[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm getting tired of defending myself for things I didn't say NotReady


[/ QUOTE ]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]

The author presents a radically new theological idea that God's Suffering on the cross was not an atonement for human evil but more of an atonement for God's allowing evil in the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

P.S. - I never read the article.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? What's your problem with what I said?

Do you argue that God does not "allow evil in the world"? If so, fine. Make your arguement. If he does allow evil in the world, do you know of any past theology which asserts that he atones to us for that on the cross? Goetz said it was radical so I took his word for it. I don't see how God's "allowing evil in the world" equates to God's being Evil or causing the evil or even it's being his fault, but if that's your argument go ahead and make it. Unless you think God does not "allow" evil in the world in which case it's moot.

btw, I think I may have misspoke when I indicated Goetz's theology was for the atonement exclusively in that direction. He may have said the cross was partially to atone to God for our sins and partially to atone to us for God's allowing evil in the world. If the link was up I'd get the exact quote.

I really don't find the so called radical theology Goetz introduces that interesting myself. I can't see it going anywhere. But the idea that God suffers along with us in our suffering I do find interesting and I think it is the way a lot of people are thinking these days. That much of it was evidently supported by Barth who I know has influenced a lot of theologians. However, according to the other links it's a heresy or at least was at one time.


PairTheBoard