please give an example of how "the motivated Bible reader sets out to explain how scripture really means something else closer to modern sensibilities"
First, let me begin by expressing my pessimism regarding entering into such discussions. To me, the examples are abundantly evident, so why would you need me to demonstrate them to you. The answer invariably is confirmation bias. You didn't see them before, and won't see them now, either, for the same reason. It's the difference between a science student not understanding how epigenetics works and an adult creationist not understanding how evolution works. My experience is that I can help in the first case, but not in the second because of the differences in the way the educated student and the fervent believer processes information.
Other examples are the person who says that there is no evidence that January 6th was a violent, failed insurrection, or wants to know what crimes Trump allegedly committed. People who ask or say such things are telling you that they didn't see what you saw before and won't now, either due to the confirmation bias that has them in that state now.
But I can accommodate you anyway. Some creationists continue to understand the Genesis creation story as history revealed by God, but others have accepted the science that tells us that the history of the evolution of the universe did not occur in six days. What to do? Just say that they didn't mean or believe that these days were 24 hours to make scripture seem to contradict the science less than it does.
Consider that there are those things that are "homophobia, atheophobia, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism" for you. Give me an example of all four of these in Christianity, and I will demonstrate it to you.
You can't provide the example yourself? That only means that you don't see what the disinterested reader of scripture sees, which means a confirmation bias in play and little hope of your response to my examples not being motivated reasoning (rationalization). Pessimistic as I am for a critical assessment of my argument for the Bible being atheophobic, here it is. I offer these scriptures as examples of atheophobic hate speech If it you've already normalized that kind of thing and don't see a problem, substitute gay, black, or Jew for unbeliever and see how these read to you then:
[1] "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1
[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, and all and the enemy of a good god." - Revelation 21:8
[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22
[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23
Altogether, this "holiness" manages to describe unbelievers as corrupt, vile, wicked, abominable, godless vessels of darkness in the service of evil, not one of whom does any good, to be shunned, and all of whom are fit to be burned alive forever as enemies of a good god and the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers.
To me, that's plainly obvious, but I assume that you cannot see it the way I do and will now explain to me that I've misunderstood and why what sounds like hate is actually love. That's what I mean by motivated (specious) reasoning. I expect that you find my reading of those scriptures unacceptable not because of their conclusions are unsound, but rather, because right or wrong, they are unacceptable to you and you will feel a need to mitigate my argument any way you can. The usual apologetics involve either citing a contradictory scripture as if it made all of the above go away as we see with the biblical rape and slavery discussions, where the mention of kid treatment somewhere makes all of the rest go away, or a reassignment of the meaning of the words, like where day no longer means day, and cut off your hand doesn't mean to cut off your hand, and turn the other cheek doesn't really mean that, either, when there is no reason to believe that the words didn't mean what they say, but good reason for the motivated reasoner to try to make them comport better with modern sensibilities.
We begin with a moral intuition? From where?
The conscience.
Can I have a demonstration? Begin now... Or have you already begun?
I began in my youth and had generated a fairly mature moral code by my mid-thirties. The rules of right behavior still get tweaked from time to time even now, but not the moral imperatives informing them. Sometimes, we see unintended consequences of our choices, and revise them to better comport with those imperatives - the trial-and-error that you demean next using the word
stuck. Isn't it the man with the received morals that is stuck for his lack of any means to modify them as the rational ethicist plods forward updating mores that no longer serve? Look at the anti-abortionists stuck in ancient Judean times trying to increase the population as if that were still a need rather than a problem.
I think what we understand is man's double standards.
Not only his double standards, but his inability to make decisions based on any moral ground, since he is stuck at trial and error.
trial > error
^________|
error < trial
What double standards? What inability to make moral judgments?
I know these are no empty words, but they mean life, and I have tasted the truthfulness of them.
I've tasted them as well, and found them flavorless. There is nothing in any holy book that I can use. Where scripture and I agree, it is not because of scripture, and where we disagree, I find the scriptural instruction flawed and reject it, so what use is such a book to such a person?
Do you accept that the Christian's Bible trained conscience is and has been a reliable guide to behavior conducive to effecting desirable outcomes.
No, but you knew that, right? I just gave you the examples of the Christian atheophobic and misogynistic anti-abortion positions being immoral by humanist standards. Add the homophobia we see with the demeaning and oppressing of all things LGBTQ+ including drag shows based in scripture calling it abomination (you asked for examples of homophobia earlier).
And they are proud to have chosen that path which they consider an achievement?
I'm sure they are. People are as proud to have kept the faith for a lifetime as I am of having tunneled out of it.
Do you consider adultery immoral, is what I am asking.
I think you want to know if I consider it immoral for others, since I've already answered regarding adultery for myself, but added that what others do is their business. This does not that I don't have opinions about the behavior of others. Adultery is risky behavior if it's done secretly, which is usually the case. You might lose your wife or be killed by a jealous husband, for example. Those are good reasons for anybody to avoid that behavior including me, but because Jesus recommends it is not a good reason for me. And I'd like to repeat that betrayal in my case would be the moral infraction, not the sex per se, which would be perfectly moral if everybody involved were on board with it. I'd also add here that even if my wife gave me permission to take another lover either privately or as part of a threesome, I would decline, because I think it would be spiritually damaging to me and might affect my relationship with my wife adversely going forward anyway, even with permission.
I'm the motivated Bible reader.
