Seems my defending an elementary principle like "do unto others" or "love thy neighbor" or any number of other ways one could state a prima facie moral assertion about the hoopla surrounding Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, keeps catching the attention of some. In fact, my posts on the Bell fiasco so far may be best expressed with something like this: one should not publicly present a personal review of a book when one has not read the book about which one presents a review. And, it seems to naturally follow from that: not to mention conclude someone is a heretic in the review of a book one did not read.
Truth be told, my granddaughter, who is but 3 years old, can actually understand the basis of this principle.
On the other hand, your average band of Internet "Reformed Apologetics" websites which specialize in Calvinism on steroids, has this to say:
But the Bell kerfuffle was just a trap which Schultz cleverly set to ensnare the grand muftis of modern Arminianism: Ben Witherington, Peter Lumpkins, Scot McKnight, and Roger Olson. He knew they’d take the bait, rushing to the defense of Bell.
What is there to say? Some people read to understand and write to clarify. Others--unfortunately, like so many Internet "Reformed Apologetics" bloggers like the one above--read but do not understand and write but only confuse.
Gives me a fairly good grin to end the week.