[ SECRET POST #6789 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #6789 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.




















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 10 secrets from Secret Submission Post #971.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Judaism and Christianity are similar in ways that many religions are similar to each other, but are also very different from each other. Especially with the pointed way that Islam is excluded. "Judeo-Christian" was a christian idea by christians who think that judaism is christianity-lite. There's a way to say that both religions have a shared mythos, but that way is not "Judeo-Christian bible."

[(Anonymous)]

So far, what I've found criticizing the term also says that it doesn't include atheists, which, uh, of course it doesn't? It's referring to religious traditions? Makes it seem an awful lot like another example of the modern trend of finding everything problematic and offensive because nothing includes literally everyone.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it's also a dog whistle used by the christian right. It's basically referring to a shared religious tradition that doesn't actually exist in history. Sure, they share some myths. That doesn't mean that historically there was much solidarity there pre-Israel.

Criticizers of the term aren't trying to make it problematic because it's exclusionary, they're pointing out that the way it is exclusionary is being used problematically by problematic actors for problematic reasons.

[(Anonymous)]

Islam is usually excluded because it's like 500+ years younger than Christianity and isn't really relevant to discussions of similarities between Christianity and Judaism.

[(Anonymous)]

The three great monotheistic religions are all pretty similar in their origins. The biggest difference is how they categorise their prophets. (like for Islam Jesus is a prophet, but not the last one! for Judaism he is not a prophet. For Christians, he's the son of God)
They are all called "Abrahamic religions" for a reasons. They all come from the same mythological seed and share A LOT of important symbolisms and characters. It's basically the same text (if we look at what the Catholics call the old testament) with a very different interpretation.

[(Anonymous)]

Abrahamic = fine
Judeo-Christian = not fine, dog whistle

[(Anonymous)]

??? I agree. Strange comment. Or were you trying to summarise my point? IDGI
I was pointing out that all those free religions share almost exactly the same ancient text, so they are very very similar.
Judaeo-Christian doesn't really mean anything, because like you say it excludes Islam. Which, hilariously enough, until their prophet Muhammad came into being and became their last prophet, is EXACTLY like the Christian interpretation, barred "the son of God" thing. Judaism is more different from Catholicism than Islam.

[(Anonymous)]

Is it being a dogwhistle a new thing? I have a hard time believing the humanities professors at my blue hippie college were dogwhistling.

[(Anonymous)]

I suspect it is. I wouldn't be surprised if it's just considered outdated/inaccurate in academia.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, it is absolutely a new thing, based on revisionist history. In terms of nuance and accuracy, it's on par with, "the Japanese government had decided to surrender before Hiroshima."

[(Anonymous)]

Oh so you’re just racist racist

[(Anonymous)]

Abrahamic excludes Zoroastrianism, which is monotheistic and influenced the development of Christianity. Therefore, "Abrahamic" is also exclusionary and supremacist.

[(Anonymous)]

Zoroastrianism’s exclusion isn’t problematic because it isn’t a religion that’s widely practiced today, nor is “Abrahamic values” used to dog whistle against Zoroastrianism. And while it influenced Christianity, it does not share a mythos or common text with Abrahamic religions the way that they do with each other.

But you’re really just mad that dog whistles exist, I guess.

[(Anonymous)]

Touch grass