Talk:Apologetics

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)

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)

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)

"Sunni Islam apologist" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Sunni Islam apologist to the article Sunni Islam has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 22 § Sunni Islam apologist until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2026 (UTC)