My answer to this question is as follows.
Interesting article however, Bono is not a good source to quote. He has religious belief obviously but at least one of his statements are way off.
It is highly possible for a person to be 'mentally unbalanced', and to be perfectly coherent. Mentally unbalanced is a modern definition, and a very slippery concept, being actually defined by a persons deviance from what is the common perception of 'sane', 'normal' (whatever that is ?) 'consistently rational', etc.
Many say Hitler was 'insane', and Stalin. However they both had their own strict rationality from which they did not deviate. I am not comparing Jesus to either but only in relation to insanity, consistancy, devotion to their one cause etc.
As I believe there is no God, nor is one necessary to explain (most of) 'reality', I cannot believe that Jesus WAS God.
Believing in the necessity to believe in both, to be able to be a 'good christian', is false, both logically and philosophically.
A Good Christain does not need to actually believe in God. He/she can stick to all (as far as is possibe) the tenets of his preaching, without accepting that his claims to actually BE God were true. After all if Jesus was himself convinced that he WAS GOD, (falsely because he was 'mentally unbalanced', i.e. not comforming to the commonly held belief that no MAN could or should make such a claim, but also because he had a false belief that such an entity actually existed even though he was convinced, or had convinced himself that it did, and that he was the personification of 'it', and therefore possibly 'insane', certainly in the then current Jewish belief system). Paradoxes can tie you up in knots !
There is a paradox here as outlined on your article and recognised by many philosophers, including Lewis.
Paradoxes, by their nature, cannot be answered, and I believe that Jesus was well aware of this and their presence in his teachings. After all Christain preachers spend an awful lot of their time attempting to interpret Jesus's teachings, and always fail as there is NO complete, consistant or entirely rational interpretation of them (because they contain paradoxes).
Paradoxes are of course imbedded in all belief systems, purely because no belief system is 'perfect', so therefore must contain paradoxes.