I must confess that I am NOT one of them.
That's good to know. And it is kind of a good point too. When these things were written, it was a reflection of the culture, not a god. To call it the inerrant word of a god is to argue that a god was behind it. But it makes much more sense to just accept it was the culture, and most, not all, of humankind has moved past that. To argue that it is the word of a god is to say that your morals are higher than the god portrayed. I'm grateful for that, and hope that more people become more moral (by today's and even tomorrow's standards) than the god portrayed. A loving, all powerful, all wise god would not be a victim of a culture, nor would it be swayed by such. If it existed, it would say this is the way it should be, and YOU need to change, not my law. And it would be moral, and it would strike all of us as moral. And it would be right, and we would all know it. And this god would not allow itself to be misrepresented so badly.
Arguments that culture was different falls flat when coming from a bible literalist. It's an admission that the culture created the god rather than the god that created the culture. It's an admission that it was made up. Yet somehow, this fact just doesn't penetrate.
The arguments that this god allowed brutality in order to accomodate brutal humans falls flat too. Just who was supposed to be in charge? Just who was supposed to have the right answers? And it goes beyond accomodating, and into the law that demanded brutality. If this is a real god speaking, then you cannot also argue that this god is loving and wise. If it is just the writing of humans, then it is a study in a long ago culture. The tragedy is when there are those that insist we still live by the standards of a culture that should be left in the past.