And Now for a Defense of Rick Warren (Chosen By Obama To Do The Inaugural Prayer!)

Michael David,

You do realize that resorting to ad hominem attacks while simultaneously refusing to interrogate or criticize your own arguments are the very definition of sophistry? For example, you describe non-metaphysical Stephen as "deceived by the king of lies" though you offer no support for this offensive assumption. Please prove me wrong here on the point of your own sophism, and I would like to offer a few places you could begin.

First, regarding AUTHORITY, you place heavy emphasis on whether or not an individual is a "reputable Bible scholar". Reputable to whom? How do we recognize a reputable Bible scholar when you inform us that "Satan is a great Bible scholar"? Bit of a catch-22, no?

Stephen's (very) short post failed to cite particular scholarship. This is something you could ask about, but, instead, you chose to invent references (Jesus Seminar, John J. McNeill, Bishop John Robinson, Nancy Krody, Malcolm Boyd) for your STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS, even lumping Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Moonies, and Christian Scientists together, because anyone who disagrees with you (not God, but YOUR limited, imperfect knowledge of God) is automatically delusional.

Putting "scholarship" in scare quotes is not sufficient argument. Your sarcasm is obvious enough but still not sufficient proof you know the true meaning of all scriptures and the rest of us do not. You attack the character of innumerable scholars without support, naming them, universally, homosexuals, sinners, and perpetuators of false doctrines. A nice, passionate form of emotional rhetoric, but do you know all of these scholars individually, or is this a case of OVERGENERALIZATION? Do you think they are consciously deceiving people? Or, are they merely deluded? Or just demon-possessed? Which is it and how have you achieved such certainty in your ability to recognize scholarship that is valid? You certainly have not convinced me that, while you are apparently well read within a very narrow sector of Biblical debate, you possess an infallible understanding of scripture. On the contrary, there are a number of things about your post which have convinced me otherwise.

But I do applaud you for citing your sources: "Dr. Norman Geisler, M. James Sawyer, Duane Gish, Probe Ministries, Dallas Theological Seminary, the Baptist Church, Bible churches, Zane Hodges, Daniel B. Wallace, Paul L. Maier, J.P. Moreland, Douglas Groothuis, J. Ed. Komoszewski and on and on". These individuals are conservative Baptists that argue for BIBLICAL INERRANCY despite all evidence to the contrary. An inerrant view of the bible disregards ANY form of evolutionary theory (not only as it relates to humans as a species), and necessarily supports a flat earth, geocentric view of the universe regardless of the observational proofs against these beliefs. If you choose to disregard logic and simply wish to believe what you believe because you believe it, that's fine with me. But do not pretend you have arrived at your conclusions through logic and serious scholarship. To hold these views, you must ultimately argue from a position of faith alone. You would not be alone in this; radical fundamentalists from all of the world religions make the same statements. For example, some (not most) Hindus argue that the Vedas represent true knowledge because the Vedas themselves state they are true, revealed knowledge. It is the same circular logic that what a Bible tells us about God is true because the version we have is the word of God. Many people make these and similar statements, refusing to acknowledge that the nature of language (religious, scientific, or otherwise) can never provide us such easy, unchanging answers. So how does an individual discern truth? What is most important, I think you'll agree, is to find out the truth.

Your sarcasm, your pejorative use of the word liberal (confusing American politics with religion as if there is only one kind of liberal political philosophy in the world and none of them compatible with Christianity),tell me much about where you are both emotionally and spiritually. Intellectual and scholastic justification for your point of view does not impress. Maybe you think your approach comes from justified righteousness. To me, it sounds like the kind of angry intolerance I hear from people misrepresenting many religions who are so deeply uncertain about their own faith that they have to constantly prove it to others by using religion like a club to save the masses of ignorant people they feel so surrounded by, then justify their actions as somehow educational.

If you are serious about truth, please ask yourself the question you are asking others. If everything you've learned is wrong, would you even want to know?

This so-called 'Husband' is lying to the whole forum. Those are not "places of worship", they are dens of iniquity.

In REAL "places of worship", the worshippers realize that Paul spoke with an authority equal to Christ's. This IS what it means that Paul is Christ's "chosen vessel (Acts 9:15)".

But they also realize that Paul clearly and harshly condemned homosexual acts in Rom 1:18-32, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and 1 Titus 1:10.

True worshippers are not deceived by those wolves in sheep's skins who come up with excuse after excuse for failing to see these clear and harsh condemnations.