The Bible is the basis, the foundation of my worldview. And so it is the Bible that I work off of and I reference the Bible often. It is through the Bible that God has primarily revealed himself to mankind. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that while, yes it was penned by human authors, God, through the power of the Holy Spirit worked through human authors to reveal his written word to mankind. This is what is known as Inspiration. What is inspiration?

Inspiration
The term comes from the Latin “In Spiritus” From the Greek: theo/pneustos (God/breath). All scripture is the “breath” of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17  says "All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."
We clarify our view of inspiration by saying that it is plenary and verbal.

Plenary means that all parts of scripture are equally inspired. All scripture is the Word of God. Verbal means that the inspiration extends to the words of scripture. It does not mean that the authors took dictation. It does mean that the Holy Spirit speaking to and through the author so superintended the writing process such that the words written were exactly according God’s will. 4803 times in the Old Testament, scripture says that the words in scripture are the words of God. The apostle Peter affirms that the scripture is more important than the eyewitness of Jesus Christ:

2 Peter 1:16-21  "For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.  (17)  For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,"  (18)  we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain.  (19)  And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts,  (20)  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.  (21)  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

But the question still remains: "Why the Bible, and not some other holy book? Why believe that the Bible is exclusively the word of God and that God has revealed himself in the Bible?"

My answer: 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 prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.

For a detailed explanation on this thesis, please watch this talk by Voddie Baucham:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZNXMJGYNG8

Thank you for taking the time to consider these things. God bless.
Micah

SamB,

First of all I want to ask you if you followed the link and watched the talk by Voddie Baucham. If you did not, I would ask that you invest the time and carefully weigh what Mr Baucham has to say. I am a student of the Bible and I can tell you that most of your assertions about the Bible are false. Let me see if I can address the assertions you made:

1. " the earth was created only 3000 years ago" - Let me ask you this. Where in the Bible does it say the the Earth was created only 3000 years ago? Can you give me book, chapter, and verse? I don't believe you can because the Bible nowhere suggests that Earth is only 3000 years old. Even the most ardent young-earth creationists don't go below 6000 years, and their dating is ascertained by using the Biblical genealogies from Adam to Jesus Christ.

2. "Evolution doesn't exist." Well you got me there. Evolution is incompatible with the Bible. Furthermore, I believe that asserting that God "used evolution" to create man is also incompatible with the Bible. But first let me address the theory of evolution. Let me ask you this: Why do you believe evolution? Do you just accept it as fact because that is what you were taught in school? What evidence can you present to substantiate the claim that humans evolved from lower life forms? Perhaps the fossil record?

You might assert that the fossil record shows transitions - from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds, from apes to man and so on. But the fact is that the fossil record shows no such progression. Evolutionists can only produce a fossil record that shows the immediate appearance of a fully developed species - exactly what Christians who believe the Bible account expect. If evolution is the case the we should, for instance have fossil records that show a reptile beginning to develop wings. We should be able to line up the fossils displaying the minute changes in the structure and development of wings. But we cannot do that. No such transitional fossils exist. Even Charles Darwin made this same observation in On The Origin of Species where he wrote "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal and such finely graduated organic chain;, and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."  Any so-called transitional fossil series presented to date has turned up to be false. For example, take the horse series which is often taught in schools and which supposedly depicts the evolution of the horse in North America from a small, dog-sized animal. In the series there are various fossils showing various shapes and sizes of the horse, but there are no intermediate, transitional fossils from stage the stage. The transitions are not smooth and continuous, the decisive steps are abrupt. This does not mesh with the theory of evolution at all, which implies a smooth gradual change over long periods of time.

You might also object that there are fossils that show the evolution from apes, or ape like creatures to humans.  Well let's consider these fossils, known to anthropologists as the Hominid Collection. The author of Missing Links, John Reader wrote in the publication New Scientist: "The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . . The collection is so tantalizingly incomplete, and specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing that what is present. Preconceptions have led evidence by the nose in the study of fossil man."

So let's take a look at the many fossils which have been presented as transitional fossils in recent history:

The famous Nebraska man (Hesperopithecus) hawked by scientist as proof of evolution in the famous 1925 Scopes "Monkey Trial," was a specimen constructed in the minds of scientists from a single tooth. Two years later, when the rest of the skeleton matching the tooth was excavated, paleontologists proved it not to be a hominid, but an extinct pig.

The once famous Java-man was constructed from three teeth, part of a skull and a fragment of a thigh bone. Scientists subsequently concluded that there was no evidence that the bones were part of the same creature. The original finder of the fragments, Dr. Eugene Dubois, eventually concluded that the bones were the remains of some sort of gibbon.

The Piltdown man, allegedly discoverd in 1912 by Charles Dawson, fooled anthropologists for years, It was hailed in textbooks as proof of evolution until being exposed in 1953 as a hoax. Someone had filed down the teeth and discolored the bones and hidden them in a pit.

Neanderthal man was long touted as a link between man and ape. Today he is classified as Homo sapiens - fully human.

The famous African fossil known as "Lucy" is used to date man at four million years, Lucy was discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson. He admitted that parts of Lucy were found as far apart as two to three kilometers and separated by as much as 200 feet of rock strata. When asked why he was so sure the parts were from the same skeleton he simply replied, "Anatomical similarity."

So you see, there is no proof in the fossil record. Any so called evidence is based on the predisposition that evolution must be true, that man must have evolved, and since apes have similar body structure to ours, evolutionists conclude that they must be our ancestors and set out to prove the connection, when the evidence is flimsy at best and contrived at worse.

Now, if that weren't enough, let me address theistic evolution, the idea that God used evolution as the mechanism to create man and other forms of life: Theistic Evolution states that God used evolution as his tool in creation. God only intervenes at certain points of the evolutionary process. All the rest of it is random. In Theistic evolution, God intervenes in these 3 ways: The creation of the first matter The creation of the simplest life-form The creation of man Derek Kidner argued that Adam and Even were two primates out of millions with whom God entered into a covenant. God chose them to possess knowledge of God, rationality, and a conscious. Problems with Theistic Evolution/Things to consider in light of this view: Creation in the Bible is purposeful. Wayne Grudem writes: “The driving force of the development of new organisms according to the scripture is God’s intelligent design?” This is tricky for any evolutionary theory, because evolution depends in part on randomness, not on purposefulness. Once it is admitted that God intervenes at any point in the process of creation then your system seems to depend at points on intelligent design, not randomness. That poses problems for a system that depends upon randomness God creative word is immediate. See the book of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 for example. When God speaks, things happen, there is not a delay. There is no reason to think that God speaks and millions of years pass before anything happens. scripture teaches that God created all different kinds of plants and animals from the beginning but theistic evolutionists must maintain that these things developed over millions of years from the simplest life forms. God actively creating and sustaining all things is a core theme of scripture. This is true for people, grass. Birds, other creatures. The creation of Adam and Eve – A literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 forces theistic evolutionists to say that God intervenes to create them. This is very tricky. If God is carrying out this evolutionary plan, how are we to reconcile the creation of Adam and Eve, highly evolved beings from the very beginning? As far as I'm concerned, for Theistic evolution to have any credibility, the theory of evolution has to first have credibility, which as I have already written has flimsy and contrived evidence based on preconceptions and predispositions. Furthermore, the idea a Theistic evolution has serious problems when compared to the Bible, as I have shown here.

Up to this point I have not even considered what the theory of evolution cannot even account for. Perhaps the best example of this is the observation of what is known as Irreducible Complexity, which points us not to the randomness of evolution, but the purposeful creation of and Intelligent Designer:     

 I.      What is intelligent design?
a.       William Dembski, one of the original proponents of ID defines it as the science that studies signs of intelligence.                                                              
i.      What does that definition tell us or not tell us?

1.      Tells us there are signs of intelligence.

2.      Does not tell us who or what the intelligence is. – This is the main point that people who are anti ID refuse to recognize. ID does not care about the nature of the intelligence. It is not meant to answer questions about the intelligence. The only thing it is concerned with is looking at the universe and saying that Darwinism cannot explain it all. ID looks at the signs that the intelligence has left behind. There is a diversity of ID theorists; not just Christian. We have theists, Jews, Muslims, and so on who are ID theorists.    

II.      How do you find signs of ID? – You look to “specified complexity”. – If you find specified complexity in any system in nature, then it can be said to show a sign of intelligence. Specified complexity has three components that are looked for to see if you can find signs of intelligence; contingency, specificity, and complexity.

a.       Contingency – Something is contingent if it is dependent on something else for its existence. A podium for example is contingent upon the builder of the podium. All humans are contingent upon their parents.                                                              

i.      On the other hand if something is necessary, then it is not dependent on anything else for its existence. In the Christian worldview especially, we would say that there is only one thing that is necessary in the universe and that is God and everything else is dependent upon. God is by definition and necessary being and everything is contingent upon Him. So if you find something that is dependant on something else for its existence you see the first sign of specified complexity.

b.      Specificity – Specificity is the idea that there is a recognizable, preexisting pattern. It is not something that you are reading onto it, it is a pattern, it is a recognizable pattern that is already there.

c.       Complexity – This had to do with the recognized pattern. A complex pattern is something that cannot happen by chance. For example, images of the presidents on Mt Rushmore are a complex pattern. It could not have happened by chance or random erosion, rain, and wind. It took a pattern maker to make those images. It is not that you are reading a pattern onto the mountain; it is a complex pattern that could not have happened by chance, and is dependent on someone else for its existence.                                                              
i.      Irreducible complexity – When it comes to specified complexity there are some very good examples in biology of things that are very complex and show signs of intelligence. Irreducible complexity is one of those great examples that show specified complexity. Irreducible complexity is a term that was coined by biochemist Michael Behe in a book that he wrote entitled Darwin’s Black Box. In the book, Behe argues very simply, that there are some systems in biology that cannot be explained by Darwinian means. In the book he gives a number of examples of these systems. The most famous of all the systems he discusses as irreducibly complex is a cellular flagellum.                                                            
ii.      Cellular flagellum – It is a cell that has a tail on it that functions as an outboard motor. It gives the cell the ability to move around. These tails spin at 100,000 revolutions per minute, and it can stop instantaneously with a quarter of a turn, change directions, and go anywhere it wants to on a x,y,z axis. This is stopping power and speed that is unmatched in nature. This is a very complex system. We’re not even talking about the cell here, we a just talking about the tail. To make just that tail there are a little over 40 individual, distinct parts that are used. Here’s the kicker, all of these 40 plus part must come together at the same time and in the correct order for the tail to function. In Darwinism, natural selection according to Darwin says that if there is some trait that evolves from one generation to the next and that trait is helpful for survival, the natural selection chooses in favor of that trait and it will be passed on to the next generation. On the other hand, if a trait is developed that is not helpful for survival, then natural selection picks against that trait, and it is not passed on to the next generation. Behe’s argument is asking if there is anyway to go from one cell without a tail to one cell that has a tail. Is there anyway for Darwinian evolutionary theory to explain it. If Darwinian evolutionary theory is going to explain this is it has to explain the origin of all the 40 plus parts and it has to explain the parts being put together in the correct order in order for the tail to work. If the tail is not put together with all the right parts and in the correct order, than Darwinian evolutionary theory say that the tail will not be passed on to the next generation. According to Darwinian theory, what has to happen for that next generation cell to have that tail, the tail has to function, otherwise natural selection will pick against that tail and it will not be passed on, it is gone. So how does Darwinian theory account for all these parts developing and coming together in the right order in the next generation of cell? It can’t Darwin says that natural selection works in gradual steps. According to Darwinian theory, that cell might be able to develop at most 3 or 4 parts needed for the tail in one generation, and then 3 or 4 in the next one, and so on. What’s the problem with that? The problem is that natural selection would pick against those developing parts because they are serving no purpose. Some Darwinian theorist would argue then that these parts are already in the cell in different places, being used in different systems, and what the new cell does it borrows the parts from those other systems and forms the new parts needed, and then in the next generation, all of those parts are passed on. There is still a problem with that argument because out of the more than 40 needed parts needed for the tail, only 10 are already found in the tail in some other system. So now at the very least, that cell is going to have to develop more that 30 unique parts to pass on to the next generation for that tail to function. Darwinian evolutionary theory cannot explain that. We already said that according to Darwinian theory, at best, 3 or 4 new unique parts could develop There is no way from Darwin’s perspective to explain where these more than 30 unique parts come from and the fact that they all had to come together at the same time and in the correct order. So what Behe says in his book is that this is an irreducibly complex system. When you take it down to its smallest parts, you can’t reduce it anymore. You can’t make it any smaller or break it down anymore. And once you break it down to its smallest parts, it is so complex, that Darwinian theory cannot explain it. What Behe then says, making the next step, is what must happen for the tail to function, is there must be some type of intelligent designer out there that has given the cell these parts and has put them together in the correct order. We see that it is contingent, it is specific, and it is incredibly complex, so much so that it is irreducibly complex. It shows signs of intelligence.

Darwin himself even said that if there was one system in nature that his theory could not account for, then his theory would fallapart. Well, ID theorists and scientists have indeed found systems in nature, such as the flagellum tail that Darwinian theory cannot account for.

So I ask you again SamB, why do you believe in evolution? You seem to be operating on evolution simply on presupposition that it must be true. However the burden of proof still remains on evolutionary scientists to provide any substantial evidence. What the evidence does point to is a higher power, and Intelligent Designer - God, if you will, and I believe that to be the God of the Bible.

We spent a lot of time on evolution. Let's move on to your other assertions.

3. "If we believed and did everything the bible said women wouldn't be able to teach and have jobs other than being a house wife." Sam this is simply false. If this is the case, then can you please cite some references from the Bible that says this is true, and by that I mean book, chapter, and verse; not just "the Bible said"? You can't do it because it is not true. May I point you to the book of Ruth? The Bible is set in an agrarian society and in the book of Ruth we see women involved in harvesting wheat for example, in other words, working outside the home. May I also point you to Proverbs 31? Proverbs 31:16-22  She considers a field and buys it; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard.  (17)  She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.  (18)  She perceives that her merchandise is profitable. Her lamp does not go out at night.  (19)  She puts her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.  (20)  She opens her hand to the poor and reaches out her hands to the needy.  (21)  She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet.  (22)  She makes bed coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple. The Proverbs 31 woman is involved in commerce and in the buying and selling of property, in the planting of vineyards, and in the making of goods. May I also point you to Acts 16? Acts 16:14  One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul. It said here that Lydia had a profession, and that was the selling of purple goods. And by the way, not just anyone could afford to buy purple goods in those days. Purple was very hard to come by because the materials to make purple dies such as certain shellfish were hard to come by. As a result purple was very expensive and only wealthy people could afford it. And only people who were well connected and established in their trade could afford to run a business selling purple. I could go on. There are many other examples of women working in the Bible outside the home. And just a side note, yes the Bible does have high regard for families. And why shouldn't it? Families are foundational to our society. I don't know how we ever got to the point where being a homemaker and full time mother was not seen as an honorable profession in our society. As far as I am concerned if a woman wants to be a full time stay at home mom and she is able to do so, good for her. I consider that a very honorable profession, as honorable as many other professions out there such as being a doctor of serving in the Armed Forces.

4.  "I think the Bible was written by a bunch of misguided old people who wrote down what they knew was true and what they thought was true." The Bible was written down by a bunch of misguided old people? Can I refer you to Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, who was very well educated, who in fact had the best possible education anyone could have in the ancient near east having grown up in Pharaoh's court? Can I also refer you to the Apostle Paul, who wrote the majority of the New Testament, who was a student of Gamliel who was perhaps the most respected Pharisee of his time and a member of the Sanhedrin (which by the way in Jewish culture were the highest credentials one could have)? Can I point you to Luke, who was a well respected physician and eye witness to Paul's missionary journeys he recorded in Acts, and interviewed many eyewitnesses in the writing of his Gospel? Can I also point you to Peter, James, John, Matthew, the authors of 1st and 2nd Peter, the book of James, the gospel of John, and the gospel of Matthew, respectively and who were disciples of Christ and eyewitness to the life and ministry of Jesus and of the miracles he performed, and of his death, burial, and ressurection? These were not misguided men. To say that they were misguided men is simply a cop-out without doing any real research into who these men were. And did I mention they were not just writing their own words but were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (see the original post in this thread on Inspiration). May I emphasize once again the passage from 2 Peter in my previous post specifically chapter 1 verses 20 and 21?: (20)  knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.  (21)  For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

Finally, would you care to interact with my main premise on why I believe the Bible which is the following: "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 prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." By the way if you do watch the video each of the points in this premise is explained and expounded upon. Would you care to interact with any of the point in this premise?

In coclusion, the Bible is true and trustworthy as the Inspired Word of God. If there are parts of it we do not understand or parts that challenge our own presuppositions, we should be willing to go deeper into the study of the Bible to find the answers rather than simply dismissing what we read.





 

It's great that you believe in the bible and I respect that. You have been taught since you were born that everything in the bible is true. The truth is that it's just a bunch of stories written by regular people. There really isn't a proof in there that god exists. I will stick to scientific evidence to prove things to me

Jordan,

Would you care to interact with the original premise in this thread which is, " 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 prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

For the record I do not believe the Bible because I have taught that since I was born. Frankly that is an assumption being made on your part. I am a student of the Bible. I believe the Bible for the reasons listed above, not because that is what I was taught. I could make the same sweeping, generalizing statement about the scientific evidence you mentioned. But I am not making sweeping generalizations. I am providing specific examples, arguments, and counter arguments. What specific scientific evidence do you wish to present?

By the way, I agree with you on one point: There is no such thing as absolute proof that God exists. There is no one silver bullet I can present to you that would convince you to the point to where you could not deny the existence of God. But there is plenty of evidence that points to God's existence. Take for example the concept of Irreducible Complexity in Cellular Flagellum (which you can read about in my previous post in this thread). There is some real scientific data for you that points to an Intelligent Designer behind all life.

By the way if you are going to use the argument that the Bible was written by regular people and therefore cannot be trusted as authoritative in any way, then you have to apply that same argument to every book you have ever read and every textbook you have ever used in school which was also written by regular people. What I am arguing however is somewhat different, but it is an important difference, which goes back to the original premise in this thread which once again is 
"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 prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." Therefore, because I believe the Bible to be reliable, I believe what the Bible has to say about itself and that it is the Inspired Word of God (see my original post in the thread on the definition of/Biblical support for Inspiration). And because it is the Inspired Word of God, it carries with it the authority of God, not the authority of "regular people". 

If you want to have a healthy debate, I am all for that. But in a debate you have to interact with the premise that has been set forward. For example, part of my premise is that I believe the Bible because: #1 It is a collection of historical documents. If we are going to have a debate, you have to interact with that premise. Do you believe the Bible is a collection of historical documents or not? Why or why not? What evidence would you like to present to support your argument? You can't just come in here and dismiss my argument by making an assumption about me and not even interact with the original premise or any of the arguments I have made up to this point.

It's easier to believe a MLK quote then it is to believe a quote from God, because there is actual proof of MLK saying it as well as proof he existed. With the bible though its a double whammy, no proof of god and no proof that these people actual spoke to him other then text in a book.

There are things in the bible that are a bit over the top in terms of fantasy. Adam and eve and noahs ark along with heaven and hell. Civilizations in the past did have some wild imaginations the only difference is a lot of them have actual proof of their existence through mummified bodies, ancient structures, and signs of highly intelligent life existing during those time periods through advanced architecture and very accurate astrological phenomenons hidden within the structures.

The bible is just a book with quotes its no different then playing that game where you sit in a circle with 20 people, start a phrase and whisper it to the person beside you. By the time it gets to the last person the phrase will be distorted beyond recognition because people have the power to manipulate words for their own agenda.

Even if quotes are written in stone you should not believe any words as the word of god unless he directly speaks to you or that is a very dangerous thing to do. Believing the bible word for word is like believing the 9/11 commission report or any other book which tries to prove how and why an event occurred.

The bible has a tendency to "hide" things. A lot of things discussed in there don't even exist or are cover ups for what really happened. The bible to me seems a lot like a government coverup both of which have an uncanny resemblance of one another. Those who question the truth are going to hell for it in both cases.

Jesus might be a missing link to god but not god himself. Either way I look at Jesus, I see evil present. Whether he is an alien, whether he is completely fake, or whether he is real and was strong enough to brainwash others into following him. No matter which way I look at it, I see deception, lies and hidden truths and that is probably all the bibles fault. I'm just going to conclude that anything in power over the masses is the devils work have a nice day.

"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 prophecies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."

Would you care to elaborate on which supernatural prophecies occurred?  I am not aware of any.

I believing in the Bible because God commands us to.

The Bible has given the most complete explanation of 1) how our universe came to be, 2) why it functions the way it does, 3) how we humans interact with each other, 4) why we do so, etc.

The Bible has explain my actions --proven me to have sinned. My actions prove there is no way for me to redeem myself. Who am I do deserve anything? But God demonstrated His love by sending His only Son, someone who never sinned, to take my sins and die for them. Even after my redemption, there are no ways for my actions to prove me to be saved. My actions may provide evidence of it though. Also, faith is the belief in the things unseen. Read Hebrews chapter 11.

"The Bible has given the most complete explanation of 1) how our universe came to be, 2) why it functions the way it does, 3) how we humans interact with each other, 4) why we do so, etc. "

Do you have any arguments to back those claims up? The Bible's explanation for the origin of the universe seems no better than the explanations of any religion.

soxfan849 : I know there is nothing I can say to convince you because you want evidence that can be seen. As I said, read Hebrews chapter 11. Despite there being several missing pieces to the puzzle, I still believe because I am to live by faith and not by sight. If I were to successfully gather enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, then that means God is quantifiable and, therefore, limited. Like I said, there is nothing I can say that will convince you because you want visible evidence.

AuraBlaze :

Fair enough. I hold all religions to the same standard when asking them to explain themselves. I'm told to have faith by pretty much everyone. So I hope it's understandable when I reject your faith in the same way that I reject everyone else's.

soxfan849 : Yes, it is understandable. A tip of the hat, and time to move on.

I can see that you are not a hardcore christian that goes by exactly what is said in the book, i like that, But i have lost all faith in 
Christianity  and have come up with my own religion that mixes the beliefs of realism and Christianity, but that is a story for another time.