define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true);
define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true);<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>theology &#8211; Making Chutney</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.makingchutney.com/tag/theology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.makingchutney.com</link>
	<description>One part facial hair.  Two parts moxy.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:30:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Top 20 theological pick up lines</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/08/top-20-theological-pick-up-lines/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/08/top-20-theological-pick-up-lines/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:29:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pick up lines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/08/top-20-theological-pick-up-lines/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[For the theologically afflicted. Use at your own risk.]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/10/08/top-20-theological-pick-up-lines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>But is it snake bite relevant?</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/08/04/but-is-it-snake-bite-relevant/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/08/04/but-is-it-snake-bite-relevant/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:33:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[ATLBloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relevance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/08/04/relevance-is-irrelevant/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8220;Is UU history relevant?&#8221; seems to be the question of the hour. I want to add a word of caution. Relevance isn&#8217;t a project. It isn&#8217;t something you prove or disprove. To say that coming from the other direction, if you have to prove something is relevant, it isn&#8217;t relevant. Modern Christianity raged with the [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/08/04/but-is-it-snake-bite-relevant/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Inclusionism versus universalism: More brown bag&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/06/26/inclusionism-versus-universalism-more-brown-bag/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/06/26/inclusionism-versus-universalism-more-brown-bag/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jun 2007 22:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[UU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brown-bag-controversy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fragmentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inclusionism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[typology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[universalism]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/06/26/inclusionism-versus-universalism-more-brown-bag/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Carl Scovel laid out a nice typology at his farewell sermon at GA. I missed the sermon, but Ron Robinson does a good job laying it out. Scoven says we&#8217;ve got two competing theologies in play in UUism. Universalism focuses on god&#8217;s love for all and bends toward radical welcome. Inclusionism focuses on our ability [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2007/06/26/inclusionism-versus-universalism-more-brown-bag/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Salvos against Christian orthodoxy</title>
		<link>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/02/salvos-against-christian-orthodoxy/</link>
					<comments>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/02/salvos-against-christian-orthodoxy/#comments</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[chutney]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Jun 2006 04:21:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[ATLBloggers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bible]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heresy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[orthodoxy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scripture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[theology]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/02/salvos-against-christian-orthodoxy/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In a discussion at Eclectic Itchings, I&#39;m reminded of my own journey away from Christian orthodoxy some years ago.&#160; No one of the thoughts listed below convinced me on its own, but taken together I found them compelling. &#160; What I would like to see the Emerging Church do is to deeply engage questions like [&#8230;]]]></description>
		
					<wfw:commentRss>http://www.makingchutney.com/2006/06/02/salvos-against-christian-orthodoxy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>