You took this completely out of context. I was responding to someone who was arguing for an objectively correct way to interpret Christian scripture that leads

You took this completely out of context. I was responding to someone who was arguing for an objectively correct way to interpret Christian scripture that leads to a set of behaviors that defines Christianity. I agree with most of your argument, and it's pretty similar to what I wrote. But: > Not really. Christianity is defined by the teachings of Christ "as we know them". How do you define "as we know them?" It seems to me that you're supposing that there's some "overall message" to Christianity that exists within the modern population of Christians. I don't agree with this, and I see no coherent way to discover what that message would be. But if you want to define a religion in this way, you have to take on that task. I think that Christianity should be defined by "what is practiced as Christianity today," within each community that sees itself as Christian. Therefore, my argument goes, there isn't a single coherent "Christendom." Instead, there exists a highly fragmented population of Christians, across which practices and beliefs significantly differ. My argument is that none of these Christian communities is any more correct than the others. I think that's a pretty mainstream interpretation of modern Christianity. I don't think I'm really reaching here.