No, what you think and believe is not relevant because it's not based on anything but opinion. There is nothing in the Constitution the defines "natural born citizen" in that fashion. There is nothing in U.S. Code that defines "natural born citizen" in that fashion. The only USSC case that touched on the issue (regarding Chester A. Arthur, if I recall correctly) equates "natural born citizen" with "citizen at birth".
You're perfectly free to think and believe whatever you like, but that doesn't change what the law does (or doesn't) say.
Are you saying/contending that the Constitution does not give two different call outs as to ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’. Also, it is somewhat off track of a good debate to have one person telling another that something is not personally relevant to that other person. Reminds me of thought police.