I know many liberals who had to take back their "never vote for Hillary" stance solely because the threat of Trump's claims of how he is going to gut the constitution is a greater threat. — swstephe

I thought liberals were all about "screw the constitution" :P

I should add there is another group which doesn't like this understanding of knowledge: advocates of the transcendent. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not necessarily. Your practical views are very close to some forms of meditative Buddhism from my understanding. You're all about being centered in your body, being right here in the present moment, fully aware of what is actually going on around you right here and right now, and not being trapped in dwelling on the future or the past, or otherwise being seduced by thinking or trapped by images. You think that if someone is like this - then they will not even inquire about God or the transcendent, they'd feel no need. An approach that owes a lot to mindfulness and pragmatism. Your approach isn't that uncommon to quite a few of the religious folks by the way - although it is true that it is an approach that is atypical of the typical Christian religious believer in the US for example. And it really depends on what you're doing at the moment whether this type of approach is useful. If I'm running a marathon - or otherwise participating in a sports competition, such an approach is likely to be very beneficial - it will indeed give me peak performance in that circumstance - a peak performance that I cannot achieve by being worried about what my opponent is doing, how fast they're running, whether they're ahead or not, etc. . But if I'm say an investor, trying to decide what I shall do with my money - that approach isn't very useful. I can be in the moment all I want - but that's not what would be productive in that case. I need to be analytic at that moment - not produce a synthesis, but rather analyse, and think about the situation - more like completing a puzzle.

But even if he was, you'd still have supported him, so long as it meant social conservatism won the day. Right? — Sapientia

Excuse me? This is about Cicero - he is long dead. What do you mean would I still have supported him? You can't really support dead people. And what does it have to do with social conservatism winning the day? :s

John Stewart Mill. Not only a super awesome guy, but also far far superior economist, philosopher, and utilizer of Hegelian logic than Marx. — Wosret

John "Asinus" Mill. The godfather of the Progressives... oh my days!

It is actually an interesting issue. Which position on the fox-hunting issue should be considered the conservative one, given the positions that are considered conservative on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

In this respect, both Marx and Hegel (and countless other philosophers) make the same mistake. They say their logic amounts to prediction of the future. Hegel says our ideas will/must evolve in someway. Marx says given particular conditions (both "material" and ideas), our society will/must evolve. Neither claim is true. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh wow, what a great event, I will certainly record it in my calendar - I agree!

For all we know, we might use the same ideas for centuries, maybe even millennia. Or we might jump straight to synthesis. Or the material contains of the world might be such that synthesis is forgotten. Or a set of thesis, antithesis, synthesis might be forgotten entirely. Hegel overlooks the material nature of our ideas. Logic might be enough to define truth, but it doesn't mean someone is thinking it. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I also agree here - there is no "evolution" of consciousness - no straight line going upwards. It's pretty much random change - both up and down.

I've stood in the foyer of Trump Tower Chicago. It is an amazing building, (right near the Magic Mile, which is also amazing). I can't say that it's not a great building, but it's both perplexing and saddening that someone like Trump can be behind it. — Wayfarer

Why is it perplexing? When you're rich and powerful you have to be a bully to keep going - it's the most effective way to move forward, since others need you, and your need of any particular individual is much smaller. The fact that you're a bully merely exacerbates their need for you, which makes them work harder to please you. But if you're a nobody and you're a bully - people isolate you. They don't need you that much - they can do without you. But if you're rich, you are a big opportunity for them. Most people just want jobs which are high-paying and where they don't have to work that much. But to get those jobs, they must first get a reputation. If they claim they worked for you and were very succesful - a lot of doors will open up for them. That's why many folks become mean and arrogant once they become rich. It's a way to control your workers - fear. Plus you see all the common folk abusing you as well - you see your key employees leaving to join a bigger company. You see people being leeches. So you get sick and tired of this - you crack the whip on them - you treat them as expendables as well, because you know that if you don't, sooner or later they themselves will betray you and screw you up.

a master politician — Ciceronianus the White

I don't think he was as skilled a politician as Caesar. Caesar was definitely another level when it came to getting things done in politics (even when comparing him with Pompey or especially the rich Crassus). Quite certainly one of the most brilliant of men at that. He obviously had the advantage of having no principles though. Because of his principles Cicero was ultimately outmaneuvered, by those who were more ruthless.

Cato the Younger professed to be a Stoic, but I doubt someone so angry and condemning of others and so ostentatious in his conduct and pretensions to virtue could properly be called a Stoic. — Ciceronianus the White

Probably you're right.

If someone gives you 1 billion today, you'll find that it's not so easy to keep it, especially if you're playing it as he has been. It's very difficult not to lose it if you don't know what you're doing. It's true that it takes a different sort of skill set to make more money or maintain it once you're already rich than it does to become rich starting from nothing. Fact of the matter is that Trump didn't lose any of his wealth, while he was actively involved in playing it. That in itself is no easy feat.

Also, as I mentioned before - people before they become rich are different from people after they become rich - two different sorts of skill sets are needed. When you're a nobody you can't afford to bully everyone - you need others. When you're a big name, others need you.

Strictly speaking, knowledge does not need to evolve. We might jump straight to synthesis in our ideas. In such cases though, we cannot "derive" meaning from what's gone before. Since we've jumped to knowledge of all sides in such cases, there is no act of thinking through to discover something based on what we already know. Amongst philosophers, this tends to be treated with distain because in that context there are no logical arguments to give that result in "discovery." — TheWillowOfDarkness

Ah I feel Spinoza's intuitive knowledge (the third kind) being close to you ;)

But I think there has been a strong tendency in mainstream religion to loose sight of that. It's called 'mistaking the finger for the moon' - another Buddhist parable. Actually it is what I learned from Buddhism, that has enabled me to re-evaluate the meaning of my own Christian heritage. — Wayfarer

You wouldn't be alone -

https://www.amazon.com/Without-Buddha-Could-Not-Christian/dp/185168963X

That's true. But you're speaking about what has been historically prior, and I am speaking about what is now spiritually prior. Thanks to the advent of Christ, we do not need to pass through the stage of preoccupation with Law now and may proceed directly to Love. — John

I don't think so - I think we still need the preoccupation with the Law to be able to understand Christ. The movement has happened in human history - but not necessarily in our own personal history, which is what matters.

The very difference between Hegel and Marx is that Hegel understood the material exigencies of history to be a reflection of the history of spirit (or consciousness as reflected in the history of ideas), whereas Marx saw the history of ideas to be a reflection of the history of the material exigencies (economics as the dialectic of materialism). — John

Well this is what I've been saying - that was Marx's mistake. He didn't understand that Hegel's was the history of ideas - not the history of material conditions. This is precisely the point I was making.

I don't think Trump is competent at anything. It's just that he has sorrounded himself with people that are easily gamed. He knows how to game them, but he's obviously incompetent emotionally, as well as in numerous other ways. — Wayfarer

Do you know what kind of people's skills someone working in construction needs? Construction projects are so complicated, you have to deal with varying people (from architects, to managers, to bankers, to suppliers, to engineers, to workers, to government officials etc. etc.), all with different kinds of personalities - some who you need to be a bully with, others you need to be servile with, and so forth. If you think Trump is emotionally incompetent, then probably all you've seen of him is his public appearance. He's clearly very smart emotionally - this doesn't mean he's a nice person - he's not. But he does understand how people feel and how to use that. He knows when to be a nice guy - for example when he speaks with people he needs and people on whom he depends. And he knows when to be a bully - in public, and when he deals with those he has control over.

If he really was incompetent he would have lost all his wealth. Forget performing well - to be involved in the construction industry and survive - that alone is a big achievement.

Also, thoug, animals do not have codified laws that needs to be given by a lawgiver; they don't have an animal Moses. — John

Animals may not have codified laws - in written format - but they do seem to follow a moral code in the way they organise themselves.

Love and law are one for animals, in their state of innocence. — John

I'm not sure.

Love must come first (spiritually speaking). — John

This is impossible. You cannot reach that which is higher without first passing through that which is lower.

For Hegel, history is the evolution of spirit; all the shapes and details of history reflect the overarching moments of spirit. — John

Intellectual history - the history of ideas. Not material history - the history of what castle followed upon the destruction of the former.

There's an insightful comment today from David Brooks saying that Trump has no friends, because he has a narcissistic personality disorder which prevents any kind of real relationships with people: 'alexithymia': — Wayfarer

Oh give me a break lol. Trump is very adequate at being emotionally aware. He does those things on purpose. Someone with no emotional awareness isn't a good manipulator as Trump is. He wouldn't be a good deal maker.

This awareness of the teaching as being a vehicle or a 'skillful means' but not an end in itself is one of the cardinal distinctions of Buddhism; I don't think there's an analogy for it in the Biblical religions. — Wayfarer

There is an exact parallel - Love is the end (or goal) of the law. Thus the law is a skilful means of achieving love.

Nonsense, for Hegel material history just is the evolution of consciousness. — John

No this is false. The evolution of consciousness can be seen in history - but it has no necessary connection with the material evolution of man - the way his material conditions evolve.

Sure, but that is a truism.You could say it is impossible to achieve society without law; and love is meaningful only within society. But even then, I am not too sure about that. Do not animals love? You might say that animal love is bound up the the law of instinct; but there are cases like that of a lioness adopting a baby antelope. If creation is an expression of God's love then love comes before all else. — John

And don't animals also love in society? Maybe their own societies, or if you have a dog, in the society of your family, and so forth.

You're degrading the point. Hegel was making a point about consciousness and its evolution - not about material history. For example, democracy which is very common today, was common in Ancient Greece as well. So if we were now living in Ancient Greece back in the day, would you say that democracy is a higher stage, and will from now on continue without any returns to monarchy? That would be foolish - or in Nazi Germany would you say that fascist dictatorship is an advanced stage of history because it came after passing through both monarchy and democracy, and is in this sense a kind of aufheben of both? This was Marx's mistake - to confuse the evolution of consciousness for material evolution. This is about the evolution of consciousness - the evolution of the way through which we perceive and think of things. I of course disagree with Hegel that there is any such trajectory in the change of consciousness - I disagree there is an evolution. Someone could reach up to the highest truths 2000 years ago, just as much as today. In other words, evolution isn't linear - there is no necessary trend upwards towards higher consciousness.

Yes and in the Western tradition the revelation of Law (the Torah) comes before the revelation of love (the Gospel). This is certainly the situation vis a vis historical priority; I haven't denied that. The law in principle is conducive to love; but if the law is practiced without love then it is not, in practice, conducive to love. Love is spiritually prior to law. — John

I would say that the law is conducive but not sufficient for love. If you remain stuck with the law - if you become a legalist - and assume that the law is all there is, that the law is the end - the goal - then you are failing to reach up to the higher perspective. But I insist that it is impossible to achieve love without the law.

The fact that something remains from what has been overturned is really merely common sense; everyone knows that in history more or less remnants of what went before always remain in what comes after. — John

Not "something" remains - all of it does. Imagine two circles which don't meet. Now you draw a bigger circle around them. Now there is a connection between them - they do form part of the same thing (the bigger circle), even though at first they appeared to be completely separate and unconnected. Aufheben is the resolution of the contradiction by rising to the perspective from which the contradiction vanishes. Being and non-being are apparently contradictory. Both cannot be true it seems. Either something is, or it isn't. But there's a higher perspective - that of becoming, in which this paradox and contradiction is resolved - something both is and isn't - at one and the same time.

Marx' inversion of Hegel resulted in a thorough materialism, however - there is no room in Marx for geist, as such (although that is surely tangential to this thread.) — Wayfarer

For Marx - geist is part of matter - that's his aufheben, which isn't an overturning, but a subsuming. Geist - spirit - is subsumed merely as part of matter, which is final.

In the past, you wrote you thought Cicero to be a conservative, if I recall correctly. But Cicero is what Romans considered a "new man"; literally an outsider, born outside of Rome in Arpinum. He wasn't of the Roman elite. He came to be consul largely through his wits and was at times in conflict with "traditional Romans." Caesar was of the elite, however, being of the ancient noble family of the Julii, but was seeing hard times (Sulla was also of an ancient Roman family but impoverished as well when he set out on his career). Cicero, politically, was above all a pragmatist. He feared Caesar's desire to rule Rome as Dictator for life or some equivalent, and backed the optimates in their opposition, which led to civil war. He was a champion of the Republic. But he tried to avoid civil war through compromise, and probably would have preserved the Republic--for a time at least--if only such as Cato the Younger, Cato the Elder's grandson, had not blocked efforts to do so in the Senate. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure, but Cicero was a firm defender of Rome's traditions, including of its form of government. He was also firmly grounded (even though many think of him as a Skeptic) in Stoicism for all practical purposes, and always remained guided by Stoic principles, where virtue remained of prime importance. Cicero may have been pragmatic in his politics, but he was guided by perennial principles. This fact makes him similar to what is understood by a conservative. He sought to conserve what ought to have been conserved - however he did fail in the end. He didn't manage to salvage the Republic - which he may have been able to do had he been more unprincipled. Obviously Cicero wasn't a conservative in the sense of thinking that everything about Rome was perfect and had to be kept the same for eternity - or that all the Roman traditions were good. In fact, probably no one was such a "conservative". But clearly Cicero wasn't a revolutionary - he didn't want to overthrow the Republic, and replace currently existing values by an entirely different standard. He wanted to maintain and improve what already existed. He valued, by and large, traditions. There have been some accusations of him having sex with his daughter I was reading - but it seems this is all coming from his political enemies, so not very believable. The Stoics were quite principled with regards to sexual morality - Musonius Rufus is especially close to being a social conservative in such terms.

As you no doubt know, no one--priest, pastor, minister, rabbi, boat captain, airline pilot, or Chief Justice--is required to marry anybody. When a denomination, such as the Lutheran Church decides that it will allow gay marriages to be performed by clergy, that doesn't mean that any Lutheran pastor is required to perform a gay marriage.

The reverse, though, is not true. If the General Conference of the Methodist Church decides it will not allow gay marriages, then Methodist pastors may not perform the ceremony, whatever their personal wishes are.

Whether civil officials (like, justices of the peace, county clerks, etc.) can refuse to marry a couple with a license, I don't know. — Bitter Crank

Just one of many such cases -

http://newsexaminer.net/crime/christian-sentenced-to-prison-for-refusing-to-marry-gay-couple/

I don't think you have read that passage thoroughly The point is that a revolution that lacks the right means, that is lacks the right spirit will never succeed. "The relations of man to man" can be transformed, not by imposition from without, but from within if the men are transformed by love.

The possibility for sin could never be totally eradicated; but it could be greatly diminished; but not, for sure, by imposition "from above"; it could only be by change from within. — John

Both are needed. The law is needed for love to become possible. Only under the law is it possible to reach up to love. That's why all religions - even Buddhism for example - emphasises morality for its practitioners before meditative insight. That morality is conducive to everything else. The law is conducive to love.

Marx said about Hegel that he overturned his philosophy, which is often taken to mean that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its head. He actually meant that he stood Hegel's philosophy on its feet, that he gave it its proper foundation (materialism). The law without love is without proper foundation; it is 'upside down' or if you prefer arse-about. The law should be interpreted in the light of love; then it will gain its flexibility. Without love the law is rigid and lifeless. — John

Depends - aufheben - which is the term you're referring to by "overturning" doesn't translate very well in English. The dialectic process through which the aufheben is achieved does not eradicate the two opposites which led to it - but subsumes them both within a higher perspective - ie. being and non-being are subsumed in becoming - which is both being and non-being at the same time. Certainly they are not overturned though - the English term simply doesn't mean the same thing. Aufheben is really that higher perspective which permits one to swallow a certain way of seeing into a higher one - it doesn't eliminate it though. It's a fulfilment of it - the swallowed thing still remains. So I agree that the law is fulfilled by love - it is subsumed and derives from love. That much is true. But one doesn't start from love and get to the law - except in thought. The dialectical process moves onwards - from law unto love.

"Live and let live" is itself a principle and a rule of social organization. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, live and let live, so long as letting live doesn't get in the way of you living. Certainly for the priest who is forced to officiate a gay wedding, letting live is getting in the way of his living. So what shall he do? It seems that the law has condemned him.

"No revolution can ever succeed as a factor of liberation unless the MEANS used to further it be identical in spirit and tendency with the PURPOSES to be achieved. Revolution is the negation of the existing, a violent protest against man's inhumanity to man with all the thousand and one slaveries it involves. It is the destroyer of dominant values upon which a complex system of injustice, oppression, and wrong has been built up by ignorance and brutality. It is the herald of NEW VALUES, ushering in a transformation of the basic relations of man to man, and of man to society." - Emma Goldman. — Wosret

Propaganda. As if the relations of man to man could be transformed. As if human nature could be overcome. As if free will never existed, and people could be forced - by education, by loving-kindness, or by whatever else - to be good to one another. As if the possibility for sin could be eradicated from the world. Foolishness.

One cannot hit a child for hitting another child and tell them that hitting is wrong. Their action contradict their words, and they promote what they claim to disavow. They have to actually be saying "hitting is wrong for you, but right for me", while claiming to be the ones that aren't vicious relativists. — Wosret

No it doesn't follow that if a child hits another, then he should also be hit. As I said, the punishment has to be adequate for the offence. No one said that hitting back is necessarily the adequate punishment - and the adequate punishment will also depend upon the circumstance and the severity of the situation. One possible punishment may be locking the child in his room temporarily - so that he understands that what he did was wrong, and will not be acceptable. Locking someone isn't acceptable - in most circumstances. Just like murdering someone, or hitting someone isn't acceptable in most circumstances. But there are circumstances when it is acceptable - say for example that you are attacked by someone, and in defending yourself you kill them. That is still murder, but it is acceptable morally speaking. In that case you wouldn't say "murder is wrong for you but right for me" - you'd say in situation X, it is right for Y to resort to murder if he/she must. Things aren't as black and white as you (and the other progressives) try to make them.

They do work if we clarify what they mean. The problem is that these words are used chaotically from place to place. So we have to use specific definitions in discussions. I know conservatism is understood to mean something different in the UK from the US. I'm not discussing what conservatism is popularly understood to mean in different lands. I have said conservatism will be defined as a position on non-economic issues (on social issues to be more specific) for the purposes of my comments. Privatisation of NHS and state industries, university fees, and these things are economic issues. Therefore quite evidently, I cannot be referring to them, regardless of what people in the UK use the word conservative, or right, or left, to refer to. On the other hand, issues like immigration, the role of the church, monogamous marriage, abortion, gay marriage, family, adultery, community, morality, faith, fox hunting - these are all social issues. It's very clear from this, that regardless of where you are, you can look at the issues in your country and understand what I am referring to by understanding the definition. So social conservatism - I'm referring to all the issues in the second category (those that are underlined in the list). If you find anymore issues that are social, and not economical, then yes, I'm also referring to those.

I said he is not a left-leaning social conservative. Specifically social. — WhiskeyWhiskers

No, not specifically social. That simply means that you haven't understood the way I used left. He is left leaning = he has a left-wing position on economy - can mean anything from free healthcare, free education, anti big business, pro-environmental protection when it comes to businesses, etc. You now look at Scruton and see what left-leaning elements from that list he has. Next he is also a social conservative. Go to the social conservative list, and see what positions he has from there regarding issues such as immigration, church, marriage, abortion, etc. This follows because both categories - attitudes on social issues and attitudes on economic issues are required to state what kind of thinker someone is.

So in "left-leaning social conservative" the left-leaning doesn't refer to the social conservative part. It has nothing to do with it. It only refers to his economic positions. That's how I've been using the words. That's why I said it's possible to be a left-leaning social conservative. Social conservative is merely a description of his social policies - and thus has nothing to do with his economic policies. Left-leaning is a description of his economic policies - and has nothing to do with his social policies. Do you understand what I mean now?

Because the terms are not clarified. So I proposed to clarify the terms for the sake of discussion. If we use right vs left purely to discuss one's position with regards to the economy, and conservative-liberal purely to discuss one's position with regards to social issues, then the discussion can be understood in a much easier fashion.

What? I thought we weren't talking about economics? — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes we aren't. However you said that Scruton isn't left-leaning because of his positions on gay marriage, fox hunting, and church involvement - and that he is right-leaning. I drew attention to the fact that I wasn't using left-leaning or left-wing in this sense. I clarified that I am using left to refer to economic positions. So Scruton's economic positions are more to the left - more for market intervention, controls over big business, protecting the environment, and so forth. Then I addressed the fact that he takes those positions that he does on fox hunting, gay marriage and church involvement makes him a social conservative, as these are social issues that have nothing to do with economics (and thus have nothing to do with left vs right).

Thing is with the labelling, as TheWillowOfDarkness has said, is they are so nebulous and undefined that they really are meaningless concepts if you want to have a meaningful discussion about such things. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Yes I agree, which is why I think the way we're using the terms should be clarified. So I hope now that I have managed to clarify the way I have used these terms.

You're right, we were talking specifically about social conservatism. But I'm not sure Scruton is a left-leaning social conservative. He opposes gay marriage, is pro fox hunting (which is a non-issue everywhere else, but since something like 90% oppose it in the UK, you are so far to the right on the scale if you support it) and believes the church should be the central institution for social cohesion and derived meaning in life. By today's standards these are not at all left leaning. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Left and right has, at least in my mind, to do only with economic positions. That's how I tend to use it, as it simplifies things and makes them easier to understand. So you're on the left if you are a socialist when it comes to economy. And you're on the right if you're a capitalist when it comes to economy. Other non-economic issues - such as fox hunting, gay marriage, church involvement - these are SOCIAL issues. Hence on the social scale one is either a liberal or a conservative. So we have right-left for economics, and liberal-conservative for social issues. That's why I said Scruton is a left-leaning conservative - as are the other folks I've mentioned.

For example, he criticises the symbiosis of big business with government because it undermines the sovereignty and allegiance of democratically elected officials - though he admits regrettably that our own conservative party have sold their souls too. He also believes one cannot be a conservative without being so on environmental matters; the planet is a resource like any other which we must preserve and enhance for the benefit of future generations. He thinks this point is entirely lost on American conservatives, due to their pro-business leanings and rejection of climate change. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Well yes but this has to do with economic policies - certainly not social conservatism - and Roger Scruton was named by jamalrob as a "social conservative" thinker. As I've said quite often, it is very possible for there to be left-leaning social conservatives. G.K. Chesterton was one - so was Russell Kirk. So is Scruton.

Christian Democratic — Thorongil

This isn't exactly true. Social conservative values in Europe (especially Western Europe) are quite a rarity in politics. Sure, you may see issues such as anti-abortion laws (like in Poland recently), but the attitudes and beliefs of those running Christian Democrat parties (for example, look at Merkel's CDU in Germany) are quite liberal and progressive. They pretend to uphold social conservative values, but hypocritically so. Europe is by far more progressive than the US - that's why when folks on this forum say when they are on the political spectrum they go like "far left in US", "left in EU". Progressive biases have infiltrated the European intellect to the point that the Christian Democrats have become just "Christian" Democrats.

In Eastern Europe for example, you can very easily find people hating gays. Everyone does that. Just a prejudice really, they don't have any reason for it. This "oh the Church says so", that's just an excuse. People just do it for fun. Most of the common people have those attitudes. But when it comes to abortion - all those common people are for it. When it comes to cheating - they don't really care - even less than people in the US care (and if they care, they are most often women). In the US if a President cheats, it's a big deal. In the EU nobody cares - just look at Berlusconi. He even did rude gestures to women in public. In the EU people who cheat or commit adultery face very few consequences, if any (especially if they are men - and lately also women in Western Europe). Quite the contrary, you'll often find yourself admired and respected for it.

So no - by far Europe has less social conservative resources than the US. Issues such as abortion, adultery, etc. aren't even on the table in Europe.

Thanks for sharing. For the record, I don't disagree with Burke's conservatism - with his values. I just disagree with the way he reaches them - with his method, which is reason skepticism similar to Hume.

Enjoyment of the suffering of others is not consistent with either Law or Love, and hence it is un-Christian. — John

This is false. If I love myself, then I wish to be set straight when I go wrong. And therefore I wish to be punished - to get what I deserve - for having done wrong. And I wish the same for my neighbour - out of love.

Love consists in the fulfillment, the completion, of Law, which means overturning it — John

Sorry but for common folk, fulfilment is the exact opposite of overturning. Overturning means to replace - fulfilment means to uphold and extend. Those are very very different.

@Wayfarer - I might add this one

The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John. Since that time, the gospel of the kingdom of God is being preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for a single stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law. Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery... — Luke 16:16-18

;)

Well yeah - if I do something wrong, then I do want myself to suffer. So when my neighbour does something wrong, I do love him as I love myself :) - no less and no more as the heathen do, who love their neighbours more than themselves :P

I am not and don't want to be a Christian apologist, — Wayfarer

Good, then I have no competition! Perfect, I enjoy monopolies :P