St. Pope John Paul II would be wont to say: > "the person is a good towards which the only proper and adequate attitude is love." but in this sense, does "person" equally apply to the Divine Persons of the Holy Trinity, angels or humans as well?

Wikipedia - Unitarianism seems to suggest that there is no core belief regarding Deity, within what is called 'Unitarianism' : >Worship within the Unitarian tradition accommodates a **wide range of understandings of God**, while the focus of the service may be simply the celebration of life itself. And the article on Wikipedia suggests that Unitarianism is *a reaction to Trinitarianism,* rather than a self-expressing body of agreement : >Although there is **no specific authority** on convictions of Unitarian belief **aside from rejection of the Trinity,** the following beliefs are generally accepted . . . . . . And the above appears to suggest that there is no governing body or authority which could give a definitive view on core beliefs. So I am interested in whether Unitarianism (as a movement) does or does not worship God as a Person. But I am not clear as to who would be able to answer this on behalf of the movement. Or, indeed, if the movement, as a whole, agrees as to what the answer might be. Is there any way of finding out the answer to my question ? ---------------------- From the little I have managed to glean it appears to me that 'Unitarian' means 'Anti-Trinitarian' and that such Anti-Trinitarians are actually undecided about whom God is, save that they definitely do not believe that God is as Trinitarianism represents Him to be. If I have misunderstood that, I am very keen to be advised accordingly of my misunderstanding, by any authority able to so advise me.

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?

I’ve stumbled upon a person who has made a few interesting claims. According to her, among others: - > Other people are only another physical form of yourself. - > There exists only one unposseded [by ego] and indivisible mind. - > In Truth, that is in the opposite of what we are presently in, we are one in Christ. We are thence one spirit of Christ and the body we don is temporary. So, as the apostles were saying, there is no female, slave, child… However the physical body must perceive something and perceives what it believes in. As in the beginning there was Adam and Eve as one. As there are branches in the vine but there is one vine. - > For anyone, who wishes to think reasonably and wisely, [the one unpossesed and indivisible mind] is the mind of Holy Spirit. For those who prefer to let themselves be possessed by a separate mind (located in the brain – egoistic ego), Holy Spirit is inaccessible and their thinking by the so-called brain is, euphemistically speaking, a dissimulation of thinking. (The above quotations are literally the statements she has made, I only made effort to translate them into English, hopefully the translation is faithful to the original claims.) This person, who maintains these assertions, claims to be a Christian, and a consequent and radical one. For me, such assertions rather looked as if they were rooted in New Age or Buddhism rather than Christianity, so I asked her which Church does she belong to. To my astonishment, she said she was a Catholic. She further maintains that the above assertions are a result of her own studies of truth, of the more accurate and more faithful reading of the Bible, of the praying experience of befriended Catholics, and also that these claims are, in part, kind of a revelation that is testified by miracles. To my knowledge, according to (almost?) all major denominations of Christianity, God, creating humans and angels, has created many persons, distinct from Himself and distinct from each other. Claiming that all humans are in fact one person, who is God, and that any other perception is an illusion of the physical brain that is possessed by ego, seems to me to either be an outright heresy or, at best, some unwarranted religious syncretism, attempting to mix in foreign philosophical systems (New Age? Buddhism?) into Christianity. Claiming that all people are “*one spirit of Christ*” seems to me to border blasphemy. Or, maybe, am I wrong? After all, I do not have any official documents issued by the Church to disprove this person’s claims. Therefore, since she claimed to be a Catholic, may I ask: - Does the Catholic Church teach what she claimed? - Does the Catholic Church teach something opposite to what she claimed, and therefore by definition one cannot maintain such assertions and be a Catholic at the same time? - Does the Catholic Church not teach anything in this matter, and therefore every Catholic is free to believe whatever they choose?

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.