It is for all intents and purposes, a mature way of saying "I don't care". But since "I don't care if it makes sense or is made up, that's my position" generally isn't a good thing to say in a discussion, "that's my faith" or similar is a better tact. The worst part is, and forgive me for my cynicism, is that it can be seen to be synonymous with "confidence" and "trust" (which aren't really the same thing) - both entirely reasonable concepts that we employ all the time in our lives.

It's clever, I'll give it that.

Please forgive the drive-by nature of this post, just had some thoughts in response to some comments made.

So you're a young earth creationist? I think the fact that there about a dozen or so different denominations of Christianity, with different readings of the Bible, points to how interpretation of the Bible can and is variable, which nets exactly the same result as picking and choosing what to believe. Further, even a cursory read demonstrates that there is a clear difference between the god of the Old Testament (little more than a war god) and of the New (Buddha-inspired), so it's not like consistency is a strong point in the Bible - snipping of the text is a necessity to show any particular side of that god.

Strength of belief is not evidence for belief.

As a caution, I'd be wary of putting the Bible up on some historical accuracy pedestal. Biblical scholarship is an extensive field and much work has been done on it - but from what I have seen, very few Biblical scholars believe it's entirely historically accurate. Further, there's a clear distinction between Old Testament accuracy and that of the Gospels. It is interesting to note though that the historical record of Jesus doesn't look any better than Caine and Abel. Indeed, most historians display a wariness of all historical writings. That a story is set in real places and features real people does not make it nonfiction.

What a strange thing to say. Of course it has a consistent theme and message, it's a collected and edited work with a singular purpose.

I'd also be wary of stepping into 'the bible is true because it says it is' territory. I'd argue that the fulfilment of prophecies falls under this, since you can't really have a collection of works supposedly spanning 4000 years and say that later parts confirm predictions made in previous parts.

Hard Boiled and The Killers are two of the greats, but what's more, both actually feature a heart and soul. They're not just a few amazing shoot outs, they're fleshed out stories with well acted characters and a poigant story behind them; a common theme to John Woo's works is the friendship between men, of brotherhood (especially across lines of society).

I recently (and finally) saw Super 8 and it has to be probably my favourite Abram's directed movie. I thought the characters were endearing and the kid actors did a great really job at bringing them to life. I was a bit worried at the beginning, with the totally ridiculous train crash, but it was an interesting story with a few twists and turns along the way.
I especially liked

Looking through the tropes page for badass is great fun.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Badass

I thought this was in production at FOX? I remember hearing about it since they had Frank Castle as an active cop who moonlighted as the Punisher. Hopefully, it died on the operating table.

http://screenrant.com/punisher-tv-show-fox-yman-137251/

So, the Olympic Torch has made it into space.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24846606

I love the caption for this photo on the BBC:

The torch will not be lit on the International Space Station

From Iron Man 2:

Rhodes: "Wow. I think you should lead with that one next time"

So is there more than one monster planned in this film? I'm not sure 'Godzilla fights other monsters' bodes well for a serious and poignant story. Wouldn't that essentially turn Godzilla into a protagonist?

I was away in Japan for a couple of weeks and the long flights allowed me to catch up on a couple of movies, one of which was White House Down. I liked it, it was fun. I'm not entirely sold on Channing Tatum, he's not quite as charismatic as Bruce Willis was in Die Hard (the film's obvious template) but he's competent enough.

The Lone Ranger - kind of a mixed bag I thought, with some neat ideas that are drowned amidst the dominance of Depp's bizarre performance as Tonto. There's a tone problem as well, most of it is light hearted cartoon fun, then we get dark dramatic turns that seem out of place.

The Wolverine - a big tentpole comic movie ostensibly aimed at young men that turns into a predictable love story throughout its entire long second act. Weird choice. I did find it interesting what they did with his mutant power, but it seemed they didn't really do much exploration with it on a character arc level. I saw a cut plane version so the action seemed rather tame, and although there was some nice shots towards the end, I found I had lost interest.

Red 2 - what a cast, and this ironically kept ruining the illusion that I was watching a story unfold. 'Hey! it's so and so!' I'd never seen the first, but it didn't seem entirely necessary to enjoy the sequel.

Oh man, I missed Star Wars. I'm a "that's a Blastech E-11 rifle, you know" level fan. Looking forward to listening to this one.

Logic consistency, AKA making sense, isn't a nitpicking area. If you can't see why a character is doing something, or why they are doing something in a particular way, then that breaks immersion and is also reflective of bad storytelling - equivalent to someone having to interrupt the campfire story to clarify something. Without coherence in story and setting, then it's just keys dangling in front of your eyes making noises and catching the light. These are the same sorts of problems that face Prometheus and countless other big blockbusters, from Battleship to Star Trek to Man of Steel. Laziness is laziness, regardless of how good it looks.

The problem here is that the lack of thought out into the world building influences the choreography, and the choreography does not match the serious tone of the movie, i.e. mankind is fighting for its very survival. If we had a kung fu movie where the final duel between hero and the villain that murdered his parents lacked the intensity and emotion we would expect, or a lightsabre fight just went on and on, we would lose interest.  Fights between giant robots and monsters actually become boring. I find this to be a problem when it's the main attraction. I point out issues stem in the story because I see their effects on the battles to be detrimental.

I so wanted to love this one, I'm a huge fan of mech anime. But I'm not really entertained watching a man punch a zombie over and over (in a serious movie about the apocalypse). 

To be clear, I really have no problem seeing that people have found it enjoyable, parts of it had me squealing in delight! But let's not claim that it's a good story and features great worldbuilding, or that it's fine except for a few nitpicks. That's delusion.

Also, nitpicking is pointing out that the kaiju couldn't possibly have flown that high on its wings and that Gypsy wouldn't have been going fast enough to experience re-entry burn up, or that creatures that size couldn't possibly exist in the first place.