If one assumes God does not exist or play a role then the OP's observations are valid. If one assumes God does exists and plays a role then the OP's observations are invalid.

Need to clarify my statement. Just went back and read the OP -- he appears to want the game which is actually practiced, rather than the game as written, to be referred to as the "real game". I'm more the other way around. I'd probably set it up like this:

Hockey as played: Our bastardization of hockey

Hockey as based on our interpretation of written rules: Closer to true hockey, but still room for error.

Immutable normative concept of hockey: This is hockey. Some might play it correctly, or some more correctly than others, or maybe none do. Might be impossible to completely understand, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

but when discussing the merits of hockey, should one discuss the immutable concept of hockey that very few, if any, play, or the hockey that is played by 99% of people?

or when you are talking with hockey players, should you discuss hockey as they play it, or how its written in the rules that no one follows?

what does it mean to say, "he's a good hockey player."

I think God exists and plays a role and yet I still think there's a distinction between Christianity-as-practised and Christianity-as-written (by God). What am I missing?

The final judgement. Maybe God is going to give all those christians who did not practice Christianity as written (by God) a swift kick in the nuts.

Luckyme's point is still valid isnt it? When he criticises Christianity-as-practised it's a dodge to say "That's not what God's going to eventually reveal as Christianity". It doesn't matter - luckyme is objecting to Christianity-as-practised and the consequences of fostering it/allowing it to go unchallenged. I suspect from his perspective the tenets of Christianity-as-God-intends are irrelevant, since nobody lives by them so they don't have any impact on his life.

I don't think luckyme is really saying "which is the REAL hockey" so much as whichever one we're talking about - stick to it. As I mentioned above though, I can be dense with this stuff - I often think reasonable people must be advocating my own positions.

The forward approaches the goal, fondling the puck, he swings. The goalie drops to his lower left. Later, the goalie says " I believed it was going to go high right."
Which statement do you think was his actual belief, the one he made by his actions or the one he made which is contrary to his actions?

This is tangential to the OP but in the same " walks like a duck" approach we take in understanding the world.

The OP deals with the issue "what is christianity", I'm claiming it's like any other topic we study - christianity is the belief system practiced by christians. Hockey is the game we see on TV, those playing it are hockey players. Teaching is what teachers do in the classroom, not what some teachers college course says it is.

Well, both. We should try to get the hockey played by 99% of people closer to the immutable concept of hockey. Of course we may be somewhat incorrect about what hockey actually is, but we should at least try to divine hockey's nature through reflections upon the rule book.

Different hockey games will have different aspects of true hockey. If most hockey games are played incorrectly, we can still go play in a game that's played close to correctly, and talk about that one instead of the other hockey games.

And in all of this, we should recognize that playing hockey can be a good thing, as long as it has some elements of true hockey. But, we know as we play it that we always do it improperly to a degree, and will try to get better at playing it the right way with each new game.

The ultimate implication of my point is that it's improper to say something is wrong with "hockey" just because hockey players do something improperly. The players do not define hockey -- the game defines itself.

Yes, but wouldn't it be proper to say that hockey players themselves see something wrong with "hockey" because they all do something improperly? The players define what they consider "stupid rules" in hockey, and being people who are so close to hockey, and live and breath hockey, it seems safe to trust their judgement about the original hockey rules.

I understand this point, but it would elevate the importance of the player over the game. If the players can decide something is wrong with the true game, then what good is the immutable concept of hockey?

Well the NHL decides which rules to uphold and how to interpret more ambiguous rules. In no way are they saying that the game of hockey is wrong, its just that whoever wrote the original rules had no idea that it would be played in the 21st century, with 21st equipment and 21st century people. So the NHL just had to interpret the rules to fit a more modern player base.

And let's not forget the president of the NHL. He is given complete control to change, add, or remove from the rules, as long as he gets inspiration from the original inventor of hockey.

I have to state my disagreement with your generalization of what those who say hockey is wrong actually mean. Maybe YOU don't say hockey itself is wrong, but I encounter people who frequently speak against hockey itself because they say hockey has led to fights on the ice, hockey has led to the molestation of the young boys who assist the equipment manager, hockey has caused them to spend way too much money on soft pretzels when they go to watch the game (oh man I want a soft pretzel...anyway...), etc. Is it hockey that has caused these things, or what the players/refs/owners have done to hockey?

Also, I don't want to sidetrack this thread too badly with a debate on the authority of the NHL President (I believe the inventor of hockey directly told him about his rulemaking authority, but many would disagree; and, bear in mind, the NHL President can go play in his own hockey game, and he might play hockey incorrectly when he gets on the ice...it's only when he writes rules that he acts with authority, authority which he has refrained from exercising in many situations), but when we talk about what hockey players do, we're generally not talking about the NHL President. We talk about the players, the refs, the coaches, the owners who all might be screwing something up.