Of course we can. I will use all your weak defenses against you; cry more if you don't like it. The idea of not 'sinking to anothers' level' is a cultural concept that has been drilled into us for a long time, and it reveals the 'white knight's weakness: foes know they will avoid doing the same despicable things back to them, and work that to advantage. Unfortunately for you I am not a white knight, and will sink as deep as you go, and in the end, do it better.
BTW, 'responsible exegesis' leads to
whatever conclusions come from the text, even if it shows that text to be blatantly in moral error. The flaws are
not meaningless, especially in a text with so many liars promoting it as an unquestionable moral basis, and who tend themselves to be the worst fiends. Pretending they are meaningless, shows your bias. It's not just factual flaws the bible contains. But, hey, try talking down it's flaws. Nothing it says matters, really, right? Especially when it says something questionable;
especially then.
And speaking of your bias: I observe with a few chuckles that you never speak to Robin and correct him on all his false statements about the Bible being without error. Yet you admit them freely to me. Double standard much? Bias much? When will you correct him on all his hyperbole, when will you lay it down for a fellow believer that the bible is flawed, in tems of historicity and mere fact? How strange that you remain so silent in that regard.
Although, I must then also ponder: by 'responsible', do you actually mean, we higher thinkers must not expose the more morally corrupt concepts the book accidentally [or a-purpose] brings to light, to the awareness of those morally weak enough to act on such heinous ideas? Is that what you actually mean? Do you actually mean that the morally vapid must never be made aware of all the ugliness hidden [or in plain sight] in the text which purports to be from the God of the entire universe itself? Because such individuals would actually act upon these convoluted, fiendish moral examples themselves, with the unshakeable idea in their minds that, for example, the murder of millions can be justified by deific fiat?
Oh, I am afraid that that cat's been out of the bag for a loooong time already, much to the horror of all mankind.
Humorous note: you still never addressed the question, whose pondering you felt the need to barge in on, and which someone else asked of you. The answer probably frightens you, and im sure we'll hear 'it doesn't matter'.
Finally, a small semantic note: I did not call you an idiot to lessen some truth in your argument; I called you that, based on your argument. It was an observation after the fact, not as a method of argumentation. Therefore, not really an ad hom at all.
Cart before the horse, you see.