He obviously has no argument. Ridicule is always a substitute for legitimate argument when there is none.
An astute observation, but not applied universally enough.
This article has no argument; simply unsupported premises leading to a preset conclusion.
The bible can be considered a fascinating historical document and analyzed and discussed rationally and endlessly from a secular perspective.
The word "apostasy" has no role in such a discussion.
The alternative, using the bible as a religious document and using the circular argumentent of endlessly quoting from it as a way to "prove" a point, is a waste of time.
I enjoy learning new things and being exposed to new perspectivesm so long as the discussion is limited to historical facts, the players, the opposing arguments, the material in question and the conclusions. History is an endless fascinating thing, but there can never be a "hobby" interest that can sustitute for a lifetime of real and scholarly research.
And that's what I see here. There is no need to prove any one Christian variant is "better" than another and any attempt to go there just dooms the discussion to become another pointless exercise.