Divine Inspiration or Divine Dictation?

[Barrister]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate.   

[Sheilbh]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery.  One of many mysteries of the faith.

[Valmy]

http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_life_of_jesus/jesus_curses_a_tree/mk11_12-13.html

That one is supposed to be an allegory for the destruction of the Temple.  Out of context it is indeed bizarre.

[The Brain]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery.  One of many mysteries of the faith.

It's hardly a mystery. I blame video games.

[garbon]

He is clearly abusing the meaning.

[Neil]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery.  One of many mysteries of the faith.

The more mysteries, the less worthy a faith is of following.

[vinraith]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

The Catholic Church argues that the existence of evil is a mystery.  One of many mysteries of the faith.

And that's what the ancient Greeks referred to as a "cop out."

[vinraith]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate.  

Mostly it just demonstrates mankind's remarkable ability to hold tenaciously to several mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously. This isn't news, of course, but it's certainly a perpetual source of frustration.

[garbon]

I don't think it should be a source of frustration. Sometimes it makes "sense" to hold two or more mutally incompatible ideas.

[Neil]

Epicurus pretty much resolved the incoherence of the "omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God" thing about 2300 years ago, why are we still arguing about it?

Or perhaps since we are still arguing about it it is safe to say that Epicurus did not in fact "pretty much resolve" the debate.   

Mostly it just demonstrates mankind's remarkable ability to hold tenaciously to several mutually incompatible ideas simultaneously. This isn't news, of course, but it's certainly a perpetual source of frustration.

It can be a source of great strength to us.  It allows us to challenge the impossible, and sometimes even win.

[Sheilbh]

And that's what the ancient Greeks referred to as a "cop out."

There are two ancient Greek traditions in terms of the effect they've had on religion.

The Roman Catholic Church generally inherited aspects of the rational, but theoretical rather than later empirical tradition.  While the Eastern churches generally took I think the Pythagorean route of there just being unknowables.

That poses a difficulty.  Because the Catholic Church is dealing with belief rather than anything else things don't have to be explicable.  But it is doctrinally very heavy on logic and building a system.  When it confronts something that cannot be rationally and logically explained but is a core element of belief then it has to just say it's a mystery.  Now that is, to a degree, a cop out.  But I think it's also a more profound aspect of any religious belief.  If there weren't the mysteries of faith then it wouldn't really be faith (which is trust in something fundamentally unknowable).  So yeah the trinity and the existence of evil and so on are mysteries (though the Catechism tries its best) but I don't think you can attack a religion for being ultimately rooted in beliefs in things that can't be rationally explained away.

The Eastern Churches have, I think, a slightly better tradition on this which the Catholic Church is actually incorporating.  Their basic point is how, precisely, does anyone however rational understand an omniscient, omnipresent God.  So instead of emphasising the human contact with God they emphasise the otherness of God.  Much of Greek theology deliberately distances God by pointing out the inadequacy of our thought and language to describe Him/It.  So instead of saying 'an omnipresent, omniscient, benevolent God' they would argue that God is 'not not omnipresent', 'not not omniscient' and 'not not benevolent'.  It's also visible inn the art. 

The Catholic tradition develops art that paints God (Christ) like he's one of us - this is especially the case after the Council of Trent, though naturalism in religious art predates it.  The Greek tradition is far more stylised, the figures are not necessarily human and they're certainly not naturalistically painted.  The Catholic Church's fundamental, core images represent Christ at his most human (and close to us, and almost attainable): the crucifixion and the nativity.  Christ enduring pain and agony and Christ as a defenceless babe.  By contrast the Churches that inherit the Byzantine tradition take as key images Christ at his least human, Christ very much as God.  The Byzantine world abounds in images of Christ ascending to heaven, sitting in Last Judgement and the transfiguration.

Protestantism of course chose as its central image the bare cross, that is an instrument of torture and execution.  Instead of admitting anything the two older Churches had realised seemed to think that deep theological meaning was like scum on a pond that anyone could skim. 

[Sheilbh]

So, to contrast.  The Catholic tradition:

And the Greek:

[Barrister]

Very neutral summary of Protestantism there sheilbh.

[Neil]

Why does the Catholic tradition look so much better than the Greek?

[Neil]

Instead of admitting anything the two older Churches had realised

Well, it's hard to blame them, since Eastern Christianity had proven itself to be false by being almost wiped out, and Roman Catholicism had largely degenerated into a pyramid scheme by the Reformation.