Rick Sumner

This is the second time I've seen you use this term inaccurately--or at least misleadingly. An "apologist" in the sense of a Christian apologist (rather than "apologist" in the more general sense of one who is simply offering a systematic defense of a position), generally refers to someone who is offering a faith based position. William Lane Craig is an apologist, E P Sanders isn't, for example. (Both are Christian).

You have previously used the term in description of myself, in a dialogue carried out by proxy through Ted Hoffman. The suggestion that I'm an apologist is laughably misinformed, and more importantly, it is not something that could possibly be deduced from anything I've ever posted here--I'm not even Christian. The charge was based on nothing more than a desire to frame my argument in a specific context; it emphatically could not have been based on anything in the nature of my argumentation. Again, I'm not Christian.

Here you misuse the term again, at least in the sense of the sentiment it conveys (I am aware that it is technically accurate, as I noted above, but the connotation of a Christian apologist is decidedly different, and is something I'm sure you're aware of). Given that you consistently attempt to frame your opponents as "apologists," even when there is absolutely no reason to offer the term, I think that the charge can safely be dismissed as a thinly guised ad hominem.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

krosero

Does this mean that neither Doherty nor anyone else can henceforth call someone an apologist, unless perhaps the person named already identifies themselves as such?

I ask because this is an important issue. Doherty talked about "apologists", inferring that Gibson was one. He offered no helpful or clarifying explanation about it, and generally speaking, lack of explanation is more likely to cause misunderstanding, or to become " not productive" in Toto's words, than is true when explanation and discussion are provided for. Sumner tried to discuss the issue, and either he or the board generally was told that "discussion of apologists" (my emphasis) is off topic. Since Sumner was talking almost entirely about the use of the word "apologist" and not talking about apologists at all (except in a brief glance, to illustrate his point, at William Lane Craig), and since it was Doherty who was actually discussing apologists, I take it that the moderator's warning specifies that neither Doherty nor anyone else can discuss apologists or name people as apologists, except with reasonable caveats such as a person already identifying themselves as such?

Is this correct?

Toto

krosero, in one fell swoop, has violated the rule against discussing moderation issues in the thread and discussing the meaning of apologist.

So I have split this thread out for anyone who wants to say anything about apologists, who is an apologist, why it matters, etc.

Amaleq13

I have not communicated with Toto about the subject but it seems to me that identifying a member as an "apologist" essentially amounts to speculation about motivation, regardless of whether it is an accurate description, so it is irrelevant to a discussion of the evidence, likely to result in a derailing tangent and arguably prohibited by the rules.

Stick to the evidence/argument and allow the readers to draw their own conclusions about motivations.

GakuseiDon

I've been called "apologist" quite a bit, and I think that it only impresses those readers who have a pretty poor opinion of Christians in the first place. In some cases it tells you more about the frame of mind of the accuser than the 'accusee'. It doesn't really contribute to the debate, so should be ignored.

I agree with Amaleq. Stick to the evidence and let the reader decide.

krosero

There's not a word here that I disagree with. It's hard to say whether it should be against the rules, since "apologist" does have a legitimate specific meaning, as Sumner points out. On the other hand, it has been used disparagingly of people who do not identify as apologists or even Christians.

EarlDoherty

In my last post on the other thread (#68), I made the following comment:

I was not trying to falsely label Jeffrey with some supposedly disparaging identification. It was a sarcastic response to his posting in which I objected to his style of argument.

krosero

You have called Don and others "apologists" in a literal sense many times. No one could be faulted for taking you literally this time if you did not say anything like, "Jeffrey, you're behaving like an apologist; don't go there."

We can't be expected to read your mind.

Ted Hoffman

I am disapointed at the moderator(s) for this drama about the word apologist. We have Christians like William Lane Craig who are proud to be identified as apologists. An apologist is defined as "A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution." The thing is, when you defend the orthodox views, especially in a fashion that someone else construes to be driven by a particular interest, as opposed to the evidence, then that person can call you an apologist. The word apologist is not an insult and in my view, the mods here are trying to be "nice" in a fashion that is unwarranted and unfair (to Doherty and other Christians who have been called apologists here). If someone feels that they are not being rightly identified as an apologist, let them defend themselves and come clean. I dont see any reason why a mod should step in and wield a huge stick.
You can put it in the forum rules that the word apologist is an insult. But the definition of that word, AFAIK, is not an insult. We are called atheists in these forums all the time in a fashion that implies we have agendas (search for Roger Pearse and praexus). We have never protested. How come one poster joins the forum and is alluded to be an apologist and the mods wield a big stick? Rick never got this kind of intervention when he was inferred to be an apologist.
I think it sucks and I am disapointed that this can happen at IIDB. At biblical studies list, this subject was discussed about (evangelical christians and people having agendas) and there was no hysteria and drama about being evangelical "scholars" and the like. Maybe it was because more popular scholars there (Lemche, Thompson, Davies - minimalists actually) were the ones doing the labelling and here at IIDB, the labeled person has made a big impression and is therefore accorded some sort of special treatment.

An ad hominem is a fallacy, not an insult. My view: calling someone an apologist is not an insult.

Rick Sumner

There seems to be some confusion, at least among some of the posters (I'm sure that Toto understood exactly what was being said, and was responding in kind, rather my original post and Toto's response, while clear to each other--we've hashed this out before--was perhaps not clear to other posters).

The term "apologist" is not, in itself, an ad hominem argument. By way of analogy, neither is "liberal"--it's a perfectly legitimate term that covers a huge portion of the population. Yet one need only read Ann Coulter, or watch a Dennis Miller routine, to see that it certainly can be an insult--it can even be an insult when it's being used accurately to describe liberals.

By another way of analogy, Doherty has posted two incredibly good reviews of incredibly crappy books. The explanations he has provided (again, by proxy through Ted Hoffman) are 100% ideological in nature. That makes these reviews, in every sense of the term, apologetics for the Jesus Myth.

How would Earl feel if I began calling him an apologist accordingly? If I posted links to those reviews, and offered a dismissive comment about how it was pointless to debate with apologists, when engaged in a debate with him?

It has no place in serious discussion.

Regards,
Rick Sumner