I have no objection in you picking out the antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible, I do however object calling the entire religion "poison" and as such provide counterclaims to what you say.
On the "antiquated and/or obsolete parts of the Christian bible" part, does this mean that to you the bible is not infallible? I know this varies from Christian group to group, (sect? not sure of correct terminology there, no offense meant) and I'm interested in which groups believe the bible is infallible and which do not.
Yes, I see some parts of the bible, specifically from the Old Testament, as obsolete, written for a time that passed long ago (considering the Old Testament was meant as a prophecy (also known as gospel) for the coming of Jesus Christ and the New Testament is considered as the Christian bible by most) and quite a lot as just not meant for literal interpretation (both from the Old and the New Testament). Technically, I don't belong to any group/sect/branch of Christianity, though still consider myself Christian. I used to be a Roman Catholic (the most popular religion in my country) but due to quite a few ideological differences and the ever present stagnation as time goes by I decided to just roll on my own, with a somewhat similar ideological basis to the branch I believed in. I don't specifically know which groups/sects/branches consider the entire bible (both Testaments) to be infallible, but I think this quite well describes the core beliefs of Christianity, while everything else is up to interpretation:
The central teachings of traditional Christianity are that Jesus is the Son of God, the second person of the Trinity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; that his life on earth, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension into heaven are proof of God's love for humanity and God's forgiveness of human sins; and that by faith in Jesus one may attain salvation and eternal life (see creed). This teaching is embodied in the Bible, specifically in the New Testament, but Christians accept also the Old Testament as sacred and authoritative Scripture.
Source:
http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/society/christianity-central-beliefs.htmlRather than "I believe" or "I know", my beliefs could be best described as "I don't care". That is: "Since an omnipotent god is by definition unprovable, I can't prove gods do or do not exist. However I have no interest in unfalsifiable propositions, and so do not care about/have no interest in gods and their religions".
That doesn't really fit into the two-axis belief system you've described, and I think generalising beliefs in such a way is likely to cause confusion by over-simplification.
Then it seems you lie on the agnosticism axis right in between theism and atheism. To be honest, that's better than any kind of gnosticism, be it religious or atheistic IMO.
