Podcast: Greg Confronts Nietzsche

Greg goes toe-to-toe with Friedrich Nietzsche in this epic battle of philosophers.   

An 1889 oil sketch of Friedrich Nietzsche on his sick bed by Hans Johann Wilhelm Olde.

Nietszche

Send Questions To:

Dan: @thatdankent
Email: askgregboyd@gmail.com
Twitter: @reKnewOrg


Greg’s new book: Inspired Imperfection
Dan’s new book: Confident Humility


Subscribe:

    Stitcher        

Category:
Tags:

Related Reading

The Logical Hexagon Made Simple

by: Greg Boyd The Hexagaon in a Nutshell For those of you who don’t have the twenty to thirty minutes it will probably take to read this essay but who nevertheless would like to have some idea of what the Logical Hexagon is all about, here is my two sentence elevator speech: The Logical Hexagon…

Podcast: What is the Greatest Philosophical Blunder in History?

Greg goes WAY back to trace an erroneous thought. His investigation brings all the way back to the pre-Socratics and the Ground-of-Being.  http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0249.mp3

Free Will: What is a free agent?

What does it really mean to be a free agent? In this reflection, Greg offers some thoughts on free agents and how it can be that they are not exhaustively determined.

Crucifying Transcendence

The classical view of God’s transcendence in theology is in large borrowed from a major strand within Hellenistic philosophy. In sharp contrast to ancient Israelites, whose conception of God was entirely based on their experience of God acting dynamically and in self-revelatory ways in history, the concept of God at work in ancient Greek philosophy…

How Classical Theology Gets It Wrong

Classical theology has conceived of God as altogether necessary, simple, timeless, unchanging and unknowable. This view of God requires us to conclude that biblical images of God do not reflect the way God truly is insofar as they portray God moving in sequence with humans from the past into the future, for this obviously conflicts…

Lighten Up: You Gotta Believe In Something, Man!

Two things here: 1) How does this philosopher not see that “not believing in believing” is itself a belief? 2) Is that a turtleneck or is that philosopher just really hairy?