<?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: Theologer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bloggyaward.com/religious/theologer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bloggyaward.com/religious/theologer/</link>
	<description>Blog Awards given to all the best blogs going!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:15:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Blog_Patrol</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggyaward.com/religious/theologer/comment-page-1/#comment-6378</link>
		<dc:creator>Blog_Patrol</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 14:37:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggyaward.com/?p=733#comment-6378</guid>
		<description>I would beg to differ. I feel that the content of the blog is very Christian (with great quotes and expressions). Yet it is in no sense a theological blog where Church History, Systematic Theology or Biblical exegisis is dealt with. 
hence if we place it as a Christian blog, it would fair high. However, to place it into the category as a theological blog, it pales in comparison to other blogs that have a greater depth in theology. It&#039;s either the blogger doesn&#039;t have great comprehension of theology, or he choses not to go toward that direction. But it&#039;d sure be nice to hear more in depth and thought provoking things rather than things that skim the surface. I feel that there were things whereby he had the capacity to write in a greater depth. But just didn&#039;t word it to fully express it. 
The layout of the blog makes one skew to the right to read the posts. This won&#039;t be a problem if one were to have a large computer monitor. BUt genernally it&#039;s rather unnatural. 
It&#039;s a great Christian blog, but certainly not a theologically rich blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would beg to differ. I feel that the content of the blog is very Christian (with great quotes and expressions). Yet it is in no sense a theological blog where Church History, Systematic Theology or Biblical exegisis is dealt with.<br />
hence if we place it as a Christian blog, it would fair high. However, to place it into the category as a theological blog, it pales in comparison to other blogs that have a greater depth in theology. It&#8217;s either the blogger doesn&#8217;t have great comprehension of theology, or he choses not to go toward that direction. But it&#8217;d sure be nice to hear more in depth and thought provoking things rather than things that skim the surface. I feel that there were things whereby he had the capacity to write in a greater depth. But just didn&#8217;t word it to fully express it.<br />
The layout of the blog makes one skew to the right to read the posts. This won&#8217;t be a problem if one were to have a large computer monitor. BUt genernally it&#8217;s rather unnatural.<br />
It&#8217;s a great Christian blog, but certainly not a theologically rich blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rogermugs</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggyaward.com/religious/theologer/comment-page-1/#comment-6003</link>
		<dc:creator>rogermugs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:12:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bloggyaward.com/?p=733#comment-6003</guid>
		<description>score. that was quick... i appreciate the review... although I still cannot get myself past just how much I love the complete lack of pictures... but this may only be me...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>score. that was quick&#8230; i appreciate the review&#8230; although I still cannot get myself past just how much I love the complete lack of pictures&#8230; but this may only be me&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

