Young Man Raised By Lesbian Couple [video]

To address Bart and Minjo's back-and-forth, there actually is a very strong tradition of interpretation of Biblical passages. The fact that there are two works to reconcile, both the Torah and the New Testament, along with the differing accounts of the Four Evangelists (MMLJ), does actually lead to different interpretations based on what has come before and which canonical references are made (or omitted) by each of the Evangelists.

For sure from an atheistic standpoint, these discrepancies and inconsistencies point to the fact that the Bible was written over many years by many different (human) writers. And for certain, that plays towards Minjo's point that such a work with so many inconsistencies must acknowledge them all dogmatically if the work as a whole is to be accepted. However, again, there is a decided amount of self-referential material in the New Testament that leads to a modern precedence for individual interpretation of the texts.

As such, any "wholecloth" argument based on logically pinning Christians into defending obviously dated dogmatic references, particularly in the Old Testament, has to acknowledge that Christians on an individual level are allowed a degree of separation from dogma. So for Minjo, if you have an open mind to why Christians have a certain mindset, as shown by Bart and others, you might want to read up on these references just to understand better.

The most obvious for example, tend to be where Jesus describes his role as prophet/Messiah figure...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_5:17

...in this passage, Jesus can be seen as contradicting existing Mosaic Law, i.e. the laws governing Jews to this day described in the Torah, on several accounts (you can read the wiki...I don't want this to be too long.)

The concept here and in the other parts of the New Testament is that Jesus, in the Christian interpretation, is in effect establishing a "new and everlasting covenant" with Jehovah and mankind that supersedes/co-opts the laws as described in Leviticus.

Jesus' further conflicts with the Pharasic Order of Orthodox Jewish leaders and teachings in the various parables further underscores the differentiation between his belief structures and those of the Old Testament. In many of the parables are anecdotal interpretations of Old Testament law that surprise his followers, such as the the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector.

After the founding of Christianity, this would later lead to a fundamental shift in deference to Old Testament law and New Testament interpretation. This later comes to a head during the Protestant Reformation, where the concepts of self-interpretation of the Bible versus the "official" interpretations set forth by the Catholic Church.

Part of this conflict, aside from the political/social/economic aspect of the Reformation, deals with the notions of Orthodoxy versus Orthopraxy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopraxy

...as you can read from the articles above, there is a decided "tradition" for both interpretations. Further, as I mentioned earlier, there is decided 'conflicting' passages as to which method of interpretation of the Bible is "valid" for Christians.

So, again, while the above will not at all sway any given atheist away from the perspective that the Bible does not stem from divine origin, nor does it create an infallible ground for Christians to defend their faith (at all), it does actually mean that it is unfortunately very difficult to deny non-orthodox Christians the ability to refute or deny given dogmatic passages or verses from Biblical texts. An orthopraxic interpretation does allow modern Christians to be "Cafeteria Catholics" or "self-study Protestants".

I am not trying to make Bart's point for him, and for certain as a lesbian I am not "all about" defending the intolerant aspects of Christian dogma, but there is a definite reason why modern non-orthodox Christians might reject a "Bible must be taken in its entirety" argument.