<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Book:  Evolution and Christian Faith</title>
	<atom:link href="http://henrysthreads.com/2008/04/book-evolution-and-christian-faith/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2008/04/book-evolution-and-christian-faith/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 02:11:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2008/04/book-evolution-and-christian-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-104053</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:01:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1257#comment-104053</guid>
		<description>I have written on this before on this blog, for example &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=994&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Bad Theology and ID&lt;/a&gt;.  If you check the related posts at the end of that one you should get several more.

It&#039;s hard to define what bad theology is except within a particular system, but nonetheless the claim has been made numerous times.  From my own theological perspective, ID is bad, i.e. it contradicts essential points of my theology.  How important that is depends on whether one accepts those major elements.

All of which re-emphasizes that theology and science operate differently.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have written on this before on this blog, for example <a href="http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=994" rel="nofollow">Bad Theology and ID</a>.  If you check the related posts at the end of that one you should get several more.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s hard to define what bad theology is except within a particular system, but nonetheless the claim has been made numerous times.  From my own theological perspective, ID is bad, i.e. it contradicts essential points of my theology.  How important that is depends on whether one accepts those major elements.</p>
<p>All of which re-emphasizes that theology and science operate differently.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe M</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2008/04/book-evolution-and-christian-faith/comment-page-1/#comment-104035</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 11:09:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1257#comment-104035</guid>
		<description></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;and finally calls ID “junk religion” (p. 101). She says it should be discussed in religion classes in order to point out just how bad it is as theology.&#8221;</p>
<p>This is an aspect that I&#8217;ve never considered. I usually consider ID in the pseudoscientific sense. What makes it junk religion? Is it because ID is using superficial theology to try to prove god&#8217;s existence?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

