<?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/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Applied Theology &#8211; The Incarnation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/02/13/applying-theology-the-incarnation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/02/13/applying-theology-the-incarnation/</link>
	<description>Reshaping the world through rational and relational Christianity</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:09:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel</title>
		<link>http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/02/13/applying-theology-the-incarnation/#comment-133</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:51:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thechristianwatershed.com/?p=175#comment-133</guid>
		<description>Cindy, 

Your comment leads me to want to write another post dealing with boring theology. 

I think studies in theology can often be boring because we&#039;ve compartmentalized theology into a purely intellectual realm. This was surely finalized by modernism, but I would say begun by Aquinas. Though I am no opponent to systematic theology or to examining the minimal details of theology, I think we have to keep a bigger picture mentality in mind. 

I always get weird looks when certain theological elements are discussed, because I always attempt to keep a bigger view in mind. When I study theodicy, I do so with tears because I immediately equate it to the bigger picture of Christian theology. Though I can fail at this, I do strive to see a bigger picture. 

For instance, a study of Plantinga&#039;s &quot;God, Freedom, and Evil&quot; can be quite boring at times. If one, however, keeps in mind the beauty of God allowing humans freedom, allowing evil, all so He can display His love, then Plantiga&#039;s syllogistic, propositional, and very dry book comes alive as a love story, of God loving humanity and allowing certain evils to exist so His love is displayed. 

Anyway, to me that is why theology always seems boring - those teaching it (or studying it) fail to apply it to other theological principles or to the reality of life. This is sad considering theology should always guide our lives - theology that has nothing to do with reality is a theology that isn&#039;t a reality.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cindy, </p>
<p>Your comment leads me to want to write another post dealing with boring theology. </p>
<p>I think studies in theology can often be boring because we&#8217;ve compartmentalized theology into a purely intellectual realm. This was surely finalized by modernism, but I would say begun by Aquinas. Though I am no opponent to systematic theology or to examining the minimal details of theology, I think we have to keep a bigger picture mentality in mind. </p>
<p>I always get weird looks when certain theological elements are discussed, because I always attempt to keep a bigger view in mind. When I study theodicy, I do so with tears because I immediately equate it to the bigger picture of Christian theology. Though I can fail at this, I do strive to see a bigger picture. </p>
<p>For instance, a study of Plantinga&#8217;s &#8220;God, Freedom, and Evil&#8221; can be quite boring at times. If one, however, keeps in mind the beauty of God allowing humans freedom, allowing evil, all so He can display His love, then Plantiga&#8217;s syllogistic, propositional, and very dry book comes alive as a love story, of God loving humanity and allowing certain evils to exist so His love is displayed. </p>
<p>Anyway, to me that is why theology always seems boring &#8211; those teaching it (or studying it) fail to apply it to other theological principles or to the reality of life. This is sad considering theology should always guide our lives &#8211; theology that has nothing to do with reality is a theology that isn&#8217;t a reality.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: cindyinsd</title>
		<link>http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/02/13/applying-theology-the-incarnation/#comment-130</link>
		<dc:creator>cindyinsd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:04:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thechristianwatershed.com/?p=175#comment-130</guid>
		<description>Wow, Joel

I expected this to be, well, dry. You&#039;ve really surprised me. What an excellent application to our lives. Thanks for opening this up for me.

God bless, Cindy</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Joel</p>
<p>I expected this to be, well, dry. You&#8217;ve really surprised me. What an excellent application to our lives. Thanks for opening this up for me.</p>
<p>God bless, Cindy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doulos</title>
		<link>http://thechristianwatershed.com/2009/02/13/applying-theology-the-incarnation/#comment-129</link>
		<dc:creator>Doulos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2009 16:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thechristianwatershed.com/?p=175#comment-129</guid>
		<description>I know it&#039;s not exactly an &#039;applied&#039; thing, but an interesting bit of information/history:

There rose up in the early church a conflict between the iconodules, those who believed that it was okay to represent Christ, biblical events, and saints in icons, and the iconoclasts, those who believed that it was wrong.

There was called by the emperor of that time what has come to be known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council and in this council it was decided that it was okay to make icons. The lynchpin in the whole argument was the Incarnation. The iconodules argued that since Christ became flesh, became material, then it was possible to represent that material body in a material medium. They argued that the deny this was to deny the power of the Incarnation to sanctify the material world.

Ever since then the Orthodox Church still celebrates this event on the first Sunday of Lent an its known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I know it&#8217;s not exactly an &#8216;applied&#8217; thing, but an interesting bit of information/history:</p>
<p>There rose up in the early church a conflict between the iconodules, those who believed that it was okay to represent Christ, biblical events, and saints in icons, and the iconoclasts, those who believed that it was wrong.</p>
<p>There was called by the emperor of that time what has come to be known as the Seventh Ecumenical Council and in this council it was decided that it was okay to make icons. The lynchpin in the whole argument was the Incarnation. The iconodules argued that since Christ became flesh, became material, then it was possible to represent that material body in a material medium. They argued that the deny this was to deny the power of the Incarnation to sanctify the material world.</p>
<p>Ever since then the Orthodox Church still celebrates this event on the first Sunday of Lent an its known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
