Don't let Poland become like my country, France.

Jon357, I'm not trying to argue, I think you are. And you keep not answering my questions, I don't understand why... That's one thing.

Second thing - could you answer my question concerning this comment: "Which we've established can't be objectively described as 'Judeo-Christian'."?
You wrote that I should read the thread but I joined the discussion about the term "Judeo-Christian" while it was still taking place and I haven't seen any collective unanimous establishing of anything. Just people giving their opinions about this term (me included).

So what are you talking about? Who established what exactly?
(And no, I'm not going to dig through the Random and search for posts there o_O).


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messiah#Judaism

"In Jewish eschatology, the term came to refer to a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who will be "anointed" with holy anointing oil, to be king of God's kingdom, and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. In Judaism, the Messiah is not considered to be God or a pre-existent divine Son of God. Belief in the eventual coming of a future messiah is a fundamental part of Judaism, and is one of Maimonides' 13 Principles of Faith.[8]"


Jon357, what on Earth are you talking about?
Christianity has it's roots in Judaism. I don't see how the concept of logos in Christianity would somehow change this rather basic fact o_O

No matter what pagan additions it may have, the roots of Christianity are in Judaism.


What relates?


Pity you've changed your comment.
But your demagogy doesn't work on me.
I don't play any mind games. I'm trying to have a normal discussion with you but you're not making it easy...

Because, Paulina, this isn't a question and answer session. Why not have a closer look at the thread. And yes, some of the answers to your 'questions' are now in Random.

No, jon357, this is a discussion and people are allowed to ask questions during a discussion.
I've asked you to answer just one simple thing, because I didn't know what you meant exactly and clarifying this to me would probably take you one or two sentences and yet you refused repeatedly (during all this time you could simply answer my question).

I didn't understand whether you meant that the "Judeo-" part in the "Judeo-Christian" term should be dropped or whether you disagree that one of the foundations of European culture and European civilisation was that "Judeo-Christian" or "Christian" element.

And thus, I also didn't know where this authoritative "we've established" came from. So, as you see, I don't know what was "established", according to you, and by whom.

That's all.


Well, that's not my fault.
If your answers addressed to me were put into Random then give me links to them and I'll answer there.
Unless you mean posts from the general discussion on this thread - then I'm not going to waste my time on searching for them in the bin.

I've asked you just one question. Just answer it and let's finish this *sigh*

Jon357, why do you make such a problem of every discussion with me? Why can't you just answer one simple question?

No Paulina, you're just trying to argue about things discussed already today. What part of that don't you understand?


Because I think we can both see from the thread that your 'question' is far from simple.

Anyway, I've stayed up too long - work in the morning. Perhaps you can find someone in the chat box to argue with.

It's really annoying when someone demands you answer THEIR questions. Sure sign they're only interested in the points they're making.

This hasn't been established at all. We've just had some people posting blanket statements as 'fact'.

No, jon357, I'm just asking what you meant by "Which we've established can't be objectively described as 'Judeo-Christian'."

I don't even want to discuss anything anymore, I just wanted you to clarify this one simple thing and any sane person would do this long ago, but you've turned it into some kind of a big problem.

This is simply ridiculous.


No, it is very simple.
Your answer could be, for example: "Yes, I think the "Judeo-" part should be dropped".
Or: "No, what I meant was..."

And I'm continuing this only because it looks like you're trying to weasel out of answering the question, again (since I don't comprehend why any sane person would make such a big deal out of clarifying something about their comment).


lol
You've started to argue, jon357, not me.


Maybe you could explain it to me why do you think that asking for claryfing something about jon357's comment shows that I'm interested in the points I'm making?

The funny thing is that all I want to know is what jon357 thinks, but he's not willing to tell me... lol

OK, I give up, looks like my English isn't good enough to express my intentions and even what I'm trying to say.


That's my impression too.

The problem Szczecinian, is that the terminology is subjective (and in the opinion of several posters, faulty to say the least) and in any case it assumes too much to define our continent by a religious current, not least by one which fades faster and faster every century.

Anyway, definitely bedtime.

It's the religious current that has defined it for close on two millennia. Get Smurf to inform you on what Nietzsche had to say on the subject of the Judeo-Christian tradition, or whatever this happens to be called in German.

If it was ever a valid description in the first place and if people's understanding of that concept had remained unchanged. I'm familiar with Nietsche's writings - on that as with so much else he needs to be understood within the context of his time and place - as do we.

And Europe as well as our planet is shrinking - terms like 'Judeo-Christian don't have the same relevance as they once did, nor will the current fuss about migration be seen the same way as the future. And yes, if you do want to talk about 'Judeo-Christian' in the context immigration by Muslims, you do have to look at the the similarities between all three Abrahamic religions and the way they shaped the societies they came in contact with.

This doesn't change the historical fact that the Judeo-Christian (or only "Christian", if you like) element was one of the foundations of European civilisation.

You wrote "the terminology is subjective" but I don't understand what's so subjective in stating that one of the foundations of European civilisation is, for example, Ancient Rome?

Or Ancient Greece?
The alphabet? Roman law? Latin language? Art and architecture? Philosophers? Etc. etc.?

Yes, Europe is changing, the modern Europe has and will be getting some new foundations and influences, etc. but I don't see how this changes historical facts.


Jon357, the fact that Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions doesn't make it a big influence on Europe, it's mainstream culture, etc.

You wrote yourself, as I've understood it, that Europe is becoming more and more secular so how any religion would have a great influence on European civilisation nowadays?

For Islam to make such a big impact on Europe as Christianity had or Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece majority of people in Europe would have to, for example, convert to Islam. We would have to adopt Arabic alphabet (instead of Latin alphabet).

I don't know, maybe it will happen one day :), but I don't see it happening right now.

I have no idea why it isn't valid.


Really? Funnily enough, when the subject first came up, I thought of what he had to say concerning the subject.



You (Paulina) ask too many questions. If they get answered, you then go on to add further questions. And if evidence is presented, you don't bother to look at it.

Interaction with you rapidly becomes tiresome.

I have absolutely no idea why you are bringing this up. My point is that Western civilization has a Judeo-Christian base. I'm not making any point about Islam, and neither am I making any point about immigration. I am also well aware that Islam is an Abrahamic faith.

I've asked jon357 two questions :) I haven't got an answer yet to any of them.


The problem is they don't get answered.


Stop lying (again) and going back to an old discussion (again) and making it personal (again).


You know, you and jon357 are quite alike, I've noticed, you have one common characteristic I don't like. I think that's why you find interaction with me "tiresome" :)

That's true. We both find prolonged interaction with you 'tiresome'. Please ask yourself why.

Yeah, but you have not said what it is.

This phrase is just some words without any meaning if you disagree briefly explain what it means an accurate definition cannot be too difficult if it's as you said so clearly obvious.

If you mean European I understand all too clearly what you write. European gives context to the nebulous idea of Judeo/Christian, if you don't mean European what do you mean?

You may find Paulina tiresome but she goes straight to the core of what you are saying and you fail to answer her valid questions. Bringing up other discussions where you misunderstood (again) the key points is no substitute for discussion.

I'm asking you both, let's call it, inconvenient questions, I'm giving reasonable and logical arguments and I'm not letting go until you answer (and you usually don't) or you or jon357 start trying to weasel out of answering, usually by getting personal (which shows what kind of people you are).

For whatever my two cents are worth to this discussion, I see the problem as essentially what happens when a core Judeo-Christian society (in this case, Western Europe) becomes gradually overtaken by a culturally alien body, namely Islam? It's a no-brainer not to see that scores of both Jewish and Christian French, German, Scandinavian, Dutch or other citizens feel a threat from Muslim groups who insist that the Koran is a tool of forced conversion of Jews, Christians or other "infidels", if necessary, by wanton violence.

Clearly those Muslim extremists who believe this dogma aren't the majority. Yet, this vocal minority could wreak havoc if left unchecked. What this thread title means is, "Please, Poland! Stay alert and don't fall asleep at the switch. These people can be dangerous! What's occurring in France, could happen here as well."

What do you mean by Judeo Christian, no one wants to define this much used phrase.

Do you mean Christian but throw Jews in to make a biblical connection to God? That what a lot of the exotic reformed thinkers do because they need to plug the huge gap that literal biblical truth creates for Christians.

"Judeo-Christian" indicates the foundations of what is called the Occident. Judaism gave birth to the Christianity which has served as the cornerstone of much of the Western World. Modern-day Turkey, as I'm sure you'll recall, was originally a Christian nation (Constantinople) before being taken over by the Muslims.

It could be argued that the Judeo-christian tradition is an epiphenomenon in Western civilisation, not it's base.
I would argue the primary causality was and is and ever will be the weather.

If we are talking about Christianity why the Judeo part, why was it added when for the overwhelming majority of history it was never mentioned. There was no talk of Judeo/Christian traditions during the Crusades, nor during the great Christian Schism or indeed during the later religious wars.

This nonsense came about with the rise of Colonialism.

Maybe
Neocatastrophism is an interesting and valid concept in earth sciences however It doesn't seem to hold much water in historical investigation of social evolution.

Weather not only moves our physical being, it affects our psychological being and this intern how we think and act.

Well, the fact that Christians were prejudiced against Jews could be a reason, I guess...


What do you mean?

Btw, did you know that Polish word for Saturday ("sobota") comes from Jewish "Shabbat"? It's the same in Spanish, Italian, Czech, Russian, Croatian.

Who cares about Jews. We are discussing Poland

Yes prejudice could be a reason but it doesn't explain why the phrase was only used recently when prejudice was still very much present.

The Judeo/Christian phrase started to be used when European colonialism was cranking into gear. In the case of the Catholic colonial powers there was no theological or societal problem they just did it, they were saving souls. Protestant powers by their nature needed a justification for colonialism, they were not Catholic and therefore not despotic (freakily enough they though of themselves as democratic)They were on a mission from God to liberate the soul and mind unlike the Catholics who just wanted conversions.

Biblical Protestantism also needed a link to Jewish scripture otherwise there would be a detachment from God. Put these things together and you have a reason to invent this Judeo/Christian idea, It kind of kills two birds with one stone.

I'm not sure what you mean by "recently". According to this link: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

...it was first used in this sense in 1877.
According to Wikipedia article this term is used since the 1950s. I would see a simple reason for this - after the World War II anti-Semitism started to be a big "no no" and so the prejudices were diminishing.


I'm not sure what's the difference, to be honest. Both denominations wanted to convert to save souls and both wanted to get lands and riches, I guess lol

And they didn't need to stress links between Christianity and Judaism to do that...


I'm sorry, Barney, but what you write doesn't make any sense to me. What link to Jewish scripture? And why only Protestantism? The Old Testament is the part of the Bible for both Catholicism and Protestantism (and Orthodox Christianity).

No further "link" is needed...


lol
One doesn't have to invent anything, imo, Barney...
I really don't see how recognising Jewish roots of Christianity would help to justify colonialism. I'm not sure what "cranking into gear" means, but when the colonial powers were discovering and "acquiring" new lands this term "Judeo-Christian" wasn't in use yet, I think? Wasn't it the 16th and the 17th century mainly? The Age of Discovery? The term "Judeo-Christian" is used only since the 1950s (according to that Wikipedia link).

Spot on.

Using the phrase is an attempt to define a continent by religion - whereas religion is a part of culture rather than culture being a part of religion.

it was first used in this sense in 1877.
According to Wikipedia article this term is used since the 1950s.
Yes, recent.


It seems you will be disappointed.

You're a bit like Paulina. You ask someone what they mean, they tell you, then you ask them again, and say they haven't told you. I can only suggest you have reading comprehension difficulties.


Thet aren't. They are tiresome. (Exactly like Barney's on this thread). Often, they show lack of understanding on your part. 'The Judeo-Christian tradition' isn't a particularly difficult concept to grasp, it has already been defined, yet despite this Barney keeps asking me and others to reinvent the wheel and define it for him again and again and again. And even when shown what a wheel looks like he claims it isn't in fact a 'wheel'. Often, the only answer to him (and you) is to say we are unwilling to answer your (and his) pointless questions.


I'm well aware theology is hardly your strong point, but surely you have heard of the 'Old Testament'.

It means to accelerate the acquisition of other peoples lands.

Biblical Protestant ideas came as a real surprise to me as well the literal truth of scripture is all because they consider the Bible to be the direct word of god, now if God was talking to an other faith that presents a problem. The literal truth cannot be interpreted that's what Catholics do so a link to Judaism must be made. At the extreme end of the spectrum you have all sorts of sects claiming to be the lost tribe of Israel.

What's with you people?! Paulina is making perfectly reasonable points and asking relevant questions, and for some reason you keep jumping on her and saying she's "tiresome".

Paulina, it's not you, it's them.