Started By
Message

re: The attacks on America’s Judeo-Christian foundation and how that founding came to be

Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:52 am to
Posted by kingbob
Sorrento, LA
Member since Nov 2010
70503 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:52 am to
I disagree. While it is popular these days to distinguish the differences between Christians and Jews, it is impossible to take a serious look at Christian philosophy and not see the importance of the Old Testament. Jesus is the culmination of the religion, not the sole author, not the sole source of knowledge. Jesus’s teachings built upon the foundations of Hebrew traditions going back to Moses and Abraham before him.

It may be trendy, especially in Protestant circles, to devalue the Old Testament, and only bring it up when convenient to condemn gay people or say “see how this prophet was talking about Jesus”, but there’s so much more good stuff in there like Proverbs, psalms, and the many stories of God’s love and power like Jonah, Job, The Exodus, David, Joshua, Solomon, The Macabees, etc.

As far as our culture being more Greco-Roman, you’re not entirely off base. Our society in many ways is based on Rome and Rome’s ability to incorporate and imitate the cultures of other conquered peoples (like the Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, and Judaeans). However, while our institutions are Roman, our philosophy is a result of how Christianity profoundly took the writings of the Greeks and Romans and molded them into something wholly unique. It is that blend of Old Testament Judaism, leading to Christianity which then took over and Christianized Roman, Celtic, Nordic, and Germanic societies. Western civilization is the result of all of this cultural diffusion, mixing, and building atop one-another.

I think Judeo-Christian is actually a very apt label today.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 8:57 am
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:57 am to
quote:

And... I can't stand the term.


How do you feel about "Greco-Roman?"

What about "Sino-Japanese?"

Indo-Greek?

Anglo-Saxon?

Roman-Byzantine?

Austro-Hungarian?

Those types of terms used to communicate historical and/or cultural overlap are pretty common. Don't let the anti-Semites up in here convince you there is something unique about that one, or that it's any less accurate than any of the others I posted.
This post was edited on 5/4/26 at 8:58 am
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 8:59 am to
quote:

We need to separate Judeo and Christian IMO. These are two separate religions.


In this context it has very little to do with the religions.

It's about how the value systems dovetailed and had an impact on history.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:00 am to
quote:

It's literally made up.


LOL.

It's literally history.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21763 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:00 am to
quote:

Don't let the anti-Semites up in here convince you there is something unique about that one, or that it's any less accurate than any of the others I posted.


I've always been irritated at the term. It's inaccurate in its current usage.
Posted by 632627
LA
Member since Dec 2011
15132 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:00 am to
quote:

Some of them were deists. 0 of them were practitioners of Judaism so you're right to push back on the "Judeo-Christian" foundation. It's literally made up.


It’s a shared set of common values which make up everyday life.

Has nothing to do with practicing religion.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:02 am to
quote:

Islam is also the same by that logic


Exactly.

And since the west hasn't followed the value systems of Islam and those values haven't shaped western society, no one says "Judaeo-Islam," or "Islamic-Christian."

Excelent point.

Thanks for that excellent example of how this has virtually nothing to do with the religions.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21763 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:02 am to
quote:

It's about how the value systems dovetailed and had an impact on history.


No.

It was coined to describe Jewish converts to Christianity.

It later became used as a political term to fight antisemitism.

"The term "Judeo-Christian" originated in the 19th century to describe Jewish converts to Christianity but was popularized in the 1930s-1940s US as a political, inclusive term to counter antisemitism and fascism. "
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:03 am to
quote:

It's inaccurate in its current usage.


It's absolutely not inaccurate.

People for some reason think it means the religious beliefs. That's what is inaccurate.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21763 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:04 am to
quote:

It's absolutely not inaccurate. People for some reason think it means the religious beliefs. That's what is inaccurate.


The term was literally coined to describe a certain subset of Christians.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:05 am to
quote:

No.


Yes.

Didn't you say it was inaccurate "currently?"

Currently it is used in a historical sense to describe historical value systems.

The Google quote said so itself. "It later became a cornerstone of American civil religion during the Cold War to define Western, democratic values."
Posted by taylork37
Member since Mar 2010
15816 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:05 am to
Who cares. Can we stop going to war for another country based on their religion?

What's funny is that as a Christian nation, we dont seem to support other countries based on their Chritian faith as much as we support Israel supposedly just because of their Jewish faith.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
13517 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:06 am to
quote:

The term was literally coined to describe a certain subset of Christians.


Great.

What does it mean "currently?"

Since that's when you said it was specifically inaccurate.
Posted by 632627
LA
Member since Dec 2011
15132 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:06 am to
quote:

The term was literally coined to describe a certain subset of Christians.


And it’s literally never used in that context or manner anymore.
Posted by themunch
bottom of the list
Member since Jan 2007
71966 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:07 am to
Gay was coined to mean happy too
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21763 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:08 am to
quote:

Didn't you say it was inaccurate "currently?" Currently it is used in a historical sense to describe historical value systems.


Yeah, an "woman" means anyone that identifies as such, right?

Wrong.

I refuse to accept bastardized reimaginings of words and terms with specific meaning.
Posted by SallysHuman
Lady Palmetto Bug
Member since Jan 2025
21763 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:09 am to
quote:

Gay was coined to mean happy too


Lefty freaks stole that too... so?
Posted by UtahCajun
Member since Jul 2021
5705 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:11 am to
quote:

Don't let the anti-Semites up in here convince you there is something unique about that one


It is funny because the "Judeo" part of that label exhibits the very worst anti-semite tendencies.
Posted by 632627
LA
Member since Dec 2011
15132 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:11 am to
quote:

Who cares. Can we stop going to war for another country based on their religion?


Imbecilic groyper logic
Posted by taylork37
Member since Mar 2010
15816 posts
Posted on 5/4/26 at 9:13 am to
quote:

Imbecilic groyper logic


Ok bootlicker
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 7Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram