Talk:Apologetics

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.

Biased history of Roman persecution

The section on Roman persecution should be brought in line with modern scholarship on the topic. For example, historians disagree whether Nero persecuted Christians because of their faith. It is debatable whether there was persecutions during the reign of Domitian. That brings us to Trajan, where we see the first solid evidence in the form of letters between Pliny the Younger and Trajan. In a polytheistic empire held together by Emperor worship, the concern was that Christians were not "giving unto Caesar what is Caesars", and Pliny was seeking guidance on what to do. There was no organized campaign to seek out Christians, and force them to offer incense (prayers) to the emperor -- what was required of everyone else. But if someone was accused, than incense they must offer. Yes this counts as persecution, but hardly severe.

It wasn't until 250, that Decius started *requiring* people make offerings to the emperor, which Christians refused to do. This is the first time that Christians were really being institutionally persecuted. Similar types of persecutions continued until 306 when Constantine became Emperor.

Consider what happened next: the Christians Romans banned talk of religion and (eventually) philosophy. They made lists of banned works, and burned them across the empire, go so far as to raid people's homes. They burned and destroyed all the temples and shrines to all other gods, and defaced holy relics of other religions. Eventually they forced everyone to convert to Christianity.

It is clear to me that stories of Christian persecution are exaggerated... early propaganda. And the wide-spread systematic destruction and vandalism by Christians just swept under the rug. It's a classic case of projection.

This article should be brought in line with modern scholarship on the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pageofswords (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there are debates among scholars about the extent of the early empire persecution - see Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire. "Severe" is a word generally used for the Diocletianic Persecution. Although the apologetic examples in the paragraph in question are earlier, it seems reasonably to say "In the Roman Empire, Christians were severely persecuted..." StAnselm (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)