After reflecting upon this for a while, I have decided that I am willing to make a deal with you.  I would very much like to respond to your last e-mail (for which I do believe that I have good responses), but I will only do so if you assent to the following statements.

It's odd that you seem to think you'd be doing me a favor by continuing our discussion -- except perhaps by adding to my tally of Christians who seem unable or unwilling to substantiate their charges against me of arrogance.

If you do not assent to the following statements, it proves to me that you are either not of a high level of intelligence (highly unlikely), certifiably delusional (possible), too indoctrinated in your worldview of atheism and anti-Christian polemics to be reasonable (this seems to increasingly be the case) or (along those same lines) too sure of your own knowledge in which case you become downright arrogant and unreasonable in what you "know" (most probable); and hence, not worth my time to respond to.

I'm quite happy to let my record of reasonableness in this discussion speak for itself -- especially if it's in contrast to your remarks about my "level of intelligence" or possible "certifiable delusionality".  (If you're ever interested in substantiating this charge that I'm "downright arrogant", let me know.)

So if you refuse to assent, I refuse to reply.  Of course you should not take this as a concession on my part (even though you most likely will).

Your declining to answer my rebuttals of course does not imply that you concede that my rebuttals are valid. However, the non-provision of your answers certainly doesn't decrease the reasonable suspicion that the validity of my rebuttals has helped demotivate you from attempting to answer them.

Further, at least in my case, it is not some sort of Christian defense mechanism; although I'm pretty sure you will take it as such.

Declining to answer my rebuttals isn't peculiar to Christians, so I wouldn't label it as such. And there are too many possible reasons for a person to quit a discussion for quitting to be automatically labeled a "defense mechanism" -- even though quitting might have the happy side effect of protecting one's positions against further refutation.

(ironically, I am led to believe that in the many instances where you accuse me of this mentality, you are resorting, perhaps subconsciously, to your own "Holtzian" defense mechanism...i.e. self-rationalizing some of the weaknesses and inadequacies in your own worldview by accusing the Christian of this sort of mentality)

On the contrary, I quite consciously make such accusations to prod my interlocutor into exposing any weaknesses or inadequacies my worldview might contain.

Here are the statements:
1) I, Brian Holtz, acknowledge that

I have no reason to agree to prefix any of my statements with such a formula. I mean what I say, I say what I mean, and I defend my statements against all substantive criticism. If this means I don't meet your standards of reasonableness, then feel free not to reply.

it is possible that my biblical exegesis is not necessarily the best or most correct,

The issue isn't about whose "exegesis" best explains what the human scribes were thinking when they wrote that Yahweh committed (and Jesus endorsed) such unspeakable acts. The issue is why an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient deity would allow his revelatory texts to include -- and thus need "exegesis" to excuse -- such a prima facie indictment of him. When a deity's own revelation is the best evidence against his morality, then that deity is either less than competent, less than benevolent, or non-existent.

and hence, it is possible that the "crimes" of Yahweh were either not committed by Yahwah or the "crimes" of Yahweh were justified.

If the actions of your deity were even remotely as defensible as an omnibenevolent deity's would be, then you wouldn't be trying to allow for the alibi that maybe he didn't do them, and instead would be disputing any attempt to deny him credit. At any rate, the term "Yahweh" here is ambiguous, and I refer you to possible disambiguations of it in my analysis of gospel probabilities.

Bob Greogler's understanding of a fully-human and fully-divine Jesus is within the realm of possibility, and that he has not necessarily internalized the modern secular notion that Jesus was a mere human being and nothing more.

It's of course possible that the modern liberal christology you've absorbed is completely unaffected by the modern secular understanding of the merely-human Jesus -- but it's incredibly unlikely.

it is possible that the Christian God is competent and benevolent given how he has revealed Himself, and that I may not have all of the information I need to make such a definitive judgment (i.e. I do not pretend to have exhausted all of the ways this sort of revelation may fit into God's overall plan).

I'm not sure what you mean by "definitive", but this topic too is already covered in my analysis of gospel probabilities.

it is possible that hell could be a just "punishment."

It depends on what you mean by "hell" and "just". By any reasonable understanding of justness, an irrevocable unending period of inflicted suffering for a repentant person cannot be just.

it is possible that my understanding of Catholicism is not superb.

If you think you can demonstrate some misunderstanding of Catholicism by me, feel free to do so.

it is possible that my worldview is incorrect,

It is of course logically possible that the universe consists only of Satan/Yahweh/Baal/whoever and the experiences he has created for my brain in its vat. It's even logically possible that an objectively and uniquely "correct" axiology exists and is substantially at odds with mine, but it seems even more unlikely.

and that the core teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is correct.

No, not by any reasonable standard of perfect benevolence.