- Always try to view things from the other person's side. Every single time. I hardly ever get mad at people because of this. Why? Those people are just other versions of me (long story). People do get mad at me if I apply this to people they are mad at.
Don't need no religious basis for that, but ok.
- Try to do good. Where "good" is: what would Jesus do. He wouldn't kill, even in self defense, he wouldn't discredit, gossip, spread rumours, talk bad about people. He got mad only once. I'm still having trouble turning the other cheek, though. It's hard, but I'm trying.
You already said that you pick and choose from the bible according to what sounds sensible to you, right? So in that sense, it's perfectly fine to take Jesus as a role model if you think the guy was a good guy. But the question is what makes something "good" or "bad", and clearly you're actually using criteria to judge that which themselves do not come from the bible.
- Be respectful to other people's beliefs, however ridiculous they may seem. After all, every crazy guy that sais A, has an equal chance of being right as the 6 billion others who say B, because "absolutely right" is not determinable.
Fine in principle, but it depends what you mean with "respect". Because while you might want to respect people's belief a priory, clearly you do judge them nevertheless, as you have already stated that some things are simply wrong (like murder etc.).
Again, if someone does bad things based on his belief, how are you convince him to do otherwise without questioning his belief? You make it sound like you're perfectly accepting of everyone's belief, but in practice that just doesn't work.
When children in Africa get killed because they are 'witches', then the way to go against this is convince people that witches don't exist. Period. According to you, you would say "hey if that's what they believe! I don't care about evidence, and I couldn't prove that these kids are not witches after all, so it's fine by me!". Who are we to judge their belief, right?
Or to get back to the circumcision example:
And it once again shows my problem: Why can't they (the atheists-except-micro) let someone be wrong? Just... let it. If they bother you, tell them what bothers you. So if someone wants to circumcise his son, and you think that's childmolesting, tell him it's childmolesting, not that his entire faith is based on bullcrap.
So I'm telling him that it's "childmolesting" (or whatever), and then he tells me "but this is what god wants". And then what? There's no way I can convince him otherwise unless I question the basis of his belief, which is that the bible is god's word. And of course we can pick an example that's much worse than circumcision, that's not the point. For example, hacking of the hands of a thief in (certain forms of) Islam. How are you going to argue against this practice without arguing against the belief it's based on? Especially if it is inherent to the belief that these rules are not to be questioned, as they are god's words?
Your attitude of being accepting of other's beliefs is laudable in principle, but is totally naive and unrealistic in practice when people's beliefs have an actual impact on the word. Also, I have the impression you're defending a position you're not actually taking yourself, because again, in practice you do seem to judge others.