Dating before divorce

[Arturis]

Unless the marriage is anulled (meaning that there never was a marriage to begin with), your marriage lasts until death parts you and your husband, and so do the obligations of one spouse to the other. No divorce paper will change that.

- An annulment is a piece of paper drafted by a human being. We are talking eyes of god here.

No offense. That is very Catholic of you. But at one time so was the selling of indulgences...so that gives you a sense of "human nature vs. the nature of god" I am referring to here.

The Bellman was criticizing me for holding conviction on righteousness that seemingly defied a spoken revelation. However, what you said about annulment brings up a good point.

If some of the greatest Christian theologians concede that in certain circumstances a divorce is condoned and blessed in the eyes of god then they also believe in a more rational god. (Thankfully)

 

[Arturis]

I am not saying that at all. I am saying that that is precisely what Jesus said. You think that what he said is so immoral that you "interpret" it to mean something completely the opposite to what he actually did say, and you have an image of God as a moral being, which means he couldn't have taken such an immoral position - so he must have meant something different to what he actually said. Which is exactly what christians all over the world constantly do in regard to some of the hideous morality expressed in the bible.

-Then you concede that in some circumstances divorce is justified in the eyes of god?

There is only one truth; you can't have it both ways.

Either divorce, as written in the bible, is forbidden under any circumstance even when a spouse or child are in danger...or...we can safely assume, in light of Jesus’ passion and righteousness towards deeds of lesser importance, that rationality would prevail. That it is under circumstances like the ones aforementioned that "the spirit of the law" as spoken by Jesus himself , would allow for the flexibility to include what is truly the right thing to do.

 

[The Bellman]

-Then you concede that in some circumstances divorce is justified in the eyes of god?

There is only one truth; you can't have it both ways.

Either divorce, as written in the bible, is forbidden under any circumstance even when a spouse or child are in danger...or...we can safely assume, in light of Jesus’ passion and righteousness towards deeds of lesser importance, that rationality would prevail. That it is under circumstances like the ones aforementioned that "the spirit of the law" as spoken by Jesus himself , would allow for the flexibility to include what is truly the right thing to do.

No, I don't concede that. Not for a moment, because it goes completely against what Jesus himself stated. I understand that you are appealing to God being loving, and the spirit of the law, and so forth...but in doing so, you are going directly against Jesus spoken edict. He stated - as plainly as he could possibly do - what the circumstances are that make divorce permissible. The ONLY possible circumstance is adultery. Jesus didn't mention abuse, or child/wife-beating. He stated, as plainly as he could have done, that the ONLY possible circumstance under which divorce is permissible is adultery.

I don't see how you can get around this. Either you say "Yes, that's what Jesus said, but I ignore it because I think it is immoral," or you contend that what Jesus said is not accurately recorded in the gospels, or you say "Yes, divorce is not permissible except in cases of adultery." I don't see where there's any other option.

 

[KelliP72]

Woh! Maybe I did pick the wrong place to ask this question. This is getting deep guys. I had never heard that Jesus said men could divorce and remarry and women couldn't. It doesn't seem right.

 

[The Bellman]

Woh! Maybe I did pick the wrong place to ask this question. This is getting deep guys. I had never heard that Jesus said men could divorce and remarry and women couldn't. It doesn't seem right.

No, it doesn't seem right, does it? But that's what he said, as clearly as he could.

 

[Arturis]

No, I don't concede that. Not for a moment, because it goes completely against what Jesus himself stated. I understand that you are appealing to God being loving, and the spirit of the law, and so forth...but in doing so, you are going directly against Jesus spoken edict. He stated - as plainly as he could possibly do - what the circumstances are that make divorce permissible. The ONLY possible circumstance is adultery. Jesus didn't mention abuse, or child/wife-beating. He stated, as plainly as he could have done, that the ONLY possible circumstance under which divorce is permissible is adultery.

- I've already made the argument about Jesus stating "spirit of the law above letter of the law" as allowing for individual interpretation in circumstances beyond what was recorded or which make following the letter of the word irrational in every circumstance.

I don't see how you can get around this. Either you say "Yes, that's what Jesus said, but I ignore it because I think it is immoral," or you contend that what Jesus said is not accurately recorded in the gospels, or you say "Yes, divorce is not permissible except in cases of adultery." I don't see where there's any other option.

- I've already pointed out an argument that makes your stance irrational or make God out to be irrational. For me to believe that the "letter of the law" supercedes the spirit of the law in this circumstance, even though Jesus himself condemned following the letter of the law only, then I must be shown logical and rational reason why it would be better for a woman or her offspring to remain in an abusive or dangerous marriage than to divorce.

 

[Arturis]

No, I don't concede that. Not for a moment, because it goes completely against what Jesus himself stated.

- Again, Jesus also stated that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of it. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't contradict himself. You are stating letter of the law. I am stating spirit of the law. Since Jesus himself stated that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of the law, then he himself in his own words has proven your stance on this subject to be incorrect.

In order to win this argument you need to either prove that Jesus contradicted himself (denying his godly stature) or prove where it is written in the bible or from Jesus’ words himself explaining why it would be better for a woman to remain in the pre-mentioned situation than seek divorce.

If you cannot, then this case is closed and cannot be argued further. Spirit of the law dictates there may circumstances making it permissible for a woman to divorce her husband outside the letter of which was written. Marriage is serious and should be respected as such but in situations like I mentioned, the spouse would not be upholding his covenant to her or would be breaking his covenant to her. Just like the case of adultery, breaking his covenant or “contract” would make the marriage null and void or in other words making divorce legitimate.

 

[Libby1]

Four-fold reply

1. First and foremost pray/fast about this yourself. Seek our Heavenly Father's direction and be willing to 'listen' and 'hear' His answer.

2. You are still married until divorced. I have a friend who dated a man who seemed wonderful but as soon as they were 'married' he beat her severely for 357 days until she left him. She is remarried to a man who treats her absolutely wonderfully. They are both christians as well with awesome testimonies. I do not condone dating prior to being divorced.

3. One of my sisters is remarried and she and her husband are 'both' christians with awesome testimonies. In fact he was totally and completely 'healed' from cancer 6 years ago this Good Friday Past. Note my sister loves the Lord with all her heart. The Lord has richly blessed this couple!

4. I almost left my husband a few years ago. I had NO love left for him at all. The morning I finally told the Lord I could not take anymore and that I was leaving that day after praying for so long that He'd make a way where there was no way...........HE DID! So, miracles DO happen in marriages and depending on the circumstances for the divorce/separation (physical abuse/sexual abuse/emotional abuse) God CAN and DOES do miracles in situations. My husband and I have now been married going on 21 years.

Again, it is between you and God. Seek His answer.

God Bless
Libby1

 

[Lifesaver]

No offense. That is very Catholic of you. But at one time so was the selling of indulgences...so that gives you a sense of "human nature vs. the nature of god" I am referring to here.

No, selling indulgences has never been "very Catholic". It was the corrupt way some corrupt clergy members used to apply the true (still to this day) doctrine of indulgences.

This discussion between you two is quite futile, really. You are both using your personal interpretation to debate Scripture, a practice which, as History has shown, only leads do division and confusion.
For each one of you, your own interpretation makes sense and that of the other guy doesn't. None has any authority to say that theirs prevails, so, unless one of you has made a glaring mistake, no conclusion is likely to be reached.

 

[The Bellman]

- I've already made the argument about Jesus stating "spirit of the law above letter of the law" as allowing for individual interpretation in circumstances beyond what was recorded or which make following the letter of the word irrational in every circumstance.

- I've already pointed out an argument that makes your stance irrational or make God out to be irrational. For me to believe that the "letter of the law" supercedes the spirit of the law in this circumstance, even though Jesus himself condemned following the letter of the law only, then I must be shown logical and rational reason why it would be better for a woman or her offspring to remain in an abusive or dangerous marriage than to divorce.

Again, Jesus also stated that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of it. I'm sure Jesus wouldn't contradict himself. You are stating letter of the law. I am stating spirit of the law. Since Jesus himself stated that the spirit of the law was more important than the letter of the law, then he himself in his own words has proven your stance on this subject to be incorrect.

In order to win this argument you need to either prove that Jesus contradicted himself (denying his godly stature) or prove where it is written in the bible or from Jesus’ words himself explaining why it would be better for a woman to remain in the pre-mentioned situation than seek divorce.

If you cannot, then this case is closed and cannot be argued further. Spirit of the law dictates there may circumstances making it permissible for a woman to divorce her husband outside the letter of which was written. Marriage is serious and should be respected as such but in situations like I mentioned, the spouse would not be upholding his covenant to her or would be breaking his covenant to her. Just like the case of adultery, breaking his covenant or “contract” would make the marriage null and void or in other words making divorce legitimate.

Thanks for the above, Arturis. You demonstrate my point better than I could ever do.

By the way, where is this quote from Jesus talking about the "spirit of the law"? I can't find it in my copies of the gospels.

Jesus makes a simple and plain statement - and you decide that it can be ignored, and that, in fact, God's position is the direct opposite to what Jesus said, because you find Jesus' position abhorrent. To justify this, you appeal to the "spirit of the law". This is exactly my claim. Obviously, you determine that the "spirit of the law" is to treat people well - which is what YOU find morally correct.

And I'm sorry, but citing God's rationality or irrationality is completely irrelevant. I have many times heard Christians claim that God is above such things. It is certainly not "irrational" for him to take a position that you find morally wrong.

Apart from anything else, you are backing Jesus into a contradiction. You claim he values the spirit of the law above the letter of the law, and that this means that this particular "letter" we can ignore. In that case, why did Jesus even bother saying it? You are basically saying that Jesus said "Here is my position on X...but my position is also that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, so you can ignore the position on X I just stated." That doesn't make any sense at all. By the way, do you think women in Jesus' time weren't also (sometimes) in abusive relationships? Of course they were. Yet Jesus didn't mention this as a grounds for the woman to seek divorce.

Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that God's position is, in fact, that women can NOT seek divorce, for any reason. If they do so, they commit adultery when they re-marry. How could Jesus have possibly stated this position so that you would believe it to be the case? He has stated as clearly as possible that it IS the case - yet you refuse to believe it.

Just to summarise my point - you are doing precisely what I contend that all Christians do. You claim a reason by which you can ignore Jesus' specific stated position. It doesn't matter what that reason is, it demonstrates the truth of my contention.

 

[Libby1]

Oh well, that is a question to ask God. I for one am not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm 'peaceful' and content.

Libby1

 

[Arturis]

Thanks for the above, Arturis. You demonstrate my point better than I could ever do.

By the way, where is this quote from Jesus talking about the "spirit of the law"? I can't find it in my copies of the gospels.

Jesus makes a simple and plain statement - and you decide that it can be ignored, and that, in fact, God's position is the direct opposite to what Jesus said, because you find Jesus' position abhorrent. To justify this, you appeal to the "spirit of the law". This is exactly my claim. Obviously, you determine that the "spirit of the law" is to treat people well - which is what YOU find morally correct.

And I'm sorry, but citing God's rationality or irrationality is completely irrelevant. I have many times heard Christians claim that God is above such things. It is certainly not "irrational" for him to take a position that you find morally wrong.

Apart from anything else, you are backing Jesus into a contradiction. You claim he values the spirit of the law above the letter of the law, and that this means that this particular "letter" we can ignore. In that case, why did Jesus even bother saying it? You are basically saying that Jesus said "Here is my position on X...but my position is also that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, so you can ignore the position on X I just stated." That doesn't make any sense at all. By the way, do you think women in Jesus' time weren't also (sometimes) in abusive relationships? Of course they were. Yet Jesus didn't mention this as a grounds for the woman to seek divorce.

Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that God's position is, in fact, that women can NOT seek divorce, for any reason. If they do so, they commit adultery when they re-marry. How could Jesus have possibly stated this position so that you would believe it to be the case? He has stated as clearly as possible that it IS the case - yet you refuse to believe it.

Just to summarise my point - you are doing precisely what I contend that all Christians do. You claim a reason by which you can ignore Jesus' specific stated position. It doesn't matter what that reason is, it demonstrates the truth of my contention.

Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[The Bellman]

Galatians 3
1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
21 Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Ummmm...nice post. I guess. I've no idea what point it's trying to make. If it was intended as a response to my last post, then it failed badly. I think it was supposed to answer my question regarding where Jesus valued the "spirit" above the "letter" of the law. As I say, if this is the case, it failed badly, because what you posted isn't anything that Jesus said.

 

[Arturis]

Thanks for the above, Arturis. You demonstrate my point better than I could ever do.

By the way, where is this quote from Jesus talking about the "spirit of the law"? I can't find it in my copies of the gospels.

Jesus makes a simple and plain statement - and you decide that it can be ignored, and that, in fact, God's position is the direct opposite to what Jesus said, because you find Jesus' position abhorrent. To justify this, you appeal to the "spirit of the law". This is exactly my claim. Obviously, you determine that the "spirit of the law" is to treat people well - which is what YOU find morally correct.

And I'm sorry, but citing God's rationality or irrationality is completely irrelevant. I have many times heard Christians claim that God is above such things. It is certainly not "irrational" for him to take a position that you find morally wrong.

Apart from anything else, you are backing Jesus into a contradiction. You claim he values the spirit of the law above the letter of the law, and that this means that this particular "letter" we can ignore. In that case, why did Jesus even bother saying it? You are basically saying that Jesus said "Here is my position on X...but my position is also that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law, so you can ignore the position on X I just stated." That doesn't make any sense at all. By the way, do you think women in Jesus' time weren't also (sometimes) in abusive relationships? Of course they were. Yet Jesus didn't mention this as a grounds for the woman to seek divorce.

Let's assume - for the sake of argument - that God's position is, in fact, that women can NOT seek divorce, for any reason. If they do so, they commit adultery when they re-marry. How could Jesus have possibly stated this position so that you would believe it to be the case? He has stated as clearly as possible that it IS the case - yet you refuse to believe it.

Just to summarise my point - you are doing precisely what I contend that all Christians do. You claim a reason by which you can ignore Jesus' specific stated position. It doesn't matter what that reason is, it demonstrates the truth of my contention.

- Did you know that there is a difference between "put away" and "divorce". They both mean different things. There are different greek words associated with them. Somet things are lost or confused in translation due to sepeartion of years and context. Here is a link that explains this a littel better.

http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Debate_Put_Away_vs_Divorce.html

 

[artybloke]

You might want to think of the practical issues, like how is the person you're dating going to react to the knowledge that you are technically still married. Some people won't have an issue with it, some will. I would see it as a technicality myself, but the person that I might ask for a date might see it differently.

Well, I'm currently dating a woman who is technically still married (decree nisi but not yet absolute) and I don't have a problem with it.

 

[megan76291]

Is there a moral or Biblical reason why you shouldn't date after you are seperated but before a divorce is final? No, there is no chance of reconciliation.

As far as the bible goes, it is against divorce completely so i dont think you can turn there for answers. Morally, even though there is no chance to fix things, it is wrong. A divorce can drag on for years. Do you really think it is fair to the person that you are dating to bring them into baggage like that? Plus, out of respect for that person and your soon to be ex, i really think you should condsider holding off on dating-its not fair to either party. Especially for the new person because you cant give them your undivided attention because you are still legally with someone else.

 

[The Bellman]

- Did you know that there is a difference between "put away" and "divorce". They both mean different things. There are different greek words associated with them. Somet things are lost or confused in translation due to sepeartion of years and context. Here is a link that explains this a littel better.

http://www.totalhealth.bz/spiritualneeds/Debate_Put_Away_vs_Divorce.html

No, I know that the author of that page claims that there is a difference - a claim I have never seen any other NT scholar agree with.

Keep trying to find a justification for ignoring Jesus' teachings.

 

[Arturis]

No, I know that the author of that page claims that there is a difference - a claim I have never seen any other NT scholar agree with.

Keep trying to find a justification for ignoring Jesus' teachings.

- Keep trying to find reasons to stop thinking freely for yourself.

The last post from Galatians was a testament for those to think freely. Re-read it if you don't understand it.

This one you mock me on was one example that explains that translations of ancient works in many cases can lose part of its original meaning or purpose. No translation should be taken literally. Also, there are thousands of catholic priests that perform annulments, find one and ask him why they do this for your answer on why there is a difference in translations.

Furthermore, if you believe that the English translation of the bible from its original Greek is god’s original word to be translated literally by how you currently find it; then so be it to your own folly. Personally I believe it is a guide but it is up to the individual to determine what is right between them & God. You have no right to judge.

 

[Arturis]

Ummmm...nice post. I guess. I've no idea what point it's trying to make. If it was intended as a response to my last post, then it failed badly. I think it was supposed to answer my question regarding where Jesus valued the "spirit" above the "letter" of the law. As I say, if this is the case, it failed badly, because what you posted isn't anything that Jesus said.

Oh and um...friend...if you were to read history you would know that technically, there is nothing in the new testament that Jesus said directly. Others recounting the experience wrote all of it. Jesus didn't write a single word of any book from the NT personally...it is not an autobiography. So...that letter to the Galatians speaking on behalf of Jesus is just as good as Mark recounting Jesus’ engagement with the Pharisees concerning divorce & adultery.

The NT might be divinely inspired, but it is quite obvious that Jesus was not its author.

 

[The Bellman]

- Keep trying to find reasons to stop thinking freely for yourself.

Ummm...right. Yeah.

The last post from Galatians was a testament for those to think freely. Re-read it if you don't understand it.

I read it. I understood it. What I DON'T understand is what it has to do with anything we're discussing.

This one you mock me on was one example that explains that translations of ancient works in many cases can lose part of its original meaning or purpose. No translation should be taken literally. Also, there are thousands of catholic priests that perform annulments, find one and ask him why they do this for your answer on why there is a difference in translations.

Furthermore, if you believe that the English translation of the bible from its original Greek is god’s original word to be translated literally by how you currently find it; then so be it to your own folly. Personally I believe it is a guide but it is up to the individual to determine what is right between them & God. You have no right to judge.

Oh and um...friend...if you were to read history you would know that technically, there is nothing in the new testament that Jesus said directly. Others recounting the experience wrote all of it. Jesus didn't write a single word of any book from the NT personally...it is not an autobiography. So...that letter to the Galatians speaking on behalf of Jesus is just as good as Mark recounting Jesus’ engagement with the Pharisees concerning divorce & adultery.

The NT might be divinely inspired, but it is quite obvious that Jesus was not its author.

And, again, thank you for making my point better than I possibly could. Now it appears you have a general out - we can't believe that ANYTHING the NT records as Jesus' words actually ARE Jesus' words. That's great. The all-purpose way of ignoring his teachings when you find them to be immoral and adopting your own standards, based on YOUR morals. Which is exactly what I claim ALL Christians do. All you have to do is say "Well Jesus wouldn't take such an immoral/wrong stance...so what he is recorded as saying can't be what he meant." Of course, I've no doubt that when he says something you agree with, you're only to happy to cite his words as support for your belief.