Talk:Apologetics/Archive 1

message: Do you think that the external links section of this article should also have non-Christian apologetics websites? This article should be more open-minded.
:Absolutely!  I don't personally know of any, though -- if you do, please add them, and make sure to be clear in the link title what type of apologetics they exemplify. Jwrosenzweig 23:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.107.140.222 (talk • contribs) .
I think someone should take a scythe to the external links and bibliography sections.  Both are so indiscriminate that they don't help the man on the Clapham omnibus to find good authorities.  Experts are not going to come here for this.  What's needed is a few outstanding examples.  Just my $0.02. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Ran across Tactics of Apologia in clicking on random articles... that article is in need of major work and could perhaps be merged into Apologetics. -- NYArtsnWords 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tactics of Apologia]] 

message: "This is an inaccurate picture of apologetics.  While it captures some of the truth behind the concept, it unnaturally assumes that the individual who engages in the apologetic will omit truth as an attempt to deceive the hearer.  This is not necessarily accurate.  We see every day that individuals in political circles use rhetoric to convey a message or agenda.  
A message can be deceptive but that does not necessarily mean that all messages are untruthful or inaccurate.  Above you find the statement, “Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause”. True apologetics is primarily concerned with arriving at the TRUTH and not deceiving the listener or reader.
The statement above is actually an example deceptive propaganda rather than apologetics.  It uses a type of logic but is lacking context and support of its claim.
Example:
If some A’s are B’s and all B’s are C’s then all A’s are C’s.
This is a false statement but unfortunately, it is the logic used by the above writer."
(written by )
This seems like an issue with the content rather than content itself. If someone wants to rephrase this to conform with NPOV go ahead. --Daniel Olsen 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuttal (moved from article) 

message: The reason I put links, in the apologetics article, that are strange and to do with World War I, in an edit, was because I was making a metaphor and a comparison.
First, I compare all the contradictions and exclusivity between all the religions and their beliefs and claims in the world and the fact that it is difficult to know and find out which religion is the "one true religion" to the stalemate in the trenches, battlefields, and battlefronts of World War I. Second, I compare the fact that many of the arguments made by religions for them to be the one true religion are very weak and easily refuted and that there are more counter-arguments than arguments to the very heavy casualties of World War I. Third, I also compare that and many of the unsuccessful attempts by religions to give arguments for their beliefs (e.g. Intelligent Design) to many of the early unsuccessful attempts of the warring nations to break the stalemate (e.g. Gallipoli, Battle of the Somme, Battle of Passchendaele).
Now let me talk about the comparisons to do with my edits: Fourth, I compare the arguments of the Christians for the existence of a theistic God and Christianity to be the one true religion, the Christian countercult movement, Christian missions, and their criticisms and arguments against other religions, pantheism, parapsychology, and the New Age, etc, to the Spring Offensive of World War I, by Germany. I compare the fact that the Christians are (or at least seem to be) pretty successful in their attempts to show that their religion is true and that they are false, right now, to the fact that the Spring Offensive was actually pretty successful, and it achieved great results, at first. I compare the arguments of the Christians to the tactics used by Germany in the Spring Offensive. I compare the fact that, at least now, Christians do (or at least seem to do) have more arguments and apologists for their religion and against others than other religious believers, to the fact that Germany had more troops than the Allies, at first. Fifth, I compare the apologists for other religions and pantheism (e.g. A. L. De Silva, Gunapala Dharmasiri, Red Jacket) to the commanders of the Allied armies (e.g. Ferdinand Foch). I compare organizations for the apologetics of pantheism (e.g. World Pantheist Movement, Universal Pantheist Society) to the United States during World War I. Sixth, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) refute and counter Christianity and its arguments and to defend belief in pantheism to the Second Battle of the Marne. Seventh, I compare their statements to (or at least try to) "fight back" against the Christianity and even challenge, reject, and refute it, to the Hundred Days Offensive of World War I. Eighth, if they succeed in refuting Christianity and showing their religion or pantheism to be true, then I compare that to the Allied victory in World War I.
The Anonymous One 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologetics and World War I 

message: We do not need an entry for everyone who does not engage in apologetics, and statements like "there are many websites that shun them" that have nothing to do with apologetics. Kungfukats2 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Raelians 

message: This line "Apologists have been characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term generally has a pejorative meaning.
" seems to be one point of view from opponents of apologetics. Simply saying they "have been characterized" does not seem to undo the weight it lends to the anti-apologetic feel of the segment.  If this idea is going to be included it should be followed by a common response of apolotics to this accusation, or it should not be included.
:The above statement is mine. I thought I would come back here to see if anyone had made a change to the section or commented on what I had to say. I also looked again at the section in the article and reread it. The entire paragraph that makes up the section "Colloquial Usage" would make one think that most people speak of apologetics in a negative manner. I also looked a bit more at the rest of the talk page and found that someone had, at one time, posted a rebuttal to the claims in "Colloquial Usage" making that section 2 or 3 paragraphs and obviously a bit larger.  Instead of rewording or cutting down the extra that didn't need to be there, user Daniel Olson simply removed all but the current paragraph leaving it very anti-apologetic POV.  In addition to the entire section having the anti-apologetic feel, it doesn't seem to me to be labeled right.  It seems a bit more like it should be labeled "Criticisms" instead of "Colloquial Usage" since the latter gives one the idea that the word apologetics is most often used in a negative manner. I have never made edits to actual articles, but this one seems simple enough that I may if no one else does soon. Or perhaps getting rid of the whole section as it does not contain any references, though I think having a "Criticisms" section is a good idea. 98.215.128.112 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reliable sources for any of these claims? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in "Colloquial Usage" 

message: Why is 'Mormon' a sub-section of Hinduism? To begin with, the correct section title should read "Mormonism" not "Mormon, and it should be a sub-section of Christianity (since Mormonism is "Christian Primiitvism" according to the opening passage of the "Mormonism" article). Or at the very least it's own section, if not a sub-section of Christianity. I would edit it myself, but couldn't figure out how to edit the table of contents. To have it listed under Hinduism is misleading, blatantly inaccurate, and I would expect is a result of outright vandalism, honestly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.44.142 (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously a mistake, now corrected. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormonism 

message: The term apologetics does not refer to political apologists. The following should be removed from the lead as misleading, the word apologetics is not used in politics as is described, but as the word apologist alone, just as is seen in the sources cited.
In political usage, apologetics is used in a negative fashion to describe the defence of controversial actions or policies, like terrorism or politically repressive governments.[2][3]
''
Comments?
KSci (talk) 06:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to remove text from lead that conflates apologetics and apologist 

message: This change would address a problem where the topic's subject matter is taking two divergent paths "the disciplines of religious apologetics" vs. "defending a non-religious position as an apologist". Note that christian apologetics is a separate topic. 
This change would narrow the scope of the definition of "apologetics" to include only religious apologetics to match the religious project category. 
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, "speaking in defense") is the theological or religious discipline of defending beliefs and doctrines through the systematic use of information.
KSci (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed lead change defining the scope of "apologetics" more narrowly in terms of religious concepts. 

message: :proposed change modifies this sentence 
In modern usage the term 'apologetics' is largely identified with debates over religion and theology in the USA and is rarely heard in the UK (although the related word 'apologist' is used in British English).
to say this instead. 
In modern usage in the USA, the term 'apologetics' is identified with debates over religion and theology. The term is rarely heard in the UK.
KSci (talk) 23:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose to modify sentence in  the article lead to clarify scope of usage. 

message: I made some changes already, but I think even greater changes to this entry are needed.  Most notably, I think the paragraphs on Tertullian and John Henry Newman need to be moved beneath the Religion header and their appropriate faiths.  The purpose of the Religion section seems to be to name notable apologists and their texts as categorized by their religion.  Tertullian and John Henry Newman are clearly apologists for specific religions.  The Native American Red Jacket's paragraph should also be moved under the religion header, because he is cited for defending his religion.
Then, the section that is presently labeled "Notable apologists" should be relabeled.  The preceding headers, "Religion" and "Literature" are definitive types of apologists whereas the remaining apologists are unique and notable for defending something other than religion and literature.  Perhaps the new header should be "Other types of apologists" or "Notable apologists of other causes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.198.128 (talk • contribs) 28 November 2014‎
Most of the above reorganization suggestions were implemented. 
KSci (talk) 02:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed reorganization of topic 

message: I've made a number of edits to clean up this article, which was disorganized, repetitive, and often off-topic. I implemented some of the suggestions in earlier talk. This article would benefit greatly from expert review and additions to most all of the non-Christian entries.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by KSci (talk • contribs) 03:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of recent edits and invitation for additional improvements 

message: Under the section, Roman Catholicism, it is written like an advertisement, and should be remedied or removed. It names no old apologists, only newer ones, and names a CD, and where to buy it.--Craxd (talk) 14:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roman Catholicism 

message: The meaning of the word "apologist" has evolved to often mean "unconditionally defending a [predetermined] position with no regard for reasoning or logical consistency, evidence or empirics."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.144.159 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolved meaning 

message: A form of apologetics that is not considered is that associated with social construction, especially around gender. There is a considerable volume of Feminist apologia and a somewhat smaller volume of masculinist stuff. While this is conventionally regarded as "advocacy" much of it is quite obviously an apologetic and thus deserves to have a mention.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.84.253 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social movements and apologetics 

message: The title of this article is "Apologetics" but most of its sections—most egregiously, the lead section—are written as though the topic were "Apologist". Can we talk about either changing the title to "Apologist" or rewriting the text so that it is predominately about apologetics rather than apologists? —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of the presumed topic of the article 

message: The Plato section doesn't mention how he's an apologist. --Arperry 21:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plato 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Apologetics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110821133320/http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html to http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/issue57/57h012.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120718093548/http://www.catholiceducation.org:80/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html to http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0088.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:46, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified