Sure, it can be construed however you want. What matters is how it has actually been construed by Christians throughout history. Your attempt here is not the usual interpretation.

Here again, you can construe this however you want, but this is a pretty bad interpretation of this verse and one that goes against the usual understanding of Christians. Also, this is not a saying of Jesus.
First of all, most of the Bible was written 100's of years before Jesus was born, and he regularly quotes from it and is called a learned teacher of the Bible, so you are simply wrong in your description of Jesus. Second, you keep quoting Paul's writings as if they are sayings/teachings of Jesus. They're not - Paul never met Jesus except supposedly in a mystical vision. Third, Jesus's teachings in the Gospels make up only a narrow segment of Christian doctrine, mostly focused on moral teachings, interpretations of the Law and Prophets, condemnations of the religious elite of his day ("whited sepulchers, a nest of vipers," etc. etc.), and his own unique role in God's plan of salvation for the Jews. This is why you cannot understand Christianity as the religion it is today if you ignore the way in which it changed throughout history. Jesus was a Jew talking to other Jews about the imminent coming of God's Kingdom on earth - Augustine was a Christian talking to other Christians about (among other things) the relationship between the great Christian empire of his time and its relationship to the Christian Church. In short, Jesus functions more as an object of devotion in Christianity than as laying out its basic theology and religious rules. He did not really seem to see himself as founding a new universal religion, but rather as a reformer of the Jewish religion of his day. Thus, your comparison of him to Mohammad is not an apples to apples comparison.

What I'm doing is rejecting your n=2 correlation about the relationship between a religion's founders and that religion today as telling us something robust about whether it is possible for Muslims to adopt progressive Western values. I've pointed out numerous times that in actual reality they do commonly accept these values, but I guess you will just keep ignoring this. You don't know what else to say here because your argument is a bad argument and you haven't been willing to address its weaknesses directly.

I wonder, do you also believe that Jews are unable to accept progressive values? Here is Moses:

“He who changes his religion (i.e. apostates) kill him.” maybe can this can be construed in another way?
and no, you're straw-manning me. i never said ALL muslims are incompatible. would you say they are equally compatible? or to take it further, that ANY culture is compatible with western society?

as far as jews, look at what they have done to the palestinans. here's some quotes

1st pm of israel, david ben-gurian: "were i an arab i would rebel even more vigorously, bitterly and desperately against the immigration [jewish] that will one day turn palestine and all it's arab residents over to jewish rule"
ben-gurian: "there is a need now for strong and brutal action. we need to be accurate about time and place, and those we hit. if we accuse a family we need to harm them without mercy. women and children included. there is no need to distinguish between guilty and not guilty."
ngo save the children estimated during the first intifada, between 6500-8500 palestinian children were wounded by gunfire during the first two years. regarding the 106 reported cases of child gunshot deaths, almost all of them were hit by directed, not random, nor ricochet fire. most were not participating in demonstrations when shot."
7th pm yitzahk shamir: "neither jewish ethics nor jewish traditions can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat. rather, terrorism has a great part to play in our war against the occupier [great britain]"
look up : uss liberty, lavon affair, irgun, etc. and the continuous shooting of unarmed palestians to this day. the religious zionists purposely attacked their american and british allies on multiple occassions so as to blame it on their surrounding enemies.

I'm not strawmanning you, I'm taking you at your word. This is from your first post ITT:

So yes, you haven't claimed that no Muslims can hold Western, progressive values, but you did claim that only illiterate ones could. I pointed out that the education level of US Muslims is comparable to other Americans, so this isn't a matter of illiteracy. Thus, your initial claim has been proven false. If you want to make a different, weaker claim, then do so.

Also, you keep quoting passages from the Koran advocating killing people. Why? I've already told you that I also think the Koran (like the Christian Bible) in various passages condones evil actions like genocide or murder. We are agreed on this point. Our disagreement is on the significance of these passages. I have talked about my view of religion, and how simply reading a religion's scriptures will not tell you the nature of that religion (even if the religion's theology makes this claim). Instead, you have to also look at the actual history of that religion, the later leaders of the religion, the societies in which that religion has flourished, the institutions that pass that religion on from generation to generation to understand it. In my view, passages that conflict with or at best underdetermine the actual practice or beliefs that are prevalent in that religion today can become either ignored or worked around in regular ways. If you want to disagree with me, then you'll have to address this argument about the nature of religion, where I disagree with the practice common to religious fundamentalists of focusing on the original scriptures alone as fundamental to religion.

Nah, Christianity has nearly always been more common in the West and so my prior is that it is more compatible with Western values than Islam currently is. "Western values" remains undefined though, so I'm not really sure what you mean here. Democracy? I'll point out that 2 of the 3 countries with the largest Muslim populations are democracies.

Not sure what you are asking in your last question. I mean, duh, obviously, by definition some cultures are compatible with Western society.

You don't seem to know how to present actual evidence for an assertion. If you want to argue that Jews are not able to hold progressive, Western values, then you need to talk about Jews, i.e. the millions of people who identify as Jews, not just quote a few specific Jews. Also, you really need to give up your assumption that Western, progressive values are pacifistic (or opposed to colonialism for that matter or do we have to keep pretending that Western progressive values only refer to the last 50 years). Look around, they're not.

But, if you really mean to suggest that Jews can't hold Western, progressive values, lol.

we're talking about religion not ethnicity. why are you forcing western athiest jews to fit into this conversation?

I'm not, and anyway many Western atheist Jews are religious.

EDIT: Also, you are the one quoting Jewish political leaders as authoritative on the Jewish religion and conflating the actions of Israel with the Jewish religion.

The difference between Christianity and Islam is that Christianity is essentially reformed Toradic Judaism, Toradic Judaism gave way for the most part to Talmudic Judaism, and Christianity itself underwent a Reformation hundreds of years ago. The violent aspects of Judaism and Christianity were effectively weaned out of these faiths via replacement theology.

Islam has undergone no such reformation. So while OrP is technically "correct" that a muslim can hold western values, the quantitative aspect in which he does so is limited by the overlap between the two (there is some), the type of Islam he follows, and his level of devotion.

The only thing that needs to be provided as a counterexample to disprove this inference is one majority muslim country in the world that illustrates western values (freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality of women, equality of LGBT, habeas corpus, etc.)

I challenge OrP to give us one.

I'm not OrP, but this one seems fairly obvious to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo#Religion

https://crd.org/wp-content/uploads/2...ovo_529396.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Kosovo

Another look at Kosovo :

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/w...niversary.html

You claim that the relevant difference between Christianity/Judaism and Islam is that the former have gone through a reformation process that mostly weaned the violent aspects of these faiths out. So, I'll agree with you that Christianity and Judaism as they exist today in Europe and the Americas are generally less supportive of religious violence and more tolerant of religious difference than Islam. My disagreement with you is that I'm skeptical that theology is the primary driver of this difference.

For instance, you say here that Christianity went through the Protestant Reformation and suggest that this had something to do with this lessening of violence. This is not really true, at least not in a direct sense. First, the theology of the Reformers was not particularly less supportive of religious control or influence over the state than Catholicism (if anything the opposite). Second, the actual effect of the Reformation was to spark religious wars for well over a century of fighting. Furthermore, the superiority of the Christian religion continued to be used as a justifying ideology for slavery, colonialism, or conquest up through the nineteenth century.

As for Judaism, if anything I would argue that the rise of Zionism and the establishment of a Jewish state in the twentieth century has caused contemporary Judaism to potentially justify more violence than past versions.

Instead, what seems a more likely cause of the difference is that Christians and Jews today are much wealthier and live in much freer societies than in the past, whereas most Muslims live in countries that are relatively poorer and less free compared to Christian societies. This would also explain why Muslims that live in wealthy and tolerant societies like the US are so much likelier to support Western ideals than your own theory that this is because they are just less devout (or the circular claim that they are adherents to less violent versions of Islam).

More importantly, since / / ///AutoZone's argument was probably supposed to be in support of the policy claim that we should not allow Muslims to immigrate to the US, my claim would also show the grounds for our disagreement. I'm not afraid of Muslims who want to immigrate to the US and are willing to become US citizens because I believe the prosperous and religiously tolerant society we have built will also be attractive to them and cause them to largely adopt the values that underlie it (if they don't already have those values). This is also why I think a policy of banning Muslim immigrants is itself more dangerous than the potential harm from immigrant Muslim terrorists, as adopting it would make it less likely that American Muslims would themselves adopt values of religious tolerance.

As for your challenge, meh, you don't seem to understand the terms of the debate. My argument is about a causal claim, not really a descriptive one. I'm an atheist and am well aware that it is much safer to be one in the US or Europe than in most Muslim-majority countries. My initial disagreement with / / ///AutoZone was in his claim that only illiterate Muslims could be peaceful. This is clearly false. Conservatives often take an attitude of collective blame towards Muslims that they decry when taken towards other groups. Your focus here on Muslim-majority countries rather than individual Muslims is just another version of this.

Theological differences are only one aspect of the dispute. The other two that I mentioned are sect type and devotional level. Obviously a nominal european muslim will be much less prone to islamically motivated violence than a staunch Wahhabite from Saudi. As for quantitative ranked analysis of causal drivers, such a thing is probably not possible. However, when one can predict with a high degree of accuracy the religious beliefs of the next major suicide bomber/terrorist before it even happens, it's probably safe to say theology has something to do with it.

I also think it's interesting you added the "Europe and Americas" qualifier. Perhaps you could give us a few commonly known examples of Christian or Jewish terrorist groups in Africa or Asia who have clearly defined and expressed theological motivations.

This seems quite disingenuous. The concern doesn't rest upon the general violence level of a group of people, the concern has to do with religiously motivated violence in particular, and how the vast majority of specific, modern day iterations of said violence come from expressed followers of Islam.

The major movements concerned with banning slavery were Christian as well. But this is besides the point. No one is concerned with modern day Christianity and Judaism regarding slavery as both faiths' followers have been essentially slave free for hundreds or thousands of years. There are wide swaths of the muslim world that still engage in slavery to this day. Libya, in particular, has a major sub saharan African slave trade. We can clearly find the mechanism within Christianity and Judaism that led to the termination of slavery. Please give us the self-editing mechanism in Islam that will give rise to slavery's abrogation there.

With that I would agree. Where are the other 56 Jewish states filled with billions of followers of the state religion that subjugate women, cut off the heads of apostates in public squares, and throw homosexuals from rooftops on a routine basis?

It's not clear to me any inferences can be drawn here. Muslims in the US who are avowedly opposed to western values are no more likely to state that they are than muslims opposed to violent muslim values in muslim majority countries are.

That's some wishful thinking and directly violates the daily observations of those of us in the west who live near major muslim population concentrations.

That aside, for me it's not worth the certain sacrifice of the few thousand innocent civilians lives, and potential existential suicide to find out if your theory is true.

Orly? Please explain how it's possible to lure a largely anti materialist, anti American, anti liberal theology into the 21st century with materialism, Americanism, and Liberalism.

First, at least in the US, this is not as obvious as you suggest, as white nationalist violence has been increasing lately. Second, you obviously don't understand my argument. I'm doubtful that theology plays the kind of causal role that you assume here, but I'm willing to grant on the margins that it increases the incidence of violence. Mainly, I view these kinds of ideologies/theologies as being the result of some level of the randomness of history and the circumstances of the communities in which they become prevalent. But sure, I'm not trying to defend Wahhabism, which seems to me a pernicious version of Islam. It is the generalization from this version to all of Islam or to something inherent in Islam that I find unpersuasive.

I'm not very familiar with African or Asian Christianity which is why I used that qualifier. I am familiar with the Lord's Resistance Army, which is a Christian terrorist militia. The Taiping Rebellion is an older example of a Christian (of a sort)-based rebellion in China that led to more deaths than any other nineteenth-century conflict.

You made a claim that a reformation akin to the Protestant Reformation was needed in Islam. I'm pointing out that the Protestant Reformation did not directly lead to a more peaceful religious landscape in Europe, nor were the theologies of the Reformers more peaceful. How is this disingenuous? Defend your claim or give it up.

Becoming richer, more rule of law, adopting more liberal attitudes towards humans rights and freedom, etc.

Lol. For Christians, this is almost all of Europe, or am I supposed to pretend like Christianity popped into existence in the last few decades.

Okay, whatever, unfalsifiable beliefs can't be falsified.

You have a mouse in your pocket there?

You're making up numbers here. Also, since you are the one arguing for a change from standard American policy, your view seems to me the speculative theory here.

Money, opportunity, freedom. and religious tolerance.

I'm talking religiously motivated violence here, not general violence of all sorts. Certainly I'm not going to blame a crime of passion murder in Saudi Arabia on Islam anymore than you should blame a mass murder by a white supremacist on Christianity because he's from a nominally Christian country.

The vast, vast majority of terrorism in the United States and across the world is done by fundamentalist muslims.


Theology plays no role in theologically motivated violent crime?

This source would have things to say about that.



Southcentral Asian and Southeast Asian Christianity is almost non-existent due to....ding ding ding, the pervasiveness of religious intolerance in muslim majority states. Christians suffer widespread persecution in muslim states, ranging from discrimination and abuse to ethnic cleansing.




All of which are fundamentally disdained by devout followers of all the Abrahamic (and most other) religions.



Sorry, you're claiming homosexuals were thrown from rooftops in Europe in recent memory?



It's pretty naive to think that sensitive religious questions on a public poll will be answered honestly from the people who might be discriminated against for having contrarian opinions about said religion.




I am? Hundreds to thousands of people are injured or killed EVERY YEAR worldwide because of Islamic terrorist attacks In 2015, there was an Islamically inspired terrorist attack at a rate of 1 in every 3 days.

Since we know the vast majority of terrorist attacks happen in muslim states, and the people that are from those states are committing the terrorist acts, claiming that allowing in hundreds of thousands or even millions more of the people from those countries into western countries won't make terrorist incidents rise here and result in the deaths of thousands of innocent people long term is ludicrous. All in the hope they will integrate due to the overwhelming, enlightening awesomeness that is American consumerism.

It's time to ask yourself who really has the unfalsifiable belief here.



Money and opportunity I will give you, as they are central tenets of the muslim faith, but only insofar as Islam proscribes; it won't tempt people to abandon the morally repugnant aspects of their faith. Freedom? That's a laugh



What happens when the population of people who hold these opinions reaches a point high enough that they can elect representatives to Congress to write our laws? I'm willing to bet they don't vote for freedom on these things. What do you think?

In my view, the Protestant Reformation was the first step toward liberalism and improved ethics. It was the beginning of the transition from a centralized authority of static, outdated morality (theology) toward a decentralized, evolving cultural morality. It was the beginning of the transition from dependence to independence.

Beginning this process is theological, but once underway, it is no longer theological but cultural (once a certain level of liberalism and decentralization has been reached). It’s not an accident that Christianity birthed reformation. It speaks to the level of truth (not historical or factual truth but a higher truth) contained within.

With all that said, I am a firm believer that cultural evolution has to be incremental. Trying to impose modern, Western liberalism or democracy on Islamic regions in a top down manner will continue to fail. You can’t skip steps.

Nah. The US is attacked by right wing extremism far more then Muslim. Muslims have killed more but that was from one attack mostly. Right wing extremists attack us more often. And often use the name of protecting Christendom to do so.

Americans are more likely to be attacked by far-right terrorists than Islamists

Who carries out more terror attacks on U.S. soil: Right wing or Islamic extremists?

Everything i have read has said pretty much the same. And thats with bs stuff like Orlando counting as not a lone wolf but terrorism. There are no lone wolf non terrorist crazy Muslims like Christians i guess. If you are a Muslim in the us you are a terrorist. If you are a Christian ymmv.

Agree with this 100%. As an adjoiner, the responsible thing to do is to not immigrate muslims en masse to our countries. We should practice containment until they come around.

Even though Muslims in the US are more liberal then evangelicals, just to be safe maybe we should not allow them to have children and give them some kind of mark so we can feel safe from their terror. Plus banning them like you said. That mass immigration of Muslims into the US is going to kill us all when they install sharia law.

how do people still make this argument with a straight face? u.s. muslim population is 1.1%, and right wing population is 50%. no ****.
by this logic, it'd be safer to be in a room with a siberian tiger than room with a vending machine.

do ppl itt actually think that muslims don't have good (and justified) reasons to hate a country(s) with massive israeli influence, and that are constantly invading muslim countries on israel's behalf?
yeah, let's support a country that kills innocent, unarmed palestians and just invite the survivors to come live with us. genius.

You claimed to be able to predict with high accuracy the religious beliefs of the next major terrorist before it happens. I pointed out that this is not really true in the US due to the rise of right-wing terrorism in recent years. You then link to a report that says nothing about the prevalence of religious vs non-religious based terrorism and claim victory. Lol. Slow down and read your sources.

Was that sentence too long for you? Was "increase on the margins" too complicated a concept?

Lol. Here you cite a source (that doesn't even address my claim) that you later claim is untrustworthy.

You asked for examples of Christian terrorist groups in Asia and Africa. You just going to ignore these examples? And yes, I agree, Christians are and have been heavily persecuted around the world. For instance, in Japan, Christianity was almost completely annihilated during the Reunification and Tokugawa Shogunate (little known fact that Hideyoshi was a secret Muslim like Obama actually). Christianity has been and continues to be heavily persecuted in China under Communism.

Huh? You yourself contradict this claim later in your post, so I have no idea WTF you are trying to say here.

The US didn't get rid of its last anti-sodomy laws until 2003.

Public poll? These surveys are confidential.

Yes, you are, since we are talking about US terrorism. The incidence of terrorism in countries like Syria, Afghanistan, and Palestine tell us little about how much terrorism we should expect in a country like the US.

The sad thing about the MAGA worldview is how for all their talk about making America great again and going back to the US of the past, it is clear that they largely disdain and don't believe in the American ideal. One of the main things that has made America great over the last century is our relatively open society. The US is a place for people of different faiths, ethnicities, and political beliefs to come to prosper and have the freedom to live as they want. This relative openness is why the US does such a better job than most of Europe of attracting and integrating new people into our country. This is one of the biggest contributors to our greater GDP, our higher birthrate, our better universities and economic innovation, our stronger military, and so on.

But all you see is American consumerism. Oh well.

I did ask myself this question and it's still you.

Again, you are just being impervious to the actual evidence. There are 3.5 million Muslims in the US, and they largely believe in American principles of democracy and religious tolerance and reject Islamic extremism and the violence associated with it.

As I've said repeatedly, my view is that people change their minds (or more likely, their children reject their views) about illiberal theological and ideological views when they become more prosperous and free. I also think the US has a strong tradition of distinguishing between the morality and the legality of an action which would persist even with more US Muslims. However, since nearly all those things you list either are or have been illegal in the US because of Christians who also believe they are morally wrong, I have confidence that the US can still survive as a liberal democracy even if they are banned again. My view of US democracy is not of one that requires a country full of liberal atheists, but rather of a country where the population is mostly religious (as has always been true of the US).

First, most Muslims don't care nearly as much about Palestine as you seem to be assuming here (most Muslims are not Arabian). Second, you seem to be ignoring the very close relationship the US has with Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries to focus only on its relationship with Israel. Why? Third, you are wildly overestimating Israel's influence over US foreign policy.

But most importantly, the US has had significant conflicts, wars, and other interventions all around the world, not just towards Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East. We dropped atomic bombs on Japan, we carpet-bombed Vietnam and Cambodia, the Philippines used to be a US colony, we've toppled governments in South America, and so on. But yet we have thriving populations of loyal Americans from nearly all these countries. Your policy of just banning any people who might have cause to dislike the US is against our values and historic practice. Why should we start doing things differently with Muslims?

You think the "right wing extremist" population is 50% of the US?

This is what i was responding to.


Anything to show he is right and my post was wrong? Because for the US he is very wrong as far as i know.

Also it would be interesting how often we were attacked pre first gulf war? You guys are experts on this stuff so im sure you know.


If the argument is Muslims cant integrate based on population percentages of terror. Id ask why are they more liberal then Evangelicals in most polls? Why do they seem to integrate better into Western/American liberal values?

It took one post.

It depends how you define terrorism, I guess.







Can't you see the difference between anti-sodomy laws punishable by prison or fines and throwing people off of ****ing rooftops? I'm not claiming that the justice system in the West has not recently treated homosexuals poorly. That's obvious. We haven't treated them with the savagery and barbarism common to muslim countries for a long, long time.




Look around. The number of incidences of muslim terrorism is directly related to the concentration of muslims in an area. Europe has more muslim terrorist acts than the US or Canada, and if you go into muslim countries themselves it's much higher still.

Yet people like you argue that the amount of terrorism will not likely increase if we increase the concentration of muslims here. How ignorant do you have to be to believe something like this?

This is so obviously true that it's confusing how someone can disagree, so I have to assume that people that do are so terrified of 'discrimination' and 'racism' that they just blind themselves to the facts.


You cannot be serious. Moratoriums on immigration, both specific and general, into the US are the norm historically, rather than the exception.

The United States was 90%+ white until the mid-1960s. It has been historically a white Judeo-Christian melting pot, not a multi-ethnic, multicultural society. The historical base population do not want multiculturalism anymore. They don't just not like it, they hate it so much that they will vote a former reality TV star into power because he's the only person in recent memory to have hit anywhere near this vein.



This argument makes no sense. If all men are pretty much equal, then diversity of ethnicity and culture should have no factor in anything.

However equality isn't true, is it? The fact of the matter is that some cultures are more apt to integrate with our own, and some are less apt. Some cultures are objectively worse than the one we have. The cultures that cut off women's clitorises, veil women, throw homosexuals from rooftops, and publicly execute apostates are not the populations we should be bringing new people here from. The cultures that have similar orders to our own, similar literacy and education levels, similar values and similar histories to our own would be better groups to bring people here from.

This is so obvious that it blows my mind anyone could disagree.


That's not all I see. I'm just pointing out how ludicrous of an argument it is that people that explicitly express their hatred for our consumerist, individually free culture would somehow be swayed to accepting it if they could only see how great it is from the inside. The facts are not with you here. The vast majority of evidence shows that extremism is facilitated by our culture, not anesthetized by it.



Ya, there is no amount of evidence or reason that could sway you from your beliefs about equality. That proves you are the ideologue.



They state they believe in them. No inferences can be made here. If you interviewed people in Nazi Germany in 1942 what do you think the prevalence of stated Jew-hatred would be? Pretty high right? But not accurate.

When juxtaposed with other evidence, that the higher the per capita concentration of muslims in a country, the more of the population states they believe in the repressive moral virtues embedded in the religion (including the UK and europe), I think we are done with this.



That view is false. Extremists are radicalized by our culture.

This just shows how ignorant you are of what Islam actually is. Islam is at once a legal, political, moral, and theological system of thought. Actual muslims don't want them separated. They do not believe in separation of church and state. They want their church to be their state. There were mechanisms in Christianity that both exposited and supported separation of church and state (render unto Caesar). There is no such differentiation in Islam, and the data bears it out.

https://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2...-of-sharia-law


Notice anything interesting?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_...n_Religion.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor..._United_States

1750: 79.8% white
1800: 81.1% white (Oh wait... we have to recalculate that because blacks are only 3/5 of a person at this point in history)
1850: 83.8% non-Hispanic white
1900: 87.3% non-Hispanic white (Here, the Chinese Exclusion Act was in play, sharply declining Chinese immigration because of "white purity" concerns)
1950: 87.5% non-Hispanic white
1960: 85.4% non-Hispanic white <----- OMG! Under 90% for the very first time!!
2000: 69.1% non-Hispanic white
2010: 63.7% non-Hispanic white

Sort of. The US first had to work its way through a whole slew of racial issues before finally accepting that Europeans of all types were white enough to be acceptably white. In the late 1800s, the immigrant wave of Italians were treated very poorly because they were a different sort of white than the white Americans that were already here. They were certainly viewed as ethnically/racially different. I think whiteness was endowed upon them after WWI, but my knowledge of that time in history is a little less strong.

Or Jews. Are they white? Sometimes. It usually depends on how convenient it is to the argument.

Of course, big chunks of that red actually only contain something like 7-20 people per square mile. And since the vote share is "non-Hispanic white" you've probably got to knock that down a peg because most population density estimates include non-whites. (You know, the non-whites that were less than 10% of the population before the 1960s?)

Also, the presumption of interpreting someone else's vote, but facts have never bothered you before so why would it bother you now? They were all CLEARLY voting for a non-melting pot.

So true. All you needed was just *ONE* example to disprove your position. And if only that *ONE* example had been provided somewhere. But nope. It never happened. Clearly everything is exactly the way you say it is.