I find myself in fundamental agreement with Cobb that the really worthwhile power that God should exercise is persuasive, and I would meet the first criticism by saying that God should not use
more coercive power than is apparently being exercised in the world.
(4) In the absence of an explanation why God does not use
more coercive power and is not more effective in his persuasion we may as reasonably conclude that there is a great evil persuasive power behind phenomena in the world as that there is a great power persuading toward the good.
(1) If there were a good and powerful God, he would in some respects allow freedom using only persuasive power; but if he were good and powerful, he would use
more coercive power to prevent destructive evil than is apparently being used in the world.
Not exact matches
While Joe Volpe, the current federal immigration minister, has talked about encouraging
more newcomers to settle in smaller centres, he lacks any real
coercive powers.
Another example was alluded to before: the fact that our world seems to have taken shape over a period of many billions of years, rather than having been created in essentially its present form a few thousand years ago, provides evidence against the view that the creation of our world required omnipotent
coercive power; this fact is much
more consistent with the view that the divine creative
power is solely the
power of persuasion, the kind of
power we can experience working in our own lives.
There is a need now
more than ever to develop a means for doing religious social ethics which emphasizes the goal - orientation aspect of politics as a corrective to stress on the
coercive -
power factor in determining social policy.
In fact, it seems fair to say that the most common criticism process theists level against the God of classical free will theism is the claim that if such a being really existed and were wholly good, we should expect to see displays of divine
coercive power more often.
If God would use
coercive power if it were available, then there are, in principle, times when divine persuasion plus divine coercion would bring about
more worthwhile results.
Pure
coercive power transforms creatio ex nihilo into creatio ex deo, with the world possessing no
more independent actuality than an idea in the divine mind would have.
But
power may be defined
more broadly as the capacity to influence the outcome of any process of actualization, thereby permitting both persuasive and
coercive power.
This use of
power may appear
more bloody, but it is less
coercive and less destructive than the
power to prevent change.
Third, the cosmos is kept in order
more by lure and persuasion than by the exercise of sheer
coercive power.
The argument that a solely persuasive God is
more powerful than the traditional
coercive God is in some tension with the explanation that God does not intervene coercively to prevent excess evil because he does not have the
power.
But
coercive power used for domination is
more costly and less likely to prevail than non-
coercive power.
For persuasive
power, in the fundamental sphere of natural occurrence, is inexpressibly
more capable of exercising influence than
coercive power would be.
I fear the
coercive power of secular progressivism far
more than I do the inducements of the market economy.
The dysfunctional nature of how urban schools teach students to relate to authority begins in kindergarten and continues through the primary grades.With young children, authoritarian, directive teaching that relies on simplistic external rewards still works to control students.But as children mature and grow in size they become
more aware that the school's
coercive measures are not really hurtful (as compared to what they deal with outside of school) and the directive, behavior modification methods practiced in primary grades lose their
power to control.Indeed, school authority becomes counterproductive.From upper elementary grades upward students know very well that it is beyond the
power of school authorities to inflict any real hurt.External controls do not teach students to want to learn; they teach the reverse.The net effect of this situation is that urban schools teach poverty students that relating to authority is a kind of game.And the deepest, most pervasive learnings that result from this game are that school authority is toothless and out of touch with their lives.What school authority represents to urban youth is «what they think they need to do to keep their school running.»
Much has been said in recent months about the growing
power of public sector unions in American government and their
coercive effect on sustainable fiscal management, but nowhere in the nation is the
power of public sector unions
more destructive and unrivaled than in California.
As I concluded in that earlier post, it seems to me that a cultural attitude
more embracing of polyamory and less insistent on monogamy, might be «less likely to accommodate jealousy or possessive attitudes,
power imbalances, controlling and
coercive dynamics, or emotional, mental or economic abuse, in all families, whether diamorous or polyamorous.»
The developmental literature shows that parents who perceive themselves as having little
power over their lives are
more likely to engage in
coercive and punitive parenting practices.2 It is therefore not surprising that the NHVP was most helpful to those families who at the start of the programme perceived themselves as having the least control over their lives.3 In their work with high risk families, one of the most crucial roles clinicians can have is in actively empowering their clients, as did the nurses in the NHVP.