"Lying" is a very freighted word.
I, too, have accused Scott of, or simply pointed out, depending on one's viewpoint, various forms of intellectual inconsistency, not least the playing of an ever-shifting "shell game" of convenience, similar to that of most if not all Bible-believers.
And my tone has sometimes been purposely provocative in an attempt to stimulate thought about these sorts of things among the believers here (maybe an unproductive tack, again depending on one's viewpoint).
Howevahhh, at no time have I ever thought that Scott was not entirely sincere and entirely honest - as he sees it - in the views he expresses. And I hope I've never sounded as though I thought otherwise.
Can you see the difference between the two notions?
I think Scott's inconsistencies are unintentional and well-meaning, while you see them as purposeful.
Maybe the difference between us is that I have another dear and thoroughly honest friend in the real world who reminds me very, very, much of Scott and who is a minister, too, so I relate to where Scott is coming from.
Certainly there are many, many, examples of "Liars for Jesus" (TM) such as politicians, professional apologists, televangelists, ID proponents, and so forth, so when encountering what seems like purposeful religious subterfuge it's tempting to jump to that conclusion.
I just don't think Scott is in that camp.
Well we just disagree then. As I've posted on this forum before, I can't take enough credit away from Scott after listening to all of his shows and reading his writings to think that he actually believes the mythology of the bible. He can articulate at least part of or some of the MAJOR problems atheists have with Christians, yet he doesn't refute them very well. At least not without first redefining "Christian" to suit himself and disregarding pretty much all of the old testimate and some of the new testimate.
It's like saying "I understand all of the science, math, and reason behind thinking the Earth is a sphere, but I still think it's flat."
Last, in my experience even Scott's willingness to consider, and to admit possible validity of, ideas and concepts that run counter to his life-long immersion in superstitious dogma places him waaayyyyyy above most of the Christians, not to mention pastors, that I've ever run across.
So for that I'm very grateful.
I agree, Scott's ability to understand SOME of the problems with his religion is impressive, as almost no other Christian that I've come across in real life or on this forum can. But I think (again), that he is lying about it.
Scott's career revolves around insisting that Christianity is valid. I don't know if he gets a salary, but with that incentive (if it is for him, I don't know) plus the fact that Scott takes (while a fairly accurate) a pretty depressing view an atheist's perspective on life, it probably leads him to think that the ends justify the means, and he will just continue to defend Christianity as he knows the game fairly well and gets a bunch of practice with Emery.
That is my analysis, sorry if you don't like it. But it makes a lot of sense to me.