I think there's a point there - if you really have integrated skepticism and doubt into your Christianity, then surely you've come to the conclusion that the miracles and divinity of Jesus - even the very authenticity of the statements he's supposed to have made - aren't supported by any evidence; and if that's so, in what sense can you be said to be a "Christian"?
I don't know. It is a valid question that can probably be asked to myself, jar, arach, etc. You are picking up on the exact theme that I was trying to convey to Archer. My definition of moderate does not include myself, jar, arch, and other examples of people on this board. I am with buzsaw on this one in saying that we are probably better catagorized as extreme liberal Christians or not even Christians at all. In fact, I explicitly do not meet the conditions that Harris iterates as defining a Christian in Letter to a Christian Nation let alone a moderate variety of that.
I'll post that later when I get home.
IIRC there was the following minimum condition:
1. Belief in the divinity of Christ.
2. Belief that the Bible is the inspired work of God.
3. Belief in the virgin birth of Christ.
4. Belief that only faith in Christ's divinity will buy you a ticket to heaven.
I fail on at least 2 of those 4. I can concieve that jar fails on at least one of them.
Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)