<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: What happened to the water?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/</link>
	<description>The world that revolves around Caity Ross</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 07:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Pandammonium</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1390</link>
		<dc:creator>Pandammonium</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jul 2008 10:53:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1390</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I realised that at some point between this morning and yesterday.  That's what happens when you follow Internet guidelines and do a "reset" thing so that all browsers start off with the same blank canvas and forget to style all tags used thereafter.  *rolls eyes*  :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I realised that at some point between this morning and yesterday.  That&#8217;s what happens when you follow Internet guidelines and do a &#8220;reset&#8221; thing so that all browsers start off with the same blank canvas and forget to style all tags used thereafter.  *rolls eyes*  <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phill</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1389</link>
		<dc:creator>Phill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:03:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1389</guid>
		<description>(Puts web developer hat on)

Hmmm, it seems that my tags are showing up in the HTML, however they're just not doing anything. It could be something to do with your stylesheet.

(30 seconds later)

Well, upon investigation using the web developer toolbar, I think the problem lies with your CSS. There's a huge great big line in your default.css file which is resetting everything, including EM and BLOCKQUOTE tags. 

to fix it, remove those couple of tags from your CSS or add them in with your own styles :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(Puts web developer hat on)</p>
<p>Hmmm, it seems that my tags are showing up in the HTML, however they&#8217;re just not doing anything. It could be something to do with your stylesheet.</p>
<p>(30 seconds later)</p>
<p>Well, upon investigation using the web developer toolbar, I think the problem lies with your CSS. There&#8217;s a huge great big line in your default.css file which is resetting everything, including EM and BLOCKQUOTE tags. </p>
<p>to fix it, remove those couple of tags from your CSS or add them in with your own styles <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pandammonium</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1388</link>
		<dc:creator>Pandammonium</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 10:24:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1388</guid>
		<description>Just a quick reply about the tags: I thought it was supposed to work with HTML tags.  I think something odd is going on with the comments in general.  Your tags are actually there when I look at the source code in WP, but they're just not showing.  I shall look into that more fully.

I will also reply to the main part more fully later.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a quick reply about the tags: I thought it was supposed to work with HTML tags.  I think something odd is going on with the comments in general.  Your tags are actually there when I look at the source code in WP, but they&#8217;re just not showing.  I shall look into that more fully.</p>
<p>I will also reply to the main part more fully later.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phill</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1386</link>
		<dc:creator>Phill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:57:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1386</guid>
		<description>Doh! It appears that EM tags are stripped as well. Grrr @ WordPress.

If you read something I've said and it sounds like Deja-vu, I was probably quoting you! :D</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Doh! It appears that EM tags are stripped as well. Grrr @ WordPress.</p>
<p>If you read something I&#8217;ve said and it sounds like Deja-vu, I was probably quoting you! <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phill</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1385</link>
		<dc:creator>Phill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jul 2008 08:56:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1385</guid>
		<description>Hi,

It appears that using blockquote HTML tags do not work here, so I will try and use italics!

&lt;em&gt;I would like you to look up the original Hebrew, if you wouldn’t mind - I think it would be interesting.&lt;/em&gt;

Well, all I've managed to find so far is this: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm -- but it doesn't mean much to me (not sure whether I even have the necessary font installed?!)

And unfortunately I can't read Hebrew so I'm pretty much stuck with the English translation.

&lt;em&gt;If what you say about what Genesis is saying, though, why wasn’t it written in such a way to make that clear? Why does it leave so much open to interpretation?&lt;/em&gt;

Interesting question. IMO it's pretty obvious that it's not giving a scientific account of how the universe came into being. Like I said before, the whole point is to communicate theological truth about creation, and I think for centuries this was the traditional understanding of Genesis 1-2. It's only in the past 50-100 years that the creationist movement has come in and started causing trouble. 

Another thing I find interesting - when Darwin first announced his theory, a lot of theologians and clerics welcomed them, and found nothing in them contrary to Christianity.

&lt;em&gt;If you’ve rejected creationism and accept evolution, do you accept big bang theory? I know it’s unlikely, but it seems the best we’ve got (to date).&lt;/em&gt;

I'm happy to accept any scientific theory really, I don't dismiss anything because of religious reasons. If there's evidence to support the big bang / evolution, great! If you look into the history of science, a lot of the early scientists (I think they were called natural philosophers) were religious and believed reading from the Bible and reading from nature were &lt;em&gt;both&lt;/em&gt; reading the word of God - just in two different ways. That's kind of what I believe, if Christianity is true then science and Christianity are not in conflict - science is in fact telling us more about God! :)

&lt;em&gt;I take on board what you say about where to start, but I’d like to read the Old Testament first - after all, that’s what Jesus grew up with.&lt;/em&gt;

Ok, but bear in mind that you have to view the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. Also, there are lots of references in the OT to Jesus which you wouldn't pick up just by reading it at face value. For example, if you read Hebrews chapter 1, the writer picks up a variety of passages from the OT and applies them to Christ.

Also, you don't want to get too bogged down in the laws etc, most of that is now irrelevant (but that's a matter for a whole other discussion).

Oh, by the way, thanks for the Wikipedia link - I think I'd pretty much agree with that paragraph.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi,</p>
<p>It appears that using blockquote HTML tags do not work here, so I will try and use italics!</p>
<p><em>I would like you to look up the original Hebrew, if you wouldn’t mind - I think it would be interesting.</em></p>
<p>Well, all I&#8217;ve managed to find so far is this: <a href="http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm</a> &#8212; but it doesn&#8217;t mean much to me (not sure whether I even have the necessary font installed?!)</p>
<p>And unfortunately I can&#8217;t read Hebrew so I&#8217;m pretty much stuck with the English translation.</p>
<p><em>If what you say about what Genesis is saying, though, why wasn’t it written in such a way to make that clear? Why does it leave so much open to interpretation?</em></p>
<p>Interesting question. IMO it&#8217;s pretty obvious that it&#8217;s not giving a scientific account of how the universe came into being. Like I said before, the whole point is to communicate theological truth about creation, and I think for centuries this was the traditional understanding of Genesis 1-2. It&#8217;s only in the past 50-100 years that the creationist movement has come in and started causing trouble. </p>
<p>Another thing I find interesting - when Darwin first announced his theory, a lot of theologians and clerics welcomed them, and found nothing in them contrary to Christianity.</p>
<p><em>If you’ve rejected creationism and accept evolution, do you accept big bang theory? I know it’s unlikely, but it seems the best we’ve got (to date).</em></p>
<p>I&#8217;m happy to accept any scientific theory really, I don&#8217;t dismiss anything because of religious reasons. If there&#8217;s evidence to support the big bang / evolution, great! If you look into the history of science, a lot of the early scientists (I think they were called natural philosophers) were religious and believed reading from the Bible and reading from nature were <em>both</em> reading the word of God - just in two different ways. That&#8217;s kind of what I believe, if Christianity is true then science and Christianity are not in conflict - science is in fact telling us more about God! <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p><em>I take on board what you say about where to start, but I’d like to read the Old Testament first - after all, that’s what Jesus grew up with.</em></p>
<p>Ok, but bear in mind that you have to view the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament. Also, there are lots of references in the OT to Jesus which you wouldn&#8217;t pick up just by reading it at face value. For example, if you read Hebrews chapter 1, the writer picks up a variety of passages from the OT and applies them to Christ.</p>
<p>Also, you don&#8217;t want to get too bogged down in the laws etc, most of that is now irrelevant (but that&#8217;s a matter for a whole other discussion).</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, thanks for the Wikipedia link - I think I&#8217;d pretty much agree with that paragraph.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pandammonium</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1384</link>
		<dc:creator>Pandammonium</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:43:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1384</guid>
		<description>Incidentally, it seems the pope said something very similar to what you said: &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_science#Non-fundamentalist_religious_views" rel="nofollow"&gt;wikipedia link&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Incidentally, it seems the pope said something very similar to what you said: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_science#Non-fundamentalist_religious_views" rel="nofollow">wikipedia link</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pandammonium</title>
		<link>http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/2008/06/27/what-happened-to-the-water/#comment-1383</link>
		<dc:creator>Pandammonium</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 19:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/?p=893#comment-1383</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the reply.

Heaven and sky translate into Spanish as the same word as well, &lt;i&gt;cielo&lt;/i&gt;.

I define believing as accepting as true (or likely).  I don't think the events of Genesis are likely or true, hence I don't believe it.  I would like you to look up the original Hebrew, if you wouldn't mind - I think it would be interesting.  I have to say I love the idea of a scientific text being written in poetry!  I agree it's unlikely.

If what you say about what Genesis is saying, though, why wasn't it written in such a way to make that clear?  Why does it leave so much open to interpretation?  Admittedly, it does say creation is good, I'll give you that!  ;)

If you've rejected creationism and accept evolution, do you accept big bang theory?  I know it's unlikely, but it seems the best we've got (to date).

I take on board what you say about where to start, but I'd like to read the Old Testament first - after all, that's what Jesus grew up with.

Incidentally, I should hope Christians are Christians because of Jesus  ;)

Don't apologise for the length of your comment, either - there's no word limit as far as I know!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the reply.</p>
<p>Heaven and sky translate into Spanish as the same word as well, <i>cielo</i>.</p>
<p>I define believing as accepting as true (or likely).  I don&#8217;t think the events of Genesis are likely or true, hence I don&#8217;t believe it.  I would like you to look up the original Hebrew, if you wouldn&#8217;t mind - I think it would be interesting.  I have to say I love the idea of a scientific text being written in poetry!  I agree it&#8217;s unlikely.</p>
<p>If what you say about what Genesis is saying, though, why wasn&#8217;t it written in such a way to make that clear?  Why does it leave so much open to interpretation?  Admittedly, it does say creation is good, I&#8217;ll give you that!  <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>If you&#8217;ve rejected creationism and accept evolution, do you accept big bang theory?  I know it&#8217;s unlikely, but it seems the best we&#8217;ve got (to date).</p>
<p>I take on board what you say about where to start, but I&#8217;d like to read the Old Testament first - after all, that&#8217;s what Jesus grew up with.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I should hope Christians are Christians because of Jesus  <img src='http://pandammonium.org/blogs/pandammonium/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t apologise for the length of your comment, either - there&#8217;s no word limit as far as I know!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 1.543 seconds -->
