> term “Judeo-Christian” was coherent, useful, and defensible. In general, I take a very skeptical view of the term, because I think it misleads the public as to the nature of some important facts and dynamics in the history of the West.

Not the OP. The term Judaeo-Christian is dumb because it implies some kind of equality in the contribution of Jewish and Christian thought on morality and law in shaping the modern world and the world views of those living in Western society. It’s an American idea, a product of the post WWII consensus where the major religious traditions in the US had been operationally been Pritestantised[1]. In reality the contribution of specifically Jewish law or philosophy on the West rounds to zero. It’s certainly no more important than the Muslim contribution and few people talk about Abrahamic morality. Maimonides and Ibn Sina both made contributions to philosophy that are foundational, and situated from their culture. While many, many Jews have contributed to Western culture the fact that they are Jewish has no real impact on that influence. Spinoza’s philosophy shows vast intellect and voracious reading but Jewishness? Not so much.

[1]http://www.gnxp.com/new/2009/08/29/we-are-all-protestants-no...

For the book length treatment read Protestant Catholic Jew, Will Herberg

https://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo36...

There is no such thing as a judeo-christian morality or value. It is a political term invented a few decades ago for political reasons.

I don't want to get into a religious debate. Those never end well and there can never be a conclusion because they all hinge on interpreting text hundreds of pages long full of contradictory statements. And never mind there are different flavors of judaism and christianity.

But if judaism and christianity had same values then one is obviously redundant. But obviously that isn't true. There isn't even "judeo" values or christian values. The term "judeo-christian" is meaningless. There is no value, morality or anything underpinning it expect for political expediency.

The idea of "sin" is huge in Abrahamic religion, so the fact that their texts particularly describe what is "sinful and not" I think is a clear-cut sign there is some sort of set of "values" that religious adherents are expected to have.

Not that I agree with said frameworks or give any authority to the texts- and also understand that many forms of these religions interpret the texts different ways, which cause various splits in what is considered moral or not. Additionally, I understand that it is mostly futile to expect most religious people to follow the prescribed morals of their religion or denomination, as it always seems to end up that people have their own specific personal set of morals, and then they just try to rationalize or stretch it to fit whatever religion or worldview they adhere to

Or is your point more that while religions DO have expectations like this- the moral "rules" of these religions don't originate from the religion itself, but instead are general moral values adopted, altered, or shared by many religions? If so, then maybe we are in agreement and I am talking past you.