Sour grapes... "o happy fault"!

[Pallas_Athene]

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.

I already had three heart attacks (and actually flat-lined the first time), and I am NOT happy about them. All I “gained” is loss of heart muscle, a decreased stamina and the side effects of the medications I have to take every day. Why would that be preferable to have good health?

My answer to those who prefer to “fall and get up” is simple: your actions belie your words. You never intentionally fail, so that you can recover. If you talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk, then you are a hypocrite.

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…

Exactly. This whole redeemer is superfluous.

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.

The real love is the one which PREVENTS the car accident.

There is an old saying from the game of Chess. You learn more from a game you lose than from a game you win.

That is a cute saying but is not true in all circumstances. Mostly you learn from the analysis performed after the game. But a game is just a game. It cannot be compared to real life.

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.

But the best is not to be in error in the first place. Or going back to the OP… it is much better to have a perfect dentition than to have problems in need of a root canal.

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.

A “perfect” world is the one which cannot be messed up, either intentionally or by accident.

Because our end is now greater than what it would have been without the Fall.

How would you know that? What is the “objective function” you used? And even it would be true, what was the price for it? What about all those unknown number of people, who were condemned to eternal torture? Without the fall they would be in heaven. You should always perform a cost-benefit analysis.

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.

Empty assertion, without a cost-benefit analysis, just like Porthos.

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’.

Better? For whom? For those who are damned to eternal torture?

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.

Nope, not even then. There was no logically compelling reason NOT to create everyone into heaven - directly.

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.”

Not even when you believe the eternal life it is the optimal way. Only if you blindly and unthinkingly swallow the words of others, who are equally blind.

 

[laircy]

I don’t think it is that people intentionally make things worse in order for them to get better. It’s that things become worse as a necessary consequence of something else. Free will is necessary to have real love, not pleasure-programmed robots, but it necessitates the possibility of choosing wrong.

I guess the value of suffering is something that has to be learned through experience, I don’t know if I can rationally argue it for you. There are plenty of examples in my life of suffering bringing about a greater good than I had before. I could’ve lived a safe, comfortable, merely contented life. Maybe that is what you want.

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t think it is that people intentionally make things worse in order for them to get better.

Of course they don’t. And that is the implicit admission that the generic principle of “better to fail and recover” is preferred to “not failing” is incorrect. Maybe, just maybe there is an event where one comes out with a positive balance from the “sufferings”. Personally, I have never encountered one, where the same positive result would have been impossible to achieve without lessening the suffering. And when I asked around, no one was ever able to present a valid example.

Free will is necessary to have real love, not pleasure-programmed robots, but it necessitates the possibility of choosing wrong.

Nonsense. To have free will it is sufficient to be able to choose between two or more good actions, or between good and neutral actions or even two neutral actions. Don’t tell me that your love toward your family is contingent upon my or your freedom to perform random acts of tortures or killings.

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.”

If you crave real danger, you can find it easily enough. Go travel to some Muslim country and shout out “Muhammed was a fag”. You will be in real danger in one second flat. Well, better not try it.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I already had three heart attacks (and actually flat-lined the first time), and I am NOT happy about them. All I “gained” is loss of heart muscle, a decreased stamina and the side effects of the medications I have to take every day. Why would that be preferable to have good health?

My answer to those who prefer to “fall and get up” is simple: your actions belie your words. You never intentionally fail, so that you can recover. If you talk the talk, but you refuse to walk the walk, then you are a hypocrite.

I don’t think anyone is really saying that we prefer to “fall and get up”–what is pointed out to you ad nauseum and which you refuse to acknowledge is that sometimes good things come from the fall, from the struggle, from the getting back up, from overcoming. Sometimes good things come from it that we don’t even realize until years down the road.

Pallas Athene a hypocrite is someone who does not believe what they profess to believe. If I say that “good can come from falling down and getting backup”–that doesn’t mean that I have to go out and fall down so I can get back up or I’m a hypocrite–what it means is that when I do fall down I need to try and get back up and believe that some good will come from it even if I can’t immediately see what it is–it’s when I fall down and lie there kicking and screaming like a little baby wallowing in my self pity crying woe is me–that is when I would be a hypocrite.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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 don’t be so harsh! Is the “Garden of Eden” an infantile fantasy? Is “The World To Come” an infantile fantasy? You say you believe in it every Sunday (at least) when you recite the creed. So easy to overlook am I right?

Further, I do have a blueprint: no people.

Just kidding!!!

 

[Michael19682]

That is a cute saying but is not true in all circumstances. Mostly you learn from the analysis performed after the game. But a game is just a game. It cannot be compared to real life.

But the best is not to be in error in the first place. Or going back to the OP… it is much better to have a perfect dentition than to have problems in need of a root canal.

Your response to the saying about Chess,. ie. it cannot be compared to real life, and the OP illustrates that the “fall” is multidimensional, and the gains can be in other dimensions. Like saying, my house burnt down – thank God I wasn’t sleeping inside as I had planned to be that night. Or something akin to it. Argument aside, if you’ve personally had three attacks and a loss of heart muscle, just accept my prayers for the continued personality traits needed to keep yourself healthy. God Bless and best to you.

 

[SonOfMan]

The need for a redeemer is symbolic in Judaism, like the need for scapegoats and the pure blood of a lamb to atone for sin. Hence, they call Jesus “The Lamb of God.” So my guess is that God “needed” a redeemer to show the Jewish people how he took it upon himself to atone for their sins.

But, Im with you on the part about never falling vs falling and then having to get back up.

 

[tonyrey]

Tonyrey don’t be so harsh! Is the “Garden of Eden” an infantile fantasy? Is “The World To Come” an infantile fantasy? You say you believe in it every Sunday (at least) when you recite the creed. So easy to overlook am I right?

Only Fundamentalists believe the Garden of Eden with its snake is literally true.
I don’t know why you included the clearly allegorical book of Revelation.

Further, I do have a blueprint: no people.

Just kidding!!!

Then you wouldn’t be able to enjoy yourself complaining PC!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I don’t think anyone is really saying that we prefer to “fall and get up”–what is pointed out to you ad nauseum and which you refuse to acknowledge is that sometimes good things come from the fall, from the struggle, from the getting back up, from overcoming. Sometimes good things come from it that we don’t even realize until years down the road.

I guess, that some clarification is in order. I have no problem with those who say that SOMETIMES good things MAY come out from bad things. My problem is with those who present a generic principle namely that GOOD things WILL come out of bad things. Because that is what the “happy fault” is all about.

That being said I have yet to see a “good thing” coming out of a “bad thing”, where the “bad thing” was a logically necessary prerequisite, and where the level of that “bad thing” could not be lessened without jeopardizing that “good thing”. Moreover, there is a catholic principle that one cannot do “evil” so that something good can come out of it.

Pallas Athene a hypocrite is someone who does not believe what they profess to believe.

Or those who “preach water” and “drink wine”, those who say one thing and practice something else.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Your response to the saying about Chess,. ie. it cannot be compared to real life, and the OP illustrates that the “fall” is multidimensional, and the gains can be in other dimensions. Like saying, my house burnt down – thank God I wasn’t sleeping inside as I had planned to be that night. Or something akin to it.

But that is not the point. Are you better off with your house having burned down? Would you be worse off if your house had not burned down? I hope the question was just rhetorical and your house did not burn down.

Argument aside, if you’ve personally had three attacks and a loss of heart muscle, just accept my prayers for the continued personality traits needed to keep yourself healthy. God Bless and best to you.

That is very kind of you, and I am grateful to hear about your prayers.

 

[laircy]

I guess, that some clarification is in order. I have no problem with those who say that SOMETIMES good things MAY come out from bad things. My problem is with those who present a generic principle namely that GOOD things WILL come out of bad things. Because that is what the “happy fault” is all about.

I thought “happy fault” was about “good things HAVE come out of bad things.”

Does anyone say as a generic principle that good things always come out of bad things? We believe God can bring good out of any tragedy, and does (in this life or the next) if we unite our suffering to the Cross; that is quite different from deliberately causing trouble to see if something good will happen.

(and with the Fall the choice was simple: Obey (love) God or disobey (not love) God. It wasn’t like, choose your favorite prayer of love to God, because that presupposes the choice to love God in the first place.)

 

[tonyrey]

The need for a redeemer is symbolic in Judaism, like the need for scapegoats and the pure blood of a lamb to atone for sin. Hence, they call Jesus “The Lamb of God.” So my guess is that God “needed” a redeemer to show the Jewish people how he took it upon himself to atone for their sins.

But, Im with you on the part about never falling vs falling and then having to get back up.

If you never fall you are defying the moral law of gravity…

 

[MarkInOregon]

Or those who “preach water” and “drink wine”, those who say one thing and practice something else.

I think you may be saying the same thing but to be clear–failing to practice what you preach does not make one a hypocrite as long as one believes what they are preaching or saying. Our failure to live up to what we believe just means that we are weak human beings–i.e. we have a fallen nature–as we all fail at one time or another to live up to the ideals we hold–it seems to be human nature. It is my professing to believe something that I don’t–my pretending to be something that I am not that makes me a hypocrite–not my failing to live up to my beliefs. So if I “preach water” but don’t really believe water and you catch me drinking wine-- I’m a hypocrite but if I “preach water” and believe I should drink water and attempt to drink water but I really like wine (which is indeed one of my weaknesses–how did you know?) and so I fall and drink wine–I’m not a hypocrite–just weak and I need to strive to do better.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I thought “happy fault” was about “good things HAVE come out of bad things.”

The point is that are those “bad things” logically necessary for the “good things”? Could the same good things" be achieved without those “bad things”? And that is what has never been demonstrated, much less proven.

Obey (love) God or disobey (not love) God.

There is no logical connection between obedience and love. One can obey out of fear, too. Of course it is possible that one obeys out of “love” - whatever “love” means in that respect. Come to think of it, I never found out what does it mean: “I love God”. I must remember to ask this some other time.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I think you may be saying the same thing but to be clear–failing to practice what you preach does not make one a hypocrite as long as one believes what they are preaching or saying. Our failure to live up to what we believe just means that we are weak human beings–i.e. we have a fallen nature–as we all fail at one time or another to live up to the ideals we hold–it seems to be human nature. It is my professing to believe something that I don’t–my pretending to be something that I am not that makes me a hypocrite–not my failing to live up to my beliefs. So if I “preach water” but don’t really believe water and you catch me drinking wine-- I’m a hypocrite but if I “preach water” and believe I should drink water and attempt to drink water but I really like wine (which is indeed one of my weaknesses–how did you know?) and so I fall and drink wine–I’m not a hypocrite–just weak and I need to strive to do better.

I see it differently. If you preach something and fail to live up to it, then your only solution is to STOP preaching, until you can live up to your own standards. Chastising others while committing the same acts, makes you a hypocrite, and it makes me to remember a funny old joke.

The preacher or the priest (it does not matter, which) gets up to the pulpit and starts the speech with a stern admonition. He says: And those of you who committed adultery last week, let your tongue stick to the woof of your mouf!

 

[Michael19682]

But that is not the point. Are you better off with your house having burned down? Would you be worse off if your house had not burned down? I hope the question was just rhetorical and your house did not burn down.

That is very kind of you, and I am grateful to hear about your prayers.

No. My house is ok and so am I, thank you .
I can’t actually say that it is better to have had a house burn down. But I rely upon scriptural wisdom, which appears (and correct me if I’m wrong about my assumptions) to be that with which you are taking issue? Now, knowing about the misfortune with the attacks, it appears you are well understood and perhaps even justifiably skeptical.
Jesus had a saying that went as follows: what profit is it to a man to gain the whole world and then lose his very soul? This indicates that scriptural wisdom is not constrained by considerations of material, or even health matters. Jesus also said that if your eye offends you, pluck it out. In both scenarios he is concerned about keeping people on the path to heaven and not the underworld. He was and is very concerned about losing his disciples, those people his Father had and has given to him. From this point of view, if I read scripture correctly, loss of my life is immaterial when compared to the salvation of my immortal soul. That’s really it. If I drop the condition of an immortal soul all you said is correct and without flaw. No one wants to have a tooth cavity drilled when they can leave the dentist’s office with a smile instead. All correct
Again, take care.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

From this point of view, if I read scripture correctly, loss of my life is immaterial when compared to the salvation of my immortal soul. That’s really it. If I drop the condition of an immortal soul all you said is correct and without flaw. No one wants to have a tooth cavity drilled when they can leave the dentist’s office with a smile instead. All correct

I don’t get it. Why is there a choice here? Why do you have to choose between the temporal goods and the eternal ones? Is it logically impossible to have the best of both worlds? Observe, please the highlighted word: “logical”. Omnipotence means to be able to do everything except logical impossibilities (and incoherent actions). God’s omnipotence is able to provide a set of circumstances where you can optimize both the temporal and the eternal “objective functions”.

But I am glad that your house is in good shape.

 

[Bradski]

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

There are two sides to this question. First, is it better to, for example, get cancer and then recover and secondly, are you are a better person from having gone through that experience.

In the first instance I would say, obviously, I would rather not get it. But I think that a wake-up call like getting a reprieve from an early death if you were to suffer from it can be a huge benefit in that you appreciate life a lot more.

I think that it’s human nature to appreciate something more if it was a struggle to get it. You don’t WANT to keep losing but you enjoy the good times a lot more than someone who expects to win.

Like my Grandad always said, if it didn’t hurt to lose, then you’re not going to enjoy it when you win. In other words, the losses, falling and getting up again and again, makes the final victory that much sweeter. I think we’ve all experienced that.

 

[laircy]

The point is that are those “bad things” logically necessary for the “good things”? Could the same good things" be achieved without those “bad things”? And that is what has never been demonstrated, much less proven.

I don’t know if it’s logically necessary, but here’s an example from my own life where it was circumstantially necessary. Five years ago I was playing an online game, and I got to a pretty high level, and I had a lot of friends, and it was fun etc. But then I made a stupid decision to do something bad. I used a third party program, and then my account was terminated. That was rather heartbreaking, I was 13 at the time. But I had had another account, that I didn’t use, so I decided to come back with that one. I had to make new friends, so I went on a forum for that game and made a thread asking for friends. And then, I met the person who came to be my best friend for five years now, who has really changed my life for the better. He brought me closer to God in so many ways. This would not have happened if I had not made that thread looking for new friends, and I would not have made that thread for new friends had I not done that “happy fault” of cheating on a game. I wouldn’t have been able to become such great friends with that person had I not had to start over, because he helped me a lot in the game and then we got to know each other outside of it. I didn’t deserve this great thing to happen to me, but I am incredibly thankful that it did.

There is no logical connection between obedience and love. One can obey out of fear, too. Of course it is possible that one obeys out of “love” - whatever “love” means in that respect. Come to think of it, I never found out what does it mean: “I love God”. I must remember to ask this some other time.

This does deserve another thread.

 

[Michael19682]

I don’t get it. Why is there a choice here? Why do you have to choose between the temporal goods and the eternal ones? Is it logically impossible to have the best of both worlds? Observe, please the highlighted word: “logical”. Omnipotence means to be able to do everything except logical impossibilities (and incoherent actions). God’s omnipotence is able to provide a set of circumstances where you can optimize both the temporal and the eternal “objective functions”.

But I am glad that your house is in good shape.

First, I’m very happy that you are hangin’ in there with the discussion. Aside from the fact that you began this, it appears that now your thoughts are grappling with Faith and its power. That in itself is a kind of quantum jump. especially your last remark about God’s omnipotence.

The first question you ask is about choice, the logical choice between the temporal and the eternal. My answer is that there is no one size fits all description of either. In as much as every body has a unique genetic finger print (as far as have observed), not every person is endowed with God attributes to the same level. How could logic strike a balance?
Your point about God’s omnipotence and its power to leverage abilities is a classic example of dilemmas in the political spectrum. These arise because not everyone is ready to pluck out his eye, cut off his hand, or give up his life for the truth. I personally believe that God does optimize the individual according to divine justice. God allows the temporal to run wild at times. There are many Saints who lived impure lives before becoming holy. Faith tells us that the optimization spoken of is a personal construct which we are free when we act on. Humans have no universal formula for it.
Jesus resolved the political dilemma with a pithy maxim: Give to Cesar what is due Cesar, and God what is due God.
Here is a (non rhetorical) question for you: Why didn’t God abolish Cesar? Are our laws logical?

Sure my house is in good shape, but I have to exert effort to keep it that way