|
happydolphin said: Hehe, well if they tasted the pudding and didn't like it, there's nothing I can say against that. However in your OP you talk about people who make a Christianity that suits their tastes, and though there is lee-way in religion, some have fundamental points that can't really be chosen and picked. It makes a whole new religion. In OP you concluded that religion is what you make it to be, but I refuse to accept that the person tasted and experimented the religion as it was intended if they go ahead and change things around as they please. That's what I meant by the proof is in the pudding. There's pretty much just one pudding per religion, those who make something new based on those puddings are making, well, something new. To see if the religion is valid based on the experience of practicing it while choosing and picking parts and leaving others out isn't really an honest way to go about discovering what the religion itself really is about. |
Bolded: How about a homosexual person who agrees with pretty much all general Jewish teachings but can't imagine a life where they have to suppress their true feelings? Would you refuse to accept that that person tasted the religion as it was intended yet wasn't pleased with it`and wanted to make changes?
Rest: The point of this thread wasn't to see if a religion was valid based on people picking or removing parts of existing religions. On the contrary I asked why they would do so and actually find the end result believable when the chances of their new creation to be correct are nonexistent. The initial "recipes" were left out from the discussion. (<--- though were touched in a slightly off-topic discussion)
