A Series On A Violent God

[One Bad Pig]

I'm just going to look at description of videos from link of rodent, and





No, it's culture conditioning of people now that don't allow God to be portrayed as violent.

Why are moderns such special special people?? 'Those ancient people all culturally conditioned, but we specially Enlightened '

Pacifism (which is the lens through which Greg Boyd is approaching the OT) is not necessarily a modern concept. I believe Amazing Rando did an extensive study on the Church Fathers exploring their views on it.

I disagree with Boyd more over his open theism than his pacifism, FWIW.

[MaxVel]

I've listened to the first two messages. Here's my 'hot take'

So far, his argument seems to be the the OT was God accommodating to the perspectives of the people of the time. So, they kind of expected a God who would tell them to destroy their enemies etc etc, and God 'went along with that' so as to build a relationship and move them to a place where they could accept His real nature (non-violent). He seems to argue that the NT Jesus is the real depiction of what God is like, and the OT is an accommodation.

I think this argument is vulnerable to a few challenges:

(1) It assumes that the NT Jesus 'meek and mild' is the totality of who Jesus is - that Jesus would never be violent towards God's enemies. I think this is debatable.

(2) It assumes that the NT is the 'real God' and the OT an accommodation, but couldn't we reverse the argument and say that the OT is the real one and the NT an accommodation? How would we know which is which?

(3) I feel that (so far) Boyd kind of glides over proving that the OT God is as violent as he implies. I think a deeper look at the context would be helpful, but maybe a sermon series is not the place for that. Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank is quite helpful for that.

[Meh Gerbil]

I've listened to the first two messages. Here's my 'hot take'

So far, his argument seems to be the the OT was God accommodating to the perspectives of the people of the time. So, they kind of expected a God who would tell them to destroy their enemies etc etc, and God 'went along with that' so as to build a relationship and move them to a place where they could accept His real nature (non-violent). He seems to argue that the NT Jesus is the real depiction of what God is like, and the OT is an accommodation.

I think this argument is vulnerable to a few challenges:

(1) It assumes that the NT Jesus 'meek and mild' is the totality of who Jesus is - that Jesus would never be violent towards God's enemies. I think this is debatable.

(2) It assumes that the NT is the 'real God' and the OT an accommodation, but couldn't we reverse the argument and say that the OT is the real one and the NT an accommodation? How would we know which is which?

(3) I feel that (so far) Boyd kind of glides over proving that the OT God is as violent as he implies. I think a deeper look at the context would be helpful, but maybe a sermon series is not the place for that. Glenn Miller's Christian Thinktank is quite helpful for that.

From what I see of the two books (just skimming them) they appear to go into a great bit of detail.
I see the video series as an introduction to the topic.
I think you should join us on July 1st.

[demi-conservative]

A different take on the problem of the Old Testament God vs. the New Testament God.
A four part video series by Greg Boyd
http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/se...cross-centered

Definitely worth consideration.

From summary of first video of link of yours:

Something similar is going on with the violent portraits of God in the Old Testament. Because Greg trusts the character of Shelley, he can imagine that something else going on. If he did not fully trust his wife's character, then he would assume that her violent acts on the street are part of her character. The same applies to our view of God. If we don't see that the cross is the center of God's character, then we are forced to conclude that the violent portraits of God actually reveal his character. If we really trust that God is revealed to us in Jesus Christ who died on the cross, then we can see that something else really is going on in the depictions of God being violent.

Except that cross is not just about love, also sacrifice but also violent judgment by God! So this is coherent with 'OT God'. QED!!!

[Meh Gerbil]

Demi,
If you'd like to join us on July 1st you'd be welcome; however, you'll have to meet the requirements to participate in the discussion.
This issue is too important for me to take input from those who cannot get past a summary.

Thanks,
Meh Gerbil

[Darth Executor]

Demi,
If you'd like to join us on July 1st you'd be welcome; however, you'll have to meet the requirements to participate in the discussion.
This issue is too important for me to take input from those who cannot get past a summary.

Thanks,
Meh Gerbil

The problem is that it's obvious from the summaries alone that it would be a complete waste of time. Not only does he not seem to cover any new ground, the material is blatantly heretical.

[Darth Executor]

Demi,
If you'd like to join us on July 1st you'd be welcome; however, you'll have to meet the requirements to participate in the discussion.
This issue is too important for me to take input from those who cannot get past a summary.

Thanks,
Meh Gerbil

I agree that this issue is important so it boggles the mind that you want to limit people solely to those who have read some guy's take on it (that isn't even original, it's typical pacifist boilerplate). It sounds more like this topic is too important for you to have your mind changed on so you set up a ridiculous barrier that ensures only like-minded people will participate.

[Meh Gerbil]

I agree that this issue is important so it boggles the mind that you want to limit people solely to those who have read some guy's take on it (that isn't even original, it's typical pacifist boilerplate). It sounds more like this topic is too important for you to have your mind changed on so you set up a ridiculous barrier that ensures only like-minded people will participate.

I've not made up my mind on the issue.
This is the first I've seen of this particular theory.

[Bisto]

@Mr. MG

I hope you make a 'Lite' thread later for a more open discussion on this. It's unlikely I would participate in either thread, but surely more TWebbers would than in your official one, and it would make an interesting read later. I understand you want people interested in all the material the author in question presents, but for the sake of ideas, I personally hope you (or anyone else, for that matter) make such a thread at some point.

[Jedidiah]

I agree that this issue is important so it boggles the mind that you want to limit people solely to those who have read some guy's take on it (that isn't even original, it's typical pacifist boilerplate). It sounds more like this topic is too important for you to have your mind changed on so you set up a ridiculous barrier that ensures only like-minded people will participate.

Darth, start a thread on the subject and do not limit participation.

[Jedidiah]

@Mr. MG

I hope you make a 'Lite' thread later for a more open discussion on this. It's unlikely I would participate in either thread, but surely more TWebbers would than in your official one, and it would make an interesting read later. I understand you want people interested in all the material the author in question presents, but for the sake of ideas, I personally hope you (or anyone else, for that matter) make such a thread at some point.

I recommended that Darth start such a thread. Perhaps you can do it before he does.

[Meh Gerbil]

@Mr. MG

I hope you make a 'Lite' thread later for a more open discussion on this. It's unlikely I would participate in either thread, but surely more TWebbers would than in your official one, and it would make an interesting read later. I understand you want people interested in all the material the author in question presents, but for the sake of ideas, I personally hope you (or anyone else, for that matter) make such a thread at some point.

I imagine two threads will run side by side.
I'm not against discussing it at various levels but I'd like to get past the feces hurling point in the more serious thread.
You know how TWEB can get.

[KingsGambit]

Boyd has written extensively about the issue already and I think one can easily get the gist of large chunks of his argument without three hours of watching videos (reading is a much faster way of learning).

[Darth Executor]

I've not made up my mind on the issue.
This is the first I've seen of this particular theory.

really? because i distinctly remember you presenting the same ideas well over a year ago

[demi-conservative]

Demi,
If you'd like to join us on July 1st you'd be welcome; however, you'll have to meet the requirements to participate in the discussion.

Don't think I have time to watch all those.

Anyway, you should be okay with Darth to save you from becoming vegetarian pacifist treehugging hippy!!