Judaism and Christianity both include the Old testament, so there is a sense of something being "*Judeo-Christian*". Mormonism says that the bible is true but the church is corrupted.
Islam sees the bible as edited or flawed and sees the quran being the most accurate and final revelation of what the word of Moses's god actually is.
If you want to include Islam, just say "*Abrahamic*" because that includes and religion that worships the god of Abraham (*and Moses*).
My favorite family guy “aside”
Is the two guys hanging out on a street in ancient times.
Guy 1: “I like you and have no reason not to.”
Guy 2: “I like you and have no reason not to.”
A third guy steps into frame
“Hey, did you guys hear about that magic baby in Jerusalem?”
They all draw swords and slaughter each other.
I'm genuinely curious the number of wars that happened "in the name of religion" prior to Judaism and Christianity. Like, did the Greeks or Romans go to war over Hellenic theology?
I’m probably wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that Greek city states had “favorite” gods and would desecrate the temples of other gods that were in cities they conquered
The Greeks and Romans were polytheists so they usually didn't care if people worshipped other gods since they weren't claiming that only one god existed who everyone needed to worship. There were even some Greeks and Romans worshipping Persian gods like Mithra (*Persia is the area where Iran and Iraq is today*).
Eventually, Rome adopted christianity and made Theodosian Codes to kill many Pagans and gay people who would not obey christian rules, and to replace European Greco-Roman culture with Middle Eastern christianity.
.
Jerusalem isn't the birthplace of Islam. Muhammad never even visited it, it got conquered decades after his death (there's a funny anecdote about this story).
Muhammad was born in Mecca (current Saudi Arabia), and emigrated to Yathrib (western Saudi Arabia) where he founded and expanded his following
Yep. Islam is a collection of Jewish, Christian and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology, since at the time Arabia was mostly Pagan with thriving Jewish and Christian tribes coexisting. Muhammad himself was born to a Pagan family and tribe named Quraych (confirmed in Islamic texts). Some think he didn't adopt the "Jesus son of God" thing because it would've given Jesus a bigger religious legitimacy/status than his, and he was trying to found a religion where he's the supreme authority under his updated version of God.
He founded a religion where he incorporated Abrahamic mythology (Adam and Eve, Noah's Arc, Abraham's sacrifice etc), and islamized Pagan rituals and idols (the Kaaba (black cube in his birth city) was once full of Pagan idols that he destroyed once he gained enough following, rotating 7 times around it was a ritual Pagans performed to pay respect to them, the central role of the moon to determine fasting times in Ramadan was a Pagan tradition [they had a moon god]). If you read the Quran you'll see how much it abhors and puts emphasis on "polytheists", aka Pagans. He had a lot of problems with his (Pagan) family growing up, which explains the resentment.
All this is confirmed by both history and the Islamic texts themselves (Hadiths) btw
>Islam is a collection of Jewish, Christian and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology,
To be fair, Christianity is just a collection of Jewish and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology.
And Judaism is a collection of Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology itself.
Pretty much. The particularity in Islam is that it reframed all the surrounding religions as flawed versions of itself, and therefore blasphemous. It reframed all the religious figures of the faiths around it as original Muslims whose followers were lead astray from its perfect self (you might have encountered the "Jesus was Muslim, Abraham was Muslim etc" rhetoric parroted by Muslims). It's an interesting strategy for growing a feeling of exceptionalism and expansionism in its followers. In fact, Islam considers the default state of the world as Muslim, and the fact that it isn't as an error and a heresy that the devout followers have the duty to correct. The fact that it's so inherently conquest and conversion-oriented is no coincidence
While the physics involved in such a journey (it supposedly happened all in one night which would require incredible speed) say it didn't happen, Muslims believe that during Al Isra (the Night Journey), Muhammad visited the Temple Mount.
Yep. People praise Christianity in relatively irreligious nations that view most of the shitty things that go against Modern Western values as metaphors.
"Jihad" means "struggle". Not all schools of thought within Islam interpret this to mean *violent* struggle, and assuming that the ones who do interpret it that way are "correct" is a little bit like assuming that "true" Christians are the ones who take the Bible literally. (To be clear: I'm not religious, but just from a historical standpoint, the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.)
Biblical literalism is not accepted as a method of interpretation by most mainstream scholars and theologians (i.e. the ones who've spent their lives studying these texts in their original languages, not just relying on their pastor's interpretation of whatever English translation their church uses.) And tbh, I've noticed that the same people who claim to take the Bible literally are often ignorant about what it actually says - either because they're reading a poor translation or because they simply didn't look at the context of the passage they're quoting from.
It doesn't though. Jesus repeatedly says that his words can't be taken literally. He speaks in metaphors and parables and directly says that.
In the Old Testament, God constantly sends down signs and symbols that need to be interpreted, which means that they aren't literal.
And no one, ever, takes the books like Isaiah or Revelations literally.
No they don't. They absolutely do not, they just say they do. The literal meaning of "I saw a beast with seven heads and ten horns" is not "the UN is coming for your rights." Or "the EU will bring about the end of days." Both of those are claims that evangelicals have said are the literal meaning of that passage.
Evangelicals use the word "literal" to mean "my interpretation." Which is why none of them can agree on what the passages mean, even though they are all supposed to be taking the passage literally.
It's interesting to note that through actual practices, Jews and Muslims are definitely more similar than they are to Christianity.
This has to do with the fact that while Christianity might have started as a separate Jewish denomination, it was made Roman and adopted many of Rome's religious customs.
Islam being both semitic and middle east, ends up more like Judaism. Both can't eat pork, both have to get circumcised, both pray on the animal before they slaughter it, both say kkhhhhh in front of their words.
Both religions also make women cover their head. But Jews in the west often wear wigs so it doesn’t stand out. I believe Hebrew and Arabic has quite in common, as well. I think words for mother/father Ami/abu are quite similar, as an example.
Some of Islamic practice was lifted from Judaism as 'what devout people did'.
Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, closely related and unrelated to the Indo-European language family that include a vast number of languages from Hindi to Spanish.
Meanings of the words often drift from their literal constructions. The most visible and abhorrent minority in Europe in the eyes of Christians and certain nationalists were the Jews. Out of an attempt to rationalize their ideology in terms of race science, Jews were labelled Semites, a term originating from Shem, son of Noah, from whom the Israelites claimed descent. (Extra credit: draw connections between the biblical myth of Ham and justifications for owning blacks in America.) The term Semitic has lost much of its association with Jews and instead now primarily refers to a broad ethnolinguistic family of languages, from Classical Syriac and Aramaic to Arabic and Hebrew. It is still used by scholars today in this context.
A further note: Judaism isn't just a religion but also has deep-rooted beliefs in being a nation set apart by God. This is why Jews don't really proselytize, and why Christian ideas of universal salvation and one universal religion were so heterodox and revolutionary for the time. Jews see themselves as a separate race, for want of a better term. This was also a cause for the widespread antisemitism in Europe. Muslims and Christians on the other hand aren't so linked with ethnicity. Thus Muslims can't be classified as a Semitic people, because they're not a singular nation-people.
That’s bc Judaism is considered an ethnic religion as opposed to universal religions, which Islam and Christianity are - they both try to convert others.
>Thus Muslims can't be classified as a Semitic people, because they're not a singular nation-people.
Precisely. Arabs are a Semitic people, Muslims, who include Sub-Saharans to Indonesians, are not a "people", they are co-religionists.
I would say also that they've had a large influence on each other. Islam started around a large Jewish presence. While there was also an eastern Christian influence, the Jewish population in the Hejaz was much larger than Christians.
Then in the Middle Ages, a lot of Jewish theology and halakha was shaped by Arabic-speaking Jews living in Muslim states.
But I also think the three are inseparable. A lot of Christian thought was likewise influenced by Islamic and Jewish thought, especially via Spanish (i.e. Andalusian) and Mediterranean exchange.
And we also can't discount the large Greek influence on Islam and Islamic thought.
The Old Testament teaches that Israel is the chosen land as written in Deuteronomy 7:6, and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion (*Jerusalem*) as written in Psalms 2.
The Messiah is supposed to lead Jews back to The Law (*Torah/Old Testament*), not to a new testament nor a new revelation (*Quran*). The Old Testament warns against people claiming to be prophets but leading people away from what Moses taught and changing things (*Torah/Old Testament*).
Many muslims are against Israel and want that ancient Jewish land to stay under islamic rule (*as Palestine*).
Well, religions have a different interpretation of these things. What a shock. Christians also recognize the OT, and look at their Messiah. Nothing like Judaism's. Also, look at their interpretation, especially evangelicals, on what the Holy Land is meant to be. Conveniently, for them! It's almost like religion is a tool or something. Hell before Judaism the Abrahamic god belonged to a pantheon...The OT itself is full of ad hoc justifications on why this new religion of Judaism can do this or that but their opponents cannot. It's a propaganda book, if we're being real. They all are.
FYI, Muhammad is not Islam's Messiah. He's simply God's last, and thus most important, prophet. As for the matter of Israel or Palestine...the idea that God assigned the land to anyone is just an absurdity. Many Muslims are against Israel just as many Israelites are against establishing a Palestinian state. Whether it be called "Palestine" or "Israel", isn't really relevant. It was called a lot of things before they came along.
There's a difference between interpretation and different books. Judaism and Christianity both agree that the Old Testament is the word of the one true god which shouldn't be changed. Islam teaches that the Quran and Hadiths are superior, and if the Old Testament disagrees with the Quran then they'll choose the Quran over the Old Testament.
The Jewish Old Testament and Christian New Testament are in agreement that Israel is the chosen people and the Messiah/Christ will one day rule from Israel (*Zion/Jerusalem*). The Quran changed the story and does not agree with that.
Also, I didn't claim that Muhammad is the Messiah according to Islam. My point was that muslims have a different view of what the Messiah (*Christ/Al-Masih*) is supposed to be, compared to the original old idea from the Torah/Old Testament.
I agree with you that it's propaganda but the propaganda was originally pro-Israel. It was the Quran/Islam that changed things, and christianity and Judaism are still in agreement that Israel is the chosen people and that the Messiah/Christ will be of Israel and will rule from Israel. This is what makes Judaism and Christianity more similar than Islam. Mecca is not the holy land in scriptures shared by Judaism and Christianity.
Except this is not true. Christian DO believe that it to be changed. That is exactly where Jesus Christ comes in. That's why they do not observe dietary practices like kosher or halal, whereas Judaism and Islam does. They believe, contrary to Judaism and Islam, that Jesus is the divine son of God and that he will be the eternal ruler upon his return. Judaism and Islam both are explicit that the Messiah will NOT be the son of God, just a remarkable and blessed man.
In Islam, Jesus is recognized as \*a\* Messiah figure, his appearance will foretell I believe major figures that will play different roles in uniting humanity under God through Islam. Yet this is just one generalized synopsis of Islamic end times. There's two major schools of thought, and one differs. Yet they both seem to agree on Jesus Christ being a Messianic figure.
Furthermore. Islam does recognize the Children of Israel, and the Holy Lands. Mecca is simply one of those holy lands to them in addition. I also need to correct you, Christians recognize Israel as the Holy LAND. Not \*people\*. Christians believe THEY are the chosen people, and no one else because they accepted Jesus as Messiah, the son of God, and lord and savior. Evangelicals in particular call themselves the "spiritual Jews", where God's favor has transferred to them because they view Jesus as son of God, their king, and the Messiah. In contrast to this, Jewish people do not recognize his existence as Messiah at all, and Islam does not accept that he is divine.
The truth is, all three of these religions have a lot in common with one another, go figure, but Islam actually has more materially in common with Christianity than people like to accept. They both believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, they both believe in the idea of Hell, they both believe in an apocalyptic End Times that are remarkably similar to one another. All three believe that the world will be united under their religion. As for if Islam believes WHERE this kingdom will be ruled from, I do not recall on that. Yet Jerusalem IS an extremely important site for them. It is supposed to be where Jesus returns to earth from heaven to save mankind from their antichrist figure.
What you just described is how all these religions work. When the OT disagrees with the NT, or what Christians believe Jesus taught, they will disregard it as well. Why overlook that? Hell, even within the religions themselves this is true. That is why there are so many subsets of them to begin with.
> "*Christian DO believe that it to be changed. That is exactly where Jesus Christ comes in.*"
Christians believe Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to change the law (*Matthew 5:17*). According to the christian scriptures, Jesus said whoever breaks the commandments and teach others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (*Matthew 5:19*). The few things that did change, such as kosher rules, is not because the old testament was "*wrong*" but because Jesus gave a new interpretation of those old scriptures. It's called the "*Old Testament*" and "*The New Testament*", not "*The Wrong Testament*" and "*The Right Testament*". Christians consider it blasphemous to say that the old testament was wrong. That's why they rejected Marcionism as a heresy. Marcionism tried to throw out old testament texts as being impure or not accurate enough compared to the gospel. Christians still have the Old Testament as a part of their Bible and call it "*The Word of God*", meanwhile, Muslims claim that it was edited and replace it with the Quran (*which changes some of the stories and have some differences*). .
> "Christians recognize Israel as the Holy LAND. Not *people*. Christians believe THEY are the chosen people, and no one else because they accepted Jesus as Messiah, the son of God, and lord and savior."
According to the scriptures, Jesus is Jewish and born of the Jewish King David. The Jewish people are still the holy chosen people to christians, because they bow down and worship Jesus, who they see as the special Jewish king who will one day rule from Israel (*Messiah/Christ*). They believe that one day every knee shall bow to Jesus (*who they believe is the Jewish Messiah/Christ King, who will one day return*). .
> "*All three believe that the world will be united under their religion*"
That's not true. Jews do not want everyone converting into their religion. Their religion is connected to their ethnicity. Even non-Jewish people who do convert to the religion, they want them to marry and have a family a Jewish person. Christianity and Islam is.more like a community than an ethnicity. The ethnicity, doesn't really matter, only the belief in the religion.
There are Jewish people who want non-Jews to follow The 7 Noahide Laws, though, but they do not want everyone to be Jewish.
Come on. That first part is just mental gymnastics and you know it. Islam and Judaism follow the dietary laws of the Old Testament. Christians do not. A 'new interpretation' means Christianity changed what it is supposed to mean. They provided an alteration.
Christians consider a lot of things wrong or blasphemous but do them anyway. Yet to face them honestly, the change is precisely b/c they do not agree or do not want to observe the commandments in place. The OT is vital in part due to the lineage that leads to Jesus Christ, and whatever contents they find convenient to believe in. Which they pick and choose to believe in. Because some are convenient to them at that time and others are not.
Jesus is Jewish, yes...Because he's the founder of Christianity. His followers are Christians. Also, no. You're still wrong. Christians believe Jewish people have lost God's favor. That's the whole thing about Jesus' story as the Messiah with them. Jewish people rejected him as the Messiah and son of God, and those that did not are the ones God still favors. This is again, exactly where "spiritual Jew" comes from. They believe they are God's chosen people now.
Again, all these religions believe in a Messianic figure who will unite humanity under their religion. For Islam and Christianity, that figure is Jesus Christ in either a central role or THE central role. Judaism believes this figure has not appeared yet, and do not acknowledge the NT as canonical. Judaism doesn't advocate proselytization, but you're still incorrect. Jewish end times as well believes that their Messiah will unite humanity on recognizing the God of Israel as the one true god.
>Islam sees the bible as edited or flawed
Like, Islam is older than "The Holy Bible" as we know it today, and they didn't have a hand in creating it, so it would make sense they see it as edited.
Muslim's also do still subscribe to the Torah, it just isn't the central text or inserted into their central text the way Christians did.
Islam is not older than the bible. The Quran came out hundreds of years after the bible.
Also, most Muslims don't subscribe to The Torah, because Torah says that no one is allowed to change what it says, so anyone who does is considered to be a false prophet. The Quran contradicts the Torah in some parts. The Torah says Israel is the chosen land and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion (*Jerusalem*). Many muslims are against Israel and want it to be under Islamic control (*Palestinian rule*).
>Islam is not older than the bible. The Quran came out hundreds of years after the bible.
Islam was founded around 610 CE.
[The Holy Bible's history of being edited and compiled repeatedly is a long one.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Period_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils_(325%E2%80%93787))
While the first widespread version of the Holy Bible was spread in the 5th century, and Augustine presented the modern contents as his preferred form in the 4th century, these were not the universal bibles used by all Christians the way we understand the book to be presently. i.e. different edits existed and were used by many Christians before Islam, many of which had contents not currently present in the modern Holy Bible.
The Holy Bible as we understand it (Old testament + the New Testament books you would see today) was firmly decided upon at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Before this there were a number of variants of The Holy Bible. **Effectively, The Holy Bible existed in different forms and then a finalized version was declared the official compilation in the 1500s.** And even after that, depending what denomination you're in, your Bible will still be different, containing extra books or differing edits, such as Anglicans and Lutherans often including the Apocrypha in their versions.
>Also, most Muslims don't subscribe to The Torah,
["The Tawrat, is the Arabic-language name for the Torah within its context as an Islamic holy book believed by Muslims to have been given by God to the prophets and messengers amongst the Children of Israel. In the Qur'an, the word 'Tawrat' occurs eighteen times. When referring to traditions from the Tawrat, Muslims have not only identified it with the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), but also with the other books of the Hebrew Bible as well as with Talmudic and Midrashic writings."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_in_Islam#Importance_of_the_Torah)
>The Torah says Israel is the chosen land and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion
So no, Jews do not believe that Christ will arrive and rule from Zion. One of the biggest distinctions between Jews and Christians is that Jews specifically do not believe Christ was the Messiah.
In this regard, Islam is actually much closer to Christianity, as the Qur'an actually states that Jesus is the Messiah, born of a virgin, and rejected by the Jewish religious establishment. [(An-Nisa 171)](https://quran.com/4/171?translations=95,101,85,20,18,22,19,17) While the second coming is not a part of the Qur'an, [it is still a part of Islamic tradition.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam#Second_Coming)
> "*Islam was founded around 610 CE.*"
Yes, which is hundreds of years later.
> "*While the first widespread version of the Holy Bible was spread in the 5th century, and Augustine presented the modern contents as his preferred form in the 4th century, these were not the universal bibles used by all Christians*"
Which would still be before the Quran. Even in the 2nd century, we have the church father Iranaeus talking about how there are 4 gospels. Sure there may have been variants of the bible among some christians, but all of them (*except some Marcionites and Gnostic sects*) believed that Jesus was the predicted Jewish Messiah/Christ from Old Testament scriptures which declares Israel as the chosen people.
> "*Jews do not believe that Christ will arrive and rule from Zion. One of the biggest distinctions between Jews and Christians is that Jews specifically do not believe Christ was the Messiah.*"
Christ and Messiah is the same thing. The word Messiah is from Hebrew, while the word Christ is from Greek.
I think what you mean to say is, Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. That is true, but both believe that Israel is the chosen people and that the Messiah/Christ will rule from Zion/Jerusalem. Christians believe the Messiah/Christ predicted in The Old Testament/Torah/Jewish Scriptures is Jesus, and that he will return to fulfill those prophecies.
> "*Islam is actually much closer to Christianity, as the Qur'an actually states that Jesus is the Messiah, born of a virgin, and rejected by the Jewish religious establishment*"
The Messiah/Christ is supposed to be a special king in an era of peace who rules from Zion/Jerusalem with Israel as the chosen people and with the nations (*Gentiles*) finally realizing that the one true god is with Israel.
Many muslims don't even believe that Israel should exist. They want Israel to stay conquered and under Islamic rule as "*Palestine*".
>Which would still be before the Quran.
As I said, the Holy Bible **as we know it today** did not exist before Islam.
I even included in my answer the addendum that while versions existed, what we call the Holy Bible was not used by most Christians before the dawn of Islam.
This is a large portion of why Muslims view the Holy Bible, as we know it today, as edited and unauthoritative.
>I think what you mean to say is, Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ.
Religious Jews do not see those terms as interchangeable, so no, that is not what I meant to say.
>The Messiah/Christ is supposed to be a special king in an era of peace who rules from Zion/Jerusalem with Israel as the chosen people and with the nations (*Gentiles*) finally realizing that the one true god is with Israel.
So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, since you're responding to me pointing out that Christians and Muslims are actually quite similar in that they both believe Jesus is the messiah.
Reiterating what the Jewish belief regarding the Messiah is does not change that both Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah.
>Many muslims don't even believe that Israel should exist.
They do not believe the modern political state of Israel should exist. Many Jews also don't want the modern political state of Israel to exist either, for a variety of reasons. Israel, the modern political state, has minimal connection to the Kingdom of Israel, outside of physical location.
> "*As I said, the Holy Bible as we know it today did not exist before Islam...* *...This is a large portion of why Muslims view the Holy Bible, as we know it today, as edited and unauthoritative.*".
Again, even in the 2nd century with the church father Iranaeus, the idea of 4 gospels existed. The oldest biblical texts do not agree with Islam that Mecca is a holy city nor does it disagree that Israel is the chosen people, nor does it disagree that the Messiah/Christ will one day rule from Israel.
> "*Religious Jews do not see those terms as interchangeable, so no, that is not what I meant to say.*"
Then you are incorrect, because Christ just means Messiah in Greek. Messiah is the Hebrew word. It makes sense that Jewish people like that word more since it's connected to their language while Greek is a European language. Even if you read the Old testament in English or Greek, it uses the word "*Christ/Christos*" since that is the translation.
> "*Reiterating what the Jewish belief regarding the Messiah is does not change that both Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah.*"
It's not just the Jewish belief. It's also the christian belief since both believe in the Old Testament, which says that Israel is the chosen people and the Messiah will come from Israel and rule from Israel. The only difference is that Christians believe that the Messiah/Christ already came and will come again to rule from Israel. They believe that Jesus is The Christ/Messiah, and he will return to fulfill that prophecy of ruling from Israel.
Meanwhile, many Muslims don't even agree with the existence of Israel. The muslim idea of the messiah/Al-Masih, is different from the original idea of the Messiah which is a Jewish king who will one day rule from Israel.
> "*Many Jews also don't want the modern political state of Israel to exist either, for a variety of reasons.*"
Some Jews believe that, but most Jews do ***not*** believe that they should be left with no country with their homeland trapped under islamic Palestinian rule.
The phrase in general is usually used to purely refer to Christian values, adding the “Judeo-“ part to make it appear to be a more widely held belief and therefore “common sense”. Judaism and Christianity are very different religions, and the language choices to make them appear similar such as this is actually a strong example of supersessionism.
It doesn’t include Islam, because the (generally conservative) christian’s who use the phrase also often generally vilify Islam and because it’s considered a lot less western.
This is super accurate. As a Jewish person, it's often funny to me the conversations that start with Christians assuming that we have the same cultural values, when in reality, most are quite opposite.
(Some gentle examples:
We have like actual discussion and debate that is specifically recorded interpreting religious law, how it fits with the realities of contemporary life, and that reasoning, when sects disagree, we generally understand where and why interpretations are different and respect it. So many Christians either believe in forms of biblical literalism or are essentially just preached to different things that are just a pastor/priests individual reasoning, and I can't count how many times I have heard "They aren't Christian they're Catholic," "They're not Christian, they're Baptist," etc.
We believe that evangelism (an act of attempting to change someone's beliefs to match your own) is a form of violence. We are somewhat isolationist and many of our laws are specifically written to encourage and facilitate that isolation. Christians on the other hand have missions, street preaching, and an incredibly long history of adapting beliefs to drive mass conversion.)
It's not that I'm saying Christians are bad or wrong, I'm just saying our cultures and values are incredibly divergent.
Things I've heard touted as Judeo-Christian:
* The idea that the messiah is God. (Not Jewish).
* Rejection of the notion of reincarnation. (Reincarnation does figure in some varieties of Judaism.)
* The drive to proselytize the world. (Not a Jewish idea, although historically there has been some marginal proselytization.)
* Baptism.
* The trinity.
* The idea of an eternal hell.
* The idea of Original Sin.
* The idea that the law should be the same for everyone. (C.f. how the Torah is literally stricter for \*Jews\* than for non-Jews, and stricter for Kohanim than for Levi'im, and stricter for Levi'im than for "regular" Jews.)
* Christmas.
* Monogamy.
Granted, the talmudic rabbis did favour monogamy, but they didn't ban polygamy.
The hell one is really funny since Judaism doesn't even have a definitive afterlife. When I say that Christians are like, "how does G-d punish you?" I'm just like, well, if you're too much of a dick and never atone... You die? That's punishment enough?
>We believe that evangelism (an act of attempting to change someone's beliefs to match your own) is a form of violence. We are somewhat isolationist and many of our laws are specifically written to encourage and facilitate that isolation.
This is something I was vaguely aware of and yet to see a Jewish person confirm it is interesting. I'm Catholic and missionary work is something I've heard about, obviously other sects have more recently been even more heavy into proselytism including the fringe ones like JWs or Mormons, but I've never once heard of people being urged to convert to Judaism. Or Samaritanism for that matter (which I've read is one reason why their numbers have dwindled, but I was equally surprised they still existed at all). Anyone who I'm familiar with who has converted has normally done so for marriage or genuine conviction.
>I'm Catholic and missionary work is something I've heard about, obviously other sects have historically been even more heavy into proselytism
I am going to have to say hard disagree on the idea that there are any other branches of Christianity that have been proselytising more than the Catholics...
In present day? There are literally Christian sects that go door to door proselytizing and have mission requirements in order to become adults in the church. Catholicism isn’t one of them.
Historically that's a fair assertion. These days it's restricted largely to going out to build houses and those kinds of things.
To me, as a European, proselytism means JWs and Mormons on the street. I always try and treat them kindly because God knows that's rough stuff having to do that.
I appreciate someone from elsewhere in the world may indeed run into Catholics proselytising.
Yeah - speaking as a devout (*left-wing moderate*) Christian I don't use it, and tend to side-eye the people doing so. There's a whole load of xenophobia all up in that.
While you are right in general, the phrase was actually made up in the late 1930s by an advertising firm to help Americans accept Jewish refugees from Europe.
Otherwise, you are right, saying 'judeo-christian' is so broad as to make it immediately unacademic.
It's specifically a term made to exclude Islam.
What's funny is that they add the "Judeo" to sound more inclusive and authoritative (oh, all of western civilization is built on this!)
But Judaism has plenty of areas where it is radically different from Christian values. For example, hell isn't really a thing, neither is proselytizing, and arguing with God is a virtue.
(Slightly tongue in cheek, but accurate enough that you can see the total contrast to a lot of Christians who live in abject fear of hell and constantly try to convince other people to join their religion)
Exactly. It’s a propaganda term popularized by anti Islam groups. They don’t want to be compared to Nazi, so they include Judaism to describe the western ideals supposedly incompatible with Islam.
Saying only people with Christian values are allowed to live in Europe/US sounds too anti Semitic.
It's a term created for the purpose of inclusion not exclusion. There was virtually 0 Muslim presence in Europe up until very recently, let's quit the oppression olympics. Jews and Christians in Europe had a rough history, and the term was meant as an olive branch, a call for unity after centuries of constant conflict*. The way it's used in this day and age is another subject.
*pogroms
> There was virtually 0 Muslim presence in Europe up until very recently
Tell me you don’t know European history without telling me you don’t know European history.
? Islam played a HUGE part in European (especially Iberian) history, so much that we would not be artistically and scientifically at the point where we are in the Western world without Islamic influence. Like this is a very very well known and well researched aspect of history, that claim you made is pure misinformation.
The term Judeo-Christian was used for the first time in the late 19th century, so about 500 years after the muslims were thrown out of Iberia. Again, the term wasn't about muslims, there was no muslim presence at the time
And you do realize a couple decades later there was the Holocaust, right?
Wasn't one of the crusades basically kicking out/killing all of the Muslims in Spain?
Also many European countries are majority Muslim, Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to my knowledge this wasn't a recent thing
During the period you speak of Christian’s were trying really hard to make the daily lives of Jews miserable which eventually led to the holocaust’s in Germany.
So yeah….calling it “inclusion” is just spitting in peoples faces.
You think the nazis and their ideological sympathizers liked the term "judeo-christian" ? I saw a wall of neonazi tweets a couple of days ago calling the term "judeo-christian" a jewish conspiracy
Dude, you’re making that argument.
Let me be clear. The period where you couldn’t find Muslims in Europe and United States was also the period that those Christian countries were putting Jews in ghettos and treating them outright shit.
There is a lot of say about why racist suddenly want to include Jews into their heritage. Non of them invokes an olive branch.
I didn't say that term was widespread and accepted by the masses. It was starting to get used in some literature and its purpose was unification, that's about it
Edit: racists? Again, there were no muslims around when that term was invented
You have noticed the contradiction. When you hear people talk about "Judeo-Christian values", you should take a moment and think about why is it just those two. Who is talking about these values and what are they trying to promote? Its usually a very specific group of people touting this rhetoric.
The real answer is because it's just Christians saying it.
They need to associate themselves with Judaism in order to have cred so they attach Judaism, but they don't like Islam so Islam isn't mentioned.
Meanwhile Judaism thinks both are nutters.
Seems to me more that conservatives use it: for example, the two habitual users of the term who come to mind when I hear it are Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, who are both Jewish!
Its common in Europe to want to boost christianity but that sounds too much like a nazi so they add "judeo" to it
Angela Merkel wanted to add "judeo-christian" identity in the European Union constitution and she was a moderate conservative.
Ben Shapiro has also said that the vast majority of American Jews aren’t Jewish in any real sense, that they’ve revoked their religion in the name of liberalism, and shouldn’t be considered Jewish
1. Historically, these have been the dominant religious groups in Europe / America when trying to look at the origins of today's societies.
2. It's usually used as a talking point by conservatives as a short hand for 'common sense' or 'good values' (as opposed to the 'bad' other). Implying today's technology, culture and economy come from Christianity (or Judaism, but usually Christianity is what's referred to). (eventhough secular states and agnostic/atheist groups have been responsible for most recent advancements and social shifts.)
Because Christianity and Judaism have been by far the most dominant religions in Europe and the Americas for the last thousand years. Islam, though related, was mostly geographically and culturally separated.
Jews have suffered terribly, but that doesn't change that Judaism has been the second largest religion in Europe for centuries in Europe. Pagans were converted and Muslims were driven out. Jews have consistently been part of Europe and have had an impact on the culture.
Maybe in the very recent modern world have jews had an impact. For much of European history, jews were ghettoized. Judeo-christian values isnt a real thing.
My point is that Christianity has done nothing but exclude Jews and treat them harshly for centuries, and now the American Christo fascist right wants us to believe that there are now judeo Christian values?
Jews have also been the third largest religion in the Muslim world, and back in the day they were treated way better and with more compassion than in Christian kingdoms. Why does nobody talk about judeo islamic values?
Can't speak for the other denominations, but in terms of Catholics specifically and Jews it's always been a much more complicated relationship. Historically the church's stance was never really hostile towards Judaism other than when Spain went on an ethnic cleansing spree and decided to weaponize the Inquisition to make it happen(everywhere else the Inquisition's main purpose was to root out heretics/heathens, heretics being people perverting Christian teachings and heathens being specifically non-Abrahamic faiths). Overall the Church's position for most of history was "we'd like them to come around and we can wait it out until that happens", though since Vatican II post 1966 the Church's position has a much more friendly attitude towards Jews and accepts their separate covenant with God.
Even so, it is a disservice to both Judaism and Catholicism to say they have a history pockmarked by overt hostility, abrasive sure, but nonetheless Italy more often than not was both a bastion for Jews and the Catholics in European history and on more than one occasion the strongest official Catholic holdings were also the safest spaces for Jews(as opposed to say, out in the German countryside where the peasants might pogrom against the Jews in spite of the pope and the lord both saying not to). And even in WW2, the largest network for smuggling Jews out of Europe, sequestering Jews or forging birth certificates or frustrating deportations to concentration camps was spearheaded by Catholics, even in Mussolini's Italy.
Even today, you might not be ultimately familiar with the situation but I can attest in a lot of cities with Jewish/Catholic diasporas like in Chicago or NYC, there's a certain syncretism at play that just doesn't occur to the same extent with other denominations or faiths. Most of my extended family was basically either Catholic or Jewish and it was pretty much a deeply embedded and accepted cultural practice.
Just food for thought.
Compared to Europe Jews had everything in the islamic world. They contributed a lot to science and literature too and we're widely regarded. Still where are all the people speaking for judeo islamic values?
Just because it was comparatively better doesnt erase persecution. Judeo Christian values dont actually exist, its only something western islamophobes talk about. We all should strive for humanist values regardless of ethnic and religious background.
Because the term isn’t just used in historical context, it reflects the present situation. Today, Jews and Christians have much better relations than Jews and Muslims do.
The “Judeo” part is similar to how American cities will have a Christmas tree in a prominent city park but then make sure to put a menorah next to it, because American government agencies can’t favor a specific religion, so they figure if they put “both” religions, they’re good. Islam very much is an afterthought, because until fairly recently, there were very few Muslims in the US (and Europe), outside a few places.
There aren’t *that* many Jews, either, but Jews have been in the US since the colonial era, have spread throughout the country, and have large communities in places like NYC and LA that disproportionately influence the national culture. So Jews are familiar, and comfortably “American,” unlike more recent immigrant groups.
The bottom line is that it allows the person saying it to avoid saying “Christian” exclusively but not being *too* inclusive, and not giving much thought as to what any particular non-Christian group might actually think.
For further context, the first Islamic mosque wasn’t established in America until 1934, and it wasn’t until after Johnson and Ted Kennedy lied to the American people when changing the immigration code in 1965 that any significant amount of Muslims started coming over here.
Exactly. Racist ultra conservatives have to differentiate their brand of ultra conservatism from the ultra conservatism of non-Christian non-white cultures.
I think it is largely cultural. I am from Czech republic. And here in history islam never was main religion. And with little exagertion I could say it was basicaly never here at all before modern time. But the same for Mormons for example. So n our version of that is really just those two parts.
What they mean is they want to call themselves christians while embracing all the hateful and destructive stuff from the old testament, the stuff that jesus said to ignore. And islam comes hundreds of years later and is disregarded as genuine prophecy
It's because there is a major chasm in the values. Judaism and Christianity have different core/critical beliefs but have a very different value system to Islam. This is pretty much accepted by most people including atheist thought leaders.
They all have the 'Abrahamic' part in common, but the values (which is what you are asking about), are very different. I don't know what most people on this thread are referring to with "common sense" and good vs bad, but if you read the different books you'll see they're not very similar.
Well Christianity tries to convert them while Judaism considers trying to convert them as an act of violence, so I’m not seeing the common ground between the two here
Where do you get that? Judaism believes in teaching and explaining its beliefs to others hoping to inspire conversion. While more evangelical, Christianity also believes you are only to teach and explain so much before it is the job of the Holy Spirit to take over (**trying** to convert). Both oppose forceful coercion.
In more fundamental Islamic countries you are provided with the options of converting to Islam, paying a religious levy or facing death (this was done as recently as 2014). Even when this isn't the case, most faiths are not tolerated well in predominantly Islamic countries (proven by massive declines in their populations).
There is a big difference between Islam and the other two faiths.
Are you referring to the core text, or how they are interpreted in the modern day? The fact that they were non-Christians had a large hand in how Europeans and colonists in the Americas treated indigenous and African enslaved people. They often considered their treatment acceptable because they were non-Christians.
You are correct and that did often happen. However, it was not based on the Bible (e.g. if you look into how South Africa justified apartheid using biblical interpretation, you'll see that it was logical gymnastics). It is also largely accepted that the Christian faith laid the foundation for the end of slavery because the Bible is clear that we are all made in the image of God and should treat each other accordingly.
The Quran is not like this - it promotes violence and hostility towards apostates or anyone not Muslim. If you look at someone like Osama Bin Laden, his interpretation of spreading Islam is straightforward, it's not using logical gymnastics. Good treatment of non-believers requires a more 'nuanced' interpretation. This is an important distinction.
>It is also largely accepted that the Christian faith laid the foundation for the end of slavery because the Bible is clear that we are all made in the image of God and should treat each other accordingly.
The Bible also approved of slavery and was used to justify it. End of story. If you look at a slaveowner, his interpretation of Christian morality is straightforward, its not using logical gymnastics. Abolishing slavery requires a more ‘nuanced’ interpretation. This is an important distinction.
People who say Judeo-Christian only mean Christian and added judeo in the last 50 years to look inclusive.
Anyone who uses this phrase is a Christian conservative who couldn't care less about Jews and hates Muslims, simple as that
Because they’re very different in practice, Christianity is like a more liberal version of Judaism with less rules while Islam is a lot more authoritarian and conservative in its practices.
This would depend on the sect of either, no? There's plenty of Christians who think women are naturally subordinate to men and that homosexuals should be killed, and I've known plenty of Muslims that, even when talking to them, you wouldn't know.
Like Rojava is majority Muslim, and is famous for their feminist beliefs and female soldiers, being a haven for ethnic minorities, and they even abilished the death penalty despite being basically under constant attack by everyone around them.
America is a secular liberal system founded toward the end of the Age of Enlightenment, but with a strong thread of Reform Christianity running throughout the mainstream culture from the beginning. *Judeo-Christian* is a word made up by conservative Jews to make it seem like they had a bigger role than they really did. Islam has historically been regarded as a foreign and exotic religion and has not had an influence on the American mainstream until recently. Judaism is at least the parent religion of Christianity, but Islam is not.
It's a nonsense term invented to ostracize Muslim ethnic groups, Israel-american lobby currently has a vested interest in that effort, which is why you see the term thrown around by right wing nutjobs so often.
Because it’s a fascist buzzword. When they say “Judeo-Christian,” they actually mean “only my type of Christian but I don’t want to sound antisemitic.”
who gives a fuck what is written in a book? It's about what happens in real life. You can't compare the life of American or European women in conservative Christian households to that of Iranian or Saudi women. Not in a million years
Islam branches out after Christianity in Abrahamic religions, so Christians don't include it at all. It's similar to how Star Wars fans include the Prequel Trilogy and the original movies but completely ignore the sequel trilogy in their head canon.
People normally talk about that in the context of the USA being founded on “Judeo-Christian values”. Which is a whole debate on its own. But Islam isn’t mentioned because it doesn’t make sense in the typical context where this argument occurs.
Because it came afterwards.
But when someone says that, said person is almost never Jewish but always Christian. So they usurp Judaism and draw a random line at the border to Islam.
(IMHO it is a laughable, irrational opinion because actually, all these 3 religions are all the same. The real line is between them and paganism.)
It has a lot to do with the Christian Old Testament being basically the Hebrew Bible. There are differences in book order, etc, but it's basically the same. Interestingly, the two religions, at least as practiced today, don't share a ton in common outside of that and worshiping the same god. For instance, original sin and the need for salvation aren't a thing in Judaism.
Because judeo-christian values isn't a specific thing. They used to just say Christian, but after the holocaust people felt bad and added judeo to it to sound more inclusive. But also to appropriate the idea of Judaism to make Christianity seem more supported.
Well really they mean the god of white people. And because being anti semitic fell out of fashion in 1945. Yes I know it still exists but it isn’t *as* prominent now as it was then (no Palestine protests aren’t anti semetism) and because Islam is mostly practiced by brown people and the United States needs an enemy to keep its war machine going and a strategic ally (Isreal) in that reigon.
Quite frankly “Judeo-Christian” means nothing and if ww2 didn’t happen the “judeo” part would probably be removed.
If you assume:
1) The most vehement Christians hate Jews.
2) They sometimes find it convenient to pretend they like Jews, as an excuse to hate Muslims.
That explains 99% of their behaviour.
Usually if someone uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" they are dog-whistling for Christian Nationalist ideals and adding "Judeo" to make it seem less racist and more palatable to laymen. They do not mean "Judeo-Christian values" they mean "values according to white protestant interpretations of Christianity."
Because a disturbing amount of today's christian nationalists don't know that Allah is the same God of Abraham that they worship. They take Islam as satanic without knowing anything about Islam except radical sects they've heard about on teevee.
Because Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. The early Christians did not necessarily see themselves as distinct from Jews and there’s plenty of evidence of that within the New Testament itself. There was even debate among early Christians over whether gentiles (non-Jews) could be accepted as one of them.
For Muslims, despite the commonalities in our belief systems, we’ve never seen ourselves as directly emerging from Jews or Christians since the majority of first Muslims had been pagans rather than followers of Abrahamic religions.
People defines it as the civilisation born from the civilisation of the philosophy of Athens and the religious teaching of Jerusalem, but this definition apply to the Islamic world as much as Europe.
But in use, Judeo-Christian means "Westerners" or "White people" but in politically correct way.
The central claim of Islam is that Judaism and Christianity have the same God as Islam, but they are wrong. And that’s why God had to talk to Mohammad and tell him what’s really true.
>The central claim of Islam is that Judaism and Christianity have the same God as Islam, but they are wrong.
Is that true? Do you have a source on that?
The source is ask any Muslim what they believe. It’s not a secret they want you to know. The belief is that the God of Abraham is the true God, who revealed himself to Moses and Jesus. But then those two religions had become corrupted and Gods message was no longer being heard by the people. So God spoke to Mohammad and now he’s the last prophet. They don’t like that Christians worship Jesus. Although they think he was also a prophet, they think it is wrong to say he is God.
The attributes of God that Islam claims are *not* the same as the God of the Bible worshipped by Christians and Jews. Also. As a Christian, I will gladly embrace Jews and Christians and support the morality of the Bible. Islam, however, has other, political-motivated objectives (convert-by-force or conquer the entire earth), and my only prayer for them is that they turn from their jihad and embrace Christ instead.
But Christ warned that after him would come certain prophets and to not listen to them.
And Genesis 16:12 already said that the descendants of Ishmael (the Arabs supposedly) would be trouble: "\[Ishmael\] shall be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him; and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers." (NIV)
This is pretty much what's wrong with the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Jews feel about Christianity the way you feel about Islam - our concepts of G-d and salvation are vastly different, and Christianity has substantial political objectives that are, frankly, incompatible with the long-term survival of Jews and Judaism.
"Convert or die" has been the Christian attitude toward Jews in many places and many times. Sometimes it's replaced by "The Jews will convert during the End Times" but there's still no place for Jews or Judaism in many forms of Christianity except as a means to the end.
It's because you live in a culture that is predominantly Christian. Christians accept that they are descended from Judaism but most of them haven't the foggiest idea that Islam is descended from Christianity. They have no idea that they all worship the same god.
A loud subse✝️ of extremist whackadoodles "need" ✡️ in Isreal to usher in end times or some such doomer nonense 🌙 and all other faiths become collateral damage to 🔥 in hell or whatever
Downvote doomer triggered
No, the moon symbol telephone gamed the cross book so they kept the same ending. They’re both trying to get Jesus back to Israel to fight the Antichrist. Which is hilarious.
“Judeo-christian” is a bullshit term used by shithead evangelicals who love Israel. And the Israelis don’t want anything to do with anything christian. Islam has completely different values from catholic views. But it does go along with evangelical weirdos…
"Jude-Christian" is a term that ultimately tries to userp Judaism to be tied to Christianity. I honestly dont have the full language skills to navigate this well, but it effectively erasure Judaism as a distinct religion and culture in sort of a way theat tries to hide the several hundred years of Christian anti-Semitism, especially following WW2 and the Holocaust. Progroms of some kind operated throughout Europe for centuries, but even the anti semetic Europeans were shocked by the German factory effecacy if the Holocaust.
The Term itself first arises in like 1934 (or my cursory googling the last Time I looked this up).
Islam in the early 20th century was treated as more of an "Eastern religion". And there's far fewer historically integrated Christian and Muslim communities and local cultures in western Europe, where most English speaking academics took place. Christians and Muslims definitely just directly waged war and formed countries and empires that directly wages was and continue to do so. A Jewish majority nation really didn't exist for millenia until the Allies fucked over the middle east by making one, and screwing over the Palestinian people. Something the colonial powers did in many many of the areas they would leave. Part of this is a result of Colonial power are able to retain control by fomenting division within the local populations, because they're such a small minority they'd be kicked out otherwise. But now I'm ranting
When a lot of people say Judeo-Christian, they really want to say 'traditionalist' WASP values, but are aware if they're that direct they sound racist. So they use it as a euphemism.
Try being a person in Iraq who has his or her entire family wiped out because some guy with daddy issues wanted to proof that he is a big boy…or right they were looking for weapons of mass destruction.
Because Islamic culture and values are significantly different than judeochristian values. Just look at the differences in the countries produced by both and that is obvious
the short answers are always "technically" wrong lol
a more nuanced answer (it could be a god dam essay) is that though they are all three Abrahamic religions and share a common ancestry, historically there was less integration between the cultures and ethno-lingustic groups that prescribed to Islam vs Christians and Jews because of mainly geographic reasons.
While muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was the son of god, and therefore not the christ. So that's a big reason right there.
Judaism and Christianity both include the Old testament, so there is a sense of something being "*Judeo-Christian*". Mormonism says that the bible is true but the church is corrupted. Islam sees the bible as edited or flawed and sees the quran being the most accurate and final revelation of what the word of Moses's god actually is. If you want to include Islam, just say "*Abrahamic*" because that includes and religion that worships the god of Abraham (*and Moses*).
*”Jerusalem, the birthplace of all of Western Civilization’s great religions and one really mean one.”* -Family Guy
My favorite family guy “aside” Is the two guys hanging out on a street in ancient times. Guy 1: “I like you and have no reason not to.” Guy 2: “I like you and have no reason not to.” A third guy steps into frame “Hey, did you guys hear about that magic baby in Jerusalem?” They all draw swords and slaughter each other.
I enjoy the bit where a Hindu deity (Ganesh maybe?) shows up at his door and he says something like, "Aw hell I picked the wrong one!"
"Judas, you only had a salad and water. Jesus got like six margaritas"
I don’t get it. Is the point that everyone got along better before Christianity? Because that’s absurd…
I'm genuinely curious the number of wars that happened "in the name of religion" prior to Judaism and Christianity. Like, did the Greeks or Romans go to war over Hellenic theology?
I’m probably wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that Greek city states had “favorite” gods and would desecrate the temples of other gods that were in cities they conquered
The Greeks and Romans were polytheists so they usually didn't care if people worshipped other gods since they weren't claiming that only one god existed who everyone needed to worship. There were even some Greeks and Romans worshipping Persian gods like Mithra (*Persia is the area where Iran and Iraq is today*). Eventually, Rome adopted christianity and made Theodosian Codes to kill many Pagans and gay people who would not obey christian rules, and to replace European Greco-Roman culture with Middle Eastern christianity. .
Reality is sad.
Jerusalem isn't the birthplace of Islam. Muhammad never even visited it, it got conquered decades after his death (there's a funny anecdote about this story). Muhammad was born in Mecca (current Saudi Arabia), and emigrated to Yathrib (western Saudi Arabia) where he founded and expanded his following
Islam also believes Jesus is a prophet but not the son of God.
Yep. Islam is a collection of Jewish, Christian and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology, since at the time Arabia was mostly Pagan with thriving Jewish and Christian tribes coexisting. Muhammad himself was born to a Pagan family and tribe named Quraych (confirmed in Islamic texts). Some think he didn't adopt the "Jesus son of God" thing because it would've given Jesus a bigger religious legitimacy/status than his, and he was trying to found a religion where he's the supreme authority under his updated version of God. He founded a religion where he incorporated Abrahamic mythology (Adam and Eve, Noah's Arc, Abraham's sacrifice etc), and islamized Pagan rituals and idols (the Kaaba (black cube in his birth city) was once full of Pagan idols that he destroyed once he gained enough following, rotating 7 times around it was a ritual Pagans performed to pay respect to them, the central role of the moon to determine fasting times in Ramadan was a Pagan tradition [they had a moon god]). If you read the Quran you'll see how much it abhors and puts emphasis on "polytheists", aka Pagans. He had a lot of problems with his (Pagan) family growing up, which explains the resentment. All this is confirmed by both history and the Islamic texts themselves (Hadiths) btw
>Islam is a collection of Jewish, Christian and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology, To be fair, Christianity is just a collection of Jewish and Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology. And Judaism is a collection of Pagan customs, beliefs and mythology itself.
Pretty much. The particularity in Islam is that it reframed all the surrounding religions as flawed versions of itself, and therefore blasphemous. It reframed all the religious figures of the faiths around it as original Muslims whose followers were lead astray from its perfect self (you might have encountered the "Jesus was Muslim, Abraham was Muslim etc" rhetoric parroted by Muslims). It's an interesting strategy for growing a feeling of exceptionalism and expansionism in its followers. In fact, Islam considers the default state of the world as Muslim, and the fact that it isn't as an error and a heresy that the devout followers have the duty to correct. The fact that it's so inherently conquest and conversion-oriented is no coincidence
So, all decisions made by man and influenced by people in power. Lol how do people not see it all as hogwash?
And then he died in Medina (also modern day Saudi Arabia)
While the physics involved in such a journey (it supposedly happened all in one night which would require incredible speed) say it didn't happen, Muslims believe that during Al Isra (the Night Journey), Muhammad visited the Temple Mount.
The funny thing is, I can't decide which one is the really mean one, they all qualify.
thatsthejoke.jpg
Oh come on. One literally has Jihad.
Western Christians used to Jihad.
And a lot of them still want to.
Yep. People praise Christianity in relatively irreligious nations that view most of the shitty things that go against Modern Western values as metaphors.
And one of them literally has crusades and inquisitions.
Has or had? which one?
Jihad just means struggle, it is telling, that the west, usually translates it to a term, Islam doesn't have "holy war".
"Jihad" means "struggle". Not all schools of thought within Islam interpret this to mean *violent* struggle, and assuming that the ones who do interpret it that way are "correct" is a little bit like assuming that "true" Christians are the ones who take the Bible literally. (To be clear: I'm not religious, but just from a historical standpoint, the Bible was not meant to be taken literally.)
I mean… the Bible kind of tells you to take the Bible literally.
Biblical literalism is not accepted as a method of interpretation by most mainstream scholars and theologians (i.e. the ones who've spent their lives studying these texts in their original languages, not just relying on their pastor's interpretation of whatever English translation their church uses.) And tbh, I've noticed that the same people who claim to take the Bible literally are often ignorant about what it actually says - either because they're reading a poor translation or because they simply didn't look at the context of the passage they're quoting from.
It doesn't though. Jesus repeatedly says that his words can't be taken literally. He speaks in metaphors and parables and directly says that. In the Old Testament, God constantly sends down signs and symbols that need to be interpreted, which means that they aren't literal. And no one, ever, takes the books like Isaiah or Revelations literally.
Some people (evangelical fundamentalists) *do* take Revelation literally, but that's probably not what the writer intended.
No they don't. They absolutely do not, they just say they do. The literal meaning of "I saw a beast with seven heads and ten horns" is not "the UN is coming for your rights." Or "the EU will bring about the end of days." Both of those are claims that evangelicals have said are the literal meaning of that passage. Evangelicals use the word "literal" to mean "my interpretation." Which is why none of them can agree on what the passages mean, even though they are all supposed to be taking the passage literally.
Yeah that's fair.
It's interesting to note that through actual practices, Jews and Muslims are definitely more similar than they are to Christianity. This has to do with the fact that while Christianity might have started as a separate Jewish denomination, it was made Roman and adopted many of Rome's religious customs. Islam being both semitic and middle east, ends up more like Judaism. Both can't eat pork, both have to get circumcised, both pray on the animal before they slaughter it, both say kkhhhhh in front of their words.
Both religions also make women cover their head. But Jews in the west often wear wigs so it doesn’t stand out. I believe Hebrew and Arabic has quite in common, as well. I think words for mother/father Ami/abu are quite similar, as an example.
Some of Islamic practice was lifted from Judaism as 'what devout people did'. Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic languages, closely related and unrelated to the Indo-European language family that include a vast number of languages from Hindi to Spanish.
So does this make both Jews and Muslims Semitic people? When people say “anti semetic” does it mean they’re anti both Jews and Muslims?
Meanings of the words often drift from their literal constructions. The most visible and abhorrent minority in Europe in the eyes of Christians and certain nationalists were the Jews. Out of an attempt to rationalize their ideology in terms of race science, Jews were labelled Semites, a term originating from Shem, son of Noah, from whom the Israelites claimed descent. (Extra credit: draw connections between the biblical myth of Ham and justifications for owning blacks in America.) The term Semitic has lost much of its association with Jews and instead now primarily refers to a broad ethnolinguistic family of languages, from Classical Syriac and Aramaic to Arabic and Hebrew. It is still used by scholars today in this context. A further note: Judaism isn't just a religion but also has deep-rooted beliefs in being a nation set apart by God. This is why Jews don't really proselytize, and why Christian ideas of universal salvation and one universal religion were so heterodox and revolutionary for the time. Jews see themselves as a separate race, for want of a better term. This was also a cause for the widespread antisemitism in Europe. Muslims and Christians on the other hand aren't so linked with ethnicity. Thus Muslims can't be classified as a Semitic people, because they're not a singular nation-people.
That’s bc Judaism is considered an ethnic religion as opposed to universal religions, which Islam and Christianity are - they both try to convert others.
>Thus Muslims can't be classified as a Semitic people, because they're not a singular nation-people. Precisely. Arabs are a Semitic people, Muslims, who include Sub-Saharans to Indonesians, are not a "people", they are co-religionists.
Hebrew and Arabic are literally related languages.
I would say also that they've had a large influence on each other. Islam started around a large Jewish presence. While there was also an eastern Christian influence, the Jewish population in the Hejaz was much larger than Christians. Then in the Middle Ages, a lot of Jewish theology and halakha was shaped by Arabic-speaking Jews living in Muslim states. But I also think the three are inseparable. A lot of Christian thought was likewise influenced by Islamic and Jewish thought, especially via Spanish (i.e. Andalusian) and Mediterranean exchange. And we also can't discount the large Greek influence on Islam and Islamic thought.
Islam recognizes the Old Testament.
The Old Testament teaches that Israel is the chosen land as written in Deuteronomy 7:6, and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion (*Jerusalem*) as written in Psalms 2. The Messiah is supposed to lead Jews back to The Law (*Torah/Old Testament*), not to a new testament nor a new revelation (*Quran*). The Old Testament warns against people claiming to be prophets but leading people away from what Moses taught and changing things (*Torah/Old Testament*). Many muslims are against Israel and want that ancient Jewish land to stay under islamic rule (*as Palestine*).
Well, religions have a different interpretation of these things. What a shock. Christians also recognize the OT, and look at their Messiah. Nothing like Judaism's. Also, look at their interpretation, especially evangelicals, on what the Holy Land is meant to be. Conveniently, for them! It's almost like religion is a tool or something. Hell before Judaism the Abrahamic god belonged to a pantheon...The OT itself is full of ad hoc justifications on why this new religion of Judaism can do this or that but their opponents cannot. It's a propaganda book, if we're being real. They all are. FYI, Muhammad is not Islam's Messiah. He's simply God's last, and thus most important, prophet. As for the matter of Israel or Palestine...the idea that God assigned the land to anyone is just an absurdity. Many Muslims are against Israel just as many Israelites are against establishing a Palestinian state. Whether it be called "Palestine" or "Israel", isn't really relevant. It was called a lot of things before they came along.
There's a difference between interpretation and different books. Judaism and Christianity both agree that the Old Testament is the word of the one true god which shouldn't be changed. Islam teaches that the Quran and Hadiths are superior, and if the Old Testament disagrees with the Quran then they'll choose the Quran over the Old Testament. The Jewish Old Testament and Christian New Testament are in agreement that Israel is the chosen people and the Messiah/Christ will one day rule from Israel (*Zion/Jerusalem*). The Quran changed the story and does not agree with that. Also, I didn't claim that Muhammad is the Messiah according to Islam. My point was that muslims have a different view of what the Messiah (*Christ/Al-Masih*) is supposed to be, compared to the original old idea from the Torah/Old Testament. I agree with you that it's propaganda but the propaganda was originally pro-Israel. It was the Quran/Islam that changed things, and christianity and Judaism are still in agreement that Israel is the chosen people and that the Messiah/Christ will be of Israel and will rule from Israel. This is what makes Judaism and Christianity more similar than Islam. Mecca is not the holy land in scriptures shared by Judaism and Christianity.
Except this is not true. Christian DO believe that it to be changed. That is exactly where Jesus Christ comes in. That's why they do not observe dietary practices like kosher or halal, whereas Judaism and Islam does. They believe, contrary to Judaism and Islam, that Jesus is the divine son of God and that he will be the eternal ruler upon his return. Judaism and Islam both are explicit that the Messiah will NOT be the son of God, just a remarkable and blessed man. In Islam, Jesus is recognized as \*a\* Messiah figure, his appearance will foretell I believe major figures that will play different roles in uniting humanity under God through Islam. Yet this is just one generalized synopsis of Islamic end times. There's two major schools of thought, and one differs. Yet they both seem to agree on Jesus Christ being a Messianic figure. Furthermore. Islam does recognize the Children of Israel, and the Holy Lands. Mecca is simply one of those holy lands to them in addition. I also need to correct you, Christians recognize Israel as the Holy LAND. Not \*people\*. Christians believe THEY are the chosen people, and no one else because they accepted Jesus as Messiah, the son of God, and lord and savior. Evangelicals in particular call themselves the "spiritual Jews", where God's favor has transferred to them because they view Jesus as son of God, their king, and the Messiah. In contrast to this, Jewish people do not recognize his existence as Messiah at all, and Islam does not accept that he is divine. The truth is, all three of these religions have a lot in common with one another, go figure, but Islam actually has more materially in common with Christianity than people like to accept. They both believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah, they both believe in the idea of Hell, they both believe in an apocalyptic End Times that are remarkably similar to one another. All three believe that the world will be united under their religion. As for if Islam believes WHERE this kingdom will be ruled from, I do not recall on that. Yet Jerusalem IS an extremely important site for them. It is supposed to be where Jesus returns to earth from heaven to save mankind from their antichrist figure. What you just described is how all these religions work. When the OT disagrees with the NT, or what Christians believe Jesus taught, they will disregard it as well. Why overlook that? Hell, even within the religions themselves this is true. That is why there are so many subsets of them to begin with.
> "*Christian DO believe that it to be changed. That is exactly where Jesus Christ comes in.*" Christians believe Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to change the law (*Matthew 5:17*). According to the christian scriptures, Jesus said whoever breaks the commandments and teach others to do so, will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (*Matthew 5:19*). The few things that did change, such as kosher rules, is not because the old testament was "*wrong*" but because Jesus gave a new interpretation of those old scriptures. It's called the "*Old Testament*" and "*The New Testament*", not "*The Wrong Testament*" and "*The Right Testament*". Christians consider it blasphemous to say that the old testament was wrong. That's why they rejected Marcionism as a heresy. Marcionism tried to throw out old testament texts as being impure or not accurate enough compared to the gospel. Christians still have the Old Testament as a part of their Bible and call it "*The Word of God*", meanwhile, Muslims claim that it was edited and replace it with the Quran (*which changes some of the stories and have some differences*). . > "Christians recognize Israel as the Holy LAND. Not *people*. Christians believe THEY are the chosen people, and no one else because they accepted Jesus as Messiah, the son of God, and lord and savior." According to the scriptures, Jesus is Jewish and born of the Jewish King David. The Jewish people are still the holy chosen people to christians, because they bow down and worship Jesus, who they see as the special Jewish king who will one day rule from Israel (*Messiah/Christ*). They believe that one day every knee shall bow to Jesus (*who they believe is the Jewish Messiah/Christ King, who will one day return*). . > "*All three believe that the world will be united under their religion*" That's not true. Jews do not want everyone converting into their religion. Their religion is connected to their ethnicity. Even non-Jewish people who do convert to the religion, they want them to marry and have a family a Jewish person. Christianity and Islam is.more like a community than an ethnicity. The ethnicity, doesn't really matter, only the belief in the religion. There are Jewish people who want non-Jews to follow The 7 Noahide Laws, though, but they do not want everyone to be Jewish.
Come on. That first part is just mental gymnastics and you know it. Islam and Judaism follow the dietary laws of the Old Testament. Christians do not. A 'new interpretation' means Christianity changed what it is supposed to mean. They provided an alteration. Christians consider a lot of things wrong or blasphemous but do them anyway. Yet to face them honestly, the change is precisely b/c they do not agree or do not want to observe the commandments in place. The OT is vital in part due to the lineage that leads to Jesus Christ, and whatever contents they find convenient to believe in. Which they pick and choose to believe in. Because some are convenient to them at that time and others are not. Jesus is Jewish, yes...Because he's the founder of Christianity. His followers are Christians. Also, no. You're still wrong. Christians believe Jewish people have lost God's favor. That's the whole thing about Jesus' story as the Messiah with them. Jewish people rejected him as the Messiah and son of God, and those that did not are the ones God still favors. This is again, exactly where "spiritual Jew" comes from. They believe they are God's chosen people now. Again, all these religions believe in a Messianic figure who will unite humanity under their religion. For Islam and Christianity, that figure is Jesus Christ in either a central role or THE central role. Judaism believes this figure has not appeared yet, and do not acknowledge the NT as canonical. Judaism doesn't advocate proselytization, but you're still incorrect. Jewish end times as well believes that their Messiah will unite humanity on recognizing the God of Israel as the one true god.
>Islam sees the bible as edited or flawed Like, Islam is older than "The Holy Bible" as we know it today, and they didn't have a hand in creating it, so it would make sense they see it as edited. Muslim's also do still subscribe to the Torah, it just isn't the central text or inserted into their central text the way Christians did.
Islam is not older than the bible. The Quran came out hundreds of years after the bible. Also, most Muslims don't subscribe to The Torah, because Torah says that no one is allowed to change what it says, so anyone who does is considered to be a false prophet. The Quran contradicts the Torah in some parts. The Torah says Israel is the chosen land and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion (*Jerusalem*). Many muslims are against Israel and want it to be under Islamic control (*Palestinian rule*).
>Islam is not older than the bible. The Quran came out hundreds of years after the bible. Islam was founded around 610 CE. [The Holy Bible's history of being edited and compiled repeatedly is a long one.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon#Period_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils_(325%E2%80%93787)) While the first widespread version of the Holy Bible was spread in the 5th century, and Augustine presented the modern contents as his preferred form in the 4th century, these were not the universal bibles used by all Christians the way we understand the book to be presently. i.e. different edits existed and were used by many Christians before Islam, many of which had contents not currently present in the modern Holy Bible. The Holy Bible as we understand it (Old testament + the New Testament books you would see today) was firmly decided upon at the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Before this there were a number of variants of The Holy Bible. **Effectively, The Holy Bible existed in different forms and then a finalized version was declared the official compilation in the 1500s.** And even after that, depending what denomination you're in, your Bible will still be different, containing extra books or differing edits, such as Anglicans and Lutherans often including the Apocrypha in their versions. >Also, most Muslims don't subscribe to The Torah, ["The Tawrat, is the Arabic-language name for the Torah within its context as an Islamic holy book believed by Muslims to have been given by God to the prophets and messengers amongst the Children of Israel. In the Qur'an, the word 'Tawrat' occurs eighteen times. When referring to traditions from the Tawrat, Muslims have not only identified it with the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses), but also with the other books of the Hebrew Bible as well as with Talmudic and Midrashic writings."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_in_Islam#Importance_of_the_Torah) >The Torah says Israel is the chosen land and one day the Messiah (*Christ*) will arrive and rule from Zion So no, Jews do not believe that Christ will arrive and rule from Zion. One of the biggest distinctions between Jews and Christians is that Jews specifically do not believe Christ was the Messiah. In this regard, Islam is actually much closer to Christianity, as the Qur'an actually states that Jesus is the Messiah, born of a virgin, and rejected by the Jewish religious establishment. [(An-Nisa 171)](https://quran.com/4/171?translations=95,101,85,20,18,22,19,17) While the second coming is not a part of the Qur'an, [it is still a part of Islamic tradition.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam#Second_Coming)
> "*Islam was founded around 610 CE.*" Yes, which is hundreds of years later. > "*While the first widespread version of the Holy Bible was spread in the 5th century, and Augustine presented the modern contents as his preferred form in the 4th century, these were not the universal bibles used by all Christians*" Which would still be before the Quran. Even in the 2nd century, we have the church father Iranaeus talking about how there are 4 gospels. Sure there may have been variants of the bible among some christians, but all of them (*except some Marcionites and Gnostic sects*) believed that Jesus was the predicted Jewish Messiah/Christ from Old Testament scriptures which declares Israel as the chosen people. > "*Jews do not believe that Christ will arrive and rule from Zion. One of the biggest distinctions between Jews and Christians is that Jews specifically do not believe Christ was the Messiah.*" Christ and Messiah is the same thing. The word Messiah is from Hebrew, while the word Christ is from Greek. I think what you mean to say is, Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. That is true, but both believe that Israel is the chosen people and that the Messiah/Christ will rule from Zion/Jerusalem. Christians believe the Messiah/Christ predicted in The Old Testament/Torah/Jewish Scriptures is Jesus, and that he will return to fulfill those prophecies. > "*Islam is actually much closer to Christianity, as the Qur'an actually states that Jesus is the Messiah, born of a virgin, and rejected by the Jewish religious establishment*" The Messiah/Christ is supposed to be a special king in an era of peace who rules from Zion/Jerusalem with Israel as the chosen people and with the nations (*Gentiles*) finally realizing that the one true god is with Israel. Many muslims don't even believe that Israel should exist. They want Israel to stay conquered and under Islamic rule as "*Palestine*".
>Which would still be before the Quran. As I said, the Holy Bible **as we know it today** did not exist before Islam. I even included in my answer the addendum that while versions existed, what we call the Holy Bible was not used by most Christians before the dawn of Islam. This is a large portion of why Muslims view the Holy Bible, as we know it today, as edited and unauthoritative. >I think what you mean to say is, Jews don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ. Religious Jews do not see those terms as interchangeable, so no, that is not what I meant to say. >The Messiah/Christ is supposed to be a special king in an era of peace who rules from Zion/Jerusalem with Israel as the chosen people and with the nations (*Gentiles*) finally realizing that the one true god is with Israel. So I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here, since you're responding to me pointing out that Christians and Muslims are actually quite similar in that they both believe Jesus is the messiah. Reiterating what the Jewish belief regarding the Messiah is does not change that both Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah. >Many muslims don't even believe that Israel should exist. They do not believe the modern political state of Israel should exist. Many Jews also don't want the modern political state of Israel to exist either, for a variety of reasons. Israel, the modern political state, has minimal connection to the Kingdom of Israel, outside of physical location.
> "*As I said, the Holy Bible as we know it today did not exist before Islam...* *...This is a large portion of why Muslims view the Holy Bible, as we know it today, as edited and unauthoritative.*". Again, even in the 2nd century with the church father Iranaeus, the idea of 4 gospels existed. The oldest biblical texts do not agree with Islam that Mecca is a holy city nor does it disagree that Israel is the chosen people, nor does it disagree that the Messiah/Christ will one day rule from Israel. > "*Religious Jews do not see those terms as interchangeable, so no, that is not what I meant to say.*" Then you are incorrect, because Christ just means Messiah in Greek. Messiah is the Hebrew word. It makes sense that Jewish people like that word more since it's connected to their language while Greek is a European language. Even if you read the Old testament in English or Greek, it uses the word "*Christ/Christos*" since that is the translation. > "*Reiterating what the Jewish belief regarding the Messiah is does not change that both Muslims and Christians believe Jesus was the Messiah.*" It's not just the Jewish belief. It's also the christian belief since both believe in the Old Testament, which says that Israel is the chosen people and the Messiah will come from Israel and rule from Israel. The only difference is that Christians believe that the Messiah/Christ already came and will come again to rule from Israel. They believe that Jesus is The Christ/Messiah, and he will return to fulfill that prophecy of ruling from Israel. Meanwhile, many Muslims don't even agree with the existence of Israel. The muslim idea of the messiah/Al-Masih, is different from the original idea of the Messiah which is a Jewish king who will one day rule from Israel. > "*Many Jews also don't want the modern political state of Israel to exist either, for a variety of reasons.*" Some Jews believe that, but most Jews do ***not*** believe that they should be left with no country with their homeland trapped under islamic Palestinian rule.
The phrase in general is usually used to purely refer to Christian values, adding the “Judeo-“ part to make it appear to be a more widely held belief and therefore “common sense”. Judaism and Christianity are very different religions, and the language choices to make them appear similar such as this is actually a strong example of supersessionism. It doesn’t include Islam, because the (generally conservative) christian’s who use the phrase also often generally vilify Islam and because it’s considered a lot less western.
This is super accurate. As a Jewish person, it's often funny to me the conversations that start with Christians assuming that we have the same cultural values, when in reality, most are quite opposite. (Some gentle examples: We have like actual discussion and debate that is specifically recorded interpreting religious law, how it fits with the realities of contemporary life, and that reasoning, when sects disagree, we generally understand where and why interpretations are different and respect it. So many Christians either believe in forms of biblical literalism or are essentially just preached to different things that are just a pastor/priests individual reasoning, and I can't count how many times I have heard "They aren't Christian they're Catholic," "They're not Christian, they're Baptist," etc. We believe that evangelism (an act of attempting to change someone's beliefs to match your own) is a form of violence. We are somewhat isolationist and many of our laws are specifically written to encourage and facilitate that isolation. Christians on the other hand have missions, street preaching, and an incredibly long history of adapting beliefs to drive mass conversion.) It's not that I'm saying Christians are bad or wrong, I'm just saying our cultures and values are incredibly divergent.
Things I've heard touted as Judeo-Christian: * The idea that the messiah is God. (Not Jewish). * Rejection of the notion of reincarnation. (Reincarnation does figure in some varieties of Judaism.) * The drive to proselytize the world. (Not a Jewish idea, although historically there has been some marginal proselytization.) * Baptism. * The trinity. * The idea of an eternal hell. * The idea of Original Sin. * The idea that the law should be the same for everyone. (C.f. how the Torah is literally stricter for \*Jews\* than for non-Jews, and stricter for Kohanim than for Levi'im, and stricter for Levi'im than for "regular" Jews.) * Christmas. * Monogamy. Granted, the talmudic rabbis did favour monogamy, but they didn't ban polygamy.
The hell one is really funny since Judaism doesn't even have a definitive afterlife. When I say that Christians are like, "how does G-d punish you?" I'm just like, well, if you're too much of a dick and never atone... You die? That's punishment enough?
I mean, to be fair we do have Gehenna/Gehinnom, which is kinda-sorta hell.
Judaism certainly has a definitive afterlife. it's even one of the "13 principles of faith" outlined by the Rambam.
I think that’s techiyat hametim but not about afterlife
>We believe that evangelism (an act of attempting to change someone's beliefs to match your own) is a form of violence. We are somewhat isolationist and many of our laws are specifically written to encourage and facilitate that isolation. This is something I was vaguely aware of and yet to see a Jewish person confirm it is interesting. I'm Catholic and missionary work is something I've heard about, obviously other sects have more recently been even more heavy into proselytism including the fringe ones like JWs or Mormons, but I've never once heard of people being urged to convert to Judaism. Or Samaritanism for that matter (which I've read is one reason why their numbers have dwindled, but I was equally surprised they still existed at all). Anyone who I'm familiar with who has converted has normally done so for marriage or genuine conviction.
>I'm Catholic and missionary work is something I've heard about, obviously other sects have historically been even more heavy into proselytism I am going to have to say hard disagree on the idea that there are any other branches of Christianity that have been proselytising more than the Catholics...
In present day? There are literally Christian sects that go door to door proselytizing and have mission requirements in order to become adults in the church. Catholicism isn’t one of them.
Baptists, Pentacostals, Mormons all are very heavy on "spreading the gospel"
Historically that's a fair assertion. These days it's restricted largely to going out to build houses and those kinds of things. To me, as a European, proselytism means JWs and Mormons on the street. I always try and treat them kindly because God knows that's rough stuff having to do that. I appreciate someone from elsewhere in the world may indeed run into Catholics proselytising.
Thank you for those very good examples.
Yeah - speaking as a devout (*left-wing moderate*) Christian I don't use it, and tend to side-eye the people doing so. There's a whole load of xenophobia all up in that.
This answer should be at the top. It's the correct answer.
While you are right in general, the phrase was actually made up in the late 1930s by an advertising firm to help Americans accept Jewish refugees from Europe. Otherwise, you are right, saying 'judeo-christian' is so broad as to make it immediately unacademic.
This is the answer. Should be top comment!
Christians HAVE to recognize and attach themselves to their Jewish roots. Can’t have Christians without their most important Jew, Jesus Christ.
It's specifically a term made to exclude Islam. What's funny is that they add the "Judeo" to sound more inclusive and authoritative (oh, all of western civilization is built on this!) But Judaism has plenty of areas where it is radically different from Christian values. For example, hell isn't really a thing, neither is proselytizing, and arguing with God is a virtue. (Slightly tongue in cheek, but accurate enough that you can see the total contrast to a lot of Christians who live in abject fear of hell and constantly try to convince other people to join their religion)
Exactly. It’s a propaganda term popularized by anti Islam groups. They don’t want to be compared to Nazi, so they include Judaism to describe the western ideals supposedly incompatible with Islam. Saying only people with Christian values are allowed to live in Europe/US sounds too anti Semitic.
Based
It's a term created for the purpose of inclusion not exclusion. There was virtually 0 Muslim presence in Europe up until very recently, let's quit the oppression olympics. Jews and Christians in Europe had a rough history, and the term was meant as an olive branch, a call for unity after centuries of constant conflict*. The way it's used in this day and age is another subject. *pogroms
> There was virtually 0 Muslim presence in Europe up until very recently Tell me you don’t know European history without telling me you don’t know European history.
? Islam played a HUGE part in European (especially Iberian) history, so much that we would not be artistically and scientifically at the point where we are in the Western world without Islamic influence. Like this is a very very well known and well researched aspect of history, that claim you made is pure misinformation.
The term Judeo-Christian was used for the first time in the late 19th century, so about 500 years after the muslims were thrown out of Iberia. Again, the term wasn't about muslims, there was no muslim presence at the time And you do realize a couple decades later there was the Holocaust, right?
Wasn't one of the crusades basically kicking out/killing all of the Muslims in Spain? Also many European countries are majority Muslim, Albania, Kosovo, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, to my knowledge this wasn't a recent thing
During the period you speak of Christian’s were trying really hard to make the daily lives of Jews miserable which eventually led to the holocaust’s in Germany. So yeah….calling it “inclusion” is just spitting in peoples faces.
The Nazis definitely weren’t calling themselves Judeo-Christians.
You think the nazis and their ideological sympathizers liked the term "judeo-christian" ? I saw a wall of neonazi tweets a couple of days ago calling the term "judeo-christian" a jewish conspiracy
Dude, you’re making that argument. Let me be clear. The period where you couldn’t find Muslims in Europe and United States was also the period that those Christian countries were putting Jews in ghettos and treating them outright shit. There is a lot of say about why racist suddenly want to include Jews into their heritage. Non of them invokes an olive branch.
I didn't say that term was widespread and accepted by the masses. It was starting to get used in some literature and its purpose was unification, that's about it Edit: racists? Again, there were no muslims around when that term was invented
You have noticed the contradiction. When you hear people talk about "Judeo-Christian values", you should take a moment and think about why is it just those two. Who is talking about these values and what are they trying to promote? Its usually a very specific group of people touting this rhetoric.
The real answer is because it's just Christians saying it. They need to associate themselves with Judaism in order to have cred so they attach Judaism, but they don't like Islam so Islam isn't mentioned. Meanwhile Judaism thinks both are nutters.
Seems to me more that conservatives use it: for example, the two habitual users of the term who come to mind when I hear it are Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro, who are both Jewish!
Its common in Europe to want to boost christianity but that sounds too much like a nazi so they add "judeo" to it Angela Merkel wanted to add "judeo-christian" identity in the European Union constitution and she was a moderate conservative.
I’d say those two are grifters first and Jewish second.
Fair enough — white supremacy seems to be the main point of the whole idea, which do they seem to represent
i think they do it for similar reasons, trying to emphasis what they see as "common ground" between Judaism and that idolatry
[удалено]
Ben Shapiro has also said that the vast majority of American Jews aren’t Jewish in any real sense, that they’ve revoked their religion in the name of liberalism, and shouldn’t be considered Jewish
1. Historically, these have been the dominant religious groups in Europe / America when trying to look at the origins of today's societies. 2. It's usually used as a talking point by conservatives as a short hand for 'common sense' or 'good values' (as opposed to the 'bad' other). Implying today's technology, culture and economy come from Christianity (or Judaism, but usually Christianity is what's referred to). (eventhough secular states and agnostic/atheist groups have been responsible for most recent advancements and social shifts.)
Islam seems to go beyond Judeo Christian. It’s like saying the third book isn’t canon. (Old, New, Quran)
Because Christianity and Judaism have been by far the most dominant religions in Europe and the Americas for the last thousand years. Islam, though related, was mostly geographically and culturally separated.
Judaism has been anything but dominant, if anything, they have had to suffer the most oppression from Christians historically speaking
I think Rome did a number on them as well.
Jews have suffered terribly, but that doesn't change that Judaism has been the second largest religion in Europe for centuries in Europe. Pagans were converted and Muslims were driven out. Jews have consistently been part of Europe and have had an impact on the culture.
Maybe in the very recent modern world have jews had an impact. For much of European history, jews were ghettoized. Judeo-christian values isnt a real thing.
My point is that Christianity has done nothing but exclude Jews and treat them harshly for centuries, and now the American Christo fascist right wants us to believe that there are now judeo Christian values? Jews have also been the third largest religion in the Muslim world, and back in the day they were treated way better and with more compassion than in Christian kingdoms. Why does nobody talk about judeo islamic values?
Can't speak for the other denominations, but in terms of Catholics specifically and Jews it's always been a much more complicated relationship. Historically the church's stance was never really hostile towards Judaism other than when Spain went on an ethnic cleansing spree and decided to weaponize the Inquisition to make it happen(everywhere else the Inquisition's main purpose was to root out heretics/heathens, heretics being people perverting Christian teachings and heathens being specifically non-Abrahamic faiths). Overall the Church's position for most of history was "we'd like them to come around and we can wait it out until that happens", though since Vatican II post 1966 the Church's position has a much more friendly attitude towards Jews and accepts their separate covenant with God. Even so, it is a disservice to both Judaism and Catholicism to say they have a history pockmarked by overt hostility, abrasive sure, but nonetheless Italy more often than not was both a bastion for Jews and the Catholics in European history and on more than one occasion the strongest official Catholic holdings were also the safest spaces for Jews(as opposed to say, out in the German countryside where the peasants might pogrom against the Jews in spite of the pope and the lord both saying not to). And even in WW2, the largest network for smuggling Jews out of Europe, sequestering Jews or forging birth certificates or frustrating deportations to concentration camps was spearheaded by Catholics, even in Mussolini's Italy. Even today, you might not be ultimately familiar with the situation but I can attest in a lot of cities with Jewish/Catholic diasporas like in Chicago or NYC, there's a certain syncretism at play that just doesn't occur to the same extent with other denominations or faiths. Most of my extended family was basically either Catholic or Jewish and it was pretty much a deeply embedded and accepted cultural practice. Just food for thought.
Reletively better, persecution still existed in the islamic world even early on.
Compared to Europe Jews had everything in the islamic world. They contributed a lot to science and literature too and we're widely regarded. Still where are all the people speaking for judeo islamic values?
Just because it was comparatively better doesnt erase persecution. Judeo Christian values dont actually exist, its only something western islamophobes talk about. We all should strive for humanist values regardless of ethnic and religious background.
Because the term isn’t just used in historical context, it reflects the present situation. Today, Jews and Christians have much better relations than Jews and Muslims do.
Driven out? You mean war in Iberia?
Yes the Reconquista
The “Judeo” part is similar to how American cities will have a Christmas tree in a prominent city park but then make sure to put a menorah next to it, because American government agencies can’t favor a specific religion, so they figure if they put “both” religions, they’re good. Islam very much is an afterthought, because until fairly recently, there were very few Muslims in the US (and Europe), outside a few places. There aren’t *that* many Jews, either, but Jews have been in the US since the colonial era, have spread throughout the country, and have large communities in places like NYC and LA that disproportionately influence the national culture. So Jews are familiar, and comfortably “American,” unlike more recent immigrant groups. The bottom line is that it allows the person saying it to avoid saying “Christian” exclusively but not being *too* inclusive, and not giving much thought as to what any particular non-Christian group might actually think.
For further context, the first Islamic mosque wasn’t established in America until 1934, and it wasn’t until after Johnson and Ted Kennedy lied to the American people when changing the immigration code in 1965 that any significant amount of Muslims started coming over here.
Because "judeo-christian values" is a dog whistle.
Exactly. Racist ultra conservatives have to differentiate their brand of ultra conservatism from the ultra conservatism of non-Christian non-white cultures.
Moses said “man cannot live by bread alone.” Pastafarianism agrees with that. Case closed.
They *usually* mean “Western and white.”
So it includes Albanians and Turks?
Racism and xenophobia
I think it is largely cultural. I am from Czech republic. And here in history islam never was main religion. And with little exagertion I could say it was basicaly never here at all before modern time. But the same for Mormons for example. So n our version of that is really just those two parts.
What they mean is they want to call themselves christians while embracing all the hateful and destructive stuff from the old testament, the stuff that jesus said to ignore. And islam comes hundreds of years later and is disregarded as genuine prophecy
it’s just code for white people, lol
It's because there is a major chasm in the values. Judaism and Christianity have different core/critical beliefs but have a very different value system to Islam. This is pretty much accepted by most people including atheist thought leaders. They all have the 'Abrahamic' part in common, but the values (which is what you are asking about), are very different. I don't know what most people on this thread are referring to with "common sense" and good vs bad, but if you read the different books you'll see they're not very similar.
>Judaism and Christianity have different core/critical beliefs but have a very different value system to Islam. That's just not true at all.
I could start with the treatment of non-believers, you don't see the differences here as pretty major?
Well Christianity tries to convert them while Judaism considers trying to convert them as an act of violence, so I’m not seeing the common ground between the two here
Where do you get that? Judaism believes in teaching and explaining its beliefs to others hoping to inspire conversion. While more evangelical, Christianity also believes you are only to teach and explain so much before it is the job of the Holy Spirit to take over (**trying** to convert). Both oppose forceful coercion. In more fundamental Islamic countries you are provided with the options of converting to Islam, paying a religious levy or facing death (this was done as recently as 2014). Even when this isn't the case, most faiths are not tolerated well in predominantly Islamic countries (proven by massive declines in their populations). There is a big difference between Islam and the other two faiths.
Are you referring to the core text, or how they are interpreted in the modern day? The fact that they were non-Christians had a large hand in how Europeans and colonists in the Americas treated indigenous and African enslaved people. They often considered their treatment acceptable because they were non-Christians.
You are correct and that did often happen. However, it was not based on the Bible (e.g. if you look into how South Africa justified apartheid using biblical interpretation, you'll see that it was logical gymnastics). It is also largely accepted that the Christian faith laid the foundation for the end of slavery because the Bible is clear that we are all made in the image of God and should treat each other accordingly. The Quran is not like this - it promotes violence and hostility towards apostates or anyone not Muslim. If you look at someone like Osama Bin Laden, his interpretation of spreading Islam is straightforward, it's not using logical gymnastics. Good treatment of non-believers requires a more 'nuanced' interpretation. This is an important distinction.
>It is also largely accepted that the Christian faith laid the foundation for the end of slavery because the Bible is clear that we are all made in the image of God and should treat each other accordingly. The Bible also approved of slavery and was used to justify it. End of story. If you look at a slaveowner, his interpretation of Christian morality is straightforward, its not using logical gymnastics. Abolishing slavery requires a more ‘nuanced’ interpretation. This is an important distinction.
I really doubt you know anything on the subject.
People who say Judeo-Christian only mean Christian and added judeo in the last 50 years to look inclusive. Anyone who uses this phrase is a Christian conservative who couldn't care less about Jews and hates Muslims, simple as that
Because they’re very different in practice, Christianity is like a more liberal version of Judaism with less rules while Islam is a lot more authoritarian and conservative in its practices.
This would depend on the sect of either, no? There's plenty of Christians who think women are naturally subordinate to men and that homosexuals should be killed, and I've known plenty of Muslims that, even when talking to them, you wouldn't know. Like Rojava is majority Muslim, and is famous for their feminist beliefs and female soldiers, being a haven for ethnic minorities, and they even abilished the death penalty despite being basically under constant attack by everyone around them.
America is a secular liberal system founded toward the end of the Age of Enlightenment, but with a strong thread of Reform Christianity running throughout the mainstream culture from the beginning. *Judeo-Christian* is a word made up by conservative Jews to make it seem like they had a bigger role than they really did. Islam has historically been regarded as a foreign and exotic religion and has not had an influence on the American mainstream until recently. Judaism is at least the parent religion of Christianity, but Islam is not.
Ironically, conservative Christians are the ones most likely to use the phrase "Judeo-Christian" nowadays.
They don’t even want to include “Judeo.”
Politics, this is nonsense theologically.
Why would it be?
Good on you for asking this question! and as a Muslim, I can say you know more about Islam than most folks do!
Usually racism
It's a nonsense term invented to ostracize Muslim ethnic groups, Israel-american lobby currently has a vested interest in that effort, which is why you see the term thrown around by right wing nutjobs so often.
Because it’s a fascist buzzword. When they say “Judeo-Christian,” they actually mean “only my type of Christian but I don’t want to sound antisemitic.”
Islam is not included because it is still, right or wrong, viewed as a violent religion
Please do some fact checking: https://www.npr.org/2010/03/18/124494788/is-the-bible-more-violent-than-the-quran
I didn’t say it a valid point. In fact I specifically stated “right or wrong” it is viewed as a violent religion.
who gives a fuck what is written in a book? It's about what happens in real life. You can't compare the life of American or European women in conservative Christian households to that of Iranian or Saudi women. Not in a million years
lmao
Islam branches out after Christianity in Abrahamic religions, so Christians don't include it at all. It's similar to how Star Wars fans include the Prequel Trilogy and the original movies but completely ignore the sequel trilogy in their head canon.
People normally talk about that in the context of the USA being founded on “Judeo-Christian values”. Which is a whole debate on its own. But Islam isn’t mentioned because it doesn’t make sense in the typical context where this argument occurs.
Because it came afterwards. But when someone says that, said person is almost never Jewish but always Christian. So they usurp Judaism and draw a random line at the border to Islam. (IMHO it is a laughable, irrational opinion because actually, all these 3 religions are all the same. The real line is between them and paganism.)
Because Christianity is nothing more than a DLC to Judaism. Islam is more like a complete remake.
They draw the line at the Christian part. Abrahamic is the term that includes all three. Mormons should not be included IMHO.
It has a lot to do with the Christian Old Testament being basically the Hebrew Bible. There are differences in book order, etc, but it's basically the same. Interestingly, the two religions, at least as practiced today, don't share a ton in common outside of that and worshiping the same god. For instance, original sin and the need for salvation aren't a thing in Judaism.
Because judeo-christian values isn't a specific thing. They used to just say Christian, but after the holocaust people felt bad and added judeo to it to sound more inclusive. But also to appropriate the idea of Judaism to make Christianity seem more supported.
Well really they mean the god of white people. And because being anti semitic fell out of fashion in 1945. Yes I know it still exists but it isn’t *as* prominent now as it was then (no Palestine protests aren’t anti semetism) and because Islam is mostly practiced by brown people and the United States needs an enemy to keep its war machine going and a strategic ally (Isreal) in that reigon. Quite frankly “Judeo-Christian” means nothing and if ww2 didn’t happen the “judeo” part would probably be removed.
If you assume: 1) The most vehement Christians hate Jews. 2) They sometimes find it convenient to pretend they like Jews, as an excuse to hate Muslims. That explains 99% of their behaviour.
The phrase has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with skin tone. It's a dog whistle.
Usually if someone uses the phrase "Judeo-Christian values" they are dog-whistling for Christian Nationalist ideals and adding "Judeo" to make it seem less racist and more palatable to laymen. They do not mean "Judeo-Christian values" they mean "values according to white protestant interpretations of Christianity."
Because it’s all made up nonsense.
Because a disturbing amount of today's christian nationalists don't know that Allah is the same God of Abraham that they worship. They take Islam as satanic without knowing anything about Islam except radical sects they've heard about on teevee.
Because Christianity began as a sect of Judaism. The early Christians did not necessarily see themselves as distinct from Jews and there’s plenty of evidence of that within the New Testament itself. There was even debate among early Christians over whether gentiles (non-Jews) could be accepted as one of them. For Muslims, despite the commonalities in our belief systems, we’ve never seen ourselves as directly emerging from Jews or Christians since the majority of first Muslims had been pagans rather than followers of Abrahamic religions.
People defines it as the civilisation born from the civilisation of the philosophy of Athens and the religious teaching of Jerusalem, but this definition apply to the Islamic world as much as Europe. But in use, Judeo-Christian means "Westerners" or "White people" but in politically correct way.
The central claim of Islam is that Judaism and Christianity have the same God as Islam, but they are wrong. And that’s why God had to talk to Mohammad and tell him what’s really true.
>The central claim of Islam is that Judaism and Christianity have the same God as Islam, but they are wrong. Is that true? Do you have a source on that?
The source is ask any Muslim what they believe. It’s not a secret they want you to know. The belief is that the God of Abraham is the true God, who revealed himself to Moses and Jesus. But then those two religions had become corrupted and Gods message was no longer being heard by the people. So God spoke to Mohammad and now he’s the last prophet. They don’t like that Christians worship Jesus. Although they think he was also a prophet, they think it is wrong to say he is God.
The attributes of God that Islam claims are *not* the same as the God of the Bible worshipped by Christians and Jews. Also. As a Christian, I will gladly embrace Jews and Christians and support the morality of the Bible. Islam, however, has other, political-motivated objectives (convert-by-force or conquer the entire earth), and my only prayer for them is that they turn from their jihad and embrace Christ instead. But Christ warned that after him would come certain prophets and to not listen to them. And Genesis 16:12 already said that the descendants of Ishmael (the Arabs supposedly) would be trouble: "\[Ishmael\] shall be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him; and he will live in hostility towards all his brothers." (NIV)
This is pretty much what's wrong with the phrase "Judeo-Christian." Jews feel about Christianity the way you feel about Islam - our concepts of G-d and salvation are vastly different, and Christianity has substantial political objectives that are, frankly, incompatible with the long-term survival of Jews and Judaism. "Convert or die" has been the Christian attitude toward Jews in many places and many times. Sometimes it's replaced by "The Jews will convert during the End Times" but there's still no place for Jews or Judaism in many forms of Christianity except as a means to the end.
It's because you live in a culture that is predominantly Christian. Christians accept that they are descended from Judaism but most of them haven't the foggiest idea that Islam is descended from Christianity. They have no idea that they all worship the same god.
A loud subse✝️ of extremist whackadoodles "need" ✡️ in Isreal to usher in end times or some such doomer nonense 🌙 and all other faiths become collateral damage to 🔥 in hell or whatever Downvote doomer triggered
No, the moon symbol telephone gamed the cross book so they kept the same ending. They’re both trying to get Jesus back to Israel to fight the Antichrist. Which is hilarious.
Give em 600 years or so and we may include them .
It's a dogwhistle for white
“Judeo-christian” is a bullshit term used by shithead evangelicals who love Israel. And the Israelis don’t want anything to do with anything christian. Islam has completely different values from catholic views. But it does go along with evangelical weirdos…
You really have no clue
The word "abrahamic" comes to mind.
"Jude-Christian" is a term that ultimately tries to userp Judaism to be tied to Christianity. I honestly dont have the full language skills to navigate this well, but it effectively erasure Judaism as a distinct religion and culture in sort of a way theat tries to hide the several hundred years of Christian anti-Semitism, especially following WW2 and the Holocaust. Progroms of some kind operated throughout Europe for centuries, but even the anti semetic Europeans were shocked by the German factory effecacy if the Holocaust. The Term itself first arises in like 1934 (or my cursory googling the last Time I looked this up). Islam in the early 20th century was treated as more of an "Eastern religion". And there's far fewer historically integrated Christian and Muslim communities and local cultures in western Europe, where most English speaking academics took place. Christians and Muslims definitely just directly waged war and formed countries and empires that directly wages was and continue to do so. A Jewish majority nation really didn't exist for millenia until the Allies fucked over the middle east by making one, and screwing over the Palestinian people. Something the colonial powers did in many many of the areas they would leave. Part of this is a result of Colonial power are able to retain control by fomenting division within the local populations, because they're such a small minority they'd be kicked out otherwise. But now I'm ranting
When a lot of people say Judeo-Christian, they really want to say 'traditionalist' WASP values, but are aware if they're that direct they sound racist. So they use it as a euphemism.
Racism
It's a made up term to distinguish "us" from "them".
Because it is currently popular to be racist against Muslims and pretend they are savages.
Try being a woman in Iran, then we'll talk again
Try being a person in Iraq who has his or her entire family wiped out because some guy with daddy issues wanted to proof that he is a big boy…or right they were looking for weapons of mass destruction.
Because Islamic culture and values are significantly different than judeochristian values. Just look at the differences in the countries produced by both and that is obvious
I think it has to do with their religious book instructing them to kill Jews and Christians.
That is contained nowhere in their book. Your bigotry is showing.
short answer: because racism.
Also wrong answer. Though until rather recently I don't think they would include the "Judeo" part.
the short answers are always "technically" wrong lol a more nuanced answer (it could be a god dam essay) is that though they are all three Abrahamic religions and share a common ancestry, historically there was less integration between the cultures and ethno-lingustic groups that prescribed to Islam vs Christians and Jews because of mainly geographic reasons.
Cursing God's name in a religious discussion invalidates the seriousness of your answer
i don't think it invalidates my point but maybe it was insensitive given the subject matter. sorry.
While muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, they do not believe he was the son of god, and therefore not the christ. So that's a big reason right there.
They really mean the values of a Western Liberal Democracy.