R. Leib: I'm confused. If you believe in the teachings of Jesus, who's main teachings were about God ("The Father"), why don't you believe in God?
Not trying to change your vote, just trying to understand. Are you "selectively" believing in Jesus' teachings (that would explain it)? I've never run into this outside of ISLAM (Jesus is one of their prophets, but they deny that he's the Son of God).
R. Leib - 7 years ago
I am a rational Christian. I believe in the teachings of Jesus but not in the stuff about miracles and supreme beings.
Don Muchow - 7 years ago
Similar leanings to Carl, though more what I believe is called Rational or Philosophical Taoist. Imagine Taoism without all the mysticism and juju. Actions lead to consequences. Do the everyday stuff, and don't sweat the details. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. We're all part of the same creation. I would add that I subscribe to the notion that if there is a spark of some ineffable divinity in any of us, then it is in all of us, and all of creation. There is nothing special that gets breathed into a human that is not breathed into a dog, or a parakeet, or a horse. To the extent that they also love, and grieve, and hover over their little ones until they are grown, they, too have that spark. And, as we've seen as well, they are capable of making a moral choice for good or evil, sacrifice or selfishness, and know those things to be such.
I realize that's going out on a limb, but it does inform a more compassionate perspective toward what is around us that lies somewhere between "shepherds of creation" and the traditional Buddhist sense. Not sure if anyone's read it, but I'm fond of the writings of Thich Nhat Hahn, author of _Living Buddha, Living Christ_. To me, belief is devoid of meaning if it does not guide action.
Dave Rose - 7 years ago
Not sure I like the choices. I picked "I don't know or care." But only the "I don't know" part is true. If there were any way to prove one way or the other, I'd certainly care.
Also, "Higher Being" is a little ambiguous. There's a big difference between, for example, "Humans were created by a more advanced species of interstellar travelers," (which could fit the definition of "higher beings"), and the concept of an omnipotent God who knows or cares about us as individuals.
Al Kalar - 7 years ago
Carl, wouldn't that make you a "believer" because of the Norse Gods bit?
Carl Nelson - 7 years ago
I am a rational anarchist with Buddhist leanings, and yes I know The Buddha is not a "god". I also believe in several of the old gods mostly the Norse.
R. Leib: I'm confused. If you believe in the teachings of Jesus, who's main teachings were about God ("The Father"), why don't you believe in God?
Not trying to change your vote, just trying to understand. Are you "selectively" believing in Jesus' teachings (that would explain it)? I've never run into this outside of ISLAM (Jesus is one of their prophets, but they deny that he's the Son of God).
I am a rational Christian. I believe in the teachings of Jesus but not in the stuff about miracles and supreme beings.
Similar leanings to Carl, though more what I believe is called Rational or Philosophical Taoist. Imagine Taoism without all the mysticism and juju. Actions lead to consequences. Do the everyday stuff, and don't sweat the details. Ashes to ashes and dust to dust. We're all part of the same creation. I would add that I subscribe to the notion that if there is a spark of some ineffable divinity in any of us, then it is in all of us, and all of creation. There is nothing special that gets breathed into a human that is not breathed into a dog, or a parakeet, or a horse. To the extent that they also love, and grieve, and hover over their little ones until they are grown, they, too have that spark. And, as we've seen as well, they are capable of making a moral choice for good or evil, sacrifice or selfishness, and know those things to be such.
I realize that's going out on a limb, but it does inform a more compassionate perspective toward what is around us that lies somewhere between "shepherds of creation" and the traditional Buddhist sense. Not sure if anyone's read it, but I'm fond of the writings of Thich Nhat Hahn, author of _Living Buddha, Living Christ_. To me, belief is devoid of meaning if it does not guide action.
Not sure I like the choices. I picked "I don't know or care." But only the "I don't know" part is true. If there were any way to prove one way or the other, I'd certainly care.
Also, "Higher Being" is a little ambiguous. There's a big difference between, for example, "Humans were created by a more advanced species of interstellar travelers," (which could fit the definition of "higher beings"), and the concept of an omnipotent God who knows or cares about us as individuals.
Carl, wouldn't that make you a "believer" because of the Norse Gods bit?
I am a rational anarchist with Buddhist leanings, and yes I know The Buddha is not a "god". I also believe in several of the old gods mostly the Norse.