Talk:Apologetics

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apologetics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 2 years

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Theology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Theology / Latter Day Saints High‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as High-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Low-importance).

Philosophy: Logic / Religion High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of religion

Old discussion

Some things:

I removed the paragraph on the historian because it is not properly apologetics but probably Christian propaganda quite common in those Centuries after the Fall of the Empire.
Apologetics (Christian) is precisely the effort to use reason in favour of Faith. The expression used before was not clear for me.
I have changed another thing but I am quite tired right now and do not recall.

Feel free to revert, but take into account the above: not faith and no reason but precisely the contrary. See Chesterton's works: those are apologetics, while the one previously quoted is just propaganda (in the technical sense and probably in the despreciative one). My English is beginning to rot, sorry. Pfortuny 13:18, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, the Catholic Encyclopedia calls Orosius an apologist, so I think it's fair to label him as such. Certainly to a non-Christian the difference between Christian propaganda and Christian apologetics is a subtle one ;-).—Eloquence 13:24, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Historian and apologist, but I do not know his works. After reading the C.E. article I've come to the conclussion that he is not relevant for this article (I mean, Augustine would be worth including, but not Oroisus: like including Shakespeare in a short article on theatre and not Marlowe), but as anywhere my opinion counts one. BTW thanks for a) turning my mind to other things, and b) pointing this article out.Pfortuny 13:33, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I admit it's somewhat selective because I recently dealt with his works when researching the Library of Alexandria. It is more intended as a stubbish start for what should ultimately become a list of apologists of the various traditions.—Eloquence 13:38, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

'Intellectual and social function of religious apologetics'

Made some small changes to increase the accuracy of the article.

It was describing apologetics as only have the purpose of strengthening the faith of believers. This is wrong since one can othen find letters or articles directed at skeptics at many internet sites of believers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .

Yhello, the in the first few lines we find "the title...therefore has both connotations." The word 'both' here is arbitrary, without two clear referents. This really should be clarified.

Lying for Jesus

Modern apologetics has got a reputation of lying for Jesus. To this apologists reply "These aren't lies, these are what we sincerely believe." Comments? WP:SOURCES? E.g., many of the things professed by apologists are lies for people reasonably educated in sciences and history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lying for Jesus Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Christian apologists

I took Ravi Zacharias and C S Lewis out because they're both dead. Was that correct? Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Proxima Centauri: That section is poorly worded. "Modern" is relativist. I don't think that it matters whether or not the people listed are alive. It should be reworded to specify what is meant by "modern". DesertPipeline (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deist Website, and I Don't Like This Word

"The World Order of Deists maintains a web site..."

Two completely unrelated points, and the 2nd one is half-serious. First, if the Article is going to mention the "Deist website", it should include a link to it, otherwise it's "bait and switch" and the statement begs the question "Well, let's see it." and also it's annoying because you see lots of links all over the place that aren't mentioned, but the one that is mentioned is NOT included. So, readability issue also. Second, I just really hate this word and yes I read the Greek origins of the "accusation" and the "apology", but I don't like people automatically put not only on defense on their religion, but worse in an "apologetic" framework also. Both of these are strategically disadvantageous from the start, even before the conversation/argument even starts. So I'd like a "substitute word" that conveys an affirmative statement of belief without first adopting a "defensive" position, and second APOLOGIZING for it. Something that says "This is what I believe, and fuck you.", letting the whole world know that you believe "X", and while you are not on "offense", you certainly aren't on defense, and if anyone gets the idea you are apologizing for your beliefs, there is the additional connotational component of "fuck you if you don't like it" as a means by which to counteract the built-in bias of this stupid word "apologetics". Does such a word exist? If not, Wikipedia should make one in the exact same way it made up the "BCE/CE" terms, as if there was something other than Jesus Christ, and the salvation of all humanity, that we now have in "common". Please note the complete absence of any apology in this statement, and the possibility that I could quite possibly be attempting to convey a light-hearted "fuck you" in your direction, instead.2603:8081:3A00:30DF:3497:64E3:37E7:6652 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am technically a Deist, and I had never heard before of the World Order of Deists. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Apologetics - Mistaken history

Since the Covenanted people did not offer or allow outsiders to enter their fold, they cannot be said to have had apologists. Jews are not so named until long after Christianity was imposed by Roman laws. The additional scriptures of the Jewish religion were Canonized to make themselves distinct from the original believers and covenant people. When Christian writings and translations used 'jews' to name the Israelites, it's mistaking Judaism with the Faith of Israel. Abraham's covenanted people were gods children and as such labeled themselves with tribal names, there collective group "Israelites"

Hopefully there can be revision, or talks about this to clarify what Jews and Christians emerged out of and why they are all different.

I wrote this because I think grouping the 2 religions is misinforming, they are distinct and separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:60DC:1900:0:0:0:4A6A (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]