Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

What Is Good?


hyperdulia again

Recommended Posts

hyperdulia again

Cmom's definition is true on its face, but I must ask what it means. What does something leading to God mean? We are all led through many, many horrible places to arrive at the last end (God). Does that mean that because a thing leads me to discover God, who then leads me to Heaven?

If it weren't for very bad things done by us and to us many people wouldn't discover God, the bad thing, albeit indirectly, led to the discovery of the divine does that make the bad thing good?

"Good is opposite of bad."

True, but you can't define a thing's substance by what it's lacking. It must be defined by what it is made of.

What is bad?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hyper, I know this is long, but I just got this in my email and then saw this thread. I don't know if it helps or not.

"DID GOD CREATE EVIL?"

At a certain college, there was a professor with a reputation for being tough on Christians. At the first class every semester, he asked if anyone was a Christian and proceeded to degrade and mock their statement of faith.

One semester, he asked the question and a young man raised his hand when asked if anyone was a Christian. The professor asked, "Did God make everything, young man?"

"Yes he did, sir," the young man replied.

The professor responded, "If God made everything, then God made evil, and if we can only create from within ourselves, then God is evil."

The student didn't have a response and the professor was happy to have once again proved the Christian faith to be a myth.

Then another man raised his hand and asked, "May I ask you something, sir?"

"Yes, you may" responded the professor.

The young man stood up and said, "Sir, is there such thing as cold?"

"Of course there is, what kind of a question is that? Haven't you ever been cold?"

The young man replied, "Actually, sir, cold does not exist. What we consider to be cold, is really only the absence of heat. Absolute zero is when there is absolutely no heat, but cold does not really exist. We have

only created that term to describe how we feel when heat is not there."

The young man continued, "Sir, is there such thing as dark?"

Once again, the professor responded "Of course there is."

And once again, the student replied "Actually, sir, darkness does not exist. Darkness is really only the absence of light. Darkness is only a term man developed to describe what happens when there is no light present."

Finally, the young man asked, "Sir, is there such thing as evil?"

The professor responded, "Of course. We have rapes, and murders and violence everywhere in the world, those things are evil."

The student replied, "Actually, sir, evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. Evil is a term man developed to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. It isn't like truth, or love, which exist as virtues like heat and light. Evil is simply the state where God is not present, like cold without heat or darkness without light."

The professor had nothing to say.

- Author Unknown -

Edited by llrddvl@stpius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Huether

MORight2Life's teacher is correct.

Hype your analogies are lacking. Sorry.

"One of my teachers said that a thing is good when it is what it is meant to be."

That's not true, what if I was a woman, pregant, poor, young, and not maarried.

First of all, since you are pregnant and NOT married, then that shows us that you were NOT doing what you were created to do. Therefore since you were not doing what you were supposed to do, you weren't doing "good". Doing "bad" things (those things that are opposite of what we were created to do) does not lead to "good". God can bring "good" to come out of bad - because it would be the bad that caused you to return to doing what you were created to do. But the bad wasn't intended.

On top of all of that I discover that my child might be born with some debilitating illness.

The baby is a casualty of "bad" things. If people did what they were supposed to do from the very beginning, then the child wouldn't have a debillitating illness.

It is a good thing in my mind an act of mercy to not bear this child. I intend this for good. Does that make it good? 

What is "good" in your mind isn't what defines good. Therefore, even if you "think" it is an act of mercy, it isn't really good. We are supposed to be fruitfull and multiply. We are supposed to bring life into the world. Althought the Child would be debilitated, it is still good for the child to live - to know God in life! We are expressly forbid by God to take life - we are not supposed to murder. Therfore to abort this child is not good, but "bad". And since it is "bad", only "bad" will come from it, naturally!

'when it works, and performs the task it was meant to do, it is "good." '

I am a demon. the task I was meant to preform was the ruin of souls and the bringing of suffering. I'm fulfilling my purpose, am I good? 

If you were a demon, you were a demon because of the fact that you were "bad". If you were a demon and doing what you were suposed to be doing, you would then be "good" and no longer be a demon.

Demons aren't "created" for the express purpose of doing bad. Remember, demons were originally angles, created for the service and worship of God! But they turned away. They in essence "broke" themselves. If they worked and performed the task it was meant to do, the demon would be an angle.

It is "bad" because it doesn't do what it is supposed to do.

Way to go teacher of Right2Life!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alrighty...I knew aquinas talked about this...and I could not find the writing...but i searched and along came the Catholic Encyclopedia (wonderful)

Here are a few excerpts or just go to the link...very descriptive: GOOD

St. Thomas starts from the Aristotelean principle that being and the good are objectively one. Being conceived as desirable is the good. The good differs from the true in this, that, while both are objectively nothing else than being, the good is being considered as the object of appetitie, desire, and will, the true is being a the object of the intellect. God, the Supreme Being and the source of all other being is consequently the Supreme Good, and the goodness of creatures results from the diffusion of His goodness. In a creature, considered as a subject having existence, we distinguish several elements of the goodness which it possesses:

Its existence or being, which is the ground of all the other elements.

Its powers, activities, and capacities. These are the complement of the first, and they serve it to pursue and appropriate whatever is requisite for and contributory to sustaining its existence, and developing that existence into the fullness of perfection proper to it.

Each perfection that is acquired is a further measure of existence for it, hence a good.

The totality of these various elements, forming its total good subjectively, that is, its entire being in a state of normal perfection according to its mind, is its good complete. This is the sense of the axiom: omne ens est bonum sibi (every being is a good unto itself).

The privation of any of its powers or due perfections is an evil for it, as, for instance, blindness, the loss of the power of sight, is an evil for an animal. Hence evil is not something positive and does not exist in itself; as the axiom expresses it, malum in bono fundatur (evil has its base in good).

The defined doctrine on the good, ontologically considered, is formulated by the Vatican Council (Session III, Const. de Fide Catholica, cap.i):

This one, only, true God, of His own goodness and almighty power, not for the increase of His own happiness, not to acquire but to manifest His perfection by the blessings which He bestows on creatures, with absolute freedom of counsel created from the beginning of time both the spiritual and the corporeal creature, to wit, the angelic and the mundane; and afterwards the human creature.

In Canon 4 we read:

If anyone shall say that finite things, borth corporeal and spiritual, or at least spiritual, hav emanated from the Divine substance; or that the Divine essence, by the manifestation and evolution of itself, becomes all things; or lastly, that God is universal or indefinite being, which by determining itself constitutes the universality of things distince according to genera species, and individuals, let him be anathema.

That is all...

Sincerely in faith, hope, and love,

Francis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hyperdulia again

Whether or not my examples are lacking, good is still not defined by intention which is what mrtl's professor said. Thhanx Pius that was a neat story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldnt heat be what we describe as something missing coldness or Light being something we describe which misses darkness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Huether

Whether or not my examples are lacking, good is still not defined by intention which is what mrtl's professor said.  Thhanx Pius that was a neat story.

I don't think he meant "intention" as in "what I intend to do...". I think he was refering to the express purpose of the object in question.

Something is good when it is doing what it was meant to do. In other words, the substance of "good" is God's intention for things. Things are good when they do what God intended them to do. God's intention in all things is good! So, good is not simply God. The substance of good is simply this: God's intentions.

So while you may "intend" to do something good and royally screw up because it in fact was bad, when God has an "intention" it is always "good". Good is God's intention!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jake Huether

Couldnt heat be what we describe as something missing coldness or Light being something we describe which misses darkness?

You can, only becasue we've defined "cold" as the opposite of "hot" and "dark" the opposite of "light". But in reality: No, because light is defined by a specific activity (the emission of photons and so forth). Heat is actually a substance - it is Energy (quantified by numerous equations, like E=MC^2). Cold and dark are simply words to define the opposite of heat and light. They themselves are nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hyperdulia again

you can't define a concept by what it lacks. that breaks every philosophical rule i've ever encountered that is false.

you can define tangible things and thhings that can be scientifically demonstrated to exist by what they lack. you cannot seriously with any degree of intellectual credibility define a concept such as good or bad by what it lacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy carp i am going to love philosophy this fall at college!

I see what you are saying Jake, we can prove light and we can prove heat they came first so to speak......we had to encounter light and heat first. hmmmmm this is good stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

littleflower+JMJ

have fun.....my brother nearly went nuts in that class!

you have to be prepared cuz they love to battle religion...and you might have to answer questions upon what you believe in so have good answers for them..

represent ok?

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

littleflower+JMJ

i recommend st. augustine and Pope JPII works they have philosophical writings that will blow everyone away!

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...