Talk:Christian apologetics

message: Added 'aims to provide a rational basis' in the opening, to satisfy Wikipedia's neutrality policy. To say that it 'provides a rational basis' is to endorse the project. Saying apologists 'aim' to give a rational basis doesn't take a stand one way or the other, but adds a buffer of neutrality for those not Christian: Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, etc..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.255.71 (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Added 'aims to'

message: Much of this article is either unsourced, or original WP:Synthesis of Biblical passages. What remains is, almost-exclusively, cited to the primary sources of the apologists themselves. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: Evolutionary biology is universally recognised within both science and philosophy of science as a subfield of the science of biology. That certain apologists don't like this does not change the fact. Attempts to give equal validity to creationism by attempting to reduce evolutionary biology to a mere "Darwinian concept" is against Wikipedia policy. See also WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE & WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, evolutionary biology is a universally recognized, however the particulars of evolution and the interpretation of data is not universally agreed upon even among evolutionary biologists.  However, the "Darwinian concept of evolution" is not currently agreed upon universally.  Please see Darwinism in which it is quoted "...Darwinism is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period."  Would you compromise on "Darwinism" rather than "Darwinian concept of evolution"?  Gingabox (talk) 13:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As a physicist who graduated magna cum laude, I laugh at the entire field of biology as nothing more than pseudo-scientific babble intended for the mass consumption of inferior minds that do not have the reasoning skills to conduct true scientific research. Your entire field is based on the observations of a lunatic from the 19th century. How about getting off of your collective bums and do some real research!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.148.120 (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a physicist, you are not qualified to judge biology's worth. Furthermore, given the fact that biology has produced predictable results, as well as actual physical products (such as vaccines, antibiotics, GMOs, the entirety of modern medicine), anyone with any sense of reason would be forced to brush you off as either a poorly-disguised troll or a sufferer of delusion.72.94.21.217 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Evolutionary biology]] is a science -- live with it 

message: ::The section is intended to explain Creationist apologetics, right or wrong?  Even if the scientific community doesn't agree?  When did science become the final authority on what is Creationist and what is not?  If you can put forth a suggestion that is not pointedly demeaning and stereotyping then we can move forward.  Let me put it to you plainly, one does not have to fully accept the ToE to accept a model of evolution (scientific or otherwise).  What you propose to say (reject the scientific theory of evolution) for those who are non-scientists sounds a lot like saying that Creationists are ignorant and irrational.  Sorry, its how it sounds.  You can't say ALL creationists reject the ToE, just like you can't say all Japanese people like sushi (there are many racist remarks that sound quite similar in structure). You might get away with "majority", you can say "some" but you can not rightly say "all".  Do you see?  Its inflammatory and demeaning to those who do accept evolution as a general premise, but disagree with aspects of its mechanics.  One is not required to accept both to be said to accept "evolution" or the "the theory of evolution" as those are general statements.  Your generalizations are far too broad and frankly I am tired, so I have removed the questionable content all together and suggest it stay that way until there is some compromise, a suggested fix or input from other editors.   Furthermore, you keep saying Creationists when the reference of the rejection of evolution was to Old Earth Creationists as a specific sub-set. Gingabox (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary break

message: First of all I have to mention that I am agnostic and aren't a big friend of Catholicism and Evangelists. Still the phrase "Christian apologetics" sounds very judgmental to me. Shouldn't a Wikipedia-article use the name they give themselves as name of the article?
Jschoder (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the name they give to themselves. They call themselves 'Christians' (no big surprise) and call what they do 'apologetics' -- thus 'Christian apologetics' (to distinguish it from apologetics, more generally). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The terms "apologetics" and "apologist" are standard in the Christian community. -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Name "Christian apologetics"

message: It should be remembered that unlike (Christian) creationism (which is pervasively Christian apologetics), not all (Christian) Theistic Evolution/Evolutionary Creation writing is defending Christianity against other worldviews -- a lot of it is defending science against creationism. Most probably most TE writers do both, but care needs to be taken to place emphasis on the former in the context of this article (unlike Theistic Evolution, which should cover both aspects). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theistic evolution 

message: I frequently have recourse to modern scholarship that deals with the Church Fathers as sources for the religious practices of antiquity. These theological efforts to debunk traditional belief systems are more often referred to specifically as "Christian polemic" rather than the broader "Christian apologetics." The term "Christian polemic" is also used for apologetics driven by criticism of Judaism and Islam. Therefore, I've added a sentence explaining the term "Christian polemic" as it relates to the more general term "Christian apologetics," polemic being the mode of apologetics that uses the rhetoric of attack, as indicated by the Latin titles of various patristic treatises using the words contra and adversus. I see a tag requesting a citation, for some reason, for the statement that Tertullian, Jerome, et al. (Augustine is bizarrely omitted) were Christian apologists; some of the Fathers have works specifically titled Apologia, and I'm not sure why this bare statement is subject to challenge. According to WP:V, citations are required for content likely to be challenged. I wonder whether some editors are focused on modern controversies such as evolution to the diminishment of documenting the history of the genre of Christian literature known as "apologetics." I don't think this article is the place for hashing out evolution vs. creationism, or any of the arguments themselves, but rather for describing the genre or mode of discourse. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has deleted this sentence. Please discuss. As noted, I find the term "Christian polemic" often used by scholars to denote a particular mode of apologetics. The Church Fathers themselves frame this type of writing as a systematic debunking, undermining, or attack on the religious traditions of what they called "pagans," an inaccurate umbrella term for various belief systems in antiquity. There's nothing particularly controversial about it; early Christians felt that it was their sacred duty to inform others of what they regarded as the truth of Christianity contra what they saw as the debased beliefs of, say, the Romans. There's also such as thing as anti-Christian polemic. This search indicates that "Christian polemic" as well as "anti-Christian polemic" occur within scholarly discourse on apologetics. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources given used the term "Christian polemic" but did not support the SYNTHy definition "Christian polemic is a rhetorical mode of apologetics primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems." -- 202.124.74.110 (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "polemic" certainly gets used, but it's essentially a value judgement. If A calls B's writing polemic(al), it expresses A's belief that B is primarily attacking someone/something and/or being aggressive. By the nature of things, there is no scholarly consensus that any specific writing is polemic(al), nor is there a clear genre or mode that could be called Christian polemic. You might be able to find sources that would back up a statement like "some writers believe that certain examples of Christian apologetics constitute polemic." -- 202.124.74.7 (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no "might" about it. Please do a search limited to exact phrase "Christian polemic" and "university" as the publisher and see for yourself. I needed the sentence because I often need to link to a description of "Christian polemic." You may be thinking only in contemporary terms: I'm thinking historically. The article as it stands is quite thin on the historical genre of apologetics among the Church Fathers. Instead, it focuses on contemporary controversies, which is not really what apologetics has been historically as a genre of Christian writing. There are major literary works by Augustine, Tertullian, Lactantius, Arnobius and others that are indeed polemical, and that the authors themselves intended to be attacks on what they called paganism. Remember that the full title of De civitate Dei is even City of God Against the Pagans. These intellectual, well-written works are often given titles such as Apologeticum or Adversus Gentes expressly (adversus means "against"). It is not a "value" judgment; a value judgment would be whether these works are good or bad, dumb or smart, effective or ineffective, or worth reading. it's a statement of the purpose of the works. The writers themselves stated their purpose as attacking false religions. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put this back, with additional sources that could go on endlessly. "Synth" occurs when sources are put together to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. There's a difference between "synth" and summarizing: the sources all discuss Christian polemic as a mode of criticism or attack. Of course all apologetics isn't polemic, and that is not what the statement says; but the claim that there is no such thing as Christian polemic requires a source that argues that it's incorrect or misleading to label this rhetorical mode "polemic," since scholars obviously use the phrase to mean that. The alternative wording offered here is essentially a claim that some scholars say there is no polemical mode within the tradition of Christian apologetics. If such scholars exist, please cite them. Otherwise, this edit is a non-neutral POV that Christian apologetics is never polemical, without attribution to a source. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course Christian polemic exists, and your sources support that; but none of your sources seem to support the claim that it is primarily concerned with criticizing or attacking other belief systems -- that would be a hypothesis about the motivations of authors which none of your sources support (City of God is a good example -- it contains, in my personal opinion, polemical chapters, but it is not generally considered as primarily concerned with criticism or attack). I have reworded to be (I hope) a little clearer. -- 202.124.73.83 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources given certainly didn't support the previous definition, and even the current definition is a little dubious. Inferring a definition from multiple uses of a word is WP:SYNTH. You would be better off relying on a definition of "polemic." -- 202.124.74.73 (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian polemic 

message: [Moved from User talk:Hrafn ]
I noticed you had removed the update that I made concerning the debate between old earth and young earth creationists. The reason why I added this paragraph was to explain that though there is a debate with the creationist community over how they believe God made creation, they do not debate on whether or not God created everything. I provided links and footnotes as verification, while showing a similarity in the Christian apologetic community with that of the naturalist community that differing opinions do not necessarily mean differing stances. My fear is that currently, while reading the Creationist Apologetics subcategory, the implication stands that there are two camps that completely disagree on this issue and thus the entirety of the Christian Creationist Apologetic, even if there is truth in one of those camps, is not to be taken seriously because it is seems to imply that both camps are in a strong disagreement with little common ground. My paragraph was intended to show that in most, if not all of the other issues the two camps are united but that this is just one point of disagreement, and that as with any science this can be healthy to discuss.
Is it then wrong to demonstrate the unity of the camps on most issues and the common thread between the two so as not to make it sound like they are from two completely different views? I am not trying to further an agenda, but rather explain this issue accurately so that the issue can be seriously discussed. If it is okay to add this information, how can I word it in such a way that it does not sound like I am not doing original research? Also, what other sources or information would I need to add to make this more credible? I have quotes from apologists such as Hank Hanegraaff concerning the debate between the two camps and that Christians should not divide over the issue but rather discuss it to come closer to truth. If that would help, I would gladly add it.
I am new to editing Wikipedia and feel I have a lot to contribute to this website. That said, I also have a lot to learn. Seeing as that you have edited several works in the past on this site, I want your input and want to work with you and with others on this site to help make it all that it can and should be. Thanks again for your time and patience, and I look forward to working with you and the rest of the Wikipedia community.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRHolmes86 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) Discussions of articles belong on article talk. (ii) If you want to avoid WP:Synthesis, you need to avoid any claims, implications or conclusions that aren't explicitly in the stated sources. If you want to compare Moreland and MacArthur, you need a source that makes this comparison. If you want to state "Both would be considered 'theologically sound' teachers of the Christian faith" you need a (third party) source that states that about them. And you are wrong that "there is no tangible way at the moment to verify either of their theories" -- the age of the Earth is well-established science. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moreland and MacArthur 

message: Just glanced over the Scientific Apologetics section and it seems misnamed. It's not talking about science but evolution. I'm not aware of any scientists YEC, OEC, whatever, claiming there to be a conflict, it's about how, or whether, to reconcile the Bible and evolution.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.1.208 (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (i) Evolution is science. (ii) It goes well beyond evolution into uniformitarian geology, the Age of the Earth and Cosmology -- a fairly large chunk of science. (iii) YEC isn't science, it's pseudoscience (as is much of OEC). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon but, how is this related to the above? You addressed not a single one of his concerns. 23.16.125.160 (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Apologetics or Evolutionary Apologetics? 

message: Could somebody please explain to me how the Sproul quote relates to the rest of the 'Biblical motivation section -- he appears to neither be discussing a biblical basis for the motivation to engage in apologetics (rather he is talking about a motivation to defend the scripture) and is not discussing any of the quoted biblical viewpoint given in the rest of the section. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Christian apologetics is generally defined as "the rational defence of the Christian faith." In fact, that's the subtitle of Sproul's 1984 book Classical Apologetics. The Sproul quote, which embeds a quote from 1 Peter 3:15, argues a Biblical motivation for this. However, the whole section needs a rewrite to have apologists quoting Scripture, not just Scripture on its own. -- 202.124.74.157 (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The proportion that is a direct quote is actually quite small, and at the end of both the passages. It might therefore be less confusing to characterise this rather differently -- it is actually more of a paraphrase than a quote. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: He makes a statement which includes a quote. I think that's fairly clear. -- 202.124.73.115 (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: When the quote is only a small portion of the statement, to describe the statement as a quote is misleading. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "says...quoting" fits the situation quite well. Since both quotes are given, there is no ambiguity. -- 202.124.72.164 (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sproul quote 

message: I'm going to be doing a source clean up here in a few days to get rid of the style template that someone just tagged this with.
Do we really need a long list if we have a link to a wikipedia article that contains the same list? Does anyone have a problem with me weeding that list down a bit, maybe to just general / intro apologetics resources?
What say you?ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading List 

message: I tweaked the following to be much more mathematically accurate: Young Earth Creationists believe that Earth is ~6,000 years-old... Science: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old. - Brad Watson, Miami 71.196.11.183 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sceince: this Universe is 13.75 billion-years-old & Earth is 4.55 billion-years-old 

message: Because of the nature of this article immediately pertaining to theological debate, it would seem that links to other articles such as Criticisms of Christianity, Origin theories of Christianity, Atheistic apologetics, and similar would be in order. Were I more familiar with wikimarkup I would do so myself, because of the trivial difficulty of the addition; as is, I am left to call on a more experienced editor to add this section. 66.233.132.60 (talk) 18:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also section 

message: ¬¬¬¬whoever is deleting my reference to rational wiki please stop or I will report you to the wiki admin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:561E:FA00:952:A639:3F33:C0F7 (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleting references.  

message: Article relies on very bad sources mostly. Neutral third party sources should be sought and to rely as little as possible on Christian Apologists themselves. The third party sources then dictate which apologetic arguments and writers are notable and relevant, rather than just finding random apologetists themselves as sources. And more reliance on high quality academic books. Also dictionary sources are to be avoided if possible. 
Article generally needs to have much of it re-written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrible sourcing: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Christian 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://archive.is/20110724054728/http://www.sciencespeaks.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html to http://www.sciencespeaks.net/Prophetic_Accuracy.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051112035608/http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 to http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051121160325/http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/design.asp to http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i2/design.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051225232043/http://origins.org/articles/plantinga_intellectualsophistication.html to http://www.origins.org/articles/plantinga_intellectualsophistication.html
*Added  tag to http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=%2Farticles%2Ftheistic_apologetics%2Fmorris-wager.htmlApologetics.com%3A
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120724071849/http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html to http://www.christian-knowledge.com/forums/genesis-chapter1/day-genesis-t8.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why do priests father William Dalton jr (talk) 14:04, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do Catholics call the priests father 

message: Here's the first paragraph of the "Varieties" section as it stands:
"There are a variety of Christian apologetic styles and schools of thought. The major types of Christian apologetics include historical and legal evidentialist apologetics, presuppositional apologetics, philosophical apologetics, prophetic apologetics, doctrinal apologetics, biblical apologetics, moral apologetics, and scientific apologetics."
As far as I can tell, this classification was pulled out of thin air. There is no reputable, authoritative source cited that uses this classification. It just sounds like someone listed as many different types of Christian apologetics as they could think of off the top of their head.
Moreover, it is what logicians call a cross-classification: Some of the categories listed belong underneath one another rather than as separate categories. For example, moral apologetics is obviously a sub-category of philosophical apologetics rather than a coordinate genus, as illustrated by the fact that the moral argument is repeated in the section on philosophical apologetics. In addition, many practitioners of philosophical apologetics include historical and scientific arguments as an integral part of their case, and historical and scientific arguments for Christianity are virtually always made in conjunction with philosophical reasoning.
This entire section should be reorganized. The first step would be to find a source like the book "Five Views of Apologetics" and use that as an authoritative basis for classification, with (probably) a miscellaneous section at the end for arguments that don't fit neatly into any of the indicated categories.  Torin11 (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Varieties" section is not logically organized 

message: First off, is it "Christian apologetic" or "Christian apologist"?
Generally it refers to "someone who defends the Christianity". So would that mean only people who engage in debate? Asherkobin (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: An "apologetic" is the writing or idea being espoused. An "apologist" is the person who does the writing. Vyselink (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Christian apologetic" a pejorative term?