I'm personally very thankful that so many religious people have found a way to satisfy themselves with titles and rituals and drop the cannon I find so objectionable. That the direction I'd like to keep going in. But what in this thread has been dubiously called the Hayden Fry god is not the same as the biblical god. I think that's on very firm ground.
Agreed. Having said that, the traditional denominations that are dying quickly should immediately start putting murals of local sports heroes on their buildings if they want to survive. Hayden Fry sanctuary... Nick Saban Chapel... Joe Paterno Cathedral... that's brilliant marketing right there.
Christianity is an idea, not controlled by a book. Even the history of the books show that as there have been discussions, changes, admissions and omissions on what stories to pass along throughout history.
Most Christians do agree on the rules, that's why there are congregations and creeds. Religion is not as nebulous as you make out. Google it, they are sure about their own rules and beliefs. If you have a beef right and wrong it's would be with them.
I am ignoring individuals and sects. I'm stating what the bible says. Do you think it says something different. Feel free to make that case. This is a silly objection.
Really this should be obvious. I'm not speaking in riddles. You are trying too hard to make this interesting. Perhaps your knowledge of religion is lacking. But it's not a controversial point that the book of genesis has a story about how god gave man languages. That book is held by two major religions to be the word of their deity. That deity is portrayed in the book the religions draw their theology from as an involved god. A non involved god concept belongs to a different religion called deism. These are commonly held facts. If you disagree, you will need to support your position. I have presumption as I am presenting the mainstream view on the topic.
