I've been having a bit too much fun lately with this web site. The essays there are incredibly arrogant, constantly speaking about manifesting Christ's character and loving Christ, while relying upon nothing more than ad homen arguments and other logical fallacies to promote their case.

For example, pastor and author Rick Warren is an idiot because he believes Jesus died to forgive sin:

This is important, for the God of Rick Warren is in fact not the Father of Jesus (not yet), Warren does not know it, but his God is more like Plato’s than Jesus.’ The evidence for this is in Warren’s version of the gospel. His doctrine of the atonement is a prime example. Warren premises an eternal hell and an eternal heaven...

Yes, of course, those are Rick Warren's premises. They didn't come from the bible (which says no such thing?), heaven and hell was was just a little something Rick read into the text for his own personal reasons. (I'm sure these fellows would never make such a mistake.)

This necessitates a punishing God, a need for law, justice and retribution.

And we all know how bad that justice stuff is. Jesus was against it, I'm sure...

Warren preaches Anselm’s penal satisfaction theory of the atonement. The good God buys off the righteously angry God. The penal satisfaction theory of the atonement fails in the long run for it cannot pass the creedal test where Jesus is and expresses and reveals the absolute inner character of the nature of God. Even though Warren has been taught the importance of this, he has not yet worked through its significance for all of his theology.

What a dunce that Warren guy! It's not possible to consider that he worked it out and came to a different conclusion. Or that the author himself might have missed a trick or two. Who needs to argue or present evidence? Condescend!

Yet all traditional Christians believe that Jesus's death is necessary to forgive sin. Therefore, since we hold that doctrine, taking down each of us is simple: We don't hold the authors' views, therefore we must be ignorant. Since it is impossible for a rational person to take another view, all holding other views can be dismissed as irrational. QED.

And does belief in sin and atonement originate in Plato? I'm sure the prophet Isaiah would be surprised to learn he was was teaching Platonism when he wrote, concerning the messiah: "The punishment that brought us peace was upon him... the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:5-6)

Here's another example:

Discussing abilities (gifts, talents) that God uses (242-243), Warren lists over 30 different types of vocations from artists and scholars to tailors and teachers, farmers and managers. In this list of gifts God uses, is mentioned ‘making weapons’ and ‘being a solider.’ Now let me get this right. Christlike choices determine godliness according to Warren. But can he really see Jesus choosing to polish his Smith and Wesson, or sharpen knives for the revolution? Would Jesus assist in the manufacture of atomic or biological weapons or the construction of an Abrams tank? Does Warren see Jesus carrying a dagger or a machete, an AK-47 or Mace? Does he think Jesus would go out on patrol and fire his gun, shot a round of white phosphorus or throw a grenade? How in the world does Warren come to these vocational conclusions? He either takes S.G.F. Brandon’s thesis seriously that Jesus was a militant reactionary or he has not studied the Gospels very well.

Again, note the fallacy of false dilemma: We must either believe Jesus was an armed revolutionary or complete pacifist. It is not possible to believe that the son of man ever implied or taught something in the middle, that there was a legitimate place for self-defense or godly punishment. If so, you "have not studied the Gospels very well."

So then, what are we to make of verses like these?

[Jesus said:] "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one."
(Luke 22:36)

[Jesus said:] "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."
(Luke 19:27)

[Jesus said:] "I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him."
(Luke 12:5)

And if being a soldier was wrong, why did Jesus nor John the Baptist never rebuke any of those who came to them for having violent job? (Instead, they were simply told not to use their power to extort money from people.) If capital punishment was wrong, why did Jesus agree that even cruel Pontius Pilate's power over life and death was God-given?

These ideas are never engaged. And if they did, someday, I expect they'd be dismissed with a similar rhetorical flourish: "Well, since it's obvious you have such a 'flat' reading of Luke, [e.g. I think it's true] you've clearly never even read Ewal L. Grubbenstopper's brilliant treatise on transliteral implications within L source..."

Never present the counter-argument plainly. Instead bury it in a reference to your favorite obscure theologian. It makes you look good, and it protects your counter-argument from actually being answered, since only 0.0001% of the population will know what the heck you're talking about.

Oh, and always condescend. Some more choice tidbits, from a disagreement with popular speaker Charles Stanley:

We assert that Dr. Stanley’s view of the gospel is not the gospel at all, nor does it have to do with God, if by God we mean the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...

... unlike Dr. Stanley, we take seriously the person and work of Jesus Christ as the life that manifested the character of God, how God really relates to us. Dr. Stanley, as can be seen in his atonement theory espoused in other sermons...

Neat, huh? Dr. Stanley's view is "not the gospel at all" precisely because of his "atonement theory" -- you know, that belief that Jesus died to forgive sin. (Everyone, please ignore those two thousand years of history...) So all Christians are enemies of the cross, and only arrogant ones who deny Jesus's own teaching...

"... the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45)

... are the true Christians, and have any claim to the gospel.

Only "we" take it seriously. It is not that Charles Stanley is merely wrong, no. He has a character defect: he doesn't "take it seriously."

And they're just getting started. For another example, get a load of this:

What does Dr. Stanley understand about the social and political implications of the story of Jesus? What could Dr. Stanley possibly know about the social-historical-cultural background of Jesus? It would appear that the reason Dr. Stanley bypasses Jesus is because he doesn’t know very much about Jesus.

Yes, what could a popular preacher like Stanley possibly know about Jesus or his life and times? Why, absolutely nothing. It is impossible for someone who disagrees with them to know anything.

How prescient Paul was when he wrote:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.... God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise.

Remember to put the word 'wise' in quotes when you read that.

And sign me up for the foolish brigade.