<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An interesting quote&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/24/an-interesting-quote/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/24/an-interesting-quote/</link>
	<description>Conversations in Theology and its interaction with Culture</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 19:33:19 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Honzo</title>
		<link>http://www.masstheology.com/2008/04/24/an-interesting-quote/#comment-6185</link>
		<dc:creator>Honzo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.masstheology.com/?p=538#comment-6185</guid>
		<description>Well, those are two very different types of violence.  I am much more prone to do violence to a text because I simply do not have nearly as many opportunities to do violence to people than texts (I am working on picking apart two texts right now as major projects).

With that said, sometimes texts are our only artifacts of vanished peoples.  To do what is being called violence (and I need a good definition, because as is, I think it is a vague, loaded term that is more often used as a tool of rhetoric than anything else) to a text erases or changes what we know and think and remember about a real people group.

Lastly, how in the world are we defining violence?  I like the following definition of violence when talking about people:

&lt;blockquote&gt;An action is violent when it intentionally does something that denies the image of God present in a person.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I like this definition because it stresses the intentionality of violence and bypasses the physicality hang-up that most people have. 

What do you mean when you talk about violence towards a text?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, those are two very different types of violence.  I am much more prone to do violence to a text because I simply do not have nearly as many opportunities to do violence to people than texts (I am working on picking apart two texts right now as major projects).</p>
<p>With that said, sometimes texts are our only artifacts of vanished peoples.  To do what is being called violence (and I need a good definition, because as is, I think it is a vague, loaded term that is more often used as a tool of rhetoric than anything else) to a text erases or changes what we know and think and remember about a real people group.</p>
<p>Lastly, how in the world are we defining violence?  I like the following definition of violence when talking about people:</p>
<blockquote><p>An action is violent when it intentionally does something that denies the image of God present in a person.</p></blockquote>
<p>I like this definition because it stresses the intentionality of violence and bypasses the physicality hang-up that most people have. </p>
<p>What do you mean when you talk about violence towards a text?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.814 seconds -->
