Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by LinuxBender 1060 days ago
Is that by chance a subtle reference to the First Crusade [1]? If that is our ethical foundation then many options would be on the table.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

2 comments

At that time in Christian West, the notion of "Judeo-Christianity" would be considered an oxymoron. But it is possible that the general is question is in fact alluding to that era from ignorance.
Judeo-Christianity here just means Old+New testament. They just didn't use that terminology back then, but the notion was very much the same.
So "Judeo-Christianity" in this context is just a euphemism for "Christianity."

> What has become known as the People's Crusade passed through Germany and indulged in wide-ranging anti-Jewish activities, including the Rhineland massacres.

>So "Judeo-Christianity" in this context is just a euphemism for "Christianity."

Yes, as it's more often than not used. It's basically "what evolved as Christiatity, through the adoption of Judean-originating ways of belief" (as opposed to pagan ones).

No. The Notion was not very much the same. Medieval views of the Torah / Old Testament were very much informed by anti-semitism.

Medieval crusaders would have balked at the idea that Jewish and Christian values could have any form of harmony.

You missed the whole point of the comment:

"Judeo-Christianity here just means Old+New testament. They just didn't use that terminology back then, but the notion was very much the same".

The didn't say "Old+New testament" but it meant exactly that, what scholars for a couple of centuries now refer to as "judeo-christian".

What's specifically wrong about the first crusade? It was in response to the rise of the seljuk Turks and their advance on the Byzantines and also similar to the Muslim invasions of the middle east, northern africa, southern italy, and spain.

That area of the world had changed hands between Rome and Persia for hundreds of years before then as well.

Ah, the Crusades were good because the Moors invading Europe was good? Or is this another case of "You say what we did was bad, but people who I think are terrible also did the same thing, therefore what we did was actually good!"

I guess this adds "also other people did things like that" to it, but are you saying anything here you couldn't also say about slavery or serial killing?

People should be judged relative to their time.