Coggins7 wrote:
This is pure sophistry unless to can develop some pretty compelling extended argument, both philosophically and psycholgically, that would provide a reason to believe such a claim, and why or how it would be relevant to ecclesiastical leaders counselling the members of their faith community on that communities cultural standards. Freedom to choose does indeed equal lack of control if by that one means any overt use of force to prevent or obtain some desired behaviour or lack thereof. Your human-being-as-puppet worldview (except for enlightened, liberated liberals such as yourself) is both condescending and intellectually slovenly, in my view. Try something else.
Let's back up a bit. I want to find out what you think control IS. The way i'm reading you, you think an 'overt use of force' is required. Is this correct? And is this ONLY physical force? Or could it possibly be some type of psychological force?
What about a threat of ADVERSE consequences? IE., do this, or you're going to hell.
I think you are attempting a fantastic stretch of the English language and the imagination in at attempt to artificially construct a criticism of the church that belies the lengths you feel you have to go to to pull a rabbit out of that hat. It is quite clear to me that the making known or communication of the possible adverse consequences of
x behavior is about as far from coercion as one can go. We apparantly disagree on the connotations as well as lexical definitions of the language, and so cannot communicate very well. You have clearly, for psychological or purly polemical reasons, conflated the concepts of coercion and
persuasion such that to attempt to persuade you through argument or authoritative explication (if you accept that I have some authority) that adverse consequences may follow from imitation of the styles and manners (and mannerisms) of those in the great and spacious building is tantamount to exercising some kind of coercive power over you.
The best argument I could muster that your entire position here is bogus is the very fact that you and a number of others here, many of which were once members of the church, are here all taking contrary positions. That very fact puts the whole 'coercion" claim about church counsel into the philosophical waste basket where conceptual or logically self negating arguments and claims belong.
Quote:
Packer also sang to the students a song from his days at the institute of religion at Weber State: "Root-te-toot, Root-te-toot, we are the boys of the institute, we don't smoke and we don't chew, and we don't go with girls that do."
Just as an aside to the level and nature of what must go on in most journalism schools these days, the reporter here couldn't even get basic facts about the talk correct. Packer didn't sing anything. He spoke the lyrics (to the laughter of the audience. It was a light moment and everybody there, including Packer, knew it). This reporter is a Dork.
Well I think he has insulted my daughters, who are the most moral human beings I know. If he thinks hairstyle determines morality, then he's living in some kind of extremist fantasy.
That's what YOU say about your daughters. Who knows what the REAL truth may be (on the next Oprah...)
