Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 62
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 10:36:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net>
Subject: Mass blessings and soteriology
On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, DF wrote:
> In a message dated 8/17/99 11:39:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> damian@UNIFICATION.NET writes:
>
> > The holy wine means the same as it always meant, the cutting off of the
> > satanic blood lineage. The difference is that Father has authorized the
> > widespread dissemination of the holy wine even to people who do not know
> > they are receiving it. We inherited the satanic blood lineage without
> > our knowledge, and now the time has come when people are able to be rid
> > of it, even though they did not know they had it in the first place.
>
> This is a good explanation, Damian. However, I don't think it is the OFFICIAL
> explanation yet. (I'm ignorant on this, not challenging) Your theory, if it
> indeed reflects official policy, could pave the way for realizing the
> "rooting out of the satanic blood lineage" before the year 2,000 - or
> certainly before Father passes away. I'd like to see something official
> though... a lot of us are confused on this issue. Specifically, we need to
> know whether eating Holy Candy without knowing it officially contitutes
> participation in the Holy Wine Ceremony and formally cuts off the satanic
> blood lineage. (I take it you won't mind my forwarding this to HQ as food for
> thought)
DF,
You are welcome to forward it to whomever you want. In turn, I will post
this reply to several places, since it seems to be such a hot topic right
now.
> > People still need to be educated in how to form a blessed family,
> > go through the ceremonies of the blessing, the three day ceremony,
> > and blessed family life. That can come later. This is what Rev. Yang
> > has said on the subject.
>
> If there's anything in writing from him that states that the Holy Wine
> Ceremony is not necessary for those who have eaten Holy Candy, I'll consider
> the issue resolved.
I think you need to get on the phone and voice your concern with Rev. Chang
Shik Yang or Rev. In Hoi Lee. Both are very much open to talking. You would
be better as an elder expressing your misgivings to your elders or those
selected by Father for positions of authority even if they are not your
elders, than to discuss your doubts with your peers. Here are their cell
phone numbers:
Rev. Chang Shik Yang 202-xxx-xxxx
Rev. In Hoi Lee 202-xxx-xxxx
Once you reach them, he may ask you to call back on another number,
to economize on his cell phone bill.
> However, there are still important questions, such as:
>
> What is the Blessing status of the millions who have ingested Holy Candy but
> do not know it?
I believe that Father has made the conditions whereby if someone has
ingested the holy wine, that he can claim them as among those whose blood
lineage has been cut off from Satan. Remember that we are talking about
the man who is leading the providence on behalf of God Himself. He is
doing what even God Himself cannot do. I understand from his speeches
that he is able to make conditions himself, and then go before God and
Satan and say that if the people do X, whatever that is, then they can
be claimed by God, and if they don't do X, then they stay in Satan's
realm. Since it is a symbolic condition, it is a token, it does not
have to have any substantial meaning. When you win a 100 meter track
race, the rules of the race are that the one over the finish line first
wins. That does not mean he is a better runner in all ways that the other
runners, it just means that he is the best at the 100 meters. He may be
lousy at the marathon however. So also, someone who ingests the holy
wine may not even be a "good person", he may be a thief, a murderer,
an adulterer, whatever, but because he has ingested the holy wine,
God can claim him. Father is casting his net ever wider and finer,
until he can catch every last human soul in spirit world and on Earth,
and claim them for God's side.
> What happens if they "fall" after ingesting the Holy Wine (or handling candy
> wrappers sprayed with Holy Wine)
What happens if a blessed member falls? They suffer from their guilt
and shame, and then at some point, they are given the opportunity for
forgiveness. The more they are aware that they have made a solemn vow,
the more their failure will cause them heartache.
> If Holy Candy cuts off the satanic blood lineage, what external changes
> should reflect this, and can these changes be measured?
Come one DF! You know better than that! Spiritual change cannot be
measured externally. You could even look up chapter and verse in the DP
for me.
> Are their children free from original sin?
No, because they have not yet completed the blessing process and the
three day ceremony.
> Can their children intermarry with 2nd generation UC members?
No, not until they have completed the Blessing and three day ceremony.
> and
>
> How can we reconcile "people are able to be rid
> of it, even though they did not know they had it in the first place" with the
> idea of humans' portion of responsibility for the fall and restoration?
This is the grace of the age. There are four elements in resurrection
in the DP:
(1) Grace / merit of the age
(2) Physical body
(3) 3 stages of growth
(4) God's word appropriate to the providential time.
> I don't think these questions need to stop anyone from participating in
> distributing Holy Candy, but I also think these are questions that need to be
> answered. Also, I sympathize with Gary and others who struggle because of
> last year's experience -- where Rev Kwak's directions were ignored -- and
> wonder if the same thing is happening now. A clear statement from Rev Yang on
> this issue would be very helpful.
I understand that there are a lot of people who have doubts and questions
about the holy candy providence. The main problem is that Father's
instructions are not being communicated to the members in a timely way,
and people don't know whether the instructions are from Father or not.
> DF
I hope this helps.
ITPN,
--
Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net> http://www.unification.net
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 05:32:52 -0400
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Re: Bill Taylor's intentional distortions
Bill Taylor wrote:
> There is no intentional distortion on my part. Listen, in the past few
> weeks, we have firmly established (in our heavenly deception threads) that
> it is UC policy to lie and to lie that you lie. You just can't get around
> that and you needn't squirm; we both understand what is so. I accept
> that.
You have proven nothing of the kind. You fling mud in the hope that it
will stick. Give me one example in which you claim that I have lied. I
defy you to prove it. I have not lied.
> Bill Taylor wrote:
>
> SMM has said that one of the reasons that A&E fell is that they did not
> have sinless physical parents. He has said that if they had had sinless
> physical parents that they could not have fallen. The difference was that
> they were left in the care of an untrustworthy archangel. SMM's children
> were raised in the direct dominion of God--in that atmosphere. They were
> to reach perfection automatically at age 21, be married, and not be able
> to fall.
Please quote where Rev. Moon says this. Back it up.
> Please note that I am discussing YOUR theology. I do not believe the
> story at all or that there was a fall. But I am being as accurate as I
> can. Yes, it bugs me that you lie and that you cannot simply admit what
> is so. It is NOT true that everyone lies as a policy; that would not be a
> reasonable justification.
No, you are NOT talking about MY theology, you are talking about your mocking
caricature of my theology.
> You see, this would be definitave proof that the DP is false in real
> life. We both get that. You are scrambling to apologize for the fact
> that it didn't work because you are convinced that SMM is the messiah even
> if he has made gross fundimental mistakes. I am questioning whether he
> could be the messiah if what he says is grossly false. I would say that
> he could not be.
We can talk about this if we can compare what he actually said, rather
than what you claim he said. Back it up.
> > 5.2.2 The Realm of Indirect Dominion
>
> > All things reach perfection after passing through the growing period (the
> > realm of indirect dominion) by virtue of the autonomy and
> governance given
> > by God's Principle. Human beings, however, are created in such a way that
> > their growth requires the fulfillment of their own portion of
> > responsibility, in addition to the guidance provided by the Principle.
> > They must exercise this responsibility in order to pass successfully
> > through the growing period and reach perfection.
>
> > Exposition of the Divine Principle - 1996 Translation
> > http://www.unification.net/dp96/dp96-1-1.html#Sec5_2_2
>
> > 5.2.3 The Realm of Direct Dominion
>
> > What is the realm of God's direct dominion and what is its purpose? Human
> > beings abide in the realm of direct dominion when, as subject partner and
> > object partner, they unite in the love of God to form a four position
> > foundation and become one in heart with God.
>
> > Exposition of the Divine Principle - 1996 Translation
> > http://www.unification.net/dp96/dp96-1-1.html#Sec5_2_3
>
> I think that these passages and the links you have provided strongly
> support my position.
No, they say that achieving God's direct dominion requires the fulfillment of man's
portion of responsibility, it is NOT automatic.
> Isn't the dominion of sinless physical parents, in effect, the direct
> intervention or at least the direct support of God?
Now you are changing the subject. You are NOT free to define my terms. Let the
theology as defined in the DP define the terms.
> > > They naturally reach perfection at age 21 and being in God's direct
> > > dominion with a sinless physical parent means that their responsibility
> > > will absolutely be accomplished, according to SMM.
>
> > There is no concept of cheap grace in Unificationism. God may reach out
> to us with
> > tremendous love, but we still must do our part.
>
> If a person were to grow up in the direct dominion of God, knowing and
> experiencing God's heart every day, why would she or he reject that love
> for a lesser love? I think that this applies to the True Children. We
> know that at least 2 of them have totally rejected their father and
> physically separated from him and one is clearly not following the
> tradition. That is a pretty big percentage and not just a fluke.
People do not grow up in the direct dominion of God Read what it
says. They grow up through the indirect dominion of God into the direct
dominion of God by fulfilling their portion of responsibility.
> > Unfortunately, on the one hand you call yourself a man of integrity,
> while on the
> > other hand, you choose to misrepresent our faith, and then ridicule your
> grotesque
> > distortion. Shame on you.
>
> I choose not to lie. This final paragraph is a childish attack. You may
> shame me but that has nothing do with winning someone's heart or with my
> world. You live in a world of sinful people who should be shamed. I live
> in a world where everyone already is divinely perfect but many don't
> realize their magnificence. Which would you prefer? It is a choice that
> we all have, you know.
If you choose not to lie, then stick to our stated theology, not to
what you want to have it be so that you can then tear it down. I don't
believe in your mockery of the DP any more than you do. If you insist
on misrepresenting what I believe, that is just outright dishonest.
--
Damian Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 06:37:48 -0400
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, alt.support.ex-cult
Subject: Do failures invalidate the message?
GC wrote:
> No. Like you, I joined because I was so impressed by the DP. Even
> though I left over 12 years ago, I'm still convinced it's a much more
> coherent theology than others of which I am aware. Which is not to say
> that I believe it now.
>
> The problems arose from my real-life observations. That's important,
> too, you know.
GC, if people do not live up to the message of Christianity, does that make
the message wrong? I believe that the attempt to live by the teachings of
Jesus and his disciples is a noble goal, and if one fails to do so, it does
not make the goal any less noble. Similarly, the fact that some or even many
people who attempt to live according to the DP fail to do so does not in and
of itself invalidate the message.
People come to oneness with God through fulfilling their portion of
responsibility. The DP is a message which strongly emphasizes human
responsibility, while acknowledging God's grace. The purpose of religion is
to reconnect humanity with God and overcome their estrangement. This is a
DIFFICULT undertaking, and one to be done with much prayer and introspection,
and humble self-examination. The fact that some fail is no surprise. God in
His mercy knows that the road is difficult, and so He sent us the Messiah, so
that we can fulfill what we could not do on our own.
I don't think we should fear failure. Rather, we should try, try, and try
again until we fulfill what we set out to accomplish. That shows character.
The man who fails is not necessarily a failure. It is the man who quits who
is a failure. Thomas Edison failed many times before he perfected the light
bulb. Abraham Lincoln lost many elections before he was elected President of
the USA.
Regards,
ITPN,
--
Damian Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 06:42:04 -0400
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification
Subject: Predictions
GC wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Aug 1999 16:23:47 GMT, mandarin1652@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Concerning the lies about the medals etc: The word 'lie' raises a lot of
> >emotions, because it implies a deliberate, self-centered attempt to
> >deceive. But I can't see that this was the case. When I heard these
> >statements, they were always of lesser importance than other topics in
> >the same speech. After all, how could he predict details about what
> >other people are going to do and accomplish? He can't. Even though his
> >own children - they are independent individuals with their own
> >responsibility. Were you their when he said it? Did he smile? Did he
> >talk about it for a long time or just in a sentence in between?
>
> I was there, but it was 1975 so I'm sure I have no idea what were his
> facial expressions.
>
> And he was speaking not of his own children but of Blessed Children,
> generally. I would hardly expect that he could predict what one
> individual infant was going to do in 20 years. What he did presume to
> be able to predict was what all of these thousands of children were
> going to accomplish as a group.
>
> He said they would stand out so remarkably the world would know for
> sure what was happening. He mentioned they would win all of the
> Olympic medals, as an example.
>
> What you are talking about would apply, maybe, if they won only half
> the medals. If they won 10% it would be wildly out of proportion to
> their numbers worldwide and still be amazing. In fact, none of them
> has accomplished anything so remarkable as to persuade anybody of
> anything.
GC,
I don't know whether he said this. I would be interested in the quote. But in
any case, it is not so far fetched. Rev. Moon sincerely believes and expects
that there will come a time when the whole world will be blessed, and then,
naturally, all the Olympics medal winners will be blessed children. There is
time yet for this to happen. Have a big mind! :-)
--
Damian Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 01:48:14 -0500
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@UNIFICATION.NET>
Reply-To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list
<UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: [UE] Personal growth and being effective
(Posted to ARU, mailed to UE)
"Martin Anderson" <martin.anderson2@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:_gDh6.11977$BQ3.213649@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> > In the early days of the church, we were organized differently from
> today.
> > The days of flower selling to further the mission are largely over.
> That
> > worked for a mobile group of people who were in full time campaign
> mode. Now
> > the church consists primarily of families with children, and tithing
> members
> > of congregations. I still think it makes sense to work together with
> others
> > of like mind than to work alone. However, every pioneering effort
> begins
> > with one person with an idea and a passion to make it happen.
>
> Yes, this is how things get done in the world, but still I see very
> little evidence of individual member initiatives outside of the
> confines of the UC. The thithe money presumably still goes to
> headquarters where it is decided what to do in a decidedly despotic
> fashion.
Many church members start their own projects, or get involved in other
people's projects, or cooperate with groups outside the UC. You do not see
it because you are not in touch with such people, but it does happen and it
is going on all the time. My Internet ministry is my own project, my own
initiative, and I built my own network for it to work, and I fund it. I
would like to see more people take such initiatives.
As for tithe money, church members can decide to support one project over
another by where they decide to donate. In the Washington DC church, the
local membership has a financial review board, and all church expenditures
are approved by the congregation in periodic meetings. Representatives from
each community are present on the board. It is entirely democratic, not
despotic at all.
The principle of tithing goes all the way back to Jacob in the Bible. My
recommendation for you or anyone else who does not have a church that you
believe in or tithe to is that you use a portion of your financial resources
to finance the good works of your own choice. The principle of tithing is
that we receive blessings from God, and in return, we are obligated to
dedicate a portion, usually a tenth, to God's work. What that work is that
you support is up to you. I firmly believe that God blesses financially
those who use money generously and altruistically. This is not a principle
invented by the UC, and is one practiced by many churches. It is very common
in the USA for church members of many churches to tithe, and the tax code
supports it.
> So the message is "Concentrate on self improvement". Implied is that
> only those who approach perfection can achieve anything.
> Should I keep out of it all until I am perfect? If not, what is your
> message?
Unificationism teaches about the three great blessings based on Genesis
1:28:
(1) Become one with God in heart and purpose
(2) Form a Godly family
(3) Take dominion over your environment and live for the sake of others.
So, self-improvement is one step in a process, and it does not preclude
working to solve the problems of your community before you are a perfect
person. Rev. Moon recommends that you find the most difficult problem in
your community and invest your efforts to clean that up, and you will win
the respect and support of the community and become a natural leader. What
you choose to work on and solve is up to you. It is your choice, and your
responsibility. Networking with other like-minded people may help you in
that effort.
> Perhaps you miss my point. I have already thought my thoughts and made
> my decision. I have decided to actively promote my ideals in the
> context of an ordinary life to the extent of rolling around on the
> floor and being bloodied for them if necessary. Whether or not I would
> die for them I have yet to discover, but I have faced persecution and
> serious violence for them in the past.
> If everyone did this then the solution is produced.
You cannot be responsible for everyone, only you. That is going to take 100
% of your effort.
> > > Regarding the comments on understanding God, your sentiments are
> very
> > > moving, but I asked about understanding DP, compared to which,
> > > understanding God is a cinch.
> >
> > Thank you. I am glad that we could connect at some level. This
> yearning for
> > God is at the heart of much religious experience, and much of what
> attracts
> > people to Unificationism. We teach that if you are truly alive
> spiritually,
> > then you will be able to have continual experience of God and the
> spiritual
> > dimension, the spirit world. To attain that level requires personal
> > discipline and strong desire. It is certainly not unique to the UC,
> but a
> > strong part of our inner life.
>
> I do not think that I yearn for God and was under the impression that
> according to the UC view, it is rather God who yearns for us.
God and humanity are alienated from one another. Both suffer from this
alienation, and the grieving and yearning go both ways, as King David so
aptly said in Psalm 42 that I quoted. While you may not personally yearn for
God, it is a common human experience.
Damian
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription to this list, or add other lists, please go to:
http://www.unification.net/forms/subscribe.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:55:42 -0500
From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@UNIFICATION.NET>
Reply-To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list
<UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM>
To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM
Subject: Re: [UE] The problem of evil - theodicy
[ The following text is in the "unknown-8bit" character set. ]
[ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
(Posted to ARU, mailed to UE)
Hi Martin,
"Martin Anderson" <martin.anderson2@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:tXyh6.10671$BQ3.184061@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Hi Damian,
>
> I do not accept that there is a "cynical spin" attached to my
> abridgement. It is simply a natural consequence of reducing your
> thoughts to the bare essentials.
On this we will have to agree to disagree.
> Were we to reduce matters still further, I suspect that what would be
> left is : "I don't care what you say, or think that you can show about
> Rev Moon, I love him."
There is an element of truth in this, I admit. My love for the man is
unlikely to be swayed by anything you or anyone else here says. I have had
more personal contact with the man in the last 20 years than I have had with
you.
> You appear to associate everything that is good in you to Rev Moon's
> awakening of these ideals in you, but this is not so.
I can understand how you could see it this way, but I do not see myself like
that.
> You held such ideals before you left the family. Those were the ideals
> taught to us at home. As I pointed out you had already risked your
> neck for ideals of truth and justice before even leaving home.
Yes, this is also true. However, the ideals that I aspired to as an
adolescent were largely humanistic in nature and did not include God.
> The very reason that Rev Moon could attract people like yourself, Zoe
> and most of the rest of the members was that they already held such
> ideals.
People attracted to Rev. Moon's message and cause are certainly idealistic.
But Rev. Moon gives voice to a deeper human longing and gives us a glimpse
of something which is new. Plato's myth of the cave expresses this well for
me. In Plato's myth, figures are chained in a cave in front of a fire,
seeing the shadows on the cave walls of actors playing out a scene with
models and statues. Someone who breaks free and leaves the cave and sees the
outside world has difficulty communicating that reality to those whose whole
life experience has been in a darkened cave observing shadows of illusions
as their image of reality. Yet this person is the one who has the key to
giving the others the idea that there is another reality in which they can
live. Here is a reference:
http://www.connect.net/ron/plato.html
I see Rev. Moon as someone who has glimpsed a greater reality, and it takes
effort to be able to understand what he says because he speaks of a world in
which humans are not enslaved to their carnal appetites, to evil impluses
beyond their will or control, but live in a dimension of love never seen in
the world. Nothing comes for free, and like I said before, you cannot truly
understand God or truth without having paid a price in suffering. His
idealism moves me. His life moves me. His organizations do not. Frankly, I
will be happy when East meets West, and the profound Eastern ideals can be
implemented with good old fashioned Western common sense. I do not let the
imperfections of the church get to me, because it is a transient vehicle
which will disappear in time. What is eternal are the ideals and vision that
he expresses, which transcends any human organization he creates to
implement those ideals. I can take responsibility to implement whatever
altruistic scheme my heart and mind can conceive of. You can do the same.
> He promised to actualise them for you as the organisations to which
> you had previously belonged had failed.
No, not really. He does not promise to do anything for me. He promises us
only blood, sweat and tears. We are a chosen people, chosen to suffer for
God's will. I do not expect anything from the organization personally.
> Now it is surely about time to ask how well he has succeeded when
> compared to other obvious choices.
Martin, you have set up your strawman and are now knocking it down. I
disagree with your fundamental premises here.
> For instance, have the efforts of the UC in the world been more or
> less effective than those of the Catholic church during the same
> period. Did the Pope or Rev moon have the greater part in the fall of
> communism?
Rev. Moon and the Catholic Church both claim credit. Who cares? What matters
is that an evil system of tyranny is largely gone.
> Here in Britain, except for the mass-marriages, I have heard NOTHING
> of the UC in the press since the Daily Mail trial of the seventies. To
> claim that this could be because of media bias would be unlikely, as
> during the same period other organisations, which for one reason or
> another are not liked by the authorities, hit the headlines anyway in
> relation to the size of their actions (e.g.: Greenpeace, The ANC,
> Medécines sans Frontiéres, CND, etc).
I don't know much of anything about the UC in Britain today. It has not been
a worldwide focus of the movement.
> Amongst approved philanthropic organisations or personages he is as
> good as unknown. Despite the millions of pounds spent by Rev Moon in
> courting the great and powerful, Bob Geldof, a ragged-arsed ex punk
> rocker has a higher profile in the world than he has.
Jesus Christ was a shamed crucified felon in the world's view. The world's
opinion means zilch.
> Is it because he avoids recognition? From reading his speeches I would
> venture that this is not the case, so what has happened ?
> To quote the high profile of "Family" issues in the US would be a
> spurious example as the natural direction of society has spawned
> similar thought and movement here, with no input from Rev Moon. This
> backlash from the sixties and "free love" was always going to happen.
Again, look at Jesus by way of comparison. On the day Jesus died, what did
he have to show for his life? He had healed many people, and taught many
people, but his disciples all ran away. From a jaded external viewpoint, he
had accomplished nothing, yet a worldwide movement which transformed the
world grew out of the thoughts and actions of this man. It does not do well
to judge the success or failure of a religious movement simply by
sociological and popularity statistics. You have to look at religious
movements from the perspective of history.
> So where are the "fruits" that we may know him?
I am the fruit. Everyone who has ever heard the message of Rev. Moon and has
been transformed by it, they are the fruit of his life's work. Time will
tell what comes of those fruits.
> Martin
Damian Anderson
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your subscription to this list, or add other lists, please go to:
http://www.unification.net/forms/subscribe.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------