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. |
I would agree with this. I think people can probably agree on the main points of Christianity (things like God created the universe, Jesus's teachings are good, etc.). Its really the details that people disagree about, but the details are important. Just for instance, Steinbeck's East of Eden is a great example of the point (the free-will v. determinism debate), and the disagreement in the book hinges on the translation of a single word in the Bible.
