Inventing a Universal Hybrid Religion

A stranger at our Christmas party offered me a fascinating spiritual insight.

I had been discussing spiritual matters with family members and we were comparing notes on various religious worldviews.
It was a very thoughtful and engaging conversation, though we did not agree on certain essentials.
For example, I believe we can enter into an eternal relationship with God through His Grace - His willingness to offer unconditional love and forgiveness, asking only that we believe on the name of His Son Jesus - who died on the cross to pay my sin penalty.
In that light, Christianity is a gift to receive, and not a prize to earn.
Others shared worldviews that were based on merit, or "works" that, if balanced heavier in the "good" over a lifetime would tilt a higher power's scales toward salvation. We also discussed the definition(s) of salvation.
And of course, another option was to believe in no god at all, and simply do good for good's sake.

Drawing clarity and distinction between the worldviews as we did made it easier to see that they are indeed different. You cannot believe one and then the other at the same time. We agreed that people have the right to choose their worldview, and we accept friends/family who believe differently than we do.

That's where the stranger spoke up. He did not subscribe to any of the particular spiritual beliefs we mentioned. In fact, he chafed at the notion of having to choose from our proposed alternatives.
"Why not take the things that you can all agree on and build from there?"

I hear and read that a lot. It's proposed by popular entertainers, bloggers, politicians and songwriters.
It has an innocent ring of neutrality and inclusiveness. Combine the "best" so we can all agree without division.
But who decides the "best?" That's the rub.
In the versions of this that I've come across, the best ideas are benign and universal. Do good, don't steal, don't kill and respect others.
But the same people who would include these concepts of good would also exclude anything uniquely spiritual. For example, you cannot name a god of any definition. Perhaps a personal and unnamed "higher power" could be invoked, but they say that begrudgingly and with the disparaging aside that "some people need that for comfort..."

In the end, what the stranger at our gathering proposed was simply to add a distinct and separate worldview. Call it the "greatest hits" worldview, combining what he liked best of other belief systems and excluding what he disliked. Most notably disliked, I surmised, was the accountability of a Living God.
The stranger, or anyone else, can call the greatest hits approach benign and neutral, but I believe it is a slippery slope. Sooner or later when you take away the Spiritual insights and guidance of a loving God, you end up making choices that are selfish and self-serving. Ironically, that's when the benign neutrality hurts somebody else.
You've a free choice subscribing to that worldview, but I don't recommend it.

What do you believe?