I take some shots at Fundamentalist Christians on this site. At the same time, I also give credit to them for their strong (yet questionable) belief. If you're going to call yourself a Christian, you have to go all out. They sometimes fall short (see Are you a Real Christian?), but hey, nobody's perfect. In addition, I think we would all agree that some of their stuff is a little kooky, no matter how justified it is biblically.
Moderate or Liberal Christianity would better describe the mainstream views. By "Liberal" I don't mean leftists or those people who only attend church at Christmas and Easter. No, those people are socialists and the nonreligious, respectively. Instead, the terms really apply to biblical interpretation.
If you consider the Bible to be the word of God, as written by humans (ergo, errors), and you don't consider your particular path to be the absolute "only way", then stand up and call yourself a Moderate Christian. You are representative of most Christians in the U.S. and around the world.
If you are highly skeptical about the Bible, have some questions about whether Jesus was really the son of God, and think that we worship and honor our Creator in different ways (i.e. no rituals necessary), then you can stand up and call yourself a Liberal Christian. Might I suggest you look into deism, Buddhism, or some form of pantheism or neopaganism? You don't really fit the mold, and probably call yourself a Christian because you were raised that way and it appears to be the most accessible path to God that you know of.
Now, I am writing this for the Moderates out there. I didn't have much time to plan this out; it just sort of came to me, so please bear with me if this doesn't make sense. Your church doctrines, or perhaps your own personal beliefs, indicate that the Bible isn't 100% true. Not to say that there is no truth in the philosophy, but that certain things, namely the six-day creation, are not historically accurate.
Most people, including the majority of Christians, believe that evolution is accurate. They believe it to be the process used by their god to create life and make it flourish. They believe he either guides the process or at least set it in motion, and that he occasionally intervenes (miracles, messiahs, etc.). If you think that God does not intervene, then you are a Liberal Christian; see above for religions more in line with your thinking.
At this point I would like to seriously apologize to all atheists who happen to be reading this. (*Clearing of throat*) I agree with the Fundamentalists: You can't think evolution is true and still be a Christian. Before the Moderates (and angry atheists) start chucking tomatoes at me, let me explain.
Christianity, by all objective accounts, provides the spiritual disease and the spiritual antidote. Sure, the whole Jesus dying for our sins part is integral, but why did he need to do it? Because all men are sinners, condemned to die. Why do we have this inherent curse? Because of Adam's and Eve's sin in the Garden of Eden. That's right, because human beings disrupted God's perfect creation. Women were condemned to have painful childbirth, men would have to work hard to grow crops, and human beings would have to die. We are all imperfect in God's eyes, and he could send us all to hell at his own discretion.
Does anyone see a contradiction here for the Moderate Christian? Is evolution fact, as science claims? If yes, then... Was there an Adam and Eve who sinned and therefore cursed all humans? If no, then... Why did Jesus sacrifice himself?
This may be a slight tangent that I'm going off on, but I find a fundamental incoherence in the theology of Christianity. God is forced to sacrifice himself (Jesus) to appease himself, for a problem (Original Sin) he created himself. Maybe if he didn't put the tree there, or the tempting serpent, then none of us would ever die.
What is all this Original Sin stuff I'm talking about? Well, there is a reason why certain denominations baptize infants. They are inherently sinful, just by being human. The baptism washes away all their sins (making them innocent) until they are old enough to know right from wrong, when finally they take communion, or get saved, or whatever (it varies with the denom.).
Original sin, in fact, is not a Jewish idea. No, the Jews view the eviction from Eden as the reason why man is separate from God, in the literal sense of physical separation. Paul, though, asserted the first real version of Original Sin. He used it as the explanation for how the Jesus sacrifice actually did something.
Back years ago, and perhaps today, the Jews thought that the messiah would come and lead them to victory, to independence, to a nation of their own in the promised land. It would be a monarchy, and the prophets said that once restored, it would never fade away. The royal lineage, it was supposed, would continue forever, or at least until the end times. (Note: End times prophecy is not a large part of Judaism. Christians seem to find much more "prophecy" in the Jewish books than the Jews do.)
There were lots of would-be messiahs running around. Most, like Jesus, were executed by Roman or local officials. Claiming to be the messiah, or having people say that you are, is tantamount to starting a rebellion. The very purpose of the messiah was to overthrow the rulers of Judah and Israel (in this case, the ruler was Rome).
I have not examined the evidence very much at all, so I won't make any assertions as to whether or not a person named Jesus actually existed. I'm up in the air on that one. What is for sure is that around the end of the first century CE there were numerous stories circulated about a man named Jesus. The authors said that he was the Messiah.
"Wait a minute," clamored the Jews,"we're still under foreign rule. Jesus was no messiah!" Paul, the first and greatest apologist, explained the divine purpose and reasoning for the Jesus sacrifice, managing to incorporate all of the Jewish predictions in a weird, convoluted way--that is, not literal. (Most notably, he concocted a road to spiritual salvation and liberation.) His explanations have become Christianity. Period. And his idea to make a clear prediction or statement into a metaphor is still the hallmark of modern Christian apologetics.
According to Paul and the core doctrine of Christianity, Jesus needed to "save" mankind from their inherent sinfulness. The problem is, without the Garden of Eden story we are left up in the air as to why we are sinful. And, for that matter, why God needed to sacrifice himself to appease himself.... As if that whole mess isn't confusing enough to begin with.
Call me old fashioned, but when someone dies for my sins, I expect that to mean something.