A lot of it sounds like they didn't actually understand what they believed, so when they were confronted with alternate worldviews they couldn't defend their traditions. A little more of it sounds like they simply didn't have a good enough "safety net" ie. a community in which they could be supported or a mentor to whom they could express these doubts without discomfort.
didn't actually understand what they believed
And I think that's why a lot of people tend to be less religious nowadays. Religion isn't meant to be fully understood, and many people don't like that. In the world we live in, everyone wants definitive answers. 2 + 2 = 4. The Moon is 238,900 miles from Earth. Religion on the other hand, is always up to interpretation. What does the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of good and evil about? Religion is what you make of it, and most people don't want to put in the extra effort to figure out what it means for them. To me, being a Christian is a form of solace. I find peace knowing that I'm know the greatest thing in the universe and that the greatest thing (God) has got my back.
That's true now, yes. Religion has gotten very feel-good in that way. When it was written though, it, too, was supposed to be definitive answers (And for a lot of matters remains so). There's no misinterpreting the 10 commandments for example, seeing how around half of them are about worshipping one true God and that all other gods are false. It was written by men who lived in a scary world that seemed to make no sense, which lacked any inherent justice, and for which there was no explanation of our presence. So they attributed it to God and wrote the stories He allegedly told them. Adam and Eve was supposed to be a literal story explaining humans - a myth. The story of Job is a myth to explain why bad things happen to seemingly good people, and the tower of Babel is a myth to explain languages. They are also moralistic stories as well, and incidentally over time we have shed the mythic nature of them because we have pretty good explanations of a lot of what the stories tried to explain. But we retained the moral explanations behind them, and reinterpreted them to fit our modern world. Although, that may also just be what I make if it, and if it's what you find solace in then you have to follow your interpretation. I would like to at least play devil's advocate and suggest that most people do put a lot of effort to figure out what philosophy and existence mean to them. There's more to think about than just religion, and people can find the answers to their life questions not from the likes of Jesus, Mohammed, or Buddha but also from Confucius, Socrates, Immanuel Kant, and Bertrand Russell.Religion on the other hand, is always up to interpretation. What does the story of Adam and Eve eating the fruit of good and evil about?
Although, that may also just be what I make if it
I would agree with you in that your explanation above is simply how you individually view it. However I do agree with you that They are all moralistic stories. Regardless of if these stories happened or not, they speak what I believe to be truth as to how we are meant to live. And that's all that really matters. And you're right. A person could get all their answers from great philosophers. I'm not trying to put one over the other in this regard. Where I think religion though has a benefit it that if I'm not mistaken, all of them take into account the afterlife. But that's an entirely different discussion.
I don't mean for this to come off as disrespectful or rude, but I disagree with that mentality wholeheartedly. I believe that from mystery comes innovation and growth. Again no disrespect, but how do you aspire to do anything without a desire for mystery?
Mystery should not be seen as an excuse never to question-- in that, I would agree with Tim Minchin. What I dislike about that approach is that the material and empirical try to claim the immaterial and ideal. The material is incredibly important, and I don't wish to deny that; however, the material is not all of reality. The material is simply what can be observed empirically. Different tools must be used for different aspect of reality, and the best tool we have for the immaterial is not empiricism.
I maintain that reality contains the immaterial, not necessarily existence. Existence as a term forces us into a certain understanding of the world, which would not necessarily include Reality. I would agree that there is no such thing as the immaterial in your eyes, as your (and my!) eyes can only perceive the material. However, I have experienced certain.... unquantifiable things that are [currently] best expressed through spiritual terms. Maybe one day we'll discover exactly how the the brain works in its totality. Until then, it is reasonable for me to express my experiences in an immaterial fashion.
I don't deny that everyone should always question. I agree completely with that. But what I'm saying is that I believe that no matter how many questions we answer, there will and should always be a sense of mystery within ourselves to drive us forward.
not mystery, but the love of God that overflows and spills over. In the Tanakh, a prophet (Jeremiah) complains that God's Word burns his fire like bones and that he cannot keep his mouth shut. The mystery of God is to be appreciated, but it is not our sole motivator (although it certainly can be!)
I like the way you speak. While I agree that it shouldn't be the sole motivator, I believe it should be at the heart of all motivation.
I saved this to watch when I can devote more time to it.
I grew up Protestant, in the Salvationist tradition. I'm still heavily influenced by their emphasis on Social Justice, but I find that the core of my doctrine is more easily identifiable with that of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox. I'm currently with the Salvation Army
Hmm, that's very interesting. Any Eastern Orthodox in specific?
I don't know that I've ever met anyone who believed real presence in the eucharist. So you to it's the real deal and not a metaphor?
Most of Christendom does. I don't know the specifics, but what I do know is that it's holy. Early Church writers held strongly to it, and you can find it in all of the ancient churches today-- never mind that the Eucharist as "symbolic" only arose during the 16th century. That's evidence enough for me.
That's really very interesting. To clarify then, you believe when you take communion that it's actually Christ's flesh and blood? I don't mean to sound rude if I do come off that way. I'm just very interested.
I'm extremely fascinated by this. So you don't believe that the early church had any flawed views? I mean, if you look at the pharisees, they definitely had some misinterpretations about what the Bible meant.
The Pharisees weren't Christian; the Apostles spent time with Jesus (y'know, God). If I can't trust the early church to be right on these matters, I can trust no one. I don't know if the early church was flawed or not, but I have to trust that the Holy Spirit led them.
I commend you and am very impressed by your diligence. Keep it up and I hope you have a very happy life!