"Where in the King James Version of the Bible is it reported that Sarah slept with men to the financial benefit of Abraham or that Joseph solicited a prostitute? Please provide the specific scripture."

First, KJV has no more validity than any other English translation.

Second, it's very very clear in Genesis 12.

12:14 And it came to pass, that, when Abram was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she [was] very fair.

12:15 The princes also of Pharaoh saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh's house.

12:16 And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

12:17 And the LORD plagued Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai Abram's wife.

12:18 And Pharaoh called Abram, and said, What [is] this [that] thou hast done unto me? why didst thou not tell me that she [was] thy wife?

12:19 Why saidst thou, She [is] my sister? so I might have taken her to me to wife: now therefore behold thy wife, take [her], and go thy way.

---------------------------

"Jesus is referred to as a high priest in the new testiment book of Hebrews."

That's a misunderstanding on your part. Paul is not saying that Jesus was a Jewish High Priest, as he certainly wasn't. Paul is saying Jesus is a High Priest of the New Covenant.

"Heb 8:4 For if he [Jesus Christ] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are [already] [Levitical priesthood] priests that offer gifts according to the law [the old covenant]:

Heb 8:6 But now hath he [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he [Jesus Christ] is the mediator of a better covenant [the new covenant], which was established upon better promises. "

A Christian calling himself a High Priest is the same as calling himself the Christ.

"Fornication, or sex outside of marriage, is condemned in the Bible. If not, why was a woman brought to Jesus to be stoned for fornication?"

That was aduletry, not fornication.

First, Peter Singer is a huge hypocrite.

The whole notion that it is unjust for some to live well while others starve, but that the former can buy off his personal guilt by donating 20% of his income is beyond belief.

If one really believes that we have a moral obligation to help others in the manner professed, then donate 80%.

It's like these inane socialist stating all work is equal in value while making 3 times the money of their assistances. It's absurd on its surface and get no better with depth.

Second, buy food from third world countries is the worst thing you can do for them, unless you are trying to enforce perputual servitude. A nation cannot move from a third world economy without gettin its birth rate under control. That does not happen when farming is the main source of income, because more childern means more workers and this means more potential income for the parents. The childern however will likely be as poor if not poorer than the parents. It's a vicious cycle than will not end as long as farming is the key employment sector.

As someone who has lived on a farm, I'll let you in on a little fact. Chickens are disgusting creatures that will eat anything, including like chickens. One of the reasons chickens are caged is because they always kill and eat weaker chickens. Chicken nature is cruel if you apply human standards, which is what Peter Singer is trying to do.

[i]I find Peter Singer's work challenging, uncomfortable, stimulating and basically everything that a philosopher should be.[/i]

Notice logically and compelling is missing. That's because none of Singer's work is ever internally logical or compelling. It's drivel that is easily refuted.

[i]When he makes an argument, it's extremely hard to refute.[/i]

Hard to refute is laughable. Singer refutes it himself in both his writing and his own life. Why did he spend money on his demented mother when he himself stated many times that such spending is immoral?

[i]When you read his books, you simply can't accuse him of being overly emotional or anything but highly, clinically rational.[/i]

He applies emotional factors where they do not exist, such as expanding emotions to all animals, and ignores them where they do exist such as advancing arguments that spending money of those with dementia is immoral because it takes resources away from where they could be better spent, when he himself can't accept this emotional hurdle.

[i]Arguing against a utlitiarian with emotions is a non-starter.[/i]

No it is not, because humans are emotional to try and ignore this fact negates any possiblity of a working model. People will spend thousands of dollars saving their pet when millions of other animals are killed every year. Cold logic dictates this is a waste, but the fact is we have pets for other than utlitiarian reasons and we spend money on our pets for the same reason we don't allow your elderly mothers to starve to death, because of love and caring.

[i]Generally, when someone says something that makes us feel really uncomfortable, it means they've hit on something important. Agree or disagree, but dismiss at the peril of our species.[/i]

Do you really believe this? That is so demonstrably wrong. How exactly is gang rape of 8 year old girls something important? Your statement requires either that the thought of young girls getting gang raped does not make you uncomfortable, or that if you feel discomfort that somehow this illicits something important. It makes you uncomfortable because it is wrong. There is no deeper meaning.