So basically what you're saying is that the areligious folks here argue against a type of Christianity that is almost completely absent here?
No? Just trying to help you understand why folks bring up the subjects like they do (regular exposure, to a fair degree), and why they don't talk terribly much about the more moderate stuff (not really all that much
to talk about, heh). Then there's TD1's point.
You'll also note it's not exactly absent, here, and the position is being (and has been) brought up pretty regularly in conversation by believers of varying degrees, not just other folks. S'also not like there's no conversation to be had talking to believers that aren't literalists re: how they reconcile their beliefs with the other sets of interpretation.
*And really not that common around the world either. Hell, even the Vatican accepts historical criticism as a valid theological tool!
Vatican's a long way from the states (where a good chunk of the catholic population outright rejects the vatican's authority), and pretty distant from africa and south america, too, where most of the christian populations are, heh. It's really damn common, just less so in (parts of) europe.
Like I said, from what I understand it's worse in SA and Africa than it is in the US, and in the US there's a lot of places you keep your mouth shut if you're not at least willing to
act like a biblical literalist. Fair number of areas in this world where claiming the bible's a guideline in any sense or criticizing it in any way is a good way to get yourself socially ostracized (in the "good luck finding a job" sense), at
best.