I think the basic moral lession of the new testiment is exactly what jesus preached "love your fellow man, do good even when it's hard, and love god with all your heart." those are good lessons.
Perfect example! I see this a lot. Now lets pretend you are a devout Christian. I ask this to you completely honestly, and am in no way attacking your faith, your beliefs, or you personally. Why should I love God?
There is a valid question, and almost every time I've seen it posed, it's been met with circular logic, and eventually the contradictions pop up. Like, if I bring forward something God really dropped the ball on, or something really horrible that I couldn't love someone for, I get a reason why that doesn't matter any more, or that it's been misinterpreted.
How do I interpret it?
Where's the amendment?
How do I find the valid verses?
Why would I believe one verse, when another can just be ignored?
When you say 'this is the basics', there is still holes, massive holes, which absolutely MUST be addressed in order for some people to even approach the topic, let alone accept God as their Lord.
So even when you cherry pick the nice bits and arrange them together into a minimalistic, nice, modern day friendly version of the Bible, tailored to convert a person who has lived in a cell underground all their life with no access to the outside world, it's still fatally flawed. We absolutely have the right, and the responsibility, to [Scientific Terms]question the fuck out of this crap[/Scientific Terms]
To condense all that, to go easy on religious agendas is not something we should do, and it absolutely should not be considered an attack. They are not special, and should be treated as rigorously as any proposed concept. If a scientist wants to tell me that fairies hold us to the ground and that we should measure gravity in fairy dust, I fully expect that theory to be tested, tossed and immolated. Why should a religious concept be treated any differently?