Its not really inconsistency given that a direct, literal translation of the Bible results in contradictions. Like all things, it depends on taking what the Bible says within context. There might be cases where a literal translation is accurate and other where a figurative interpretation is required. This really applies to all works of literature....not just the Bible. This is why you have scholars who devote their lives trying to determine what the Bible means.

A simple example is that the meaning of words change over time, hence, you have to consider what the Bible meant when it was written....not what it means in modern times.....needless to mention the translation problems as well.

Why? If it helps someone find meaning in their life and overcome problems they encounter, I think it has intrinsic value in itself, regardless of whether their belief is ultimately justified.

What meaning can religion provide that can't be attained through nonreligious methods?

I didn't say it can't be achieved other ways......Maybe it can, maybe it can't, but if it works for them, its fine with me. If you are trying to find meaning in your life, and you find something that helps you make sense of the world, I wouldn't particularly blame someone if they decided to follow that path. I mean....happiness is hard enough to find. As long as they aren't harming others or society, which a personal belief in God should not do, I don't have a problem with them following that belief.

Just for reference, I'm thinking primarily of William James Varieties of Religious Experience

the belief in god is interpreted differently just like we have different cultures of people, and they see god differently. america has different religions for the same god, and that my friends makes no sense.

Hey The1. Some say that the proof is in the pudding. My question is, how to test the pudding if you're making a whole different recipe?

If the bible says homosexuality is amoral, and a person pretends to try out the teachings of God but rejects that teaching, how can they test the effects of the bible's teachings in their life?

If the bible says that the creation gives testimony of its creator, yet the person insists to believe a different thing than what the bible says, how can they say they actually tasted the pudding?

How about that person actually tasted the pudding, didn't like it, and removed the ingredients that messed up the flavor?

(I'll be honest, I have no idea of what you are trying to say :P )

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)

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.