"Without that, all you're doing is attempting to undermine the veracity of the other person's philosophical premise. You're not showing any faults, you're just trying to get them to accept YOUR question mark instead of THEIR period. Without a reason to do so, there's no reason to do so."
I think the whole Question/Period thing is quite cool. But I don't really understand it. Are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, rather than me accept their assertion that the Bible is right? Or are you saying that I'm asking them to accept my questioning of the Bible, but I'm unwilling to get them to accept their own assertion of the Bible? If the latter, then yes that's what i'm doing. Else it all comes down to the totology, "I believe what I believe" or "it's true because it's true".
And I do "have a reason to do so". My reason is because in any discussion of morality, I'm often presented with arguments in the form of quotations from the Bible, as if that were all that was needed. How can you argue with that? If its in the Bible, I'm immediately wrong. If its not in the Bible...oh wait, that's right, there's always something in the Bible. I'd have to be the Pope to argue anything with someone quoting the Bible.
Cool! You're sharper than I thought.
And I do "have a reason to do so".
I said definable reason. As you present it, your "reason" is circular. The only possibility you won't allow is that the Bible is accurately communicating what the deity wants to communicate.
As for "there's always something in the Bible," no there isn't, but there is subtlety that escapes those unfamiliar with the plan of the book (yeah, I know, and I'll answer when you ask), it's idioms, or possessing their own agenda. There's also a component missing, but we can address that later.