Christian economics
Is Theocracy Watch a good source? Is Economics from the Religious Right good enough?
- I've got a feeling if you use that source you'll insist that it's a good source.
- I've got a feeling if I use that source you'll insist that i'm writing poorly sourced Strawman arguments.
Proxima, it's not the sources you use, it's the way you paint the entirety of a religion with one source you find, instead of carefully putting things into context.
It's the fact that you say "Christians think", or worse "some Christians think", rather than being specific about who or what group is "thinking", how prevalent that thought is, and how it is viewed by other Christians. It's the fact that your first goal seems to be to dismiss religion and Christianity, and make them big bad and evil, even when you have to exaggerate to do so.
It's that fact that your "research" looks like something out of a middle schooler's attempts. Superficial, single sources, little indepth analysis.
You don't (to me) appear to really think about each contribution you are making, but just slap up the first thought that comes into your head.
I am not a very good writer, as far as style and word choice - everyone around here knows that. But I make sure what I add 1) at least makes sense, and 2) is factually, and intellectually sound and 3) I reread what I write to make sure I'm not leaving up something people will say "huh?" to, even if they say "learn to spell" or "it sounds better in 3rd person".
The very article you are citing to "Economics of Xian Right" has depth that you simply ignore by saying "If the bible says it's bad, but they want to do it, they ignore it". and? Why do they do that? What prompts them to do that? What is their conviction that allows them to do that? How does that play into the Protestant work ethic, and why is the PWE one of the most damaging concepts for America we have? Do other countries have such a stick with this "christian economics?" How about africa - and how it's playing a very new version of teh same thing, tied into a very scary anti-human perspective?
Your article doesn't really even talk about when this began, and who is doing it.
I'm sorry if it feels like i have "different rules" on sources, but it's not what the source is, it's how its used in the overall context.
In just under a month it should be Easter, then you won't have college work to do and you should have time to do that wonderful article written to post graduate research standard that you want.
I'm sure most RatWiki articles are below the standard you require of me, this one for example. That's what Christian economics was like before I started on it.
If you require that standard of everyone you'll drive people away. Why are you picking on me?
Before we even get into use of sources, can we work on writing coherent legible sentences? Everyone writes some incoherent gibberish sometimes and that can be fixed because it's a wiki. But when I see 5 or 6 edits in a row and the addition is still unreadable, I don't have the patience to sift through each individual edit and try to salvage what may be useful.
It looks like whatever I write Godot and her friends will find excuses to get at me. How many of you are sitting in your mother's basements desperate for something to break the monotony?
Wow, persecution complex (and argumentum ad cellarium) much?
"Godot and her friends". I have nothing to do with their edits, nor they mine. earlier you were gripping on Ty. how did that turn to me. haha. oh well.
Look, here's the deal as far as I'm concerned, you started editing areas I'm both knowledgeable about, and very interested in, and in fact, rather "protective" of, as far as how we at RW present them. You come along and just write trite "nothing" about religious topics, and I'm going to say "ah, i know that's not real, it's an exaggeration, and not worthy of us". There is enough in the very real world of Christianity and other religions to be critical of, without creating fake problems.
When I read what you write about religion, it sounds like CP's writing to me. No depth, no shading, no sense of proportion, no sense of relevance. just "here's this thing I once heard and a source that backs me up".
Edit politics, or logic, or science, or history and you'll never see me comment, cause i don't know about those things. Or, take time, really research what you are editing, and make edits that don't require constant revision.
I'm not trying to attack you. I'm trying to work on a quality wiki, that I'm proud to link to.
Why did you take this out of the article? You accused me of exaggerating what’s bad in religion:- It's the fact that your first goal seems to be to dismiss religion and Christianity, and make them big bad and evil, even when you have to exaggerate to do so. I didn’t do that, I carefully explained that there are kinder Christians who give a left wing message to what Jesus is reported as saying. You took that part of what I wrote out.
Possibly because it contradicted the previous sentence.
Pretty much, yeah. I said so in the comments.
Here's what's funny, if that's an acceptable adjective. Look at what you wrote here:
Defined differently Christian economics is closer to liberation theology and argues that Jesus valued the poor, also Christians have a duty to share what they have.[1]
vs. what you just said: I carefully explained that there are kinder Christians who give a left wing message to what Jesus is reported as saying. You took that part of what I wrote out.
--- can you really not see how what you put into the article is nothing like what you just said here? You constantly miss things like "who is saying things" "what are they saying" and "why". Why did you not say "However, not all christians agree with this definition. Some, kindger Christians give a left wing message...." It suddenly explains why you make a contradiction. It explains who the parties are, etc.
You've said you're an academic. So read what you write, critically, as if you had not been the one to write it. Does it make sense as written?
- ↑ Jesus on Money This advocates a different system based on Christians sharing what they have, (Christian Socialism?)
The article, which I found today, is worse than bad, it is (was) blatantly offensive, and written very childishly.
Proxima, no one is "[finding] excuses to get at [you]" - I've been saying this for years now, nicely sometimes and not so nicely others - your writing style is awful and your anti-religious (especially anti-Christian) screeds are often clueless. Cleaning up after you on this wiki is a tiresome chore I would wish upon no one, and if we had the tools, I would have worked with them to exclude you from article editing here years ago. But we don't, so we have to repair the damage you do as best we can, and then endure your insults when we remove or discuss your incredibly poor (in general) contributions. Sifting through the crap you add to save the occasional good wikilink is a dog's job. ħuman 03:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- In what way is Christian economics] offensive or bad?
- To me it looks like a good article written to university standard.
- Incidentally I wrote hardly any of it, others notably Godot wrote most of it.
- That's not your revision but Nebby's
- When other people write it perhaps. Your writing, however, is on the lower elementary school level.
- And its not their contributions we're complaining about.
That's right, Human complained about someone else's revision.
I give up. It's like talking to a wall.
A wall that happens to be able to pass a Turing test.
In this same interlude it doth befall That I, one Snout by name, present a wall; And such a wall, as I would have you think, That had in it a crannied hole or chink, (Wall holds up two fingers)
"Well played, Wall". "Well shone, Moon".