though to be fair some religionists do think some of their rivals are mostly right when they are feeling ecumenical. A little apostasy is okay when politically expedient.

...

Leaves me lots of wiggle room.

That must make your feed awfully crowded, I'd think.

as long as I follow DU.

I see no wiggle room here. Just a rock and a hard place.

I found a loop hole for that too.

You ignore whichever one of them you like the least.

Then there are various Sects to all major religions that disagree on dogma. So, why not pick what you can use and ignore the rest.

You're following parts of religions.

...some religions.

All the extinct ones are ignored, apriori, regardless of intent.

I only pick the good parts.

You don't. You take what you like and discard the rest. And I'm willing to bet you're discarding a shitload more than you're taking.

I have found good and bad in all of them. You disagree?

Is there something you can't get otherwise?

There are really two types of Christians of concern to DU:

1) Conservative,.evangelical Christians. Who believe Christianity and only Christianity is true.

2) Modern, ecumenist Christians, like Guil. Who suggest there is some truth in all or most religions,."faith"s.

Both should be opposed by atheists of course. Though the second group is a tiny bit broader-minded in some ways, it is still very wrong. In some ways in fact, it is worse than the first.

But the second group IS more liberal. And is halfway to atheism. In that it has questioned its own religion,.Christianity, at least to a degree. And wants to move on to something broader-minded.

In my own exit from religion, I went from the first group, to the second. And then into atheism.

Since they are halfway to atheism, I sometimes spend time talking to ecumentists. Like apparently, Guil. In the hope that they will take the next step.

It is difficult dealing with them though. Since there are SOME points of agreement. They basically are somewhat liberal, democratic.

So I can't disagree with their liberalism, their arguments against narrow Christianity. Except to suggest maybe that they just haven't taken it far enough?

Any suggestions on the best strategies here?

We're allowed to berate people for buying products produced in sweatshops, driving the wrong kind of car, and drinking through plastic straws... but to suggest that giving tacit support to backward, archaic, and morally unreliable systems of belief is in any way problemmatic is just downright intolerant.

Or so I'm told.