I would contend that the people who were "born gay but are now straight" are living in a terrible world of self-denial and self-disgust.
Yeah its very sad to think that. I'm still stunned people think its a 'way of life' and nothing to do with the way they're born etc and their genes. Again another huge reason why i'm not religious, their view about homosexuality.
I dont mean to pick on ghbearman just i'm kinda intrigued as I havent come across anyone like this in person (or in forums) before. I've seen similar people on TV who are very strict religious types but its been interesting hearing their answers.
I would contend that the people who were "born gay but are now straight" are living in a terrible world of self-denial and self-disgust. Sexual preferences aren't a choice, I don't remember ever choosing to be straight!
As for homosexuality surviving evolution - it does seem like nothing is actively selecting against it, so if it is (as I believe) a genetic effect, it's a complicated one. Hence scientists failing to find the Gay Gene. Maybe it even has benefits for the species - stops us overpopulating, perhaps.
interesting - I disagree with the idea that I'm gay but I'm repressing it, I'm not even trying...
please explain how homosexuality is genetic but they haven't found the gene yet? can we plausibly call it genetic until we do? (what's a genetic effect, sorry...not sure what you mean here.)
please explain how homosexuality is genetic but they haven't found the gene yet? can we plausibly call it genetic until we do? (what's a genetic effect, sorry...not sure what you mean here.)
We don't need to find the gene - we just need to believe it exists.
Right as much as I'm enjoying this circus, I feel like shit, I need to go have a few hours kip. Fullof cold have been for days still going to work though and hating every second of it.
Don't get the thread locked while I'm gone I want to have something to read when I get up in a few hours :p
joefish, how does a species survive apart from reproduction? yes, I'm aware of a handful of species that practice homosexuality, but that's hardly a positive argument for its validity now, is it?
The only reference I made to its validity is that you claiming it to be immoral is a form of prejudice.
You're the one who tried to back up your position by alluding to evolution, and you're wholly wrong because you don't seem to grasp what evolution is really about.
A species doesn't survive without reproduction. But not every member of that species has to reproduce for the species to succeed into the next generation. A single animal that dies childless, just like one whose offspring don't survive to maturity, doesn't condemn the species to extinction. So a species can have all sorts of apparently counter-productive behaviour, but so long as there is at least some successful breeding going on, then it survives into the next generation, and so on.
I know gay people who are great too, that has nothing to do with whether their behaviour is morally right. my main argument against it is this: if one accepts evolution, which is ultimately about reproduction, you ought also reject homosexuality because they cannot naturally reproduce.
You have completely misunderstood evolution/wilfully misinterpred it.
Evolution relies on natural selection. For natural selection to work some genetic paths/natural experiments must become cul de sacs.
Some gay men will overcome many obstacles to reproduce, some will never pass on their genes. On average, nature decides which, not small minded people who think they can see the bigger picture well enough to judge.
No one has the right to reject people who appear to have less chance of reproduction.
If we should 'reject homosexuality because they cannot reproduce' then we would also reject people born without ovaries or women with hysterectomies, or nuns or monks who supposedly choose not to reproduce, just as Jesus reportedly didn't.
I think the missing thing here is is that if there is potential for something counter-productive (or counter-reproductive) to happen, randomly, within the gene pool, then successful reproductions will still pass that on along with all the other information in the DNA.
Even if, when that particular feature comes to the fore and dominates the behaviour of an individual member of the species, it results in a dead-end for that particular branch of the family, the family which it came from still goes on.
Unless there's any direct environmental pressure to eliminate it, it won't disappear. And there isn't, as usually there's enough reproduction going on to make up for those who don't.
And evolution has nothing to do with morality - it can be an absolute heartless git even at the best of times.
At the risk of being shouted at, what has this to do with the existance of God?
It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, as far as his existence goes (or may go), but it does show that he cannot BE all good AND all powerful, as if he was then he wouldn't allow really bad things to happen to his living, feeling, creations[/QUOTE]
If my Spectrum breaks down, do I doubt Sir Clive exists?
Clive Sinclair is not all powerful (despite the way the BBC drama made him seem to want to be...), and so he's not ultimately resonsible for all that goes on in the world. God is. He created (according to the relgious view point) EVERYTHING, including the human soul, and the ability of the human soul to perform evil acts, he created children, and also created their ability to suffer abuse. He created the human body, and also the ability of the human body to suffer cancer, burth defects and so on. Remember, God is supposed to be ALL powerful, so therefore he could have created a perfect world, with no disease, no suffering, etc. Instead he created our world. And even if you say that the Devil created diseases, earthquakes, etc, which goes against Biblical teachings anyway, then why did God create the Devil? And why didn't God destroy or alter the Devil to stop him being evil?
If God created us, then he has responsibilities to us. Yet he does nothing to protect us. He didn't protect the babies who are abused and murdered, he didn't project the Jews in the Nazi deathcamps, he didnt protect the office workers and passengers in the 9/11 acts of evil, to name just a few very obvious things. Every moment of every day, without fail, countless people in the world really suffer for things that are not their fault, yet God allows that suffering to continue. So yes, he might exist. But if he does exist then he cannot be all good AND all powerful. One or the other, maybe, but not both.
sorry, this is a myth. a recent myth, too.
What is? It's certainly true that early man thought that the world was flat, even the bible says so, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth" Book of Proverbs 8:27, and a compass draws a circle, not a sphere. The Bible portrays the world as flat and round, like a coin, whereas the world is spherical (and so would not have the centre point that was necessary for a compass to draw a circle around it's boundaries). Certainly before Christ's time the Greeks knew that the world was spherical (they even knew of gravity, though of course it's details were far beyond their limitied science), but different people only heard/realised/accepted that the Earth was shaped like a ball over different centuries. And it's not a concept that's easy to accept, since it goes against common sense and common evidence. Alright, so it can be proven easily enough, but to an uneducated people, it would sound ridiculous.
Incidentally, the story that Christopher Columbus set out to prove that the world was spherical, unlike everyone else who thought that the world was flat, and in doing so he discovered America, is totally false in every way. By that time, all educated people in Western Europe accepted that the world was spherical, and Columbus set out to go around the world, to define a new, shorter trade route to India, as he believed that the circumference of the globe was much less than it's true twenty-five thousand miles. And when he landed on an island of the coast of America (he never stood on the American mainland) he thought it was in India, which is why the native Americans came to be known as Indians. And he wasn't the first to discover America. Various Europeans had done it before him, even the vikings many centuries before.
I disagree with their lifestyle, and yes it is a lifestyle and no you aren't necessarily born gay - and yes there are folk who have rejected being gay and are now straight! I know gay people who are great too, that has nothing to do with whether their behaviour is morally right. my main argument against it is this: if one accepts evolution, which is ultimately about reproduction, you ought also reject homosexuality because they cannot naturally reproduce.
Sorry, but that is wrong. I don't know if you are born gay (or rather born with the potential to be gay, since sexual tastes develop long after birth) but I do know that it's not a choice. How do I know? Because, like lots (most, maybe all) people I've had disasters with the opposite sex, and if I could choose then I'd stop being attracted to anyone, ever. But I can't help it, if some attractive women serves me in a shop, and bends over, my eyes focus on her cleavage. Same as if I'm helping an attractive bird with he computer, leaning over her shoulder (and at some places, in summer, the younger typists wear so little ;););)) and again you can't help looking. I'll deliberately drag out the diagnostic and help process with a women I find attractive, although often they turn out to be boring/thick/thick and boring/obsessed with "celebrity"/etc, and I'm too old now to put up with the tedium of an attractive but dull airhead.
If you could turn your sexual desires off, then many of us would have much easier lives.
[/QUOTE]
Also, I'm not trying to cram anything down your throat. you're quite welcome to respond :)[/QUOTE]
Oh, I admire the way you respond maturely, and please believe that I'm not ridiculing you, although I don't personally share your beliefs.
Just the opposite. In science it's vey common for something to be supposed to exist, as a way of explaining the effects of provable experiments or verifiable natural occurances. Often those supposed things are then discovered to actually exist. Other times other evidence comes to light, which forces a rethink of the theory, and different thing(s) are postulated, which are then proceed to be looked for or verified.
That's how science works, it's a search for verifiable facts and provable theories.
That's how science works, it's a search for verifiable facts and provable theories.
Agree with most of the things you said above, ewgf, but a provable theory is nonsense in the scientific sense. In an axiomatic discipline like maths, yes, but all scientists ever do is gather evidence. Evidence in itself can never prove anything.
Agree with most of the things you said above, ewgf, but a provable theory is nonsense in the scientific sense. In an axiomatic discipline like maths, yes, but all scientists ever do is gather evidence. Evidence in itself can never prove anything.
Alright, yes, to split hairs you are right. All science is just a series of theories, none of which can be proven, at best a theory can never be disproven.
But to non-techy types, like me, I accept much of science as fact, as it demonstrably works. I'm typing this on a computer, and uploading it to a computer in Holland (I assume) where the whole world an see it. Then I'll go and read a book that's been mass produced on a printing press, or play a game on a games console, and drink some fizzy (diet) soft drink, and later tonight I might cook myself some food in the oven or microwave. All of which is due to science. Not that science is in any way noble or perfect, it's a tool, and like all tools it's no better than the person using it. But science does deliver some fantastic things (actually lots of fantastic things), so yes, although electrical theory is just a theory, I accept our current understanding of it as pretty good.
....yes it is a lifestyle and no you aren't necessarily born gay....
Well, that's two astonishingly bold statements you've squeezed into that single sentence. I suppose it could be argued that it is a lifestyle in much the same way that heterosexuality is a lifestyle too. So the first statement might be true depending on your point of view. It just doesn't mean very much.
I studied psychology as an undergrad for four years at uni, got my honours degree in 2002. My final year thesis was a response to the question "what determines a persons sexual orientation?". I spent six months in the library researching the matter, must have read over a hundred research papers and I still came away completely clueless as to what causes homosexuality in humans. I said pretty much this in my paper and came away with a first so it's an opinion that must have had some merit :). At any rate I couldn't make the statement that some or all gay people aren't "born gay". They might be. Or alternatively some people may have some predisposition (genetic or otherwise) to be more influenced by environmental factors in early infancy that triggers homosexual development. If this were true then these people would have no more control over their sexuality than if they'd been born gay to begin with. In fact they may as well have been. So I'm not sure your second statement means very much either. There's certainly no question of a person "choosing" to be gay but I don't really need to state that nowadays. Do I?
I too have known (two) people who have been gay and subsequently declared themselves straight. It is probably not a coincidence that these two men were devout christians, I have little doubt that it was religious guilt that compelled this change of behaviour. Of course it didn't work - within a few years one had "reaffirmed" his homosexuality and declared himself an atheist, the other man is now gamefully employed in trying to reconcile his homosexuality with being a Christian. In this of course he will fail.
It's nearly 2010 and I find it utterly appalling that people still have to defend homosexuals from moral and/or religious criticism. Surely we've come further along the road than this?
Well when i first read the apology thread i thought fair play until i reached the bit about 'but dont call me anal' (coming from the person who gets his knickers in a twist over 'WOSmas')
It all was going okay until he said a few posts later..
"If I can say just one more thing...I don't mind people celebrating a ZX Christmas, I just didn't like replacing Christ in it."
So none of us are allowed to put WOSmas as it might upset one person here amongst 100's ?!
No doubt another apology thread will appear but a post or two later it'll say 'but if i can say one more thing....'. I can see this never ending ! ;)
Its WoSmas all the way for me. It's what I've chosen to celebrate at this time of year on WoS. If ya don't like it, then paint yerself green and let loose the bears!
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack thereof. But they are not entitled to ram them down the throat of those that do not share them.
This, for what it's worth, is a forum about Spectrums. It is not a forum about religious beliefs. If someone wants to refer to the period round about the end of December as WosMas, Xmas, Christmas, Hannukah, FSMmas, Yuletide or just 'that shitty cold month at the end of the year' then that is fine.
Just don't expect everybody to think as you do, or try to enforce it in any way, shape or form. That will not be tolerated. And that goes for EVERYONE.
I'm not forcing my beliefs down people's throat. It's ridiculous that you can't discuss this, while at the same time people practically worship the Spectrum here (and that isn't called into question!)
This is the chat section Andrew, not the Speccy section.
I'm not forcing my beliefs down people's throat. It's ridiculous that you can't discuss this, while at the same time people practically worship the Spectrum here (and that isn't called into question!)
This is the chat section Andrew, not the Speccy section.
Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that you responded as though that comment was directly aimed at you. It was not. It was aimed at everyone.
I would strongly suggest you learn to 'live and let live' on this one. It's not a fight you can win, and more to the point, this is not the place to have it. Religious discussion is frowned upon here for a reason.
This comment is directed at you: WosMas/Xmas/Whatever-isn't-Christmas is not offensive to the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of people. If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that.
This thread is very very likely to get locked soon.
EDIT: And if anyone thinks my moderation is unfair /over the top on this matter feel free to PM me.
Righto, far be it from me to get the thread locked...so I shan't comment further. :) I assume it's ok to pm people though to continue the discussion?
Of course. If the recipient wishes to converse.
EDIT: Although, after Martijn's thread-closing comment below, I'd say it would be better to take it to another channel if the conversation is desired by both parties.
hopefully you don't like playing chess...they ban chess (because it's about thinking & strategy...obviously doing this might lead you to realise what they're trying to achieve in your life! can't have that!!! :lol:)
Its ok chess is ok now, i think it was frowned upon because it was considered as a simulation of battle/war.
Well, no, not really. This is a Spectrum site, nothing else.
PM'ing people to force discussion on their views on $religion is unacceptable here in my view, no matter which religion one is thinking of.
The forum rule that dis-encourages religious discussions seems to be spot-on, seeing what transpires on WoS. As said, this is a Spectrum site, not a church site.
As such, I will shut down all religious threads as per the rules, including this one.
Comments
Yeah its very sad to think that. I'm still stunned people think its a 'way of life' and nothing to do with the way they're born etc and their genes. Again another huge reason why i'm not religious, their view about homosexuality.
I dont mean to pick on ghbearman just i'm kinda intrigued as I havent come across anyone like this in person (or in forums) before. I've seen similar people on TV who are very strict religious types but its been interesting hearing their answers.
Link
interesting - I disagree with the idea that I'm gay but I'm repressing it, I'm not even trying...
please explain how homosexuality is genetic but they haven't found the gene yet? can we plausibly call it genetic until we do? (what's a genetic effect, sorry...not sure what you mean here.)
We don't need to find the gene - we just need to believe it exists.
how unscientific! ;)
well, that was a well-thought out, reasoned argument! I'm deconverting! ;)
Touche! :)
EDIT - and I wish people would refrain from quoting me before I have a chance to correct my spelling!
Don't get the thread locked while I'm gone I want to have something to read when I get up in a few hours :p
You're the one who tried to back up your position by alluding to evolution, and you're wholly wrong because you don't seem to grasp what evolution is really about.
A species doesn't survive without reproduction. But not every member of that species has to reproduce for the species to succeed into the next generation. A single animal that dies childless, just like one whose offspring don't survive to maturity, doesn't condemn the species to extinction. So a species can have all sorts of apparently counter-productive behaviour, but so long as there is at least some successful breeding going on, then it survives into the next generation, and so on.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
You have completely misunderstood evolution/wilfully misinterpred it.
Evolution relies on natural selection. For natural selection to work some genetic paths/natural experiments must become cul de sacs.
Some gay men will overcome many obstacles to reproduce, some will never pass on their genes. On average, nature decides which, not small minded people who think they can see the bigger picture well enough to judge.
No one has the right to reject people who appear to have less chance of reproduction.
If we should 'reject homosexuality because they cannot reproduce' then we would also reject people born without ovaries or women with hysterectomies, or nuns or monks who supposedly choose not to reproduce, just as Jesus reportedly didn't.
Even if, when that particular feature comes to the fore and dominates the behaviour of an individual member of the species, it results in a dead-end for that particular branch of the family, the family which it came from still goes on.
Unless there's any direct environmental pressure to eliminate it, it won't disappear. And there isn't, as usually there's enough reproduction going on to make up for those who don't.
And evolution has nothing to do with morality - it can be an absolute heartless git even at the best of times.
- IONIAN-GAMES.com -
It doesn't say anything about the existence of God, as far as his existence goes (or may go), but it does show that he cannot BE all good AND all powerful, as if he was then he wouldn't allow really bad things to happen to his living, feeling, creations[/QUOTE]
Clive Sinclair is not all powerful (despite the way the BBC drama made him seem to want to be...), and so he's not ultimately resonsible for all that goes on in the world. God is. He created (according to the relgious view point) EVERYTHING, including the human soul, and the ability of the human soul to perform evil acts, he created children, and also created their ability to suffer abuse. He created the human body, and also the ability of the human body to suffer cancer, burth defects and so on. Remember, God is supposed to be ALL powerful, so therefore he could have created a perfect world, with no disease, no suffering, etc. Instead he created our world. And even if you say that the Devil created diseases, earthquakes, etc, which goes against Biblical teachings anyway, then why did God create the Devil? And why didn't God destroy or alter the Devil to stop him being evil?
If God created us, then he has responsibilities to us. Yet he does nothing to protect us. He didn't protect the babies who are abused and murdered, he didn't project the Jews in the Nazi deathcamps, he didnt protect the office workers and passengers in the 9/11 acts of evil, to name just a few very obvious things. Every moment of every day, without fail, countless people in the world really suffer for things that are not their fault, yet God allows that suffering to continue. So yes, he might exist. But if he does exist then he cannot be all good AND all powerful. One or the other, maybe, but not both.
What is? It's certainly true that early man thought that the world was flat, even the bible says so, "When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth" Book of Proverbs 8:27, and a compass draws a circle, not a sphere. The Bible portrays the world as flat and round, like a coin, whereas the world is spherical (and so would not have the centre point that was necessary for a compass to draw a circle around it's boundaries). Certainly before Christ's time the Greeks knew that the world was spherical (they even knew of gravity, though of course it's details were far beyond their limitied science), but different people only heard/realised/accepted that the Earth was shaped like a ball over different centuries. And it's not a concept that's easy to accept, since it goes against common sense and common evidence. Alright, so it can be proven easily enough, but to an uneducated people, it would sound ridiculous.
Incidentally, the story that Christopher Columbus set out to prove that the world was spherical, unlike everyone else who thought that the world was flat, and in doing so he discovered America, is totally false in every way. By that time, all educated people in Western Europe accepted that the world was spherical, and Columbus set out to go around the world, to define a new, shorter trade route to India, as he believed that the circumference of the globe was much less than it's true twenty-five thousand miles. And when he landed on an island of the coast of America (he never stood on the American mainland) he thought it was in India, which is why the native Americans came to be known as Indians. And he wasn't the first to discover America. Various Europeans had done it before him, even the vikings many centuries before.
Sorry, but that is wrong. I don't know if you are born gay (or rather born with the potential to be gay, since sexual tastes develop long after birth) but I do know that it's not a choice. How do I know? Because, like lots (most, maybe all) people I've had disasters with the opposite sex, and if I could choose then I'd stop being attracted to anyone, ever. But I can't help it, if some attractive women serves me in a shop, and bends over, my eyes focus on her cleavage. Same as if I'm helping an attractive bird with he computer, leaning over her shoulder (and at some places, in summer, the younger typists wear so little ;););)) and again you can't help looking. I'll deliberately drag out the diagnostic and help process with a women I find attractive, although often they turn out to be boring/thick/thick and boring/obsessed with "celebrity"/etc, and I'm too old now to put up with the tedium of an attractive but dull airhead.
If you could turn your sexual desires off, then many of us would have much easier lives.
[/QUOTE]
Also, I'm not trying to cram anything down your throat. you're quite welcome to respond :)[/QUOTE]
Oh, I admire the way you respond maturely, and please believe that I'm not ridiculing you, although I don't personally share your beliefs.
Just the opposite. In science it's vey common for something to be supposed to exist, as a way of explaining the effects of provable experiments or verifiable natural occurances. Often those supposed things are then discovered to actually exist. Other times other evidence comes to light, which forces a rethink of the theory, and different thing(s) are postulated, which are then proceed to be looked for or verified.
That's how science works, it's a search for verifiable facts and provable theories.
Agree with most of the things you said above, ewgf, but a provable theory is nonsense in the scientific sense. In an axiomatic discipline like maths, yes, but all scientists ever do is gather evidence. Evidence in itself can never prove anything.
Alright, yes, to split hairs you are right. All science is just a series of theories, none of which can be proven, at best a theory can never be disproven.
But to non-techy types, like me, I accept much of science as fact, as it demonstrably works. I'm typing this on a computer, and uploading it to a computer in Holland (I assume) where the whole world an see it. Then I'll go and read a book that's been mass produced on a printing press, or play a game on a games console, and drink some fizzy (diet) soft drink, and later tonight I might cook myself some food in the oven or microwave. All of which is due to science. Not that science is in any way noble or perfect, it's a tool, and like all tools it's no better than the person using it. But science does deliver some fantastic things (actually lots of fantastic things), so yes, although electrical theory is just a theory, I accept our current understanding of it as pretty good.
Well, that's two astonishingly bold statements you've squeezed into that single sentence. I suppose it could be argued that it is a lifestyle in much the same way that heterosexuality is a lifestyle too. So the first statement might be true depending on your point of view. It just doesn't mean very much.
I studied psychology as an undergrad for four years at uni, got my honours degree in 2002. My final year thesis was a response to the question "what determines a persons sexual orientation?". I spent six months in the library researching the matter, must have read over a hundred research papers and I still came away completely clueless as to what causes homosexuality in humans. I said pretty much this in my paper and came away with a first so it's an opinion that must have had some merit :). At any rate I couldn't make the statement that some or all gay people aren't "born gay". They might be. Or alternatively some people may have some predisposition (genetic or otherwise) to be more influenced by environmental factors in early infancy that triggers homosexual development. If this were true then these people would have no more control over their sexuality than if they'd been born gay to begin with. In fact they may as well have been. So I'm not sure your second statement means very much either. There's certainly no question of a person "choosing" to be gay but I don't really need to state that nowadays. Do I?
I too have known (two) people who have been gay and subsequently declared themselves straight. It is probably not a coincidence that these two men were devout christians, I have little doubt that it was religious guilt that compelled this change of behaviour. Of course it didn't work - within a few years one had "reaffirmed" his homosexuality and declared himself an atheist, the other man is now gamefully employed in trying to reconcile his homosexuality with being a Christian. In this of course he will fail.
It's nearly 2010 and I find it utterly appalling that people still have to defend homosexuals from moral and/or religious criticism. Surely we've come further along the road than this?
Rant over :)
It all was going okay until he said a few posts later..
"If I can say just one more thing...I don't mind people celebrating a ZX Christmas, I just didn't like replacing Christ in it."
So none of us are allowed to put WOSmas as it might upset one person here amongst 100's ?!
No doubt another apology thread will appear but a post or two later it'll say 'but if i can say one more thing....'. I can see this never ending ! ;)
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs or lack thereof. But they are not entitled to ram them down the throat of those that do not share them.
This, for what it's worth, is a forum about Spectrums. It is not a forum about religious beliefs. If someone wants to refer to the period round about the end of December as WosMas, Xmas, Christmas, Hannukah, FSMmas, Yuletide or just 'that shitty cold month at the end of the year' then that is fine.
Just don't expect everybody to think as you do, or try to enforce it in any way, shape or form. That will not be tolerated. And that goes for EVERYONE.
Andrew
This is the chat section Andrew, not the Speccy section.
Sadly, it doesn't surprise me that you responded as though that comment was directly aimed at you. It was not. It was aimed at everyone.
I would strongly suggest you learn to 'live and let live' on this one. It's not a fight you can win, and more to the point, this is not the place to have it. Religious discussion is frowned upon here for a reason.
This comment is directed at you: WosMas/Xmas/Whatever-isn't-Christmas is not offensive to the vast, and I do mean vast, majority of people. If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple as that.
This thread is very very likely to get locked soon.
EDIT: And if anyone thinks my moderation is unfair /over the top on this matter feel free to PM me.
Andrew
Of course. If the recipient wishes to converse.
EDIT: Although, after Martijn's thread-closing comment below, I'd say it would be better to take it to another channel if the conversation is desired by both parties.
Andrew
Its ok chess is ok now, i think it was frowned upon because it was considered as a simulation of battle/war.
PM'ing people to force discussion on their views on $religion is unacceptable here in my view, no matter which religion one is thinking of.
The forum rule that dis-encourages religious discussions seems to be spot-on, seeing what transpires on WoS. As said, this is a Spectrum site, not a church site.
As such, I will shut down all religious threads as per the rules, including this one.