|
|
#41
08-14-2005, 04:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Suffering God
Here's a link that says the Theopaschite formula, ‘One of the Trinity suffered’, is orthodox but the Theopaschite Heresy, namely the belief that on Calvary one of the Trinity suffered as God, is not.
arimathea PairTheBoard 
|
|
#42
08-14-2005, 11:37 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
[ 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.
|
|
#43
08-15-2005, 02:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
[ 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
|
|
#44
08-15-2005, 02:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
Again, 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 ] The word atonement means " Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation." The implication of your statement, since the atonement is for something God did, is that God did something wrong. Again, if you don't think God is evil, just say so.
|
|
#45
08-15-2005, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
[ QUOTE ]
Again, 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 ] The word atonement means " Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation." The implication of your statement, since the atonement is for something God did, is that God did something wrong. Again, if you don't think God is evil, just say so. [/ QUOTE ] "Again, if you don't think God is evil, just say so." I resent this reproach by you. I think you befoul yourself with it. I don't see any justification for your use of my presentation of the Goetz article to make personal attacks on me. You think Goetz's theology implies .....? So you attack me personally for it? What's wrong with you? "The implication of your statement" Again you insist on making Goetz's statement mine. Why? "reparation made for an injury " I'm guessing Goetz is using the word to mean something like that. He doesn't even flesh out the theology in the article so I don't know how he justifies use of the word. I suppose the idea is that god allows evil in the world. That evil causes people to suffer - injury. But it's necessary for God's greater plan. So god repares the unavoidable injury. I don't know. Get Goetz's book on it and see what he says. Evidently you choose to ignore the rest of my post. Why? Because it doesn't fit in with your personal vendetta with me? [ QUOTE ] PairTheBoard -- 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. [/ QUOTE ] Why don't you speak to the point of whether god suffers along with us when we suffer? Is that also "beyond blasphemy"? Or is that not so clearly vendetta material for you? PairTheBoard
|
|
#47
08-15-2005, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I think you befoul yourself with it. [/ QUOTE ] This statement is as ridiculous as calling me a child molester. You don't want to debate honestly, that's fine. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's clear to anyone reading this thread who is being dishonest with their tactics. You prove it once again with the "child molester" phrase. You know I never used that phrase. Yet you assert it here anyway. You are the one being dishonest. What I have said, and I'll repeat it here, is that when someone teaches an innocent child that she is a depraved sinner that god will send to hell where she will be tormented for all time unless she conforms to what she's being told, that person is guilty of child abuse. I will go further and say that such a theology is a sick theology. PairTheBoard
|
|
#49
08-15-2005, 11:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Suffering God
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] that person is guilty of child abuse. [/ QUOTE ] You must think nobody on this forum can read. [/ QUOTE ] I think most people on this forum know the difference between "someone who is guilty of child abuse" and a "child molester". I think you do too. When you claim you don't you are being dishonest. By bringing this up it also shows I was right in saying that your tactics on this thread are motivated by a spirit of vendetta or revenge. You have indeed befouled yourself here notready. PairTheBoard
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
