In a short sentence.....I'll summarize....<quoted text>I had for al practical purposes left the faith at one point. When I returned, I started over from scratch to come to my own understanding. I kept the beliefs that were taught to me I found to be biblically sound and discarded the beliefs I felt were not.
But before I did that, there were parts of the Bible i was not 100% on and whether it did indeed harmonize. There seemed to be on a surface level some contradictions between Paul and the gospels and there were some verses in particular I wanted to authenticate. I came across certain things like Peter was a first-hand witness, that the difference in writing styles from 1Peter and 2Peter could be because Peter had Silas help him write the first book, and in learning all the scripture found Paul and the gospels to harmonize. There was more of a focus on Grace than obedience but there are still plenty of verses by Paul that stress the need to remain faithful and obedient.
But I bring that up to get into this next part. When someone questioned by faith I said it was important to me to ensure I am following the Word of God. And until that requirement was satisfied, how in good conscience could i continue? But I asked this person that even though I saw no way this would happen, what if hypothetically someone how it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that a small portion of the Bible was fabricated, would it change their beliefs on that particular portion? They said no. I asked how that would be if they knew that part was not the Word of God? They said they had gone this long in their life believing a certain thing and they were comfortable in that belief and would not change it
I found that interesting. And it made it easier to understand why some people will not even consider that an interpretation taught to them may be wrong. And I am not suggesting that somehow is proof my interpretations are correct simply because I use a higher standard of proof IMO. I could still be wrong. But how can anyone assume their teachers were infallible? Now if someone has continued on in their own study and feel they have confirmed what they have been taught that is one thing. But I think there are a lot of people who have basically rested on the first pass through. Whatever they were taught is what they have believed and they not only have never questioned it, they have never confirmed it on their own.
Obviously I find that troubling. But I would have no trouble leaving it to each their own except some are the same people looking to disparage anywhere from individual Christians to entire denominations. Yet someone who does this says how dare you try to get him to question his faith? While taking it upon himself to invalidate hundreds of thousands of believers. It is what it is I guess
We choose to believe what we do through the use of ourSelves as the litigators to those beliefs.
No "God" is involved. No religion is involved.
Only you are.
Disregarding this aspect of human life is why people belief in invisible gods and hand-me-down stories.
But like history has already revealed - what we thought was accurate history, is actually only the accurate history we thought was complete, until additional discoveries have been made to change that history.
We are seeing it all the time.
Here is a perfect example......artifacts discovered under a Mayan temple that clearly do not have Mayan culture aspects.