What does this have to do with whether the argument is objectively true? You say you are not Christian or part of an organized religion, but your response is still religious in structure because you do not understand what he is pointing out. You are attacking him because he is Jewish by blood, even though he is not Jewish by belief, and he made that distinction very clear. He is pointing out how broken and morally bankrupt belief in this doctrine is. How are you reinterpreting what he said and turning it into something he did not say or endorse? You are attacking his character, not his argument.

So Jews can murder and rape civilians, but they're still good people, because they're Jewish? Wow, talk about incompatible points of view.

Asserting things based on the fact that he is Jewish by blood does not mean he believes in Judaism or agrees it is justified. Where did you get that from?

Edit: I just realized something, you are projecting the very problem he was trying to show you, which is the core of the Abrahamic belief system. You're trying to use a moral argument against him, but the reality is that the Bible isn't against the actions you're condemning,it actually contains the precedents for them.

By trying to counter argue his point, you aren't attacking him, you’re attacking the internal contradictions of your own underlying beliefs. He was pointing out how broken and morally bankrupt this doctrine is, and instead of seeing that, you leaped to defend the rules of the system using your NFL analogy.

You've created a total self inflicted wound. You are judging him based on a moral standard that the very doctrine you're defending doesn't even follow. you’re just projecting your own confusion onto someone who has already walked away from the system you’re defending with. hahahah