Humble, easy, not elaborate and complex, straightforward

Simple Bible Facts

Simple Apologetics

Defending Your Faith Network


Simple Questions

A simple, short, well informed question is often the best form of response or rebuttal today. It encourages exploration of the issue. It has an edge to it, positions you on the high ground as knowledgeable, and leaves you with more options than a statement. Short means don't multiply your words. Most do, don't.

Simple questions can work where long tedious explanations cannot. Unless you're scheduled for a nationally televised debate; the brief encounters during your day will be the golden opportunities to defend your faith and share the Good News. Certainly, there will be opportunities for extended discussions, but the majority of opportunities to make a difference for Jesus Christ in moving someone one step closer to his cross, will usually take place within 3-10 minutes.

You'll achieve greater Impact through Concentration and Elimination (ICE). And as you already suspected, informed means study.

Try to never answer anyone according to their foolish (Godless) presupposition. Don't join them in their error, lest you be like them. If you do, you will end up at their chosen destination, not yours. Rather, rise above it and answer them according to God's Word on that subject. It will be refreshing and disarming. They know that to follow Christ they would have to give up their most cherished right, that of self-determination. Their right to decide what's best for them, and what lifestyle will bring them the greatest happiness. Whether to be the Captain of their fate, or just a cabin boy. Whether to follow their dream, or follow Christ.

They reject God's love, God's grace, God's mercy, God's forgiveness in ignorance because they're deceived, blinded by the god of this age who is at work in them. 

They are under God's righteous judgment, headed for eternal destruction but they don't believe it. They can't see it. They won't acknowledge it because they love their lives the way they are. They love this present darkness and the lies of the evil one, rather than the light and the truth of the risen and reigning one.


So, make it easy on yourself, listen very carefully and respectfully and then answer them according to God's Word on that subject. In other words, address the real issue or concern with a simple question that will promote a more thoughtful exploration of the issue.  Proverbs 26:4-5

"The apologist must evidence, even in his method of argumentation, that he is a new man in Christ; he uses presuppositions which are at variance with the world. He makes the word of God his starting point..."  - Greg Bahnsen

Simple Questions


What do you mean by that?

Ask them to define their terms. To clearly explain what they're trying to say. Identifying and interpreting user intent is fundamental to refuting slippery semantics. You can both be using the same words but with very different meanings. Or, the meaning/usage of a word may change during the conversation. Equivocation is the most common fallacy. Evolutionists will use examples of small horizontal changes to try to prove large scale vertical transformations. 

Where did you get your information?

There has never been a time in the history of mankind when so much information was readily available. An Internet connection opens the flood gates to a virtual sea of information. But, there's a dark side: misinformation, lies, fraud, deception, and the wholesale dissemination of error. Most can’t tell truth from error. 

Where the information comes from is critical. Carl Sagan stated over and over and over again that "evolution is a fact" while science shows it's not. Sagan, while holding that position, was also in agreement with Francis Crick's and Leslie Orgel's proposal of directed panspermia that suggested life on Earth was purposely seeded by an advanced  extraterrestrial civilization. In other words, Sagan held that it was a "fact" that life on Earth came about by a random, purposeless undirected process, while also supporting the theory that life on Earth may have been purposely seeded by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization.

In this digital pond of information there's a tsunami of this type of misinformation and wrong-headed thinking. Therefore, correspondence with reality must be the final arbitrator. That's where we have our greatest advantage, we have truth that corresponds to perfectly with reality, that can stand up to any logical scrutiny and scientific examination without fear of contradiction.

How do you know that's true?
This shifts the burden of proof. Make them defend their position. Many today are flying by the seat-of-their-pants. Credulity, not fact, rules public opinion today. Materialism is the most common litmus test for truth. "If it can't be quantified or measured scientifically..." ask them if that statement can be quantified or measured scientifically? It cannot. If
all you have is a ruler, how do you measure weight? And a measuring devise is no test for metaphysical reality, only correspondence with reality as we know it. God's Word corresponds perfectly to reality and can stand up to logical/scientific scrutiny. Evolution can not.

At all levels of the educational system teachers do not permit students to grade their own exams. For, by what standard would they grade them? A fool is always right in his own eyes for this very reason. He is the source/stipulator of truth. He is grading his own exam. His thoughts and view of reality are right in his mind.

The Bible is our reliable, objective, transcendent standard of truth. It consistently corresponds with reality without contradiction and is clear, concise, determinative.

Without an objective transcendent standard of truth (a straight line) you wouldn't/couldn't recognize a crooked one. You can't judge a relative standard by a subjective relative standard. The only way they know something is evil is because an objective transcendent standard of good exists.

Don't you realize you don't use the scientific method on historical events?

Here's a polite way to address the unbeliever's simple-minded self deception. Most who respond negatively to the evidence in support of God's existence, do so by defaulting to "If it can't be quantified or measured scientifically..." or "if it can't be proven scientifically then I just can't accept it."  Again, not only can't their statement be proven scientifically, most everything else they say cannot be proven scientifically. They haven't even taken the time to think through their statement. They're simply parroting something they've heard.

You don't use the scientific method to verify historical events. They are not observable, measurable, repeatable. You cannot verify George Washington was our first president scientifically. His presidency is not observable, measurable or repeatable. You must employ some form of evidential method as in a courtroom, where you present credible evidence and credible witnesses. Which is exactly what the Bible does. It gives eyewitness accounts of the actual events during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. 

"I choose to believe the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses  during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses.  They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of  specific prophesies, and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."   Dr. Voddie T. Baucham, Jr.

What if you're wrong?

You can make a lot of mistakes in life and get by, but being wrong about God's existence is not one of them. Today, there's more hard physical evidence, more compelling proofs confirming God's existence than ever before. Make no mistake, Darwinian evolution is dead. Not God. Mankind is left without any valid excuse. The word here is consequence. Placing my faith in Jesus Christ for forgiveness, righteousness, and eternal life, has no negative consequence. No downside. The counter perspective has a very serious negative consequence, an eternal downside. Friedrich Nietzsche popularized the statement God is dead. Who's dead now?

Do you understand the difference between proof and persuasion?
This shifts the burden of proof along with their corresponding reaction of not being persuaded back into their court. Make them support their position. Make them explain how reality will adjust to their personal belief. Again, many today are just flying by the seat-of-their-pants on hearsay not facts. They have to say something marginally intelligent, so help them. They certainly have the right to their opinion, but ask how (not if) that makes their opinion objectively right for all mankind. If you can just get them to stay with this one point, you'll prevail. So be kind and gentle, they're on thin ice and they know it.

Anyone can respond to massive unequivocal, undeniable proof with "I'm still not persuaded." Nevertheless, irrationality does not, can not refute proof. Authentic proof corresponds to truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality as we know it. Loss of touch with reality is one of the symptoms of foolishness or insanity.

How do you recognize truth when you hear it in an information age filled with lies?
This again shifts the burden of proof and their negative reactions back into their court along with the daunting task of determining truth in a society suffering from misinformation overload. A society disoriented by the flood, the curse, postmodernism, deconstructionism, a deadly fallen human nature, besieged by the lust of the eye, the lust of the flesh, the pride of life, and a myriad of other deceitful demonic deceptions. Remember what Jesus said about this issue while he was on the cross? Father forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing. They don't. They look at God's glorious creation with all of its intricate specified design, irreducible complexity and conclude "big bang." Then try to argue telos from a random undirected process? God help them! They're fugitives from reality caught in the snare of Darwinian self-deception because it provides the requisite warm blanket of autonomy they desire. A
ll of us are hardwired from birth to desire autonomy. Only God, and God alone can set us free from the residual noetic effects of the fall. The most notable being the effects on the thoughts, intents and desires of our sinful heart.

Want an example:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and the institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."  Billions and Billions of Demons: Richard Lewontin, January 9, 1997, New York Review of Books,The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark, Carl Sagan, 457 pages, $25.95 published by Random House

If you think you can share enough compelling scientific evidence with Richard that he may believe, you're deceived. Only God can save him. And He does it by His Holy Spirit and His Word. So, don't waste time and a precious opportunity discussing the latest scientific discovery, rather use scripture liberally! Let them see that the foolishness of their irrational response to God's obvious revealed truth is an evidence of their captivity to a rebellious sinful nature. Let them hear you use scripture more than your own thoughts and opinions. Without scripture, you're just one more voice in a misinformation age.  Romans 10:17

I am so thankful to be saved. By God's grace, I don't have the level of faith to be an atheist or agnostic, no matter how much autonomy it provides. At the very least, they have to believe that the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) took a 14 billion year sabbatical, but is now back, completely refreshed and fully functional. Their position is a classic example of godless foolishness. Truth is that which corresponds to reality, not that which is antithetical to reality. 

What books or articles have you read on the counter-perspective?
Here's a polite and tactful way to address self deception. Most have not even taken the time to Google the question they just asked you. No matter how sincere you believe the person to be, they're not sincerely pursuing truth, even though some may be brought to faith sooner or later by the Holy Spirit. So, use the time to lay the groundwork by showing them how silly they're being with life's most important question. Like gallows humor, or an odd witticism in response to a hopeless situation, this question can elicit half-mocking responses. As if, to be able to laugh at the specter of eternity in hell means that they've surmounted the problem.

What books or articles have you read on how science really works?
Misconceptions abound in the popular media about the self-imposed nature, limits, definitions and vocabulary of science. How do you navigate these issues?

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

Wald, George, "Innovation and Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199, Sept. 1958, p. 100

"Science is a way of knowing about the natural world. It is limited to explaining the natural world through natural causes. Science can say nothing about the supernatural. Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral."  US National Academy of Sciences

  • MISCONCEPTION: Science has disproved the existence of God.

  • CORRECTION: Because of some vocal individuals (inside and outside of science) stridently displaying their anti-Christian bias, the impression that science and the Bible are at war is rife. Although, many people of different faiths and scientific expertise see no contradiction between the two. However, since science is limited to natural phenomena by definition, it cannot permit any scientific evidence in support of God's existence, by that same definition. 

  • MISCONCEPTION: Real Scientists are atheists.

  • CORRECTION: A 2005 survey of scientists at top research universities found more than 48% had a religious affiliation and that more than 75% believed that religions conveyed important truths. Scientists today rightly regard religious affiliation as dangerous to their career, as "Science" is being groomed as a purely secular pursuit by the academies. Nevertheless, there are thousands of devout Christians working in research and teaching in prestigious universities around the world with IQ's off the chart.

  • MISCONCEPTION: Science proves/disproves ideas with facts. 
  • CORRECTION: Science does not prove/disprove ideas with facts. Journalists write about scientific proof, scientists talk about scientific fact. However, the concept of fact, proof—real absolute proof—is a mathematical not a scientific concept. Science is based on the principle that an idea, no matter how widely accepted may be overturned if the evidence warrants. On that basis how can evolution be a fact that's here today and gone tomorrow? The difference between "fact" and "scientific fact" is the term equivocation (slippery semantics.) Science by NAS definition can only consider evidence from natural causes that supports evolution, it rejects all other evidence to the contrary. What we ask for are facts: what we get is equivocation, vague ambiguities, deliberately misleading headlines and articles, if not blatant lies to disguise the fact that distortion is rife in the scientific community.

"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

Actually Doing The Math

Jim Elvidge, M.S.

The math doesn't look good for the atheists. Francis Crick, molecular biologist, physicist, and Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of DNA, commented on the miracle of constructing a single protein from evolutionary combinatorial selection: "all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?... the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 10E260, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!" [1]

Dr. Robert L. Piccioni, Ph.D., Physics from Stanford says that the odds of 3 billion randomly arranged base-pairs matching human DNA is about the same as drawing the ace of spades one billion times in a row from randomly shuffled decks of cards.

Dr. Harold Morowitz, a renowned physicist from Yale University and author of Origin of Cellular Life (1993), declared that the odds for any kind of spontaneous generation of life from a combination of the standard life building blocks are one chance in 10E100000000000 (you read that right, that's 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zeros). [2]

Famed British Royal Astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle proposed that such odds were one chance in 10E40000 that the proteins of an Amoeba could evolve, or roughly "the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747." [3] "… it is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must, therefore, have been the product of purposeful intelligence." [4]

By the way, scientists generally set their "Impossibility Standard" at one chance in 10E50 (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion). So, it seems that the likelihood of life forming via combinatorial chemical evolution from t
he periodic table of dead lifeless elements
is, for all intents and purposes, zero.

The Directed Panspermia Hypothesis?

Directed Panspermia suggests that the seeds of life may have been purposely spread by an advanced extraterrestrial civilization, or can be spread from Earth to other planets by humans. Since Francis Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally, Crick along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia. Crick posed that small grains containing DNA, or the building blocks of life, could be loaded on a brace of rockets and fired randomly in all directions. Crick and Orgel estimated that a payload of one metric ton could contain 1017 micro-organisms organized in ten or a hundred separate samples.

Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, Leslie Orgel, and Boris Shklovskii all held that life on Earth may have been seeded deliberately by another civilization. [5]

1. Crick, Francis. Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature. Simon and Schuster; 1st edition. 1981. pp 51-52.
2. Morowitz, Harold J. Energy Flow in Biology. Academic Press, 1968.
3. Hoyle, Sir Fred. Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.
4. Hoyle, Sir Fred. Nature, vol. 294:105, November 12, 1981.

5. Mosteller, D.P. excerpt from,added to article January 2015

What books or articles have you explored in trying to understand why God might permit evil to exist?
Misconceptions abound in the popular media about the seeming contradiction of the existence of God and the existence of evil. How do you navigate this issue?

  • MISCONCEPTION: "Is He willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is impotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"  - David Hume       

"Briefly, the problem of evil is this: ...If God knows there is evil but cannot prevent it, he is not omnipotent. If God knows there is evil and can prevent it but desires not to, he is not omnibenevolent."  - George Smith

  • God is all-powerful
  • God is all-good 
  • Evil exists in the world

Both are variations of a hypothetical syllogism, a form of deductive reasoning. Yet, with the introduction of the third premise: Evil exists in the world, this variant becomes an extremely subtle, sophisticated, deceptive argument. Considered a logical fallacy; a false dilemma or a false dichotomy presents two opposing views or options in such a way that they seem to be the only logical possibilities. If one is true, then the other must be false.

CORRECTION: There are other possibilities, and other considerations that have not been taken into account by the two gentlemen. The apparent paradox created by the three propositions can be simply resolved by adding a fourth clarifying premise. We need only posit this one proposition to resolve the issue:  

       God has a morally sufficient reason for the yet undisclosed, temporary existence of evil.

From Creation, the presence of evil has served God's salvific purpose. In heaven it was the cause of Lucifer's fall. In the garden it was the cause of ours.

At Calvary it was the cause of his son dying on a cross, where we see God reconciling the world back to himself, breaking the power and penalty of evil for everyone who would believe. In the future it will be the cause of great joy and rejoicing when God destroys evil forever. But above all other reasons, it will be the cause of our eternal gratitude, rejoicing in what Christ has done on our behalf; reconciling us back to God through his suffering. Christ will indeed receive the full reward of his suffering throughout all eternity, the unconditional love and pure devotion of his bride, the Church; all because of the existence of evil.

Today, evil can be seen serving God's salvific purpose in a myriad of ways in the sanctification process of believers lives, making them more like Christ. By being more like Jesus Christ, believers can actually overcome evil with good to the glory of God and the eternal welfare of others. What a privilege!

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us. For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.  Romans 5:1-11 

One day very soon, God will destroy evil forever. David Hume and George Smith were dead wrong. They suppressed and intentionally misrepresented God's truth in unrighteousness to serve their own purposes. They will both be held accountable for their sin. Warn others not to do the same.

    What evidence do you actually have that God does not exist?

    Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation. What I meant by 'We would know the mind of God' is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God. Which there isn't. I'm an atheist. 

    Stephen Hawking

    Those are silly statements at best. Stephen Hawking is a bright guy, yet, Homer still nods, and fools still posit that there is no God against the evidence.
    • Of course it's natural to believe that God created the universe, the evidence does seem to confirm it. It takes years at Oxford to be able to deny the obvious.
    • The unbelievable razor edge balance required for the universe to exist coming from an explosion is not a convincing explanation. Unless you are an atheist.
    • He would have to be omniscient for his statement about God's existence to be valid. His publicized errors in physics and cosmology confirm he is not.
    • Being transcendent, God is both unknown and unknowable; unless He chooses to reveal Himself to His creation. Here then is the paradox: Being transcendent, God is incomprehensible, existing outside of space and time and thus is unknowable and unsearchable. Ergo, unfalsifiable. Except to the fool.

    The Bible says: The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.  Psalm 14:1  That is not name calling, one would have to be God to posit such an assertion.

    Relax, and take a deep breath. There is no proof, no valid evidence against biblical creation or God's existence. Just opinion, conjecture, and lots of  hope.

    John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, is an internationally renowned speaker on the interface of science, philosophy and religion. He regularly teaches at many academic institutions, including the Said Business School, Wycliffe Hall, and the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics, as well as, also, being a Senior Fellow with the Trinity Forum. He has written a series of books exploring the relationship between science and Christianity and he has also participated in many televised debates with some of the world’s leading atheists.

    In his book Dr. John C. Lennox sweeps Hawking's obscurities and obfuscations out the door on to the street for everyone to see. Hawking's signature argument is that because there's such a thing as the law of gravity, the universe was guaranteed to self-create.

    "Nonsense remains nonsense, even when talked by world-famous physicists"
      Dr. John Lennox

    I have written this short book in the hope that it will assist my readers to understand some of the most important issues that lie at the heart of the contemporary debate about God and science. For that reason, I have tried to avoid technicality where possible, and concentrate on the logic of the argument. I believe that those of us who have been educated in mathematics and the natural sciences have a responsibility for the public understanding of science. In particular, we have a duty to point out that not all statements by scientists are statements of science, and so do not carry the authority of authentic science even though such authority is often erroneously ascribed to them. Of course that applies to me, as much as to anyone else, so I would ask the reader to scrutinize the arguments I have used very carefully.

    I am a mathematician and this book is not about mathematics, so the correctness of any of the mathematical results I may have proved elsewhere is no guarantee of the correctness of what I have said here. I do, however, have confidence in my readers’ ability to follow an argument to its conclusion. I therefore submit what I have written to their judgment.


    • How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?
    • How did the DNA code originate?
    • How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
    • Why is natural selection taught as ‘evolution’ as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
    • How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
    • Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
    • How did multi-cellular life originate?
    • How did sex originate?
    • Why are the (expected) countless millions of transitional fossils missing?
    • How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
    • How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
    • Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated as ‘science’?
    • Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?
    • Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as operational science?
    • Why is a fundamentally religious idea like evolution, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science class?

    Would you like Christianity to be true? Would you like there to be a God who loves you?
    A question from JP Moreland that cuts right to the heart of the matter when sharing Christ. In court, intent can be very difficult to prove. But, we are not in court. Why do people reject the obvious truth of scripture? Why do they obstinately reject the love of God, the grace of God, and the unbelievable goodness and mercy of God in Christ Jesus? Why would anyone say No? For the same reason we once did, sin. They love their sin. They love darkness, even unto their death. John 3:19 

    So, don't you dare let them off the hook until they have answered this question honestly, at least in the integrity of their own mind that they might see the deceitful nature and destructive intent of their heart. Don't follow them down any rabbit trail objections. The question does not require any evidential support, just honesty.

    • If No, do you think that may have something to do with your rejection of God? You know, this is the most important decision you will ever make in your life?
    • If Yes, who do you say Jesus is? Who is he? Who are we really talking about here?

    Who do you say Jesus is? Who is Jesus? 
    The Bible says Jesus is: The Living God, The Holy One, The Savior of the world, The Way, The Truth and The Life, The Sovereign Lord, and the Righteous Judge.

    Who do you say Jesus is? Who is He? The Bible says He is God. W
    ho do you say Jesus is?
    Don't say a word until they respond. Not one word.
    • Myth is an intellectually dishonest answer. They could say they don't know, but the jury's in on Jesus of Nazareth. He lived, died, no dead body ever found.
      • Principle of Sufficient Cause. The first century Christian church movement is testimony to the life/ministry of Jesus. It refutes all mythological claims.
      • The early church struggled to overcome the crucifixion. Jewish Messianic expectations didn't include a cross. It was an embarrassment, not invention.
      • Archaeology supports life of Jesus. The history of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher 326-328. Constantine, in excavating the mount site found a tomb.
    • Absurd or ridiculous is also very dishonest.
      • There are thousands of Christians teaching in prestigious universities around the world with IQ's off the chart. See Facts Not Fiction for a list.
    • I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher. I know he was a good man. But I don't accept his claim to be God.
      • Good men do not claim to be God—unless they're a liar or a lunatic. Or, unless they actually are God. So, either Jesus was God or not a good man.
    • A Jewish zealot or rebel against Rome?

      • He was Jewish, I agree. Zealot or rebel? Both confirm his existence. Nature of his ministry? See the New Testament.

    Would you like to know that all of your sin is forgiven? That God loves you? That you are at peace with God?

    Don't say a word until they respond. Not one word.

    • If they don't respond, sometimes silence is best. You've done your part coram Deo. It is now in God's hands and the Holy Spirit will take it from there.
    • If they respond negatively in one way or another, just rise above it. Remember who you represent and why you are there, for God's glory. So, be Christlike!
    • If they respond positively, pray for them that God by his grace would have mercy upon them and forgive them. That he would bless them by changing their heart that they might know him! It may be the first time they've ever had anyone praying for them. Pray from your heart not your head. Let them hear you tell the Lord how much you love him and how thankful you are to be forgiven. Finish by thanking God for the privilege of being able to pray with them.

    Noah and the Ark? You don't honestly

           believe that myth do you?
    Being able to defend the truthfulness of scripture which is the foundation of our faith in Jesus Christ is a command every Christian is expected to obey. It's not a gift, it's not a calling, it is a command and the quality of our defense is the issue. Our ability to give a reasoned answer to skepticism is critical. Our ability to give a compelling rebuttal or counter-rebuttal when the gospel is under attack in public can be even more critical. It can be something as simple as asking a question:
    Richard, do you know how much water is on this planet?
    As you know, the Earth is a watery place... About 71 percent of the Earth's surface is water-covered, and the oceans hold about 96.5 percent of all Earth's water... about 332,500,000 cubic miles of water. Enough water to cover Earth 8000 feet deep in water if the planet was equalized (the mountain ranges placed in the deep ocean trenches).  USGS
    The average depth of the ocean is about 14,000 feet. The deepest part of the ocean is called the Challenger Deep and is located beneath the Pacific Ocean in the southern end of the Mariana Trench, which runs several hundred kilometers southwest of the U.S. territorial island of Guam. The Challenger Deep is approximately 36,200 feet deep. It is named for the HMS Challenger, whose crew sounded the depths of the trench in 1875.  NOAA
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration believes in a global flood on Mars; even though they have yet to find one drop of water on Mars.

    Again, a simple question is often the best form of rebuttal. By that we mean a reasoned response that can shut the mouth of an obstreperous loudmouth critic. One that's not only compelling, but rational, defensible, with a high degree of certitude if not absolute certainty. One that is a real block-buster, delivered in a polite and respectful manner that will dramatically contrast with the foolishness and irrational cynicism and sarcasm that is all too often seen in public toward the things of our God and His Christ. Disparagement and derision of Christ deserves an answer. So, give it to them.  

    A simple question can be the best answer.