If you spend all of your time trying to wound zombies rather than trying to kill them, one has to wonder about your motives. Maybe you are just interested in landing a combination of non-fatal blows that will render the zombie harmless. You don't need to kill him. If you take out his arms, legs, and teeth, then you can pretty much forget about him. Or maybe you want to send a message to the zombie community at large that they are easy to take apart, and because of this, they ought to just give up.
Disproving Christianity is (a bit) like killing a zombie. It isn't tricky, but it does require something specific--you have to destroy the resurrection of Jesus. You won't deal a fatal blow to Christianity by pointing to difficult passages in Scripture. Even if you have a knock-down argument, you will have to get dangerously close to admitting that the God of the Bible exists, and did the things it says He did, just to argue that He is immoral. Why not just argue that God does not exist? That is like cutting off the head. Or if you have extensive knowledge of Scripture, you can take shots at the Bible by firing off supposed contradictions, but at best, you will only take a few chunks out of the doctrine of inerrancy. As long as the details surrounding the resurrection of Jesus are reliable, Christianity won't go down. Why not just attack the resurrection? If you destroy the resurrection, you destroy Christianity (1 Cor 15:14).
If you spend all of your time trying to pick apart Christian doctrines rather than trying to disprove the resurrection, one has to wonder about your motives. Maybe you are just interested in exposing enough difficulties to marginalize Christians. You don't need to show that Christianity is false. If you can show that the Bible has errors and that God did/does things that are morally questionable, then people will not take Christianity or the people who hold Christian beliefs seriously. Or maybe you want to send a message to the Christian community at large that many Christian teachings are more difficult they realized, and because of this, they ought to simply abandon the faith--or at least keep it to themselves.
As entertaining as it might be, we surely recognize that maiming zombies rather than killing them would be a dangerous game. Furthermore, it would be a disingenuous enterprise if you represented an anti-zombie group that publicly claim to only be interested in killing zombies. In the same way, if the resurrection didn't happen, and Christianity is false, it is superfluous to debate doctrinal intricacies. Just put it to death already. On the other hand, if it is true, then examining biblical difficulties is of utmost importance--a dangerous thing to play around with. Not only that, it is disingenuous for many (not all) who claim to be interested only in truth and reason, to focus on wounding the faith of Christians and marginalizing Christianity instead of showing them why the resurrection is false.
 I know that someone will say "I don't have to disprove Christianity. You have to prove it." While I do not agree that the burden of proof is entirely on one side--the resurrection is a historical, evidential claim, and as such, it is falsifiable--for the purpose of this discussion, I am simply addressing people who are actively seeking to disprove Christianity. If you aren’t in that camp, you will only illustrate my point by jumping down my throat about something that is not germane to this post.
 As with many of my posts, my hope is to encourage better discussions between Christians and non-Christians. I write the above statements because I think there are a lot of misunderstandings (by "fundamentalists" on both sides) about what it takes to "kill" Christianity. The goal here is not to offer empty criticism of those who disagree with me. Far from it. The script could be flipped in many ways. Furthermore, I do not want to be accused of stopping conversations. I am not suggesting that the only topic we can discuss it the resurrection proper. Of course there are other issues directly tied to the resurrection. If the Gospel accounts are completely unreliable with regard to the life and death of Jesus, that would do it. But even many atheist New Testament scholars aren't willing to make that claim. Or, as I said above, if God does not exist, that would certainly do it (because no one in this debate is claiming that people naturally rise from the dead). Simply put, my point is that it is superfluous, maybe even dangerous, to focus on breaking a zombie's legs rather than killing it.