Sour grapes... "o happy fault"!

[Pallas_Athene]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

 

[laircy]

Perhaps it is based on the idea that an increase in goodness is better than no increase in goodness. Although the “no increase in goodness” might have a more even goodness over a period of time, it seems to be a pattern cosmically speaking, with God, that when something is worse in one way, it is better in another. For example, angels have a higher nature than humans but humans are higher in the order of grace. And being good all your life is obviously good, but then it is said that a sinner converting at last brings more rejoicing in heaven.

Maybe someone who never got cancer would only be vaguely thankful for their health, but someone who nearly died but then was cured would have a much deeper understanding of gratefulness for their life, having stared death in the face.

And there’s this, which I think is quite relevant:

*“Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the overcompensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand.” *
― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

 

[Elizium23]

Athene, is it better for you to have a dog or a husband?

 

[Flopfoot]

Getting something bad is not the same thing as not getting something good. The fox who can’t get the grapes doesn’t gain any new experience by not being able to get the grapes - he is strictly worse off. But there are some times when people say “I’m glad I was in that car accident because then I got two months off work where I was able to write the book I’ve always wanted to write” or something like that.

Let’s say we change the fox and grapes story so someone who sees the fox unable to get the grapes feels sorry for him and gives him an icecream.

The fox who gets the icecream has no way of knowing whether the grapes he wasn’t able to get are sweeter or less sweet than the icecream.
But a hypothetical fox who was able to get the grapes has no way of knowing that he would have got icecream if he couldn’t get the grapes, nor whether that icecream would have been sweeter than the grapes or not.

Being fallen and getting a redeemer or never falling in the first place isn’t a case of one is better one is worse (or if so, we have no way of knowing which is better). They are just different.

 

[Michael19682]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

I don’t think it is debatable. The story is not made up, not a logical contrivance of what-if’s with the end of it being a tautology of Good. It reflects some person’s reality. Somewhere, someone messed up badly, and the spirit of that evil multiplied, caught on like a wild fire. We are free when we act and when we understand that this freedom is what renders the scenario you present moot.

I understand also that the Germans have a strong philosophical tradition and I am amazed at the implications of the phrase you employ. For example Immanuel Kant wrote, “Critique of Pure Reason”. However, I would venture to say that there is no such thing human as a “Pure Imagination” to critique, or capable of expression as such: Else what would it express? Pure love? I would submit to your propositional universe that all expression of pure love is reserved for God since that is his nature.

 

[roseofshannon]

True love is tested love.

The purest form of love is sacrifice.

Because of the fall, God is able to show us the true extent of His love and we are able to show Him ours.

So, say you had a boyfriend who tells you that you are beautiful and looks into your eyes as he says the words, “I love you.”

You and he have been enjoying nights on the couch cuddling with Netflix, pizza and wine…it’s pure bliss.

But when you suddenly are in a car accident and your face has burned and you are told you will spend the rest of your life in a wheelchair, strangely you no longer hear from him.

Now imagine boyfriend #2 in this same scenario. He not only stays by your hospital bed day and night, picks up a second job to help pay your medical bills, marries you, has children with you and dies in your arms 50 years later.

Which relationship was true love? How do you know?

 

[simpleas]

 

[abook]

Referring to as it as “a happy fault” doesn’t refer to falling and getting back up, but rather to the fact that it brought about the incarnation which is the greatest gift ever given to man.

 

[tonyrey]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

An earthly Utopia is an infantile fantasy. No one has ever produced a feasible blueprint of a perfect planet on which everyone is infallible, misfortunes never occur and nothing ever goes wrong. Unsubstantiated hypotheses are worthless.

 

[tonyrey]

Good question.
I’ll see your question and raise you.
Even if there *was *the “original sin”…there didn’t have to be a need for a “redeemer”.
God could have just forgiven, and that could have been that.

To forgive is not a magic wand. It doesn’t make the consequences of injustice vanish.

 

[Joy2day]

The light shines brightest in the darkness. (isnt that in St John?).

 

[Michael19682]

To forgive is not a magic wand. It doesn’t make the consequences of injustice vanish.

It might not. Or it might. Some of the consequences mysteriously become divine, for the person graced with forgiveness that is. The evil resides in the evil doer until repentance. Wouldn’t you agree (even if this is not a vanishing, exactly)?

 

[tonyrey]

It might not. Or it might. Some of the consequences mysteriously become divine, for the person graced with forgiveness that is. The evil resides in the evil doer until repentance. Wouldn’t you agree (even if this is not a vanishing, exactly)?

The OP doesn’t take the divine into account, Michael.

 

[tonyrey]

The light shines brightest in the darkness. (isnt that in St John?).

There is no light in the eternal darkness of the sceptic…

 

[Michael19682]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

In addition to my other comment, I think your question poses a difficulty with analogies. Not all analogy is of the same order:

PART:WHOLE = PART:WHOLE is a well know pattern of analogical reasoning. But something is missing in the way stated above, e.g.,

lug nut:car as keyboard:computer? Both are part to whole relationship. Not only is that analogy not the best possible analogy, but one cannot say with any degree of sense that I can think of…which is a better analogy of part to whole relationship. The distinction if made then becomes arbitrary? Now steering wheel:car as keyboard:computer is a better expression of symmetry, but the question of which is more ideal from the standpoint of part:whole is similarly arbitrary and if given, laden with bias against the fairer sex.

 

[Michael19682]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

Sorry to inundate the thread …
But the question fails to realize potentiality, or latent potential.
The point about being beaten; who can say with certainty that they will not be beaten. There is an old saying from the game of Chess. You learn more from a game you lose than from a game you win. Sometimes a fall and rising from it reorients one to the fact that he was going in the wrong direction. Better to change direction than to never have realized your error.

 

[fhansen]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

Because it’s all a matter of the will-always has been. The more we will the right thing, the greater our own justice. Adam willed wrongly; we’re here, like Prodigals in a pigsty relatively speaking, to be formed and perfected as we learn to will rightly, to come to embrace the ultimate good, God, alone, above all else. God created His universe in a “state of journeying to perfection” according to the catechism, where we play our own part in that process.

 

[fred_conty]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

You have a good point because all you are saying is that you wish that everything would be good instead of being all messed up. Couldn’t agree more.

But the answer is that it was in the very beginning. We know this thru divine revelation, that God did set up everything in this way. But…and this is a big “but”…man messed it up by his disobedience. And the disobedience was not an easy thing to do since man in the beginning was made in such a way that it was so much more easy to chose obedience than disobedience…not like we are today.

But the good news is that God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son to give his all for us and to restore not only what we lost, but even to multiply our reward. That he loved us so much that he was willing to die on the Roman cross to show us how much he loved us, and how much he wanted us to be with him.

So in one way, we are very blessed by God to understand now more than ever just how far his love extends for us. And that this would not have been ever experienced had sin not entered the world. And so St. Augustine couldn’t help but say, “O happy sin”. For now we are one with him in a way that would not have happened without sin. So God can take anything and turn it into something good for us.

God’s love to you.

 

[porthos11]

Let’s discuss this problem. If there would not have been the “original sin”, then there would be no need for a “redeemer”. As it has been amply demonstrated in the thread about question of the original sin (forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=965431) God could have instantiated a world, where there would not have happened a “disobedience”, no “original sin”, no “cursing of the creation by God”… and we all would happily live in the Garden of Eden.

Some people keep saying that it is “better” to fall down and then to get up than not to fall down in the first place. It is better to get cancer and recover than not to have cancer at all…??

This thread is directed to them. Why is it better to “fall” and then being able to get up compared to not falling down in the first place?

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all. In German the phrase is “Aus einer Not eine Tugend machen” - which translates into “to make a virtue out of a necessity”.

So, I suggest you start to ponder… why is getting a root canal better than to have a healthy dentition without having a problem at all? Why is it being beaten preferable to not being beaten at all? Do you have a rational argument?

Because our end is now greater than what it would have been without the Fall. Because of the Fall, God became Man, and that manhood is now enthroned in the Godhead. Therefore with Christ, we have been given adoption as sons of God, partakers of the divine nature, sharers in the Sonship of Christ. This would not have been the case had Adam not sinned.

Yes, it would be a case of sour grapes had the Redemption just brought us to the status quo. But because it opened up for us a relationship and adoption by God greater than what was originally available for Adam, the net effect is better.

 

[Gorgias]

The story of Aesopus in the tale of the “sour grapes” talks about the fox, who craves those grapes, but since he is unable to get them - attempts to rationalize that the grapes are probably “sour”, so it would not be good to get them at all.

I’m still saying that you are misusing this concept. No one is saying that “eternal life without sin” is not good. Yes, we were unable to attain it. Yet, we’re saying that what we have – the possibility of eternal life through the real world in existence – is better. Not the only good, not that the other way was “probably sour anyway” – just that this way is God’s plan, and it’s better. This isn’t ‘sour grapes’.

Do you have a rational argument?

I think that the folks who have replied have already summed it up well. It’s critical to recognize one important fact, though: the answers fail to hold if our context is only this present human life. They work – brilliantly and well! – in the context that includes eternal life. The rational response is “if you believe in God and in eternal life, then His plan is best; but, if you do not believe in Him, then it is pure foolishness.” As St Paul wrote, “The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the learning of the learned I will set aside.’ Where is the wise one? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made the wisdom of the world foolish?” (1 Cor 1:18-20)