I wrote in a library book once.

The author referenced the "Judeo-Christian" conception of G-d as a man.

I crossed out "Judeo," and added a footnote explaining why this is a "Christian" concept, noting Jewish conceptions of G-d as feminine, agender, gender-fluid, & pangender.

But mostly... G-d isn't a person. G-d, as Judaism conceptualizes G-d, does not have a corporeal form. So to speak of G-d as "a man" is outside Jewish understandings of G-d as a formless being. But, of course, it's very central to Christianity.

Yes, there is a lot of gendered language for how Jews talk about G-d. G-d is often referred to in Jewish liturgy/texts as "king," "father," etc.

But these are exclusively metaphoric references, never to be taken literally as human elements of a human being.

And G-d is also referred to in Jewish texts with feminine metaphors.

Again, G-d isn't a woman. G-d isn't a man. G-d isn't a person.

I wholly accept that Christians have a different theology than I do.

And that is exactly my point.

"Judeo-Christian" is a myth, a PC way of saying "Christian," when actually, it often denotes things that are at odds with Jewish tradition.

And so, perhaps against my better judgment, I wrote in the library book - crossing out part of the text, and writing in a lengthy footnote.

But at least I did it in pencil, not ink!

If this thread does or doesn't resonate with you, either way, go follow @JustSayXtian for plenty more examples and explanations of why "Judeo-Christian" really just means "Christian-and-lets-pretend-jews-are-all-really-christians-too."