Talk:Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
I believe it is best to list such terms alphabetically. Susan Mason
There is precendent for that. -豎眩
This page should be deleted. There is no Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition to speak of. Each of these three different religions has very different views on theology, faith, ethics, religious law, and inter-faith relations. Further, there is no content to this supposed article at all. RK
This page obviously does have content-are u sure your browser is working correctly? Christianity and Islam both derive from Judaism (or at least claim to), its kinda hard for me to see how there is not Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition. They all have very similar views on how there is a God and he wants people to be good and stuff. Susan Mason
- Susan, there is no content here. Just links to other articles. And your incredibly simplistic claim that these three different religions are really the same shows that you know little of substance about any of them. Please, I beg of you, stop writing things that are not true, and stop writing things about the way you wish things were, rather than the way they really are. Wikipedia is an academic encyclopedia, not a junior high school wish list.
- Are you able to disagree without insulting people? The content here links to other articles, lists are very useful. At some point Im sure there will be more text here as well, the wiki is a work in progress. Susan Mason
- Bob, they are not the same... but they share a lineage.. and Abraham in particular... not to mention the ten commandments. Idolatry is the subject of one of the most fundamental commandments, and you are wrong to characterise my and Susans work as disrespectful of differences. I would add, that its better to disrespect differences than it is to disrespect principles held in common. Im not typing to a brick wall am I? -豎眩
Do not call me "Bob"; that is not my name. And your claims about Islam are grossly false; they most certainly do not have the Ten Commandments anywhere in Quran. In fact, Muslims views both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament as deliberate lies, that were made by Jews and Christians to hide the true word of God! Your claims are simply fictional. Your position is thus unsupportable. RK
I am often amazed at how similar fundamental christianity, judaism, and islam all are. Susan Mason
- They are not the same at all. Please, stop substituting your fantasy for reality. These are three different religions with very different points of view. Your personal wishes are not facts.
- Both of you: slinging "A is true" and "No, B is true" renders the "discuss this page" page useless -- this is not a discussion. Can't either of you support your opinions, even badly? For my part, I'm inclined to think there probably could be something here, but until there is, it should redirect to Abrahamic religion. Tuf-Kat
- I agree that one should support one's position. Susan has been unable to do so, while I have. Further, as you can see for yourself, most of the Wikipedia community has already agreed with my point of view. See the article on the Judeo-Christian tradition. The only problem is that Susan and Stevertigo refuse to do any reading on the subject, and they substitue their wishes for reality. That is a betrayal of our high academic standards. RK
Its all well and good to say that neither of us is stating any support, but we have stated that christianity and islam are derived from judaism, what more support do we need? And of course, Abrahamic religion is completely acceptable. Susan Mason
- Toker's assessment of the situation is crystal.. though I would not be hasty in implementing the suggestion of a redirect. And Robert, your just plain wrong about Islam, and it comes from your lack of a NPOV study of it. I suggest this as a primer http://www.alislam.org/books/study-of-islam/books.html- -豎眩
- Wikipedia contributors should be aware that Stevertigo is writing absolute fictions (again) about Islam. His claims are totally fictional. Muslims do not study the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament; they teach that these works were deliberately corrupted, and contain lies about God. Muslims thus teach that the only reliable truth about God can be found in the Quran. Stevertigo's claims to the contrary are utterly fictional. RK
RK sounds anti-Islamic. Susan Mason
- Susan, stop lying about the beliefs of Muslims. Instead of typing up your dreams abotu what you wish they believe, do some research on the subject. I am outraged that you and Stevertigo are making up totally fictional claims about Islam, and presenting your fictions as fact, and then slandering me because I am pointing out your gross erros.
- Are you arguing that Islam is not derived from Judaism? Susan Mason
- No, that is obviously a distortion of what he is saying. RK claimed that Muslims revere the Old & New Testaments but believe it has been altered and corrupted. Thus, the only true source of the word of God is the Koran. What should be here, if anything, would be the ideas that the Koran and both Testaments agree on. Tuf-Kat
- Thank you, Tuf-Kat. This is the second time today that Susan attacked a statement I never said. In any case, Islam is not really derived from Judaism. That would be a distortion of its true historical origins, which lies in an original religion that drew from Arab paganism, parts of Judaism, and parts of Christianity, and which created its own theology. It is clear to me that Susan is simply ignorant of Islam. RK
- Susan, stop attacking statements which no one has ever made. That is not what Tuf-Kat said. RK
- I have no doubt you are perfectly capable of doing so, and never meant to imply otherwise -- though your actions seem more designed to raise a ruckus than actually providing information on Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The more I think about this, the more I feel this should be redirected to Abrahamic religion, since it could then provide info on Rastafarianism and Baha'ai and how all five are similar and different (plus any more small Abrahamic religions I don't know about, if any). Tuf-Kat
What are you going on about? My actions are designed to raise a ruckus? If Im not even disagreeing with you, where is the ruckus? Susan Mason
At best, "Christo-Islamic-Judaic tradition" is an ideological construct used by a small group of people towards particular ends. It certainly is not an axample of good/current scholarship on comparative religion. At best, the article should explore who introduced the term. and why, and how its use has spread. Slrubenstein
- I agree with RK and Slrubenstein. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three distinct religions, with different traditions. They have different holy scriptures, although Judaism and Christianity agree on many of the same ones, and some "Old Testament"/Tanakh stories are (I think) retold in the Quran. Within "traditional" Christianity as understood by Catholicism and Orthodoxy, "Tradition" means what Christ has taught the Church, and what the Church has taught successive generations of Christians. I'm sure you would agree that this tradition is quite different from the tradition handed down to today's Jews, and the tradition handed down to today's muslims. Yes, there are some things in common, but that does not make them the same tradition. I would even argue that Christianity no longer shares a single tradition since the Great Schism, and certainly not since the Protestant Reformation, although all these traditions have much more in common with each other than they do with Judaism or Islam. Wesley 17:08 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
It is best to redirect to Abrahamic religions. You cannot deny that when compared to Druidism or Wiccanism or Hinduism, that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are clearly related and of the same family. Susan Mason
- The very notion of "related" and "family" are ideological and reflect a very particular approach to the study of religion (as is the notion "Abrahamic religion"). Perhaps there are some legitimate scholars of comparative religion who have made this claim. If so -- please enlighten us and provide the names and citations. Slrubenstein
- How about you name a scholar whom you feel is authoritative and we'll call him up and see if he thinks Christianity and Islam are historically derived from Judaism. Did Jesus read the Torah? Was Muhammed aware of the Christian worldview? Have Jews ever sat down and talked with Christians and Islamics? Hmmmmmmm... Susan Mason
- Susan! Stop your personal attacks. You know full well that Slrubetstein did not say this. Further, stop lying about Jews, and claiming that we are ignorant because we never talk to Muslims and Christians. A great many Jews are involved in inter-faith study and dialogue, myself included. Maybe someday you should do so as well, because then you might actually learn something about this topic. Our point is that you are making stuff up off the top of your head, and presenting your myths, distortions and fictions as if they were facts. Then you get mad at me, at Slrubenstein and at others when we object to you writing grossly mistaken fantasies. RK
Judaism as we know it developed around the same time as Christianity. Of course Mohammed was "aware" of Christianity; that doesn't mean that Christianity and Islam belong ot some "family." Mohammed and other Islamic leaders were familiar with lots of stuff! Have Jews sat down with Christians and Muslims? Of course! But that doesn't make them members of the same family -- Jews have sat down with stoics and Zoroastrianists too. In any event, all the scholars that I know of (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) who see a link between Judaism and Christianity emphasize the break between the two, and call attention to the non-Jewish influences on Christianity. You might as well just claim that Mithraism is the "father" religion of Christianity. Now I repeat my request: name your sources. Slrubenstein
- But your sources (Wellhausen, Vermes, Fredricksen) appear to be agreeing with me that there is a distinct and noteworthy relationship between Judaism and Christianity or else they wouldnt be talking about a break or rift in the first place! Nobody talks about the "break" between Shintoism and Shamanism because there was never much of a connection to begin with. Wasn't Jesus a Jew? And don't Christians consider the Jewish "bible" to be holy? And don't Islamic people consider the Jewish and Christian bibles to be holy? Susan Mason
- Yes -- but these facts do not therefore mean that there is a "tradition." I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily, and for ideological reasons; the supposition of the "tradition" invariably distorts our understanding of the very specifics you mention. By the way, Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen are not "my" sources -- they belong to everyone! But if you reject them please tell us why, and please tell us what sources you prefer to rely on for such articles. Slrubenstein
- First off, they are your sources as long as you are the only one bringing them up during this discussion, seondly, I do support them. Please refer me to where they specifically state that there is no such thing as a Christo-Islamic-Judeo tradition, something which you have already agreed is a scholary understanding of the religions:
- SLR: "I think scholars who jump from these facts to construct some Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition are doing so too hastily"
- obviously then scholars do believe in such a tradition, although, of course, not all scholars feel this way. I am sure any discussion of the subject will benefit from the opinions of Wellhausen, Vermes, and Fredricksen, so I urge you to find relevant passages. Susan Mason
- They never refer to a "Judeo Christian" tradition to my knowledge, that's my point. But for the moment, I really would like to know your sources. You have added much more content to this article than I have, so your sources are more important. Slrubenstein
I haven't added anything to this article. There isn't anything in this article. What are you talking about? Susan Mason
- You are right -- my mistake, and I apologize. Kaufman: The Religion of Israel, Wellhausen: Prolegomena to a history of the Religion of Israel, Fredriksen: From Jesus to Christ, Vermes: Jesus the Jew. Slrubenstein
The problem is that Susan is writing stuff up that isn't true, and then demands that we all prove that her claims are false. Unable to provide scholarship, she relies on circular reasoning and misquotes. I fail to see how any further dialogue with her can improve this article. She has a religious agenda to falsely portray three totally different religions as being very similar (if not identical), and she has made it clear that she won't let facts get in her way. She clearly is misuing Wikipedia to promote her personal agenda. That is a violation of our NPOV policy. RK
RK, are you providing sources and scholarship and the like? Why don't you treat others the way you want to be treated? How can u deny that that there is some basic similarity between these religions, are they not monotheistic? Do they not have many of the same figures held in positions of holy reverence? Do they not have taboos, morals, and sins in common? Do they not have geographical and historical similarities? Susan Mason
- RK, you may be right about the contents of this talk page -- but Susan was right, there is no real concent to the article, and I checked the constituent articles and she hasn't been making many real substantive contributions to those pages either. It is possible that she is using these talk pages to educate herself. I do think you are raising a very valid point about not promoting our own views through the contents of articles, all I am saying is that in this instance Susan is not the main culprit. Slrubenstein
Im so tired of hearing how Im promoting some insidious and private agenda, Ive been hearing that since I first started on this site. The only reason I stick around is because it's obviously a damn good idea to create a free encyclopedia, but most of you are such jerks. Susan Mason
Sheesh! I never even realized the backwards order of the names. Judeo-Christo-Islamic is proper, as it is inline with the order of "inheritance" as far as Abrahamic religions go. -#35918眩<
Why not use alphabetical? This is definitely not a common use term, and otherwise there will be argument about who gets to go first. In the future, on similar subjects, there may be argument about which actually came first. Its best to use alphabetica. Susan Mason
- If it is not a common term -- indeed, if it is not used in the literature and is scarcely heard of outside of Wikipedia, then it does not merit a Wikipedia page. An encyclopedia is not a place to publish a contributor's original theories or favorite idiosyncratic expressions; it is a place to collect together knowledge that is established elsewhere in the world.
- Real-World Data: The word "Judeo-Christo-Islamic" has 37 Google hits. The permutation which has the most is "Judeo-Islamic-Christian" at 73. For comparison, "Abrahamic religion" has 26 800 and "Abrahamic faith" has 16 800.
- This suggests that none of the JCI/JIC/CJI expressions has significant currency when compared to "Abrahamic". Since "JCI" and "Abrahamic" both admittedly denote the same idea (the common heritage of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) I propose that "Abrahamic" is the correct term for Wikipedia to use to denote that idea. --FOo
I agree. Susan Mason
I might agree, if Abrahamic had treatment for the uses of these terms... however, the idea of exploring links between religions is not invalid is it? how do we denote these? -豎眩
Bear in mind, that eventually we here on the wikipedia are going to come to understand something new and original, its inevitable. The fact religions are similar is a good place to start, I think. Afterall, it isn't my POV, its God's POV, and God's POV is NPOV because he is God and he can do that. Susan Mason
- Dontcha go getting all nUtTy , uNitaRIAn, or mUShy on us now SuE... -豎眩 ps.: "And if you think peace is a common goal, that goes to show how little you know...."
lol Susan Mason
Whew, that's a lot of arguing. My ignorant self proposes the following:
Regarding names, I suggest the alphabetical, in order to be the most neutral. All combinations (Judeo-Christo-Islamic, Judeo-Islamic-Christian, etc.) can redirect to the alphabetical article.
As this page is named X-X-X_tradition, let's fill it with a list of things that all three religions have in common (i.e. regardless of their relatedness or non-relatedness). We all know at least one: monotheism. For some more, try this Google query. If after some time, it is found that there is very little in common between them, then we can disregard this as a separate topic and redirect to Abrahamic religions. Can everyone agree on this? (I hope so) -Fagan
nonsense... appreciate the concern, but the issue of titleship, despite the jabbering, is itself not a great controversy... If we were to continue in the use... it wouldnt be any less political to change it to CIJ - anyone who considers the order to be paramount in terms of vanity - is not going to be happy in any case... "abrahamic" seems like a solution, but that context is not a comparative religion term in itself... It would need a little treatment, thats all im saying... aw fuck it Ill do it..-豎眩
actually RK strongly disputes that this article is even valid. He says it is absurd to suggest that these religions are similar. Abrahamic religion is an article on this subject, as are the pages which this one links to. And a decision to list things alphabetically seems really neutral to me. This term is not in common usage, and so whatever google says is the most popular variant on this is hardly very important. And I do think Abrahamic religion would be acceptable to most anyone Susan Mason
- Ms. "Susan Mason" is lying. She claims that I wrote it is "absurd to suggest that these religions are similar" ? I never wrote any such thing. In fact, I helped edit two articles on Islamic philosophy and Jewish philosophy which give examples of how they are similar!. RK
He's right to point out differences, and hes keen to, but even he has to back off from bugus notion that there is no relationship at all worthy of comparing... Either your misinterpreting him, (and making too big a deal of what he thinks) or hes patently wrong... It matters not either way. -豎眩
Read Islamic philosophy and say there is 'no relationship', clearly there is, and it was explored long ago. Also read modern Islamic philosophy and ask if there are any parallels to modern Jewish or Christian thought. Clearly there are. Then, from an historical point of view, read early Muslim history and ask 'did something similar happen in other writing-based religions that permitted philosophy and theology to mix?' Some would argue clearly yes. Emphasizing the central role of the Prophet Abraham is certainly a good move, as it allows the smaller religions that accept this tradition to be brought in and their insights examined. The J-C-I, J-I-C, stuff is just foolish, avoid it.
A "similarity" is not the same thing as a "tradition" -- the two issues should be treated separately. There is an article on Judeo-Christian tradition, which among other things describes the construction of the "tradition." There is also an article on "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Christianity," to give a broader view of the relationship between the two. I suggest we handle this topic the same way: any claim about a Judeo-Christo-Islamic tradition" is the same thing as "Abrahamic religion" and should be incoprorated into that article. A more general discussion of similarities and differences between these religions can be in articles "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Islam" and "Comparing and contrasting Judaism and Islam," "Comparing and Contrasting Judaism and Zoroastrianism," "Comparing and COntrasting Christianity and Mithraism," etc. Slrubenstein
- Good points. RK 02:07 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)
As much fun as it is to watch the back and forth between Susan Mason, RK and Slrubenstein, I'd like to vote for removing the insults... Silver Maple
- Uh, what insults? In any case, the last time this page was active was March 5, so I imagine any insults stopped almost four months ago. Slrubenstein
- For example, calling each other liars. There was a recent edit where that occurred. Why not give Susan the benefit of the doubt and say that she must have been in error? I am aware that she is no longer around to defend herself (having been banned). Why not finally move some of the bad blood into a backup tape, to leave only the relevant parts of the discussion for interested readers? Seriously, this whole talk page doesn't present any of you in a positive light. Why not shelf it? Silver Maple
- Well, I really do not have any investment in this as I -- to my knowledge -- never called anyone a liar. If you want to archive any of this, go ahead. But I wouldn't delete it ... Slrubenstein