But perhaps "cafeteria" Christians are the best kind. They reinterpret and adapt the religion to fit their own inherent beliefs rather than molding themselves into the Bible's extremism. They find the idea of harming children to be shocking, so those parts of the Bible have to go. Same with those about mobs stoning people to death at the instigations of religious courts or judges and support for slavery. Likewise ridiculous prohibitions. In all cases, religion gives way to their better natures rather than the other way around. Religion can only make good people do bad things if they let it, and not all of them do.
Good for them.
"cafeteria christians" may hold opinions that are less objectionable than fundamentalists, just as 'moderate' muslims may hold beliefs less objectionable than radical muslims. The problem is that they provide a reasonable face for unreasonable beliefs. The difference between the fundamentalists and their more 'moderate' brethren is not that they hold different beliefs, but that they truly believe that which the moderates only give lip service to. The moderates provide the water that the fundamentalist sharks swim in. They perpetuate the beliefs that the fundamentalists latch onto. They may not act on the beliefs, but if you ask moderates if they reject any part of the bible, you will get a lot of gobbledygook about allegory, metaphor,'jesus changed all that', but you won't get a clear repudiation of the evil. As long as the beliefs are around, there will always be people who latch on and actually fervently believe them, not just pay lip service to them, and will act on them.