Are you an ex Christian?

Anniebach earlier you said you did not believe in the Virgin birth or red sea, I haven't read all replies so perhaps it has been answered, but I just wanted to ask if you knew that both Krishna and Zoroaster were said to have been the result of virgin births, BEFORE Jesus. It was a use of symbolism to show that they were born of spirit from God even as we are promised that we can be born again in gthe spirit if we believe in Jesus.
As far as the red sea goes, there is a tv program that looks at biblical events and shows how they could have been real, like the plagues of Egypt and parting of the dead sea. They are all logically explanable, the miracle is in the timing.
A religion has to use imagery and parables to speak to its followers, because they are often uneducated and incapable of grasping eternal truths.
What makes a belief system last for thousands of years and have followers all over the world, if not for the divine inspiration behind it - even if that is all but lost over the years? We do not find communities of followers of the philosophers like Plato or Socrates etc. even though they spoke a lot of common sense.

starbird, I didn't say I did not believe in the virgin birth or the Red Sea, I asked does it matter if one does not believe?

annie of course it is a matter of choice- but it always did seem strange to me, to see people who could have walked to our lovely Church, get in the car to go to next village, and then have cars parked everywhere coming from the other villages. So many time too people made comments like 'I don't believe anymore because I don't like the new Vicar' or word to that effect.

About the Virgin birth or the parting of the Sea- and whether it does matter. I don't know, truly, but then where do you put the line at what does, or does not matter. The Catholics are supposed to believe that communion is the body and blood of Christ, most other Christians do not. 1000s were tortured and died for the difference in the past. The Trinity? Whether Jesus was the Son of God? Is there not a limit beyond which being a Christian loses its true meaning?

Genuine question- I am sincerely interested. Trans-substantiation is still very much part of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

Granjura, it doesn't seem strange to me , it's what people do, for what ever reasons it's their choice , I have never met one person who has said they have lost their faith in God because they don't like a priest . I know quite a few Roman Catholics who lost trust in the church when the abuse of children was made public but not their faith in God. God isn't a building, or a priest or a member of a church

I cannot speak for members of the RC Church, as an Anglican I accept the sacrament represents the body and blood of Christ ,

Faith is so personal I cannot speak for one other Christian and say what could or would cause loss of faith .

Thank you for your reply Annieb. I agree with you, and always found it strange that people continue to believe, or stop- because of what a Priests has said or done. Hence my question.

A very large number of Catholics do not believe in trans-substantiation- but are clearly still told by the Vatican that they are wrong to doubt. Same about contraception, etc.

And of course, the Bishop of Durham did create quite a stir, didn't he (quote):

'A third of Church of England clergy doubt or disbelieve in the physical Resurrection and only half are convinced of the truth of the Virgin birth, according to a new survey.

The poll of nearly 2,000 of the Church's 10,000 clergy also found that only half believe that faith in Christ is the only route to salvation.

While it has long been known that numerous clerics are dubious about the historic creeds of the Church, the survey is the first to disclose how widespread is the scepticism.

Few bishops would now share the views of the former Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev David Jenkins, who caused a scandal in the 1980s when he contrasted the Resurrection with a "conjuring trick with bones".'

So I am just wondering where the 'cut off' line is. Many Christians will say that believing in the resurrection is key. I personally would agree with the Bishop of D that it is a symbol rather than a physical reality. But many would say this is heresy. Coming from me, it probably is as I am not a believer. But from an Anglican Bishop?

An Anglican Bish is free to express his doubts and beliefs , because Durham said what he did doesn't make it true , it's an opinion be reached after much reading, thinking, discussion, questioning and pray .

As to a cut off point, there isn't one ,

For you Annieb, this is probably true as you are very open-minded- For RC catholics for instance, what they are supposed to believe is clearly set out- same for many other Christian Churches.

Thanks for talking- I am not picking here- genuinely interested.

Same goes for Anglicans Granjura , same goes the Amish, same goes for JW's and other denominations , I am perhaps wrong and should follow all the teachings of my church but I don't , my choice , I do think of the blessed sacrament as more than bread and wine , will not partake if I feel anger etc, in our church the sacrament reserved for the sick is kept in a side chapel, I can never forget the presence if I am in the side chapel.

Perhaps the JW's have stronger faith then I , I could not let a child die because of something in the OT , for me this would be forcing my faith on another

Years ago I remember a friend who was a Roman Catholic telling me that, although she went to church weekly, if she and her husband wanted to use contraception they would. They decided that, as the church was not going to pay to bring up any children that they could not afford, it was their decision. So she said that they used contraception and she confessed that at weekly confession.

Do Roman Catholics take communion wine? When I was in France I was told that they only had the wafer, not the sacramental wine.

Perhaps people go to a different church because they prefer the type of service or the way the sermon is delivered, it can vary so much even in the same denomination.

I am almost sure only the priests in the Roman Catholic Church take the wine Jamila

I found those statistics amazing at first Granjura, but then , thinking about it ,not so much. It goes back to what I was saying before about faith being easier to maintain if you have not been brought up in a strictly evangelical
church , where everything in the New Testament is gospel truth ? I think a lot of clerics must be 'cultural Christians' . Why would anyone who believed in a supernatural being- God- be unable to accept the virgin birth and the resurrection?

I was unfortunate to be born to religious parents (Christians) who force fed me religion. I lost my faith as soon as I was old enough to realise it had no basis in reality, and what an psycho the deity featured in the Bible is!

Just read today that the Catholic Church has deemed, in the excommunication 'ratings' - having an abortion is much worse then raping someone.

It's the sort of thing that may welle push someone to begin the journey of questioning what on earth this is all about.

Well, considering it dispassionately, the act of killing another being (which is how the Catholic Church sees abortion) is undoubtably worse than any other crime, no matter how heinous.

'undoubtedly'

was going to reply- but perhaps best if I don't (but let's think about the vast numbers of children who were sexually assaulted by Priests- and then would be condemned for being pregnant, and even worse, for not wanting to continue with the pregnancy- I truly hope you will not come back and condone this- I truly do).

.... dispassionately - I'm sure those boys and girls wouldn't agree.
Signing off before my passions and anger get the better of me- and I never ever suffered myself, but i can imagine

Oh for goodness sake, granjura, I'm not condoning anything! I was just offering a reason for the Church condemning abortion above other crimes. Get a grip!

Fact, abortion is the taking of life , rape is not .

Not all priests sexually assaulted children, another fact

I think sexual assault is as bad as murder in many ways. Abortion is not murder, if it is done before the foetus is viable. The rights of the mother must always come first, imo.

'Glad' you also see thei JJ50. Of course the majority of Catholic Priests didn't rape or bugger the children in their care- but far too many did. And far too many did so, with the knowledge of the RC- who did nothing- and moved Priests from one parish to another to abuse again.

And also any yung woman becoming pregnant by the above would have to carry the full shame themselves, even told it was their fault for being pretty temptresses and therefore daughters of Eve and responsible for the sin- treated like worse than dirt, and their babies taken away, and worse.
My comments were made in this context! And of course had no choice but to carry on with the pregnancy, hidden from society.

Now that was when? In medieval times? No, as we all know, that was in our generation- very recently.

Sexual assault is vile, it is not taking a life. The law may decide when a foetus is viable , any mother who feels those first kicks in the womb know their child is alive

Any, did you read my last post and place my comment in context? I think that would help. There was no law, nor a choice, for those girls. We are talking about then, not now. Talking about the attitude of the RC Church towards girls who have been abused, often by the very Priests who would then condemn them to insitutions. Context is the key. You are not a Catholic though, are you?

Granjura, with respect you are making wild accusations, do you personally know a priest who sexually abused a girl and then condemned her to an institution? And girls put into those places to have their babies were sent there by their families ,their mothers and fathers, grandparents etc.