Talk:Judeo-Christian/Archive 1

Puritans and Jews

I am deleting the paragragh about the implication that the Purtitans distance from Catholics showed their closeness to Jews. The argument is a non-sequitor. I'm also changing the word "Bible" with "Old Testament" in another section.

Beliefs considered more important than actions

Re: "Christianity teaches that the purpose of Jesus's message in the [[New Testament] is to show that beliefs (such as belief in Jesus as the son of God) held by a person are considered by God to be more important than one's actions." I think that might be more particularly true of Protestantism, but

That is true, and I agree that it should be mentioned in the article. However, Christianity, as the great majority of it has actually has existed for the past 2000 years, has downplayed - or entirely ignored, James's point of view. In practice, Christianity is based indirectly on Jesus' statement's, and directly on Paul's interpretation and amplification of them. Similarly, there are phrases in the Tanach (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) which might argue for faith over works, but in reality, rabbinic Judaism has not followed this path. Again, this is because Judaism is not the faith of the Bible directly, but rather is based on how the rabbis have interpreted the Bible. RK

Thus, we need to differentiate between biblical quotes, and the theology, dogmas and practices that have in practiced developed from them. We have to do this; discussing what Judaism or Christianty could have developed into would be an interesting exercise in alternate history, which is a legitimate historical endeavour, but its not good for an encyclopaedia entry. RK

I agree that we need to differentiate between biblical quotes and actual practice, but I still think that the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in Protestantism than other varients of Christianity. Also, many variants of Christianity believe that salvation is available to non-Christians (this is official Catholic dotrine these days, if I am not mistaken).

I agree with the first part; the emphasis on faith over works is more evident in many Protestant denominations than Catholicism. (I don't know much about this in Orthodox Christianity). Also, there have been a few mainstream to liberal Protestant groups that have unambiguously stated that salvation is indeed available to non-Christians. Most Protestant groups mildly to vehemently disagree. RK

Unfortunately, I don't have any reference works at my disposal, but it has been my understanding that it is the official position of the Catholic Church that salvation is available to non-Christians, regardless of what some individual Catholics might think. Perhaps we need someone knowledgeable on Catholic theology who can clarify this point.

Its not just "some individual Catholics". The entire official structure of the Church has not yet come to agreement on this issue. Please do some more reading, and I will also try to dig up the specific references that I have read. There is a theological struggle going on in the Church, and the winner is not yet clear. What is clear is that the traditional view has precedence until a new view becomes formally and officialy accepted, and the traditional view for the past 2000 years has been that all people go to Hell (or perhaps limbo) without belief in Jesus. To the best of my knowledge, this is also what the vast majority of Catholic priests teach outside of the US. RK

RK: AFAIK, the official position of the Catholic church is that non-Christians can be saved without belief in Jesus. The dispute is rather over whether they are saved by Jesus, even though they don't believe in him (that is what the conservatives say), or whether they are saved by God not through Jesus (which is what some liberals say). -- SJK

That is true, but is has not been true historically. As late as the 1950s many American Catholics preached that even Protestant Christians were doomed to burn in hell. And to return the favor, most Protestants preached the same about their "heretical" Catholic and Orthodox bretheren. RK 17:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding faith and works, it's worth noting that Martin Luther relied heavily on the book of Romans but had no idea what to do with James; I've heard it rumoured that he would have gotten rid of it if he could, as he did the Protestant "Apocrypha", but wasn't able to manage it. Whether that's true or not (can't remember where I heard it), Protestantism definitely emphasizes right faith, as in believing and saying the right "magic words".

Views of Eastern Orthodoxy

My impression of Eastern Orthodoxy is that works are integrated into the Christian life; our religious life consists of prayer, fasting, almsgiving and repentance; the first two happen chiefly inside the church and at home, the latter two have a broader social impact (or at least they should). Theologically, we believe that there is a synergism between what God does and what we do, and between what happens in the interior of our hearts and minds and what happens in our outwardly visible actions. Thus, a cleaner heart will lead to cleaner actions; however, I shouldn't wait for my heart to get cleaner to do good works, since going through the motions of good works will also make it easier for my thoughts and motives to reform. Naturally, the Orthodox have succeeded at times, and failed at times, both individually and corporately. So have the Jews, and practitioners of any other religion that sets standards for behaviour that is moral, ethical and just.

Old Testament vs. Tanakh

I have modified the section on the Bible to reflect two important points: first, many Jews are offended by the characterization of the Tanach as an "Old" Testament -- moreover, I think it is important to recognize that even when people read the same book, how they read the book and what it means to them may be fundamentally different. Second, I think there are many Jews who accord the Talmud the same status as the Tanach -- SR

Well, a quick search on Google yielded the following article:

http://www.adelaide.catholic.org.au/Communications/News2000/news_22.htm According to this article, Catholic doctrine does say that salvation is available to non-Christians through some sort of "special grace", but it appears the details of this theology are not completely or fully formulated, and the doctrine also suggests that the salvation of non-Catholics is precarious, so their doctrine is somewhat ambiguous. I am sure there are better documents out there that more fully clarify this point--this was just what came back from a quick search. I guess when you claim to be the One True Church as the Catholics do, it is a little hard for them to be particularly tolerant of other religions, since they claim to be instituted by God.

Judaism believes others are not damned

I think the fundamental issue is that Judaism, being a national religion, has no problem with the notion that other nations have their own paths to God (or "salvation"), whereas Christianity, being a universal religion, has a problem with religions that make radically other claims about God and such. I do not mean that Christianity has no way of accomodating such claims, only that Christian theologians have rather more work ot do to make such accomodation, and it is easier for other Christians to reject such accomodations. I think this is a crucial difference between the two religions -- it explains why conversion to Judaism is more like a form of adoption (i.e. becoming a member of the nation, in part by metaphorically becoming a child of Abraham) whereas conversion to Christianity is more a declaration of faith. It also explains why Jews are relatively less interested in the afterlife -- Jewish eschatology is traditionally more concerned with the fate of the nation (or people) than with the problem of individual death. An individual dies, but the people still live. I don't feel comfortqble enough with these issues to write a clear and neutral entry to the article, but I hope someone else can address these points in the article -- SR

While I agree that Judaism permits other paths to God, it has nothing to do with "the nation" versus "the religion," and everything to do with the Biblical injunctions regarding behavior being more important than anything else. Converting to Judaism is not a form of adoption, but rather a form of acceptance of a lot of rules. Judaism requries knowing & following rules, whereas Christianity requires only faith. --206.86.145.15 23:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not overgeneralize about Christianity. What you are espousing is a wholly Protestant perspective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.249.202 (talk) 05:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Actually Protestantism believes faith and works go hand and hand. There is a greek word Pistis which means trust rather than the translation belief. I don't know what the hebrew cognate is, but certainly trusting Torah means one to do what it suggests.--173.21.19.155 (talk) 22:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The entire idea of converting to judaism IS that of being adopted. Being a Jew means being a part of a nation chosen by G-d to follow his rules and be loved by Him above all others. You can choose not to follow the rules and still be Jewish, just as my son can disobey my rules but still be loved by me and still be my son. The reason Judaism allows other nations do as they wish is the belief that G-d chose the Jews out of all the other nations specificially. Read the Talmud.148.78.243.26 (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pacifism

Going back to the pacifism issue... while Christians have corporately failed to practice peace, they have fought amongst themselves as well as against non-Christians. The Crusades wound up attacking Eastern Orthodox Christians as well as Muslims, the Reformation led to battles between Lutherans, Catholics, and Calvinists, and both of those groups hunted down and killed the Anabaptists, and of course the later wars between various European countries were fought between ostensibly Christian nations. This is nothing to brag about; kind of like the racist who hates all races equally. As far as teaching, Catholicism has long promoted a Just War theory which many Protestants have also subscribed to and adapted. I think that Eastern Orthodoxy promotes personal pacifism, but also says that governments have a right to use military force to protect their citizens. Some monks have made much stronger statements and followed stricter practices in this regard. In the West, only the Anabaptists (Mennonites, Amish, Hutterites) and Quakers have really called on governments to be pacifist, or encouraged their members to avoid military service. All in all, I don't think it's accurate to suggest that Christians have a double standard, one for inter-Christian disputes and another for non-Christians. --Wesley

What are the principle beliefs of Judaism?

This is one reason for my interest in the notion of "cardinal" Jewish beliefs. I appreciate RK's providing the link on Jewish theology. But I still do not understand how he can make a claim for "cardinal" beliefs given that this essay begins with this assertion: "In the same sense as Christianity or Islam, Judaism can not be credited with the possession of Articles of Faith. Many attempts have indeed been made at systematizing and reducing to a fixed phraseology and sequence the contents Of the Jewish religion. But these have always lacked the one essential element: authoritative sanction on the part of a supreme ecclesiastical body. And for this reason they have not been recognized as final or regarded as of universally binding force." It is the notion of "cardinal" itself that I do not accept. . I am unclear as to how you (RK) distinguish between "cardinal" beliefs and non-cardinal beliefs, unless it is a purely statistical measure. Do you mean that "The one belief that all Jewish theologians agree upon is..." This may be more precise than "cardinal," although I am not sure Mordecai Kaplan thought would agree

This is a difficult subject to write about. Christianity has specific beliefs, and you either believe in them or you don't. (Different Churches have different variants of these beliefs). Humanism, Buddhism and Hinduism have no set formal beliefs. In contrast, Judaism has always had beliefs...but it has never one specific formal list of indisputable theological principles. The essay I wrote was meant to prove to Orthodox Jews that their claims about an unambiguous, specific, binding set of beliefs was erroneous. However, I also hold the left-wing Reform view (which holds that Judaism has no beliefs) to be equally wrong. I think a better way to put it is to say that Judaism does have beliefs, but due to both a lack of rabbinic centralization, and no small amount of theological humility, traditional Judaism has perhaps wisely allowed Jews to have a measure of flexibility in this area. This amount of flexibility is large compared to Christianity, and small compared to Humanism and Buddism. I'm trying to be clear, but its not easy to be clear about a situation deliberately left undefined! :) RK

well-put, and I appreciate the response. The lack of Rabbinic centralization is a crucial difference between Judaism and Catholicism -- more important though I think is a tradition not just of theological humility but pluralism (e.g. the Talmud provides both majority and minority and dissenting opinions which later Rabbis can draw on). Anyway, I understand your point, SR

But to respond to Ed Poor, my main concern is that precisely in attempting to compare Judaism and Christianity, and find points of convergence, very important (but perhaps subtle) differences are erased (and usually erased in a way that favors Christian perspectives) -- SR

Good point. How about a separate article entititeled Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Christianity? --Ed Poor

Again, logical -- and I wouldn't have very strong feelings one way or the other. One could simply re-title this particular article, and include a discussion of "Judeo-Christian tradition" within it. Most of my additions were inspired by the fact that when I first read the article it began with a discussion of problematic aspects of the concept "Judeo-Christian Tradition." It is important to me that whatever happens to this material, any entry of the JC tradition calls attention to how the concept is problematic. And my main point is not just that it is problematic in a kind of logical way (e.g. how much could two different religions have in common any way?), but in a more political way -- that including "Judeo" in "Judeo-Christian" is about as inclusive as including the "Old Testment" in the Christian Bible. SR

I like Judaism and Christianity equally, perhaps because my mother is Jewish and my father is Episcopalian. Of course, I am aware of many differences between the two traditions, and I would not want to see these dismissed, neglected, or glossed over. Ed Poor

I think the creation of a second article, with a link, is a fine solution to the issue you raised.

Yeah the concept is waaay to complicated to be justed brushed over.

About proselytizing

Tried to make comments on proselytizing more NPOV; I don't think it's true Baptists are trying to end the Jewish religion; certainly Baptists wouldn't say that. —Eric

The Baptists believe that Jews are damned to burn in Hell, and that the Jewish religion must end; they explicitly teach that all Jews must renounce their faith and convert to Christianity. We might disapprove of their attempts to totally end the existence of the entire Jewish faith, but that is their goal. This should be noted somehow. It seems rather significant. RK

Yep, that is definitely true. They think ALL non-Christians share that fate. --Dmerrill

Yes, and they think I share that fate too, because I'm not a Christian by their definition. But I'd still like to see documentation for saying that "Their stated goal is to end the Jewish religion altogether." It's not the same thing as saying they'd like to see all Jews convert. —Eric

I don't understand how you can separate the two. They teach that all followers of Judaism are damned, and that being damned is bad. Therefore, and I guess they mean this in a nice way, they would like to convert all followers of that religion to their one, in order to save souls. Doesn't this logically entails ending Judaism? If no one is left following it, how can that faith still be extant? RK

I agree; I'm not sure you can separate the two. My concern was that if you say that someone's "stated goal" is XYZ, then XYZ should be what that someone actually says the goal is. To use an analogy, I think it can be conclusively shown that President Bush's "war on terrorism" will inevitably lead to the loss of civilian life. But is that his stated goal? Of course not. When readers see a statement (true in this case) that a Christian denomination has the goal of converting all Jews to a different faith, I think they're smart enough to come to their own conclusions. —Eric

Perhaps it's worth noting that Baptists want to convert *everyone* rather than just Jews. It seems strange to single out Jews since all non-Christians (and many sects of Christianity as well) are damned.

Avoid polemicism; offer more critical material

This article should not only be an anti Christian poke, but would be much better to include a large portion of the material in the comparison article and emphasize the common themes between the two religions - which is what most people who use this phrase are refering to, contrary to the claim that it is often used in politics to assert a consensus. (I actually don't doubt this type of use in political arenas, but it does have another common use.)

This is worth considering, and other points of view are important. Please feel free to make changes in the main article as well as comments here. However, befored doing so I would note this: certain positions stated in the article only seem like a poke at Christianity to you; but many Protestant Christians are proud to have these beliefs. In fact, the leader of one of the main Baptist denominations thundered out loud at a recent national convention, "God Does Not Hear The Prayer of a Jew!", and was rewarded with thunderous applause. Millions of Protestant Christians see Jews as damned to Hell, if not helping Satan outright, and they are publicly happy to preach that their goal is to end Judaism by converting all Jews to their faith. They aren't ashamed of this. Frankly, more than a few of them would look at you with suspicion, for implying that such views make Christianity look bad. This by them is something wonderful, this by Jews is something scary. So I admit that the article can be reworded, but these views seem quite significant. RK

Who uses this term, and why?

My impression of the term Judeo-Christian is that it used by American Christians to emphasize what they say as their spiritual debt to Judaism. For these Christians, the New Testament does not represent a rejection of the Old Testament, but a continuance or furthering. In this sense, Christianity is seen as deriving from Judaism.

I think that various Christian denominations differ in their view of Judaism as a forerunner to Christianity. No doubt there are some which regard Jews as having falsely worshipped all along (but I guess this is a minority view). Most acknowledge at least some debt, however.

The Ten Commandments are generally accepted by Christianity, as are the Psalms and the stories of Noah's Ark and so on; since they derive from Judaism, ecumenical Christians who are grateful to Jews for passing them on, often consider them as a common heritage.

I'd like to find out more from Wesley, SLR and others: to what extent do Christians and/or Jews feel there is some sort of common religious heritage embodied in the term Judeo-Christian? --Ed Poor

Christianity is inarguably historically derived from Judaism. Jesus and the Apostles are acknowledged to be Jews in Christianity. Paul even explicitly states in Romans that he follows the Law (forgive me for not looking up the chapter at the moment).

Common artistic and musical heritage

There is a somewhat common artistic and musical background among Jews and Christians, is there not? Something might be brought up about this in the article. I know that the early Church borrowed much of their musical modes from the melodies originally sung in the Temple in Jerusalem, and in later centuries Jewish communities indirectly borrowed Church melodies from folk music. RK

Eastern Orthodoxy still uses a system of eight "tones", that might be what you call "modes", in its liturgy. It varies by region, but I wonder whether the Antiochian Orthodox Church still uses those original melodies? There are lots of other things like that that Christianity borrowed from Judaism, such as use of incense, liturgical use of the Psalms, vestments for priests, fasting, almsgiving, and on and on. Perhaps more of these things should go into the Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity article. As for the term Judeo-Christian, I think the article is probably right when it says this was initially done for political reasons. Not only does the term attempt to avoid anti-semitism, but it also attempts to present a united front of Jews and Christians that (supposedly) all support a set of political objectives. Wesley 16:15 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

---

It seems to me most of the content of this article (everything beneath "Dialogue") should be at someplace like Jewish-Christian relations (and that article might subsume Christian anti-Semitism). DanKeshet 20:01 Feb 20, 2003 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian-Islamic

The term "Judeo-Christian-Islamic" has been coined to describe the values shared by the common history of the three religions. This has been ridiculed by the American Christian Right as a term that could only be used by people who believe in "the validity of all cultures".

This implies that the "American Christian Right" does not recognize that Islam has something in common, historically and in religious approach, with both Christianity and Judaism. Who coined the term? Who is the "American Christian Right"? Who is it specifically who makes this specific statement? How is the party referred to representative of the group as a whole? What is this comment supposed to describe: an analogy to "Judeo-Christian"? the tendency to coin terms? the tendency for some groups to object to these terms? the tendency of the "American Christian Right" to be out of step with minters of inclusive terminology? or what? Should the new sentences be removed, or should more information be provided? Mkmcconn 21:14 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've hopefully clarified my amendment. I added a link to the source as well. If this is not adequate, please feel free to revise, edit, or delete. Theanthrope 18:47 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That was helpful. Thank you, Theanthrope. I did make a few changes, which I submit for your criticism. Mkmcconn 20:52 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well done. Looks very good to me. Theanthrope 23:21 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I have done some editing on this section:

I have clarified (I hope) the reasoning behind rejecting the inclusive term in general and than put the allegations by the AFA behind that, as they are not mere criticism but also allegations about motives.

I also removed the "cultural relativism is one of the key concepts of modern anthropology" clause. Though it's probably a correct statement about the subject mentioned, it is of no relevance to this article - except maybe to tell the AFA that they are wrongheaded in their scoffing. Maybe, maybe not, but it is POV and not relevant to the discussion of the term. (If we should make "relativism" the basis for this, the whole concept and with it this entry falls apart, we'd need a Judeo-Christian-Islamic-Buddhist-Hindu-Taoist-Shinto-Animist-Atheist... entry - sorry, if I forgot anyone.)

Str1977 17:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why the article makes such a big deal about the exclusion of Islam. When people talk about the commonality of Judaism and Christianity they tend to say "Judeo-Christian." When people talk about the commonality of Judaism, Christianity and Islam they tend to say "Abrahamic."-12/26/06

Is Christianity tritheistic?

From the 2nd para "fundamental doctrines such as monotheism;"; I suggest that this doesn't belong. Christianiaty is mostly tritheistic, except from the POV of the Christian apologists. As this article is discussing what Christianity took from Judaism, from the Judaism POV, Christianity didn't take monotheism, but rather replaced it with tritheism. 66.44.102.237 19:39, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Most scholars of religion do not see Christians as polythesists or tritheists. Even most Jews, who are strict monotheists, do not see Christians in this way. See Jewish views of religious pluralism. Mormons, however, are often viewed as polytheists, as they believe in millions of Gods (even if they only worship one of these gods.) RK 17:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

As a Jew I can state that most definitely Jews see Christians as polytheists. It's taught that way in religious schools. To most orthodox and hasidic Jews this whole concept of "Judeo-Christianity" is insulting and most can't even figure out why people think the two religions have much in common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.142.254 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

"As a Roman-Catholic I can say that Christians are indeed monotheistic. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost in the Pre-Vatican II Council tradition) are three distinct persons derived from each other, and existent as one; this is the spiritual mystery of the Trinity.

As Saint Patrick tried to explain it: A clover has three "leaves" and one stem; all parts are one clover. This is the most complete and accurate analogy that has been presented to me in my many years of Catholic instruction and practice." -Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.196.215 (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Removed text

I have removed this sentence. I don't believe that the first part of it is accurate. RK 17:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The term was used in the United States of America in an attempt to create a non-denominational religious consensus or civil religion that by embracing Judaism avoids the appearance of anti-Semitism. The original uses of the term have faded and now usually refers to a general western religious background and the term is commonly used by historians and academics as a shorthand for the predominant religious influences upon Western culture.

I believe it is accurate; look at the new links provided. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jewish-Christian dialogue

Why is this section in the article? What does it have to do with the topic? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also comment by DanKeshet above from 2 years ago. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, isn't this material already at Christian-Jewish reconciliation? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I also recommend we adopt a general policy that the terms "Good" and "Evil" represent a relative Point of View and should only be used with a disclaimer indicating the determining perspective. Without the disclaimer, I argue that the use of these terms violates our NPOV policy and we should use "Possibly-Good" and "Possibly-Evil" instead. See Stikipedia-Guilt-ridden revisionism complex for more on this absolute height of silliness.

The Roman Catholic church uses BCE and CE, just thought you'd like to know.

See also

I severely protest the exclusion of internal links to relevant topics of Judeo-Christianity. Puritans were the Christians who changed the face of Christian society with their Judaizing mission. Their fundamentalism brought Jewish customs and concepts to the modern Western world that other Christians did not subscribe to, with their Roman Christian background. Jewish financiers were invited into society to enforce the Protestant work ethic. What is so hard for people to understand how this Judeo-Christian relationship is historically and presently important; a genuinely great way of fleshing out this meager article? Does the nature of the subject bother you? In which case, extricate yourself from enforcing any lack of NPOV. Do not throw yourself in to stall and block the appropriate text because you fear to see things for the way they are. This is the foundation of modern Judeo-Christian connections! I am bothered by the fact that it appears any topic dealing with Jews is somehow prone to revert wars. That may be an effective strategy to control the articles from saying anything you don't want it to say, but I am here on a mission of education rather than ignorance. I am here to allow NPOV instead of propaganda and half-truths. Where would capitalism be today, without the Judeo-Christian joint effort thus described here?

Why do you think the Puritans were a Judaizing group? They did not restore any Jewish law or custom to their church that I am aware of. Also, please restrict your comments to article content, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps if you paid better attention to what has been written and stop beating around the bush like you know nothing, then we could resolve this. I have seen your edit history of wars with anybody who writes on a topic about Jews, unless they fit your ideal presentation. Explain it. ScapegoatVandal 03:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside your personal attack on Jayjg, I also deleted your additions, as they have nothing to do with the topic of the article — which I can only assume that you haven't read properly, only looked at the title. The article isn't about Jewish–Christian relations, but about the term "Judæo-Christian" as used when talking about belief systems, moral codes, and general culture. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Nirvana2013 (talk · contribs) has been flooding Wikipedia wioth links to his pet article Christian anarchism; his recent edits here added a link to it in the "See also" section, plus one to Ebionites, and a merge template, suggesting that this article be merged with Jewish Christians. Although the suggestion indicates that he hasn't read or understood this article, I'd have left the template there until the merge had been discussed, but he hasn't left any comment or explanation here, so I've reverted all three. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

call for attention

When I first encountered this article, I was troubled that it called attention to a tradition that many historians question. Since that time, several editors have put a lot of work into another article, Judaism and Christianity, that emphasizes the differences between the two religions. That is (in my opinion) a valuable and informative article. But now, in contrast, this article seems impoverished. When this was the only article that discussed Judaism and Christianity, the assertion of a common tradition raised serious NPOV problems. But now that we have a well-developed article on the differences between Judaism and Christianity, I think many of those NPOV concerns are allayed. The fact remains that "Judeo-Christian" is an extraordinarily popular phrase, and this article does not do justice to it. It does not fully explain what people mean by "Judeo-Christian," or how the term is used, or why. Personally, I do not like the term, so I am not qualified to address these gaps. Can someone? It really needs work. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is an American thing. A century ago the public religion there was explicitly Protestant. During World War II Catholicism and Judaism were lumped in under this name, suggesting that whatever their differences, Americans all partook of a common Biblical-centered religious life. I gather that this sentiment--that Jews and Christians share a common fundamental heritage--is what motivates its continued usage. (Some have tried to introduce "Judao-Christian-Islamic" but to no discernible effect--most Americans would probably prefer Buddhism to Islam, common theistic / prophetic heritage or no.)--Dawud

Allah isn't the same as the Judeo-Christian God

I think Islam shouldn't be clumped in with Judaism and Christianity because they aren't the same God. Allah is the name of the pre-islamic middle eastern moon god, think of all those muslim nations with moons on their flags. While christianity is like an extension of Judaism.--70.31.119.77 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Gallosuchus

That statement is incorrect; Muslims believe that they, Jews, and Christians all worship the exact same God; "Allah" is simply Arabic for God and is used most often since Arabic is the language the Quran was revealed in; and is considered "Islam's language" of sorts--just as Hebrew is essential to Judaism. Additionally, a fundamental belief of Islam (regardless of whether Islamic fanatics believe this) is that Islam is a direct extention of *both* Christianity and Judaism; in fact, contrary to popular opinion, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than Christianity. (i.e. kashrut and halal dietary laws have a lot of overlap; Jews & Muslims both believe that the day starts and ends at "sunset," (for example friday begins on sunset Thursday evening and ends sunset Friday evening. etc etc. The list of similarities goes on and on.) --Sc423 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Islam and Judaism are very similar in nature. Judaism is probably closer to Islam than Christianity.

Allah is the Arabic word for God. It is not a name. All Arab christians (of which there are millions) say "Allah" in Arabic to mean God. Furthermore, in Mark 15:34, Jesus uses "Eloi" for God (see Sayings of Jesus on the cross) which is the Aramaic dialectical form of the Arabic "Allah". I do not think the Islamic concept of God is exactly the same as Judaism and Christianity, but in principle we are definitely talking about the same God.

As for the "moon God" that is rubbish. That is like saying Jews worship a "star God" because their symbol is a star.

As for similarities between Islam and Judaism, they are superficial (e.g. ceremonial). Similarities between Christianity and Judaism are ethical and moral. But no one is saying Christianity and Judaism are the same religion.

The 'moon god' argument is one of growing popularity among the less, shall we say, 'scholastically adept' branches of American Protestantism. A good example is here, courtesy of Jack Chick http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp Needless to say, this sort of thing has no place in an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.249.202 (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The "moon god" argument is especially retarded when you know that the moon in not originally an Arabic or Islamic symbol. It was in fact an old Turkish symbol that was introduced in the Islamic World by the Ottomans and only became associated with Islam thereafter. But who listens to US Evangelical Christians anyway?... Those guys never bother to open an History book...

Evolution in the Concept of God

See Evolution in the Concept of God. Yesselman 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel Word

The "Exclusion of Islam" section has weasel words. I would like to change the wording to give it a more NPOV. If there are any rejections, feel free to revert the page and post comments here.-Hairchrm 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the page, but I am not very good at making the sentences flow, if someone could please revise it, it would be much appreciated.-Hairchrm 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Exclusion of Islam

This section includes the statement: "(e.g. Islam's Moses brings plagues upon the Jews, not the Egyptians)". This is not accurate. The Islamic version of the tale states that the plague struck the Egyptians, not the Israelites. --Khalil78 17:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

"Opponents of this term claim that the concept attempts an appropriation of Jewish identity to Christian values." This sentence doesn't make sense. I'm putting it here in case someone can make sense of it and integrate it back into the article.69.160.12.45 01:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Renaming

I think this article should be renamed to Christianity and Judaism, like Islam and Judaism. Feer 15:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I noticed Judaism and Christianity already exists, so never mind. Feer 00:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

I have readded the original "Criticism" section after it was deleted. I suspect some conservatives who do not want the truth about the lack of Jewish influence in Western Civilization deleted the section earlier. Shame on them.

66.42.111.212 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC) Marcus, March 7th, 2007

The entire thing was unattributed original research. Please read the relevant policies, and do not add this again. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to update the Criticism section to the previous versions of the article. The current section isint even edited correctly. I feel the previous deletion was more political and emotional based, rather than scholarly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.42.54.87 (talk)

I had to revert your addition because it is concerned with Islam (see the article's title) and is not WP:ATTRIBUTED. Also see WP:3RR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Your "feelings" about the "motivations" for the removal of that material violate WP:AGF. As stated, information in the article needs to be properly attributed and on topic; the material you keep inserting/re-creating is neither. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirection

Anyone have any idea why the entry for Satanism redirects to the Judeo-Christian page? It's either an error or a malicious redirect. --HumanEnhancement 19:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Judeo-Christians as a word referring to people?

Is there such a thing as a Judeo-Christian, that is a person who has some religious beliefs (or, possibly, the word in plural as a common name for several groups with different beliefs)? I sometimes see the equivalent of that word used in my mother tongue - Estonian - but I cannot be sure whether it is an actual word or a correct usage. Can it be so in English, and if yes, who are these Judeo-Christians? (For example, who are - or were - those Jews who in the early days of Christianity became Christians, but nevertheless defined themselves as Jews, too, because of their background?)80.235.62.82 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian Values and the Founding of America

Hi - Clovis, please explain your objections to my paragraph (which I believe you deleted in its entirety). Just about every sentence was footnoted. Michael Novak is one of the most prominent writers defining and explaining the Judeo-Christian concept. I don't think Wiki can have a meaningful article on this topic without his ideas. They are also supported by David Gelernter's book, Americanism, The Fourth Great Religion. The comments linking Protestants to the Hebrew bible is not based on logic, it is based on history. Prostants rebelled against the medieval Catholic Church and one of their most important goals and successes was that everyone could read the Bible for themselves. this is not a controversial statement. The Catholic Church then reformed itself as well, and of course today ordinary Catholics read the Bible, too - but it was illegal before the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. When Protestants read the Bible, they became deeply influenced by the Hebrew Bible. This is also non-controversial, history - I could cite you another half dozen sources and a gizziliion quotes from colonial times....p.s. i am a new contributor and not sure this is the right place to react to changes another editor makes. should i also be doing it on clovis talk page? ````Rosedora —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedora (talk • contribs) 12:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rosedora,

As I wrote in my edit summary,

This article is specifically about a word phrase, not a general treatise on the history of America

The material you are adding is already well developed at American revolution, where AFAICS your new paragraphs have been cut-and-pasted from.

But this article is specifically about the phrase "Judeo-Christian", how it has been used, and whether it is a meaningful term at all. The material you are adding is not based on discussing how the word phrase has been used.

If there are people who have identified American development specifically with the phrase "Judeo-Christian", their identification may be worth discussing here (as well as those who think the label is misguided, or unhelpful, or a misrepresentation). But there's no need to copy over cartloads of material verbatim from American revolution. A simple reference to the other article will suffice. Jheald (talk) 14:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I restored one paragraph of the reverted edits. This paragraph does seem to specifically mention and discuss the phrase and explain how it has been used and on its face appears to be reliably sourced. Agree much of the material that remains deleted goes beyond this and gets into a general discussion of American cultural history. However, I believe a version of this material that sticks closer to the article subject and explains how historians have used the term could be developed. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this review of the Gelernter book cited. It says he "parts ways with most other authors by insisting on the strongly biblical character of these ideals [(liberty, equality, and democracy)]". So I'm not sure how far WP should promote this line uncritically.

My impression is that "Judeo-Christian" is a characteristically American term, and is characteristically used as a positive signifier that works for much of America, to help it identify with particular worldviews/qualities/political outlooks. It would perhaps be interesting to find sources for different POVs as to just what worldviews/qualities/political outlooks are particularly linked, or "sold", as being especially "Judeo-Christian". And to what extent this identification is actually valid. This appears to be some extent what Gelernter is doing, though I'm anxious he may also be deliberately creating a historical mythology for the concept. It would be useful to reflect a wider balance of academic POVs, and to understand to what extent there is an academic discourse on this topic.

I suspect the phrase may be less common outside the USA - it certainly isn't common in the UK - probably because it doesn't have the same "sale value" elsewhere, in populations which mostly don't self-identify themselves as individuals so much with religion, nor their countries as embodiments of such a religiously-located shared enterprise. That in itself maybe does show it appropriate to analyse the "Judeo-Christian" as a particularly American creed, and self-identity, that has been constructed. The title of this paper, Jewish GIs and the Creation of the Judeo-Christian Tradition looks intriguing. It would be interesting to see more reliable sources on this, this self-identification as "Judeo-Christian" (all together). Jheald (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. I do have a different point of view, as the subject area 'Judeo-Christian heritage" is one of my main interests. There is a voluminous body of writing on this topic. I think we should create an article with a section including actual content delineating what this heritage consists of. If you don't want a repeat of the material already in American Revolution, I will write fresh material. I actually would like to see the sort of thing in the American Revolution article expanded at length here, since it comes directly under this subject heading. I think I understand that the subjecxt content doesn’t actually interest many of the editors of this article, who are more interested in exploring whether it is valid – but believe me, there are tons of us out here who actually find the subject of this Judeo-Christian heritage fascinating, as it is central to the roots of American democracy. I will add a bunch of references to the reference section as one place to begin making this a more substantial article. Perahaps I have gotten the wrong impression – are you actually arguing that the article should debunk the concept, but not allow room to describe its content in any rich detail? Fine to include debunkers and those who want to debate it. That is a good thing. But surely this does not preclude including information on what our Judeo-Christian heritage is to the many serious historians and published authors who have written volumes about it. ````Rosedora (am I signing my name wrong? I did four tildes and then my name.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.164.107.195 (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You might do best of all to start a new article on this subject, linking with a {{main}} template at the appropriate section in the American history article to the your article, where there would be the space to explore the thesis in much more detail. Similarly, there could then be a paragraph here, but linking to your new article for the full extensive treatment.

PS the four tildes usually work -- maybe it happened you were weren't logged in at the time? All best, Jheald (talk) 11:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rosedora again. I'm open to the idea of a new article, Judeo-Christian Values in America, but I think it deserves a little more thought and discussion. From my point of view, the existing article is the right place for all this information. I feel you got off to the wrong foot with this topic initially by defining it primarily as a theological one, pertaining to common beliefs of the two religions, and I see from the history that you eventually came to this conclusion yourself and spun that topic off as a separate article, leaving this one very thin. Unfortunately, the definition and focus are still predicated on that initial theological approach. Yes, I looked up Websters and see that what you have is a dictionary definition, going back to 1895 by the way, not to GI's, but in common parlance, when refering to America as a Judeo-Christian nation (which as far as I know is the only usage of this term), the topic is not theology, but values and cultural norms and the roots of American democracy. The solution I would propose and I hope you are open to, is to fill this article out with its proper subject matter, which is the historical and cultural meaning of Judeo Christian. To repeat myself, serious authors who write about this topic are by and large, historians. It is cultural historians who are interested in this subject and they have written voluminously about it. Particia Bonomi's book, Religion, Society and Politics in Colonial America, for example, is cited in almost 80 references according to Amazon. The analogy that comes to my mind - and please take this with a sense of humor - is that it is as if you guys were Creationists writing an article on Darwin, and only want to discuss the controversy, and not describe the theory of evolution. If that is really the consensus here, I will write about the subject under another heading. once more attempting to sign my name using tildes. rosedorawaldenpond (talk)rosedora —Preceding comment was added at 12:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

seconds thoughts - maybe you are right. better to just link to other pages that cover these topics in depth.signed rosedora. --waldenpond (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)rosedora

arthur cohen

i removed the description of him as a theologian. a google search on him shows he was dubbed a theologian by a book reviewer. he has no credentials as a Jewish rabbi, no education from a Jewish theological seminary etc. he is an author on Jewish topics. ```rosedora —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosedora (talk • contribs) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Historical Development

Hi Everybody. As you can see, I took out the paragraph on the rise of Christianity, and added a whole lot of material on the evolution of the concept of Judeo-Chrisitan from the 19 century to 2008. Every paragraph is referenced; in some, every sentence. I have tried to be neutral and inclusive of different approaches to the concept - religious, historical, political and re inter-church relations. I have tried to include viewpoints who like the concept and those who don't. I hope most of you like this new approach. If you want more references, or feel things could be worded in a more neutral way, please let me know instead of trashing what I've done, and I will be happy to try and improve it in a collaborative way. --waldenpond (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

One minor style note: Wikipedia tends not to use "Ibid", because it's all too common for new material to be dropped into or taken out of a section, and the ibid to get separated from the reference it's referring to. Instead, prefer "Prager, p.2" to "ibid, p.2". Multiple references to the same page can usefully be combined as a single named reference, used in multiple places in the text.

You've added some very interesting new material. I need to think some more about it. At first glance, though, I still do have concern about the casual identification, right at the top of the piece, of the term "Judeo-Christian" with the C19 idea of a Puritan/Protestant outlook. It seems to me it would be more appropriate to resequence this material, to introduce first the 20th century rise of the term "Judeo-Christian", with its specific inclusion of the Jewish, and then to show how this has been able to assimilate the pre-existing idea of a Protestant/Pilgrim ethic, which had an emphasis on Old Testament values, but no particular regard for Judaism.

One other minor style point - beware of terms like "our culture" - remember you're writing for an international audience, not a specifically American one. :-) Jheald (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jheald. Will drop ibid and 'our culture.' Relation of 20th century use of term and 19th century history of term is an interesting question, especially as both co-exist today, and are integrated in many uses. Since I came to it via American history, I do see it as one of the current, major, applications of this concept, thus belonging in definition section. Do you want an explict sentence on 19 century part saying it had nothing to do with Jews or Judaism?

Also, you may find Prager's discussion of this issue interesting, "Part VIII, Judeo-Chrisitan values are larger than Judaism or Christianity"WorldNetDaily: Judeo-Christian values, part 8. [1] --waldenpond (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jheald - It will take me some time to absorb your changes. What is the best method for navigating through a long history of changes to see what has been done? Or do you just look at the finished article? Could you please explain your thinking behind the changes? thanks. --waldenpond (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

New Organization and Sections

Hi Jheald. This is fun. Did my work stimulate you to do some more research? The new material is interesting. there for the word of the fallow is no effectiontI think the article is much improved from when I first saw it two weeks ago. You and I seem to have different attitudes towards the term, which is good, as together we can make a more complete and balanced article. I like the Multiple Meanings title instead of Historical Development. I think you have lost your neutral POV a few times there. "pushing a Judeo-C. values agenda" sounds like polemics. You identify one political viewpoint as 'conservative' but not the other as 'liberal', so for the sake of consistency, I will put tags in for liberal as well. You also start straying into materaial that is otherwise in the interfaith relations section, with the "some have accused it" sentence, which is better described there. In the Interfaith section, you have added two extensive quotes to the POV that Judeo-Christian blurs theological distinctions that some Jews want to preserve - making it a total of five quotes, two very long, for this one point. I am going to try and find some balancing quotes. I think having the two sides makes it a better, stronger article. I liked some of the tweaks and word changes you made to my stuff. I have another suggestion for the "Usage to describe American History" which I find awkward. How about, "The Judeo-Christian Concept in American History"? Also, instead of Christian Criticism of Israel, which makes it sound like it belongs in a different article, I'm going to put,"Breakdown of the Liberal Christian-Jewish Alliance." Good work.--waldenpond (talk) 20:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

First use of term

hi - I found that first use by using google books and searching for judeo-christian. at the bottom of the page you can click on 20th century, 19th century and keep going backwards in time. it was sort of a haphazard method, but did turn up that 1833 quote. i'm surprised the oxford english dictionary was so far off.--waldenpond (talk) 02:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Reverting this -- it's actually a 21st century article, not an 1833 one. [2]

As well as the modern style, layout, language and typography, note other articles in the same issue dealing with Cindy Sheehan, Valerie Prime, and combat lifesaving techniques in Iraq. The article in fact dates from February 2006.[3] -- Jheald (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Good catch.--waldenpond (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Rosedora

Proposed merge from Christianity and Judaism

A recent AfD proposed the article Christianity and Judaism be merged into this article (or, perhaps more accurately, take this article over). Since the AfD objections have been raised, and the matter is currently being re-discussed at Talk:Christianity and Judaism#Overly speedy deletion. Editors from here may wish to participate. Jheald (talk) 11:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Judeo-Christian mythology

Shouldn't the fact that this is in large part a Judeo-Christian mythology be referred to somewhere in the article. It is after all a collection of myths, mores and parables. --68.81.70.65 (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC) the facy=t is that section judeo-christian tradition Jubison: monotheistic religons the Herbrew(Jews) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.93.198.11 (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

History of the term Judeo-Christian

There needs to be some history of the concept included in the article. Without it this article is merely a thesis comparing similarities between the 2 religions. These similiarities are not unique to Judaism and Christianity either, they are very common in many religions today.

For example, the idea was born in the very late 19th century, but was only recently used prominently during WW2 in order to gain support for the Jewish cause.

I need to clarify that i'm not questioning the existence of similiarities but rather questioning the omission of pertinent details regarding this concept and where and how it was used during the course of history.142.150.48.188 (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is a mess, sadly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.89.199 (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is a worst quality mess babbling some alleged generality between Judaeism and Christianity mixing it with the Israel case, making it a obnoxious mess. The true topic Judeo-Christian is about the Jews that were Christian and resided in Jerusalem up to the Bar Kochba rebellion. A lot of "restorationist" denominations allege some special lost heritage from Judaism, almost invariably rejected by outsiders. The current article tries to concoct an ideology that signifies nothing that exists in the world outside WP. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Content Removal

Someone removed the external links and a block of text in the middle of page was replaced with dummy text. Fix'ed Marendrent (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

USA-centric article

This article appear to be extremely USA-centric, as if the Judeo-Christian tradition in unheard of outside the USA.

Already in the introduction, this article discusses

• "the Jewish beliefs in progress and moral responsibility, as hallmarks of American culture" (presumably USA culture)
• "The evolution of Judeo–Christian influence on America" (presumably the USA)
• "republicanism in America" (presumably the USA)
• "the American context" (presumably the USA context)
• the "founding generations of Americans" (presumably USA Americans")
• "components of the American character" (presumably the USA character)
• "the “American Creed.”" (presumably the USA Creed)
• "ideas from the Hebrew Bible, brought into American history" (presumably USA history)
• "the American Revolution, Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
• "the religious beliefs of America's founding fathers" (presumably the USA's founding fathers)
• "the creation of American institutions and character" (presumably the USA institutions and character)

There is no mention in the introduction of any other country. I suggest all the inappropriate references to the USA be removed. Teldmarjo (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because it's a very "USA-centric" term. It's basically an invention of American Dominionists who want to outwardly pretend to be inclusive of more than just Protestantism. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious statements as well

"The values most commonly assigned to the Judeo–Christian tradition are liberty and equality" sounds very dubious/political. Teldmarjo (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

good editing = clear thinking

The key to a good encyclopedia article is clarity, which is expressed by and created through good editing. The following paragraph is an example of what happens when these two elements are absent:

"The evolution of Judeo–Christian influence on America is most commonly the subject of historians looking at the development of republicanism in America. The deep roots of Judeo–Christian values they explore go back to the Protestant Reformation, not the theological battles but the bloody struggle to win the right to translate the Bible into vernacular languages[4] [5]. (see Wycliff, Tyndale,King James Bible) This led to a religious mandate for public education so that ordinary people could read the Bible. According to some authors, this development was crucial to the birth of the Enlightenment and rebellion against divine right of kings[6]. See also the English Civil War."

Besides the emotive modifiers ("deep" roots, "bloody" struggles), notice the string of floating "see also" links (in my quote not actively linked) -- floating in parentheses outside any syntactical unit. The statement about republicanism is impenetrable, and this generalization is supported in notes 4 and 5 by a whopping two historians who appear to be writing specifically about Bible translation, not the formation of American republicanism. 'According to "some" authors' is again supported by a single author. Taken all together (and I haven't even explored the gaping holes of logic: "See also the English Civil War"!), this reads as if it were written by someone desperate to advance a POV, without a full command of the subject as represented in a wide range of sources. (See separate comment following on what that POV is.) Very disappointing for the introduction to an important subject. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

anti-Catholic

This article supports an unsettling trend toward defining "Judeo-Christian" and hence "Western" civilization as a product of Judaism and Protestantism filtered through England. It is almost explicitly anti-Catholic, and by extension anti-Gallic and anti-Latino. The fear of the "Hispanicization" of America is palpable in the leading voices in this movement, though they conceal their prejudices by strategic omission rather than open polemic. I hope it doesn't come as a surprise to too many of the contributors to this article that Catholicism is a Christian religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally applaud that they have kept Catholics out of this "Judeo-Christian" definition, which is indeed a Protestant invention (the link to Western Civilization is abusive though, read below). The only references to this in Catholic countries is due to recent media influence that made the word popular, but lacks any historical foundation in those countries. It is indeed a product of Judaism and Protestantism. As for the writers of the article being surprised, well, as long as it is made clear that what is being said is the opinion of the "Judeo-Christian" movement I think it should remain, after all this is not an article about "being right" but one that explains the world views of "Judeo-Christians", so their views on Christians should be part of the article (regardless of their merit, that is not the objective of a wikipedia article IMO). In short, it should be made clear that this is a Protestant concept (I think it is pretty clear), and any reference to "Western Civilization" linked to some article that explains what this really means, plus what "Judeo-Christians" think it means. Dominvs Vobiscvm--85.138.213.238 (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Old Testament

I'm changing "Old Testament" into "Bible" where it says that most of the "Old Testament" is in fact Jewish sacred scripture. Obviously that should be "Bible", since the whole of the O.T. is Jewish sacred scripture, but (relevant in this context) that majority of the entire Bible is made up of the O.T., thus Jewish sacred scripture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.117.233 (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

please can you explain this judeo-christian in philippine language(tagalog vesion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.176.9 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

removal of content

If you want to collaborate on this page, please discuss plans to remove big blocks of content, and justify why you think they should be removed. also, please sign --Cimicifugia (talk) 23:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)cimicifugia

Why no "criticism of the term" section?

The article gives the impression that the concept of "Judeo-Christianism" is theologically and philosophically evident and universally accepted. In fact, a lot of historians and politicians disagree with it, and criticize the term as nothing more than an empty gimmick to justify political support of Israel and portray Jews as allies in a fantasized struggle against Islam.

This is not at all evident that Judaism and Christianity "share the same moral values". First, Christianity is an universalist religion, view all men as equal before God and deserving salvation. Judaism is more of an "exclusive" religion: Jews have a "special relation" with God (Chosen People), and dismiss other people as "Goys" or "Gentiles".

And as for moral values, the "turn-the-other-cheek, love-your-brother" Christian mentality is not exactly reflected in Judaism that is more about "an eye for an eye". In fact Jewish moral values would be ironically closer to Islamic ones (strongly patriarchal and tribal-like). The much decried Sharia law is more or less a continuation of Mosaic/Judaic law.

I think the reason why people (especially in America) see a closeness between Jews and Christians is because in the past two centuries Jews have assimilated in European/Christian societies and largely abandoned Jewish religion (at least in its more Orthodox form). But still, when the Jewish religion is followed literally, it has nothing to do with Christianity. To convince yourself of that, just go take a walk in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods in NY or Jerusalem (if they let you in...) and see how close those guys feel to Christians... Again, you'll find their way of life to be closer to that of Saudi Arabia than to secular America!

The term has also been criticised by "people in America" (who happen to be Orthodox Jews, who see it as an attempt by Evangelical Christians to co-opt them for their own purposes SteveH (talk) 22:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree with this. A content similar to the one provided in this link would be useful:

http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Judeo-Christian#Criticism_of_the_term —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.113.189 (talk) 05:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Weren't most antisemites Christian?

What happened to change it all? 199.117.69.8 (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)