<?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: The Need for my Series on Interpreting the Bible</title>
	<atom:link href="http://henrysthreads.com/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/</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/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-128565</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:44:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1913#comment-128565</guid>
		<description>Just so.  Apologetics is often a screwed up business, and I say that as someone who publishes (as you know) a couple of books on the topic.  I would make a small exception for someone who concedes they are responding to a certain group, i.e. an apologist responding specifically to the &quot;new atheists&quot; or an atheist attacking specifically &quot;fundamentalist Christianity&quot; or &quot;evangelical Christianity&quot; or even (horrors!) &quot;liberal Christianity!

But there is remarkably little of that going on, at least that I have discovered.  Not none, but too little.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just so.  Apologetics is often a screwed up business, and I say that as someone who publishes (as you know) a couple of books on the topic.  I would make a small exception for someone who concedes they are responding to a certain group, i.e. an apologist responding specifically to the &#8220;new atheists&#8221; or an atheist attacking specifically &#8220;fundamentalist Christianity&#8221; or &#8220;evangelical Christianity&#8221; or even (horrors!) &#8220;liberal Christianity!</p>
<p>But there is remarkably little of that going on, at least that I have discovered.  Not none, but too little.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Henry Neufeld</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-128564</link>
		<dc:creator>Henry Neufeld</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1913#comment-128564</guid>
		<description>... and not even a relevant post!  I have fixed the link, which should have gone &lt;a href=&quot;http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/the-dilemma-of-science-and-faith/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230; and not even a relevant post!  I have fixed the link, which should have gone <a href="http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/the-dilemma-of-science-and-faith/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin LaBar</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-128563</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin LaBar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:52:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1913#comment-128563</guid>
		<description>The link which is supposed to go to Tony Mitchell actually leads to one of your own posts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The link which is supposed to go to Tony Mitchell actually leads to one of your own posts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher Smith</title>
		<link>http://henrysthreads.com/2009/01/the-need-for-my-series-on-interpreting-the-bible/comment-page-1/#comment-128562</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 08:51:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=1913#comment-128562</guid>
		<description>The same principle could be applied in reverse to apologetic books.  Rather than arguing atheism is a bankrupt paradigm on the basis of an examination of the views of uneducated atheists at the popular level, I think that Christian apologists have a responsibility to engage secularism at its strongest: to compare our best to their best, so to speak.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The same principle could be applied in reverse to apologetic books.  Rather than arguing atheism is a bankrupt paradigm on the basis of an examination of the views of uneducated atheists at the popular level, I think that Christian apologists have a responsibility to engage secularism at its strongest: to compare our best to their best, so to speak.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

