Seriously, what even are Judeo-Christian values, and why don't they include Islam? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Seriously, what even are Judeo-Christian values, and why don't they include Islam?

Debate Information

Can anyone actually explain what Judeo-Christian values really are? Conservative political pundits like Ben Shaprio, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson will mention these but they never really seem to explain or list specifically what they are.

Even more intriguingly, and explanation always seems to deliberately exclude Islam. Why should we not consider these same values, whatever they are, to be nearly the same values as those held by many Muslims? Are there any of these supposed Judeo-Christian values which are not also held by Muslims?

Some have argued that these values are the foundation of Western thought passed down from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans, then preserved in Europe. This however is ignorant of the golden age of Islam, when many of the basic scientific, mathematical, astrological, medical, and economic concepts that were foundational to modern science were founded.

It seems to me that we ought to include Muslims into these values if indeed they are not different, and consider them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values.
PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42xlJ_dolphin_473TreeManOakTownA
At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
Through a long process of evolution this life 
developed into the human race.
Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

All of that so we can argue about nothing.
«13456



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • PlaffelvohfenPlaffelvohfen 2506 Pts   -  
    The “Judeo-Christian tradition” was one of 20th-century America’s political inventions. An ecumenical marketing meme for combatting godless communism, the catchphrase long did the work of animating American conservatives in the Cold War battle. It's a myth... The term was coined by Georges Orwell in 1939...

    I agree with you with regards to Muslims... It is more accurate to speak of "Abrahamic traditions / values"... 
    Happy_KillbotZeusAres42OakTownA
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @Plaffelvohfen ;

    I completely agree, but even though  "Abrahamic traditions / values" is probably the more accurate title, I think that Judeo-Christian-Muslim values should be used, if for no other reason except that it would probably get under the skin of said conservatives, and force them to expose their vacant argument by providing specificity to the terms, forcing the realization in many that they don't necessarily agree with them.
    Plaffelvohfen
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 533 Pts   -   edited February 26
    @Happy_Killbot
    'Judeo-Christian Was actually created in America, as an alternative to Christian values with 'Judeo-Christian' values, the 'values' inherent in it is actually similar, apart from two important ways:

    "First, Judeo-Christian America has differed from Christian countries in Europe in at least two important ways. One is that the Christians who founded America saw themselves as heirs to the Old Testament, the Hebrew Bible, as much as to the New. And even more importantly, they strongly identified with the Jews." https://dennisprager.com/column/what-does-judeo-christian-mean/

    Judeo-Christan values are pretty much a mix of Jewish and Christian values.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -   edited February 26
    @Debater123 ;

    What are those values specifically? Can you give me a list? Then explain why Islam doesn't hold those same values.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 533 Pts   -   edited February 26
    @Happy_Killbot Define all Christian values.

    The term is also pretty much a word for Christianity that is nicer to Judiasm.

    I also don't get what Islam has to do with this, my argument never once mentioned it and my giving backstory to the term actually rendered Islam irrelevant in this debate.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Define all Christian values.
    That's what I am asking, plus Judeo's and Islamo's. List and explain these values.
    The term is also pretty much a word for Christianity that is nicer to Judiasm.
    Okay, but what are those values?
    I also don't get what Islam has to do with this, my argument never once mentioned it and my giving backstory to the term actually rendered Islam irrelevant in this debate.
    If you list those values, how many would not also be included in Muslim values such that the term ought to include them?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • rosendsrosends 130 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot
    They are a fiction. They are the unstatable ideals which Christianity espouses and can claim it inherited from the culture before it, but which aren't shared by the culture after. Feh.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Debater123Debater123 533 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot Judeo-Christan values are values commonly held between Christianity and Judaism.

    Although I do not know much of Christan values, I can talk of some ways Islam differs from Judaism
    Islam revels in the act of Martysm, whilst Judaism is opposed to it(Thou shalt not murder).

    You cannot say the god in Judaism, while you can in Islam.

    In Judaism, you only pray 3 times a day, unless it is the sabbath day. However, in Islam, you pray 4 times regardless.

    Islam seems to objectify women (Quaran 4:34), while Judaism doesn't, and seems to respect them far more.
  • rosendsrosends 130 Pts   -  
    @Debater123

    You wrote, "In Judaism, you only pray 3 times a day, unless it is the sabbath day."

    Just a side clarification:

    for men, 3 formal services on a weekday, 4 on a sabbath, new moon or holiday, 5 on Yom Kippur.
    Debater123
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;

    Judeo-Christan values are values commonly held between Christianity and Judaism.

    Although I do not know much of Christan values, I can talk of some ways Islam differs from Judaism
    Islam revels in the act of Martysm, whilst Judaism is opposed to it(Thou shalt not murder).

    You cannot say the god in Judaism, while you can in Islam.

    In Judaism, you only pray 3 times a day, unless it is the sabbath day. However, in Islam, you pray 4 times regardless.

    Islam seems to objectify women (Quaran 4:34), while Judaism doesn't, and seems to respect them far more.
    Did you mean martyrism? As in the act of becoming a martyr? That's like, Christianity's entire thing what with the Jesus narrative. Go to tick-tok and find all the "I will die for you god" memes, and read about people's martyr fantasies where they are being held and made to renounce their faith or they will be killed, then not doing so. It's a thing.

    Christianity also heavily objectifies women, go to reddit and read r/TwoXChromosomes for evidence of that. It's a stereotype that young Christian men are rude to women and only look at them as walking uteruses. This is arguably worse in Islam today, but needless to say that "The Handmaids tale" features a Christian Puritan society, not an Islamic one so there is still historic relevance here, especially when we look at the US founding and colonial period.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Debater123Debater123 533 Pts   -   edited February 28
    @Happy_Killbot Sir, I believe I was talking about Judaism, not Christianity.

    I should've clarified what I meant by Martyrism, by Martyrism I meant killing other people whilst dying in the name of your god.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @Debater123 ;
    Sir, I believe I was talking about Judaism, not Christianity.

    I should've clarified what I meant by Martyrism, by Martyrism I meant killing other people whilst dying in the name of your god.
    Yeah, that's like  Christians whole thing as previously explained. If anything, this highlights a difference between Christians and Jews, while highlighting a similarity between Christians and Muslims so maybe the term should be Christian-Muslim values instead.
    Debater123
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3819 Pts   -  
    There are principal differences between Islam and Christianity/Judaism. The former is much more comprehensive. Judaism and Christianity focus on the moral implications of the worldviews they suggest, while Islam really seeks to shape every element of the individual's life and their environment. Judaism and Christianity answer questions such as, "What should you do in situation X?" Islam, on the other hand, goes deep into how different elements of the government and society should function, down to very fine elements of the court and banking systems.

    Islamic cultures definitely have contributed significantly to science and philosophy of Western cultures - however, this contribution has always been filtered heavily through the Western cultural and philosophical prisms. You will struggle to name any general philosophical idea that originated in the Islamic world that nowadays is significant in the Western world. That is not to say that those ideas are worthless; they simply have never made it here, for a variety of reasons.

    Now, the idea of the West being based around the Judeo-Christian values alleges to the fact that Christianity - which, in turn, was heavily influenced by Judaism (more so than Islam was, which, in turn, borrowed a lot from Christianity, but sprinkled the eastern sauce on the borrowed content) - was the dominant religion and source of philosophical ideas for the majority of the European and European-colonial history. The proponents of this idea claim that the success of the West and relative failure of the Middle East and, to a smaller extent, Asia is due to the inherent differences between Judaism/Christianity and those cultures' more "primitive" religions and philosophies.

    One of the obvious errors here is that the fact that certain ideas dominated history of certain cultures for a significant period of time does not imply that it is thanks to those ideas that the history went as well as it did. For example, western Germany was ruled by some of the most ruthless regimes in human history since mid-1800s to mid-1900s - should those regimes be thanked for its modern successes? Is life in Berlin nowadays as good as it is partially thanks to Bismark or Hitler? Or course not.

    A more profound error is the deep misunderstanding of how philosophy has actually involved on the West. The values that ultimately made Western cultures what they are trace back to Socrates' logic, Plato's politics and Aristotle's epistemology and philosophy. Those same values made Rome into the most prosperous nation of its time. It is no coincidence that collapse of Rome coincided with heavy influx of Christian ideas into it: one of the explanations of this phenomenon is that freedom-loving promiscuous Romans' spirits were broken by the strict Christian moral code, the country ran out of juice, and corruption and moral confusion did the mechanical work of taking Rome apart. Yet I am more inclined to believe that Christianity is simply incompatible in human nature in general, and Romans, whose system was much closer to responding to the needs of that nature than any other system prior to them (perhaps with the exception of the Athens and some of the Phoenician nation-states), were afflicted by the same problems as the ones plaguing Europe throughout most of its Medieval history as well.

    Europe was a terrible place to live for the majority of the 20th century, with theocratic totalitarianism dominating the political space, ascetism and altruism dominating the philosophical space, and war and plunder dominating the activity space. Instead of producing and studying sciences, people served their overlords and killed each other endlessly. The typical quality of life of the average resident in Europe barely changed between 500 AD and 1600 AD, which is quite a fascinating fact if you consider all the scientific and technological developments that did manage to occur in that period. Just like in Soviet Union or Mao's China, however, those developments almost exclusively affected the military sector, and the average peasant never saw much of their results - or was even aware that such results existed at all.

    It was not until first Renaissance around the 15th century that something started gradually shifting philosophy-wise, and not until the 17th century that quality of life of people in Europe started moving forward again, for the first time since the Golden Age of Rome 1.5 millennia before. The ideas of Enlightenment were what really made the Western world into what it is today, unleashing people's creativity, their desire to learn, to experiment, to try, fail and try again. People stopped waiting for the god and the church to bring everything to them on a silver platter, realized that their lives were in their hands and started doing something with that. All the while the church and various deeply religious philosophers tried their best to stop this wave, with the most valiant (and damaging) attempts being led by German philosophers such as Kant or Hegel who championed the old idea that, basically, human individual is a fool and requires some kind of divine intervention to be able to make sense of the world around them.

    Now, what people like Shapiro do is turn this around and say, "No, you do not understand: there are many branches of Christianity, and some of those branches not only embraced, but, in fact, caused the Enlightenment to occur in the first place! It would never have occurred if the West was dominated by Islam or something else". Well, that might be true - but why should the alternative only be Islam and a couple of other similarly religious ideologies? Why does no one asks a more fundamental question, "If there was no religion at all, just an epistemological blank slate - could no one ever have arrived at these ideas, perhaps much faster than they did in reality?" I beg to say that they would have arrived much faster at them. After all, Ancient Greeks managed to arrive at the prototype of the Enlightenment over 2 millennia before, and one of the reasons was that there was no totalitarian, crushing ideology telling them to stop believing in themselves and start seeking the divine favor, the "revelation" in the middle of a night or something of this kind.

    Peterson seems to have a much more weighted view on this. He does not deny that this kind of intellectual revolution could happen in the absence of Christianity and Judaism, and his argument is more along the following lines: "However otherwise it could have happened, it did happen under Judaism and Christianity in reality. We should respect this fact and learn from the Christian and Judean stories which lay the foundation upon which this revolution afterwards happened". This makes a lot of sense, but Sam Harris correctly points out that, understanding this, it makes no sense to cling to ancient ideologies and stories, and it is time to make up modern ideologies and stories and move on.
    I personally do not think that ideologies and stories are needed at all. If people understand how knowledge is acquired, how logic works and how the desired results in one's life are achieved, then they should be able to derive the rest by purely observing the world and studying actual history. Studying fictional literature is a bonus that can be very important (I personally attribute a large part of my personal intellectual development to my love of reading and playing story-based RPG games, that posed many moral and other dilemmas before me and caused me to think about my stances of various issues and how these stances can be developed and improved) - but it certainly, in itself, cannot be a foundation of one's life philosophy. You can use fictional stories to illustrate some points and to understand them better through mental experimentation, but they always must come second to the method, to the base concepts. And those concepts are lacking of rationality severely in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions known to me.

    Ultimately, these people find themselves at the crossroads between the past and the future, and they are afraid of letting go of the past, fearing that a part of their identity - and also a part of the world around them - may be let go as well in the process. Yet that is exactly what needs to happen. One cannot cling to the past forever; one must learn from the past and move on into the future. Religious books written over 2,000 years ago may have been on point at the time they were written; nowadays it is time to write and read something more modern, something better corresponding to the actual reality around us. Authors of the Bible and Torah did not know that there would eventually be cars, jets, computers, the Internet, smartphones, Zoom, international stock market, etc. Why care so much about what they thought about morality nowadays?
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    There are principal differences between Islam and Christianity/Judaism. The former is much more comprehensive. Judaism and Christianity focus on the moral implications of the worldviews they suggest, while Islam really seeks to shape every element of the individual's life and their environment. Judaism and Christianity answer questions such as, "What should you do in situation X?" Islam, on the other hand, goes deep into how different elements of the government and society should function, down to very fine elements of the court and banking systems.
    I fail to see a difference here as Christianity has in the past and continues to do those same things to this day. Not to the extent of modern middle eastern theocracies, but it's undeniable that Christians and Jews both share these characteristics.
    Islamic cultures definitely have contributed significantly to science and philosophy of Western cultures - however, this contribution has always been filtered heavily through the Western cultural and philosophical prisms. You will struggle to name any general philosophical idea that originated in the Islamic world that nowadays is significant in the Western world. That is not to say that those ideas are worthless; they simply have never made it here, for a variety of reasons.
    Algebra, geometry, trigonometry, as astronomy.
    It was not until first Renaissance around the 15th century that something started gradually shifting philosophy-wise, and not until the 17th century that quality of life of people in Europe started moving forward again, for the first time since the Golden Age of Rome 1.5 millennia before. The ideas of Enlightenment were what really made the Western world into what it is today, unleashing people's creativity, their desire to learn, to experiment, to try, fail and try again. People stopped waiting for the god and the church to bring everything to them on a silver platter, realized that their lives were in their hands and started doing something with that. All the while the church and various deeply religious philosophers tried their best to stop this wave, with the most valiant (and damaging) attempts being led by German philosophers such as Kant or Hegel who championed the old idea that, basically, human individual is a fool and requires some kind of divine intervention to be able to make sense of the world around them.
    I disagree with this, specifically because the golden age of Islam pre-dated this transformation (and arguably enabled it) between the 6th and the 15th century, but it ended when the Mongols sacked Baghdad. Many of the ideas of the enlightenment and sciences were founded during this time period, so much so that it would be a travesty to not consider it as part of the heritage of western culture and western thought. This period of Islamic dominance contributed at least as much to western culture as Greek influences did, with the exception of the fact that all reference to this reality was stomped out and buried by Christian influences in Europe which was the successor to those idea.
    Now, what people like Shapiro do is turn this around and say, "No, you do not understand: there are many branches of Christianity, and some of those branches not only embraced, but, in fact, caused the Enlightenment to occur in the first place! It would never have occurred if the West was dominated by Islam or something else". Well, that might be true - but why should the alternative only be Islam and a couple of other similarly religious ideologies? Why does no one asks a more fundamental question, "If there was no religion at all, just an epistemological blank slate - could no one ever have arrived at these ideas, perhaps much faster than they did in reality?" I beg to say that they would have arrived much faster at them. After all, Ancient Greeks managed to arrive at the prototype of the Enlightenment over 2 millennia before, and one of the reasons was that there was no totalitarian, crushing ideology telling them to stop believing in themselves and start seeking the divine favor, the "revelation" in the middle of a night or something of this kind.
    I would agree with this, with the caveat that religion might be something that tends to develop and spread naturally in a society. If you look at ancient civilizations, the gods basically played the same role that corporate identities do today, allowing people to make and do things in the god's name, such as own property, conquer lands, and establish an inheritance. In a weird way, the development of the company as a collective is nearly identical to the foundation of the gods as abstract entities.
    Peterson seems to have a much more weighted view on this. He does not deny that this kind of intellectual revolution could happen in the absence of Christianity and Judaism, and his argument is more along the following lines: "However otherwise it could have happened, it did happen under Judaism and Christianity in reality. We should respect this fact and learn from the Christian and Judean stories which lay the foundation upon which this revolution afterwards happened". This makes a lot of sense, but Sam Harris correctly points out that, understanding this, it makes no sense to cling to ancient ideologies and stories, and it is time to make up modern ideologies and stories and move on.
    I personally do not think that ideologies and stories are needed at all. If people understand how knowledge is acquired, how logic works and how the desired results in one's life are achieved, then they should be able to derive the rest by purely observing the world and studying actual history. Studying fictional literature is a bonus that can be very important (I personally attribute a large part of my personal intellectual development to my love of reading and playing story-based RPG games, that posed many moral and other dilemmas before me and caused me to think about my stances of various issues and how these stances can be developed and improved) - but it certainly, in itself, cannot be a foundation of one's life philosophy. You can use fictional stories to illustrate some points and to understand them better through mental experimentation, but they always must come second to the method, to the base concepts. And those concepts are lacking of rationality severely in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and other religions known to me.
    I disagree that stories are not necessary, because it is nearly impossible to be an effective leader without the use of them, and mastering the art of storytelling is a critical step in governance. Obviously, you will not accept this on a fundamental level, but it is nevertheless true that the maintenance of relations, and especially hierarchical relations, demands an ability to control and maintain a cohesive narrative. This isn't to claim that the narrative should supersede reality, but it in many ways what is real can not account for many of the things that humans desire. We have evolved an overactive ability to look for meaning and agency, so we find it where there is none. When we assert that agency into reality, we create a narrative which is necessary for unity and solidarity. Your suggestion here that  that ideologies and stories are needed at all, is ironically, a story in and of itself for the exact purpose which it seeks to eliminate.
    Ultimately, these people find themselves at the crossroads between the past and the future, and they are afraid of letting go of the past, fearing that a part of their identity - and also a part of the world around them - may be let go as well in the process. Yet that is exactly what needs to happen. One cannot cling to the past forever; one must learn from the past and move on into the future. Religious books written over 2,000 years ago may have been on point at the time they were written; nowadays it is time to write and read something more modern, something better corresponding to the actual reality around us. Authors of the Bible and Torah did not know that there would eventually be cars, jets, computers, the Internet, smartphones, Zoom, international stock market, etc. Why care so much about what they thought about morality nowadays?
    I agree that these individuals are clinging to a past that is more or less irrelevant in the modern world, and trying to use it in ways it is no longer fit to be used for, but even after this book you have written we are no closer to answering my original query: What even are Judeo-Christian values?

    If we can't create a list of them and need to define them in abstract terms referencing their historical context, then are they even a cohesive and specific set at all?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3819 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    The difference lays in the source books themselves: Quran suggests a much more dramatic overhaul not only of the individual's life, but a society as a whole, a political organization and many other things, down to very fine details. Torah is tamer in this respect, and the Bible is incomparably tamer still. One of the reasons of this could be that Quran is a much more "artificial" religion than these two, as it was created by Mohammed and his followers specifically to justify his conquests and unite the people around him. Christianity started out much more like a small sect of relatively peaceful fanatics, and Torah was more of a communal effort within ancient Israeli tribes.
    Of course, at the end, all of these religions were heavily weaponized by churches and kings. Monotheistic religions are incredibly convenient in this respect.

    Well, everything, in a sense, is a group effort. I am not saying that the influence of the Middle-Eastern medieval ideas on the Western civilization should be dismissed. The question is whether they significantly contributed to the development of the Western values themselves (i.e. the values on which the modern Western civilization is rotted), and I would not say that they have. They may have inspired the development of the Western values by offering an alternative, but they were not quite accepted. Similar to how, say, the Japanese culture quite significantly influences the Western culture nowadays, but it is still a different culture that does not principally change anything around here (perhaps unfortunately so).

    Well, whether stories are necessary depends on your goals. If you want to rule over and direct other people and have them do your bidding, then yes, stories may be necessary. But if your goal is the betterment of your own life, first and foremost - the goal which, I would argue, defines the foundation of the modern Western civilization - then stories can be avoided altogether, in theory. You can derive your own meanings of various aspects of the world around you by observing and experimenting, and while stories, as I said, may provide a convenient way to visualize those meanings, they do not have to define or even influence them, in principle.
    Stories have their use, but the use is illustrative, not epistemological, so to speak.

    As for what the Judeo-Christian values actually are, I am not ready to answer this question, as doing so always leads to discussions in which no agreement can be found. People do not even agree on what the values of Enlightenment are, and typically different people find different values to be crucial in different contexts.
    I have never studied religion too seriously and deeply, so might not be in a position to informedly guess at the answer here.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    The difference lays in the source books themselves: Quran suggests a much more dramatic overhaul not only of the individual's life, but a society as a whole, a political organization and many other things, down to very fine details. Torah is tamer in this respect, and the Bible is incomparably tamer still. One of the reasons of this could be that Quran is a much more "artificial" religion than these two, as it was created by Mohammed and his followers specifically to justify his conquests and unite the people around him. Christianity started out much more like a small sect of relatively peaceful fanatics, and Torah was more of a communal effort within ancient Israeli tribes.
    Of course, at the end, all of these religions were heavily weaponized by churches and kings. Monotheistic religions are incredibly convenient in this respect.
    I...completely disagree with basically everything you just said. I would put them almost exactly backwards, with the Torah requiring the most "dramatic overhaul" of one's life, the Quran second and the bible third. That being said, the bible has had the most profound impact on people's lives, mostly due to the success of European colonists and their missionaries. The bible justifies racial slavery for example, and this represents a significant cultural commitment. In Islam, slavery is for lack of a better word complicated. While the Torah has a regulatory tone, and the bible (NT) is agnostic on the matter, the Quran basically says that slavery is okay, but frowned upon and it should only be used in specific ways and in specific circumstances.
    Well, everything, in a sense, is a group effort. I am not saying that the influence of the Middle-Eastern medieval ideas on the Western civilization should be dismissed. The question is whether they significantly contributed to the development of the Western values themselves (i.e. the values on which the modern Western civilization is rotted), and I would not say that they have. They may have inspired the development of the Western values by offering an alternative, but they were not quite accepted. Similar to how, say, the Japanese culture quite significantly influences the Western culture nowadays, but it is still a different culture that does not principally change anything around here (perhaps unfortunately so).
    I think this is a point of disagreement which is entirely subjective, however it should be noted there are significant influences from Islam on the west, which is why I, as a secular atheist tend to consider Muslims the true intellectual successor to the Romans rather than the holy Catholic church. Now, maybe this is just because they were a "small fish in a big pond" in the sense that there were no other major competing forces, but that is not sufficient to discredit their contributions to the west and particularly science, mathematics, medicine, philosophy, and economics.
    Well, whether stories are necessary depends on your goals. If you want to rule over and direct other people and have them do your bidding, then yes, stories may be necessary. But if your goal is the betterment of your own life, first and foremost - the goal which, I would argue, defines the foundation of the modern Western civilization - then stories can be avoided altogether, in theory. You can derive your own meanings of various aspects of the world around you by observing and experimenting, and while stories, as I said, may provide a convenient way to visualize those meanings, they do not have to define or even influence them, in principle.
    Stories have their use, but the use is illustrative, not epistemological, so to speak.
    I would definitely agree that stories are not epistemological, since they seek to explain & define rather than know, but I don't know that it necessarily follows that stories can be avoided altogether, even in a very individualist and self-determined society, simply because everyone needs a way to make sense of the world around them, and communicate those perceptions to others. For example, if a society went the 100% privatized route and replaced all government institutions with private ones, there would still be stories present in the form of those institutions, and anything else they use as essential to their society, currency in particular. Money is itself an idea, and the value or perceived value is a story. An exchange of legal tender is a form of communication, it's saying "I.O.U this much for that stuff" and at the end of the day it is all settled. unless everyone is completely off-grid and never interacts with another person, there will be a constant need for stories in society.
    As for what the Judeo-Christian values actually are, I am not ready to answer this question, as doing so always leads to discussions in which no agreement can be found. People do not even agree on what the values of Enlightenment are, and typically different people find different values to be crucial in different contexts.
    I have never studied religion too seriously and deeply, so might not be in a position to informedly guess at the answer here.
    I don't think anyone is, least of all the people who tout Judeo-Christian values as part of their political agenda. It is my view that they are just saying this for political points, because it sounds nice and smart and everyone "fills in the void" with whatever they want, effectively making it a catch-all for their political perceptions. They can never describe or be specific about any of it however, because it would shatter the illusion.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 3819 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot

    Well, we will have to agree to disagree here. I did not imply that Quran was somehow more brutal than the other two books; rather, it just talks about far more aspects of the societal organization.
    It does have certain aspects that are more totalitarian, however. For example, in Christianity (and, I believe, in Judaism as well, although I could be wrong on this one) no special punishment is reserved for people who give up their religion: they are just considered heretics, same as those who had never been Christians to begin with. In Islam, on the other hand, former Muslims who give up on their religion are treated far worse than life-long infidels, and even today in most Muslim countries quitting Islam openly is likely to get you killed by some hotheads in the society, the hotheads sometimes being your own parents.

    I think that Muslims have adopted a lot of scientific and philosophical elements of the Ancient Greek philosophical school (the ideas of Plato, for example, are clearly observed here) - but this has never developed into something that would shake the view on the individual to its very foundation. The Islamic world had its Renaissance, but it did not have its Enlightenment, and the individual there has always been seen as a pawn of bigger forces at play, political, religious and otherwise.
    Then again, on some level, everything in the world is interconnected. If you look hard enough, then you can even find some Japanese influence in the Kievan Rus of 1200-s. This influence typically is limited to some art elements (such as the case in Spain and Portugal which, for several centuries, were held by an Islamic conglomerate of forces) and does not go far beyond it.

    I probably have made too strong a statement: I am not sure if stories can be avoided, and even if they can, they probably should not. What I rather meant to say is that stories cannot serve as the foundation of the knowledge-seeking process. They serve an important purpose of illustrating various findings obtained logically, but those findings still need to be obtained logically first from observing and systematizing the actual, immediate reality.
    I agree with you that stories that come into various economical and social concepts may be vital for their continuous existence. For example, the concept of a business is a story, in a way. There is no such thing as a private company in the objective reality, but there is such a thing in the space of conceptual entities, and that space can only be accessed through stories, perhaps.

    It is possible that they are just throwing smoke grenades. Or, perhaps, they do what most people do with their beliefs: they have some vague sense of what they have in mind, but can never quite put it into words, so they run around, trying to describe the "surroundings" of the concept and never getting at the bottom of the issue.
    It is also possible that they assume that everyone understands what they are talking about and never feel the need to explain themselves. I do not know if you watched the two famous debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, but an interesting thing there was the fact that Sam never asked Jordan to define these terms precisely. He made some compelling arguments against Jordan's pro-Judeo-Christian narrative, but neither of these two ever said explicitly what it is they were talking about.

    From my personal perspective, as someone with a lot of teaching experience, I can with confidence say that it is much more difficult to explain something that is obvious to you to others, than to explain something complicated. When something is complicated, then you are distanced from that something by a wall of abstractions, and you can navigate these abstractions on the fly and explain your reasoning. But how do you explain to someone why 2+2=4? Not just show on an example, but actually explain how this equation itself works? It is much harder than one might think.
    Paradoxically, the simpler the topic, the harder it is to explain it. This is something nobody really believes until they have experienced it first-hand.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar ;
    Well, we will have to agree to disagree here. I did not imply that Quran was somehow more brutal than the other two books; rather, it just talks about far more aspects of the societal organization.
    It does have certain aspects that are more totalitarian, however. For example, in Christianity (and, I believe, in Judaism as well, although I could be wrong on this one) no special punishment is reserved for people who give up their religion: they are just considered heretics, same as those who had never been Christians to begin with. In Islam, on the other hand, former Muslims who give up on their religion are treated far worse than life-long infidels, and even today in most Muslim countries quitting Islam openly is likely to get you killed by some hotheads in the society, the hotheads sometimes being your own parents.
    You would be wrong, but not in the way you think. The Quran actually doesn't have any specific punishment for apostacy, but the Hadith does. In addition I would argue that the punishment of infidels, heretics, and apostates in Muslim theocracies is almost more of a cultural or political matter than an actual consequence of the faith, as all of these same practices were ubiquitous at the height of the Roman-Catholic church.
    I think that Muslims have adopted a lot of scientific and philosophical elements of the Ancient Greek philosophical school (the ideas of Plato, for example, are clearly observed here) - but this has never developed into something that would shake the view on the individual to its very foundation. The Islamic world had its Renaissance, but it did not have its Enlightenment, and the individual there has always been seen as a pawn of bigger forces at play, political, religious and otherwise.
    Then again, on some level, everything in the world is interconnected. If you look hard enough, then you can even find some Japanese influence in the Kievan Rus of 1200-s. This influence typically is limited to some art elements (such as the case in Spain and Portugal which, for several centuries, were held by an Islamic conglomerate of forces) and does not go far beyond it.
    I don't think I could find anyone who would seriously argue that the Muslims were heavily influenced by Greek, Roman, Hebrew, Sumerian, Egyptian, and older cultures. This would be sort of irrelevant though, because the real test of the importance of Islamic influence on western culture is to consider what would have happened should they not have existed. Since they did lay a critical foundation for the enlightenment before the Huns destroyed the region, I think there is a strong case to be made that should it not have been for the Huns that the enlightenment would have occurred in the middle east at about the same time, maybe even earlier. If they did not exist, odds are that the enlightenment would have been significantly delayed.
    I probably have made too strong a statement: I am not sure if stories can be avoided, and even if they can, they probably should not. What I rather meant to say is that stories cannot serve as the foundation of the knowledge-seeking process. They serve an important purpose of illustrating various findings obtained logically, but those findings still need to be obtained logically first from observing and systematizing the actual, immediate reality.
    I agree with you that stories that come into various economical and social concepts may be vital for their continuous existence. For example, the concept of a business is a story, in a way. There is no such thing as a private company in the objective reality, but there is such a thing in the space of conceptual entities, and that space can only be accessed through stories, perhaps.
    I would agree with that, but only because knowledge seeking was never the goal, the purpose of stories is to maintain a certain common thread in culture which serves as a foundation to a metaphysical understanding of the world.
    It is possible that they are just throwing smoke grenades. Or, perhaps, they do what most people do with their beliefs: they have some vague sense of what they have in mind, but can never quite put it into words, so they run around, trying to describe the "surroundings" of the concept and never getting at the bottom of the issue.
    It is also possible that they assume that everyone understands what they are talking about and never feel the need to explain themselves. I do not know if you watched the two famous debates between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, but an interesting thing there was the fact that Sam never asked Jordan to define these terms precisely. He made some compelling arguments against Jordan's pro-Judeo-Christian narrative, but neither of these two ever said explicitly what it is they were talking about.
    That's the thing, everywhere I look it seems like everyone just "knows" what they are supposed to mean, but no where is it ever explained or elaborated on. The best answer I have gotten from asking on a few other message boards and reddit is that it is just a collective theme of principals and ideas which are unique to and ubiquitous in western culture. With no specific answers here, I am at a loss.
    From my personal perspective, as someone with a lot of teaching experience, I can with confidence say that it is much more difficult to explain something that is obvious to you to others, than to explain something complicated. When something is complicated, then you are distanced from that something by a wall of abstractions, and you can navigate these abstractions on the fly and explain your reasoning. But how do you explain to someone why 2+2=4? Not just show on an example, but actually explain how this equation itself works? It is much harder than one might think.
    Paradoxically, the simpler the topic, the harder it is to explain it. This is something nobody really believes until they have experienced it first-hand.
    If what you are saying is that you think that the principals behind Judeo-Christian values are something so simple that no one has bothered to explain it, then we sort of have a problem. How can we verify that our base assumptions are good if they are unexamined? I this case, I would be willing to bet that on close examination, this is all just a house of cards.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 605 Pts   -   edited March 6
    Can anyone actually explain what Judeo-Christian values really are? Conservative political pundits like Ben Shaprio, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson will mention these but they never really seem to explain or list specifically what they are.

    Even more intriguingly, and explanation always seems to deliberately exclude Islam. Why should we not consider these same values, whatever they are, to be nearly the same values as those held by many Muslims? Are there any of these supposed Judeo-Christian values which are not also held by Muslims?

    Some have argued that these values are the foundation of Western thought passed down from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans, then preserved in Europe. This however is ignorant of the golden age of Islam, when many of the basic scientific, mathematical, astrological, medical, and economic concepts that were foundational to modern science were founded.

    It seems to me that we ought to include Muslims into these values if indeed they are not different, and consider them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values.
    They are the sum of myths, my friend. It's basically when the wingnut right (i.e. idiots like Shapiro etc...) pretends that everything wholesome and good in the world only exists because Jews and Christians murdered half the planet. Not a very good argument when you subtract the bizarrely loaded language and gross distortion of the facts.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;

    What Ben Shapiro does is even more egregious than a gross distortion of the facts, he presents opinions and claims they are facts without stating the underlying assumptions.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 17

    Jesus came from the Jews, but the teachings of the Muslims come from the Islamic religion, which comes from a Muslim named Muhammad.  

    Happy_Killbot
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Keal192NXQ2Keal192NXQ2 242 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot The "Judeo-Christian" tradition essentially says that most of our morals, values, and aesthetics come from Jewish and Christian morals, values, and aesthetics as the core foundation. Problem is, we know religion was not near the beginning of our human arrival, and more importantly, Judaism and Christianity did not appear at the beginning of humankind. Does this mean every single human prior to the rise of Judaism and Christianity were brainless monsters? Obviously, morals, values, and aesthetics don't suddenly appear from nothing. So if the "Judeo-Christian" tradition claims to be the foundation of the aesthetics we believe in, that's wrong because the "Judeo-Christian" tradition was not the first belief system in existence for humankind to know of. 
    Simple morals such as "Don't kill" help a species survive.
    Morals such as "Kill everything with no exceptions" only have death and extinctions of species.
    Morals are very simple, whatever helps us survive, will help us survive to pass it down into the next generation. 
    The "Judeo-Christian" tradition was never the founder of these ideas.
    Happy_Killbot
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;

    You are aware that Islam builds on top of Christianity in much the same way that Mormonism or Jehovah's witness does, Or Christianity for Judaism for that matter, don't you?

    These religions are all Abrahamic religions which share basically everything in terms of belief, only differing in details.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -   edited April 15
    @Keal192NXQ2 ;

    The only problem I can see with this view is that those who espouse these ideals typically are talking about them in relation to the success of western culture, which came long after the rise of Christianity and Judaism. Anyone who adheres to this narrative might therefore contend that the existence of previous morals prior to Christianity and Judaism are irrelevant to the situation today.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Keal192NXQ2Keal192NXQ2 242 Pts   -  
    @Happy_Killbot In general, the "Judeo-Christian" tradition is a misnomer. 
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;

    You are aware that Islam builds on top of Christianity in much the same way that Mormonism or Jehovah's witness does, Or Christianity for Judaism for that matter, don't you?

    These religions are all Abrahamic religions which share basically everything in terms of belief, only differing in details.
    Mormonism is false too like the Islamic religion, for they both don't come from the Jews.  Mormonism comes from the angel Moroni and the people of the "Americas" and Joseph Smith; and, the Islamic religion comes from an angel to a Muslim named Muhammad.

    Salvation is from the Jews.  Christians get their beliefs from Jesus who came from the Jews.
    Happy_Killbot
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    John 4:22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
    Happy_Killbot
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Mormonism is false too like the Islamic religion, for they both don't come from the Jews.  Mormonism comes from the angel Moroni and the people of the "Americas" and Joseph Smith; and, the Islamic religion comes from an angel to a Muslim named Muhammad.

    Salvation is from the Jews.  Christians get their beliefs from Jesus who came from the Jews.
    You understand that all of these faiths believe in Jesus right? The only difference is the degree to which they follow him. The Jews for example, think that Jesus was just a prophet. Islam, the same. Mormons think he came to the US after his reresection.

    Who are you to dismiss these other beliefs so readily while still adhering to your own?

    If you reject the possibility of these other faiths, then how can you justify your own without facing a similar rebuttal from each and every one of them?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 15
    @TrueLove ;
    Mormonism is false too like the Islamic religion, for they both don't come from the Jews.  Mormonism comes from the angel Moroni and the people of the "Americas" and Joseph Smith; and, the Islamic religion comes from an angel to a Muslim named Muhammad.

    Salvation is from the Jews.  Christians get their beliefs from Jesus who came from the Jews.
    You understand that all of these faiths believe in Jesus right? The only difference is the degree to which they follow him. The Jews for example, think that Jesus was just a prophet. Islam, the same. Mormons think he came to the US after his reresection.

    Who are you to dismiss these other beliefs so readily while still adhering to your own?

    If you reject the possibility of these other faiths, then how can you justify your own without facing a similar rebuttal from each and every one of them?
    One has to do more than just believe in Jesus; we have to believe that we have to obey him.  

    The Jews who do not obey Jesus are not saved, and I never heard Of Jews believing Jesus was  "just a prophet" but don't obey him.

    I go by the Bible, the written Word of God.
    The Jews who reject Jesus do not go by the New Testament, and neither does the Islamic religion.  

    The New Testament is clear that we have to believe and obey Jesus, and the Jews that don't then they are not of the faith of Abraham, the same for the Islamics.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • JungaDunoJungaJungaDunoJunga 37 Pts   -  
    People First:
    Judaeo-Christian Values are Western values, where individual values are considered to be important in forming the culture of Western Europe and North America + other 1st world countries that operate in the same realm, but geographically located elsewhere, (Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea., parts of Latin America, and Easter Europe, rest of the word ...)

    Religion/State first:
    Islam, has different set of values, that do not concentrate on individuals or their freedoms, instead the focus is allegiances is to religion, culture, and the creator... not in specific order.       , Much like Socialist values, also do not concentrate  "on individuals or their freedoms", instead the Socialist regime focuses, on the benefit of the state foremost, and rest follows.

  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    One has to do more than just believe in Jesus; we have to believe that we have to obey him.  

    The Jews who do not obey Jesus are not saved, and I never heard Of Jews believing Jesus was  "just a prophet" but don't obey him.
    I go by the Bible, the written Word of God.
    The Jews who reject Jesus do not go by the New Testament, and neither does the Islamic religion.  

    The New Testament is clear that we have to believe and obey Jesus, and the Jews that don't then they are not of the faith of Abraham, the same for the Islamics.
    Then would you say that the "Judeo" component is not applicable?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @JungaDunoJunga ;
    People First:
    Judaeo-Christian Values are Western values, where individual values are considered to be important in forming the culture of Western Europe and North America + other 1st world countries that operate in the same realm, but geographically located elsewhere, (Australia, Israel, Japan, South Korea., parts of Latin America, and Easter Europe, rest of the word ...)
    Jesus didn't condemn slavery though. Basically everything Jesus taught, with the notable exception of that he is god is something that Muslims also believe.

    This also fails to explain what they actually are, so can you be more specific?
    Religion/State first:
    Islam, has different set of values, that do not concentrate on individuals or their freedoms, instead the focus is allegiances is to religion, culture, and the creator... not in specific order.       , Much like Socialist values, also do not concentrate  "on individuals or their freedoms", instead the Socialist regime focuses, on the benefit of the state foremost, and rest follows.
    Islam puts religion first more so than Christians do. In fact, in the US and Europe marginalizing religion is a central tenet of the founding ideology, embodied in the 1st amendment. If you want to argue that Islam puts religion first, then you negate the contribution of Judeo-Christian values to western society because that would imply that ignoring rather than adhering to these religions is what was important.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 15
    @TrueLove ;
    One has to do more than just believe in Jesus; we have to believe that we have to obey him.  

    The Jews who do not obey Jesus are not saved, and I never heard Of Jews believing Jesus was  "just a prophet" but don't obey him.
    I go by the Bible, the written Word of God.
    The Jews who reject Jesus do not go by the New Testament, and neither does the Islamic religion.  

    The New Testament is clear that we have to believe and obey Jesus, and the Jews that don't then they are not of the faith of Abraham, the same for the Islamics.
    Then would you say that the "Judeo" component is not applicable?
    I would say it is maybe misleading.  Christians believe the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Christians believe the whole Old Testament was a teaching tool about Jesus who was to come.  
    Jesus told the Jews who did not believe in him that their father is not Abraham or they would believe in Jesus.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;

    This really doesn't answer my question, and perhaps that is on me for not asking it more clearly.

    Is the role which Judaism plays in Judeo-Christian values applicable (meaning a relevant factor to the consideration of) to the final product of those values, whatever they are?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;

    This really doesn't answer my question, and perhaps that is on me for not asking it more clearly.

    Is the role which Judaism plays in Judeo-Christian values applicable (meaning a relevant factor to the consideration of) to the final product of those values, whatever they are?
    When you say it like that, then yes it is applicable.  

    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    When you say it like that, then yes it is applicable.  
    Alright, now given that Islam is itself a key-player in the development of both western science, math, and philosophy thanks to the golden age of Islam, why shouldn't they be grouped in with Judeo-Christian values to make them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values or perhaps "Abrahamic" values instead?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    When you say it like that, then yes it is applicable.  
    Alright, now given that Islam is itself a key-player in the development of both western science, math, and philosophy thanks to the golden age of Islam, why shouldn't they be grouped in with Judeo-Christian values to make them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values or perhaps "Abrahamic" values instead?
    Then in that circumstance we are back to the first one, so then no.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Then in that circumstance we are back to the first one, so then no.
    There seems to be a terrible trend with your responses, and it is one that other users have complained about where you either don't understand, or simply do not answer the question being asked.

    why shouldn't they be grouped in with Judeo-Christian values to make them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values or perhaps "Abrahamic" values instead?

    I am asking a "why" question here, I want to know your rational for what you think, not simply a black-white, Boolean opinion. What is your reasoning?
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 17
    @TrueLove ;
    Then in that circumstance we are back to the first one, so then no.
    There seems to be a terrible trend with your responses, and it is one that other users have complained about where you either don't understand, or simply do not answer the question being asked.

    why shouldn't they be grouped in with Judeo-Christian values to make them Judeo-Christian-Muslim values or perhaps "Abrahamic" values instead?

    I am asking a "why" question here, I want to know your rational for what you think, not simply a black-white, Boolean opinion. What is your reasoning?
    I have explained it carefully, and will do so again.

    A Christian is someone who believes and obeys Jesus.

    A Jewish person would be called a Christian if they believed and obeyed Jesus.

    A Muslim  would be called a Christian if they believe and obeyed Jesus.

    A Christian has differences in their teachings that the Islamic and Jewish religion doesn't teach.  

    The Jewish beliefs and the Islamic beliefs are not of the faith of Abraham, but the Christian beliefs are.  

    Christians have the faith that Abraham has.  

    Jesus says that if a Jew doesn't believe and obey him, then they are not of Abraham.  It takes more than just being blood related to Abraham.  Christians are related to Abraham by faith.  Some Christians are blood related to Abraham, but the Bible tells us that it doesn't matter anymore who is related to Abraham by blood.  It only mattered until Jesus, now it only matters who comes through Jesus and his blood shed on the cross.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    I have been giving a lot of crucial information about Christians, Jews, and the Islamic religion in this thread.

    As I already said before, I think it is misleading to say Judaeo Christian values..

    It wouldn't be right either to say Islamic Christian values, or Judaeo Christian Islamic values.  

    Christians don't believe in using force to make others believe as they do.  
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    The Jewish beliefs and the Islamic beliefs are not of the faith of Abraham, but the Christian beliefs are.  
    WOW! This is oblivious!

    Do you not understand that the Jewish faith was literally founded by Abraham?

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. No wonder we can't get anywhere, you know so little you are not even aware of how little you know!
    Christians have the faith that Abraham has.  
    So do Jews and Muslims! Both of these faiths literally worship the guy!
    Christians don't believe in using force to make others believe as they do.  
    Tell that to the Spanish Inquisition.

    I'm done talking to you because, I don't care to waste my time discussing with someone who doesn't even know basic facts.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 17

    @Happy_Killbot


    Do you not understand that the Jewish faith was literally founded by Abraham?

     

    You aren’t considering what I say carefully enough.

    Try again.

    The JEWS and the MUSLIMS say they are blood related to Abraham and that he is their father.

     

    JESUS says that it does NOT matter to whom one is BLOOD RELATED to ABRAHAM.

     


    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all Abrahamic religions. No wonder we can't get anywhere, you know so little you are not even aware of how little you know!

     

    You are the one who doesn’t know.

    Christians are NOT BLOOD related to Abraham.

    Jesus says those who are BLOOD related to Abraham but don’t believe in him---they are NOT Abraham’s children.



    Christians have the faith that Abraham has.  

    So do Jews and Muslims! Both of these faiths literally worship the guy!

     

     

    No one is supposed to worship Abraham.

    No one who doesn’t obey Jesus has the faith of Abraham.

     

     

     

    Christians don't believe in using force to make others believe as they do.  

    Tell that to the Spanish Inquisition.

    Just because a denomination calls themselves Christian doesn’t mean they are and it doesn’t mean they are all Christian.

     



    I'm done talking to you because, I don't care to waste my time discussing with someone who doesn't even know basic facts.

     

    I love talking about the Truth, so I will probably still talk to you about it.

    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;

    Throwing in the word "blood related" doesn't help your case because Islam doesn't/believe teach that.

    Frankly, if you aren't going to answer my question I am going to assume you don't understand.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -   edited April 17
    @TrueLove ;

    Throwing in the word "blood related" doesn't help your case because Islam doesn't/believe teach that.

    Frankly, if you aren't going to answer my question I am going to assume you don't understand.
    Muslims say they are blood related to Abraham through Abraham's first born son.

    You are the one who doesn't know anything.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Muslims say they are blood related to Abraham though Abraham's first born son.
    Proof of your claims, please.


    Actually, don't bother because it still wouldn't help your case, because if true it would only show that Christianity should be excuded and we should only consider those values Judeao-Islamic.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Muslims say they are blood related to Abraham though Abraham's first born son.
    Proof of your claims, please.


    Actually, don't bother because it still wouldn't help your case, because if true it would only show that Christianity should be excuded and we should only consider those values Judeao-Islamic.
    What is shown is that you are every false thing you said about me.

    You should be glad I bother to teach you.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    What is shown is that you are every false thing you said about me.

    You should be glad I bother to teach you.
    You can't, can you?. You have no evidence, no reason to have made this claim. You only said it because it is convenient for your position.

     An unproven claim might as well as have not been made. If you can't come back with proof, then this conversation is over.
    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    What is shown is that you are every false thing you said about me.

    You should be glad I bother to teach you.
    You can't, can you?. You have no evidence, no reason to have made this claim. You only said it because it is convenient for your position.

     An unproven claim might as well as have not been made. If you can't come back with proof, then this conversation is over.
    Why are you so lazy can't you google it?


    Happy_Killbot
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
  • Happy_KillbotHappy_Killbot 4918 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Why are you so lazy can't you google it?
    LMFAO!


    At some point in the distant past, the universe went through a phase of cosmic inflation,
    Stars formed, planets coalesced, and on at least one of them life took root.
    Through a long process of evolution this life 
    developed into the human race.
    Humans conquered fire, built complex societies and advanced technology .

    All of that so we can argue about nothing.
  • TrueLoveTrueLove 178 Pts   -  
    @TrueLove ;
    Why are you so lazy can't you google it?
    LMFAO!


    Well glad you can laugh at yourself.
    Oh how I love the Word of God!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch