For some folks, including not a few Catholics, it takes a lot to dispel the myth of the hyper-controlling Church that only permits Bible study after the insertion of the Vatican Orbital Mind Control Laser Platform chip in the frontal lobe of the brain.

Where would those "not a few" Catholics get such a notion?

the Church offers Catholics only three guidelines when pointing toward reading Scripture for its literal sense. Dei Verbum tells us:

1. Be especially attentive “to the content and unity of the whole Scripture”;

2. Read the Scripture within “the living tradition of the whole Church”; and,

3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.

Why, if I am Catholic, should I not construe these guidelines as follows?

1. I must believe that Scripture is a unified whole, having a single message, and interpret it accordingly, because the church says so;

2. Make sure that my interpretation of Scripture is consistent with church tradition; and

3. Do not reach any conclusions that Scripture that are contrary to the articles of faith to which the church tells me I must adhere if I am to avoid eternal damnation.

Faith is not based on the Bible - Faith is based on the resurrection of Christ.

"How do we know about the Resurrection? Is there any mention of it outside the Bible?"

There is plenty of evidence that Jesus existed, lived and was crucified

Yes, if we don't argue about the meaning of "plenty."

as well as evidence his disciples thought he was alive and were willing to die for this.

Does any Christian have any reason to believe this except that the Bible says so?

And for "archaeological evidence doesn't support the Exodus" the only thing I've seen is that they have no evidence for or against it.

If it happened, some evidence should have survived to modern times and been found by now. Its absence is evidence the exodus didn't happen. I won't say it's conclusive evidence, but it looks to me like reason enough to doubt that there was an exodus.

Another problem is that Christianity jettisons a huge amount of the Old Testament, and even Jesus himself was answering questions about Jewish Law that no Christian is now considered bound by.

No Jew would consider Gentiles bound by many points of the Jewish Law either. That's why the Noahide Laws exist. And Christianity does a very good job of presenting them.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Jews_and_Non-Jews/Legal_Issues/Noahide_Laws.shtml

Much of what Jesus said and did was interpret first-century Judaism, involve himself in disputes in first-century Judaism, and deal adeptly with challenges from various factions within first-century Judaism. That is all pretty much a waste when Jewish Law was to be dispensed with not long after his death. So not only are huge swaths of the Old Testament irrelevant to Christianity, so is much of what Jesus taught (about Judaism) during his lifetime.

I think you need to establish this point. Most Christians seem to get a whole lot of good use out of pretty much every word Jesus said in the New Testament, so his teachings must not be too terribly confined to only the world of first-century Judaism. And for that matter, most Christians also appear to care quite a bit about the Old Testament, which seems to indicate that it's not as irrelevant as you might suppose.

You got me. Good point.

If it is approved by the bishop, they can be married in the Church.

No, a marriage between a Catholic and baptized Christian of another denomination requires permission from the bishop. It will be a sacramental marriage. A marriage between a Catholic and a person who is not baptized requires a dispensation, and even with that dispensation, it will not be a sacramental marriage. Unbaptized people cannot receive sacraments.

The Catechism says the following:

1633 In many countries the situation of a mixed marriage (marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic) often arises. It requires particular attention on the part of couples and their pastors. A case of marriage with disparity of cult (between a Catholic and a non-baptized person) requires even greater circumspection.

. . .
1635 According to the law in force in the Latin Church, a mixed marriage [i.e., a marriage between a Catholic and a baptized Christian] needs for liceity the express permission of ecclesiastical authority. In case of disparity of cult an express dispensation from this impediment is required for the validity of the marriage. This permission or dispensation presupposes that both parties know and do not exclude the essential ends and properties of marriage; and furthermore that the Catholic party confirms the obligations, which have been made known to the non-Catholic party, of preserving his or her own faith and ensuring the baptism and education of the children in the Catholic Church.

A marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person can only be a natural marriage, not a sacramental one.