You've given a pretty comprehensive snippet of various defintions, examples of usages, etc. -- but please clarify for me, exactly which definition (clear, succinct, and obvious) would be the one we all agree on?

For example, one of the definitions listed above is "good (=the force which produces morally right action)." But there are a lot of things which may be "good" but have no moral relevance at all. More importantly, defining "good" as "morally right" comes out rather circular, since we don't agree on what is "morally right." AND if you define something in terms of something else which itself is at least as unclear, then you haven't made any progress.

________________________________________________________________________________________

So, what would a helpful definition of "good" that we all agree on be?

quote:

---

good
noun [U]
There is an eternal struggle between good (=the force which produces morally right action) and evil.
Ambition can sometimes be a force for good (=morally right action).
The government could do a lot of good (=provide help) by sending aid to the area.
Even a small donation can do a lot of good (=provide help).
I'm punishing you for your own good (=to help you).

---

Does it help you CT?

I recognize the apparent contradictions.

The author of the quoted article is discussing Marcion, who was declared heretic in the second century for teaching that the God of the OT and the God of the NT were not the same being. His claim is that Marcionism was a more reasonable religion that Christianity as taught by the church fathers.

quote:

---

When Christian propaganda reached him, he saw, as all reasonable men must, that the ferocious, vindictive, and cruel god of the "Old Testament" was utterly incompatible with the god of mercy and love preconized by Pauline Christianity, and he accordingly decided that Yahweh was only the Demiurge, creator of the material world, but inferior to the good and supreme god who sent his Son (an avatar of himself) to save mankind from the Demiurge.
.
.
.
Why the Fathers should have chosen to burden their cult with the onerous and malodorous bundle of fictions of the "Old Testament", which blatantly contradicted the very doctrine they were peddling, is almost inexplicable, except on the assumption that it was made profitable for them. And we must not forget that, with very few exceptions, we really do not know which early Christian theologians were "converted" Jews or stooges for the Jews, like the contemptible hirelings who now misgovern Germany.

---

I never thought of that aspect, I agree with your solution though.

Thanks for the info, it's nice to know that the only sites you could find whose creator's thought this way were to vile to post at Hatrack.