If you don't think you're better than anyone, why wrap yourself in concepts such as "moral supremacy?" Especially as your arguments, at their basic level, are "my sherpas are better than yours."

You started out arguing the moral code of the bible. So we pointed out its fallibility and subjectivity to interpretation. So you're doubling down on its interpretation. Roy Moore, as an evangelical, is using the exact same bible you are to justify his moral code - his "moral supremacy." You reject this claim out of hand. But you can't. If you're both reading the same bible, and you're both picking what to interpret and what not to interpret, it's the picking. If it's all the word of God then it's all perfect. If it isn't all the word of God then it is man who decides what to follow and what not to follow. And if I decide to follow none of it, and you decide to follow some of it, but you insist that it is your adherence to it that leads to a better life, then sorry pal, you do think you're better than anyone. You are stating in no uncertain terms that you think you're better than me.

And I understand that you've tossed a lovely word salad so that you don't have to taste the bitterness of the arugula but it's still in there, buddy. We all see it. We all experience it. You found Jesus because someone told you how to do it while at the same time insisting he's there for everybody and it's just not the case. Religion is a creed of like-minded people who reinforce each others' moral and philosophical framework but rhetoric is addressing and conversing with those outside of your framework.

And your style of discussion is "step into my framework."

No.

You're not engaging us. You're not. You feel like you are, and you can talk about your outreach this Sunday, but the fact of the matter is you're playing "debate a heathen MadLibs" and we all know it. We can all smell it. Nobody is putting words in your mouth, we're calling you on the fact that you're talking around us until you can drag things back into your framework. I'm sure you see that as a refusal to see the truth; that's usually where these things go.

Fundamentally: for purposes of debate, there are no truths. There are no maxims. The logical inconsistencies of your belief structure are fair game and the more you use them, the less compelling your rhetoric.