Religion Books

I would highly recommend this book to any couple who is considering marriage, engaged, or recently married--or even couples who have been married for years. The practical advice is effective and Drs.Parrot illuminate issues that are vitally important to consider when building or fortifying a marriage yet that are often overlooked in favor of wedding preparation. Very helpful, honest and eye-opening.

You will definitely need the actual book to use the workbooks. My fiance and I have been working through the lessons and are about halfway through the workbooks. The best thing about the exercises is that there are so many things about my future wife that I didn't know, especially in regards to how she thinks and feels about certain aspects of life. We are becoming closer as we're beginning to understand each other at a deeper level. I'm learning more about how women communicate and how they really aren't able to come to grips with exactly how we operate either. The exercises vary from childhood influences to budgeting to love languages. We look forward to each time we work through the lessons. I highly recommend them for any couple preparing for marriage.

Dr. Craig gives a powerful answer to skeptics in this book. As always his anwers are logical and convincing. Also, a bit is added for those who disagree that using apologitics is a viable means of sharing the message of the gospel.

I stumbled upon Dr. Craig while watching on old Day of Discovery episode. I enjoyed the things he had to say, so I googled him to see what he was about. That led to me reading his blog, website, etc, and finding out about this book. I am really enjoying it so far. I am taking my time going through it so as to make sure I understand the many priciples that I am being introduced to. Apologetics has opened up a new world for me, and I am excited to continue learning. Reasonable Faith is an excellent tool to get me in the know.

The 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith coincides with the recent launch of William Lane Craig's apologetic ministry www.reasonablefaith.org. This work is rigorous, thoughtful, and brings precision to some difficult issues (in other words, typical Craig!). Blomberg's chapter on the Historical Reliability of the New Testament has been replaced by a new / expanded chapter on the self-understanding of Jesus. The chapters on Miracles and the nature of History are clearly argued and persuasive. The switch to footnotes rather than endnotes is very helpful as well. But, by far, the most helpful chapter in the book (in my opinion) is the chapter on Knowing vs. Showing Christianity to be true. Here, Craig investigates the role of the Holy Spirit in knowing, as well as utilizes insights from Alvin Plantinga's reformed epistemology to talk about what beliefs can be / are "properly basic." This is a wonderful book. But it probably isn't the place to start one's apologetic journey.

A good introduction to William Lane Craig's writing would be to visit his website, www.reasonablefaith.org.

Also see:
God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point/Counterpoint Series (Oxford, England).)

Hard Questions, Real Answers

High School and College Students may also find useful in understanding the Christian faith:
Welcome to College: A Christ-Follower's Guide for the Journey

I have read his second edition and this revised and updated copy is worth the investment. The improvements to the cosmological and teleological arguments based on the current state of affairs in astrophysics is worth it alone. This is a must-have for the armchair apologist like myself.

A review of Bill Craig's third edition of Reasonable Faith by Michael Haney

Since every picture is taken from a specific angle, here is `my' picture of Philosopher William Lane Craig's new third edition of his most distinguished book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Since Craig's new ministry website (www.reasonable faith.org) offers what is new in the third edition of this book compared to the second edition, this review will just proceed forth as if this is the first edition of this book to be released to the public.
Introduction:

Craig offers a working definition of the term `apologetics' and states why there is a need specifically for it within the Christian context. He argues that Christian apologetics play three vital roles. First, they have the ability to shape our post-Christian culture. Second, they have the ability to strengthen those who are already convinced of the truthfulness of the gospel of Jesus of Nazareth. Third, they have the ability to help in the process of sharing the good news with non-followers of Jesus. Ending this section, Craig explains the two different types of apologetics: offensive and defensive. Offensive apologetics seeks to present a positive case for Christian truth claims. Defensive apologetics seeks to nullify objections to those claims. Craig claims that his book Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics falls under the category of `offensive' apologetics but he states that he hopes to write a book in the near future defending the claims of this work and objections brought against it.

How Do I Know Christianity Is True?

Craig deals with the question of Christian epistemology. More specifically, he asks the question: how does one `know' that Christianity is true against other truth claims found within other religious contexts? After discussing a couple of key thinkers of the past and how they worked through the issues of faith and reason and how they interact, he distinguishes between `knowing' Christianity to be true and `showing' Christianity to be true. Ultimately, Craig argues that we know Christianity to be true by the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. In other words, our knowing Christianity to be true is not based upon arguments and evidence but by the work of the Holy Spirit. To thoughtful readers, this might appear to be `too subjective' at first glance but Craig addresses several objections to this type of epistemology. Regarding showing Christianity to be true, Craig argues it is here where arguments and evidence come into play when considering the truth-hood or false-hood of various religious truth claims.

The Absurdity of Life Without God

Craig simply offers what the title of the chapter seems to imply: a universe with no God behind it is a universe with ultimately no meaning. In other words, if there is no God, human life becomes directly and indirectly unlivable. But, if the Jewish/Christian worldview is true, it provides "the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life for man: God and immorality...If God does not exist, then life is futile. If the God of the Bible does exist, then life is meaningful. Only the second of these two alternatives enables us to live happily and consistently." (p.86)

The Existence of God: Part One and Part Two

Craig simply offers various sophisticated and well-argued arguments for the existence of the Jewish/Christian God. All these arguments are updated in light of new philosophical and scientific knowledge. Craig is right when he says that "the conventional wisdom is that it's impossible to "prove" the existence of God and that, therefore, if we are going to believe in God, we must "take it by faith" that God exists. But the last half century has witnessed a remarkable resurgence of interest in natural theology, that branch of theology that seeks to provide warrant for belief in God's existence apart from the resources of authoritative, propositional revelation. Today, in contrast to just a generation ago, natural theology is a vibrant field of study." (p.93) Craig works through various arguments in this chapter: ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral, etc. The catch is that he puts new philosophical and scientific knowledge into these arguments and even deals with a ton of objections against them. Again, two chapters are devoted to this particular section in the book so Craig obviously thinks it is an important issue to discuss.

The Problem of Historical Knowledge

Craig deals with the question regarding past events: how can we really `know' what happened in the past? It is often assumed that human beings cannot really know with any real certainty what happened in the past because of the belief that all history is written from a particular perspective. In other words, it is believed that there is no such thing as an objective recording of past, historical events. The charge is that everyone is too bias to record real, actual events without any spin. Craig directly deals with these charges and offers the hope that even though we cannot have 100 percent accuracy in this area we can still know with a good deal of certainty what actually probably happened in the past. More specifically, Craig argues that the biblical narratives, once tested, are overall a good telling of what actually happened in the biblical past. In the end, historical relativism gets smashed to pieces under the hammer of Craig's argumentation.

The Problem of Miracles

Craig specifically deals with the concept of the miraculous intervention of the Jewish/Christian God within history. He states that "before we can examine the evidence to see whether the Creator God of the universe has revealed himself in some special way in the world in order to offer us the promise of immorality so necessary for meaningful existence now, we must deal with the problem of whether such divine action is possible in the first place. And if it is, how can it be identified? That is to say, we are confronted with the problem of miracles." (p.247) Craig ends this section by arguing that the deistic presupposition "against miracles survives in theology only as a hangover from an earlier Deistic age and ought now to be once for all abandoned." (p.278)

The Self-Understanding of Jesus

Craig argues that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God, God in the flesh. He asks the specific question: who exactly to Jesus of Nazareth claim to be? According to Craig, this question is very important for "the Christian religion stands or falls with the person of Jesus Christ. Judaism could survive without Moses, Buddhism without Buddha, Islam without Mohammed but Christianity could not survive without Christ. This is because unlike most other world religions, Christianity is belief in a person, a genuine historical individual-but at the same time a special individual, whom the church regards as not only human, but divine." (p.287) In the end, Craig argues that "explicit use of Christological titles like Messiah, the Son of God, and especially the Son of Man, combined with implicit Christological claims made through his teaching and behavior indicates a radical self-understanding on the part of Jesus of Nazareth." (p.327)

The Resurrection of Jesus

Craig asks the question: was Jesus of Nazareth really raised from the dead by God and if so, what exactly does it mean? More specifically, he states that "God and immorality: those were the two conditions we saw to be necessary if man is to have a meaningful existence. I have argued that God exists, and now we have come at length to the second consideration, immorality. Against the dark background of modern man's despair, the Christian proclamation of the resurrection is a bright light of hope. The earliest Christians saw Jesus' resurrection as both the vindication of his personal claims and the harbinger of our own resurrection to eternal life. If Jesus rose from the dead, then his claims are vindicated and our Christian hope is sure; if Jesus did not rise, our faith is futile and we fall back into despair. How credible, then, is the New Testament witness to the resurrection of Jesus?" (p.333) After working through a lot of historical and textual evidence, Craig ends by stating that "in conclusion, therefore, three great, independently established facts-the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith-all point to the same marvelous conclusion: that God raised Jesus from the dead...Given the religio-historical context in which this event occurred, the significance of Jesus' resurrection is clear: it is the divine vindication of Jesus' radical personal claims." (p.399)

Conclusion: The Ultimate Apologetic

Craig ends his book by offering what he believes to be the most effective apologetic for the Christian faith: a life lived out by aggressively loving God and loving others. He ends by stating that "more often than not, it is who you are rather than what you say that will bring an unbeliever to Christ. This, then, is the ultimate apologetic. For the ultimate apologetic is-your life." (p.407)

My personal take:

Craig's book is by far the best Christian apologetic book one could possibly find on the market today for it covers a bunch of the core questions relevant to examining the truthfulness of Christianity all in one book. And now, this wonderful book is updated for a third time by Craig offering new philosophical, historical, and scientific knowledge where needed and even dealing with a host of old objections from new faces and from new places. The only two beefs I have with Craig is that he did not mention or even appear to consult Philosopher Paul Moser's new book The Elusive God: Reorienting Religious Epistemology nor Greg Boyd's and Paul Eddy's fairly new book The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition. Moser's book, I believe, would have really strengthened his case for the Holy Spirit epistemology found in chapter one. Also, the book by Boyd and Eddy would have really strengthened chapters five, six, seven, and eight. These two books, in my opinion, are way too good to leave not consulted. In light of desiring to leave out of the book arguments for the historical reliability of the NT, he could have at least consulted Moser's book. In a post-post-modern culture becoming increasingly post-Christian, I think the epistemological questions regarding knowing spiritual truths (or knowing anything for that matter) are very important since a lot of college and graduate students (and even lay-people) are becoming more and more exposed to post-modern philosophy without being also exposed to adequate criticisms of those philosophies where needed. Overall, I would definitely add this `third edition' to my personal library, especially if you are the type of person who likes to work through arguments and their objections. I believe Craig has done us a favor by addressing some of these objections instead of ignoring them even though he originally claimed he was not going to do so in the introduction.

Book is one of the best I have read, not finished but is a very factual account of the heavenly gates. 5 Stars

The book was about what I expected. The only glitch was that it got ordered twice by accident and I didn't catch it in time. I gave the second copy to a friend.

This book touched my heart the whole time I read it. I also felt the peace in the words of Jesus. His words always emanate reassurance and warnings that we need to know and take heed. I know that the descriptions given in this book are not fit for the beauty of the Home the Lord has truly built for us. Our imagination can never perceive the beauty of Heaven.

Mary K Baxter has a heart for winning souls and advancing the Kingdom of Jesus. There is nothing she said that would fail people to come to the Lord. She encourages us to believe in Jesus Christ in order to share in the happiness that awaits us after we die. Please do not wait until it is too late to find out the Truth!

"I am the resurrection and the life. Anyone who believes in me will live, even after dying." John 11:25 NLT

First we were all treated by Ms. baxter's grand tour of Hell. Now, she's been to Heaven, too!! My, my, my. And the pathetic thing is that people will actually believe this stuff and put out good money for it. Where's the next trip? Purgatory?

"For this purpose you were born, to write and tell what I have shown and told you. For these things are faithful and true. Your call is to let the world know there is a hell and that I, Jesus, was sent by God to save them from this torment."

There should be one more sentence on this quote. "And to write several books about your experience in order that you make a nice profit and only people who can afford it can hear my message"

Come on people this is ridiculous. Any person who truly thought God commissioned them to tell the world about heaven and hell would give away the information to as many people as they could reach. Without going into her many scriptural inaccuracies this should be enough for us to know who she is. A false prophet.

"Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. 21 TEST EVERYTHING. HOLD ON TO THE GOOD. 22 Avoid every kind of evil"
-1 Thessalonians 5

Os made some very good points worth thinking about. He drifted between deep and shallow thoughts. Fairly hard to read. I bought 4 copies, three of them gifts. I was the only one of the four that got through it. At the end, there was no "how to". It is like telling an investor to buy low and sell high. Okay, how do you do that? Os took that approach with the Call. I would not buy it again, but would try something different.

This is an excellent book for anyone who is passing through the mid point of their life. We all are in transition at some point in our lives, but the second half of an adult's life seems to be the time when we all look for a purpose. This book can be a guide for this time. Happy Reading !!

I have had the unique opportunity to hear the author speak, and his thoughts regarding the supreme nature of God and our opportunities to serve Him completely are as clear in his presentation as they are in this book. The Call draws you into an encouraging discussion of purpose and passion in life that motivates thought and action. There is no guilt attached to the discussion as is usually associated with a book of this type. The author never discourages with abusive "Thou shoulds" and "Thou shoulds not", but takes the far higher and more ambitious measures of association with a God that loves His creation; blessing each with a wide variety of skills, abilities and desires that are fulfilled only when given back Him for His service; and corroborating these assertions with a review of many biblical and historical figures. Further, he extends the full understanding of calling within the context of a reasonable and thoughtful study of cultural and sociological influences on our calling today--both good and bad. Obviously well-read and cerebral, in my opinion, Mr. Guinness is a highly recommended author and speaker who has written a fantastic book that will reward each reader. His ability to communicate God's heart for the fulfillment of each man is inspiring and humbling.

It is not uncommon to hear Christians refer to their vocational calling, or to hear of things like a Biblical work ethic, but surprisingly little has been written about what work individuals are called to in their lives. Os Guinness, an Irish social critic and Christian writer, who lives in northern Virginia, has written a wonderful book, more than accessible to general audiences, that explores meaning in life. In this case, meaning for Guinness is not something self-directed, but something one is called to from God, as a maker directs and leads his created beings.

This book, at nearly 250 pages, is probably best read a chapter a day or so; because it is as much a meditation on calling, as it is a directed narrative for the reader to study. The reason for this method becomes obvious, as Guinness wants the reader to join with him and more importantly, with the God who created them, in thinking and working out daily what it means to have meaning and calling in whatever the reader has, is and will do in life. As such, this most definitely is not a self-help book, or a list of things to do. It is a meditation on how to live and what the good life looks like. There is a tension between life as a Christian believer and as someone living in a world with different expectations, and Guinness encourages thought, that as people live with these tensions, that the remember their first calling.

Guinness chapters follow a pattern of a narrative of a historical story, even from his family's Guinness Irish heritage, where he then makes points that build on the story for the sake of the reader to ponder and act on their place in God's world. He is at his strongest when he encourages readers to develop an awareness of the difference between the certainty of a call and the mystery of calling in life; and he carefully evaluates the seeming tight line between a spiritual work and a day to day, secular work. Mystery, gratitude, patience and understanding the reader's place in the world are vital things that Guinness wants the reader to dwell on. If there is a major theme of the book, it is that the reader is to live and work for an audience of one in life, the God who made them; and because of that audience much of the meaning soon will follow.

For Guinness, the path of calling is God to meaning to call to callings, otherwise life is described as mere drudgery work, and empty in its results. As a work of meditation and thinking, the reader should be encouraged and challenged to evaluate their lives and occupations in light of their audience of one. This is not a definitive work on vocational callings, and it has little in the way of direct answers for life in the post modern world. But what it will do, is to encourage the reader to think of the first things of life and dwell in those, for the eventual sake of their individual callings. Fewer things probably occupy people more than what they are about in their work. Guinness calls the reader to consider a higher view of their occupations as callings, given meaning by a creator, who wants us to interact with him in the midst of what he made us for.

I have been reading "The Call" by Os Guinness; a 26 day devotional has taken me from Saturday, August 19, 2006 to Tuesday, November 20, 2008 to finish. I know it should have never taken me so long to read and yet it is a very thought provoking and challenging book.
The main point and question of this book is this... "Finding and Fulfilling the Central Purpose of Your Life." In which in a nut shell living for Christ and serving him in whichever way he has called you to do. There is no division of the secular and spiritual work load here. As we see on this book, the spiritual work can be secular and the secular work can be spiritual - it all depends on why and for whom or to whom we are doing the work.
So many times throughout this book you must stop and grapple with what is written. This is not your normal daily devotional by which I mean it will cause you to question a lot of preconceived ideas and beliefs. You might just find your calling is not what you thought it was or what you wanted it to be.
I know a lot of people love the book "The Purpose Driven Life" by Rick Warren and it has helped a lot of people throughout the years. But if I was to choose between these two books I would have to choose Os Guinness' "The Call" hands down. In my humble opinion "The Call" is a more challenging call to discipleship and look at what the Christian life and what is meant by the "Call of Jesus" than the "Purpose Driven Life" even comes close to.
In closing the question stands... how are you to run the race well - if you don't know to which race you have been called to race? How are you to finish well - without the proper practice and training? This book will help you find you call and to help you follow His call - the call of Jesus.

If you're facing a tough challenge in your life, this is a good way to start down the road to facing it. It doesn't have all the answers, but it makes some good points along the way. It also let's you know that you're not the only one facing difficult times.

No wonder Rober Schuller with his inner wisdom shares his thoughts to show you how to build a self image with positive thoughts and know the truth that after every storm, there is a calm! Every problem has a solution. Tough times never last..is a Gift giver to self and others. It's the attitude to get going when the going gets tough as you face the challenges in life and struggle to face obstacles that rob your mental or physical peace. I gave this book to my hubby during his worst trial period of life in his career and he came out with positive influence to be a sane and wise decision maker to start a business on his own and reach to heights of success today! There is always a twist n sharp turns in life and Rob's book with his dynamic principles in life makes you build positive self image and turn out to be a success. Life isn't a tempest nor a midsummer night's dream, But a comedy of erros, Take it As you Like it!!! A Spiritual Motivation - another bedside shelf book to peek-a-boo to boost your spirits. After all, tough times never last, tough people do!

This is a book full of time tested techniques for dealing with adversity.

If he had written the book today, I think that he would have focused more on the development of resilience. That concept was in its infancy when he was writing, but in fact many of the practical methods in the book form basic biulding blocks of this important personal attribute.

Not just a book for people in trouble: it wasn't raining when Noah built the Ark!

Great book! Very inspiring! If you use the book's bottom line, to never give up, and repeat it to yourself so you eventually believe it, the book will work miracles! It is a must read!

"Tough Times Never Last, But Tough People Do!" and the "Be Happy Attitudes" are the best of Robert Schuller. I give out the Tough Times book to friends in tough times. It was a real help to me, and the folks I talk to find it helpful. Easy to read, easy to remember, and easy to apply. This book has the 'how tos' that are needed in the real world -- not high sounding theory.

When America's most influential conservative thinker (and Catholic) William F. Buckley died early this year (2/27/08) my sense of loss centered on this one thought: When Bill Buckley's "Firing Line" disappeared from television (almost a decade ago) we lost perhaps the greatest `give-and-take' (liberal/conservative debates) ever to grace our TV screens.

Buckley's record-setting program ("longest-running TV show with just one host,") treated us to the very best in debates. (How could it not, with a guest list that ranged from Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, to Clare Boothe Luce and Henry Kissinger, Muhammad Ali, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, William Kuntsler, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Louis Auchincloss, Tom Wolfe and Allen Ginsburg (and a host of other 'bright lights').

Most of Bill's shows were `political' . . . but my all-time favorite featured a former atheistic journalist (turned Catholic) Malcolm Muggeridge -- a program that, (like this book) is at the heart of the perennial subject most worth debating . . . the "existence of God."

When I mentioned this book this morning at breakfast, my wife said: "Christopher Hitchens IS an intelligent man, isn't he?" And I thought (to myself, but didn't say out loud) that, "I've heard better, historical `apologetics for atheism' than those advanced in this book!"

What I said (out loud) though, was: "Yes, he IS (smart) and - for that reason -- you'll really enjoy the `point/counterpoint' from the "Christian apologist" here, Douglas Wilson. [I'm certain Bill Buckley would have enjoyed 'hosting' this one!]

Anyway, it would take a better mind than mine to recapitulate in fewer words, Mr. Wilson (who writes with a C.S. Lewis 'economy-of-style') in his brilliant reflections on Mr. Hitchens' best arguments. May I share a couple of favorites: See if they don't `speak' to your heart and mind (and life experience):

---------

"Your first point (is) that the Christian faith cannot credit itself for all that `Love your neighbor' stuff -- not to mention the Golden Rule, and that the reason for this is that such moral precepts have been self-evident to everybody throughout history who wanted to have a stable society.

"You then move on to the second point, which contains the idea that the teachings of Christianity are `incredibly immoral.' Apparently, basic morality is NOT all that self-evident. So my first question is: Which way do you want to argue this? Do all human societies have a grasp of basic morality, or has religion `poisoned EVERYTHING'?"

"The second thing to observe in this regard is that Christians actually do not claim that the gospel has made the world better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. There have been ethical advances that are due to the propagation of the faith . . . but that is not `where the action is.' Christians believe - as C. S. Lewis argued in THE ABOLITION OF MAN - that non-believers do understand the basics of morality.

"Paul the apostle refers to the Gentiles, who did not have the law but who nevertheless knew by nature some of the tenets of the law (Rom. 2:14). But the world is not made better because people can understand the ways in which they are being bad . . .

"It has to be made better by `Good News' - we must receive the gift of forgiveness, and the resultant ability to live more in conformity to a standard we already knew (but were necessarily failing to meet.

"The gospel makes the world better through (that) Good News, not through guilt trips or good advice."

[And in a final point made by Douglas Wilson to Christopher Hitchens]

"You make a great deal out of your individualism and your right to be left alone: Given your atheism, what account are you able to give that would require us to respect the individual?

"How does this individualism of yours flow from the premises of atheism?

"Why should anyone in the outside world respect the details of your thought life any more than they respect the internal churnings of any other given `chemical reaction'? If there is a distinction, could you show how the premises (starting assumptions) of your atheism might produce such a distinction?

-----

I'm delighted that our Canadian edition (published by our largest publishing house, McClelland & Stewart) includes a delightful forward by Jonah Goldberg --- my favorite alumnus of Billy Buckley's "National Review" magazine (too young, alas, ever to have appeared on "Firing Line").

Mark Blackburn
Winnipeg Canada

I followed the original debate at the Christianity Today website as it was occurring. Very interesting.

If I may paraphrase or sum up a point that Wilson made in his debate with Hitchens, "If there is no God and we're just a bunch of organic chemical reactions, that's all we are doing... we're just fizzing."

Counter Point 1) Two people arguing with one another DO seem to "react" to one another's points in a reflex-like fashion based on well worn ruts (or intricately tangled tendrils) of thought formed during each person's respective life times of unique experiences, readings and ponderings. One point provokes a response which provokes a counter, ad infinitum, like ping pong reflexes on display, and neither person seems to need to think very hard to keep the game going indefinitely.

Any fresh evidence marshaled in support of each point is likewise dealt with in a summary fashion, the mind being flexible enough to invent ways to question the new evidence, or invent a special rule or corollary as an exception in which to fit the new evidence, or it can stretch one's overall views just a tad in one direction to make the new evidence fit one's overall brain-mind pattern, or it can toss up a point that it finds more "fundamental" and hence more worth focusing upon and stuff the new evidence into a "less fundamental" side compartment to examine later or forget about.

So each mind is flexible enough to be able to do all the imaginative and inventive "adjustments" I mentioned above, and most minds will chose to make such minor adjustments rather than take the immense time and effort needed to switch over completely to a whole new system of mental architecture. In that sense we are all relatively conservative once we have a well worked out system with grooves worn into our mind-brains.

(For one example of the brain-mind's conservatism one may note the case of the "soft" atheist, Antony Flew, who, though he came to question his former atheism that he had developed in books for decades, still told his Christian friend, Habermas, that he had not necessarily come to believe in a personal deity, nor in an infallible holy book, nor in the Christian religion. I also read of another similar instance in Christianity Today, in an article that stated that most Evangelicals convert in their teens, and that every year past the age of twenty that a person lives and does not convert to Evangelical Christianity, that that person has an increasingly less chance of doing so later in life.)

Counter Point 2) Another difficulty is that our brain-mind functions in a three-dimensional fashion with neurons connected to neurons in all directions and likewise with thoughts connected one with another in equally deep and wide fashion, such connections being forged over each individual's unique lifetime of experiences and learning. Yet we are restricted by nature to communicating with each other via a LINEAR process that consists of a whittling down of our three-dimensional understandings into a thin stream of words. It's little wonder that people find it difficult to fully express what's in their three-dimensional brain-minds to one another, and it's little wonder that people with differing views do not often come to agree with one another during "debates."

Counter Point 3) Trying to make the other person's view appear absurd by comparing it to something absurd is not the same as proving that your view is "more rational." It's simply a rhetorical technique, like comparing the violin works of Fritz Kreisler to the mere scrapping of cat's entrails. Or like comparing marvelous books and the stories they relate to mere ink stains on train-track-flattened tree guts. But in reality I'm quite certain that one's fellow human beings (whether theistic or atheistic) when listening to such music or reading such books, are getting more out of them than the "ad absurdum" descriptions above! The question therefore is not whether atheists and theists both can have similar feelings and interests that lay in the human realm, but whether or not the everyday human realm is connected partly or wholly with some other realm that theists claim exists.

Counter Point 4) Theists think their view is "superior" because it can explain everything in the human, animal and physical realms, all the feelings, all the books, all the knowledge, all the atoms. But notice the explanation provided by theism, i.e., "God did it." God made the brain-mind, beauty, music, atoms, everything, "God did it." But some are not as impressed as others with such an explanation. They ask, isn't saying that "God did it," like saying, "It is like it Is?" And how exactly does that differ from an atheist saying, "It is like it Is?"

And why is "God" used to "explain" the stuff we already agree we "like" in our human realm? Things like sunsets, beauty, kindness, long life, health, etc.? If "God" is being used to explain "all" then you can't only stress the aforementioned things we all "like," but you also have to mention extinctions (including mass extinctions), natural disasters, cosmic disasters, the way we each begin our lives ignorant as did our species, and how our species had to exert itself for centuries to slowly gain knowledge via trial and error, learning to make fire, the wheel, simple machines -- and we have to learn much individually too from birth onwards. And let's add mention of how we each grow old and lose mental agility, lose health, and lose knowledge toward the end of each of our lives, how our sufferings grow, and every living thing dies, which we all get to see and know with the utmost certainty. (As for what happens AFTER death, people hold diverse and argumentative opinions.)

If "God" is a greater mystery than the cosmos but is used to explain the cosmos, then isn't that like explaining one mystery with an even greater mystery?

And how does the use of any single word, including "God," or "chemicals," provide "the answer?" The inexpressible individual moments of each person's life appears richer than the ability of any single word to encompass.

Lastly, if you believe in "God" then by definition that "God" is perfect and was the only Being that ever existed eternally. Nothing existed before God or apart from God, no pre-existent eternal "matter." And that means that literally everything you see and touch came directly and solely out of the power and will of a perfect Being. But how could NOTHING BUT "absolute perfection" produce something that came out of it that was as imperfect, and contained suffering, ignorance, and death everywhere? This is a tough question for me to answer because I see -- and I know everyone else sees --the imperfections, the suffering part, natural suffering, we see how all creatures with bigger brains begin life ignorant and have to learn much simply to get by in life, not make dumb mistakes, and survive life with all of its harsh, relentless, emotionally-charged, sometimes soul-crushing demands, and our lives aren't especially long, and we see death, we see it in all living things. We see destruction in inanimate things too, comets and asteroid colliding with planets, stars exploding, galaxies colliding, black holes sucking matter and probably planets away from stars. I am honestly more sure about death than anything else, and from that realization I find myself siding with a philosopher who once said, "Be kind to others, for everyone is fighting a great battle." We sure are, both physically and psychologically, every day.

Some theists frame that "battle" almost solely as being a "battle with the devil," but personally I'm not so sure of that. It appears to me to be a battle with ignorance, with having to learn all the basic lessons in life just to take care of yourself and not trip up, in a world where even a little error like answering a cell phone while driving can lead to the suffering of yourself and/or others; and always seeing and knowing that you will die since you see age and death all around you in nature and others. If instead, people were popping out of graves fairly often, and I got to meet some of them I'd feel happier, more secure. Perhaps that's why theists of the Christian persuasion put a lot of stress on one particular instance of a bodily resurrection and keep saying it's better to believe without seeing. Personally, I have my doubts concerning theism, and I have met theists with doubts similar to mine who are not afraid to admit they too have uncertainties.

Did you get my points above? I tried expressing them in as best a linear fashion as possible, but they are just a tiny narrow spigot of water compared to what's flowing in three-dimensions through my head after my particular individual lifetime of questioning, exploring and reading, and I doubt we can mind-meld and join all that info in my head with yours to discover where the closest 3-D overlaps occur, where we can most profitably discuss further individual points and issues. "God" or evolution just didn't "make" us able to say more than that, or communicate more than that.

This book reproduces an insightful and spirited recent debate between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson over what Dostoevsky called the Eternal Questions: What is the real nature of the universe in which we find ourselves? What are the ultimate bases of reason and ethics? Are there any ultimate sanctions governing human behavior? Though Hitchens is always worth reading for his quick wit and frequently surprising arguments, unfortunately in this debate he does not come off at his best. While graciously conceding that Hitchens has clean hands, Wilson wielding a very fine knife shows that Hitchens, sad to say, doesn't have any hands to begin with.

Hitchens is of the view that the universe is the accidental consequence of swirling particles, claiming that his reason has led him to this conclusion. Wilson, in the style of C.S.Lewis, points out that if the world outside Hitchen's head is given over wholly to such irrational chemical processes, the world inside Hitchens' head can be no differently composed, and that what Hitchens refers to as "rational argument" has been "arbitrarily dubbed" so.

Similarly, if there are no ultimate, objective standards in ethics, then despite Hitchens rhetorical maneuverings, what follows is what Dostoevsky's Ivan pointed out long ago: there is no "good" or "bad for "everything's permitted." Hitchens' "fulminations" against assorted zealots are, as a result, also merely arbitrary.

To dispute the necessity of a God behind the Big Bang, Hitchens, with unusual complacency, rests his case on the principle called Ockham's Razor, the argument that it's bad logic to multiply entities. The problem here is that Ockham's Razor is at best a rule of thumb, never a guarantee of a royal road to truth in any particular case.

On the other side, the weakest part of Wilson's case, in my view, is his failure to address the idea that the necessity for ultimate sanctions does not lead to the existence of a particular God, much less the God of Christianity. His arguments in the present debate end, in fact, at a considerable distance from either conclusion, though Wilson seems unaware of this shortcoming.

Both men agree that it's possible in behavior for a person to be a righteous, ethical atheist. What is missing in their presentation here, however, is what can be found in Shakespeare's addition to the ending of the pagan story of King Lear. It will be remembered that the character of Cordelia is so ethically fine that Elizabethans would have dubbed her a "natural Christian." She is murdered, almost gratuitously, at play's end, and her distraught father cradles her broken body in his arms, a pieta whose meaning has yet to make any sense in the world of brutal men. The play's argument, I'd claim, supports Hitchens in his view that one can be a fine person without a Redeemer God yet on the scene. It also supports Wilson in his sense that ethics are not enough to make life bearable, since very often "the virtuous miscarry and the wicked prosper." If there is no Redeemer - though ways can be found to hedge on this - ultimately there is no Justice, and in Paul's words "we are the most miserable of creatures." Human life becomes mere history, filled with bad luck but lacking any meaningful, tragic dimension. How much interest one has in the need of a Redeemer rests finally on how much poignancy one senses in existence.

...give me your best argument. You know, the one you just know that everyone will find meaningful. You see, any attempt to assert that life is meaningless proves that meaning exists, whether you like it or not.

After reading this, I still find myself befuddled as to how a man of Hitchens' intellectual caliber can fail to see the glaring inconsistency of his argument. Pastor Wilson winsomely and repeatedly puts the obvious question before Mr. Hitchens: what is good, and how do you know? (Okay, that's two questions) Apparently, Mr. Hitchens doesn't know - 'evolution' is the closest thing to an answer that he offers. What he does know, however, is that he is very nearly a chimpanzee, miracles are silly (spontaneous generation being excluded), and that we'd all be better off as Atheists. He just can't tell us why. Fizzing indeed. "Is Christianity Good for The World?" is a short read and is very accessible - no prerequisite for a philosophy degree before diving in. Very helpful in the way of exposing the bankruptcy of Atheistic reasoning in light of God's truth. Don't shy away from putting this in the hands of unbelieving friends and family, either - as long as you're willing to follow up with some challenging and winsome discussion. The answer to the question behind the book, by the way, is YES. Only we Christians can ask that question without ripping the rug out from under our own feet. The moment that Mr. Hitchins agreed to the validity of this debate, however, he lost it.

This book is a good enough resource, but it just isn't all that interesting or "earth shattering". I would prefer to read a book about how to bridge the gap between what men think and what women think.

I first heard about this author when my wife was reading, "For Women Only." My wife kept asking me if what she was reading was true. At first I was intimidated by how candid and frank the author was, but I could not disagree that she described the inner landscape of men (at least of me!) with surgical precision.

Since then I have bought the man's version (about women), and bought this particular book for my two adolescent daughters. In our home we try to teach Christian faith, integrity and morality to our kids. This book fits with our goals and present information in a non-threatening and frank way to our girls. They were both startled and embarrassed by finding out the way boys think about girls, but the author speaks the truth!

As a male, son, brother and Dad I want my own daughters to have a correct idea about how males see girls and think about them. I believe this helps girls/women have the tools to behave morally and constructively in their relationships to men.

For example, men are very visually stimulated. To girls this at first seems academic: since bare female bodies (or parts thereof) are in many visual formats (movies, advertisements, magazine covers, posters), girls assume it is passe and "no big deal" to show lots of breast or other parts of their bodies. However, this book helps girls understand what a boys response to seeing female nakedness is like inside a boys mind; something a girl is unlikely to understand on her own.

Boys do not only think of sex, and emotional landscape of boys is neatly addressed in her as well as other issues too.

This book enables girls to understand boys better and relate to them in healthy and constructive ways. My 14 year old devoured it and before it hit the bookshelf my 12 year old read it and is sharing the contents with her friends. How can the mind and experience of the opposite sex not be interesting to adolescents? :)

Have your girls read this book and get the appropriate version for yourself to improve the health and morality of your relationships! The author is respectful but honest; she does a very good job.

I started with a book for myself called For Women Only and grew so much in my understanding of how God created men so different from women that I wanted my daughter to understand this as well. For young ladies attending public school I think you could introduce this book as early as 10 years old...with the ideal age being 12. For young ladies in private school that may be a bit more secluded from sexual information I would recommend introducing it a bit later. I gave it to my daughter at 14 and we went through it again at 15 1/2. It is good to go through it together to clarify things and keep that communication door open. Don't get caught up in the world views of dating at young ages and sex before marriage becasue of experience - Keep God as the Authority and stand firm in your parenting...God Luck! [...] author

I liked the book. It was an easy read. Being a little older myself and dating a guy that's younger than me I found it helpful to read how young guys think. It's very basic information and it's all that we know, but never think about (it's almost too easy). I definitely recommend this book to younger girls and I recommend that you girls take it seriously. It's all true. My boyfriend took a peek inside the book and decided to read it after he saw a couple of great sentences. I also bought "What You Need to Know about How Men Think" and "What You Need to Know about How Women Think", for me and my boyfriend. I'm convinced after reading these books we'll have more understanding of each other.

My teenage daughter requested a different book for Christmas, but when I read it, I was deeply concerned about the negative messages for young women. So I did some looking on my own and found For Young Women Only. I gave her both books and explained my concerns about the one she had asked for. She read both and threw the first one away because she didn't want to donate it and have some else read it. She thought that For Young Women Only gave her insights into young men that she didn't have before, but at the same time, it doesn't encourage young women to try to be something other than what they are. She has loaned her copy to her friends and recommended it to others. This book isn't as extreme as others on this topic, doesn't recommend that girls pretend to be things that they aren't and doesn't place all the responsibility for responsible behavior on the girls. It does help girls understand the struggle that their male friends face and should help them make better decisions in terms of clothing, behavior and dating situations. The book gives realistic and modern guidance to young women who want to avoid casual sexual relationships and to better understand their male friends.

You Darwinists must feel kind of scary with are new candidate for Vice President being a "Creationist!!!!! Yes the Governor of Alaska is a pro-Life, Creationist. Could this be an "ID"!!!! plot to take over the White House. Heaven forbid, whoops wrong word, Darwin forbid. No that doesn't make sense. I got it. The God DelusionDawkins forbid. No, he's just a delusion, not even an American. I really got it this time. Why don't you guys write her a letter of enlightenment. Before you know it, it's going to get worse. Where do all these people come from that dare have the "audacity" to think for themselves
" Comments by a Guilty Bystander"

Intelligent Design's Michael Behe has written books, such as "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution", advocates ID-centric ideas like "irreducible complexity" to show that gradual evolution could not have produced complex biological organs or processes. What he's really saying is that the world is too much for us humans to understand, and that we should instead stop our inquiries and have faith that God knows best... If we really decided to do this and leave aside science's method of inquiry, we would be following what another culture did which once had a flourishing scientific tradition - Islam - to which the beginnings of European science owes much. In Islamic culture today, science can only be science if it is infused with Islamic belief. Unwittingly, the proponents of ID are intent that we follow in Islam's footsteps with the undoubted result of being led into an age of superstition and dogmatism.
The title of Kenneth R. Miller's book is based on one of ID's biggest catchphrases, that evolution is "only a theory" and that other competing "theories", like ID, deserve equal hearing. This book is Miller's counter to such a contention and that those who do espouse ID are simply wrong and are in over their heads. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, believes firmly in evolution as a validated scientific fact and as an evolving theory. You may be surprised to learn that he also believes in God. His main thesis is that belief in God and belief in evolution are not at all in conflict. Miller's resolution is that "the truly remarkable thing about the world is that it actually does make sense. The parts fit, the molecules interact, the darn thing works. To people of faith, what evolution says is that nature is complete. God fashioned a material world in which truly free, truly independent beings could evolve."
I recommend this book whole-heartedly.

The title's "Battle for America's Soul", and the concluding (p.221) "in finding the strength to embrace what evolution tells us about the nature of reality, we will find reward beyond measure. For it is such faith that will ultimately redeem our scientific souls", is very peculiar. The author obviously borrows the concepts of faith, redemption, and soul from religion, although alleged religious claims are the target of "the Battle".

Religious claims encompass the soul, and he strangely appropriates it in his title and conclusion for the object of salvation by evolution, the very theory that proclaims organisms, including humans, as products of physical forces alone and void of any immaterial substance like soul. Likewise, asking for "faith" in evolution is inconsistent with evolution's "actually being true" (same p.221) which controverts the title's "ONLY A THEORY".

The author of course uses religious expressions figuratively, not as commonly understood, attempting to persuade the reader that "The story evolutionary science can tell is grander and more sweeping than any just-so narrative concocted by the pretenders of intelligent design" (p.220). Notice the denigrating language for opponents, and the author indeed casts them in as degrading a light as anyone I know of. He offers various analogies, in one case (p.4) between actions by the Kansas Board of Education in 2000 and fights in Kansas in the 1850s among proslavery and antislavery forces, suggesting that "antievolutionists" (a term he uses persistently for the more accurate "anti-Darwinists") are somehow comparable to slaveholders. Much more; he says (p.168), "proponents of ID ["intelligent design", defending design in organisms, contrasted with Darwinian purposelessness]...seek the undoing of four centuries of Western science". To my knowledge, the opposition is specifically to Darwin's claim of undirected rather than directed forming of organisms, "intelligent design" mostly comprising scientists, who don't want to destroy science but to improve it. Which story is then "concocted" by its "pretenders", as quoted at the top of this paragraph?

Darwin himself, quoted in Darwin's Gift: to Science and Religion, p.31, cites "The old argument of design" and contends: "We can no longer argue that [organisms] must have been made by an intelligent being". The thought that organisms are formed with purpose seems indeed matter of course, and it is natural selection, simulating artificial selection by its "pretenders", that appears "concocted". I tried in these reviews, as well as in On Proof for Existence of God, and Other Reflective Inquiries, to point out that organisms in fact are universally known to act purposely, toward survival, which actual purpose is forgotten in debating the possibility of purpose in organisms' structure. How Darwinians can confuse this evidence with the mechanistic contrivance of natural selection is illustrated by a passage in the book reviewed.

In discussing a parasite causing malaria, the author states: "Evolution has also produced new forms of resistance to [the parasite] within the human population, just as any biologist would predict" (p.66). Predict from what? Such resistance in humans is not developed through purposeless natural selection, requiring countless generations, but through the purposive immune system in individuals. This sort of flawed reasoning occurs throughout the book, not to mention Darwinism.

The author also relies on opinions hardly scientific, like those of judges and journalists, and in general tries to convince the reader and perhaps himself how ridiculous or laughable is the idea of design in organisms, he reflecting the recent barrage of opinions that the design is not quite intelligent. He mocks the designer as maybe creating a new species "in a sudden puff of smoke" and as "not very skillful, since just about everything he creates goes extinct relatively soon..." (pp.50-51). How an all-powerful designer creates a species seems up to him, however. Maybe he does so at the organism's germinal stage, to better suit the inquirer's demands. We still don't know if the egg or the chicken came first. And that every species goes extinct is not so shocking in view of the inevitable death of every individual, which is of more concern to the individual than the eventual extinction of its species. But this too, or any perceived imperfection, is up to the designer, not to the no less imperfect human observer.

Whether the book's author, alongside others, likes it or not, the purpose of preservation is a principal attribute of all living things, whatever the power behind it is wished to be called, and it seems the schemes of this power, incorporating all of nature, are "grander and more sweeping"--to repeat the book's above phrase--than Darwinism's piecemeal accumulation of accidents.

"To be effective in science a young investigator has to feel free to contradict and even to disrespect scientific authority." If you had attributed that quote to William Dembski, you would be wrong. In actuality, Kenneth Miller stated that on page 10 of his new book.

One would get the impression that Miller is sympathetic to intelligent design. However, Miller justifies the preceding quote to his acolytes by painting intelligent design as unscientific because it is based on religious belief. So the big question is this: is Intelligent Design based on theistic beliefs or not? Miller has come to the realization that a judge's decision in answering that question wasn't enough to sway the masses. That's why I believe this book came about.

Now I always thought that scientists should be free to follow evidence wherever they think it leads. Therefore, let's start by looking at the scientific evidence. Because of the great advances in molecular biology, miniature motors and circuits have been found in cells, which strongly suggest the presence of irreducible complexity. Even Miller admits that there is irreducible complexity. He states, "The question becomes whether we can find irreducible complex machines inside the cell. And the great news from the point of intelligent design, is that we can. In fact they are everywhere."

Irreducible complexity acts as an empirical marker of design because it rules out step-by-step evolution through selection. This is devastating to Neo Darwinian Evolution. The only way Miller can downplay it is by stating he is confident that one day materialistic science can account for it. Aside from speculation, right now, that's not happening and there's a good chance it may never happen.

Another case for Intelligent Design is based upon the presence of encoded information in DNA. The cell does actually encode and translate things. For instance, the only way a cell knows how to make protein, a specified sequence of amino acids, is from information that comes from the DNA molecule. The fact that DNA contains encoded information in the form of a one-dimensional linear string of symbols is very suggestive positive evidence for Intelligent Design behind the fabric of life.

Thirdly, many scientists, and I believe Miller is among them, have been making arguments for Intelligent Design based on evidence of the "fine tuning" of the laws of physics and/or parameters that make Earth friendly to life and scientific discovery. Miller alludes to this by citing a book called Just Six Numbers by Martin Rees. Miller states, "Physical scientists, in particular have marveled at the remarkable precision with which the fundamental constants of nature must be honored in order to make our universe, and our lives possible." Then there is the late astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who I might add was an atheist, stated, "A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."

Anyone can see that these arguments have evidential not theological premises. As geneticist Michael Denton once observed the contemporary argument for design "may have religious implications, but it does not depend on religious presuppositions." And that is precisely the distinction that Miller fails to grasp when he continues to make the link between Intelligent Design and religion.

Miller and his devotees will kick and scream, and you will hear all kinds of specious arguments, however, nothing will change the fact that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory and should be taught as such in classrooms.

Professor Miller is a firm believer of an Intelligent Designer. There is only one hitch; it pertains only to the structure of the Universe. However there is a problem with the Professor's exclusivity. How can someone believe a designer had the astonishing power to create this vast universe, yet finds it impossible to believe that the designer could not have created the first living cell?

A cell by all accounts, even among the most ardent opponents of ID, gives the impression of being designed. Indeed Richard Dawkins stated the following in his book called the Blind Watchmaker: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Well, is there an Intelligent Designer or not? The appearance of design is evident; the designer is evident; all Professor Miller has to do is connect the dots.

Instead Professor Miller is of the belief that the designer who created the universe had had enough, went into oblivion, and is never to be heard of again. The disconnect that Professor Miller adheres to in this scenario is severely lacking.

It seems that the more people exposed to what the Intelligent Design Movement has to say as an alternative to specifically macroevolution, the more they have embraced it. Why is that? Professor Miller answers that question rather laconically at the end of chapter two in his book by saying, the American people simply do not trust the Neo Darwinian explanation of macroevolution.

Professor Miller tries valiantly to sugar coat that explanation with a lot of scientific jargon and clever illustrations, which supposedly augments his contention. However, in the final analysis, an unguided and undirected extrapolation of microevolution falls flat.

Everyone knows that natural selection can produce small-scale changes; however, the power to change over an indefinite period is limited. For instance, after one year a pine seedling may grow one foot in height. After five years, the tree will be about five feet tall. Extrapolate that growth rate over one thousand years, now you could understand why there are real limits on the process.

The late Harvard Professor and evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould also expressed his doubts and suggested that a more complicated theory with new mechanisms may very well lead to the abandonment of the Neo Darwinian paradigm. Even with the tide going against him, Professor Miller still insists on shoving this flawed theory down our throats; this time by injecting the element of fear mongering.

We are supposed to believe that not only any rejection of NDE but also even any criticism of it will cause America to lose its standing as the most scientifically dominant country in the world. On top of that, according to Professor Miller, teaching the scientific theory of Intelligent Design, as an alternative to macroevolution, will hurtle America into becoming a theocracy. All of that is pure unadulterated hogwash.

Professor Miller makes his case by mischaracterizing Intelligent Design theory as a pseudoscience as if it was on par with astrology or numerology. The Big Bang theory is based on physical data and logical inferences yet the scientific community has accepted it. The same can be said of Intelligent Design. It is merely an inference based on observations of patterns of events that occur in nature. Anyone who calls this a religion based on Biblical scriptures just doesn't get it. By the way, design detection is not a new science. It has been used in a number of other disciplines such as SETI, forensics, and archaeology.

Professor Miller likes to remind us that in terms of NDE, unexplained is not the same as unexplainable. Yet it is unacceptable to apply that same aphorism to Intelligent Design.

Professor Miller's fear mongering becomes acutely manifested when he discusses The Wedge Strategy in which he took what Professor Barbara Forest had to say lock, stock and barrel.

In citing the introductory paragraph of the Wedge document Professor Miller goes on to assert that those responsible want to impose a theocracy. I could never understand how a person of Professor Miller intellect makes such a foolish assumption. Here is the opening paragraph of the Wedge document:

"The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization is built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West's greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences."

It appears that Professor Miller is guilty of the same reading blunder that his protégé John Kwok committed. That is they don't fully read passages in their entirety.

If the Wedge document were supposedly promoting theocracy, then why would it be praising representative democracy and human rights. It appears likely that all Professor Miller needed to read was that humans are created in the image of God and he drew his conclusion forthwith.

Professor Miller is naïve to think that a scientist cannot do excellent scientific research if he believes in Intelligent Design. What Professor Miller seems not to understand is that challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism is not the same as challenging science itself.

Overall Professor Miller, with the use of his fecund imagination wrote a book based on pretentious and pointless fears. The war on science is completely unfounded and extremely misleading. In a word, it's a sham.

This book really helps you understand your identity in Christ and all that being a child of God entails. I highly recommend this book especially if you struggle with receiving God's love for you.

Kris Vallotton's "The Supernatural Ways of Royalty" is a book well worth reading, and its message is one that could transform the life of the reader forever. Kris' writing style matches that of his speaking, both of which present the Good News in such a way that is profound, yet simple and accessible to anyone with an open heart for the truth.

The royalty of the believer is an uncommon subject in Christian literature; but in his book, Kris openly shares the various occurences in his personal journey that made this truth his reality. Through key passages in the Scriptures, he reveals the hidden road map to the Bride's seat of honor in Christ, which God ordained long ago.

I personally recommend "The Supernatural Ways of Royalty," as it has radically changed the way I pray, worship, view leadership, and relate to people. Most of all, understanding now that God sees us favorably has dramatically changed the way I approach Him in our private time.

The truth of God's Word, as presented in Kris Vallotton's book, will inspire you toward deeper intimacy with God. I highly recommend it.

Outside of the scriptures, this is the most significant book that I've ever read. Incredible insight into the truth of the word of God, and His heart for mankind. Kris is transparent about his own life journey. This book is the fruit of a life yielded to God's redemptive power... a slave becomes a son! An incredible life-giving message. Highly recommended! I truly believe that Kris is a model prophet for our generation.

You are a Child of the King who created you in His likeness and immage.
You are charged to do as Jesus commanded his followers- Bring The Kingdom of heaven to Earth where ever you go. You carry the very presense of the Living God as a believer. You are no longer a mere human You are a New Creation in Christ Jesus. This Book is a call to live out your Christianity daily. The Kingdom does not come in Word only but in POWER this power is avaliable to you through the Gifts given to you freely by your Father in Heaven.

This book was life changing for me. It really helped uncover the wrong thoughts that I have about myself which have prevented me from acting like the child of the living God that I am. It also helped me recognize a wrong attitude that I had towrd my spouse...an attitude of cohabitation rather than a covenant attitude. I would highly recommend this book to those who are pressing in to God to try to walk in the authority and dignity of the royal priesthood that believers in Christ are called to.