President Obama announces support for gay marriage

[Craig234]

Ughh, gay marriage. I can easily say my response to it is to oppose it any and all ways possible (legally speaking of course. And of course many people will think thats unfair or bigoted but i dont really care. This shouldnt be a national govt issue. But since thats what its becoming I get to exercise my right as a citizen in the national due process to vote for or against any national amendment or law. As a gay marriage supporter you get to do the same.

And here's the problem with democracy, and majority vote on minority rights.

Why not have a majority of whites vote to have slavery for blacks? That's their right.

 

[Chuvalo]

I think I understand you, hopefully. So, you seem like the type that has to see something to believe it, right or wrong?

You want tangible proof that gay marriage is wrong?

If so, you just have to believe God exists, which I think you do, and that he has a Bible that was written by men, but inspired by Him (in other words, he told them what to write). There is more than enough evidence of both.

Evidence that God exists ?

Remember, a belief that GOD exists does not require any proof of fact or evidence whatsoever.

The belief in the existence of GOD derives it's validity as a consequence of FAITH. You can have valid belief in GOD in the complete absence of facts / science / proof......." evidence ".

 

[Chuvalo]

Nope. That's just the religion of sick humans. Real religion was exemplified by perfect people to inform them of a world they can't believe, that all their hate and sin is an illusion that we are all and have always been perfect. The serpent is that we do not believe it, that we ate of the tree of knowledge, which is duality, the belief that good and evil are real. There is no good or evil. There is only being, what you were before you had words that create thought that creates time, thought, and division, this is one thing and that another, I and thou when there is only I am. The religious mind is empty of content, thoughts and ideas, and filled fully with love.

Good to know " sin is an illusion " and therefore members of the gay community are not " sinning " in any way, but rather are just as " perfect " as we all are.

Sadly, it's only some ' LESS than prefect ' people who object to same-sex marriage ...as I'm convinced God ( assuming he or she even exists ) couldn't give a rat's behind about objecting to same-sex marriage.

I'm sure God's thinking, so long as they aren't sinning....go for it !

 

[elitejp]

If you take that part of the bible as law, do you take the other parts as law too, like owning Canadians as slaves?

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

---
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
---

Like I commented earlier, you can take anything out of context and make it say what you want. Theres a lot more in the Bible that would further your understanding of what is actually being said. Some things have changed and thats why the Bible is divided into two main parts. Any Biblical scholar would know that you dont base all of your argument on Old Testament passages. That would be the same as me arguing what previous contract stated even though i have a new contract that may have differences in it.

How do you intend to cast a vote for an Constitutional Amendment or Federal Law? Don't the Congress people do that? When did the DP clause of the 14th delegate the duties of Congress to vote on Federal laws or Constitutional Amendments to the citizen?


Not sure why folks would conclude you to be a bigot because you oppose Gay Marriage... You, no doubt, have a rational basis for your position, don't you? And intolerance for another's belief is not present in your statement but perhaps it could be inferred.... maybe.

Lol, your prob right on this one but I think you get my point. The way i was thinking was that i could vote for or against those who are in/running for office depending one where they stand and how I stand on issues.

And here's the problem with democracy, and majority vote on minority rights.

Why not have a majority of whites vote to have slavery for blacks? That's their right.

Exactly true. Its a flawed system. Thats why America has blotches on her history. However I still think its one of the best systems out there.You can only hope that the ajority would be correct in the decisions they make.

 

[cybrsage]

I'm sure God's thinking, so long as they aren't sinning....go for it !

Provided they do not engage in homosexual activity, then no sins are being committed. There are the passages about avoiding the appearance of sin, but it is not a sin to not commit a sin but have others think you are.

 

[cybrsage]

If you take that part of the bible as law, do you take the other parts as law too, like owning Canadians as slaves?

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html---

There is much people do not understand about Levitical Law, and this lack of understanding creates all sorts of problems. It takes a little to explain, but read through (it is not TOO long) and you will see why those on both sides of the issue are using the Levitical Law incorrectly.


1. Levitical Law only applies to Jews and to those who choose to Walk with Israel.
2. The religious court framework (from which punishments are set forth such as the one you quoted) only applies to Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel as defined in the Tanakh).
3. We lost the chain of Semicha. Here is what the Rabbis say about that:


Today we do not have a court that is authorized to administer any of the Torah punishments. This includes flogging, fining and death. This is because in order to sit on such a court, the judge must have the designation of semicha. Semicha was granted from Moses to Joshua and from Joshua to others all the way until the second Temple period. (While the rabbinical ordination of today is called semicha, it is not the same as the semicha of old). Semicha can only be granted in Israel. As the Jewish center shifted from Israel to Babylon, and oppressive governments in Israel forbade semicha, the chain was broken, and we no longer have people who have semicha, thus qualified to sit on such a court. You can read what Maimonides says on the matter here: http://www.chabad.org/1172727


There is rumor that an unbroken line actually exists, but it has yet to be proven true, so for now we must say it does not exist.


If you combine the three items, you get:


Levitical punishments only apply in the Land of Israel to those living in Israel, but it cannot be performed due to the loss of religious judges. No judges means no ruling and no ruling means no punishment.



Hope that helps.

 

[cybrsage]

I am making the assumption here that a gay Christian does not think his behavior is offensive to G-d, nor necessarily a sin. I suppose it's possible that one can be an active gay Christian and still think that behavior is a sin. I don't find that assumption unreasonable though - gay behavior is not offensive to me and I'm pretty sure I have thinner skin than does G-d since I'd have been smiting us long ago.

It is very possible, and I suspect many believe like you said. It does not make them right, but the Bible is filled with people doing wrong things they did not realize were wrong, so there is a lot of precident.

EDIT: As far as equal rights - giving a lesbian the right to marry only a man is like giving me the right to marry only a man; it's effectively removing our right to select our own marriage partner while paying lip service to equal rights. It's like interracial marriage; if the only woman I want to marry is another race, disallowing me that choice is effectively making me property of the state, asserting that the state's interests in whom I marry come ahead of my own. Unless there can be shown a very compelling public interest that can only be achieved in this manner, this is an evil thing to do.

This is why I support removing government from marriage altogether and only performing civil unions, which would have the same legal status as marriage. Religions can issue marriage certificates and (if they are authorized by their state) civil union certificates as well. We get the government out of its entaglement with religion and we create new rights for people. Everyone but the fringe elements on either side wins and is happy.

 

[cybrsage]

Just because his interpretation disagrees with your Christian Taliban worldview doesn't make his interpretation false.

There are no Christian Talibans. You say it, though, because it makes you feel better and allows you to keep your bigotry alive and flowing, don't you? Or did that magic man who makes posts turn invisible make you do it?

 

[alzan]

Provided they do not engage in homosexual activity, then no sins are being committed. There are the passages about avoiding the appearance of sin, but it is not a sin to not commit a sin but have others think you are.

As has been pointed out numerous times; not every Christian reads the same translation of the Bible or understands the same translation as everyone else. Remember, the contents of the Bible were decided upon at the Council of Nicea; and a lot was left on the cutting room floor.

If someone(s) are engaged in homosexual activity, they are only sinning if they translate & understand the same Bible as you. It may give you a warm & fuzzy feeling to tell yourself that they are sinning, but it is just a feeling. After all, according to your translation & understanding of the Bible, the only being that gets to judge who has sinned is God. And since he's supposedly omniscient & omnipotent, he doesn't want or need your help.

 

[nehalem256]

There are no Christian Talibans. You say it, though, because it makes you feel better and allows you to keep your bigotry alive and flowing, don't you? Or did that magic man who makes posts turn invisible make you do it?

No, its because leftists think that not giving women free contraceptives is the same as stoning them for being raped. :hmm:

 

[cybrsage]

As has been pointed out numerous times; not every Christian reads the same translation of the Bible or understands the same translation as everyone else. Remember, the contents of the Bible were decided upon at the Council of Nicea; and a lot was left on the cutting room floor.

But the parts which did make it in are easily read. Some are unclear (Paul was not a very clear writer), but the prohibition against homosexuality is as clear as the prohibition against stealing and idolitry.

If someone(s) are engaged in homosexual activity, they are only sinning if they translate & understand the same Bible as you. It may give you a warm & fuzzy feeling to tell yourself that they are sinning, but it is just a feeling. After all, according to your translation & understanding of the Bible, the only being that gets to judge who has sinned is God. And since he's supposedly omniscient & omnipotent, he doesn't want or need your help.

The Greek is well known, translating it is not hard for those who know both Greek (circa 0 BCE) and any modern language. It is not nearly as hard as translating ancient Hebrew from 4000 years ago.

 

[alzan]

But the parts which did make it in are easily read. Some are unclear (Paul was not a very clear writer), but the prohibition against homosexuality is as clear as the prohibition against stealing and idolitry.



The Greek is well known, translating it is not hard for those who know both Greek (circa 0 BCE) and any modern language. It is not nearly as hard as translating ancient Hebrew from 4000 years ago.

You missed my point; try re-reading my post and then reply. And please try not to take off on another tangent when replying, like you did with this reply.

 

[Retro Rob]

If you take that part of the bible as law, do you take the other parts as law too, like owning Canadians as slaves?

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCantIOwnACanadian_10-02.html

---
Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
---

This has to be the most misapplied batch of Bible text I've ever seen.

Doesn't even garner a response.

 

[Rangoric]

But the parts which did make it in are easily read. Some are unclear (Paul was not a very clear writer), but the prohibition against homosexuality is as clear as the prohibition against stealing and idolitry.

Actually, it's not nearly as clear. Stealing and Idolatry are spelled out very directly. Very directly as the words of God, not as something that was put in the Bible. They are both done as commands, to be obeyed absolutely.

With "Thou Shalt Not Steal", are you going to redefine steal?

The whole abomination this? Kinda vague in this case, it's not a directing all consuming command. It uses language that is rather, vague. I mean, what man can "lay" with a man as he would a woman? What does lay mean? If you take it to mean "procreation", then obviously a man can't lay with a may in the same way. If you mean "have sexual relations of any kind" then we already have 2 meanings, which is it? If sex is only for procreation (as some faiths perceive it as) then we should go with the first. If you want to really open up how it could be interpreted, you just opened up how it can be interpreted. Meaning you lost your chance to say it means one thing.

The 10 Commandments are all very short, clear, and don't beat around the bush (tee hee).

 

[Moonbeam]

Rob M.:I think I understand you, hopefully. So, you seem like the type that has to see something to believe it, right or wrong?

M: I am a person who sees that people tend only see what they already believe, and that because they have no rational foundation for what they believe, having acquired their beliefs at an age before they could actually question or reason, they are actually bigots, people who hold unexamined unconscious feelings that motivate their thinking. I believe this because I see it, but I see it because I would not stop trying to prove my bias to myself and I couldn't do it.

R: You want tangible proof that gay marriage is wrong?

M: No, I want you to see that you can't provide tangible proof yourself. I know you can't because I know what it would cost you that you don't want to give up, a belief in the literal truth as you determine literal, of the Bible. Faith, as was mentioned above, does not depend on anything, not even the truth of the Bible. To me your faith is weak and insecure.

R: If so, you just have to believe God exists, which I think you do, and that he has a Bible that was written by men, but inspired by Him (in other words, he told them what to write). There is more than enough evidence of both.

M: More than enough evidence for you because you can't challenge it but not enough evidence for me. The place you fear to go I had to go. I fought in the great war and won a Small victory. I found a God that is left when everything else is taken. I don't need faith. I know. To find heaven I had to go through hell. Trust me, it was hell. Hehehehehehe

When the mind is in a prison like a capsized boat, the way out is to dive.

Religions are bridges, they are methodologies to transcend, a means to step over hell and enter heaven. I could not go that way. I had to go through the chasm. But what you have done, I believe, is to fall in love with your bridge. If you cross your bridge you will have no use for it. Your religion is a means, not a destination. And if you cross you will have a big victory, not a small one like me.

 

[cybrsage]

You missed my point; try re-reading my post and then reply. And please try not to take off on another tangent when replying, like you did with this reply.

You claimed it is possible for many to not understand something clearly written. That is silly.

 

[cybrsage]

Actually, it's not nearly as clear. Stealing and Idolatry are spelled out very directly. Very directly as the words of God, not as something that was put in the Bible. They are both done as commands, to be obeyed absolutely.

With "Thou Shalt Not Steal", are you going to redefine steal?

The whole abomination this? Kinda vague in this case, it's not a directing all consuming command. It uses language that is rather, vague. I mean, what man can "lay" with a man as he would a woman? What does lay mean? If you take it to mean "procreation", then obviously a man can't lay with a may in the same way. If you mean "have sexual relations of any kind" then we already have 2 meanings, which is it? If sex is only for procreation (as some faiths perceive it as) then we should go with the first. If you want to really open up how it could be interpreted, you just opened up how it can be interpreted. Meaning you lost your chance to say it means one thing.

The 10 Commandments are all very short, clear, and don't beat around the bush (tee hee).

heh...liked the reference.

The term of "lay with a man as he would with a woman" was used when people clearly understood that meant having sex with. It is old school, and the King James Version is filled with such things. More modern translations are better, such as the New Living Translation. We can always go back and look at the original Greek, though. Here are some of the Greek words used in 1 Corinthians 6:9

malakos (mal-ak-os'); of uncertain affinity; soft, i.e. fine (clothing); figuratively, a catamite:
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Since it is talking about a person, we need to look up what a catamite is. According to dictionary.com:

cat·a·mite

   /ˈkætəˌmaɪt/ Show Spelled[kat-uh-mahyt] Show IPA
noun a boy or youth who is in a sexual relationship with a man.

arsenokoites (ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace); from NT:730 and NT:2845; a sodomite:
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Then we need to look up what a sodomite is. A sodomite (lower case version) is someone who engages in sodomy. Dictionary.com gives us this:

sod·om·y

   /ˈsɒdəmi/ Show Spelled[sod-uh-mee] Show IPA
noun 1. anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex.
2. copulation with a member of the same sex.
3. bestiality ( def. 4 ) .

Since we do not know which definition they were referring to, we can be safe if we use all three. If we use the Levitical Law as a guide, we can say all three should not be performed.


It is pretty clear if we just translate the original Greek words into modern English. The problem with lack of clarity comes into play because people wanted to translate the words into English while not being sexually explicit. This is a failure in translation, just be explicit. God was explicit, so He obviously has nothing against it.

 

[Retro Rob]

Rob M.:I think I understand you, hopefully. So, you seem like the type that has to see something to believe it, right or wrong?

M: I am a person who sees that people tend only see what they already believe, and that because they have no rational foundation for what they believe, having acquired their beliefs at an age before they could actually question or reason, they are actually bigots, people who hold unexamined unconscious feelings that motivate their thinking. I believe this because I see it, but I see it because I would not stop trying to prove my bias to myself and I couldn't do it.

R: You want tangible proof that gay marriage is wrong?

M: No, I want you to see that you can't provide tangible proof yourself. I know you can't because I know what it would cost you that you don't want to give up, a belief in the literal truth as you determine literal, of the Bible. Faith, as was mentioned above, does not depend on anything, not even the truth of the Bible. To me your faith is weak and insecure.

R: If so, you just have to believe God exists, which I think you do, and that he has a Bible that was written by men, but inspired by Him (in other words, he told them what to write). There is more than enough evidence of both.

M: More than enough evidence for you because you can't challenge it but not enough evidence for me. The place you fear to go I had to go. I fought in the great war and won a Small victory. I found a God that is left when everything else is taken. I don't need faith. I know. To find heaven I had to go through hell. Trust me, it was hell. Hehehehehehe

When the mind is in a prison like a capsized boat, the way out is to dive.

Religions are bridges, they are methodologies to transcend, a means to step over hell and enter heaven. I could not go that way. I had to go through the chasm. But what you have done, I believe, is to fall in love with your bridge. If you cross your bridge you will have no use for it. Your religion is a means, not a destination. And if you cross you will have a big victory, not a small one like me.

Doesn't make a bit of sense, but, ok... I guess...

 

[Moonbeam]

Doesn't make a bit of sense, but, ok... I guess...

I know it doesn't make sense, but that is what is true for you. It makes all the sense in the world to me. The whole thing was to tell you why what I say doesn't make sense to you. You have a commitment to a different belief that gets in your way, the same one that used to be true of me. I can tell you about it because I no longer have it, but because you still do you can't see. I examined my beliefs, my precious one ring, and found them all to be false. You based your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible and I could not. You love the Bible but I could only love God. Your Bible is in error and can be taken from you by reason and truth and seriousness of mind, but not so with my God. Mine is the God that can only exist when everything that can be taken is taken.

Your faith is based on a thing, a book, a sacred text, like a million others who have the one true faith. Yours is a faith of exclusivity. You have divided the world in to teams, folk who believe the Bible, in the million different ways that is done, and the rest who have no faith or believe in incorrect texts. You have divided a world that is one. In your world you are good and homosexuality is evil. And thus you have divided the ONE into many, the God that can only be love into one that condemns. To me your kind of faith creates evil. You did not cross your bridge but fell in love with it, the book instead of the ONE.

 

[Chuvalo]

I am a person who sees that

people tend only see what they already believe, and that because they have no rational foundation for what they believe,

having acquired their beliefs at an age before they could actually question or reason,

they are actually bigots, people who hold unexamined unconscious feelings that motivate their thinking.

A perfect description of Christian Fundamentalists in my view.

 

[LunarRay]

Doesn't make a bit of sense, but, ok... I guess...

Lots of stuff don't make sense.... How about this:

There exist a plethora of manuscripts at least one dating back to the earliest of times circa 40 AD up to perhaps 140 AD... Thomas. What makes little sense to me is a Statement often made that tries to justify the Gospels... 'God inspired the authors to write these', but how do folks like the Vatican know that Thomas or Mary Magdelene or whomever gospels were not also inspired by God.
I asked this of Brother Timothy, my favorite Jesuit, a person with absolute knowledge on all things Catholic. I had lots of contact with Timothy from the time I was about 8 through 16 or so. And again during my Post Grad work. I never questioned my faith in God which was not based on books but I often questioned the basis others claimed for theirs, especially Timothy's. () He said something like: "Some of these 'gospels' are incomplete lending themselves to further 'human' guess work, some seem to interpret a bit differently what was witnessed and contained in the synoptic or John's gospels thus lending to confusion and some others are not accepted as being a biography of Jesus but rather a novel presented in biographical form." "They don't 'fit' so they omit... but who knows they were not inspired by God", I said. [total wiseass, as usual] He said, "Aside from the infallibility of the Popes involved there were lots of prayers"....

Now, do you think I could present this argument to Moonbeam if he were to ask why are some gospels omitted and have him convinced that the God of the bible is the God of the Universe? Does faith extend to the human decision making process as well? If my faith were dependent on the books and people who say this is that I'd be hard pressed to accept any of it.... And, I don't see how a rational thinking logic filtering Moonbeam could ever begin to find my God in the externalization of his internal knowledge.

 

[Moonbeam]

I let it fall, my heart
And as it fell, you rose to claim it
It was dark and I was over
Until you kissed my lips and you saved me
My hands, they were strong, but my knees were far too weak
To stand in your arms without falling to your feet

But there's a side to you that I never knew, never knew
All the things you'd say, they were never true, never true
And the games you'd play, you would always win, always win

But I set fire to the rain
Watched it pour as I touched your face
Well, it burned while I cried
'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name

When laying with you I could stay there
Close my eyes, feel you here forever
You and me together, nothing is better

'Cause there's a side to you that I never knew, never knew
All the things you'd say, they were never true, never true
And the games you's play, you would always win, always win

But I set fire to the rain
Watched it pour as I touched your face
Well, it burned while I cried

'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name
I set fire to the rain
And I threw us into the flames
When we fell, something died
'Cause I knew that that was the last time, the last time

Sometimes I wake up by the door
That heart you caught must be waiting for you
Even now when we're already over
I can't help myself from looking for you

I set fire to the rain
Watched it pour as I touch your face
Well, it burned while I cried
'Cause I heard it screaming out your name, your name
I set fire to the rain
And I threw us into the flames
When we fell, something died
'Cause I knew that that was the last time, the last time, oh

Oh, no
Let it burn, oh
Let it burn
Let it burn

 

[alzan]

You claimed it is possible for many to not understand something clearly written. That is silly.

Another tangent. Completely unsurprising.

 

[cybrsage]

Another tangent. Completely unsurprising.

Not my fault you made an inane claim. Don't like having your claims easily debunked, don't make easily debunked claims.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

There are no Christian Talibans.

If you say so, Osama.

You say it, though, because it makes you feel better and allows you to keep your bigotry alive and flowing, don't you? Or did that magic man who makes posts turn invisible make you do it?

I say it because it is clear your beliefs are essentially equivalent.