Dating vs Courtship.

Actually, Carissa, I do think that if you're going to reject someone because of something so trite as music tastes, you probably don't love them in the sense we're talking about.

Um. Yeah. Sorry. Whoops. Mis-read the post. Facedesk

You're right, Sam; you're exactly right. Similarly, just because two people have many small differences doesn't mean they're not compatible for marriage.

Yes - nobody should go against their conscience.

In regard to this entire conversation - no couple is going to be alike in all the small ways. I think that this is one of the problems of courtship. You get hung up over things that don't make that much difference in the long run.

To be sure, every one is going to have to determine for themselves what their non-negotiables are and what will make marriage to a certain person unwise. Sam and Carissa - you might choose that music preferences will be non-negotiables for you. Now, the rest of us might not quite understand what your reasons are for doing that, but you need to stand firm in what you feel God is leading you to do.

On the other hand, we all need to be open in changing our opinions when they are just going to cause unnecessary strife. Sam, I would have to disagree with you - it's not the small things that make and break a marriage. It is the small things that we allow to make and break a marriage. This is one thing I like about betrothal - it helps us focus in on the things that are really important.

Now, like I said, every one is going to have to determine for themselves what their non-negotiables are. Those things that they allow to make and break a marriage are between them and God. I just pray that I, and all of us, can choose to be wise instead of choosing to be stubborn and allowing those things that are not that important to prevent something beautiful from happening.

Agreeing in theological matters is a given. And agree with you I don't. I think you guys are missing the point of marriage. Can we try to define the purposes of that? Throw out some more if I missed any 1. Children. It is the only acceptable way to "increase your quiver". 2. The man to support and defend the woman. The woman to support and -cook for- love the man. 3. These together are supposed to be building each other up, for the _service of the Lord_. This last point I think is the most important. Tell me what you think.

Thanks for bringing this up, Sauroc! The first thing that comes to my mind is what you said - children. We are to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth.

Matthew and I laughed really hard about that second point. :P

Also, I think two are better than one. (Ecc. 4) The wife is made to be her husband's helpmeet, and the man is created to need a helpmeet.

. . .it's not the small things that make and break a marriage. It is the small things that we _allow_ to make and break a marriage.

I cannot scream "yes" loudly enough.

If you're in love with someone, you'll be willing to give up things like that.

Yes. And if you aren't willing to give up things like that, chances are that you don't love them enough to go through the rest of life with them.

Yes. And if you aren't willing to give up things like that, chances are that you don't love them enough to go through the rest of life with them.

Once again, I can't scream "YES!!!" loudly enough!

remember that donkeys can't have children

Not sure why I'm reading this topic anyway, but that would be mules. :P

remember that donkeys can't have children

Not sure why I'm reading this topic anyway, but that would be mules. :P

Oh yeah. You're right… I was thinking of mules; but for some reason the word donkey came out…

I just thought of something.

One of the purposes of marriage is to reflect Christ's relationship to the Church.

In one sense, God chose the Church; in another sense, the Church chose God. There was no authority to give them to each other or to command them to choose each other.

So betrothal reflects very poorly on Christ's relationship to the Church.

I just thought of something. One of the purposes of marriage is to reflect Christ's relationship to the Church. In one sense, God *chose* the Church; in another sense, the Church *chose* God. There was no authority to give them to each other or to command them to choose each other. So betrothal reflects very poorly on Christ's relationship to the Church.

Nathan, in the Bible people were always betrothed, that was the way they did it back then. Why? Was it pointless?

“For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.” - 2 Corinthians 11:2

I don't think that the Church chose God, I think that the individual believers chose to believe…not sure if that makes any difference in what you are trying to say or not.

And I would have to disagree that there was no authority to give Christ and the Church to each other; I think that was the Father. I think Christ and the Church were predestined to each other. Does that make sense?

I'm not saying it's wrong, or even that it's a bad idea. I'm just pointing that one thing out.

No, it was not pointless. That was the way they did it back then–both the righteous and the wicked. Times have changed. Just because something was common in the Bible doesn't mean it's the only good way to do things or that other things can't be better.

Using that verse is the logical fallacy of equivocation. We have used the word "betrothal" to mean the method in question. They didn't necessarily call that method by the word "betrothal" back then. They called the commitment betrothal, but they did not call the whole method betrothal. So the word "betrothal" could and sometimes is used to mean "engagement."

@Sarah: that makes sense to me! Thanks for bringing that verse up!

When I said the Church chose God, I meant that all the people who make up the Church chose God (in one sense). Sorry for the confusion.

As for authority, yes; the Church and Christ were predestined to each other–just like a man and woman are predestined to each other. God has that authority. Parents have some authority, too; but the method of betrothal kind of lets parents take over.

A couple in our church just got married, and the woman is four years older than the man. If they had gone by betrothal, it is likely that the woman would have been married before the man was ready for marriage. Betrothal does not leave the door open for other plans God might have.

But just like with music, just because the wicked uses it too doesn't mean that it's not a good idea. I know you said that betrothal is not a bad idea, but it seems like you're not quite saying that it is a good idea either.

I don't quite get your point here - that verse Sarah quoted was saying that the Church is betrothed to Christ, and the commitment involved in saying that seems to be pointing to the method of betrothal we have been discussing. The "consummation" of Christ and the Church will be "when we all get to heaven", right? But they are not just engaged now, they are pretty much married - betrothed.

Well, is letting parents take over a bad thing? Maybe that's the way it was supposed to be. That's the way it happened with Christ and the Church. Maybe God has given that authority to parents…for a reason.

I'm not sure what to say to that, but I will say that I don't think it is necessary for a woman to get married right when she hits marriageable age. It differs. And if God wanted them to marry each other, then it would be likely that either the woman would have waited, or the man would have been ready, right?

Your first paragraph is my point exactly, except the other way. What you said is true–and just because the righteous use it doesn't mean it is a good idea. I'm not saying betrothal is a bad idea, but, courtship is just as wise. Both methods have different pros and cons.

Yes; we are married to Christ. Back in Bible times, a man and a woman would get married; and then, before the consummation, the man would prepare the home for his wife; then they would have a celebration and the couple would go home and live together. Does your idea of betrothal entail this? Also, when the man and woman got married, it does not mean the parents picked the person. There are no examples in Scripture of that.

Well, is letting parents take over a bad thing? Maybe that's the way it was supposed to be. That's the way it happened with Christ and the Church. Maybe God has given that authority to parents...for a reason.

I'm saying parents are taking over too much. If the child doesn't even have a say in who they spend the rest of their life with, that's kind of foolish. You do still agree that the child should have the final say, right Courtney?

God is a perfect authority, and He can cause us to have true love for anyone. Parents don't have that power.

I'm not sure what to say to that, but I will say that I don't think it is necessary for a woman to get married right when she hits marriageable age. It differs. And if God wanted them to marry each other, then it would be likely that either the woman would have waited, or the man would have been ready, right?

Don't most women who want to get married hope to marry young? If she told her dad to pick someone for her at, say, 19, the young man would have only been 15–and not qualified. And I thought on thing about betrothal is that young marriage is important?

Here's the big thing:

In Bible times, betrothal didn't mean that the child had no say in who they spent the rest of their life with!

"Up to this minute,
I misunderstood
That I could get stuck for good.
. . .
See that he's gentle
Remember,
You were also a bride.
It's not that
I'm sentimental
It's just that I'm terrified!
. . .
Matchmaker, Matchmaker,
Plan me no plans
I'm in no rush
Maybe I've learned
Playing with matches
A girl can get burned"
~"Fiddler on the Roof"

@Sarah~ You don't do betrothal, do you?

Sorry to distract, but that is a great song! :)

Sorry to distract, but that is a great song! :)

The song has a great lesson. The movie is… meh.

Sorry to distract, but that is a great song! :)

The song has a great lesson. The movie is... meh.

the movie is very communist!

@Sarah~ You don't do betrothal, do you?

Nope… but I might depending on what God has for me in the future. I'm open to whatever God's will is.

I would like to clarify something - you said that courtship is just as wise as betrothal. Could you summarize the ways in which you feel they are different?

I don't think that the formalities of building a home after betrothal and before consummation and then a celebration afterwards are necessary. For one thing, I think it would be wise to have a home or at least the means of providing one before betrothal, and you don't have to build one. Also, I don't see why the nowadays traditions of a wedding are bad. I think the process is the most important.

Is there not any examples in Scripture of where the parents picked the person? What about Isaac and Rebekah? I know, that wasn't technically their parents, but Abraham was unable to go to his homeland to pick a wife for Isaac, and he trusted his servant with that responsibility. He also gave him very strict instructions. In any case, Isaac didn't pick her.

What about Jacob? His father didn't pick the exact person, but he gave him a very limited choice.

You're right, we don't have any exact examples, but things very close to it. And others who were betrothed (e.g. Mary and Joseph) - we don't know who picked them for each other. We just don't know.

Yes, I agree that children should have the final say, but, maybe that just means that they have the responsibility to hand over the final say to their parents, in other words, maybe it would be best for them to delegate that right, if you get my meaning.

I don't think that parents have the power to cause us to have true love for anyone. But if God gave the authority to choose the spouse for their children, don't you think that He would also give the children the ability to choose to love each other?

Young marriage is important. And I'm not going to say that that marriage shouldn't be happening. God had a plan for them. I'm just saying, I don't think courtship is appropriate in most cases. And I'm sure you'll agree with me that if God wants a certain marriage to come into being, He will overcome the obstacles embodied in the standards of betrothal to make it happen. Right? There is always the exception.

Why do you say that in the way we're discussing, the child has no say in who he spends the rest of his life with? (That part seems to really get under your skin. :P) I think he does have a say - the say that his parents are wise enough to pick a suitable person for him. Of course, if you don't feel God leading you to this, if you don't think you could trust your parents enough, then you don't have to do it that way. It's your life, and your opinion. Just don't reject the idea because it goes against everything you've ever thought of as right.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." -Isaiah 55:8

I'm just telling you what my pastor told me about how they did it back then. I'm not saying it's wrong, but I agree it's not necessary. That is the Biblical definition of "betrothal," and it reflects Christ's relationship to the Church very well–the method of starting the relationship is unclear. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD." -Isaiah 55:8 The people over at TLDW are putting words in God's mouth.

Isaac and Rebekah was a one-time thing. And just because that's how they did it doesn't mean it's the best option.

God only gave parents the authority to choose a spouse for the child if the child wants to marry that person. If the child does not want to marry that person, it would be cruelty; and Ephesians 6:4 tells us specifically that parents do not have the authority to be cruel–so if a cruel command is given, there is no authority behind it and therefore no obligation. But the child does not necessarily have to "be in love" in order to want to marry the person–that's optional.

As long as we agree on two things, I don't have a problem with any of this.
(1) The child is allowed to say "no" if he/she wants to.
(2) The child is allowed to be in love and ask the parent to seek out a specific person
As long as those things are in place, I'm not offended in any way whatsoever!

As far as the differences between courtship and betrothal:
~Courtship is when you get to know the person you're interested in so you can discern the will of God better, and you wait until God draws you to someone.
~Betrothal is when the child tells the parents he/she wants a spouse, so the parents give their child some ideas, and if both children and both sets of parents approve, they marry.

Saying that courtship is not usually appropriate is… tries to think of a way to be both polite and honest You don't have to think it's the wisest way, but please, for goodness's sake, don't call it inappropriate. There are no grounds for that in Scripture (or in common sense), and courtship usually works out great anyway. We're talking about the majority of conservative Christians. And for the record, I'm not making outrageous generalizations about appropriate means of betrothal.

As for your last paragraph: I just want to make sure this isn't force. Because if the child does not have the final say in the specific person, it is, in some sense, force–call it what you will. But if the child agreed to be forced, then it's okay… but what if the child was forced to agree to be forced? This is complicated. :-) I'm not necessarily offended; I just want to make sure that I'm not offended.

Sorry for my slow reply. :)

I'm not sure I agree with you, that that is the Biblical definition of betrothal. Where does the Bible define betrothal as such? I think that it is much more about the process. So, how would you say the relationship of Christ and the Church was "started", since you are using that example?

What do you mean "a one time thing"?

Parents often make their children do things that they don't want to do at first. My mom made me do the Bible Bee at first - I wanted to quit. Now I'm so glad! :D I think it can be the same thing with betrothal. And if the child has agreed beforehand, it isn't cruelty. Right? And I know you're going to say that marriage is so much more important, you really can't compare it to that. But I think that you can.

(1) Only if he/she has not agreed beforehand to marry whoever the parent wants them to. Then you can't put ground on their responsibility. You don't have to agree beforehand. I'm thinking it might be the wisest way, but you don't have to agree with me.
(2) As far as I've learned, that would be perfectly fine.

Okay, I'm sorry, that was rude. Please forgive me. Let me rephrase that - I don't think that courtship would ever be appropriate for me. It would take a strange situation. I have no idea what God is speaking to you or anyone else, so I won't call it inappropriate for them anymore. I'm sorry.

Yes, it is complicated. :) I'm saying that, if the child agrees beforehand, it's not force. It doesn't matter (in most cases) why or how they agreed, it just matters that they agreed. And remember my example of how parents force their children to do things? I wouldn't call this force, but even if the child would have chosen a different route doesn't mean it is the best things for them to do. Right? God has given parents wisdom beyond that which he has given children. I think this is one reason why parents picking the spouses would be wise.

The Bible does not say specifically what betrothal is, but scholars have done studies on the history of those times. And your question is my whole point: where does the Bible define betrothal as such? It doesn't define your way either. So we can't say either is always wiser.

When I said a "one time thing," I meant that it is one example out of hundreds of marriages in the Bible. Also, with Jacob and Rachel, Jacob's dad told him where to get his wife, not who to marry. For all Isaac knew, Laben may have had grandchildren–there may have been many women to choose from. It just turned out that there were only two. And Jacob chose the one he wanted and worked for her. Much like courtship! Now, Laben was a miserable father and cheated both Jacob and his daughters; but that's irrelevant to the example Christian fathers wouldn't do that.

Marriage is way, WAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYY different than a parent, for example, giving their child chores. If you don't see that, you have a wrong perspective of marriage. Telling a child to clean their room when they don't want to is not going to break their heart for the rest of their life.
"And though I'm not a great romancer,
I know I'm bound to answer
When you propose:
'Anything goes.'"
~Cole Porter

Ephesians 6:4 says that parents don't have the authority to be cruel. God is the Authority, and no one has any authority except the authority God gives them. God didn't give parents the authority to give cruel commands. Therefore, if a parent gives a cruel command, there is no authority behind it. If there is no authority behind a command, there is no obligation to obey it. This is how God has provided a way for children to escape injustice. So if parents forbid their child to do any method other than betrothal, then of course they'd have to agree to marry whoever their parents picked–forced agreement, and therefore forced marriage. And if the child is Biblically obligated to submit to such commands, then I'd be required to cut my hand off if my parents told me to.

But in light of all that, I think your opinions of how betrothal should be done are correct. The people at TLDW forget that their children do actually have emotions. Oh, they'll say they care about getting good matches for their kids; but if they really cared, they'd let the child have more of a say about such a matter.

I'm glad we agree on (2).
About (1), if you don't have to agree beforehand, then how do you get married? Are you allowed to tell your parents that you'll consider their suggestions, but not to agree to automatically marry the person? If so, this is actually pretty great!

I forgive what you said. The response you just gave is my favorite response to get from people when I defend something in a debate–that they don't want to do it, but that it's perfectly fine for others to do it. That way I know I'm not pushing you into something you don't agree with. :-) If you don't wanna court, I won't try to convince you that you should!

". . .even if the child would have chosen a different route doesn't mean it is the best things for them to do." That's what parents are for–to tell their child if their routes are wise or not. Not to tell them that their routes are wrong before even considering them. God has given parents wisdom beyond that which he has given children, but the child knows the child better than the parents. The parents can probably make good, educated assumptions about who the child might want to spend their life with–but they might be wrong, which is why I think the child should not agree beforehand–just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken (which is one objection some people have to courtship!). And with courtship, your statement about parents being wiser than children still applies.

I don't think it defines betrothal as such, that's just the name we have for the process we've gathered from bits and pieces throughout the Bible.

I disagree with you that that was much like courtship. Courtship is where you get to know the person with the intention of marrying them (with the exception of course, you find they are not suitable for you). Then it's true that Jacob may have been getting to know Rachel during that time period, but he was working for his uncle. We don't have proof to say that it was like courtship.

You keep saying stuff about a broken heart - "break their heart for the rest of their life", "just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken". I'm not sure I believe in being heartbroken. Hearts breaking is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales. It just doesn't happen (tell me if I'm wrong).

I know marriage is way different than a parent telling their child to do chores. I'm likening the authority aspect of it to betrothal, not marriage.

I disagree with you there. Ephesians 6:4 says "do not provoke your children to wrath". This isn't saying cruel, because what kind of a Christian father would be cruel? And who's saying it would be a cruel command? Do you really believe your parents would command you to marry someone you really, really, REALLY didn't want to marry? Or cut off your hand? That doesn't really seem to be a proper example, since I know your parents and my parents wouldn't do anything like that. You seem to be saying that you wouldn't be willing to trust your parents to make that important of a decision for you, and that's fine. I think that if anyone, they would be the ones to put that trust in.

The child does have more of a say, I think. The child agrees beforehand. Now, what's the problem?

I said you don't have to agree beforehand. I'm still thinking that it would probably be wisest, but you don't have to agree with me. I can trust my parents. Maybe you can't?

Who says that parents were telling them their routes were wrong before even considering them? And how do you apply that to betrothal? And I think that a lot of times, the parents know the child better than the child knows himself. And I don't think there is any such thing as being heartbroken. The parents won't choose somebody horrible, and you can talk to the parents and maybe help them see something different about that person than maybe they would have seen. I'm sure they'll be very considerate of you in this case. And we can choose to love anyone, Nathan. You'll probably disagree with me, but I believe it is true.

You keep saying stuff about a broken heart - "break their heart for the rest of their life", "just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken". I'm not sure I believe in being heartbroken. Hearts breaking is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales. It just doesn't happen (tell me if I'm wrong).

Uh, you're wrong. Trust me.

I'm saying the Jacob/Rachel thing was LIKE courtship, not that it was. The main way in which it was NOT like courtship is that there was no time to "get to know each other," which we already agreed is not the best idea unless there is a commitment not to get hung up over small stuff.

Heartbreak happens. I can tell you that with a 100% certainty. I also have several friends (teen and adult) who have been heartbroken (and yes, it is the same thing in these cases). It's a serious thing.

"Do you really believe your parents would command you to marry someone you really, really, REALLY didn't want to marry?" I know your parents wouldn't do that. But if the child agrees beforehand, do they have a choice? I guess they're probably allowed to say they'll marry whoever the parent picks unless it is {insert person's name here}. In that case, the problem is solved. Also, provoking your children to anger is cruelty, and vice-versa. (By the way, my parents want courtship for us; so you don't need to make any references to them.)

I don't think it's a matter of trust. Of course the parents aren't going to pick someone unless they think the child won't want–but they can't always know. It's not that there's a problem with the parents; it just that they don't know. And no one knows one better than that person knows him/herself (except God). It's impossible.

I believe that choosing to love someone is a possible thing, but not that it is always possible. It depends on the person, the circumstances, and other things. For example, if the child was in love and the father tried to seek out that person, but it didn't work out, at least I know I couldn't choose to love someone else right away. So love can be a choice, but the parents can't assume that their child will be able to choose to love someone. And there's no way you can prove otherwise.

Now, I have a new question: what if the child was forced to agree beforehand?

You keep saying stuff about a broken heart - "break their heart for the rest of their life", "just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken". I'm not sure I believe in being heartbroken. Hearts breaking is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales. It just doesn't happen (tell me if I'm wrong).

Uh, you're *so, frikkin'* wrong. Trust me.

raises ^(bushy)^ eyebrows And I wondered if what I said might have been rude…

JK :P

*raises ^(bushy)^ eyebrows* And I wondered if what I said might have been rude... JK :P

No, Matthew, what you said was fine… we can talk about what Sam said another time…

You keep saying stuff about a broken heart - "break their heart for the rest of their life", "just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken". I'm not sure I believe in being heartbroken. Hearts breaking is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales. It just doesn't happen (tell me if I'm wrong).

Uh, you're *so, frikkin'* wrong. Trust me.

Thanks for informing me.

You keep saying stuff about a broken heart - "break their heart for the rest of their life", "just to avoid the risk of being heartbroken". I'm not sure I believe in being heartbroken. Hearts breaking is the stuff of fantasy and fairy tales. It just doesn't happen (tell me if I'm wrong).

Uh, you're wrong. Trust me.

Okay Matthew, you're probably right. I'm not sure I agree completely with you and Nathan, though. Let me just say that I think heartbreak can happen, but I don't think it's permanent.

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. :)

Alright, I think I agree with you partially, though I wouldn't call it heartbreak. I'm not sure what I would call it though…

Why do they need to have a choice if their parents will choose someone good for them? And I think that if the parents pick someone and the child, for example, knows something about that person, or has heard something questionable, that the parents do not know, and have not heard; then it is the child's responsibility to inform the parents about the questionable traits in that person (respectfully of course), and trust that they certainly will respect their child, since it is their child's life. All (well, all real) parents love their children and want what is best for them. It would take a messed up dad to insist his child marry someone that they had a repulsion to.

For this reason, I think it would be wise for the father to NOT make an agreement toward betrothal until he had discerned the child's true feelings about that person.

You're right. They can't always know. But God can, and I think that in this case God will probably give parents extra-special discernment. There will always be the exception, betrothal will fall apart for some people, but that doesn't mean the method is bad, just like you've been saying for courtship.

That's why the parents should try to discern their children's feelings and how they are in their emotions in that stage of life before getting them married.

Like how would they be forced? Well, if they were forced to agree beforehand and the father commanded them to marry someone they didn't want to, I'd say there would be a fair chance they would rebel, since they hadn't agreed of their own free will. And also, I don't know about you, but my parents and many others wouldn't force their child to agree beforehand.

Does it have to be permanent in order to have lasting effects?
(Let's not quibble over definitions here…)

I agree that heartbreak is not permanent. But it can last for years. And it can be very real. If you've never experienced this, don't say anything different.

It would take a messed up dad to insist his child marry someone that they had a repulsion to.

Aaaaaamen.

I am very much relieved at a lot of what you just said!

Well, if they were forced to agree beforehand and the father commanded them to marry someone they didn't want to, I'd say there would be a fair chance they would rebel, since they hadn't agreed of their own free will.

Now, do you think that would be right?

Does it have to be permanent in order to have lasting effects? (Let's not quibble over definitions here...)

Exactly. If a loved one dies, you might stop crying yourself to sleep every night, but there will always be a sore spot. In love situations, it can be different. But it is still heartbreak.
I know people who have experienced this.

Does it have to be permanent in order to have lasting effects? (Let's not quibble over definitions here...)

Exactly. If a loved one dies, you might stop crying yourself to sleep every night, but there will always be a sore spot. In love situations, it can be different. But it is still heartbreak. _I know people who have experienced this._

Okay, now I agree with you. Not heartbreak, just you'll get a heartsore that may not ever quite heal.

@Matthew, very true.

I agree that heartbreak is not permanent. But it can last for *years*. And it can be very real. If you've never experienced this, don't say anything different.

It would take a messed up dad to insist his child marry someone that they had a repulsion to.

Aaaaaamen. I am very much relieved at a lot of what you just said!

Well, if they were forced to agree beforehand and the father commanded them to marry someone they didn't want to, I'd say there would be a fair chance they would rebel, since they hadn't agreed of their own free will.

Now, do you think that would be right?

I don't say it would be right. I just say that the parents forcing their child to agree beforehand is not right.

Not _heartbreak_, just you'll get a heartsore that may not ever quite heal.

It would absolutely be heartbreak. However, if one was forced to marry someone, but that someone was a good person (humanly speaking), it would actually be more likely to heal at some point.

I would say that it IS right. Ephesians 6:4 clearly says that God did not give parents the authority to be cruel, and if God didn't give someone the authority to give a command, it doesn't have to be obeyed.

Okay, okay. I just don't like that word. And if you have good parents, they won't force you to marry a bad person (humanly speaking), so it will actually be more likely to heal at some point.

But we are also supposed to honor our parents regardless, with the exception of if they command us to do something wrong. This is why I don't say it would be right.

What did I tell you - I don't want to quibble over defintions!