I say this based on his review of Brian Flemming's The God Who Wasn't There. Flemming's movie is largely trash, so I won't dispute most of the review. However, one section caught my eye:
Robert Price... comments, "The hidden assumption is they [i.e., Christians] say that we might be dealing with a God who is an ornery theology professor and one day when you die and go up there, you’re called to the office of the professor, he says, 'Well, I got your test back for you and I'm afraid you got an F. You’re going to hell because your opinions were incorrect.' And that's what they think God is. You don’t have the right answers? You're damned. And so they don't dare think for themselves, because they might make mistakes. . . . That seems to me an obviously silly and childish view of God."Licona goes on to say that Price has got it wrong, and the Christian view is that you chose to go to Hell. But then he asks, "What about those who require evidence but do not think a sufficient amount is there for belief?" and tries to meet the question head-on. However, this question only makes sense if you conceed Price's account of Christian doctrine, and Licona already admitted that if Price is right, Christianity is "silly." Am I missing something here?
I agree with Price that his perception of the Christian view of God is "silly and childish."