<?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: Christianity: A response</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/2009/02/24/christianity-a-response/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/2009/02/24/christianity-a-response/</link>
	<description>Just another Channel 4 Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:42:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Elizabeth Millward</title>
		<link>http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/2009/02/24/christianity-a-response/comment-page-1/#comment-1975</link>
		<dc:creator>Elizabeth Millward</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/?p=709#comment-1975</guid>
		<description>I felt the series missed an opportunity. I found each programme very interesting, but the whole series was really the history of the Roman church. Where was the Orthodox church? the Coptic church? the Celtic church? gnosticism?Why was Protestantism given a mere mention in a mainly protestant country? There was too much omitted for the title to be a reflection of Christianity. More please!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I felt the series missed an opportunity. I found each programme very interesting, but the whole series was really the history of the Roman church. Where was the Orthodox church? the Coptic church? the Celtic church? gnosticism?Why was Protestantism given a mere mention in a mainly protestant country? There was too much omitted for the title to be a reflection of Christianity. More please!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward Redding</title>
		<link>http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/2009/02/24/christianity-a-response/comment-page-1/#comment-1963</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward Redding</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/?p=709#comment-1963</guid>
		<description>Dear Paula and Aaquil,
Just a thought or two on why the series generated such a heated response from viewers. Christianity is a grand narrative while the series approaches the subject very much from the postmodern relativist perspective. Christianity deals with universal truths and themes while the programmes, as Aaquil says, primarily presented a personal viewpoint. This resulted in a tension between the subject matter and its presentation that was keenly felt by those who take an interest in Christianity. Of course Christianity has undergone many interpretations over the years. However, I think some of the programmes (Blakemore and Blair) did not demonstrate sufficient research or understanding of these in order to bring along viewers toward their particular viewpoints. The Beckford and Widdecombe programmes where much better in this regard. In the end perhaps there is no substitute for knowing your subject and I think the postmodern trend, that its all about generating debate often results in more heat than light. Again, it&#039;s very postmodern that because someone is knowledgable in one walk of life, they are knowledgable in another. The series shows that this is by no means necessarily so.  That all said, I would hope that Channel 4 will not be put off producing further religious or spiritual programmes in the future. There is a great need to develop the divine dimension to life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Paula and Aaquil,<br />
Just a thought or two on why the series generated such a heated response from viewers. Christianity is a grand narrative while the series approaches the subject very much from the postmodern relativist perspective. Christianity deals with universal truths and themes while the programmes, as Aaquil says, primarily presented a personal viewpoint. This resulted in a tension between the subject matter and its presentation that was keenly felt by those who take an interest in Christianity. Of course Christianity has undergone many interpretations over the years. However, I think some of the programmes (Blakemore and Blair) did not demonstrate sufficient research or understanding of these in order to bring along viewers toward their particular viewpoints. The Beckford and Widdecombe programmes where much better in this regard. In the end perhaps there is no substitute for knowing your subject and I think the postmodern trend, that its all about generating debate often results in more heat than light. Again, it&#8217;s very postmodern that because someone is knowledgable in one walk of life, they are knowledgable in another. The series shows that this is by no means necessarily so.  That all said, I would hope that Channel 4 will not be put off producing further religious or spiritual programmes in the future. There is a great need to develop the divine dimension to life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mayte</title>
		<link>http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/2009/02/24/christianity-a-response/comment-page-1/#comment-1876</link>
		<dc:creator>Mayte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:54:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.channel4.com/thetvshow/?p=709#comment-1876</guid>
		<description>Aaquil talks a lot but don&#039;t says much.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aaquil talks a lot but don&#8217;t says much.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
