Define "good".

  • Thread starter Thread starter WesleyF
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God’s will, or alignment with God’s natural plans, that he wants good for all people. Nature’s supposed to be intrinsically good, aside from sin, which has befouled it… I tend to think of dispositions of animal’s spirits, how aligned they are to God’s will, because they have a choice of sorts, and angels watch over each breed of animal, etc…

So I guess, I’ll say that which is in alignment with God’s natural plans–not contradictory to nature. That’s the basic start anyway.
 
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.
 
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.

With that in mind, it’s not quite proper to equate good with love as such, although I can see where the idea is trying to go.
 
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.

With that in mind, it’s not quite proper to equate good with love as such, although I can see where the idea is trying to go.
Click to expand...
Well I would have to say that I am not a “Thomist”…🤷…
Nothing against him of course…Mostly I just don’t understand him…😃

So - ignoring Thom’s ideas…and going with John’s…It seems quite proper to equate good with love…at least to me it does…Guess that’s Jimist philosophy - eh? ;)😃

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Well I would have to say that I am not a “Thomist”…🤷…
Nothing against him of course…Mostly I just don’t understand him…😃

So - ignoring Thom’s ideas…and going with John’s…It seems quite proper to equate good with love…at least to me it does…Guess that’s Jimist philosophy - eh? ;)😃

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Ignoring Thomas becuase you don’t understand him? Hmmm…sounds a bit suspect as a philosophical method if you ask me.😉
 
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”.
 
I’m not denying that God is good, or even that God alone is good, but that teaching of Scripture needs to be understood in the context it is given. It is not to be understood as metaphysical definition for the nature of good. Pope John Paul II treats of this in his encyclical Veritas Splendor.

God is not identical to Created goodness and that creation is good is solemnly defined by the Church. Equating God with created goods is pantheism.
 
hicetnunc said:
I’m not denying that God is good, or even that God alone is good, but that teaching of Scripture needs to be understood in the context it is given. It is not to be understood as metaphysical definition for the nature of good. Pope John Paul II treats of this in his encyclical Veritas Splendor.

God is not identical to Created goodness and that creation is good is solemnly defined by the Church. Equating God with created goods is pantheism.
Click to expand...
No not created goods. Jesus was asked, why do you call me good, then said no one is good but God. The correct understanding of that text is that Jesus was saying, are you saying that I’m God. The Jehovahs Witnesses like to use that passage to show that Jesus was saying only God is good, and not Jesus. But, Jesus was actually accepting of the “good” title.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top