Well, I guess the issue people have is that Muslims also believe that Jesus was directed by some "higher being". The main difference between Islam and Christianity is that Christians believe Jesus was literally the "Son of God' where Mulism view both Jesus and Mohammed as prophets (merely "messengers" of Gods teachings). So I would not class you as a "Christian' in the strictest sense!
I think I get the idea that you've read the Bible and find lot so of things there you can understand and relate to. I do not think religions hold sway over moral values, but I certainly understand that many people may want to express their moral/ethical position as being similar to the Christian values in the Bible (even if they disagree with some of them).
Honestly to me it sounds more like you are trying to look for a way to express that you find the basic "Christian" values, and some of the beliefs therein, close enough to your background and thoughts to say "I am roughly about this kind of area".
I think we all like to believe there may be some higher order and purpose to the universe. We console ourselves in different ways to this problem of our questioning human nature. I find the biggest problem is that many people who say they are "Christian" cannot really outline the kind of God they say they believe in. Some can. To me it doesn't really sound like you are describing a Deity but more of a universal rule. My own opinion here is obviously weighing in because I can interpret other views which I do not hold and reconcile them to my own view of existence.
What you have laid out sounds much closer to Buddhism than to Christianity.
Now the problem I do believe that there is a higher power which directed the creation and order of our universe. I call that thing God.
But not higher "consciousness"? So you are expressing something, whatever it is, rather than an actual Deity. Even Hinduism stretches into this area, hence why Buddhism was birthed from it. They say "Brahma", which is not really a "Deity" per say, but rather a universal "force/entity". The confusion in understanding this is trying to appreciate how this "Brahma" is represented in many forms (numerous so called "gods"). It does not take a genius that these gods represent many different facets of human psychology and action, including war, death, birth, fertility, wisdom, etc.,.
If someone was to pin me down I would say I am Christian, Buddhism, Muslim, Taoist, Hindu, etc., and that it is a matter of how I console these various interpretations of wise (or otherwise!) and ancient sages that defines what I am. Given that in the Western world own cultural foundation is mostly based on Christian "traditions" (with obvious symbiosis with other pagan traditions brought into the cultural fold of the collective "Christian" ideal and geopolitical climate) we are all, atheist, theist or anti-theist, ALL entwined in a Judeo-Christian background in our language, science and political stance, generally speaking.
The problem of posting online is you don't know what others think about religion and others don't know your position. If you say "god" it is going to create a certain reaction in certain people. I try my hardest not to look at such utterings as meaning what you say above, because many Christians are rational and will get offended if harassed by trying to rationalize their beliefs (which by definition do not adhere to rationalization and are quite personal). Then there are those that wish to preach their "truth" as "The truth". Those are the ones that cause the most difficulty on forums for everyone be they religious or not.
I really enjoyed your post and hope many people read it. The simplistic answer from me is that in philosophical discussions you simply have to explain the details of your position if the topic comes up. Labels are merely there to help us get a general idea of what you mean. I think it is reasonable for you to say that you have a Christian upbringing/background (?) and that it is embedded in your cultural community, yet when it comes to defining "god" you're unable to adhere to more traditionalist views of "god" and that it is more of a placeholder, much like figuring out what we are doing in our lives and what we think is best, is a ongoing progression/digression (?) of being human.
My biggest annoyance in this topic is people calling themselves "atheist" when they are really "anti-theist". I have issues with "anti-theists" because they are pushing another idealistic notion of how people should behave and what they should believe. At the same time I also understand that rationalists want to fight against the institution of religion in general and its negative impacts in areas such as human rights, education and isolationism.
If you're not discussing theology just don't bring up the topic of "god" and religion unless it helps as a metaphor/analogy of the subject at hand. It is quite difficult to do this though but it can help curb the discussion from going off the rails like you mention.
To sum up, just say 'I equate myself with Chiristian traditions yet don't adhere to the more irrational views of some Christians in regards to science and rationalism. Just to be clear being religious does not mean you are incapable of rational discourse. Sadly there are people online who are religious who generally give others a bad name by their inept grasp on what warrants a logical and reasonable discussion rather than appealing to Biblical references. In ethics religion is a very rich topic. Historically religion was essentially humanities first communal "law giver". We learnt from nature what kills us and what doesn't and from there looked to unseen rules of nature to find a way to coexist and prosper on Earth (an ongoing project!)