Talk:Apologetic

Renaming this article from "Apologetics" to "Christian apologetics"
I think this article should be renamed from "apologetics" to "Christian apologetics" for several reasons.

1. A extremely large pecrcentage of the creationists at this Wiki are likely Christians and would like to see a Christian apologetics section. Also, Christians are very active in sharing their faith with people and would likely put more effort in the article if the title were changed.

2. I would like to see a stronger Wiki article when someone goes to a search engine and types "Christian apologetics" than what is presently available.

3. A strong "Christian apologetics" article ranked high on the search engines would bring more people to the CreationWiki site.

Creationist 17:36, 10 December 2005 (GMT)creationist

"Biblical apologists" versus "Christian apologists"
At first I was against a "Biblical apologists" article and thought a "Christian apologists" article would be better. However, since this is CreationWiki I think it is better that we remain focused and do not spread ourself too thin and remain focused on "The Bible/Creationism". Creationist 16:05, 12 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

Reorganized because Biblical apologetics is broader
I changed the opening to the Biblical apologetics section because Biblical apologetics is a broad field. I then reorganized the paragraph order.

The opening now reads:

"Biblical Apologetics

Biblical apologists primarily concern themselves with the following areas: authorship and date of biblical books, Biblical canon, historicity of the the Bible, defense of Bible prophecy, and Biblical inerrancy."

Lastly, I changed a title. "Christian apologetics" now reads "Christian apologetics today"

Creationist 17:43, 13 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

I added back Holding's site
I put a link to JP Holding Tektonics Ministry. I want to let everyone know that I do not endorse Theology Web which is a forum which I think has unfair moderation towards young earth creationists. JP Holding's site links to Theology Web. Lastly, JP Holding holds to the eschatology of preterism which I also disagree with (the earliest church fathers were premillenial futurists, etc. etc.). Creationist 01:57, 15 January 2006 (GMT)creationist

Other religious groups
The article currently includes this line:
 * Some of the major religious groups claiming to be Christian but who still attack fundamentals of the Christian faith include: Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Roman Catholics.

I don't have a problem with JWs and Mormons being there. I am less comfortable about SDAs and Catholics being mentioned in that context. Catholics certainly have some objectionable ideas, but is there really any dispute that they are classified as "Christian", given that they do believe Jesus to be God? And the SDAs are, to my mind, not as bad as the Catholics. They also have some unusual ideas, but pretty well agree on the fundamentals. What "fundamentals" of the Christian faith do they attack? I should add that I do agree that in the past they could be described as a cult, but my understanding is that today they are generally accepted as being part of Christendom. (Because they, not the standards of membership of Christendom, have changed.)

Perhaps the problem is with the description, which is a bit ambiguous. It doesn't actually say that any of those groups are not Christian, and it doesn't say what the "fundamentals" are they allegedly attack. But if that statement is interpreted broadly, then any denomination that disagrees with Biblical creation could be included in that list. Philip J. Rayment 14:49, 2 April 2006 (GMT)
 * I agree withya, Mr. Rayment. Perhaps we should identify what the author means by "Fundamentals of the Christian Faith" in this case, before we tag people as attacking them, whatever they are.  The sentence assumes a particular doctrine without stating or justifying it.  Personally, I don't think the sentence serves any purpose at all other than to alienate, and I'd just as soon delete it entirely ... but since i'm a doctrinal weirdo (and widely considered an "attacker of the fundamentals") i confess i'm biased ... any thoughts?  Ungtss 03:36, 3 April 2006 (GMT)