• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Open Letter to Republicans: Please Stop Saying "Judeo-Christian"

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If you find yourself regularly using that adjective "Judeo-Christian" to describe, say, your values or religious traditions, I want you to please stop.

There isn't really a "Judeo-Christian tradition" that serves no genuine academic purpose. The only real purpose it serves is as a manipulation of language to fit the "Clash of Civilization" theory, as if the Islamic tradition is somehow fundamentally alien to the Judeo-Christian one.

In reality all three are part of the same religious tradition, and form a family of religions, which encompasses all schools of Judaism, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, Rastafarians, and numerous other religions that share these fundamental values of love and compassion and salvation by appeal to an omnipotent monotheistic deity. So when you say "Judeo-Christian," to refer to your values or your country's religious tradition, the word you're groping for there is more properly Judeo-Christian-Islamic, or what we could call "Abrahamic." It is ahistorical, and purposely exclusive of the Islamic tradition so as to fit the party's agitprop narrative. Don't buy into.

Here's a solution: if you're not really aware enough of history to understand that the term "Judeo-Christian" is BS, just don't talk about history to begin with.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,958
Reaction score
73,380
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
If you find yourself regularly using that adjective "Judeo-Christian" to describe, say, your values or religious traditions, I want you to please stop.

There isn't really a "Judeo-Christian tradition" that serves no genuine academic purpose. The only real purpose it serves is as a manipulation of language to fit the "Clash of Civilization" theory, as if the Islamic tradition is somehow fundamentally alien to the Judeo-Christian one.

In reality all three are part of the same religious tradition, and form a family of religions, which encompasses all schools of Judaism, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, Rastafarians, and numerous other religions that share these fundamental values of love and compassion and salvation by appeal to an omnipotent monotheistic deity. So when you say "Judeo-Christian," to refer to your values or your country's religious tradition, the word you're groping for there is more properly Judeo-Christian-Islamic, or what we could call "Abrahamic." It is ahistorical, and purposely exclusive of the Islamic tradition so as to fit the party's agitprop narrative. Don't buy into.

Here's a solution: if you're not really aware enough of history to understand that the term "Judeo-Christian" is BS, just don't talk about history to begin with.
so what do liberals or dems use

"marxist leninist"?:mrgreen:
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
so what do liberals or dems use

"marxist leninist"?:mrgreen:
I couldn't say what they use, but as I have no doubt you're aware academics use terms like Abrahamic, Semitic, Desert Religions, or similar terms that encompass all groups included.
 

SgtRock

#1A #2A #Trump2020 #KAG
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2007
Messages
7,021
Reaction score
2,894
Location
Deep in the Heart of Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Ju·de·o-Chris·tian   /dʒuˈdeɪoʊˈkrɪstʃən, -ˈdi-/ Show Spelled
[joo-dey-oh-kris-chuhn, -dee-] Show IPA

–adjective
of or pertaining to the religious writings, beliefs, values, or traditions held in common by Judaism and Christianity.

Judeo-christian | Define Judeo-christian at Dictionary.com

Judeo-Christian
Wikipedia English - The Free Encyclopedia

Judeo-Christian
Judeo-Christian (or Judaeo-Christian, sometimes written as Judæo-Christian) is a term used to describe the body of concepts and values which are thought to be held in common by Judaism and Christianity, and typically considered (sometimes along with classical Greco-Roman civilization) a fundamental basis for Western legal codes and moral values. In particular, the term refers to the common Old Testament/Tanakh (which is a basis of both moral traditions, including particularly the Ten Commandments); and implies a common set of values present in the modern Western World.

Judeo-Christian
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Ju·de·o-Chris·tian   /dʒuˈdeɪoʊˈkrɪstʃən, -ˈdi-/ Show Spelled
[joo-dey-oh-kris-chuhn, -dee-]
Good, so we've established that the word itself does actually exist. This is progress. Now all we have to do is apply this definition given above to actual history and see if it works as a theory. Oops, it doesn't. Guess that's what the OP was about, huh?
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'm not the only one who feels this way:

Talmudic historian Jacob Neusner said:
"Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a secular myth favoured by people who are not really believers themselves."
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,958
Reaction score
73,380
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I don't think this term t hat seems to bother you is exclusively a Republican Term. Being a legal scholar I can recall numerous references to it in court cases-from both dem and GOP appointed federal judges.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I don't think this term t hat seems to bother you is exclusively a Republican Term. Being a legal scholar I can recall numerous references to it in court cases-from both dem and GOP appointed federal judges.
I'll be happy to grant you that. I thought a while about that before I posted if I wanted to say ATTN Republicans or what, but I figure that generally it's Republicans who use it, it makes sense to address it to you guys.

I don't think anybody should be using it, really.

I respect your legal scholarship, TD. That's why I figure you would understand the nuance of the terminology we're talking about here. "Judeo-Christian" doesn't really describe anything ascertainable, and there are better words available to talk about the tradition it belongs to. Calling it "Judeo-Christian" draws an arbitrary line that excludes Islam for no good reason.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
[........] Calling it "Judeo-Christian" draws an arbitrary line that excludes Islam for no good reason.
Christianity arose directly out of Judaism. Jesus was jewish and so were his apostles. Christianity grew out of the fabric of Judaism.

Islam was a later development, and did not rise directly from the jewish or christian traditions, but Arabic traditions. Islam posits that muhammad is the greatest prophet in the line of prophets that were all previously jewish, but muhammad himself was neither jewish nor christian. Most agree that he was very familiar with both religions (and incorporated some of their aspects into Islam), but he was not a follower of either.

So, what is the problem with "judeo-christian," being that christianity is essentially an expansion (or as a christian would say, completion) of jewish law/tradition? It works to describe christian values, which are derived from jewish law.

Splicing "judeo-christian" onto Islam (ie. judeo-christian-islam) is an obvious fallacy because Islam does not incorporate christianity (of any form) into its teachings-- Jesus is considered merely a prophet. "Abrahamic," as you mentioned, works well enough to describe it.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Christianity arose directly out of Judaism. Jesus was jewish and so were his apostles. Christianity grew out of the fabric of Judaism.

Islam was a later development, and did not rise directly from the jewish or christian traditions, but Arabic traditions. Islam posits that muhammad is the greatest prophet in the line of prophets that were all previously jewish, but muhammad himself was neither jewish nor christian. Most agree that he was very familiar with both religions (and incorporated some of their aspects into Islam), but he was not a follower of either.
You're making some fundamental assumptions here that are incorrect. First of all, Christianity did not "arise out of Judaism." Remember, we're talking about history, not Christian self-identification. Modern Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed alongside one another out of Classical Judaism, that is true. But Christianity is wildly divergent from traditional Jewish tradition, equally divergent as Islam is from Judaism. Moreover, Christianity draws on Hellenic influences and Neo-Platonic philosophy in liberal measure, whereas the proto-Arabic influences on Islam are negligible. Indeed, Islam has a truly monothestic God as opposed to the triune deity of Christianity, so it is clear that Islam and Judiams are much closer to each other, theologically speaking, than Judaism and Christianity.

And it doesn't really matter that Muhammad wasn't a Jew or a Christian before founding Islam. What matters is that Muhammad founded a religion based on a series of Semitic prophets starting with Abraham and including Jesus, and the religion he founded proceeded from the same monotheistic worldview as the Jewish and Christian religions.

So, what is the problem with "judeo-christian," being that christianity is essentially an expansion (or as a christian would say, completion) of jewish law/tradition? It works to describe christian values, which are derived from jewish law.
That's just it. Don't confuse self-identification with history. Christ may well have come to fulfill the law, but from an academic standpoint, Christianity isn't the completion of anything. It's a separation and distinct religious tradition, totally apart from Judaism. Christianity has its origins in the Greeks and Hellenic Jews of the second century. Judaism has its origins in the Semitic peoples, and Islam originated with the Arab peoples. But the ethnicity of the founders of the religion is irrelevant. What matters is that they are philosophically linked.
 
Last edited:

Ned Racine

Banned
Joined
Sep 24, 2010
Messages
588
Reaction score
41
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Could we have a short list of Other terms somebody might think those presently classified as Republican's should not use. I'm a Republican and I use the term Vermin to describe the 19 9/11 Hijackers and I think it's justified. Anyone thinking it too strong please jump in.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Could we have a short list of Other terms somebody might think those presently classified as Republican's should not use. I'm a Republican and I use the term Vermin to describe the 19 9/11 Hijackers and I think it's justified. Anyone thinking it too strong please jump in.
I was just recently involved in another thread where I agreed that "vermin" is always an appropriate term for violent criminals. Carry on.
 

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
34,416
Reaction score
11,748
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I don't think this term t hat seems to bother you is exclusively a Republican Term. Being a legal scholar I can recall numerous references to it in court cases-from both dem and GOP appointed federal judges.
What were those cases dealing with exactly? I am just curious why they had to talk about religion like that.. I mean, why would it matter in a legal context here since there is freedom of religion.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
so what do liberals or dems use

"marxist leninist"?:mrgreen:
No, that's Glenn Beck. Nazi-Communists. Anit-American-Progressives.

He's combines unrelated terms like an retarded Shakespeare... His gal Palin, too.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You're making some fundamental assumptions here that are incorrect. First of all, Christianity did not "arise out of Judaism." Remember, we're talking about history, not Christian self-identification. Modern Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed alongside one another out of Classical Judaism, that is true.
You're contradicting yourself here. (bold added by me)

I think I see what you are trying to say with this, I'll respond in the next section...

But Christianity is wildly divergent from traditional Jewish tradition, equally divergent as Islam is from Judaism.
Well, the amount of the divergence is irrelevant really. The point is that christianity did arise out of judaism--it was initially a jewish sect. Islam was never a jewish sect nor a christian sect.

Moreover, Christianity draws on Hellenic influences and Neo-Platonic philosophy in liberal measure,
This is a popular position but the degree to which such philosophies influenced the earliest christians is uncertain. Paul never mentioned platonist philosophers in his letters. There is certainly a great deal of similarity between many aspects of both systems, but that's not necessarily enough evidence to show direct correlation/origination.

Later, in the medieval period you start to see direct mention of hellinistic philosophers in christian writers, but you see the same thing in Islamic teachers such as averroes as well... why does that even matter?

the proto-Arabic influences on Islam are negligible.
No, not at all. Look at the kabba-- it was a popular shrine for the arabic tribes, Islam just made it into a monotheistic shrine.

Indeed, Islam has a truly monothestic God as opposed to the triune deity of Christianity, so it is clear that Islam and Judiams are much closer to each other, theologically speaking, than Judaism and Christianity.
That might be argued, but as I mentioned earlier, later divergence doesn't negate the origin. And besides, we were originally speaking about values derived from law/tradition, not the essential nature of God. In this aspect, christianity does clearly derive many of its aspects from judaism, and is quite different than the Greek influences at the time.

And it doesn't really matter that Muhammad wasn't a Jew or a Christian before founding Islam. What matters is that Muhammad founded a religion based on a series of Semitic prophets starting with Abraham and including Jesus, and the religion he founded proceeded from the same monotheistic worldview as the Jewish and Christian religions.
In this discussion, it certainly does matter that christianity was founded by practicing jews while Islam was not. And historically, christians were not designated as such until years after their religion was founded. Early christians were seen as a particular sect of judaism. The same cannot be said of muhammad or the earliest muslims.

Besides the view of God's nature, the laws/values implemented at the start of the religion are heavily derived from preexisting traditions. In the case of christianity, the values and morals were jewish morals and values--it was the practices changed, not the underlying principles.

That's just it. Don't confuse self-identification with history. Christ may well have come to fulfill the law, but from an academic standpoint, Christianity isn't the completion of anything. It's a separation and distinct religious tradition, totally apart from Judaism.
So what? We aren't arguing about whether or not christianity is in fact distinct from judaism, but whether or not it is derived from jewish tradition. Of course it has grown separate, just as internal sects in any religion might eventually do.

Christianity has its origins in the Greeks and Hellenic Jews of the second century. Judaism has its origins in the Semitic peoples, and Islam originated with the Arab peoples. But the ethnicity of the founders of the religion is irrelevant. What matters is that they are philosophically linked.
In your argument in the OP, you insisted that judaism and christianity should be essentially "un-linked." Then you admit that christianity has a jewish origin-- I don't see how that helps your argument.

And I never said the ethnicity of the founders was relevant--just the traditions that they adhered to. The earliest christians were jewish, although very unorthodox in the view of more mainstream jews of the time. The earliest muslims were muslims.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You're contradiscting yourself here. (bold added by me)

You're contradiscting yourself here. (bold added by me)
That isn't a contradiction in the bolded portion. Classical Judaism was a very different sort of religion than modern Judaism. Christianity took so ideas from that religion, and ideas from Neo-Platonic philosophy and a little bit of Hellenic mystery-cult ritual for good measure. It's a totally different religion. I wonder, do you say that Mormons "arose" out of Christianity?

This is a popular position but the degree to which such philosophies influenced the earliest christians is uncertain. Paul never mentioned platonists philosophers in his letters. There is certainly a great deal of similarity between many aspects of both systems, but that's not necessarily enough evidence to show direct correlation/origination.
I'm not here to get into a theological debate, or I would have posted this in the religion. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, and I realize the fact that it is apparently a tenet of your faith that you cannot admit that there was a pagan Greek influence on Christianity is going to make this an awkward to discuss. But the influence of Hellenic philosophy on Christianity is well known to historians.

Later, in the medieval period you start to see direct mention of hellinistic philosophers in christian writers, but you see the same thing in Islamic teachers such as averroes.
I'm talking about Christianity from the very beginning in entrenched in Hellenic philosophy, and there is also a very compelling argument for some Buddhist influence as well.
That might be argued, but as I mentioned earlier, later divergence doesn't negate the origin. And besides, we were originally speaking about values derived from law/tradition, not the essential nature of God. In this aspect, christianity does clearly derive many of its aspects from judaism, and is quite different than the Greek influences at the time.
Well, that's why Christianity follows the Abrahamic tradition more closely than the Greek. That's why we classifying with the Abrahamic religions. But that's the whole point. In the aspect of "values derived from law/tradition," Islam bears precisely the same relationship to Judaism as Christianity does.

Early christians were seen as a particular sect of judaism. The same cannot be said of muhammad.
Early Christians were seen as a sect of Judaism by the Romans. But by their fellow enthic Judeans the Christians werea radical, blasphemous, schismatic heresy. Christianity's trinitarian doctrines are absurd and anathema to the Jewish people both Classical and Modern.

Besides the view of God's nature, the laws/values implemented at the start of the religion are heavily derived from preexisting traditions. In the case of christianity, the values and morals were jewish morals and values--it was the practices changed, not the underlying principles.
I don't disagree with that statement. But my point is that if you feel that way about Christianity you should feel that same way about Islam. Logically you must.
 
Last edited:

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
In your argument in the OP, you insisted that judaism and christianity should be essentially "un-linked." Then you admit that christianity has a jewish origin-- I don't see how that helps your argument.
Look, let's not get caught up in word games here. With words like "Linked" and "Arose out of" it's easy to equivocate without even realizing it, as you just did above.

I have in fact never insisted that Christianity and Judaism are essentially unlinked. I do insist that Christianity is essentially linked to Judaism in the same way Islam is essentially linked to Judaism.
 
Last edited:

SheWolf

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
34,416
Reaction score
11,748
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
In this discussion, it certainly does matter that christianity was founded by practicing jews while Islam was not. And historically, christians were not designated as such until years after their religion was founded. Early christians were seen as a particular sect of judaism. The same cannot be said of muhammad or the earliest muslims.
So you think Christianity was founded by practicing Jews.. you don't think that can debated within the historical context?? After Jesus died and Peter and Paul went around Greece and Rome converting people, founding Christianity, their view on the Children of Israel wasn't exactly Jewish.

Besides the view of God's nature, the laws/values implemented at the start of the religion are heavily derived from preexisting traditions. In the case of christianity, the values and morals were jewish morals and values--it was the practices changed, not the underlying principles.
The practices and views in Islam are closer to Judaism than Christianity.. They both pray multiple times a day, have strict guidelines on fasting, alms giving, and they have similar dietary laws. They both have laws, and the same views about cleanliness.

Muslims and Jews share the same belief about the Christian trinity and about the Christian concept of the original sin.. so they agree more in some instances. And in terms of ethnicity, Arabs consider themselves decedents of the Jewish prophet Abraham just like the Jews do.. Ismael is the father of the Arabs and the other son is the father of Jewish people.
 

other

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2009
Messages
1,473
Reaction score
587
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That isn't a contradiction in the bolded portion. Classical Judaism was a very different sort of religion than modern Judaism. Christianity took so ideas from that religion, and ideas from Neo-Platonic philosophy and a little bit of Hellenic mystery-cult ritual for good measure. It's a totally different religion.
It started as a jewish sect. that modern historians look back and draw links between mithraism and other blood cults and christianity in the second century AD is irrelevant to the fact that christianity arose out of judaism.

I wonder, do you say that Mormons "arose" out of Christianity?
Yes, I do--more specifically protestantism in 19th century america. But what does that have to do with this discussion?


I'm not here to get into a theological debate, or I would have posted this in the religion. I'm not trying to rain on your parade, and I realize the fact that it is apparently a tenet of your faith that you cannot admit that there was a pagan Greek influence on Christianity is going to make this an awkward to discuss. But the influence of Hellenic philosophy on Christianity is well known to historians.
Tenet of my faith huh? When did I ever say I was a christian? I don't mind debating theology, but it is much easier to do so when people don't make assumptions about the beliefs of those they are debating. And concerning the hellenic influences-- no need to act like you are "raining on my parade," don't worry, I have been aware of greek/hellenistic influences in christianity for a long time. You aren't revealing anything new, and you are presenting the case as if what accepted unequivicolly by all historians. Hate to rain on your parade, it isn't known how much influence these philosophies had on the earliest christians--they don't mention greek philosphers by name.

I can tell you that historians are certain that christianity started as an offshoot of judaism. I've never met anyone who tried to deny this.

...Not that this supposed greek influence matters anyway, we were talking about how you reject the term "judeo-christian." That christianity includes some pagan elements doesn't change the fact that it was once a jewish sect.

I'm talking about Christianity from the very beginning in entrenched in Hellenic philosophy, and there is also a very compelling argument for some Buddhist influence as well.
You'd have quite a case to build if you wanted to say that buddhism and the greek philosophies held equal influence in the starting of christianity than judaism. You cannot simply look for comparable elements in each religion and then say for certain that one influenced the other. I have heard the buddhism hypothesis before as well, and it is not accepted by most historians. Not yet at least.

Well, that's why Christianity follows the Abrahamic tradition more closely than the Greek. That's why we classifying with the Abrahamic religions. But that's the whole point. In the aspect of "values derived from law/tradition," Islam bears precisely the same relationship to Judaism as Christianity does.
You are arguing in the OP that the term "judeo-christian" should not be used. The status of Islam is really less than incidental to the whole matter. By using the term "judeo-christian," one isn't denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion.



Early Christians were seen as a sect of Judaism by the Romans. But by their fellow enthic Judeans the Christians werea radical, blasphemous, schismatic heresy. Christianity's trinitarian doctrines are absurd and anathema to the Jewish people both Classical and Modern.
Notice I mentioned earlier that they were not accepted as a strand of mainstream judaism. That doesn't change the fact that their doctrines were formed directly out of jewish traditions and that they saw themselves as Jews who were accepting of "gentiles."



I don't disagree with that statement. But my point is that if you feel that way about Christianity you should feel that same way about Islam. Logically you must.
No, I shouldn't. 7th century arabia was predominantly polytheistic arabic tribes. first century judea was predominantly jewish.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
243,958
Reaction score
73,380
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
No, that's Glenn Beck. Nazi-Communists. Anit-American-Progressives.

He's combines unrelated terms like an retarded Shakespeare... His gal Palin, too.
what silly nonsense.
 

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,818
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It started as a jewish sect. that modern historians look back and draw links between mithraism and other blood cults and christianity in the second century AD is irrelevant to the fact that christianity arose out of judaism.
It goes to the fact that classical Judaism did not unilaterally give rise to Christianity the way it gave rise to modern Judaism. Judaism is an indirect forbear to Christianity, just as it is to Islam. This is how historians view the matter.


Tenet of my faith huh? When did I ever say I was a christian? I don't mind debating theology, but it is much easier to do so when people don't make assumptions about the beliefs of those they are debating.
Like I said, I'm not interested in debating theology. Have your theology, I don't care what it is.

But theology is theology and history is history. History deals in objective facts. When we're talking about proper categorization, we don't look at it from the point of view of the subject, we look at it from an objective point of view. It doesn't really matter where Christians say they came from (unless the category is "Where did they say they came from?"). We only care about where they actually came from as the objective facts are able to tell us, and the facts about Christianity are in conflict with Christians' self-identification.


You are arguing in the OP that the term "judeo-christian" should not be used. The status of Islam is really less than incidental to the whole matter. By using the term "judeo-christian," one isn't denying that Islam is an Abrahamic religion.
Using the term Judeo-Christian is, deliberately or not, a truncation of the proper terminology. You don't go around saying "Harpo and Chico, the Marx Brothers," and just leave Groucho unsaid. It just isn't the way we communicate. The only reason you would do something like that is if you were trying to alienate Groucho, or you were extremely forgetful. And here I am reminding you, so the forgetful excuse is out the window.




Notice I mentioned earlier that they were not accepted as a strand of mainstream judaism. That doesn't change the fact that their doctrines were formed directly out of jewish traditions and that they saw themselves as Jews who were accepting of "gentiles."
Well, if your standard is how people "see themselves" then there is no reason not to apply precisely the same standard to Islam. You argue that Islam is somehow not a real successor to the Abrahamic tradition the way Christianity is, but you also state that what matters is how they see themselves. Muslims view themselves in relation to Judaism in a way almost exactly analogous to the way Christians view their relationship to Judaism. The assertion that Islam is somehow more distantly related is not sound and frankly it doesn't pass the smell test.



No, I shouldn't. 7th century arabia was predominantly polytheistic arabic tribes. first century judea was predominantly jewish.
Your mistake here is equating first century Judea to Christianity. Apart from being the setting of the New Testament, Christianity was not centered in Judea, it was centered at places like Alexandria and Antioch.

Christianity couldn't "arise" from Judaism, because the Jewish religion as we know it today didn't even exist until well after the founding of Christianity. Classical Judaism, the ancestor of modern Judaism, is also the ancestor of Christianity, as it is also the ancestor of Islam. Christianity grew (partially) out of a specific sect of Classical Judaism called the Zealots, whereas Modern Judaism grew out of the sect called the Pharisees.

But using the term "Judeo-Christian" to refer to the relationship between Christianity and an extinct, 2000 year old form of Judaism, you aren't making a meaningful reference. What people mean when they say Judeo-Christian refers to the relationship between Christianity and Modern Judaism, not the relationship between Christianity and first-century era Judean Zealot mystics.

Modern Judaism and Christianity are thus categorically distinct religions. Furthermore the relationship between Modern and Classical Judaism are much closer than the relationship between Classical Judaism and Christianity. Modern Judaism can legitimately be seen as a continuation of the classical form. But the relationship Judaism has to Christianity is one of mere source material for the syncretic Jewish/Hellenic hybrid religion that is Christianity.

You gotta wonder why some people try so hard to purposely view the Islamic religion as something fundamentally alien to Christianity. It is absurd. Muslims and Christians have so much in common.
 
Last edited:

desertdude

New member
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you find yourself regularly using that adjective "Judeo-Christian" to describe, say, your values or religious traditions, I want you to please stop.

There isn't really a "Judeo-Christian tradition" that serves no genuine academic purpose. The only real purpose it serves is as a manipulation of language to fit the "Clash of Civilization" theory, as if the Islamic tradition is somehow fundamentally alien to the Judeo-Christian one.

In reality all three are part of the same religious tradition, and form a family of religions, which encompasses all schools of Judaism, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Mormons, Rastafarians, and numerous other religions that share these fundamental values of love and compassion and salvation by appeal to an omnipotent monotheistic deity. So when you say "Judeo-Christian," to refer to your values or your country's religious tradition, the word you're groping for there is more properly Judeo-Christian-Islamic, or what we could call "Abrahamic." It is ahistorical, and purposely exclusive of the Islamic tradition so as to fit the party's agitprop narrative. Don't buy into.

Here's a solution: if you're not really aware enough of history to understand that the term "Judeo-Christian" is BS, just don't talk about history to begin with.
This is nothing but an attempt to leverage the facade of academic objectivity to win the theological argument you say you're trying to avoid by changing definitions. To the contrary, your motivations in trying to equate the religions are as nakedly personal as mine in rebutting. But more importantly: the argument just makes no sense. You say there's a Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Fine. Then Judeo-Christian refers to the part that doesn't include Islam. And that unequivocally exists independently, the same as if you don't mention -Mormon, -Christian Scientist or -any other religion that has glommed onto the tradition like Islam. There's nothing to be proven about religion here, in either direction, on such bases.
 
Top Bottom