|
|
Post by Stephen on May 29, 2017 7:54:25 GMT
I have heard the Judeo-Christian West mentioned a lot of late!
What do people think? Did the Jews really do that much to build the West?
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 29, 2017 10:50:56 GMT
The old testament (hebrew bible) ? The ten commandments which were for centuries at the centre of the western understanding of morality?
Abraham "our father in faith "as the canon of the Mass so beautifully puts it ,is the father of judaism and christianity.
Jesus was an observant Jew ,obeyed the law and prayed the hebrew bible/psalms . Without the jews you don't have christianity .And western civilisation is built on that plus the Romano-Greco contribution .
Pope pius xi in the anti-jewish 1930s reminded all christians that we are spiritual semites.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 29, 2017 11:35:17 GMT
I agree with Cato. Apart from their hugely disproportionate influence on European and American culture (as writers, philosophers, etc.), "Christian" is already "Judaeo-Christian" because salvation is from the Jews.
|
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on May 29, 2017 15:33:50 GMT
I will repeat what I said on another thread because it's relevant to this question:
Orthodox and Conservative Jews - in contrast to secular (non-religious) and reform/liberal Jews - are overwhelmingly socially conservative. Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro are great examples. In a similar vein, Wendy Shalit and Judith Reisman come immediately to my mind. Phyllis Chesler and Pamela Geller, although not known as conservatives per se, are two more courageous independent thinkers sounding the alarm about the destruction of the West - both are Jews. The best - and arguably the most conservative - candidate to ever run for President in the U.S., Barry Goldwater, was a Jew. Moreover, Stephen Miller, President Trump's chief speechwriter, a committed conservative since childhood, is a Jew.
Why is anti-semitism a key plank of the Far Right? For two reasons: to distract from the real enemy (the Left's dirty trick of divide and conquer) and for the reason the late Fr. Flannery (author of "The Anguish of the Jews") cites:
It was Judaism that bought the concept of a God-given universal moral law into the world...the Jew carries the burden of God in history [and] for this has never been forgiven.
- The Reverend Edward H. Flannery
An attack on Judaism is an attack on Christianity - bring Judaism and Christianity down and you bring down the West. Once one grasps this fundamental principle, it is easy to understand why the tools of Jew-baiting and Catholic-baiting are so ubiquitous and so powerful.
|
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 5, 2017 11:12:30 GMT
I do not like the term 'Judeo-Christian' not because I have anything against the Jews, but because it has its roots in a very protestant and perverted heresy of dispensationalism, which greatly over emphasises the importance of the Jews in the story of Salvation History post the resurrection of Jesus. To such a point where many Americans sincerely believe supporting the state of Israel will result in God blessing them personally and blessing America. I am sorry, but the Church is Israel and Salvation comes through her and her alone, the Jews are still an important people and an Important part of Salvation history, but history is in a sense, waiting for them to stop being stubborn, give up their old ways and convert to the Church wholesale like they were meant to do from the start. I will brook no argument on this from a Catholic perspective, the Irish didn't cease being Irish when the became Catholic, neither would the Jews cease being Jews when they finally do. Dispensationalism is the most odious thing I have probably heard coming out of Protestant America, where the Church was God's 'Plan B' essentially, and Jesus' sacrifice was apparently 'just in case'. Salvation did come from the Jews, through Jesus, we should stop pretending dispensationalism has any water at all.
The history of the West has been explicitly Christian, the Jews contributed quite a bit I will not lie, but so did the pagan Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germans, Slavs, and even if one were to argue their contribution was so huge and so unique, it'd still be the same as saying the Mediterranean contributes to the Atlantic Ocean so we should instead refer to it as the 'Mediteranean-Atlantic'. Sound ridiculous to you? Its how the term Judeo-Christian sounds to me. The West is the zombie shambling Corpse that walks about mockingly in the wake of Christendom (which rightfully extends East to include the Russians, as far south at least to include the Ethiopians and as far west around again at least until it reaches Tonga and the Philippines in Asia) and we do it a disservice to misconstrue its heritage for modern political shenanigans.
PS: Before anyone starts, I support Israel in as much as I loathe pretty much the entirety of the middle east and Israel is effectively a Crusader state on the Border of Christendom and believe it has a right to exist (I take a pragmatic stance, any question of Israel's legitimacy and right to exists was asked and Answered in the six day war, all else is rhetoric), but I make no bones about its hypocrisy, ethnic cleansing and even tacit support of ISIS in as much as it destabilises an antagonistic neighbour. Reality is what it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 5, 2017 11:23:45 GMT
The Romans, Greeks, Germans, Celts, Slavs, all became Christian-- the Jews didn't, but continued to be a part of European (and later American) history, and to make a separate and disproportionate contribution. That is why I am happy to use the term "Judaeo-Christian", though I don't ask or expect anyone else to use it. It has nothing to do with dispensationalism in my mind. There is also an element of courtesy involved-- the Jews are a minority who have been often treated very badly by Christians, and in my mind it is appropriate to give them a long-delayed acknowledgement.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on Jun 5, 2017 13:49:29 GMT
What makes the Jewish contribution to western civilisation unique is that it is essiential to Christianity. Without Judaism you wouldn't have christianity.
That seems obvious but sometimes people get startled if they hear Jesus and Mary were practicising Jews. Other elements make up western civilisation certainly but I would argue the core elements are religious and the classical Greco-Roman.
Using the term Judaeo-christian is important particularly after the brutal Nazi attempt to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth and the rise of modern.anti-semitism now promoted largely by the far left.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Jun 5, 2017 20:59:31 GMT
The term itself might be too broad or even vague, as already the different comments show in this thread. Used with specifications however I do not see any major reason not to use it. But I know neither history or church history enough to say anything substantial about the relations between the two religions. In other aspects the Jews has arguably made a great impact in Europe´s secular fields.
|
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 5, 2017 21:04:03 GMT
....Using the term Judaeo-christian is important particularly after the brutal Nazi attempt to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth and the rise of modern.anti-semitism now promoted largely by the far left. Both the far left and the far right are deeply anti-semitic. Both are also - for the most part -deeply anti-Catholic. This phenomenon is nothing new. |
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 5, 2017 21:21:31 GMT
I do not like the term 'Judeo-Christian' not because I have anything against the Jews, but because it has its roots in a very protestant and perverted heresy of dispensationalism, which greatly over emphasises the importance of the Jews in the story of Salvation History post the resurrection of Jesus. To such a point where many Americans sincerely believe supporting the state of Israel will result in God blessing them personally and blessing America. I am sorry, but the Church is Israel and Salvation comes through her and her alone, the Jews are still an important people and an Important part of Salvation history, but history is in a sense, waiting for them to stop being stubborn, give up their old ways and convert to the Church wholesale like they were meant to do from the start. I will brook no argument on this from a Catholic perspective, the Irish didn't cease being Irish when the became Catholic, neither would the Jews cease being Jews when they finally do. Dispensationalism is the most odious thing I have probably heard coming out of Protestant America, where the Church was God's 'Plan B' essentially, and Jesus' sacrifice was apparently 'just in case'. Salvation did come from the Jews, through Jesus, we should stop pretending dispensationalism has any water at all. The history of the West has been explicitly Christian, the Jews contributed quite a bit I will not lie, but so did the pagan Romans, Greeks, Celts, Germans, Slavs, and even if one were to argue their contribution was so huge and so unique, it'd still be the same as saying the Mediterranean contributes to the Atlantic Ocean so we should instead refer to it as the 'Mediteranean-Atlantic'. Sound ridiculous to you? Its how the term Judeo-Christian sounds to me. The West is the zombie shambling Corpse that walks about mockingly in the wake of Christendom (which rightfully extends East to include the Russians, as far south at least to include the Ethiopians and as far west around again at least until it reaches Tonga and the Philippines in Asia) and we do it a disservice to misconstrue its heritage for modern political shenanigans. PS: Before anyone starts, I support Israel in as much as I loathe pretty much the entirety of the middle east and Israel is effectively a Crusader state on the Border of Christendom and believe it has a right to exist (I take a pragmatic stance, any question of Israel's legitimacy and right to exists was asked and Answered in the six day war, all else is rhetoric), but I make no bones about its hypocrisy, ethnic cleansing and even tacit support of ISIS in as much as it destabilises an antagonistic neighbour. Reality is what it is. I think you are overanalysing the term. It's not a theological term. It's meant, instead, to be descriptive of the historical fact that the West was shaped as much by monotheism - which descended from the Jews and grew into Christianity - as it was by the great humanistic achievements of the Greeks. (Another phrase I have heard used, which has the same meaning but gives a nod also to the Greeks is "Athens and Jerusalem."). I can't think of any other term that actually acknowledges the central role of monotheism in shaping Western culture. The "monotheistic West" or "Abrahamic West" wouldn't work in my view because people today don't even know what those words mean. Until someone can come up with an equally short and equally descriptive term, it's "Judeo-Christian West" for me all the way. |
|
|
|
Post by kj on Jun 6, 2017 10:56:54 GMT
I guessed it wouldn't take long for the usual anti-semitism to get a tentative airing.
In my opinion, western anti-semitism comes from deep envy and resentment. The Jews have cohesion, a proud tradition and in Israel a state that knows what it stands for. The west is dissolving, so naturally Judaism, Jews and Israel will be a favourite whipping boy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Jun 6, 2017 11:45:04 GMT
I'd appeal to members to avoid attributing unseemly motives to any other members.
Remember we live in an intellectual climate where opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobia, concern about immigration is racism, and prolife views are misogyny. Let's not add to it.
I think it's best to critique ideas and apply the principle of charity in argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 6, 2017 12:03:14 GMT
I'd appeal to members to avoid attributing unseemly motives to any other members. Remember we live in an intellectual climate where opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobia, concern about immigration is racism, and prolife views are misogyny. Let's not add to it. You are correct on the Principle of Charity. I would remind readers that the Left's favourite tactic is Divide and Conquer. Unfortunately, some conservatives unwittingly supply the Left with ammunition when they embrace the false "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" narrative (which itself was a Leftist psy op). By employing the Alinsky tactic of "accuse the other side of doing what you yourself are doing" and calling these conservatives "Nazis," the Left acomplishes two things: (1) distracts from their own anti-semitism, which is profound and (2) smears all conservatives with a "racist" label, including the vast majority of conservatives who reject the "Protocols" narrative. This is why I frequently point out that the Far Left and Far Right are two sides of the same coin. Many of the highly intelligent folks who comment at "The Irish Savant" would be natural allies with what you are trying to accomplish at this site, but I doubt they will join. Again, Divide and Conquer. |
|
|
|
Post by servantofthechief on Jun 6, 2017 12:35:26 GMT
I think you are overanalysing the term. It's not a theological term. It's meant, instead, to be descriptive of the historical fact that the West was shaped as much by monotheism - which descended from the Jews and grew into Christianity - as it was by the great humanistic achievements of the Greeks. (Another phrase I have heard used, which has the same meaning but gives a nod also to the Greeks is "Athens and Jerusalem."). I can't think of any other term that actually acknowledges the central role of monotheism in shaping Western culture. The "monotheistic West" or "Abrahamic West" wouldn't work in my view because people today don't even know what those words mean. Until someone can come up with an equally short and equally descriptive term, it's "Judeo-Christian West" for me all the way. The term does exist, its 'Christendom', and it was what the 'West' and 'East' was called for over a thousand years and encompasses not only what is now the modern day West, but all that and then some.
Again I refer to the Mediteranean-Atlantic comparison, the Jewish contribution has been massive, yes, but not formative. That privileged acknowledgement belongs to Christianity itself, I see no reason why we need to somehow water that down, not least because it is already being used in some circles as a justification by liberals to include Islam as somehow formative in the West's formation (one example is how they are trying to justify Islam having 'always' been a part of America because of the slave trade with some Africans being muslim when they were brought over, but overblowing the numbers of which who were muslim massively). I get what your trying to say and I believe it is well meaning, but in my eyes its a false comparison, there is good reason why we don't call it the 'Greco-Roman' West despite the Greeks being the fathers of philosophy and from whom we all owe a great debt for our philosophical traditions and the Romans being masters of law and civilisation to whom we owe a fantastic debt and for all we also owe the Jews, it was Christianity itself that actually did the hard work, heavy lifting and foot work in creating Christendom into what it is and ultimately, this creature we now call 'The West' that walks in its wake. This is why I am against the term of Judeo-Christian even outside of the theological context of protestant dispensationalism, its inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by MourningIreland on Jun 6, 2017 12:51:14 GMT
I think you are overanalysing the term. It's not a theological term. It's meant, instead, to be descriptive of the historical fact that the West was shaped as much by monotheism - which descended from the Jews and grew into Christianity - as it was by the great humanistic achievements of the Greeks. (Another phrase I have heard used, which has the same meaning but gives a nod also to the Greeks is "Athens and Jerusalem."). I can't think of any other term that actually acknowledges the central role of monotheism in shaping Western culture. The "monotheistic West" or "Abrahamic West" wouldn't work in my view because people today don't even know what those words mean. Until someone can come up with an equally short and equally descriptive term, it's "Judeo-Christian West" for me all the way. The term does exist, its 'Christendom', and it was what the 'West' and 'East' was called for over a thousand years and encompasses not only what is now the modern day West, but all that and then some.
Again I refer to the Mediteranean-Atlantic comparison, the Jewish contribution has been massive, yes, but not formative. That privileged acknowledgement belongs to Christianity itself, I see no reason why we need to somehow water that down, not least because it is already being used in some circles as a justification by liberals to include Islam as somehow formative in the West's formation (one example is how they are trying to justify Islam having 'always' been a part of America because of the slave trade with some Africans being muslim when they were brought over, but overblowing the numbers of which who were muslim massively). I get what your trying to say and I believe it is well meaning, but in my eyes its a false comparison, there is good reason why we don't call it the 'Greco-Roman' West despite the Greeks being the fathers of philosophy and from whom we all owe a great debt for our philosophical traditions and the Romans being masters of law and civilisation to whom we owe a fantastic debt and for all we also owe the Jews, it was Christianity itself that actually did the hard work, heavy lifting and foot work in creating Christendom into what it is and ultimately, this creature we now call 'The West' that walks in its wake. This is why I am against the term of Judeo-Christian even outside of the theological context of protestant dispensationalism, its inaccurate. "Judeo-Christian" West explicitly acknowledges that our concept of the natural law is derived from the Ten Commandments (the decalogue), which is Jewish in origin. I don't ordinarily invoke Godwin's law, but its apt here: Hitler's attempt to destroy the West and replace it with a neo-pagan empire started with the Jews for a reason. If "Christendom" per se was the problem he would have ignored the Jews and gone straight for the jugular, the Catholic Church (which, as you know, he also planned to eradicate in due course). Suffice it to say, what you refer to as "Christendom" and I refer to as the "Judeo-Christian" West is, in the main, the same thing, and that we both agree this thing - regardless of what name you use to describe it - is under severe attack and worth fighting for. |
|
