12 ms·

Yeah, I am somewhat appaled by that too, why could we not have APIs of religious texts (edit: unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus off

Yeah, I am somewhat appaled by that too, why could we not have APIs of religious texts (edit: unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus offending believers)? Disclaimer: I am one of the contributors of the site.

mrd3v0 5y ago
>unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus offending believers Based on how many religions and sects of these religions out there, it is entirely unfeasible to have that as a criteria for anything. Human knowledge/text no matter what it contains could have APIs just fine.
bastardoperator 5y ago
I'm not religious, but I've always assumed belief in one religion means you believe other religions are false maybe even fake. To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens. I can see how people who believe in these things could take offence if they're of a different belief.
- r00fus 5y ago
  It all sounds so childish to me as a current atheist. Like, who's sports team are you a fan? If not mine, then you're against me. In fact, an API that allows access to a religious text should be useful for everyone - even those detractors of said religion. Next up, we need a legal code API and versioning.
  - cat199 5y ago
    many subgroups of atheism, and many of those fight and have fought each other.. agree 100% on legal code versioning - legislation should be a version control diff with 'git blame' like things for contributors ..
  - cphoover 5y ago
    a law API makes sense to me because laws are updated all the time, especially when you take into consideration all the various jurisdictions. A Quran or biblical text API makes less sense to me because it is essentially unchanging static text until the religious doctrine is amended.
    - CitrusFruits 5y ago
      Three things: 1. It may not be as unchanging as you think. The different translations of the Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) are a pretty important facet to many, with newer translations coming to prominence in English speaking communities every ten years or so (for better or for worse, but that's another topic). I can't speak to other religious texts, but keeping new translation available could be enough of a reason alone to make an API. 2. Having an API can facilitate internationalization if you wanted to ship a project in other languages. 3. Having an easy way for a computer to look up a particular passage is a non-trivial problem to solve, and something like this could give a huge jump start for hobby/personal projects. Yeah you could just download the Quran and reference it locally or someone could (relatively) easily roll their own version of this, but I think something like this is nice and I can appreciate it's value, even if Islam isn't my cup of tea. [edited for clarity]
  - bobthechef 5y ago
    It's childish to have issues with someone making their religious texts available via API just because they take that religion to be false, yes. But you're sort of erecting a strawman. I don't see anyone claiming "I hate this API because I disagree with Islam.". Also maybe this is it? Haven't checked. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/webservice.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/webservice.html
- Arnavion 5y ago
  >To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens. I don't really want to shit on any particular religion, so I'll just say that what you've written does not apply to most religious people. Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs.
  - buu700 5y ago
    The premise doesn't make much sense to me in the first place. I think all religions are probably wrong, as far as their metaphysical hypotheses go. By the same logic, that should actually be more offensive than thinking that N - 1 are religions are wrong, not less. (I don't personally see how either is offensive, to be clear.)
    - mensetmanusman 5y ago
      Religion isn’t the answer, it’s a space for the question.
  - sinyug 5y ago
    > Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs. This does not apply to monotheistic faiths. The first problem is that they claim that their god is the only god. The second problem is that they prescribe punishments (death, eternal hellfire etc) for those who do not accept their god. True believers then go out and implement these policies making liberal use of both the carrot and the sword. This has been observed everywhere from ancient Egypt under the rule of Amenhotep IV to modern religions like communism where persecution of other religions is almost a given.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Classifying communism as a monotheistic religion is... an interesting take. I'm not sure that I disagree. But I'm not sure that I agree, either. I'm going to have to think about it. (This is about the highest compliment that you can pay to an HN comment.)
- trutannus 5y ago
  Well, to take the example here of Islam, that's not entirely correct. In Islam, those who are following Judaeo-Christian belief systems are considered 'brothers of the book' (or something to that effect). The worst that some sects believe is that they are 'well meaning, but not aware of the truth of Mohamed'. I'm specifically not talking about radical Jihadist sects, but the more 'middle of the road' Muslims who are closer to the average church going American than an Al-Qaeda member.
  - icemelt8 5y ago
    "People of The Book" Jesus is the most named person in Quran, along with Mary.
  - omarfarooq 5y ago
    Ahlul-Kitab or People of the Book.
  - zodiakzz 5y ago
    We are talking about the Quran here right? I'm not so sure about the brotherly part. https://quranx.com/5.82?Context=3 https://quranx.com/5.82?Context=3 > Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. https://quranx.com/2.65?Context=3 https://quranx.com/2.65?Context=3 > And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3 https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3 > Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. https://quranx.com/5.51?Context=3 https://quranx.com/5.51?Context=3 > O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (I do support all efforts to make this publicly available.)
    - trutannus 5y ago
      We're not talking about the Quran, we're discussing Islam. You're making pretty common error I see made in the Atheism world, where you're conflating the content of a holy text with the practice of a religion. I'm neither Muslim, nor any religion myself, but there's no sense in taking such a reductive approach. Yes, you can mine around pretty much any holy book and produce quotes that say anything. If I recall, the bible has some passage about rabbits 'chewing the cud', as well as other absurdities. You'll find no recognized denominational Christian who practices rules derived from this though. In fact, you will notice practice even dictated by the Vatican deviates from the content of the Bible frequently as well. In Islam, the practice I'm talking about is accepted to the point of being codified in their marriage law: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0003%3Asura%3D60%3Averse%3D10 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... Section specifically allows marriage to unbelievers. Islamic scholars have expanded this into practice which allows marriage between People of the Book.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bastawhiz 5y ago
I think it has less to do with the content of the API and more to do with the fact that it's essentially a way to query a small number of megabytes of structured data. You could encode the whole thing as JSON or SQLite and eliminate the network round trip (latency, security footprint, privacy implications) entirely. In fact, the memory usage required to establish a few TLS sessions might even be greater than the size of the full dataset.

mrd3v0 5y ago

>unless it is against the particular religion in question, thus offending believers Based on how many religions and sects of these religions out there, it is entirely unfeasible to have that as a criteria for anything. Human knowledge/text no matter what it contains could have APIs just fine.

bastardoperator 5y ago

I'm not religious, but I've always assumed belief in one religion means you believe other religions are false maybe even fake. To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens. I can see how people who believe in these things could take offence if they're of a different belief.

r00fus 5y ago
It all sounds so childish to me as a current atheist. Like, who's sports team are you a fan? If not mine, then you're against me. In fact, an API that allows access to a religious text should be useful for everyone - even those detractors of said religion. Next up, we need a legal code API and versioning.
- cat199 5y ago
  many subgroups of atheism, and many of those fight and have fought each other.. agree 100% on legal code versioning - legislation should be a version control diff with 'git blame' like things for contributors ..
- cphoover 5y ago
  a law API makes sense to me because laws are updated all the time, especially when you take into consideration all the various jurisdictions. A Quran or biblical text API makes less sense to me because it is essentially unchanging static text until the religious doctrine is amended.
  - CitrusFruits 5y ago
    Three things: 1. It may not be as unchanging as you think. The different translations of the Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) are a pretty important facet to many, with newer translations coming to prominence in English speaking communities every ten years or so (for better or for worse, but that's another topic). I can't speak to other religious texts, but keeping new translation available could be enough of a reason alone to make an API. 2. Having an API can facilitate internationalization if you wanted to ship a project in other languages. 3. Having an easy way for a computer to look up a particular passage is a non-trivial problem to solve, and something like this could give a huge jump start for hobby/personal projects. Yeah you could just download the Quran and reference it locally or someone could (relatively) easily roll their own version of this, but I think something like this is nice and I can appreciate it's value, even if Islam isn't my cup of tea. [edited for clarity]
- bobthechef 5y ago
  It's childish to have issues with someone making their religious texts available via API just because they take that religion to be false, yes. But you're sort of erecting a strawman. I don't see anyone claiming "I hate this API because I disagree with Islam.". Also maybe this is it? Haven't checked. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/webservice.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/webservice.html
Arnavion 5y ago
>To say you are a practicing _____ (insert religion), you're in essence saying my religion is right and others are wrong maybe even infidels or heathens. I don't really want to shit on any particular religion, so I'll just say that what you've written does not apply to most religious people. Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs.
- buu700 5y ago
  The premise doesn't make much sense to me in the first place. I think all religions are probably wrong, as far as their metaphysical hypotheses go. By the same logic, that should actually be more offensive than thinking that N - 1 are religions are wrong, not less. (I don't personally see how either is offensive, to be clear.)
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    Religion isn’t the answer, it’s a space for the question.
- sinyug 5y ago
  > Most religions have a live-and-let-live attitude when it comes to other people's religious beliefs. This does not apply to monotheistic faiths. The first problem is that they claim that their god is the only god. The second problem is that they prescribe punishments (death, eternal hellfire etc) for those who do not accept their god. True believers then go out and implement these policies making liberal use of both the carrot and the sword. This has been observed everywhere from ancient Egypt under the rule of Amenhotep IV to modern religions like communism where persecution of other religions is almost a given.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atenism
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Classifying communism as a monotheistic religion is... an interesting take. I'm not sure that I disagree. But I'm not sure that I agree, either. I'm going to have to think about it. (This is about the highest compliment that you can pay to an HN comment.)
trutannus 5y ago
Well, to take the example here of Islam, that's not entirely correct. In Islam, those who are following Judaeo-Christian belief systems are considered 'brothers of the book' (or something to that effect). The worst that some sects believe is that they are 'well meaning, but not aware of the truth of Mohamed'. I'm specifically not talking about radical Jihadist sects, but the more 'middle of the road' Muslims who are closer to the average church going American than an Al-Qaeda member.
- icemelt8 5y ago
  "People of The Book" Jesus is the most named person in Quran, along with Mary.
- omarfarooq 5y ago
  Ahlul-Kitab or People of the Book.
- zodiakzz 5y ago
  We are talking about the Quran here right? I'm not so sure about the brotherly part. https://quranx.com/5.82?Context=3 https://quranx.com/5.82?Context=3 > Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. https://quranx.com/2.65?Context=3 https://quranx.com/2.65?Context=3 > And ye know of those of you who broke the Sabbath, how We said unto them: Be ye apes, despised and hated! https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3 https://quranx.com/98.6?Context=3 > Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. https://quranx.com/5.51?Context=3 https://quranx.com/5.51?Context=3 > O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust. (I do support all efforts to make this publicly available.)
  - trutannus 5y ago
    We're not talking about the Quran, we're discussing Islam. You're making pretty common error I see made in the Atheism world, where you're conflating the content of a holy text with the practice of a religion. I'm neither Muslim, nor any religion myself, but there's no sense in taking such a reductive approach. Yes, you can mine around pretty much any holy book and produce quotes that say anything. If I recall, the bible has some passage about rabbits 'chewing the cud', as well as other absurdities. You'll find no recognized denominational Christian who practices rules derived from this though. In fact, you will notice practice even dictated by the Vatican deviates from the content of the Bible frequently as well. In Islam, the practice I'm talking about is accepted to the point of being codified in their marriage law: https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2002.02.0003%3Asura%3D60%3Averse%3D10 https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... Section specifically allows marriage to unbelievers. Islamic scholars have expanded this into practice which allows marriage between People of the Book.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bastawhiz 5y ago

I think it has less to do with the content of the API and more to do with the fact that it's essentially a way to query a small number of megabytes of structured data. You could encode the whole thing as JSON or SQLite and eliminate the network round trip (latency, security footprint, privacy implications) entirely. In fact, the memory usage required to establish a few TLS sessions might even be greater than the size of the full dataset.