<?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>Krisis &#38; Praxis &#187; Theological Issues</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/category/theological-issues/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com</link>
	<description>To Understand Truth and to Attain the True</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Dec 2011 04:56:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Refutation of Muslim Scholars&#8217; Argument in the AllÃ¢h Controversy. Part 2/3</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars-argument-in-the-allah-controversy-part-23/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars-argument-in-the-allah-controversy-part-23/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:14:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Concept of God]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interfaith Encounters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.krisispraxis.com/?p=442</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Refutation of Muslim Scholarsâ€™ Arguments in the Allah Controversy. Part 2/3 AllÃ¢h is Certainly Not a Proper Noun/Personal Name Introduction: AllÃ¢h and Other Loan Words in the Quran for God The fundamental and contested presupposition in the present dispute on the use of AllÃ¢h is whether there are words so exclusively defined by a single [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars-argument-in-the-allah-controversy-part-23/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Refutation of Muslim Scholarsâ€™ Arguments in the Allah Controversy. Part 1/3</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars%e2%80%99-arguments-in-the-allah-controversy-part-13/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars%e2%80%99-arguments-in-the-allah-controversy-part-13/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 12:33:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Aquinas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Interfaith Encounters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.krisispraxis.com/?p=426</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Refutation of Muslim Scholarsâ€™ Arguments in the Allah Controversy. Part 1/3 (Part One of Three Parts) The Court of Appeal may appear tardy in taking up its review of the High Court decision that ruled in favour of the Catholic Herald (and Christians) concerning the right to use the word Allah. However, the government has [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2010/06/refutation-of-muslim-scholars%e2%80%99-arguments-in-the-allah-controversy-part-13/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Postmodernity and the Crisis of Truth</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/11/postmodernity-and-the-crisis-of-truth/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/11/postmodernity-and-the-crisis-of-truth/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Nov 2007 06:55:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/11/postmodernity-and-the-crisis-of-truth/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Anthony Thiselton links Postmodernity to the crisis of truth. To this one would naturally ask the question, â€œWhy a crisis of truthâ€?? Is the linkage a matter or causality, that is, to suggest that Postmodernity is the cause of the crisis, or  is the linkage merely descriptive? In the latter case, Postmodernity would be a description of a general condition of society where people in general and intellectuals in particular have lost confidence in attaining consensus regarding matters of truth.

What are the contours of the contemporary crisis of truth? One cannot help but be struck by the proliferation of theories spinning across the various disciplines of Western academia. Such proliferation is accompanied by intense disputes with no obvious winner. There is no evidence that the competing theories will be subsumed under an overarching, unifying framework. The resulting fragmentation of knowledge leads to doubts about the viability of the academic enterprise in securing certain or indubitable knowledge]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/11/postmodernity-and-the-crisis-of-truth/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Image of God and Human Personhood</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/05/image-of-god-and-human-personhood/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/05/image-of-god-and-human-personhood/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 May 2007 08:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Covenant Theology/Philosophy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/05/image-of-god-and-human-personhood/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The image of God becomes most evident in the unique human capacity to respond to Godâ€™s offer of covenant relationship. To echo Robert Jenson, human distinctiveness is simply that we are related to God as his conversational counterpart. Because God speaks to us, we know he is personal. As we answer him, we too are personal.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/05/image-of-god-and-human-personhood/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is Christological Praxis? Part 2/2</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-22/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2007 07:19:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-22/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Perhaps a fruitful model may be found by integrating the covenant model of society with ideological critique represented by the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. Insofar as the church exists as a social phenomenon, the church is open to social forces operating in society. As such, relevant social analysis must be brought to bear on the historical form assumed by the church to uncover any hidden structures that contradict its professed identity.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What is Christological Praxis? Part 1/2</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-12/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-12/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 01:50:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Theology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-12/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thesis 1: The process from Christ to social praxis is mediated through a specific anthropology, philosophy of history and social structure. Christological anthropology, that is, the concepts of freedom and cohumanity in Christ conceives of man as acting under divine determination and enables social praxis to maintain a relational view of man which is necessary to keep the community in view.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/03/what-is-christological-praxis-part-12/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hermeneutical Circle: Inseparability of Theory and Praxis</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/hermeneutical-circleinseparability-of-theory-and-praxis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/hermeneutical-circleinseparability-of-theory-and-praxis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Feb 2007 07:12:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Hermeneutics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/02/hermeneutical-circleinseparability-of-theory-and-praxis/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It has become fashionable in some Christian circles to deride the need for theory or to disabuse the importance given to doctrinal orthodoxy as a poor substitute for living faith. Indeed, it is claimed that pre-occupation with doctrinal orthodoxy leads to judgmentalism. Hence the favourite slogan "From absolute to authentic". I think these criticisms are unfair. . . 
Given the distinction between, but inseparability of theory and practice, it is unnecessary and unacceptable to emphasize any one of the components over the other. After all, â€œtruth as transformation always involves truth as disclosure; speaking the truth is never separable but is distinguishable from doing the truth.â€?]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/hermeneutical-circleinseparability-of-theory-and-praxis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Christology and Sociality in Bonhoeffer (Part 2/2)</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-22/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-22/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:15:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Christology (Systematic)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/02/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-22/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bonhoeffer never conducted theology merely as an academic exercise. He insisted that acquired knowledge cannot be divorced from the existence in which it is acquired. Theology is an expression of belief since â€œonly he who believes is obedient, and only he who is obedient believesâ€? (CD 69). For Bonhoeffer, there can be no abstract Christology.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/02/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-22/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Christology and Sociality in Bonhoeffer (Part 1/2)</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-12/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-12/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2007 05:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Christology (Systematic)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/01/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-12/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In their protests against established religion, many youths today cry aloud the slogan, â€œHostile to the church, but friendly to Jesus.â€? The question, however, is, which Jesus are they friendly with? Is it the Jesus of the liberal theologian, the liberationist, the Gnostic or even perhaps the Jesus of Hollywood? Bonhoeffer would certainly approve of their insistence on the centrality of Christ, unclouded by traditional religious trappings. We must, however, be fully aware of the great temptation to substitute the Christ of tradition with a Christ who is constructed out of some current concerns or personal fancies.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/christology-and-sociality-in-bonhoeffer-part-12/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>JESUS CHRIST â€“ ESCHATOLOGICAL PROPHET AND INCARNATE SAVIOR (Part 3/4)</title>
		<link>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/jesus-christ-%e2%80%93-eschatological-prophet-and-incarnate-savior-part-34/</link>
		<comments>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/jesus-christ-%e2%80%93-eschatological-prophet-and-incarnate-savior-part-34/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kam Weng</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Christology (Biblical)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dialog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theological Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://krisispraxis.ath.cx/archives/2007/01/jesus-christ-%e2%80%93-eschatological-prophet-and-incarnate-savior-part-34/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Christians buttress evidence for the historical factuality of the cross by appealing to eyewitness-accounts and reports found in non-Christian historical sources (Josephus, Tacitus). Muslim critics therefore grudgingly acknowledge that historically a crucifixion did occur. However, they suggest that someone other than Jesus was crucified. They argue that Christians have misunderstood the significance of the cross because they are victims of an illusion. God, they claim, replaced Jesus with someone that bore his likeness.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.krisispraxis.com/archives/2007/01/jesus-christ-%e2%80%93-eschatological-prophet-and-incarnate-savior-part-34/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

