Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9094 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Post Volume: Total: 901,942 Year: 13,054/6,534 Month: 337/2,210 Week: 278/390 Day: 0/84 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Which religion's creation story should be taught?
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 1765 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008

Message 228 of 331 (588913)
10-29-2010 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by JRTjr
10-27-2010 1:36 PM

JRTjr writes:
(Emphasis added; all Biblical references are from the Amplified Bible)
Just curious... when was the "Amplified Bible" published? Did the authors of the DoI have at at hand in 1776?
Face it: your clips from Leviticus and Ephesians really have no relevance at all to the DoI. As for what the term "Nature's God" actually refers to, the most likely conclusion is that it was intentionally ambiguous.
The signers of the DoI were not of one mind when it came to religious beliefs -- far from it -- and this was simply a phrasal expression that would best lend itself to multiple interpretations, suiting the multiple (and incompatible) opinions about the supernatural held by the various members of the group.
The fact that the expression "Nature's God" never appeared as such in any English translation of the Bible (or any other religious text) was, I think, a key enabling factor in getting everyone there to agree that it was okay to use any kind of phrase referring to anything supernatural.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by JRTjr, posted 10-27-2010 1:36 PM JRTjr has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022