For good people to do bad things...

[Ryft]

I changed it to 'condone' because you said to me before that "it depends what you meant by support."

Thus we are faced with a Loaded Question fallacy (which is something of an irony, given my current debate with Saerules): "Did Jesus condone the horrors in the Old Testament?" There are two questionable terms at play in the question: the term "condone" in the principle question being asked, and the term "horrors" in the hidden question not being asked. A direct answer (yes or no) to the principle question would imply agreement with the hidden question; in other words, whether the answer is "yes" he condones the horrors, or "no" he does not condone the horrors, either way the person responding would be assenting to something he or she otherwise might not (that there are horrors).

In the name of sound reasoning, let's avoid logical fallacies. Errors in reasoning are neither flattering nor intellectually compelling. So, split the question up into the two it actually contains: (1) "Are there horrors in the Old Testament?" (2) "If so, did Jesus condone them?" The second question will not be meaningful until the first one is answered. As you may have noticed, I had already anticipated this direction and figured that by "horrors" you meant to suggest gross immorality. So therefore I asked if you argue for an absolute objective morality; that is, in what sense are those things "immoral"?

And this is a very important and integral point! You see, before I can speak to the issue I need to know whether you are arguing under your own terms (an extrinsic analysis) or under biblical terms (an intrinsic analysis). The one is a very different argument from the other. So by asking you about moral theory, I am trying to find out which argument we are going to have.

I do not believe in any form of absolute objective morality. Why? Do you think what I describe as the "horrors" in the Old Testament aren't horrors?

That's not the issue, no. Rather, it is that I can neither agree nor disagree that X is immoral until I know how morality is being defined and employed here. Consider: if you ask the question from your moral understanding and I answer it from mine, we will be talking at cross-purposes instead of meaningfully together. We have to be on the same page to get anywhere. You name the page, I'll join you there.

Fair enough, but don't different believers in, and followers of, Christ disagree on how Christianity is defined to some extent? Or are they all within [the definition you provided]? Just to clarify.

They are all within the definition I provided—all Catholics, all Orthodox, all Protestants. The authority of the Scriptures and the four ecumenical creeds are universally agreed upon by all Christians. If some person or group disagrees with this definition, they do not qualify as "Christian"—just as someone who believes in God does not qualify as "atheist" because it runs contrary to the definition.

Can [biblical exegesis] really be done without there ever being any cherry-picking?

Yes. If one is cherry-picking (and there are those who do), then one is not doing biblical exegesis.