The Faith Poll

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Nope.

Agnostic;

1. <LI type=a>One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

I completely and totally believe in a god. (for lack of a better word).

I dont, however, follow the tenets of any particular religion.

So am I considered religious in the mainstream assumption of the word?

this is an honest question, really not trying to bait or trap anyone. Im just curious.

well what God do you follow? Is it a supreme being like an Alien? Is it Buddah? Hard to say what it is you are unless you have more specifics.
But IF you say you believe in God...and you believe you will have to report to this fella then you are a believer. I would think that you are probably Middle of the Road though.

[Calgary Flames]

I don't know, I'm spiritual and i'm sure there is some greater power, but I don't believe any "Man" created it.

I believe in nature, evolution, not BS in a story book.

[transplant99]

well what God do you follow?

Mine.

Is it a supreme being like an Alien?

Aliens are supreme beings? At any rate, God is supreme to me...I can say that much.

Is it Buddah?

Hmmm...nope I don't believe so.

Actually, when it comes to God (s) I think all religions are honoring the same one. Through the centuries a great many races/groups/tribes etc, have all wanted to make the supreme guy their "own". Hence all the different names for him/her/it.

Hard to say what it is you are unless you have more specifics.

Specific? I believe there is a much higher being than anything any human actually can understand or grasp. No name for the entity per se, but certainly my God isnt found in any specific book or on any ancient tablets. rather he is found inside me, inside you and in the trees, the oceans etc etc.

But IF you say you believe in God...and you believe you will have to report to this fella then you are a believer.

Report to him? Not sure I follow, unless you mean the whole pearly gates thing which, no, I do not believe i have to do that.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Calgary Flames

I don't know, I'm spiritual and i'm sure there is some greater power, but I don't believe any "Man" created it.

Man very definitely created organized religion, in all its varieties and stripes, with all its rewards and mechanisms for punishments and threats.

And, of course, Cylons.

Cowperson

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Mine.



Aliens are supreme beings? At any rate, God is supreme to me...I can say that much.



Hmmm...nope I don't believe so.

Actually, when it comes to God (s) I think all religions are honoring the same one. Through the centuries a great many races/groups/tribes etc, have all wanted to make the supreme guy their "own". Hence all the different names for him/her/it.



Specific? I believe there is a much higher being than anything any human actually can understand or grasp. No name for the entity per se, but certainly my God isnt found in any specific book or on any ancient tablets. rather he is found inside me, inside you and in the trees, the oceans etc etc.



Report to him? Not sure I follow, unless you mean the whole pearly gates thing which, no, I do not believe i have to do that.

you are a confusing fella tranny. I suggest sitting back in your big ole armchair...pour yourself a double vodka and turn on the TV. Celebrate Hockey.

[KevanGuy]

Good question tranny. I think that to be considered religious you would have to subscribe to a more specific belief system. Personally, I'd describe you as more 'spiritual' then religious.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Cheese

you are a confusing fella tranny. I suggest sitting back in your big ole armchair...pour yourself a double vodka and turn on the TV. Celebrate Hockey.

Sorry i cant answer your question in black or white. But then again, I dint think this subject is black or white as you do.

And yup KG....maybe that's the best way to describe it.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Sorry i cant answer your question in black or white. But then again, I dint think this subject is black or white as you do.

And yup KG....maybe that's the best way to describe it.

Not so fast there Daffy...Heres the question posed to a Priest...

I would like to know the difference between "spiritual" and "religious."

The word 'spiritual' is a Bible term. The Greek word is ' pneumatikos.' In the Bible this word relates to our walk with the Lord, that is, in learning to live our lives under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual believers are those who have learned the great value of living by the Spirit.
The term 'religious' is from the Greek word 'deisidaimonia.' This word means to be superstitious. It also speaks of reverence for God, but not necessarily in regard to which god is involved. Being religious simply means you are a follower of a religion.
So to answer your question, a person can be religious without being spiritual. Hindus are religious. Muslims are religious. Being religious simply means you are a follower of a religion. But being spiritual really means you are walking with the true God of the Bible.
Blessings,

Buddy

[KevanGuy]

I dont think in everyday North American speech that 'spiritual' means 'walking with the true God of the Bible'. And, at least, that isn't how I meant it.

[MolsonInBothHands]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Not so fast there Daffy...Heres the question posed to a Priest...

I would like to know the difference between "spiritual" and "religious."

The word 'spiritual' is a Bible term. The Greek word is ' pneumatikos.' In the Bible this word relates to our walk with the Lord, that is, in learning to live our lives under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Spiritual believers are those who have learned the great value of living by the Spirit.
The term 'religious' is from the Greek word 'deisidaimonia.' This word means to be superstitious. It also speaks of reverence for God, but not necessarily in regard to which god is involved. Being religious simply means you are a follower of a religion.
So to answer your question, a person can be religious without being spiritual. Hindus are religious. Muslims are religious. Being religious simply means you are a follower of a religion. But being spiritual really means you are walking with the true God of the Bible.
Blessings,

Buddy

I am not sure 'spiritual' defined by a 'religious' person should qualify, since spirituality would only be obtained by following their religion. I would lean toward the 'spiritual' label for tranny as well, and that is how I would also describe myself.

[4X4]

I always interpreted 'spiritual' as acknowledging that life didn't evolve (at least without 'intelligent design'), but at the samw time, not buying into one of the organized religions.

Personally, I find it hard to believe that cells, as complicated as automoblies and then some, just sort of came together along with trillions of other cells, to form beings that posess consciousness.

IMHO, there can not be a big bang without something or someone there to provide the fuel, the ignition and the other thing that forms the triangle (yea, I'm too lazy to look it up).

[calculoso]

For me, there may or may be a true 'God' or 'Supreme Being'. For me, it's irrelevant.

It's a set of beliefs, it's respect, it's a way of being... and if that happens to coincide with some religion then so be it.

Everyone has something that guides how they live. With some, it's something inside of them that directs them. With some, it's a belief that some higher being has told them how to do it. I find this to be the major dividing line for me when it comes to being religious or not - do you do it because you've been told to or follow someone else's commandments/beliefs, or are you self-directed.

[4X4]

Guess I never actually stated that I think that a spiritual person believes in a higher being, but not necessarily (or not at all) in organized religion.

Sorta like the aboriginal on the sand on some pacific island that gazes at the stars and thinks "This cannot be a cioncidence. This must have been designed by a higher power.".

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by MolsonInBothHands

Hmmm, Cheese told me once I was agnostic, so that was my vote. My faith fluctuates here and there. I was baptised Mormon as a kid, but am now the black sheep of my Mormon family. There are times I believe in a supreme being, and I even catch myself praying once in a while, although I have a hard time finishing the prayer with "...in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen" anymore. Usually, my prayers are a quick thanks for the comfortable life I have, and please keep an eye on my kids. I detest organised religion, and see it as purely a power and money grab, but I do not detest the idea of truly believing. Ridiculing people on any end of the religion spectrum puts a bad taste in my mouth.

What is stronger than my belief in some form of God, is a belief in some form of an existence after death. I guess I have my own personal little "ghost story", which was powerful enough, and witnessed by another, which always snaps me back from doubt in that regard. I truly believe there is something after we die, although I have no idea what it is like, or if it is eternal. I truly look forward to finding things like this out one day after dying in my sleep 80 or so years from now.

Sorry to hear that Molson, same sort of thing happened to my Grandpa, was outcast from his family because he did beleive in becoming a Jehovah's Witness.

It included not talking to his Brothers for almost 20 years. Pretty bad stuff.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I'm agnostic based on the descriptions provided.

Still, I am not more likely to believe in evolution instead of creationism. I believe they can both be real. I find it odd that so many draw such a distinct line between the two.

I would also add that I have a strong hope that there is something after we die. I would like to think consciousness continues and we are somehow able to remain with our loved ones for eternity. That would be nice.

[Kybosh]

Ok I'm just gonna throw some more gasoline on the fire here. I put myself down as a middle of the roader. I occasionally attend church (united) and I have read the bible (but not "religiously"). As an aside I read other religious literature out of interest (more similarities than there are differences between various religions!). Anyway, I most definately believe in the omnipotent. I'm also a research scientist. . . . but. . . . wait. . . huh? If anything the further I have progressed in my learning the more I am convinced of some kind of divine intervention.

One area of interest that many people are not aware of is what is known as the origins of chirality. Ok, time for a quick chemistry lesson. Chirality essentially arises when an object's mirror image (reflect through a mirror plane) is nonsuperimposable. One really simple example of this is your right and left hands. They are essentially mirror images of one another and no matter how you try you cannot turn your left hand into your right without reflecting through a mirror. Make sense? Alright now some of you may be aware that on earth every organism is made of up specific mirror images of building blocks. For example all organisms only contain L-amino acids (as opposed to the mirror image D-amino acids) and D-carbohydrates (as opposed to the mirror L-carbohydrates) as building blocks. So far the unatural enantiomers of these essentially building blocks have not been found to naturally occur in the universe (not saying they won't). Why is this the case?

Mirror images of compounds have the EXACT same chemical and physical properties. The only difference these mirror images have is when they are placed into a "chiral" environment. . . such as a protein. . . made entirely of L-amino acids. Another good example of this is the anti-nauseant drug Thalidomide. For this drug one mirror image successfully treats nausea (morning sickness originally) while the other causes horrible birth defects. Clearly there is a lock and key mechanism involved for all biological systems (think right hand in left glove. . . might go in but doesn't fit properly).

Alright, this is all really round about but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the origin of chirality (at least originally) arose due to divine intervention. Perhaps something of a divine clockmaker who made the parts, put them together, set them in motion and then maintains that movement. There are many different theories on the origins of chirality but they all need a trigger that have yet to be explained (I highly doubt it will ever be explained). The theories go right down the first organic compounds being formed by "chiral" or circularly polarized light. . . but what made that light one mirror image over the other? This is obviously the crux and here's where the faith factor comes into play.

Anyway, this is all just something to mull over. It is a chicken and egg type of situation but I believe the origins of chirality have a place in this argument. Obviously atheists, agnostics and the like can all find ways to use this phenomenon to argue their beliefs. The only difference is the faith.

[KevanGuy]

So God made a drug that can cure barfing and deform babies? That isnt very nice.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Kybosh

Ok I'm just gonna throw some more gasoline on the fire here. I put myself down as a middle of the roader. I occasionally attend church (united) and I have read the bible (but not "religiously"). As an aside I read other religious literature out of interest (more similarities than there are differences between various religions!). Anyway, I most definately believe in the omnipotent. I'm also a research scientist. . . . but. . . . wait. . . huh? If anything the further I have progressed in my learning the more I am convinced of some kind of divine intervention.

One area of interest that many people are not aware of is what is known as the origins of chirality. Ok, time for a quick chemistry lesson. Chirality essentially arises when an object's mirror image (reflect through a mirror plane) is nonsuperimposable. One really simple example of this is your right and left hands. They are essentially mirror images of one another and no matter how you try you cannot turn your left hand into your right without reflecting through a mirror. Make sense? Alright now some of you may be aware that on earth every organism is made of up specific mirror images of building blocks. For example all organisms only contain L-amino acids (as opposed to the mirror image D-amino acids) and D-carbohydrates (as opposed to the mirror L-carbohydrates) as building blocks. So far the unatural enantiomers of these essentially building blocks have not been found to naturally occur in the universe (not saying they won't). Why is this the case?

Mirror images of compounds have the EXACT same chemical and physical properties. The only difference these mirror images have is when they are placed into a "chiral" environment. . . such as a protein. . . made entirely of L-amino acids. Another good example of this is the anti-nauseant drug Thalidomide. For this drug one mirror image successfully treats nausea (morning sickness originally) while the other causes horrible birth defects. Clearly there is a lock and key mechanism involved for all biological systems (think right hand in left glove. . . might go in but doesn't fit properly).

Alright, this is all really round about but I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the origin of chirality (at least originally) arose due to divine intervention. Perhaps something of a divine clockmaker who made the parts, put them together, set them in motion and then maintains that movement. There are many different theories on the origins of chirality but they all need a trigger that have yet to be explained (I highly doubt it will ever be explained). The theories go right down the first organic compounds being formed by "chiral" or circularly polarized light. . . but what made that light one mirror image over the other? This is obviously the crux and here's where the faith factor comes into play.

Anyway, this is all just something to mull over. It is a chicken and egg type of situation but I believe the origins of chirality have a place in this argument. Obviously atheists, agnostics and the like can all find ways to use this phenomenon to argue their beliefs. The only difference is the faith.

wow...amazing. I dug around a bit and found this....I think its in response to chirality. I havent mastered science speak so I cant say more about it.

What do you have to say about the biochemical similarity of all life on earth, and how do you scientifically explain this without evolution?

The only organic polymers used in biological processes are polynucleotides, polysaccharides and polypeptides - chemists have mades hundreds, if not thousands of additional organic polymers, but only these three contribute to biological life as we know it.

In addition, all the proteins, DNA and RNA in every organism known to man use the same chirality (twist), so for example out 16 different possible isomers of RNA, all organisms use one and only one, and they all use the same one.

Also, there are something like 300 (forget the exact number) naturally occuring amino acids in nature. Only 22 acids are used in life as we know it, and all organisms use the same 22 acids to build proteins and carry out biological processes.

All of this points to a common ancestor to ALL life on earth. The fact that no known organisms differ from this fundamental scheme when countless other schemes could work equally well should smack anyone who examines it in the face. If evolution were NOT true the odds that ALL organisms would use the same biochemical schemes is utterly astronomical.

Oh, and another example, all organisms use the same 4 nucleotides to build DNA - out of something like 100 naturally occuring nucleotides.
Oh, and all life on earth derives metabolic processes from ATP, plenty of other natural compounds would have worked equally well.

The biochemical evidence for evolution is some of the strongest evidence for evolution we have.

[Kybosh]

Yep, same kind of idea Cheese. It is a very interesting topic that is frequently overlooked.

Kevanguy: It's true. . . god hates babies. Just kidding hehe. As far as thalidomide is concerned that was a compound synthetically designed by man. The problem is that using conventional chemical synthesis both mirror images of the compound are obtained (due to them having the same chemical and physical properties) in a 50:50 ratio. Getting only one mirror image can be incredibly difficult in the lab yet nature can do it so readily. This type of stuff is at the forefront of modern synthetic chemistry and pharmaceuticals (both mirror images of a compound are required to be screened and thoroughly investigated by the FDA before a drug can be marketted).

[Frank the Tank]

I'm an atheist and have been for a very long time. If people weren't "taught" to be religious, I don't think religion would even exist.