Mulling over LEE LOFASO to STEVE ASHER 04 May 2005

G'day Lee,

(snip)

>LL>Kung's view of a "new global ethic" is one of
individualism.  IOW,
>LL>within the confines of four basic principles, one is free to do his
>LL>own thing.  This view rejects objective truth in favor of
>LL>subjective truth.

SA>It is a problem for the one who cannot or will not be constrained by
SA>the confines of the four basic principles, or core values etc. One
SA>is not free if he/she is in conflict with the basic principles. It
SA>is one thing to "embrace difference" in order to "transform the
SA>world"; it is another thing to reject process of transformation.

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

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

 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.

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

>LL>There are actually two documents, one document being a basic set of
>LL>principles, Kung writing the original draft and passed in 1993, the
>LL>other document being for organizations and NGOs, etc., based on the
>LL>1993 document, passed in 1999.  I have now read both documents.

SA>Yes, I didn't look at the second document, but have it now. Again, it
SA>is similar in its thrust to the documents used for "corporate change"
SA>processes in the 1980s.

 LL> It actually goes back before the 1980s.

Yes, my experience of corporate change strategies was largely in the
1980s - eg Pacific Institute's "New Age Thinking", my employer's
"Vision 2000" (launched in late 1984) etc.

>LL>Kung is the fellow who keeps telling folks that he should be the
>LL>New Pope of a New Christianity.  This is what Kung said about the
>LL>election of B16 -

(snip)

>LL>Kung said some very unsavory things about the late JPII eight years
>LL>ago, along with some harsh words for German theologians, Cardinal
>LL>Ratzinger in particular.  Now that Ratzinger is pope, Kung is left
>LL>on the outside having absolutely no influence in Catholic circles.

SA>I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss his influence.

 LL> He won't get very far with the present pope.  ;)

Maybe Kung will seek to exert influence in non-Catholic circles,
such as the Global Oneness Commitment above.

>LL>Ratzinger's view of Christian unity is "within limits".
>LL>Kung's view of Christian unity is an entirely different view. 
>LL>The same applies to global unity.

SA>Are the two views on a collision course?

 LL> Yep.

I thought as much. :)

Cheers, Steve..

---