended it to be” or “appropriate.” Creation isn’t of itself imbued with a moral nature. . God alone is good, agasthos, by constitution or nature, by definition: perfect.
 
Julia_Mae said:
The Hebrew word used on Genesis has this variety of meanings:
  1. good, pleasant, agreeable
    a) pleasant, agreeable (to the senses)
    b) pleasant (to the higher nature)
    c) good, excellent (of its kind)
    d) good, rich, valuable in estimation
    e) good, appropriate, becoming
    f) better (comparative)
    g) glad, happy, prosperous (of man’s sensuous nature)
    h) good understanding (of man’s intellectual nature)
    i) good, kind, benign
    j) good, right (ethical)
Creation was “good” as “what God intended it to be” or “appropriate.” Creation isn’t of itself imbued with a moral nature. . God alone is good, agasthos, by constitution or nature, by definition: perfect.
Click to expand...
👍 🙂
 
Julia_Mae said:
Creation was “good” as “what God intended it to be” or “appropriate.” Creation isn’t of itself imbued with a moral nature. . God alone is good, agasthos, by constitution or nature, by definition: perfect.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about creation being imbued with a moral nature?

That creation is objectively good is a defined teaching of the Church. That goodness and being are convertible terms is well-established concept in philosophy.

The catechism has this to say:

299 …Because creation comes forth from God’s goodness, it shares in that goodness - “And God saw that it was good. . .very good” - for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world.

I presume also you mean ‘agathos’. Creation is good by participation in the goodness of God.
 
Bottom line, God defines good - question answered. Good can be used in sentences in different ways. If a kid say, “I finished my homework”, a parent can say, “that’s good.” Much different would be describing the ultimate good, which Jesus said God is. The creation is good, but is it as good as God? The distinction lies in the levels of good, and God defines the epitome of good.

A dictionary can only tell us humanities understanding of good.
 
johnnyjones

As far as I am able to discern, you agree with the basic ideas of St. Thomas. He made a few additional distinctions. But the principles are the same. As I said, as far as I can tell.
 
When it comes to morality, God defines what is good in his law. When it comes to everything else, I like the way Paul puts it in Romans 8:28, “All things work together for the good of those who love God, who are called according to His purpose.”

Such as in Joseph’s case when he said to his brother’s that tried to murder him, “what you meant for evil, God meant for good…”
 
JDaniel said:
Wesley:

It is that which people seek.

God bless,
jd
Click to expand...
But there are some things that are arguably good for me that I don’t seek or desire. For instance, discipline is good for me, but I don’t desire it because it can be painful.

“For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant” (Heb 12:11).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top