Didn't read whole thread. Christian feminists apply the same reasoning to the bible as to everything else, cafeteria plan, accept what is favorable, deny what is unfavorable as product of patriarchy. But we all do this with religion, not just women or feminists. Throw in some paganism and Lilith cultism, and it's easy to see how a feminized culture with broad Christian elements can reconcile itself with apparent inconsistencies (my favorite verse was a direct revelation, anything counter was just worldy humanism at play).
As in many things, people generally tend to "cafeteria plan" religion, not just women. For the most part, the masculine seeks the rule structure, justice, order, rational explanation of the unknown, power over the environment, even to excess, and will discount other aspects of the religion. The feminine seeks the emotionality of rapture, enthusiasm (in its strict sense), apotheosis, unconditional lovingkindness, even to excess. Notice I'm not using men and women, but masculine and feminine as generalized archetypes because we each have some of both.
Big books of scripture like the Bible invite fallability in reasoning in the same way other big, broad sources of diverse information do. The affect, familiarity (not the technical term that I can't recall atm) and anchoring heuristics all at play. We emphasize what we want and deemphasize the rest. We inherently datamine them, often not realizing that's what we are doing, and insist on strict interpretations of things we agree with and are more apt to call "symbolism" when we don't.
In other words, "Infallible God said what I like, fallible man wrote what I don't."
As an aside, the great success of Christianity in the West, IMO, lies in that it has something for everyone, male female rich poor dumb smart. Other more intellectually founded religions like Hinduism, Taoism and Buddhism (not even sure if Buddhism is a religion at its core) had to stretch and grow lots of more devotional strains over the centuries (mantra prayer, mystical yoga, tantricism, pure land) to grow, Christianity had it all from the start thanks mostly to Paul. Jesus' Christianity was far more intellectually based than its immediate post Christ version, and could never have conquered Rome without the Pauline, devotional transformation. Jesus' actual teachings are eerily similar to Shakyamuni's when read closely, and vice versa. Well Buddha had a 600 yr head start lol.
