<?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: How Prevailing Bible Prophecy Jeopardizes Our National Security</title>
	<atom:link href="http://catchkevin.com/bible-prophecy-security/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://catchkevin.com/bible-prophecy-security/</link>
	<description>No Holds Barred! The Right Take on Talk</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 18:21:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Adrienne</title>
		<link>http://catchkevin.com/bible-prophecy-security/comment-page-1/#comment-163</link>
		<dc:creator>Adrienne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Apr 2010 01:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://catchkevin.com/?p=1525#comment-163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree with the fact that man complicates what God gives us. He can give us a copy of &#039;Good Night Moon&#039; and we turn it into Homer&#039;s &#039;Odyssey.&#039; What you said about Commercial Christiandom coming to a concensus on &#039;literal, figurative, symbolic, allegorical, historical-grammatical, parabolic, cultural linguistics, and the all-important “audience relevancy,” and the historical and literary element of certain passages&#039; makes a lot of sense, but once again, we are turning &#039;Good Night Moon&#039; into Homer&#039;s &#039;Odyssey.&#039; 
There are too many branches of C.C. for all to reach a conclusion, especially given so many points to consider. It is my conviction that we will never reach a solid agreement on the philosophical argument. I imagine you could throw a duck in the middle of a C.C. convention and you would have several arguments as to what the animal was, much less how it got there, how important it is, etc. 
Until we can all agree, I am taking my toys out of the C.C. sandbox and moving them somewhere else.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with the fact that man complicates what God gives us. He can give us a copy of &#8216;Good Night Moon&#8217; and we turn it into Homer&#8217;s &#8216;Odyssey.&#8217; What you said about Commercial Christiandom coming to a concensus on &#8216;literal, figurative, symbolic, allegorical, historical-grammatical, parabolic, cultural linguistics, and the all-important “audience relevancy,” and the historical and literary element of certain passages&#8217; makes a lot of sense, but once again, we are turning &#8216;Good Night Moon&#8217; into Homer&#8217;s &#8216;Odyssey.&#8217;<br />
There are too many branches of C.C. for all to reach a conclusion, especially given so many points to consider. It is my conviction that we will never reach a solid agreement on the philosophical argument. I imagine you could throw a duck in the middle of a C.C. convention and you would have several arguments as to what the animal was, much less how it got there, how important it is, etc.<br />
Until we can all agree, I am taking my toys out of the C.C. sandbox and moving them somewhere else.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
