Mulling over LEE LOFASO to STEVE ASHER 08 May 2005

G'day Lee,

>LL>Nobody objects to simplistic universal principles, whether those
>LL>principles are called the ten commandments, noachide laws, or
>LL>something else.

SA>The "universal principles", by whatever name assigned to them, eg
SA>"golden rule", "right relationships" etc are
intended to appeal to
SA>all people to transform the planet, live harmoniously etc. Nothing
SA>wrong with that, except that (1) humanity has never "pulled it off"
SA>in the past, and is unlikely to succeed under its own steam, & (2)
SA>there will be "negative" people or groups of people who will reject
SA>the transformation, & who will need to be dealt with "for the good
SA>of the whole" or whatever (in very simple terms).

 LL> Most folks would have no objection to such principles, and would be
 LL> willing to allow society to judge them based on those principles.
 LL> And that is the flaw.

I agree that most folks would have no objection to such principles,
especially if the principles are promoted or endorsed by religious
or political figures they look up to - eg, the Pope, Head of the UN,
President, Prime Minister, Dalai Lama (etc). I guess the ultimate
"flaw" is that the principles become enshrined in national or global
law, and society uses them to judge, but the accusations are malicious,
the evidence tainted, and innocent people are convicted and condemned
as a result. The definers of the principles (and any associated "taboos")
get an enormous control over society, with little serious debate or
opposition. If the principles are to be enforced, then heretics who
reject them need to be rooted out & dealt with ... in the "perfect"
Soviet Union, the State was above question or criticism; anyone who
opposed could be denounced as insane, slanderer of the Soviet State,
etc. The West, in its quest to "spread freedom", is using similar
"domino" tactics that it accused the Communists of using; denouncing
& undermining "rogue states" & "axis of evil"
states, etc. It will,
in time, possibly become a criminal offence to speak out against
the process of "spreading freedom".

>LL>But using those principles as a basis for being is nothing more
>LL>than a civil religion, or "ethical paganism".  IOW, a religion
>LL>of code and cult whose only moral code is the attitudes and values
>LL>of the society one lives in, and the people one lives with.

SA>This "ethical paganism" can be found in concepts like the
"Global
SA>Oneness Commitment" - Co-creating a happy world.
SA>( http://www.experiencefestival.com/oneness_commitment )
SA>Once we see ourselves as "co-creators", we are in danger of rejecting
SA>God as a transcendent creator, upon whom we depend for life, salvation
SA>etc, and seek to transform our lives & planet etc without Him.

 LL> Here is an experiment to demonstrate a point -

 LL> Let's suppose that you are a Christian.
 LL> Doesn't matter whether you are Catholic or non-Catholic.

 LL> Take a pencil and paper and write down this question -

 LL> "If I did not believe (or stopped believing) in Jesus Christ (and
 LL> in the Bible) today, what five concrete decisions would I make that
 LL> would significantly affect my life tomorrow?"

 LL> Just write down how your *life* would change.  Write down *how you
 LL> would change it* by concrete choices if you stopped believing in
 LL> Jesus Christ. 

 LL> Answers such as "I would stop going to church on Sundays" do not
 LL> count. 

 LL> Keep in mind you still believe in God.  A God who rewards the good
 LL> and punishes the evil.  After all, you would not go chasing every
 LL> woman you see, and start robbing banks, just because you do not
 LL> believe in Jesus Christ.  Even pagans know better than that.

 LL> What would you change in your ordinary, everyday life?

I can't think of any concrete changes I would make. I would not 
intentionally revert to doing many of the things I used to do, 
as I no longer have any interest or desire.

Cheers, Steve..

---