Define "good".


#1

How would you define "good"?


#2

What does Genesis 1 say?


#3

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.


#4

[quote="WesleyF, post:1, topic:301211"]
How would you define "good"?

[/quote]

I define Good as "Agape"....

Peace
James


#5

[quote="WesleyF, post:1, topic:301211"]
How would you define "good"?

[/quote]

God.


#6

[quote="Julia_Mae, post:5, topic:301211"]
God.

[/quote]

My added question would be, how do you define God? In learning more of the three Persons of the Trinity I guess..


#7

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.


#8

[quote="Flimmy, post:6, topic:301211"]
My added question would be, how do you define God? In learning more of the three Persons of the Trinity I guess..

[/quote]

God is Love...1 John 4:7-8

Peace
James


#9

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.


#10

[quote="hicetnunc, post:9, topic:301211"]
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.

[/quote]

Well I would have to say that I am not a "Thomist"...:shrug:...
Nothing against him of course...Mostly I just don't understand him...:D

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? ;):D

Peace
James


#11

[quote="WesleyF, post:1, topic:301211"]
How would you define "good"?

[/quote]

uncorrupted.


#12

[quote="JRKH, post:10, topic:301211"]
Well I would have to say that I am not a "Thomist"...:shrug:...
Nothing against him of course...Mostly I just don't understand him...:D

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? ;):D

Peace
James

[/quote]

Ignoring Thomas becuase you don't understand him? Hmmm....sounds a bit suspect as a philosophical method if you ask me.;)


#13

[quote="Flimmy, post:6, topic:301211"]
My added question would be, how do you define God?

[/quote]

Defining God


#14

God.


#15

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".


#16

[quote="hicetnunc, post:12, topic:301211"]
Ignoring Thomas becuase you don't understand him? Hmmm....sounds a bit suspect as a philosophical method if you ask me.;)

[/quote]

Unless one is not a philosopher. I tend towards Garage Logic myself.


#17

[quote="shipwrkd, post:16, topic:301211"]
Unless one is not a philosopher. I tend towards Garage Logic myself.

[/quote]

Exactly. The scriptures tell us no one is good but God. I think it holds up.


#18

[quote="johnnyjones, post:17, topic:301211"]
Exactly. The scriptures tell us no one is good but God. I think it holds up.

[/quote]

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...:shrug:


#19

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.


#20

[quote="hicetnunc, post:19, topic:301211"]
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.

[/quote]

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.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.