This question poses a conflict between two philosophies, but is not meant to necessarily compare their strengths. Only if Love of Neighbor is indeed the antithesis of the libertarian philosophy. [Libertarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) as I understand it (from reading lots and lots of Robert Heinlein Sci Fi) is the idea that laws should be crafted so that personal liberties are always acknowledged. So long as you don't hurt anyone else, whatever you do is OK. Drugs, Sex etc... are legally OK, but it's not advocated in any way leaving a person in a state to excercise their freewill and follow God in their own way. The other side of it is TANSTAAFL (Their ain't no such thing as a free lunch) which is pretty bibilical (If they will not work, neither shall they eat) in the end of 2 Thessalonians). [Personalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalism) as I understand it (from listening to lots and lots of Catholic radio and reading John Paul II's Love and Responsibility) says that, A person is an entity towards which the only reasonable attitude is love, as an extrapolation of the 2nd greatest commandment and the Golden Rule. Therefore, if you consider yourself a person, then you ought treat others as you want to be treated and you shouldn't do things to yourself that you wouldn't do to others. So, as far as I can see it, it is pretty difficult to reconcile the two ethics. According to personalism, is there some depth into libertarianism that a Christian can delve, and then they need to pull up and get a breath of fresh air, or should it just be totally avoided?

When the children of Israel walked with Moses in the wilderness they had an ark that contained the rod, pot of manna, and the tablets. When they got to Canaan those things were no longer working. My question is, didn't they attempt to try and use them again? Like to turn the rod into a snake in the promised land and so on?

What is commonly called the golden rule is stated by Jesus in Matthew 7:12: > In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for > this fulfills the law and the prophets. (NET) Commentators often notice that the golden rule appears in extra-biblical literature, but often in negative form. For example, Ben Witherington states: > Jesus was by no means the first or only person to come up with a > version of the Golden Rule. There is the famous saying of Rabbi > Hillel, for example: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your > neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary on it; > go and learn” (b. Sabb. 31a cf. Tob 4.15; 2 En. 61.1-2). It is worth > pointing out that Jesus insists on a positive formulation of the > maxim, where as other forms of it, both Jewish and Greco-Roman (cf. > Isocrates Nic. 61; Herodotus 3.142), tend to be negative. Are there any positive statements of this principle to be found in extra-biblical literature? (Excluding, of course, Christian literature or later literature influenced by Christianity)

I was playing my homemade Catholic Jeopardy with the Faith Formation class last night and I asked. "What is the 2nd greatest commandment". The kids were all like, "umm obey your parents", "Don't swear", etc... and I just said. "Love your neighbor". Well, just then the Director of Religious Ed. walks in and she just wanted to make sure I added the ..."as yourself" part. I didn't think that was terribly important, she said it was important because teenagers have a hard time seeing themselves as someone loveable. So, I've got a notion that the following three precious words of Jesus are pretty much the same thing: > Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. (Matt 7:12 NABRE) > love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another (John 13:34 NABRE) > You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:31 NABRE) What I want to know is: 1. Is is the commandment itself just to love or is the description of how to love wrapped up in the commandment. 2. Do we love each other as Jesus loves us and love our neighbor as we love ourselves. 3. Does 'Do Unto' mean 'Love in this way' 4. If not how does 'Do unto others' fit into the way we're supposed to treat each other? 5. How could I phrase what I meant to say so it encapsulates all three aspects of how we're supposed to love and treat each other and ourselves? I think Pope John Paul II (before he was Pope) wrote in Love and Responsibility something about love your neighbor being more than just 'do unto others', but I'm not sure how. That might be a good starting point though. Since this question is about love, and love is eternal, I'd gladly accept any answer that makes sense from any perspective.

Does the Golden Rule, often stated as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" originate from the Bible and the teachings of Jesus? If not where does it come from? If so how was it originally used? How it is supposed to be applied today? Consider a case where the thing somebody would want you to do for them is to sin. As a simple example, many people will lie to keep their friends out of trouble. They expect their friends to do the same for them. If the Golden Rule was the only rule employed between them, their sin would just continue to multiply. What's to prevent this?