Christian Ethics

[Didacus]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Jun 20 2005, 10:32 PM']Mathematics is philosophy.....didn't you know?  What is logic?  LOL

What the heck is Wibble?
[right][snapback]617557[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes I knew that... all sciences stem from philosophy.

Don't know about Wibble...

Quick question... started doing some of the reading... and I find it very confusing (please, remove that 'surprised' look on your face... thank you)

Of particular confusion is:

"a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply." and other such statements. Seems to be contradictive to me... but I'm certain that's just me.

Now maybe I did not read far enough, but so far, here is my questions:

If being and good are the same, how is it that both may have differetn characteristics?

And if good and being are one and the same, then explain the devil to me? Does he not exist? Is he not evil?

Or is it just that I misread the term 'being' as the term 'existance'? I realize I need to read a little more...
Hence, "Goodness and being are really the same, and differ only in idea" means that it is simply a question of definition of the terms? Different world views of the same universal characteristic?

[i](actually been reading those pages more or less in the alst few weeks, I realize it's good stuff... but a little hard to grasp... I, like others that posted on this thread, exchanged the arts and poetry for mathematics and science... *sigh*)[/i]

[Cam42]

[quote]"a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply." and other such statements. Seems to be contradictive to me....[/quote]

You are speaking of the understanding of Aquinas' statement.

[quote]Hence it is clear that goodness and being are the same really. But goodness presents the aspect of desirableness, which being does not present....But goodness signifies perfection which is desirable; and consequently of ultimate perfection. Hence that which has ultimate perfection is said to be simply good; but that which has not the ultimate perfection it ought to have (although, in so far as it is at all actual, it has some perfection), is not said to be perfect simply nor good simply, but only relatively. In this way, therefore, viewed in its primal (i.e. substantial) being a thing is said to be simply, and to be good relatively (i.e. in so far as it has being) but viewed in its complete actuality, a thing is said to be relatively, and to be good simply.” and “Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality.” (Summa I-5; 1)[/quote]

When something is good it is desirable. It can attain perfection. When the good is a simple good, it doesn't have the perfection that it ought to have. It isn't acutally good, because it has not attained actual perfection, but is only relatively good, because there is some part of actual goodness missing. The thing, is good, because of it's simplicity, but it lacks actual goodness, because something is missing.

The best example is man. Man was created actually good. However, he lost some of that goodness with the sin of Adam. Man from that point is deemed to be good because man has being, but man is not complete. He has being, but is lacking perfect substance, because of the fall.

The example of this actual goodness is given to us in Christ. Christ is completely good, insofar as he had being and he was substantial in goodness. There was no lack of goodness, because he was exempt from the fall. We can apply this to Christ, "Goodness is a form so far as absolute goodness signifies complete actuality."

A lot of this is understanding how Aquinas uses the terms, but that would take too long to try and explain in one or two posts. The assumption has to be made that one already understands the terms. Otherwise, we would be entering into a college level class to explain all of this.

Does the Devil exist? Yes, absolutely.....insofar as man is relatively good, and Christ is actually good, the Devil is lack of goodness.