ParsonIsOP wrote:I didn't say it was derogatory. I said it was disingenuous.
Not certain how it can be disngenuous. All it does is match similar morality between two related things.
Christianity and Judaism also professed different treatment for men and women.
No, Christianity preached that men and women's souls were equally vital.
There is one section in one of Paul's letters that is frequently misused to "prove" Christianity repressed women. It stems from the sudden inclusion
of women in weekly services. Jewish women were not allowed into the inner sanctum, nor taught to read the scriptures, and so had no knowledge of services. When they and their husbands converted, the women were now attending services where before they had been excluded. They were not familiar with what was happening, and in one city, they were loudly asking their husbands to explain why they were performing certain rituals. Paul was merely telling them that like their husbands, they should be silent during the service, and ask their questions afterward. This got misused by the Roman Catholics and some Protestant churches to suggest women should not take part in services (by leading prayer, being ministers, singing, etc.), but like many the misinterpretation is simply based on the loss of historical context. Remember, Paul wasn't writing that letter to us in general, but to a specific Church undergoing specific problems.
Buddhism did too. Many in all of three of those religions still do. As cheesy as it sounds, what changed is the progress we've made as a civilization.
Which is irrelevant. We are discussing the term "Judeo-christian", not religion in general. I was merely pointing out that you would get different morality overlaps with other religions. You could invent a term "Judeo-Buddhism" if you really wanted, but it would take a lot more work to find the details in the overlapping morality.
You're also talking around my point. Those cosmological differences do generate different moral outlooks, but my entire point was that that difference stemmed entirely from the religions themselves. In spite of the common origin of Judaism and Christianity, one of those two saw fit to decide that pork is not kosher. (I'm not entirely clear on the why. Something about how pigs are filthy and will stain the soul?)
Very wrong. Most of the determination of what was acceptable (kosher, or clean) stems from health issues. Pork was banned because eating it was killing people. Pigs are omnivores like us, and we share many of the same parasites. Eating undercooked pork killed people, so it was banned, along with many other dangerous (and merely repulsive looking) creatures. Many disease ridden species (like vermin and bats) are unclean.
Making it acceptable again took two events. The first was a vision given to Peter. He was made hungry, and all the unclean animals placed before him. God told him to take and eat, but Peter refused because they were unclean. God said, "Nothing I have made is impure. Take and eat." the vision came three times. After this, Peter interpreted the dream to ean, "Take Christianity to all people, not just the Jews." The literal interpretation was acknowledged, but not seen as vital.
Centuries later, in the region of Yugoslavia, the Muslims were invading frequently. Tehy would take all animals... except those called unclean. Faced with starvation, a local Priest realized that the vision could also be taken literally, and he solved the starvation issue with pork. The literal interpretation and the eating of pork spread from there across Europe.
If however, you try to establish "do not murder" as being uniquely "Judeochristian" you're going to have a hard time of it.
Why do I need to? That it is also held as moral by other religions doesn't mean it doesn't match up between Judaism and Christianity, and therefore, Judeo-christian.
Tries and fails to explain. It's a bad explanation. A lot of modern morality claimed as "Christian" wasn't always particularly considered such and most of it can be traced to boring old secular changes in civilization or already exist in all other cultures predating Christianity.
This is not about Christian bashing. This is about the term "judeo-christian". That Christian values were perverted during the early middle ages does not change the fact that thee is similar morality between Jews and Christians. It's a distraction and irrelevant to the subject matter.
MLK was a minister who preached against slavery and racism. What people forget or fail to mention is that there were a lot of white supremacist preachers. And trying to explain that away as them not being "True Christians" just smacks of absurdity.
Again, you are bashing Christians for being a broad spectrum religion, not discussing the similarity between the morals of Christians and Jews. Those "White supremicist preachers" also preached anti-semitism, and that makes their preachings definitively non-judeo-christian.