Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Delicate]

What exactly in your post is supposed to be a problem for me, and why?

I'm not very impressed with "we honestly don't care what you believe except when you influence our cultures." It doesn't seem to speak to the question of whether if Christianity is true, it ought to influence culture or not. Same for the question of whether one cares about what Christians believe.

You claim other Christians make different claims other than "core claims". But this is exactly my point, and that non-core diversity is not problematic. As for your claim that Orthodoxy came to dominate the religion by force, so what? Isn't what matters in the end the question of whether this orthodoxy is true or not, rather than that it took over? Likewise with the view of settled theology. Sure there are different views, but so what? As long as this view is meritorious, who cares?

I'm seeing a lot of rhetoric here, but no real arguments. What is your argument?

I thought it was obvious; my apologies. I was saying that I, too, think that non-core diversity is non-problematic, except when speaking about particular issues that arise from Christian culture's influence on individuals or in our society, a topic which frequently arises here because it's the part we're forced to care about most. If Christians were content to practice their religious beliefs in absolute privacy and "better" only their own lives as a result, I'm sure most of us would be content to never discuss it, and it's quite possible that boards like ours would be unnecessary. Meanwhile, here in the real world, such definitions do influence us, so they do matter, and we will discuss them. Learn to cope with this basic fact.

If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation. However, I'd like to see more people acting as if the teachings of Jesus, not Paul or the Old Testament, mattered most... but again, that's just a matter of practical living.

That said, the above is a huge "IF". Many of us are quite happy to discuss issues we see in your core doctrines, such as what Abaris just raised about problems fitting the literalist version of your faith into a billions-of-years-old planet, in which we humans feature as a mere moment of that history, of the problem of "free gift" salvation that is effectively at gunpoint, the issues of things the "eternal" God-as-moral-lawgiver supposedly wants from us (according to the faithful) which seem so obviously to be the prejudices of the Bronze Age which we find to be immoral by modern standards, or the issues in general with the moral concept of vicarious salvation. We do talk about all of that, so your contentions here about "core" beliefs seem to be somewhat lacking.

In fact, name a "core" belief, and we'll show you a group that disagrees with it, all within your own faith (especially if we include the heretics who have been wiped out throughout history, which is why I pointed to the issue of Orthodoxy's violent and suppressive rise to the top), likely in a discussion we've had right here on this board. I know you think they are simply wrong, but the point is that they hold those views of the "true core of the faith" as strongly as you hold your own views, and you cannot all be right. If you would like to make a case for why your particular version is right, we'd love to have that conversation...

...but as I said, just sitting back and saying "none of you atheists get it" is disingenuous and contemptible.

Your response creates an interesting set of conundrums for atheists.

Firstly, your view that "If Christianity is true, then it still should not influence culture, as this is a secular nation." This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what secularism is, and its status in the light of the truth of Christianity. Secularism does not entail that religion should have no influence on culture. Rather, strictly speaking, secularism entails that religion should have no influence on the state. This means governance should not be influenced by religion. It says nothing of culture in general, and secularism of the state is perfectly compatible with a highly religious, and highly-religiously-expressive citizenry. So you're operating under an idiosyncratic definition of secularism.

Second, if Christianity is true, then it must be true that there is an afterlife, so to speak. And one's well-being in the afterlife and relationship with God is of utmost importance. Someone who concedes that Christianity is true (even for the sake of argument), will have to concede (once again, for the sake of argument) that the latter two theological notions follow. In fact, one might make the claim that it is an ethical obligation to care for one's afterlife and relationship with God. Thus for an atheist to hold that Christianity is true AND Christianity ought not to have any influence on society is unethical and irresponsible towards one's citizenry, to the same extent that preventing people from access to healthcare and freedom, and the pursuit of happiness would be unethical and irresponsible in our current system.

So there are two big problems for your view: Secularism doesn't entail what you believe it does, and you are endorsing an unethical and irresponsible position that harms the citizenry. What can you do to resolve these two problems? Here are what seems to be your two options:

1) You either affirm the view that religion should have no influence on culture (perhaps you can call this view hypersecularism, as it is much stronger than conventional secularism), or you can reject the view that religion should have no influence on culture, and endorse ordinary secularism.

2) You have to either reject ethics (in which case you are permitted to harm the citizenry by constraining Christian cultural influence even if it is true), or you can affirm ethics and allow a cultural place for Christianity, given its truth.

There are more questions to raise, obviously. One concerns the worth of secularism in a world where Christianity is true. Another is the question of the reason and evidence motivating secularism in the real world. Yet another is the question of what normative standards are being assumed without argument when one says Christianity ought not x, culture and society ought to y, etc. 

But I like to keep the conversation short and snappy, so I'll end it here.