[asdlfj2sd33]

The idea of ideas as viruses is old. They can infect you, then can breed with other ideas, they spread, etc.

Religion world wide does seem to follow a pattern of more complicated and more energy demanding religions being replaced by religions which require less effort. One god instead of many, and lately that god doesn't even want sacrifices, oh and peace is better then war... most of the time.

Obviously it not that simple, religion can spread through war, some religions make themselves extinct by demanding life long celibacy from everyone. And there's been some studies which found the us vs them pattern common in religious groups can decrease and/or slow the spread of disease.

There's one particular thing about Christianity though. Well OK, a couple of things, one it's kind of a modern less complex flavor of Judaism, no offense meant to any Hebrews reading this.

But the other thing is Christ's rather extreme love your enemies, turn the other cheek message. You have to see that in the context of the Roman empire and Roman culture at the time.

Rome was EXTREMELY pro war, violence and punishment. Think crucifixion, gladiators, pax romana etc. But even more then that, Roman culture saw mercy as a dirty animalistic emotion, to be surprised like all animalsitic and primitive urges should be. Reason was human, emotions, especially mercy were disgusting instincts not to be trusted, but to be fought against, with reason.

In short it was an extreme culture, that must have put some unique psychological pressures on those living there. Think how people in Japan who remember the end of WWII describe how the emperor announcing Japan's surrender felt like a bow breaking and huge pressure being relieved.

Christianity is like the perfect counter culture to the old Roman culture. No wonder it successfully spread throughout the empire. And from Rome to all of Europe, to the new world.

The other parts of the old world, have not turned Christian, and it's not for lack of trying by well funded Christian missionaries, suggesting there really was something unique about Rome and early Christianity.

Modern American Christianity is often quite, shall we say unique, why with the pro Gun, pro war thing.

[mgreenbe]

  There's one particular thing about Christianity though. 
  Well OK, a couple of things, one it's kind of a modern 
  less complex flavor of Judaism, no offense meant to any 
  Hebrews reading this.

First, the similarity between the practice of Judaism and Christianity is the product of the last century or so. At the time, the ideas of, e.g., Paul diverged significantly from contemporary Jewish thinking.

Second, if you don't want to offend Jews, don't call them "Hebrews". ;)

[netsp]

Why, not? It's archaic and not strictly a synonym, but why would it be offensive. I understand that those that use it, usually mean offense, but there is no real reason for it.

In lots of languages it is not derogatory.

[maxwell]

Equating a religious group with an ethnic one is mistaken (like saying 'Arabs when 'Muslims is meant), regardless of whether anyone is offended.

[netsp]

Thinking of those two things as distinct concepts with clear borders is a mistake. Both religious and ethnic group do not usually have definite boundaries and they are not always seperate from each other. Saying Arabs when you mean Muslim is what you mean is indeed a mistake. Most Muslims are not Arabs, but that proves nothing about how to classify these things.

Hebrews is a different issue. Jewish is actually Judah-ite, from the tribe of Judah. These were (according to the tradition) the surviving tribe of the Israelites or People of Israel. People is actually a bit misleading. In Hebrew it uses the word normally translated as 'Nation'. In modern times, the relationship between Judah & Jewish has been blurred since some groups trace their heritage to other (lost) tribes.

In any case, all of these equally refer to an ethnic group though you could argue that they are not exact synonyms. This is not just about the origin of the words. It is also the religious tradition. Jewish is not a Religion in the sense that Islam or Christianity are. It are not something you chose. It is not something you can stop and it is not something that anybody who is not (ethnically) Jewish is required or encouraged to join. Basically, the "religion" as you would probably call it doesn't distinguish between religion and ethnic group. The members of this ethnic-religious do not usually do so either. That is, many secular, atheist Jews describe themselves as Jewish, and behave in someway that indicates this.

Hebrews & Israelites, People of Israel, are as far a I know, used interchangeably in the old testament. In modern Hebrew all but the most pedantic (and religious) will use Israelites interchangeably with Jews. Secular Jews are unlikely to say Jews. "Hebrews" is not really used in modern Hebrew unless making some sort of biblical reference. In some languages it has a derogatory ring but in some languages describing someone as a Jew/Hebrew/Israelite is derogatory regardless of the word you use.

[mgreenbe]

You forgot to add the argument that it's (strictly speaking) more accurate, since Yehuda is just one of the tribes.

But s/Hebrew/Colored/. Same arguments apply, but---here we are.