# Judeo-Christianity **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 6, 2012, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966 "2012-02-06T11:37:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/21 "2012-02-09T17:29:50Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > And no, there hasn’t been a substantial Jewish influence on culture (as opposed to influential Jews, of which there’ve been plenty), but you can’t really compare it to Paganism - Judaism is still around, Paganism, not so much. Paganism is around – not still, but again. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2012, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/22 "2012-02-09T21:38:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The question is, is it a useful term. People seem to find it to be. > [@SecondJudith](#): > > Christians seem to find it to be. Are you implying that Jews, or other nonchristians, do not find it useful, or have a problem with it? Why is this? I’ve always considered “Judeo-Christian” a fairly neutral term. It’s a fact that Jews and Christians have some things (beliefs, traditions, values, heritage) that they share in common, as well as some that are unique to each. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Ayebaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darth_ayebaw/32/9870_2.png) [@Darth\_Ayebaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Ayebaw)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2012, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/23 "2012-02-11T13:23:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Paganism is around – not still, but again. No, still, in a great many places. Even Greece has tens of thousands of adherents to Zeus, and a great many African/native American tribes still hold their spiritual beliefs, not to mention India’s Hindus and China and Japans native spirits. It never went away, so it could never have come back to be an ‘again’. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/24 "2012-02-12T16:37:03Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > Are you implying that Jews, or other nonchristians, do not find it useful, or have a problem with it? Why is this? > > I’ve always considered “Judeo-Christian” a fairly neutral term. It’s a fact that Jews and Christians have some things (beliefs, traditions, values, heritage) that they share in common, as well as some that are unique to each. When employed to indicate that there is a shared tradition between Jews and Christians that Christians should recognize rather than treating Jews as “other” and persecuting them, (as the word was used in the late 1930s and 1940s), I would guess that Jews have no problem with it. When employed by the Political Right to create an “Us _vs_ Them” scenario in which Christians and Jews (since the Jews are obviously not going anywhere) are “good” Americans while all those others are interlopers, I would guess that few Jews really want that particular association. When employed by the Religious Right as a way to co-opt Jewish support to further the RR’s various agendas, I suspect that most Jews would be insulted. I doubt that many people outside Judaism and Christianity give the term much consideration, at all. And since different people continue to use the term in different ways, one still needs to look at context to understand how it is being used in any given statement and whether or not to take offense. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/25 "2012-02-12T17:26:10Z")
A category with more coherence is Abrahamic religions: > **[Abrahamic religions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions)** > > The Abrahamic religions are a group of religions centred around the worship of the Abraham. Abraham, a Hebrew patriarch, is extensively mentioned throughout the Abrahamic religious scriptures of the Quran, and the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. > Jewish tradition claims that the Twelve Tribes of Israel are descended from Abraham through his son Isaac and grandson Jacob, whose sons formed the nation of the Israelites in Canaan (or the Land of Israel); Islamic tradition claims that twelve Arab trib... Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all trace their origins to Abraham (or to texts which claim to originate from him). Using this category, one could also include some religions which derive from these faiths but are (arguably) not part of them. So Bahai and Druze which came from Islam but are (not usually) considered part of it is an Abrahamic religion, and Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, and Unitarians, which came from Christianity but are (arguably) not part of it are Abrahamic religions. The Samaritans came from Judaism and are an Abrahamic religion. There are some further groups that I don’t have time to list. The article above suggests that most of the religions of the world (well, most in the sense that their followers are the vast majority of the world’s population) are either Abrahamic, Dharmic (tracing their roots back to India), or Taoic (tracing their roots back to China). You could argue, of course, that by looking at the beliefs of these religions, you organize them in a different way. From the standpoint of the history of religion though, this is a very useful way to understand them. As usual, I include the link to the Wikipedia article for a purpose. If you want to argue whether this is a useful category, read the article first. If you want to know more about any of the groups I mentioned, read the articles on them first. I’m not going to repeat evidence given in the articles. I also have no interest in arguing with you about the truth of any religion, and that kind of argument really should be in a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/26 "2012-02-12T17:53:27Z")
> [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#): > > No, still, in a great many places. Even Greece has tens of thousands of adherents to Zeus, and a great many African/native American tribes still hold their spiritual beliefs, not to mention India’s Hindus and China and Japans native spirits. It never went away, so it could never have come back to be an ‘again’. For certain values of paganism, that’s true. However, the most commonly used meaning today refers to new age religions and reconstructed polytheistic faiths. In the broadest sense (non-Abrahamic religions) it’s obviously been around for ever. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2012, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/27 "2012-02-12T23:21:50Z")
Really Not All That Bright writes: \> However, the most commonly used meaning today refers to new age religions \> and reconstructed polytheistic faiths. I’m not really sure what the most common meaning for paganism is these days. I would argue (and many others would argue) that the term should be restricted to the original, native versions of the various faiths that were there before Abrahamic, Dharmic, and Taoic religions (to use the terms I mentioned in my first post) became the standard religions in their respective areas. The reconstructed and/or synthetic versions of those faiths, I and others would argue, should be referred to as neopaganism. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/28 "2012-02-13T02:43:08Z")
Who would argue that? The word itself doesn’t predate the Abrahamic religions and was never used exclusively to refer to older faiths. ---
**Author:** ![SecondJudith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@SecondJudith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecondJudith)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/29 "2012-02-13T10:08:29Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > When employed to indicate that there is a shared tradition between Jews and Christians that Christians should recognize rather than treating Jews as “other” and persecuting them, (as the word was used in the late 1930s and 1940s), I would guess that Jews have no problem with it. > > When employed by the Political Right to create an “Us _vs_ Them” scenario in which Christians and Jews (since the Jews are obviously not going anywhere) are “good” Americans while all those others are interlopers, I would guess that few Jews really want that particular association. When employed by the Religious Right as a way to co-opt Jewish support to further the RR’s various agendas, I suspect that most Jews would be insulted. > I doubt that many people outside Judaism and Christianity give the term much consideration, at all. > > And since different people continue to use the term in different ways, one still needs to look at context to understand how it is being used in any given statement and whether or not to take offense. It’s also frequently used to erase the areas in which Judaism differs from Christianity. It feeds the myth that rabbinic Judaism (ie Judaism as we know it today) is a precursor to or foundation for Christianity, when in fact rabbinic Judaism and Christianity developed alongside each other. It also means many ideas that are Christian-only are assigned to Judaism, like: original sin, a defined afterlife (including any kind of defined hell), fallen angels (specifically Milton’s Satan character), giving to the poor being an act of _caritas_ (feeling, pity) rather than _tzedekah_ (righting a cosmic imbalance), etc. I find it frustrating and inaccurate. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/30 "2012-02-13T13:44:15Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Paganism is around – not still, but again. It’s not _the same_ Paganism - Asatru revivalists are hardly engaging in 9-Day Blóts with human sacrifice, for instance. Kemeticists aren’t deifying any Pharaohs nowadays. There’s been an unbroken continuity of practice (with evolution,) in Judaism. So, Jews have always been participants in Western culture, however marginalized at times, in a way Pagans stopped being for centuries. > [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#): > > No, still, in a great many places. Even Greece has tens of thousands of adherents to Zeus :dubious: There are a [couple thousands of real followers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Council_of_Ethnikoi_Hellenes), sure, and ~100 000 with “some sort of interest”, but “tens of thousands of adherents to Zeus”? Cite? > [@](#): > > , and a great many African/native American tribes still hold their spiritual beliefs, not to mention India’s Hindus and China and Japans native spirits None of whom are Pagans, in the sense meant _in this thread_, which is more pedantically “Western Paganism”. The only Western Paganism that might arguably be considered not having died out for all that long is the Arctic Shamanism flavour, which does not have a noticeable impact on Western Culture. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/31 "2012-02-13T15:32:59Z")
The term “pagan” originated in the fourth century A.D.: > **[Paganism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism)** > > Paganism (from classical Latin pāgānus "rural", "rustic", later "civilian") is a term first used in the fourth century by early Christians for people in the Roman Empire who practiced polytheism, or ethnic religions other than Judaism. In the time of the Roman empire, individuals fell into the pagan class either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population, or because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ). Alternative terms used in During... Previously, the term meant “rural dweller.” At the point that Christianity became the official religion of Rome, people there began to think of the rural inhabitants of the Roman Empire, who were less likely to be Christians, as typical of the believers of the native faiths of their region. So the term changed to meaning “believer in the pre-Christian faiths.” That’s mostly what it meant from that point till the twentieth century, when various groups began to claim to revive those earlier faiths and call themselves pagans. I think that it would be better to refer to them as neopagans. And that’s all I’ve got to say about the issue. I’m not going to get into an argument about definitions as long as we understand what each other is saying. There are better things to do with my time. ---
**Author:** ![gracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/8e7dd6/32.png) [@gracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gracer)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2012, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966/32 "2012-02-13T15:57:51Z")
Whenever I have heard the term mentioned it has been: 1. combined with our Greek-Roman background to comment on our cultural heritage or 1. been connected to a guilt-culture and contrasted with the muslim shame-culture In both cases, it isn’t used to comment on any similarities between the two religions. Rather, it is a somewhat neutral term that describes it as a background, rather than a religion per sé. I think in both cases it’s useful. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judeo-christianity/611966.md?page=1)