NS, i need you to tear the beginnings of my theology paper to shreds.

blong131

blong131

Active member
i know my professor is going to hate this, but a finance student even having to take theology is bullshit and i hate this class. i need my argumentation to be bombproof

im gonna wake up tomorrow early and write the rest of this, its just a short paper, but my prof takes them way too seriously. i could prolly get an A saying "god is good, save the poor", but im stubborn and that aint me.

and just so u know, this is just my first draft and not even the full paper, just like the first half. Its just supposed to be a short (3pageish) reflection on Gregory of Nyssa's "On the Love of the Poor"

critique my grammar, question my points, or tear apart my argumentation. anything helps!

anyone who positively contributes gets plus k

The concept was great: Give up what you have and save the poor. As a unified community on equal terms (rather than the rich and the poor), everyone would prosper and share in eternity. Unfortunately this isn’t true in today’s world. Walk up to a homeless person on the streets of New York City and give them money, and they will use it to buy drugs. Give them shelter and a decent meal, and they will drink all the wine. Sources will claim that sending aid to impoverished area will just lead to fighting over who gets it.

Being an ascetic may have made a lot more sense back in Gregory’s time, but now its just senseless. In the current times, giving up all you have and treating the sick and poor will just lead to pain, suffering, and death. Maybe in Gregory’s time, humanity wasn’t so “dependant” on the world around them. Gregory says, “Let everyone take care of his neighbors.” (Gregory, 195) Maybe because society was so communal, people could be saved from poorness/sickness more easily. Now, we live in a world where neighbors don’t even know each other, and good deeds are generally unrecognized and fruitless. Gregory attempts to disperse this idea, urging, “Don’t be afraid. The fruits of merciful acts are abundant. Sow your benefactions and your house will be filled with plentiful harvest.” (Gregory, 195). No matter what angle the concept is observed from, the fact remains, that giving to the poor will either be done improperly and go unnoticed, or lead to feuds(or worse!).

Gregory is making a lot of assumptions in his writings on the poor. First, he makes it very clear that the poor are all good. In current times, the poor are all generally junkies, streetwalkers, and burnouts. It is understood that this could just be an American (read:large city) environment, but that doesn’t change anything. If someone goes out and attempts to help one of these people, he is putting his life into danger and will just be treated with scorn. God created us to live our own lives and prosper as much as possible. Putting ones self in harm’s way for a lost cause is just wasting what God has given us. Greggory goes on to compare the sick to an irritation of the body, such as a pimple, questioning, “Does the rest of the body energetically destroy itself? Just the opposite, our healthy parts all at together to resorb the place of the infection…Our healthy skin does not interfere with the healing of the abscess. So why send these unfortunates away from us?”(Gregory, 204) This just strengthens the point of not intervening with the poor/sick. What do most people do if they have a big, ugly pimple? They try to pop it. What does mom say? “Don’t touch it! Leave it alone!” Poking and prodding at the pimple just makes it rear its ugliness further, or in different ways. If one tries to intervene with the sick, the sick will take it take it the wrong way and ask for more.

 
"In the current times, giving up all you have and treating the sick and poor will just lead to pain, suffering, and death"

I don't see how this is true.

but in my opinion i thnk you are basing your point more on the fact that times are different now than they were then. and im guessing your prof already knows this. find something else that is a bit more interesting.
 
TL:DR

KIdding...
In all honestly it was well written and im no guy to correct grammar for you sorry. I realize its an opinionated paper but i would think that you would cover more of Gregory's side of the argument. That being that in aiding the poor you can ultimately raise the lower class into nonexistence. Unlike what you have stated i believe that done right aiding the poor will not always be a futile act.
Overall very good and i'd be interested to see the full draft.
 
Adding the fact that i just realized your attending a Jesuit college you should probably drop some of your own opinions and side with the church a little bit more.
hahaha wow, how well that follows the Christian way.
 
i like that aid bringing lower class to nonexistence point

and in response to the first response, the professors a recent college grad and definitely makes it seem like we still live back in the day. i dont think hell find the paper stale
 
jesuit college or not, i dont think i should have to take goddamn theology classes for a finance degree. i spent k-8 in a catholic school and have been fed enough of the bullshit. the fact that its part of my college degree is absurd
 
I had to write an essay like this on a book called "Finding Christ in the Heart of the Poor". It's not worth risking your grade to express your own personal opinons. I could've torn the Catholic church to pieces, but I decided to bullshit everything and get a good grade.
Just let it go and commence the bullshit.
 
no can do. i made a comment early in the semester in reference to homosexuals and the professor didnt take kindly to it. shouldve known to drop the class then. the professor had my semester grade sealed in as a C from that point on.

note:i have nothing against homosexuals, its a long story and makes sense in context.
 
yeah i agree... IMO i wouldn't have attended a Jesuit college just to avoid this situation exactly. I bet it is an overall required course for the school.
 
" In current times, the poor are all generally junkies, streetwalkers, and burnouts"

That's probably the only thing you should rectify. A bunch of poor people are poor because of physical/psychological problems, bad choices, shitty jobs, lack of opportunity, or plain bad luck. Lumping them all in the category of "fuckups" wouldnt be accurate.

To reinforce your argument, talk a bit about capitalism.

Say that we live in a capitalist world where pure success is considered to be economic. Giving all you have to the poor to try to even things out would only work in a utopian communist society. In a capitalist society, if you give away some of your capital, you are obviously left with less capital, which according to this society we live in would translate to less success and advancement.
 
Here's a few suggestions on the writing:

"As a unified community on equal terms (rather than the rich and the poor)"

I'd avoid using the parentheses as much as possible. You can probably just get rid of it, as 'equal terms' implies that there is no rich or poor, you don't need to explain that. If you want to keep it, I'd still ditch the parentheses and just use commas.

"Sources will claim that sending aid to impoverished area will just lead to fighting over who gets it."

If you're going to claim this, you need to reference the source. If you don't have a real source, reword it as "Many will claim...."

"Maybe in Gregory’s time, humanity wasn’t so “dependant” on the world around them. Gregory says, “Let everyone take care of his neighbors.” (Gregory, 195) Maybe because society was so communal, people could be saved from poorness/sickness more easily."

You're weakening your argument with the maybes. For a more solid argument you need to be more assertive. I'd also avoid using the slash in "poorness/sickness". Probably make that "poverty and sickness".

"Now, we live in a world where neighbors don’t even know each other, and good deeds are generally unrecognized and fruitless. Gregory attempts to disperse this idea, urging, “Don’t be afraid. The fruits of merciful acts are abundant. Sow your benefactions and your house will be filled with plentiful harvest.” (Gregory, 195)"

Here you're saying that Gregory is dispersing the idea that "NOW, we live in a world...". He can't be dispersing an idea about society in the present if he wrote his paper in the past. Just needs a bit of rewording..

"No matter what angle the concept is observed from, the fact remains, that giving to the poor will either be done improperly and go unnoticed, or lead to feuds(or worse!)."

I think that "(or worse!)" seems unprofessional.

"Greggory goes on to compare the sick to an irritation.."

Just a misspelling of Gregory.

All in all its pretty good. You just need a bit more structure and backing for your argument. Post up the rest of it when it's done.

 
I did the same thing. I made one argument in class why I don"t believe in gay marriage (I have nothing against homosexuals either I just don't believe in gay marriage) and the liberal pussy Professor freaked out along with most of the students in that class and I used to ace every paper, but now I cant get better than a C on anything. Its stupid how far some Professors will take their power trips if you don't agree with them or their morals.As for your paper; Its decent but try to have more concrete examples instead of generalized statements to support some of your arguments... thats all I have.
 
This thread proves why ns is the fucking shit. THANK YOU SO MUCH EVERYONE

karma to all! both ns and real life karma

not gonna lie, im fuckin burnt out switching back and forth between accounting project and this, theyre like polar opposites.

i love reason and logic based argumentation. I fucking hate philosophy.
 
Welcome to my Catholic schooling experience haha. Just let them know what they want to hear. Unfortunately, I'm now in a seminar class about Catholic ethics like abortion that's required for my school. FML.
 
^+k to you just for relating haha

anyone else? gonna get back to it for a little after I finish this goddamn balance sheet and close accounts

its so gratifying knowing when all accounts balance out its like "boom. done."

i feel like when i "finish" the theology paper ill be like "uhh, i guess its done"
 
Okay, I need something to procrastinate with before doing my own paper so sure. I will make all of my changes in bold so you can see them, keep them etc. I will give you a really quick grammar check as that is something that I always find difficult to do to my own writing, I just insert the corrections in my head without noticing the error.

I will try and make points in a linear order for you here:

Just some overall points first, every time you write maybe, slap yourself. Passive voice is the best way to undermine your position in a paper. Your arguments about the homeless need citations, or else the prof will toss them out immediately, especially when you say "sources say"

StartFragmentWhat is Gregory's time...state that, in the 15th century etc, also, introduce who he is and why I should give a fuck what he says.

Do not shorten words to don't etc in formal writing

I have just highlighted some examples, I did not change every error in your paper etc, ie the don'ts as I do not want to change your style or tone. What level is this paper for?

StartFragment

The concept was great: Give up what you have and save the

poor. As a unified community on equal terms (rather than the rich and the poor)

*you can probably delete what’s in the

brackets, everyone would prosper and share in eternity. Unfortunately, this is not true in today’s world. Walk up to a homeless person on the

streets of New York City and give them money, and they will use it to buy

drugs. Give them shelter and a decent meal, and they will drink all the wine.

Sources will claim that sending aid to impoverished area will just lead to

fighting over who gets it.

Being an ascetic may have made a lot more sense back in Gregory’s time, but now

its just senseless. In the current era,

giving up all you have and treating the sick and poor will just lead to pain,

suffering, and death. In Gregory’s

time, humanity was not so

“dependant” on the world around them. Gregory says, “Let everyone take care of

his neighbors.” (Gregory, 195) As society

was communal, people could be saved from poorness/sickness more readily. Now, we live in a world where

neighbors don’t even know each other, and good deeds are generally unrecognized

and fruitless. Gregory attempts to disperse this idea, urging, “Don’t be

afraid. The fruits of merciful acts are abundant. Sow your benefactions and

your house will be filled with plentiful harvest.” (Gregory, 195). No matter

what angle the concept is observed from, the fact remains; giving to the poor

will either be done improperly and go unnoticed. It can even lead to feuds(or worse!).

Gregory is making a lot of assumptions in his writings on the poor. First, he

makes it very clear that the poor are all good. In current times, the poor are

all generally junkies, streetwalkers, and burnouts. It is understood that this

could just be an American (read:large city) environment, but that doesn’t

change anything. If someone goes out and attempts to help one of these people,

he is putting his life into danger and will just be treated with scorn. God

created us to live our own lives and prosper as much as possible. Putting one’s

self in harm’s way for a lost cause is just wasting what God has given us.

Greggory goes on to compare the sick to an irritation of the body, such as a

pimple, questioning, “Does the rest of the body energetically destroy itself?

Just the opposite, our healthy parts all at together to resorb the place of the

infection…Our healthy skin does not interfere with the healing of the abscess.

So why send these unfortunates away from us?”(Gregory, 204) This just

strengthens the point of not intervening with the poor/sick. What do most

people do if they have a big, ugly pimple? They try to pop it. What does mom

say? “Don’t touch it! Leave it alone!” Poking and prodding at the pimple just spreads the infection, or rear it’s head

in different ways. If one tries to intervene with the sick, the sick will take

it take it the wrong way and ask for more.

EndFragment

 
thank you!+k passive voice is something i always get nailed on.

and its a sophmore core/required class, "Early Christain Texts". the paper is a reflection paper for Gregory of Nyssa's "On the Love of the Poor"
 
You make a very good point here I think.

I think this paper deserves an A, even with shitty grammar. Seriously never thought about it that way though. Like yes help the people of the world, give them aid, for them to fight and die over....

 
Not a good paper at all, filled with false assumptions, opinions stipulated as fact and an oversimplification of both the opposition and solution.

I'll be back later this afternoon with specifics.
 
too late for the assignment, but as for the overall view here are some main flaws

"as a unified community... everyone would prosper"

the core concept isn't to promote prosperity in the sense that everyone is living a luxurious life style, rather it is to establish a 'good' minimum where at least people's basic needs are met.

(give to a) homeless person on the streets...and they will drink all the wine

this is not true for the majority of the poor, look up homeless point in time counts for your areas, they have details about the numbers of people who have been admitted to hospitals for drug or alcohol use or those who are currently involved in AA or NA. The most recent counts in CT (where I am, it was around 40- 45 % for single adults, even lower for adults in families) -- You followed up this claim with "sources say" What sources?

. In the current times, giving up all you have and treating the sick and poor will just lead to pain, suffering, and death

Examples of this please? There are many counter examples such as Mother Teresa (who goes to the extreme) as well as many others who take pledges of sacrifice to give back to the communities they live in rather than being focused solely on benefiting themselves. Peacecorps, americorps, Sister's of ND, JV's, volunteer firefighters, are just a few who will attest that the things they do in life bring in benefits(to themselves) that outweigh consequences you've listed, or that these consequences may not even exist.

...and good deeds are generally unrecognized and fruitless

I ask unrecognized by who? Fruitless by what standard. If you're looking only for monetary compensation, then correct most work aimed at helping the poor receives little pay, however this does not mean that it is unrecognized, and fruitless. Those who are on the receiving end certainly recognize the giver. As for Fruitless, the actions of helping those who are worse off has the potential to change lives, if not at the very least the potential to change an attitude or mind set, which can lead to many more positive outcomes throughout the community. Even if the individual who gives of themselves does not receive a benefit directly, they are in a position to receive benefit indirectly.

In current times, the poor are all generally junkies, streetwalkers, and burnouts

this is a stereotype not a fact

If someone goes out and attempts to help one of these people, he is putting his life into danger and will just be treated with scorn

What danger? Compare this to the danger that arises when the poor are neglected and are forced into a corner with no way out...Palestine today, and the french revolution are two instances that jump to my mind.

secondly, who's scorn, and why does that matter

overall you came across as prejudiced and used stereotypes as fact. there was little transformation of your opinion into argument, and i can't grant you any credit for the form of your argument much less the content. You speak as if you have an authority of the matter at hand, you go so far to say Now, we live in a world where neighbors don’t even know each other the world is a very large place, perhaps in your neighborhood or even town neighborly relationships are lacking, but to extend your experience to the whole world is just naive. You lack the support of evidence, and sources necessary to make the claims you do. I hope it works out better for you next time.

 
I'm only in highschool but I noticed an error that spellcheck probably didn't pick up. It's supposed to be act instead of at I think. Not too intelligent but I tried haha
 
"The concept was great: Give up what you have and save the poor. As a unified community on equal terms (rather than the rich and the poor), everyone would prosper and share in eternity. Unfortunately this isn’t true in today’s world. Walk up to a homeless person on the streets of New York City and give them money, and they will use it to buy drugs. Give them shelter and a decent meal, and they will drink all the wine. Sources will claim that sending aid to impoverished area will just lead to fighting over who gets it. "

Critique:
-perhaps "give up what you have and save the poor" should be restated, "give up what you have to save the poor" or in order to save the poor.
-"Unfortunately this isn't true in today's world" - I would make a Utopian reference here, something like, "Unfortunately, today's world is not a utopian society." or today's world isn't a utopian one.
-"sources will claim...it" Here I would recommend providing cites of actual sources. Maybe your doing a bibliography but if not make sure to put, "The New York Times and Washington Post claim that..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top