<?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: God’s Non Violent Conversion</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.chuckfreeman.org/2010/04/02/god%e2%80%99s-non-violent-conversion/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.chuckfreeman.org/2010/04/02/god%e2%80%99s-non-violent-conversion/</link>
	<description>Chuck&#039;s Media Ventures Promoting Spirituality, Democracy, Ethics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 03:27:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JD Meyer</title>
		<link>http://www.chuckfreeman.org/2010/04/02/god%e2%80%99s-non-violent-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-346</link>
		<dc:creator>JD Meyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:04:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chuckfreeman.org/?p=20#comment-346</guid>
		<description>It seems that you can find opposite style statements throughout the Bible. For example, there&#039;s the one about forgiving your neighbor&#039;s transgressions so God will forgive you. But on the other hand, accepting Christ as your Savior atones you of sins, including non-forgiveness. Which is it? The latter seems gloomier but safer. The first choice makes more sense.
I&#039;ve been going to a Cumberland Presbyterian church lately but still have Unitarian-Universalist tendencies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems that you can find opposite style statements throughout the Bible. For example, there&#8217;s the one about forgiving your neighbor&#8217;s transgressions so God will forgive you. But on the other hand, accepting Christ as your Savior atones you of sins, including non-forgiveness. Which is it? The latter seems gloomier but safer. The first choice makes more sense.<br />
I&#8217;ve been going to a Cumberland Presbyterian church lately but still have Unitarian-Universalist tendencies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AnneWilliams</title>
		<link>http://www.chuckfreeman.org/2010/04/02/god%e2%80%99s-non-violent-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-84</link>
		<dc:creator>AnneWilliams</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 04:00:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chuckfreeman.org/?p=20#comment-84</guid>
		<description>Respectfully, sir, the Bible  to which you refer  was the work of men, many men,
and long after the events  happened to which it refers.  It has been translated and transcribed, times innumerable, through centuries and millenia.   The &quot;god&quot; concept therein changes to suit the various transcribers.  The concepts are man-made.   Whatever the &quot;force&quot; is to which men ascribe the name &quot;god&quot;
comes out of their own unevolving  imaginations in an attempt to make sense of
a boundless universe which  we now know has no beginning, no center, and no end in sight.
Our world is still not flat and our Earth is  still not the center of any universe.
Concepts of &#039;god&#039;  as described in the Christian Bible are still the product of many fertile  but more or less primitive human imaginations, dreamed up by men of many cultures and languages down through the ages.  But you cling to the word as you question &quot; &#039;god&#039;s&#039; conversion to non- violence&quot;.  You think &quot;god&quot; has &quot;a mind&quot;  &quot;he&quot; (&quot;she&quot;?) can change, along with a long, white beard, just like earthmen?   I gather you are a theist--in the face of these truths?    Have you no doubt?  (That is &quot;a-theist&quot; -- not &quot;atheist&quot; though you seem to tend in this general direction but  do not take the next logical step.) Your doubting and questioning goes just so far, and stops, as if you are still stuck in that place.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Respectfully, sir, the Bible  to which you refer  was the work of men, many men,<br />
and long after the events  happened to which it refers.  It has been translated and transcribed, times innumerable, through centuries and millenia.   The &#8220;god&#8221; concept therein changes to suit the various transcribers.  The concepts are man-made.   Whatever the &#8220;force&#8221; is to which men ascribe the name &#8220;god&#8221;<br />
comes out of their own unevolving  imaginations in an attempt to make sense of<br />
a boundless universe which  we now know has no beginning, no center, and no end in sight.<br />
Our world is still not flat and our Earth is  still not the center of any universe.<br />
Concepts of &#8216;god&#8217;  as described in the Christian Bible are still the product of many fertile  but more or less primitive human imaginations, dreamed up by men of many cultures and languages down through the ages.  But you cling to the word as you question &#8221; &#8216;god&#8217;s&#8217; conversion to non- violence&#8221;.  You think &#8220;god&#8221; has &#8220;a mind&#8221;  &#8220;he&#8221; (&#8220;she&#8221;?) can change, along with a long, white beard, just like earthmen?   I gather you are a theist&#8211;in the face of these truths?    Have you no doubt?  (That is &#8220;a-theist&#8221; &#8212; not &#8220;atheist&#8221; though you seem to tend in this general direction but  do not take the next logical step.) Your doubting and questioning goes just so far, and stops, as if you are still stuck in that place.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Freeman</title>
		<link>http://www.chuckfreeman.org/2010/04/02/god%e2%80%99s-non-violent-conversion/comment-page-1/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Freeman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 02:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.chuckfreeman.org/?p=20#comment-47</guid>
		<description>thanks for your post!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>thanks for your post!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

