The challenge of Christian apologetics: We need SEALs!

[Karlopeter1]

Thanxs man! Keep the good work up! Amen =)

[stevehayes13]

Apologetics is just propaganda.

[brown547]

Love this video, most Christians are intellectually deficient in mounting a defense for the faith!!!

[Ps3vinni]

I'll take your challenge brother ! GOD BLESS & pOST MORE Vids!!!!!

[SimplyThinkDreams]

Great message and video. We need to wake our fellow man out deception. Many have been seduced. To run the mechanical test Yeshua gave us to see if we are have been decieved visit teamlaw(dot)net and read the Seduction. Team Law is truly diligent and knowledgable in everything they present regarding matters of law. By the way, I loved the self refuting arguments presentation. You will really like the info on Team Law's website. Eric Madsen is quite a scholar.

[SmileyT87]

The reason for this is because the majority of intelligent, open minded, free thinkers that practice deep thought, reasoning and logic are not Christians.

[RoseySnakes]

I definitely agree with you. I'm one of those christians that don't really know their stuff, and I'm finding it hard to defend my faith, or even to explain my faith to myself. this year, one of my resolution is to be humble and learn more about my faith and face my doubts. thank you for making the video!

[firebirdhome]

@RoseySnakes - I'm no historian or scientist. But I am a programmer analyst whose written programs since 1980. Everything I do is analyzed and better be logical for me to accept. That is how I treat my faith, and have been in apologetics for many years. If you have any faith/theology questions, write me, I'd like to help.

[Magnulus76]

I've become very knowledgeable about this myself in the last year I've improved by taking a more "Colombo" approach, and also realize faith isn't just about intelectual arguments. People want to see how Christianity is not only true, but good and beautiful as well. Some chose things like penal substitution to frame the Gospel (even though some like postmoderns or non-Europeans, may find this idea abrasive or even repugnant), though the atonement may be understood in many ways.

[MpowerdAPE]

there are soooo many things to know in apologetics , so many ways to argue for the existence of god.

so now i must ask you why, WHY do apologists , all apologists, insist on embracing false and thoroughly debunked idea's such as Creationism aka intelligent design. you are driving people away from christ i know you see this.

what happened to the good ol' days when science and religion left each other alone (for the most part) and even managed to be magnanimous i.e. carl sagan

[grammastola]

MpowerdAPE, as I've stated in my other videos, I have a policy of only allowing comments that are pertinent to their respective videos. I do this in order to keep the discussions on track and to prevent "scattershot argumentation" (a term that I introduced in another video).

You obviously object to intelligent design, and that's your right. However, that objection is irrelevant to the issue of whether we need people to be well-trained in Christian apologetics, though.

[grammastola]

Incidentally, you are welcome to respond to these videos, but as I said, I only allow comments that address the actual content of the videos. I think you can probably understand why.

BTW, you seem to be under the mistaken impression that Intelligent Design is the same as creationism. As I said elsewhere, it is not. For example, prominent IDer Michael Behe is not a creationist. He believes in evolution, but came to recognize that it is insufficient to account for life on earth.

[MpowerdAPE]

i figured you wouldnt mind as its been a while since anybody commented at all.

simply replacing the word "creationism" with "Inteligent design" in a text book that only a year before was offered as a creationist primer does not a separation make. Dover vs, the board of education is a well documented case here on you-tube and else wear. "m. behe is not a creationist, he believes in evolution". the judge in the dover case was as unimpressed with micro vs. macro evolution as i am.

[grammastola]

MpowerdAPE says, "simply replacing the word 'creationism'; with 'Inteligent design' ... does not a separation make"

And if I had offered that as an argument, your point would be valid. I did not though, as I think you know. Rather, I specifically cited a prominent example of someone who is NOT a creationist, and who specifically teaches evolution, and yet supports ID.

Your remark about microevolution is irrelevant. Behe is NOT a creationist, period. Creationism and ID are not synonymous

[grammastola]

BTW, in my videos on intelligent design, I cited examples of atheists such as Sir Frederick Hoyle who likewise saw evidence of cosmic design in the universe. They chose to attribute this to other causes (in Hoyle's case, some unnamed superintellect), yet they recognized the evidence of design. This further demonstrates that one can recognize intelligent design WITHOUT being a creationist... or even a theist.

[MpowerdAPE]

"creationism and ID are not synonymous" the fire and brimstone fundamentalist judge presiding over the dover case with m. behe testifying COULD NOT be convinced of that. that is what we're talking about here. Frontline did a story about the whole thing where in ID, mirco vs macro evolution and the half-fast re-editing of the textbook "of panda's and people" are shown for what they are "CREATIONISM" . punch "dover case" and you'll see it.

[grammastola]

" the fire and brimstone fundamentalist judge presiding over the dover case with m. behe testifying COULD NOT be convinced of that."

The fact that he was unconvinced is irrelevant and you know it. I already provided multiple examples of ID proponents who are NOT creationists. Sorry, but you're going to need a better response than simply stating "But the judge in the Dover case was not convinced!"

[MpowerdAPE]

im a little confused as to what exactly would be relevant. a federal court case isn't? or is relevance judged by how many time you restate the same point over and over again.

"i have provided examples of ID proponents who are not creationist's" im at a lose here, what does that prove?

in the light of the sloppy re-editing "of panda's and people" witch only a year before was a creationist textbook.

wether you see design or not , ID still has to be proven and falsifiable. WITCH IT IS NOT.

[grammastola]

"im a little confused as to what exactly would be relevant. a federal court case isn't?"

I think you already know the answer to that one. Judges are not infallible. In this case, the judge was wrong.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, there are non-creationist ID proponents. Instead of refuting this, you point to this judge and deem his judgment to be the final word. It isn't.

The fact that there are non-creationist IDers proves that ID is NOT a synonym for creationism. It is that simple.

[MpowerdAPE]

a history of our argument

i say: why cant we all just get along.

you say: a bunch scientist's support ID

i say: so what, and point to the only piece of literature supporting ID "of panda's and people", witch is a hack job re-editing of a creationist textbook.

you say: there are scientist's who support ID.

i say: ID and its main point irreducible complexity were also dis proven with behe as a witness in the "Dover vs board of education" i.e. he would not defend his hypothesis under oath.

[grammastola]

"you say: a bunch scientist's support ID"

You are COMPLETELY misrepresenting my argument. I am not merely saying that a bunch of scientists support intelligent design. Rather, I'm emphasizing that even NON-CREATIONIST scientists (including at least one atheist) recognize the signs of intelligent design.

I don't object to people who merely disagree, but with all due respect, I don't think you're even trying to represent your opposition correctly.

[MrIcarusflysagain]

@grammastola People like Fred Hoyle and Antony Flew may think there is evidence of a designer, but they are not saying who or what they think this designer is. People like Michael Behe and the other chaps at The Design Institute 'know' it is the Christian God, and attempt to twist scientific evidence to support their pre-conceived conclusion. You can't really say that Hoyle/Flew are really supporters of the same thing as Behe and his chums.

[grammastola]

@MrIcarusflysagain, you're right. Hoyle did NOT say who this designer is. I pretty much emphasized that in my videos. That's why I never said that Holy supports the same exact thing as Behe et al. My point -- and I emphasized this explicitly -- is that he recognized the signs of design, despite being an atheist.

As for Flew, he has become a full theist and believes the designer to be God.

Your remark isn't really pertinent to this SEAL video, BTW. I prefer to keep the posts on-topic.

I f

[MrIcarusflysagain]

@grammastola Sorry you don't think it is on-topic - since you mention ID in the video, and I was replying to a comment you made, I find this strange. BTW ,Flew is a Deist not a theist and has stated that his God is not the God of any of the revealed religions. My point with Hoyle was that the ID movement is purely a religious one, and this was not what Hoyle was advercating.

[grammastola]

@MrIcarusflysagain I mentioned ID, but only in passing. My discussion of Hoyle's view is covered extensively in other videos.

As for Antony Flew, your information is out of date. According to Gary Habermas, with whom he had extensive communication over the years, Flew became a full-fledged theist a few years ago. He was initially a deist, and was convinced due to the teleological argument. He has since gone beyond that. Whether is God is that of organized religions is simply irrelevant.

[MrIcarusflysagain]

@grammastola The interview with Gary Habermas was from 2004. In 2007, Flew told Benjamin Wiker that he re-afirmed his deist position, so I think you are out of date, not me. Incidently, why is it irrelevant whether God is of organised religions, if you are talking about defending Christianity?

[grammastola]

@MrIcarusflysagain, I personally spoke to Gary Habermas at a conference in Virginia Beach in 2008. He affirmed that Antony Flew was a theist, so that is the most recent information that I've found.

As for organized religion, it's irrelevant to THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT, which is the issue that you were attacking. One can fully grant that Hoyle did not advocate organized religion (as I explicitly emphasized!), but this does not refute the fact that he recognized the evidence of design.

[dimic]

Creationism debunked? I keep up to date with Christian Scientists who are well known apologists and on the flip side of the coin atheist skeptics and neither atheistic or theistic(which is universal) science can claim that the God hypothesis through our scientific knowledge and methods can either be adjudicated positively or negatively.. Please refrain from posting conjecturally ignorant comments.

[MrEpictetus]

Young men of prominence settled into order as Samuel Clark rose to speak. It was Cambridge, 1706, and the great theologian was prepared to present the Boyle lectures.

He said there are three types of atheists

1. those who are mentally deficient

2. those who are morally deficient

3 those who think atheism presents a superior argument.

There is no use talking to the first two, God has created them for destruction that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy Rm9:23

[insanezenmistress]

i have been tackling the A /Theist thing for a little while. it is baffleing on both sides and seems to me an endless volley. Even if we establish Diety, we seem to find the bible one of many human expressions of god; unique though it is.

I like the bible because of how personal it can be but that which is my enjoyment can be anothers complex. But then my Bible teaches one to be sober in mind, and so does my Gita. In the matter of my faith in god, i dont need the bible to be perfect just true

[liddlefeesh]

Don't forget also to check the internet to see how all the common apologetic arguments are effectively debunked.

There's VERY little that stands today; it's mostly an arguement from ignorance or the arguement from design.

In which you need an (often scientific) education.

Best with your research.

[grammastola]

"Don't forget also to check the internet to see how all the common apologetic arguments are effectively debunked."

Quite the contrary. The common arguments against theism are the ones that are lacking in substance, as I emphasize in my other videos.

[WhatisaJugallo]

Every argument on a theological level has "soft and fluffy" (as you so eloquently put it) arguments, a lot of people "involved" in such arguments choose sides based on superficial reasons then defend that stance with the obvious (and often most logically flawed) arguments without putting that extra hard work in, I believe the world needs more intellectual SEALs in general since theological arguments are the most important ones for our spiritual advancement as a species.

[viperx00]

"I'm baffled by your continued insistence that you're right and that those who disagree with you are wrong."

Oh and IMO that above is an unfair presumption on your part.

That said I didn't really comment expecting a debate I was simply wondering how you think it would it be possible for us theists to win over atheists.

Sorry if it sounded stupid or contradictory on my first phrasing but I'm not as well versed on this subject as you are, but you can get the idea of what I'm trying to say.

[grammastola]

"Oh and IMO that above is an unfair presumption on your part."

viper, if you didn't think that people who disagreed with you were wrong, then you wouldn't be arguing with me over this issue! Only a fool argues with people when he doesn't really think they're incorrect.

No offense, but this is another reason why I think you're deeply confused regarding the nature of truth. No rational person defends a position that he acknowledges to be inconsistent. I will not waste any more time on this.

[viperx00]

Correct me if I'm mistaken but I personally believe there's little point in arguing these things, there are no facts to our origins only speculations on both sides.

If there are no hard facts only circumstantial evidence. Thus neither atheists not theists can prove anything to do with creation, which is the basis of all religion. All either side can do is point out the fallacies of claims made by the opposing side. All defense and no offense so to speak.

An eternal stalemate.

[grammastola]

"Correct me if I'm mistaken but I personally believe there's little point in arguing these things, there are no facts to our origins only speculations on both sides."

I disagree. First, apologetics goes way beyond merely discussing our origins; in fact, most of my videos discuss other matters as well. And second, we DO have hard facts to support our case -- again, as I chose to present in our videos.

Moreover, the Bible commands Christians to present a defense (1 Peter 3:15).

[viperx00]

If by hard facts you refer to the intelligent design theory it is a speculation based on reason but can never be proven hence it is referred to as a "theory". Same can be said of the "theory" of evolution.

You have presented compelling evidence on Jesus but you cannot deny that part of it too must be speculated based on logic and reason.

If you watched Zeigeist they too have speculated based on compelling evidence that Christianity is plagiarized.

All are circumstantial evidence at best.

[grammastola]

"If by hard facts you refer to the intelligent design theory it is a speculation based on reason but can never be proven..."

A lot of things are wrong with your statement. First, my videos encompass FAR more than just ID theory. Second, no rational person would claim that we are only justified in believing this that are proven (as I covered in one video). And third, it is FAR more than just empty speculation. It is a philosophical argument, which is entirely different from just speculation.

[grammastola]

To continue further, viperx00, your argument implicitly assumes that if something is not proven, then it must be entirely speculative. In logic, that is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle. There are a great many things that are not absolutely proven (the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, for example), but this does not mean that they are just speculative.

I'm trying to say this gently. Having PROOF is nice, but it is not a strict prerequisite for taking a firm stand.

[viperx00]

Sorry but as you often say we're limited to 500 characters so I couldn't get into detail on all your excellent videos.

I agree a rational person can "believe" based on things that aren't necessarily proven, after all I have beliefs too ( I did watch that video btw :P ), however for as long as it isn't proven other rationals may dispute it, it then becomes a matter of perception wherein Religious beliefs are no more relevant than Atheist beliefs and vice versa.

[grammastola]

"however for as long as it isn't proven other rationals may dispute it..."

OF COURSE they can dispute it. That says nothing about whether their objections are justified or not, nor does it imply that you're unreasonable in taking a stand against their position.

I think you're too hung up on the need for proof. The reality is that rational people routinely take a firm stand on matters that are not strictly proven. Not even our court systems require absolute proof, for that would be foolish.

[grammastola]

BTW, viperx00, you say that "it then becomes a matter of perception wherein Religious beliefs are no more relevant than Atheist beliefs and vice versa."

I'd like to point out that your claim is itself unproven -- rather, it's a matter of your own opinion, with which I strongly disagree. So if it's wrong to take a firm stand on matters that are unproven simply because others can disagree, then why are you arguing so strongly for that position? That strikes me as an inconsistent stance to take.

[viperx00]

I know the inconsistency of my own argument which is why I thought I made it clear this was only my opinion, in my first post I said that this is something I "personally believe", I'm sorry if that came out as a declaration, but I was as you say merely expressing my opinion.

I believe that we all are expressing our opinions. I just wanted to know your thoughts on mine because your the only religious defender I've heard so far that makes sense.

(btw, my last post seems to be missing... a bug?)

[grammastola]

"I know the inconsistency of my own argument which is why I thought I made it clear this was only my opinion,"

Of course, it's your opinion. By your own admission though, your position is inconsistent. If a position is inconsistent, should this not alert you that something is wrong?

That's what I've been patiently trying to tell you. You say that it's pointless to argue for positions that are unproven since people can always disagree. Well, your position is unproven AND I disagree with it.

[viperx00]

I know that's why I never made such an implication as to or not it would be justified or unreasonable.

"The reality is that rational people routinely take a firm stand on matters that are not strictly proven."

I myself don't have proof for my beliefs but I believe them as you do yours ,yet we can never say for undisputably that either of us hold the true answers.

Hence my first point on eternal stalemate.

[grammastola]

"I know that's why I never made such an implication as to or not it would be justified or unreasonable."

You specifically said that there's little point in arguing for or against unproven beliefs... yet now you claim you're taking no position on whether they're reasonable.

You're obviously deeply confused on this issue. By your own admission, the stance you take is internally inconsistent, yet you argue strenuously for it. Only a fool argues for a stance that he knows to be inconsistent.

[grammastola]

BTW, viperx00... At the risk of sounding harsh, I should let you know that I would rather not continue debating with someone who knowingly holds (and defends) a self-contradictory position. Since you yourself admitted that your stance contradicts itself, I'm baffled by your continued insistence that you're right and that those who disagree with you are wrong.

As I often say, I welcome principled debate, but certain discussion are simply a waste of time. I hate saying that, but so be it.

[XiaoFury]

I'm doing the best i can. I've been studying on homosexuality and i'm getting better at rebuking it on an apologist level, Praise God.

[brh044]

GREAT VIDEO

[Viedwar]

Thank you for this video

[DrStevenz]

This video says the truth. People tend to drift toward the lower things in life, but a certain number will come in, and those that do will be of a higher level.

[BSintolerant]

sure thing. some of my reply's were to other responses. I guess that kinda thing happens in this medium. I thought that when I replied to them only THEY got them, not that they are posted here. BTW today is the first time I ever watched one of your video's. I'm searching for vid's for my hubby he is a fence sitter. I am an exchristian. Yes, I will answer any questions you have of me.

[Redflyer67]

Grammastola, I am up for the challenge. Thanks for speaking out this most important topic. 1 Peter 3:15 is our marching orders. I have seen first hand, here on Youtube, of scoffers, haters of Christian messengers. But we must press on, defending our faith, in love. It's tough, but we can do all things through Christ who strengthens us.

[darklink0112]

grammastola you have incouraged me, iam a pharmacy major who is majoring in science and a ardent lover of history and want to be an apologist. thank you

[LaneCh]

These are great points, grammastola.

[emzhuma]

Sir,

Is the Bible infallible, inerrant? Since God is omniscient,could he not have written the bible himself so that there would not be any confusion, and disputation,etc..? The Bible is very confusing. That is why there are so many different denominations. Is Christ divided?

[grammastola]

"Since God is omniscient,could he not have written the bible himself so that there would not be any confusion, and disputation,etc..? "

First, I'd like to point out that this is off-topic for this video. In brief though, humans are capable of misintepreting ANYTHING if they approach it with wrongful preconceptions. God could prevent that, but it would require removing their free will.

[OMON2000]

grammastola...i enjoy your videos...do you have a website...

[BSintolerant]

That is the most pathetic attempt to answer a simple question. Look at the general disagreement among christians as to what the bible is saying. But I suppose you know what it is REALLY saying, huh? Do you get paid to do this?

[grammastola]

BSintolerant, this is so typical of you. There is nothing pathetic about pointing out that people have a grave capacity for misinterpretation. This is true REGARDLESS of whether I personally claim to have the correct interpretation.

The thing is, I'm positive that you know this. Based on the tenor of your various postings though, you clearly want to sling whatever mud you can instead of making principled arguments. Grow up.

[XiaoFury]

indeed!

[wzippler]

When I first started listening to apologetics, I was as dumb as a post. It was like they were speaking in another language.

But I knew it was important I had my best friend's soul counting on me having a good understanding of what I was trying to talk about. While apologetics can still be difficult at times if the Holy Spirit can use me as a instrument of someone's salvation it will be worth every minute of careful study.

[braino2000]

I'm a young Christian and I get stones thrown at me all the time. There is a foundation for the faith. Historically and scientifically.

[BSintolerant]

When I was christian I thought I was a minority and I was being persecuted, but turns out most of the backlash come from other brands of chritianity, not unbelievers. I find most people have not read the entire bible. If you are christian and have not read the bible, you should. I don't bother even debating with someone who has'nt. It's useless, because even though they call themselves a chritian they don't actually know what they believe. They are just regurgitating.

[grammastola]

BSintolerant, once again, your comment has no bearing on the video to which you're responding. I'm sure that it would be great to hear your story, but please keep your comments on topic.

As I said before, I welcome hostile comments, provided that they are made in good faith. Blatantly off-topic remarks (as well as openly hostile remarks like yours) generate heat rather than light... and they're not a particularly good way of winning people to one's point of view.

[grammastola]

BTW, BSintolerant, this will be your last warning. Please keep your remarks on-topic and relatively civil. I've called you on this multiple times now. You're welcome to continue posting, but only if you keep to the topic of the videos.

I suspect that you might say, "Hah! You just don't want people to disagree!" Untrue. I have consistently allowed your hostile remarks, and have bent over backwards to allow the more vitriolic ones. The more civil skeptics are welcome, so please follow suit.

[1980PintoMan]

You're right, they don't actually know what they believe and he is saying the same thing, that they should study deeper so that they can defend the faith.

[harrycarayhere]

Apologetic SeALs...I like that. You're right though. Most Christians couldn't defend their faith against even the most simple philosophical or historical questions.

[DDDDDDDD35]

apologetics are great. Use apologetics as bait to get someone interested, then use God's moral law (the 10 Commandments) as the hook. Don't just feed them the bait, they'll become like fat fish that always get away. For the word of God is living, and active, and sharper than any TWO-EDGED SWORD, and piercing even to the dividing of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and quick to discern the thoughts and intents of the heart.

[grammastola]

You're right. Apologetics can be used to help overcome people's objections, but they must also be confronted with the reality of their sins and God's plan of salvation. Excellent point.

[DDDDDDDD35]

thank you for not taking offense.

[Valetudo21]

I agree...especially about lazy Christians.

[Newton1692]

I have always wanted to know if you were Catholic

or Protestant. I hope you don't find this question offensive. Anyway, Maybe you'll do a video on the history of Christian apologetics -- No?

[NewMoves]

Sign me up! over the last 4 months, I've seen too many christians fall because of lack of scriptural knowledge. We need to respond like in 2 Corinthians 10:5.

[aspenmarelle]

Good job granmastola. I've been studying apologetics & reformed theology for about a year and a half now- all after becoming familiar w/ R.C. Sproul. I'm convinced Christianity is provably & conclusively true. Unfortunately, w/o God's grace, no one will acquiesce to it's truth- no matter how eloquently it's presented to them. But this doesn't negate our responsibility to always be prepared to give a reason for the hope that's within us. So again, continue in the good fight my friend.

[thevinerhyme]

Praise the LORD for you Brother...I for one plan on self-trainning even more to be more up on these things than ever before. God bless you!

[Timinator15]

Knowledge is a Godly aspect of character, apologetics are awesome, Im reading stroble's case series.

[grammastola]

Yes indeed! Few people seem to understand that accurate knowledge is necessary in order to grow spiritually. Also, our Lord is a god of reason and rationality, just as much as he is a god of love.

Lee Strobel's books are quite good; however, I more strongly recommend the writings of the people that he interviewed.  These aren't as easy to read, but I think they're worthwhile.

[braino2000]

Yes, Blomberg and Gary Habermas are two amazing intellectuals. Also, check out Josh McDowell!

[braino2000]

Strobel owns! Atheists need to open their eyes and realize that Jesus is alive! Apologetics is becoming of great interest to me.

[wtdrummer323]

awesome video keep on posting them

[djemil5]

"My Jesus, my King, My life My All, I again give my life to you and I place no greater value on anything I possess or do accept to honor and glorify you Lord and do your will not mine." This prayer along with the Lord's Prayer gives me the strength and convictions necessary to grow in my walk with God.

[hazyb71]

The wisdom of studying apologetics is in itself worth it. Great vid. PS: Kent Hovind is blessed and though people bash them he always gets them to eat their words in a debate. God Bless and stand for the faith!

[qwertyfshag]

good video. continue your search for light. and stay on the level brother.

[acme181169]

Trouble is the more you educate your 'Seals' the more likly they are to realise that religion is a crock. Christian science is a contradiction in terms. Sorry the best you are ever going to get is Kent Hovind. Shit, Kent Hovind, i almost feel sorry for you. NOT

[grammastola]

So you claim. Yet you have people like Sir William Ramsay and Dr. Simon Greenleaf -- scholars who set out to disprove the Biblical claims, yet were forced to completely reverse their positions.  BTW, I did **NOT** endorse Kent Hovind. I didn't even mention him, and I disagree with much of what he says.

[Isaac0711]

Hi brother!! Yes, I will take that challenge and have been studying, but there is A LOT to learn!! It is the most fascinating study out there and I don't understand how many people are not into it. I have a hunger for it since I prayed for God to help me gain wisdom through His Word and to defend it. He sure did answer that prayer!

God bless you and what you are doing!!

Isaac

[JESUSISLORDAMEN]

God bless brother, Jesus is the only way, Soldiers for Christ AMEN

[RAIDERJO76]

Amen. Thanks for the vids, and keep it up! Christ is King of the kings! God bless!

[Darfius]

Very well said and I completely agree.

[mothcorrupteth]

I've often thought about getting deeper into apologetics (I've been told I'm really good at it) for the sake of other believers who might doubt because they *don't* know how to spot weak points and attack them with the right attitude. Thanks for posting--it gives me food for thought.

[grammastola]

Good for you! Very few people are willing to pursue this endeavor.  Few people see the need, and even fewere are willing to put in the effort required.

If you're gifted in this regard, we really need you!

[gilsonrocks]

Good Video! I am a student at Southern Evangelical Seminary. I am going to make a short video like this in the near future. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it when I finish it. Also there is a growing interest in Christian apologetics. In fact, SES is starting a PhD program in Apologetics. Thanks for your work for the kingdom!

[grammastola]

A PhD program? That's exciting news indeed! Wonderful!

[grammastola]

I also recommend the writings of Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, Paul Copan, Francis Beckwith, Michael Licona, and William Dembski, to name just a few.

[Gittany123]

Well i do have a desire to learn more as you said. Any suggestions on what on can do?

[grammastola]

"Stand To Reason" ministry is a good place to start.