I just hit the API up and it errored with http status code “777 - Act of God”.
Bible API
231–240 of 308 posts
Re: Bible API
#232Earlier 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…
> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that pract…
The meaning of "Christian" differs person-to-person and culture/tradition-to-culture/tradition, as well as over time. That Christ was born to a virgin, for example, was not necessarily agreed upon by early Christians, and it's certainly not agreed upon now. That Jesus was divine may not even have been universally accepted and also has its detractors today among Christians.
Both creeds and practices do tend to identify differences between religious groups, but those differences may not be so clearly cut in practice. At the same time, various sects may define the boundaries of the religion more narrowly than others.
Re: Bible API
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Christians are what Christians do. This is generally not true. Try to replace "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Gnostic" and see how far this travels. While there are, I suppose, some distinctive practices that characterize various systems of belief (or disbelief), what distinguishes Christianity from, say, Judaism, is a set of irreconcilable beliefs (e.g., that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah). It is true that pract…
Lots of Christians reject the virgin birth. You can say they are not "real Christians", but they could say the same about you.
this sounds as plausible as saying that a lot of atheists believe in god. maybe it's a thing? but it's hard to imagine dropping someone in nicea in 380 and suggesting this. words mean things: Christians believe in more than the virgin birth but certainly not less.
Re: Bible API
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm thinking, for example, of the RCL, which often breaks passages mid chapter and occasionally omits individual verses. What sort of Christian community do you mostly know? If you said "The St. Crispin's day speech" I'd immediately know what you mean. I'm definitely a Shakespeare fan, but would have no idea which act, scene, &c. that speech occupies. I'd wager that's much less true of the scriptures in many circles.
To some extent probably, but I wonder if that's as true as you assume. I'd guess that many people in vaguely Christianized communities would be familiar, to some degree at least, with passages like "Daniel in the Lion's Den", "The Sermon on the Mount", "The Plagues of Egypt", "The Good Samaritan", and so on, without being able to tell you the chapter and verse (or even book) in which they're found.
Perhaps! I've encountered lots of fellow Christians who construct arguments by taking individual verses from everywhere in the scriptures and arranging them into an argument assuming that all the terms are equivalent and that the context doesn't matter. It particularly perplexes me when someone will cite, say verse x and then immediately after it cite verse x-2, reordering them in a way that destroys the sense of the passage, but supports some argument.
Perhaps there's an uncanny valley between people who are familiar with the broad strokes and people who argue contextually.
Re: Bible API
#235Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions It's common to quote short passages (1-3 verses) in society, either to prove a point (often missing context) or in a "thought for the day" manner. Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible.
Many homes have wall hangings with scripture that the owner has never read in the bible. People quote literature they haven't read all over the place[1]. Implying its unique to the Bible means you probably haven't done your research either. [1]: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/68007/50-famous-misquota...
The difference being that for the Christian (a presumption when you see someone quote scripture) the Bible supposedly defines their worldview, as opposed to various pieces of literature.
Re: Bible API
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good observation, but I think it's overstated. I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions, they mainly read it in much longer sections covering some topic. Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. In this usage, it's very similar to the way we cite Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer…
>> One of the most interesting things to happen to the scriptures is their balkanization into verses. We generally don't atomize other writings that way, and when folks read the scriptures as a series of disconnected logical propositions all sorts of wackiness ensues. > Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. It's also wort…
While the chapter and verse were only introduced much later, the Judaic explanation of the scriptures, especially the Pentateuch, has been referencing parts of it by naming every passage (of 3-5 chapters) by the first meaningful word. This was done in writing as early as the Babylonian exile, as can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Even now in traditionally written Tora scrolls, there are no chapters and verses, but one searches for the name of that Parasha to find the relevant portion
Re: Bible API
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good observation, but I think it's overstated. I don't know many people who read the bible as a series of disconnected logical propositions, they mainly read it in much longer sections covering some topic. Chapter and verse come in when you want to quote something, or shorthand something, or refer someone to a specific and narrow section. In this usage, it's very similar to the way we cite Shakespeare, Homer, Chaucer…
I think what you're saying is right on. But I do know the occasion where someone will take a verse by itself and consider it a single logical unit where they get all meaning, understanding, etc. from that one verse and nothing else. It's just a learning point is all. I've always been taught to take the scripture as a whole and not just take one verse for understanding.
I know a lot of them, most notable one being: Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Or: Matthew 15:11 Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.
Re: Bible API
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
To some extent probably, but I wonder if that's as true as you assume. I'd guess that many people in vaguely Christianized communities would be familiar, to some degree at least, with passages like "Daniel in the Lion's Den", "The Sermon on the Mount", "The Plagues of Egypt", "The Good Samaritan", and so on, without being able to tell you the chapter and verse (or even book) in which they're found.
Perhaps! I've encountered lots of fellow Christians who construct arguments by taking individual verses from everywhere in the scriptures and arranging them into an argument assuming that all the terms are equivalent and that the context doesn't matter. It particularly perplexes me when someone will cite, say verse x and then immediately after it cite verse x-2, reordering them in a way that destroys the sense of the…
This practice is usually called "proof-texting" [1] and perhaps surprisingly it's not confined to one particular kind of Christian. For example, the very conservative evangelicals I grew up with were extremely anti proof-texting and decontextualized reading, to the point that they rarely read from the Bible (in church or otherwise) unless they're reading a whole chapter. On the other hand, the conservative evangelical Dwight Moody is often accused of promoting exactly this hermeneutical approach. In my experience, a certain class of the "reformed" are often guilty of it.
To be clear, I certainly think the people I grew up with were guilty of their own particular hermeneutical weaknesses, this is just about proof-texting.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prooftext
[2] Can't find a ready source for this, could be the result of some infighting.
Re: Bible API
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, reference for us when Jesus did those things.
The grandparent just talked about atrocities in the Bible not specifically about Jesus. Jesus just condoned these things, but didn't kill anybody personally. (Unless you believe Jesus = God.) The worst thing Jesus did was saying you didn't have to wash your hands before eating, which have probably killed millions of innocent people due to diseases and infections. But I'm sure he did this only out of ignorance and not…
"The worst thing Jesus did was saying you didn't have to wash your hands before eating, which have probably killed millions of innocent people due to diseases and infections."
This is really deep insight into cause and effect.
When we think 'Jesus, History, Spirituality, Theology, Sociology' .... the thing that really should come to mind is the hand-washing, you know, and the millions dead.
Inadvertently of course!
I never thought to consider that Gandhi, by asking a nation to expend their resources on making 'homespun' clothing instead of wearing that which was very cheaply made on textile machines, was inadvertently causing mass poverty. Probably millions dead. So tragic. Now that's the thing we need to remember when thinking about this guy.
Re: Bible API
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and then you were leap-elephanted by the enlightenment. Keep up.
Please stop. Your comments in this thread stand out as particularly bad, and the commenter you've been abusing is to be commended for not reacting in kind.
I apologise as I can see how “you” could be misread as referring to the individual I was replying to, rather than a colloquial rejoinder to the use of “we”—but I would have thought that was self evident given that the Enlightenment was 250 years ago.
More broadly I don’t regret anything I have said in this thread. And honestly I find it difficult to take this form of criticism seriously; offering challenge to concepts voluntarily offered into this thread by others isn’t “abuse“ in any other context.
And I further reject the assertion that the other commenter did not react “in kind”. He even used “you” at me in the same colloquial sense.