Moderate Muslims Speak Out!

[bladesman123]

loved the bit where paxman said "you can continue this elevated dialog outside"

[Circa]

What I took the Christianitylite term to mean was practically all western Christians, because they all ignore parts of the bible that don't sit well with them. For example homosexuals, the bible is very explicit in it's condemnation of them, however most Christians today have little or no problem with them. Or Jesus' stance on ownership of property, there are very few Christians who follow that.

 

I would call Christianitylite any version of Christianity where some parts of the bible are ignored or glossed over. Which pretty much includes the vast majority of Christians today.

 

So, was Jesus the founder of Christianitylite?

 

Where was Jesus explicit in his condemnation of homosexuals? He never singled them out - the most he did was to refer to sexual immorality - that's hetero or homosexual. Many Western Christians would go along with the fact that this covers anything outside of marriage between a male and female.

 

And did he single sexual sin out as more evil than any other? I think he listed it alongside evil thoughts, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.

 

I don't have any personal wealth - or property or posessions (apart from clothes, toothbrush and a few bits and bobs anyone can borrow), many Christians have less.But where is Jesus' hard and fast rule about this? He told the Rich young ruler that to be perfect - he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he didn't say that to all his followers. Giving to the poor is a theme that runs through the gospels, but there is no one rule for all.

[flamingjimmy]

So, was Jesus the founder of Christianitylite?

 

Where was Jesus explicit in his condemnation of homosexuals? He never singled them out - the most he did was to refer to sexual immorality - that's hetero or homosexual. Many Western Christians would go along with the fact that this covers anything outside of marriage between a male and female.

 

And did he single sexual sin out as more evil than any other? I think he listed it alongside evil thoughts, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly.

He didn't need to, there are already very explicit verses in the bible about homosexuality, nothing Jesus said invalidates them, in his own words.

 

"The Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35

 

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:18

 

And the classic that we all know "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." unsure of verse no. because this one came from memory.

 

Without Jesus specifically saying "by the way guys, gay people are cool" There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the teachings of the old testament do not stand wrt homosexuals.

 

It is admirable that your morals are strong enough that you can discount what I assume you believe to be the word of god which specifically condemn homosexuality. If this is the case I am glad your morals are stronger than your faith, it's a good thing.

 

I don't have any personal wealth - or property or posessions (apart from clothes, toothbrush and a few bits and bobs anyone can borrow), many Christians have less.

But most Christians have much more, if you're telling the truth then you are in a tiny minority.

 

But where is Jesus' hard and fast rule about this? He told the Rich young ruler that to be perfect - he needed to sell all he had and give it to the poor, but he didn't say that to all his followers. Giving to the poor is a theme that runs through the gospels, but there is no one rule for all.

 

You make some good points, but there are many other things I could point to., For example the fact that Jesus definitely taught that people who didn't get his message or ignore it would go to hell, something which most Christians shy away from today, because, well it just sounds unbelievably mean and arrogant to say to someone.

 

In fact many Christians don't even believe in hell, it doesn't sit well with them and they take some wishy washy figurative interpretation, even though the bible is explicit that hell is a real place where people go when they die.

 

Then you've got women Priests, which the bible clearly does not prohibit.

 

Basically there are loads of instances where Christians have abandoned parts of their religion because they contradict our modern morality (good thing). I think the term 'Christianitylite' is entirely appropriate to describe the majority of Christians today, thanks BF.

[Circa]

He didn't need to, there are already very explicit verses in the bible about homosexuality, nothing Jesus said invalidates them, in his own words.

 

"The Scripture cannot be broken" John 10:35.

 

In that chapter, some Jews were accusing Jesus of blasphemy - and Jesus responded by using the Jewish law and scripture to exonerate himself. They were both referring to the scrpture, but Jesus wins. He was beginning to change things.

 

"Until Heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the law, until all is accomplished" Matthew 5:18

 

And the classic that we all know "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." unsure of verse no. because this one came from memory..

 

Don't underestimate the relevance of the last part of the sentence - Jesus coming to fulfill the law and the prophets was a (spiritual) paradigm shift, which began in his earthly lifetime.

 

Without Jesus specifically saying "by the way guys, gay people are cool" There is no reason whatsoever to assume that the teachings of the old testament do not stand wrt homosexuals.

 

What about the (sexually immoral) woman caught in the act of adultery? Jesus ought to have said that she should be stoned, according to the law, when asked to pass judgement. But he shifted the emphasis - not saying "drop the stones guys, these were two consenting adults" but putting the severity of her sin in context with that of her accusers. So it didn't remove her culpability, but exposed theirs.

 

It is admirable that your morals are strong enough that you can discount what I assume you believe to be the word of god which specifically condemn homosexuality. If this is the case I am glad your morals are stronger than your faith, it's a good thing..

 

I don't discount the word of God - but I try to take Jesus' lead. Adultary, sex outside of marriage and practicing homosexuality are just 3 example of sexual immorality - all condemned, not one more than the other, but all to be avoided. It's not for me to condem anyone - but to aim to love and keep my own side of the street in order.

 

Basically there are loads of instances where Christians have abandoned parts of their religion because they contradict our modern morality (good thing). I think the term 'Christianitylite' is entirely appropriate to describe the majority of Christians today, thanks BF.

 

I'm not sure it applies to as many as you say - all of western christianity is a big chunk, and i wonder if you have taken a close enough look at non-western christianity? I think part of the problem is how to define real and lite Christianity.

 

If real christianity is just following the letter of the law, then Jesus IS Christianitylite. Is a characteristic of real Christianity "having a problem with homosexuals"? Is not isolating a particular sin and elivating it's importance above others, "abandoning part of (ones) religion"?

 

While I love the expression - I'd question your definition, because I think Jesus fits the bill a bit too well.

[Dick]

Very entertaining bit of television but not very enlightening as to whether Choudery really believes the rubbish he spouts. I liked the bit where Paxman described it as "nutty views, OK then, profoundly held beliefs"

Like any politician Choudery completely ignored all questions and just poured out his drivel non stop.

[logiebaird]

Sorry - i just cant find the inclination to listen to either view as i tend to part company as to where the divide lies between moderate and extremist.

 

I think walking around in a western society dressed in all the cultural wear or answering a call to prayer 5 times a day is pretty extreme although they would presumably call this normal.

 

If i wandered the streets in a football kit and started citing league rules and council bylaws i would be held up as crackers and i certainly wouldnt be granted an audience to explain the religious or cultural significance of it.

[tab1]

Sorry - i just cant find the inclination to listen to either view as i tend to part company as to where the divide lies between moderate and extremist.

I think walking around in a western society dressed in all the cultural wear or answering a call to prayer 5 times a day is pretty extreme although they would presumably call this normal.

 

If i wandered the streets in a football kit and started citing league rules and council bylaws i would be held up as crackers and i certainly wouldnt be granted an audience to explain the religious or cultural significance of it.

Was there any real need to share your shortcomings with us here? It's something you must come to terms with in your own way and if you can't then I can only feel sorry for you, you do have a problem I believe.

[logiebaird]

Thanks for that I will seek therapy and a close fitting burka for the weekend.

 

Do you have a colour preference or or a fashionable slit width to show of my designer spectacles or is that a topic with even less significance ?

[Circa]

at present i'm being protected by dans guardian - so can't get beyond this page. just in case anyone replied to me i aint ignoring ya

[tab1]

Thanks for that ill seek therapy and a close fitting burka for the weekend.

I didn't give you any ill seek therapy, nor any burka, where did you get that from? Is English not your first language?