>>24096015
>Christians have this idea of God's Goodness where Goodness has no relation to any human concept of goodness, forgiveness, or pleasure

What is it with the topic of Christianity that convinces people that they clearly know what they are talking about despite obviously not even having a rudimentary idea of it?

The equivocal usage of Goodness you are describing is something that only shows up in Reformation era Protestant theology. If you when bothered to skim the relevant question of ST you'd see St. Thomas clearly stating that all goodness, even what merely appears good, is related to God's goodness. Good is predicated analogously.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1006.htm#article4

This is the basics of the Doctrine of Transcendentals and the Analogia Entis, which remains Catholic theology to this day (and so the theology of most Christians). Orthodoxy has a similar view, with goodness being predicated analogously of creatures and God. All goodness is a reflection of the divine goodness.

It is the *predication* or goodness, not the goodness itself that is analogical as well. There are not different, sui generis sorts of goodness. So, something like Hume's guillotine makes absolutely no sense in an Aristotelian or Thomistic framework, or in the Patristic frame endorsed by the Orthodox.

The idea that God's goodness is some sort of totally equivocal goodness that fallen reason cannot comprehend is something you see in Luther, but it's one of the reasons Luther was condemned as a heretic. It's the univocity of being and the idea of God as just "one being among many," infinite being sitting on a Porphyrian tree alongside finite being, that makes folks like Luther and Calvin take this line, because they are now worried that God's goodness is a constraint on God's freedom.

St. Augustine would have seen this as incoherent. He thought the perfected soul in Heaven couldn't sin. This isn't a limit on freedom for the same reason that an inability to trip and fall isn't a limit on our freedom to walk. If you believe there are facts about what is truly best then it simply never makes sense to choose the worse over the better. You only choose the worse if you are ignorant about what is truly best, face external constraints, or suffer from weakness of will, all of which are obvious LIMITS on freedom.

This isn't just in Christian thought, you can find it in Plotinus and even, less fleshed out, in Aristotle.

The idea that what is "good for me," is totally distinct from a different sort of "moral good" is what makes modern ethics incoherent. Alasdair MacIntyre and D.C. Schindler are pretty good on this.

Back | Go to board

Board:

/lit/

Thread:

So heaven is basically just like being hooked up to a pleasure machine? Or is Aquinas perhaps actually saying that the real heaven is the friends we…