[PairTheBoard]

Goetz --
"The death of God’s Christ is in part God’s atonement to his creatures for evil."

Cyrus --
"Only a supreme sadist would allow, while being all-powerful, for evil to exist. (Else, He is NOT all poweful but impotent before evil.)"

Did you read the whole discussion by Goetz on the link? I think his argument is that God allows evil for the sake of some ultimate good and that this is the best of possible worlds in the grand long term view. Given that, god suffers along with humans so that he's not asking anything of us he's not willing to go through himself. Thus the cross as symbol of his atonement to us for the evil he allows. Goetz admits this is a radical theology. I'm not sure what to make of it myself.


You might notice that I mentioned in my OP that Goetz does not suggest that a Suffering God solves the problems of good and evil that you describe in your post. In fact, Goetz says that The Suffering God excacerbates those problems. You might argue now that not only is God a Sadist to allow Evil but a Masochist to suffer with it.


I do find the idea of a god who suffers with us one that a lot of people intuit as part of their personal relationship with god. As Goetz points out in his discussion, most theologians he talks to agree with the idea of god suffering with us although they may not embed it in their theology. It seems to me a healthy thing for Christians to believe that god is involved and participates when they mistreat another or when they suffer from mistreatment themselves.

Cyrus --
"I'm formally a Christian, although not exactly a practicing one. "

How then do you reconcile your Christian beliefs with the paradoxes you raise above?

PairTheBoard