Hm, an interesting idea. Here's another, my logic is the result of a lifetime of careful thought and asking questions, and crunching the data.
This is a testable assertion that I can compare to how your logic stands up. It also stands to reason that if your careful thoughts and questions contained unchallenged and/or unconscious premises, your later conclusions could be flawed.
Maybe it is you who's too lazy, too arrogant, or too entrenched in your line of thinking to consider that maybe there are other ways to read the Bible than just yours.
This is entirely possible. I won't deny it, and must entertain the possibility. I acknowledge there are many ways to read the Bible. Then I look at the reasoning of our respective positions and have to conclude that you way is ridiculous.
Remember, my way to read the Bible is to treat it as the fiction evidence indicates it to be. I'm happy to advocate that, but I'm not allowed to do so here as this thread is not Homosexuality and Atheism. The way I'm recommending to you is the way I see many sensible Christians reading the Bible: they conclude that it contains the word of god along with a bunch of other crap extremely fallible humans have inserted. They have good reason to conclude so; some of its passages advocate morally reprehensible acts, and if you're a Bronze Age asshole and you want people to listen to you, what better way to do so than sneak a bit of your own propaganda in with the word of god? Accordingly, the Christians who adopt this position use their own moral judgment, informed by what they consider to be their relationship with god, to filter the Bible and separate the wheat of divine insight from the chaff of mortal propaganda. This results in ethical, well-adjusted Christians who can distinguish between doctrine and deity. They are not doing anything you are not doing: if you accept the Bible in the current form, then you accept the decisions of the Council of Niceas, who did exactly the kind of gospel filtering I describe.
I am not an expert on the Bible. I am an expert on human reasoning; it's my educational background. I can tell the difference between sound and unsound reasoning when I see them.
And yet for all of my supposed anger or vitriol, the sum total of proof anyone has posited that I support an inferior class of humans is me saying "Guys, I understand how this might come across this way, but maybe it doesn't mean that."
You're not showing anger or vitriol and I never claimed that you were. You are being polite, kind, attentive, and courteous, and while you are doing so, you're endorsing the most heinous of positions, positions that predators and bigots use to hide themselves behind well-meaning Christians.
For the record, this is why "Christians (no...people) who are reasonable get fed up with the abject arrogance of the so-called enlightened and lose patience discussing things with them, " is a thing. [sic]
Reasonable people may not be reasonable all the time, and it is not uncommon for people to suspend their reason in the defence of the silly.
...how many of you as gone up to other pastors, preachers, Church leaders and asked them whether the Bible supports misogyny or homophobia?
By their deeds do I know them. I have to come to certain conclusions when the Catholic priest who baptized me, a man who formed peace chains to protect Pride marchers from angry mobs in rural Pennsylvania, is slanderously insulted in public and via letters to the local paper before the diocese ships him out of my Catholic school and off to a remote missionary position in Latin America.
Have any of you Googled the articles that discuss the alleged translation drift of the Scriptures?
Um, I'm the guy talking about the Council of Nicea. Others have been discussing the actual linguistic changes. And what's this about "alleged" translation drift? You speak Aramaic or Greek?
Have you asked them how they read it and come away not endorsing bigotry, but rather fighting against it?
Usually they give an answer about their interpretation of the Bible similar to that big paragraph I wrote above.
I mean, you all ask, no...demand
...that we be willing to let go our assumptions and learn that you (not you, but LGBTQ and other groups that haven't historically gotten on with the American Christian Church) aren't evil, or sick, or psychologically damaged, or too lazy to think differently. No, you demand to be treated with the respect and courtesy you've earned as law-abiding citizens.
I find no crime in saying I think we're entitled to the same.
You're entitled to all of those things. You are not entitled to people pretending your logic is sound when it's not. People are enormously irrational
for the most part
. I don't need to assume I'm arguing with a senseless fundy to conclude that they're wrong; otherwise reasonable theists can be wrong too.
I respect your willingness to step away from the discussion, I apologize for hanging on, and I don't want desperately fight for the last word. I'm coming to this discussion as an LGBTQ ally with a background in cognitive science, and I really want to find a way to uproot irrational thinking as it regards gender and sexuality, because if we can find out how to do that it'll help a lot of people, including people like you Starship. I honestly think these positions limit you.