Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bible API

bible-api.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 308 posts

Re: Bible API

#161

Post by sjwright »

jariel wrote: post #126
goto11 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seriously want examples of atrocities from the Bible? How about the law that homosexuals should be stoned to death? Or that rape victims should be either killed or forced to marry the rapist? The command that slaves should obey their masters?

Yes, reference for us when Jesus did those things.

The character of Jesus is far worse, he said he’ll offer you vicarious redemption by way of human sacrifice. Gross.

(And worst of all he didn’t even stay dead. What sort of sacrifice is that anyway? He missed out on a weekend to save the world from the rules he created in the first place.)

Re: Bible API

#162

Post by wcarey »

cloakandswagger wrote: post #151
wcarey wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, having read the whole of what you wrote, the reason not to do both is that atomization promotes an epistemology that does grave violence to Christian belief. God's self revelation could have been a math textbook: a collection of independent propositions related by logical necessity. But it's not. His self revelation is a person who has a story and who tells stories. When we atomize the scriptures, we're implicitl…

The verse structure's practicality as a reference mechanism far outweighs its downsides. It's a bit of a stretch to indict the verse structure for the general decline in Biblical literacy in Christians. It's entirely possible to quote a verse with correct contextual interpretation that conveys its meaning; if we're looking for a culprit for declining Biblical literacy I'd be much more apt to blame loose translations…

What are the upsides? What are the downsides? (And to whom?)

Note that I'm not saying the downside is "declining Biblical literacy" - by many metrics I'd imagine that's increasing? I wonder how you'd measure that? And I wonder whether whatever scheme you came up with wouldn't presume some hermeneutic and really just measure the extent to which people buy into that hermeneutic? For example, who is more Biblically literate? The person who can quote, verbatim, with correct citation 100 verses of scripture, or the person who can re-tell in paraphrase the story of Jesus forgiving Peter after the resurrection?

I'm saying the downside is a transformation in what it means to read the scriptures.

Re: Bible API

#163

Post by ducaale »

sjwright wrote: post #153
ducaale wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need to abandon our faith to achieve that. In fact, we already had a golden age[1] where we leapfrogged most civilizations. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Yes, and then you were leap-elephanted by the enlightenment. Keep up.

Yeah, it is really unfortunate. But remember that this world is like a pendulum. You might have it your way today but it will not last. Meanwhile, We will do our best to catchup ;)

Re: Bible API

#164

Post by sjwright »

ducaale wrote: post #163
sjwright wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and then you were leap-elephanted by the enlightenment. Keep up.

Yeah, it is really unfortunate. But remember that this world is like a pendulum. You might have it your way today but it will not last. Meanwhile, We will do our best to catchup ;)

Hurry up. Please.

Re: Bible API

#165

Post by cheaprentalyeti »

skissane wrote: post #81
newacct583 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world, and cedes immense epistemological ground to the project of the enlightenment that is diametrically opposed to a Christian reading of the Scriptures, which emphasizes their unity and their role in liturgical worship. I just had to quote that sentence construction without comment. But to reply…

> I mean, I agree it's dumb. I just don't see why it's not "Christian". Christians are what Christians do. But American evangelical Protestants are a small minority of global Christianity. Catholics and Orthodox take a different approach, one which emphasises the binding role of church Tradition in interpreting the Bible, an idea which Protestants reject.

On the one hand, I think the Catholic approach is more correct than the Protestant one, but I think if the papacy hadn't been so authoritarian during the MIddle Ages and the period leading up to the Reformation that the Protestants wouldn't have felt the need to be able to argue scripture inch by inch by inch.

Re: Bible API

#166

Post by sjwright »

ducaale wrote: post #155
sjwright wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re reading that particular book because you happen to be born into a particular culture in a particular moment in time. It’s not a truth of the universe, it’s an accident of your circumstances. Just like every other sacred text.

Well, I am glad I was born in those circumstances as a muslim :)

Obviously. That’s how belief works. If you were born at any time in any place, you might well have said the same with respect to any other set of beliefs.

You can have your book, just don’t delude yourself into believing it’s special because everyone around you says it is special. And that goes for everyone born everywhere at every time.

Re: Bible API

#167

Post by RandomBacon »

gboone wrote: post #86
battery423 wrote: post #77

So absurd how people are really reading this. How can you take so much time on this Text while ignoring all issues this Text contains? All the contradictions? All the advise which is either sexist, rassist, homophobe, non homophobe etc.? I really really want to know, what other people think, when they read the bible every week like in a bible study, just to either: - Following it - Not following it but finding an exc…

Have you actually ready it?

I don't think someone in OP's shoes even has to read it, they just have to have a fair and open mind and understand that it'a bunch of letters, poems, stories all written by different people at different points in time.

I think it would help if such person after understanding that, did read it. Of course there is some stuff that doesn't make sense in today's world, but there is a lot that still does.

As for OP's other arguement about being hypocrites, that's a rather poor one. Hypocrisy isn't unique. Everyone is human, and no matter their religious affiliation or lack thereof, are just as susceptible to "being a dick".

Re: Bible API

#168

Post by jariel »

sjwright wrote: post #161
jariel wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, reference for us when Jesus did those things.

The character of Jesus is far worse, he said he’ll offer you vicarious redemption by way of human sacrifice. Gross. (And worst of all he didn’t even stay dead. What sort of sacrifice is that anyway? He missed out on a weekend to save the world from the rules he created in the first place.)

What he 'missed' was the real opportunity to enact justice as part of the 'Judean People's Front'. For that alone he deserved what he got.

Edit: Meant to say 'People's Front of Judea'.

Edit 2: Sorry - 'Popular Front of Judea'.

I guess I really need a tool to help me sort that out, like an 'API' of some kind.

Re: Bible API

#169

Post by eeereerews »

wcarey wrote: post #127
eeereerews wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That hermeneutic - texts are collections of independent logical propositions - was essentially unknown in the ancient world On the contrary, the atomization and recombination of the text into new meanings is highly characteristic of Midrash. Of course, this isn't the same as the "prooftext" hermeneutic I think you're criticizing.

Fascinating! Do you have a good book recommendation that introduces that? It's not something I know much about.

Here is a typical example (from Genesis Rabbah)

> And Cain rose up against his brother Abel. [...] With what did he kill him? R. Simeon said: He killed him with a staff: And a young man for my bruising (Gen 4:23) implies a weapon which inflicts a bruise. The Rabbis said: He killed him with a stone: For I have slain a man for wounding me (ibid) indicates a weapon which inflicts wounds. R. 'Azariah and R. Jonathan in R. Isaac's name said: Cain had closely observed where his father slew the bullock [which he sacrificed, as it is written], And it shall please the Lord better than a bullock (Ps 69:31), and there he killed him: by the throat and its organs.

From a Christian perspective, a more interesting example might be the Gospel's atomization/recontextualizations of text as Messianic prophecy ("out of Egypt I have called my son", "behold, a virgin shall be with child").

Post reply on HN