4 ms·

> Protestants say things along the lines of "Catholics aren't Christian" Not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Sure, some people say that

> Protestants say things along the lines of "Catholics aren't Christian" Not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Sure, some people say that. You can define "Christianity" however you want, and through that definition exclude certain practitioners. > That's not a good analogy It was not intended as an analogy, it was just another example of not considering something to be part of your religion even though another group thinks it should be. > they should be aware that different branches of Christianity have different ideas about what belongs in "the Bible" How do you know Jake Cyr is not aware of these things? As you pointed out yourself, this API only includes two translations at the moment. Contrary to what you have said, however, the KJV does not normally include the apocrypha in the present day. From wikipedia: > ...this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting the standard text of 1769 extensively re-edited by Benjamin Blayney at Oxford, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text. So it makes sense, given that neither of these translations typically include the deuterocanon, that those books are not accessible via this API. I think listing the translations is sufficient explanation of what content will be included and that there is no reason for this to be explicitly called "The Free Protestant Bible API" or any such thing. Your complaint would have much more merit if Jake Cyr was specifically excluding certain books that normally would be found in the included translations, but that is not what is happening here.

skissane 5y ago
> Not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Sure, some people say that. You can define "Christianity" however you want, and through that definition exclude certain practitioners. I said that some Protestants appear to believe that they are the majority of Christians. From a neutral point of view, that's a factually incorrect belief. But if you choose to define "Christianity" narrowly to just include your own group, then of course your group turns out to be the majority of Christians, even 100% of them. I've also heard from some Protestants the related claim that "most Catholics aren't Christians" but an ill-defined minority of them who have "saving faith" are–an idea which if accepted might be taken by some to make Christianity majority Protestant but not 100% so. And in my mind it is relevant to the topic at hand – if one starts with the (incorrect, most would say) assumption that most Christians are Protestants, it is straightforward to arrive at the (just as incorrect) conclusion that most Christians reject these books as part of the Bible. > It was not intended as an analogy, it was just another example of not considering something to be part of your religion even though another group thinks it should be. Well, given that historically the majority of Protestants accepted these books as part of the Bible – albeit with lower authority than the rest of it – and some Protestant Bibles still contain them – I don't see how it actually counts as "not considering something to be part of your religion even though another group thinks it should be". Even if we just narrowly define their religion as "Protestantism"–as opposed to Christianity as a whole–it is an important part of the history of Protestantism, and still part of it for many Protestants today. Indeed, some Protestants even still use these books liturgically – to give just one example, Anglican and Methodist marriage services both include (as a permitted option) a reading from the book of Tobit, an element also found in Amish wedding services. So, comparing it to a text from a completely different religion, and which one's own religion has no history of using in any way, and which one's own religion doesn't use today, it isn't a sensible comparison. It isn't "just another example" because it isn't the same thing at all. > How do you know Jake Cyr is not aware of these things? As you pointed out yourself, this API only includes two translations at the moment. Jake Cyr is welcome to give an account of what was going through his head, and if he chooses to do that I will be all ears. Unless and until he does, I can only guess–but that's all you can do either.

skissane 5y ago

> Not really sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Sure, some people say that. You can define "Christianity" however you want, and through that definition exclude certain practitioners. I said that some Protestants appear to believe that they are the majority of Christians. From a neutral point of view, that's a factually incorrect belief. But if you choose to define "Christianity" narrowly to just include your own group, then of course your group turns out to be the majority of Christians, even 100% of them. I've also heard from some Protestants the related claim that "most Catholics aren't Christians" but an ill-defined minority of them who have "saving faith" are–an idea which if accepted might be taken by some to make Christianity majority Protestant but not 100% so. And in my mind it is relevant to the topic at hand – if one starts with the (incorrect, most would say) assumption that most Christians are Protestants, it is straightforward to arrive at the (just as incorrect) conclusion that most Christians reject these books as part of the Bible. > It was not intended as an analogy, it was just another example of not considering something to be part of your religion even though another group thinks it should be. Well, given that historically the majority of Protestants accepted these books as part of the Bible – albeit with lower authority than the rest of it – and some Protestant Bibles still contain them – I don't see how it actually counts as "not considering something to be part of your religion even though another group thinks it should be". Even if we just narrowly define their religion as "Protestantism"–as opposed to Christianity as a whole–it is an important part of the history of Protestantism, and still part of it for many Protestants today. Indeed, some Protestants even still use these books liturgically – to give just one example, Anglican and Methodist marriage services both include (as a permitted option) a reading from the book of Tobit, an element also found in Amish wedding services. So, comparing it to a text from a completely different religion, and which one's own religion has no history of using in any way, and which one's own religion doesn't use today, it isn't a sensible comparison. It isn't "just another example" because it isn't the same thing at all. > How do you know Jake Cyr is not aware of these things? As you pointed out yourself, this API only includes two translations at the moment. Jake Cyr is welcome to give an account of what was going through his head, and if he chooses to do that I will be all ears. Unless and until he does, I can only guess–but that's all you can do either.