According to CNN and an expert scholar, the jmfcst is as dumb as mud...

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

tl;dr, except, from what I've been able to glean from this thread, jmfcst is dissecting something by a particularly bizarre and incompetent example of a 'scholar' who disagrees with his interpretation of the Bible. I'm not sure if he thinks that this disqualifies other such scholars from being taken seriously or not, any more than jmfcst himself disqualifies all conservative Evangelical readings.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...yeah, even though this guy's conclusions agree (more or less) with mine, his arguments aren't worth paying attention to. This is almost as bad as the denominational embarrassment that was Bishop Spong.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's sad. There are much more competent ways of making these arguments (and other, far better, arguments, ones that don't elide large sections of history and interpretation) but I read what you're quoting from and it's just an incoherent mess.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...it's just an incoherent mess.

This is really the point isn't it?  Why people cling to this 'bible' is simply inexplicable.  Just chuck it and believe whatever you like folks - the act of belief is precisely the same either way - a kind of intellectual bed-wetting.

The function of the Bible isn't as a self-help tool, opebo. Use of an external locus of belief has a social aspect that 'believing whatever you like' doesn't.

What if one believes whatever one likes and that happens to be the Creeds or the Sutras of an existing religion?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regarding points 3 and 4:

He teaches psychology at the University of West Georgia. He isn't even operating within his discipline, which would be acceptable if and only if he were not presenting his arguments in incoherent ways and posturing for a mass-media audience. That does happen to be, whether you went in singling him out or not, a level of academic ineptitude above and beyond not actualizing parts of the Bible that you think should be actualized. If he doesn't already have tenure this can and should be grounds for denying it.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Regarding points 3 and 4:

He teaches psychology at the University of West Georgia. He isn't even operating within his discipline, which would be acceptable if and only if he were not presenting his arguments in incoherent ways and posturing for a mass-media audience. That does happen to be, whether you went in singling him out or not, a level of academic ineptitude above and beyond not actualizing parts of the Bible that you think should be actualized. If he doesn't already have tenure this can and should be grounds for denying it.

he is still typical of everyone who attempts to make homosexuality mesh with the bible, for he makes the same arguments heard a thousand times on this board.  If you think he is not typical, and since you are unwilling to walk us through the scripture yourself (or even point out the errors of those who hold an opposing view), then please provide an example of someone who is.

I'm not unwilling. I haven't had time, partially because I don't think it's of such paramount importance as you do. Assuming I can find the thread again, I'll get back to you on the Adam and Eve thing the next time I have a slow writing day, I swear.

Sarah Coakley's work is more indicative of ways of treating this that actually make some sense.