Academic literature on the topic 'Sermon, religious language, persuasion'

Waddle, Keith. Unspoken persuasion: Language theory of Victorian homilists. UMI, 2000.

Cunningham, David S. Faithful persuasion: In aid of a rhetoric of Christian theology. University of Notre Dame Press, 1991.

Kiraga, Sebastian. Persuasive Mittel in Texten der Zeugen Jehovas: Analysiert an polnischem und deutschem Material. Universitätsverlag Regensburg, 2009.

The rhetoric of war: Training day, the militia, and the military sermon. Greenwood Press, 1989.

Making room for leadership: Power, space, and influence. IVP Books, 2008.

Faithful Persuasion: In Aid of a Rhetoric of Christian Theology. University of Notre Dame Press, 1992.

Faithful Persuasion: In Aid of a Rhetoric of Christian Theology. University of Notre Dame Press, 1993.

Mottram, Stewart. "Spenser, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, and the Decline of the Preacher’s Plough." In Ruin and Reformation in Spenser, Shakespeare, and Marvell. Oxford University Press, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198836384.003.0001.

"balances) which should have been asked before the introduction of some new technology were not. Think of it in another way. Trying to frame up general questions to cover all eventualities will not work when there are so many conflicting interests at stake. Without a specific idea of the sorts of ethical questions we would like answered we are working in the dark. Unfortunately, philosophers and theoreticians, who study ethics tend not to deal in specifics, but try and formulate rules and frameworks of thought which can then be adapted to specific questions. This may seem a rather soft approach, but it does at least have the merit of being able to help in answering, if not actually answering, a question in the future which was not even dreamt of when the theoretical consideration of ethics started. Stevenson, in Ethics and Language (1944, New Haven: Yale UP), tried to demonstrate that ethics can be a rational discourse, by saying that if an individual says that tolerance is good the individual is approving of tolerance, but also more significantly, suggesting that you do as well. If you do not, then you have to be persuaded, but that implies a value judgment on the arguments which are to be put to persuade you that tolerance is good. The idea of persuasion is an interesting one, because the philosopher is always trying to produce an algebraic description of ethics and morals. The other end of the spectrum is the case where it could be stated that what is true in one case, or held to be true by an individual in a particular case, must be true in all other cases. One could logically see that this latter case would result in a pacifist point of view, that is, it is not right to kill so I will not kill, ie a general philosophical idea of ethics taken as a personal guide. Where this and every other argument falls down is in cases where a terrorist says it is correct for me to kill, but not for you. Such moral conundrums have stretched moral debate since the dawn of rational thought, with solutions being found in every moral and ethical document, whether religious or secular. But where does this lead us in terms of the legal aspects of the application of DNA technology? In a way into a more complicated world, but also one far more relevant to the individual than a theoretical argument. DNA profiling affects the individual far more than any aspect of the other sciences. Physics has never singled out an individual; like chemistry the moral repercussions these sciences have wrought have been on a grander scale. You may be a victim, but you are not alone. This will be small comfort to the victim, but there is solidarity in social cohesion. DNA is different. It can be used not only to single out the individual, but also to penalise and degrade that individual. The first thing to be said about ethical questions is a very practical one. It assumes a benign State, a regime which is trying to do the best for the population as a whole. A tyrannical regime of any sort can do what it likes and therefore does not have to be morally accountable for its actions. This point is important because in a benign State it is everyone’s right, if not duty, to challenge morally repugnant actions. In such a State it is legal action which is the immediate point of challenge to such behaviour, whether it is an individual committing a crime, which we have collectively decided is not acceptable, or a government behaving in a manner." In Genetics and DNA Technology: Legal Aspects. Routledge-Cavendish, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781843146995-16.