<?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: A Suffering God</title>
	<atom:link href="http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=a-suffering-god</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 19:00:30 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Brink</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-305</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Brink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-305</guid>
		<description>Rich I haven&#039;t heard of compatibalism.  But I think there is a great truth embedded in it, mostly because it appears to be inclusive of choice as much as divine providence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rich I haven&#39;t heard of compatibalism.  But I think there is a great truth embedded in it, mostly because it appears to be inclusive of choice as much as divine providence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Brink</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-1692</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Brink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:48:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-1692</guid>
		<description>Rich I haven&#039;t heard of compatibalism.  But I think there is a great truth embedded in it, mostly because it appears to be inclusive of choice as much as divine providence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rich I haven&#39;t heard of compatibalism.  But I think there is a great truth embedded in it, mostly because it appears to be inclusive of choice as much as divine providence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheGoulieKid</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator>TheGoulieKid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-304</guid>
		<description>What do you think about CS Lewis&#039; musings on compatibalism, Jonathan?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment - or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think about CS Lewis&#39; musings on compatibalism, Jonathan?</p>
<p>&#8220;In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment &#8211; or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TheGoulieKid</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-1691</link>
		<dc:creator>TheGoulieKid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:39:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-1691</guid>
		<description>What do you think about CS Lewis&#039; musings on compatibalism, Jonathan?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&quot;In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment - or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What do you think about CS Lewis&#39; musings on compatibalism, Jonathan?</p>
<p>&#8220;In the play Hamlet, Ophelia climbs out on a branch overhanging a river: the branch breaks, she falls and drowns. What would you reply if someone asked, ‘Did Ophelia die because Shakespeare for poetic reasons, wanted her to die at that moment &#8211; or because the branch broke?’ I think that one would have to say ‘For both reasons.’ Every event in the play happens as a result of other events in the play, but also every event happens because the poet wants it to happen. All the events in the play are Shakespearean events; similarly, all events in the real world are providential events… ‘Providence’ and natural causation are not alternatives; both determine every event. Both are one.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Brink</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-303</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Brink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-303</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s funny when I read a little about Open Theism.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What stood out to me about a Closed Theism was the idea of impassibility, or that God does not have emotion.  Yet when I look at Jesus, I find deep emotion.  And therein lies the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#39;s funny when I read a little about Open Theism.  </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism</a></p>
<p>What stood out to me about a Closed Theism was the idea of impassibility, or that God does not have emotion.  Yet when I look at Jesus, I find deep emotion.  And therein lies the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Brink</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-1694</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Brink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 12:13:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-1694</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s funny when I read a little about Open Theism.  &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;What stood out to me about a Closed Theism was the idea of impassibility, or that God does not have emotion.  Yet when I look at Jesus, I find deep emotion.  And therein lies the problem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#39;s funny when I read a little about Open Theism.  </p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism</a></p>
<p>What stood out to me about a Closed Theism was the idea of impassibility, or that God does not have emotion.  Yet when I look at Jesus, I find deep emotion.  And therein lies the problem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raffi Shahinian</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-302</link>
		<dc:creator>Raffi Shahinian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-302</guid>
		<description>Aha! I will heretofore label you an Open Theist.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Burn, heretic, burn!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aha! I will heretofore label you an Open Theist.</p>
<p>Burn, heretic, burn!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Raffi Shahinian</title>
		<link>http://jonathanbrink.com/2009/10/21/a-suffering-god/#comment-1693</link>
		<dc:creator>Raffi Shahinian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://jonathanbrink.com/?p=33#comment-1693</guid>
		<description>Aha! I will heretofore label you an Open Theist.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Burn, heretic, burn!!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aha! I will heretofore label you an Open Theist.</p>
<p>Burn, heretic, burn!!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
