<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="todaycom/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Comparative Scripture #3: The Bible and Confucius</title>
	<link>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:37:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://www.today.com/version-2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: happycolour</title>
		<link>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-231</link>
		<dc:creator>happycolour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-231</guid>
		<description>Oh I see. I read your other posts on this for explanation. What I think is important to note is that the context of the book does change the message portrayed in the individual text. Although you can take words out and put them together it doesn't mean in actuality they are truly compatible. What you have done, in a sense, is make a new religious text rather then prove compatibility.
However with this objection aside, I would note in your defence, that religious texts and older philosophical treatise have vast similarities. I think this is due to them heavily influencing each other more than we historically give credit for. Interesting read, it required work!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh I see. I read your other posts on this for explanation. What I think is important to note is that the context of the book does change the message portrayed in the individual text. Although you can take words out and put them together it doesn&#8217;t mean in actuality they are truly compatible. What you have done, in a sense, is make a new religious text rather then prove compatibility.<br />
However with this objection aside, I would note in your defence, that religious texts and older philosophical treatise have vast similarities. I think this is due to them heavily influencing each other more than we historically give credit for. Interesting read, it required work!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: happycolour</title>
		<link>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-229</link>
		<dc:creator>happycolour</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 09:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-229</guid>
		<description>I am curious what you are attempting to compare. Please explain.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am curious what you are attempting to compare. Please explain.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: eclecticbird</title>
		<link>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-228</link>
		<dc:creator>eclecticbird</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:58:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://waxingpoetically.today.com/2008/07/25/comparative-scripture-3-the-bible-and-confucius/#comment-228</guid>
		<description>::hugs:: Thanks for the sources :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>::hugs:: Thanks for the sources <img src='http://waxingpoetically.today.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


