Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 51
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:47:07 -0400
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
To: Bill Taylor <Bill@innocent.com>
Subject: Re: Rev. MOON said: "Moonie streaking will be hopeful..."
Bill Taylor wrote:
> How do Unis view nudity? Do you go to nude swimming holes (in mixed company)?
I believe that in the environment of the Kingdom of Heaven where people
fully love God and their neighbors, and where every man and woman is
faithful to their spouse, and people marry young, there would be no shame
or temptation in nudity. God created us naked, and our first ancestors
walked about naked and unashamed. In this time of great moral and sexual
confusion though, I think public nudity is inadvisable.
I am working on a speech from Rev. Moon from last year, August 31 I think,
where he speaks more on this topic. When it is ready, I will post it.
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Subject: Re: If you are not "pro-choice" what choice are YOU providing
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
Date: 1998/07/01
Newsgroups: alt.abortion, alt.abortion.inequity, alt.fan.jesus-christ,
alt.support.abortion
A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
A woman who has sex with a man whom she does not love, and is not committed
to in marriage is committing a crime against the child who could come from
that union, and against herself, and against the man, and against society.
Needless to say, the man is doing wrong too.
But all this bleating about abortion misses the point. The moment of choice
is whether to have a sexual union, not whether to destroy its natural fruit
which is life.
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:11:20 -0400
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
To: Jim Browning <revjwb@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: HERESY: REV. MOON claims to be CHRIST!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,alt.christnet.theology
(Posted and mailed)
Jim Browning wrote:
> Jim Browning:
>
> DON'T BE DECEIVED! I participated in some training sessions of Rev. Moon's
> Unification Church to learn the truth of what they believe.
>
> Many people don't know Rev. Moon's radical claims: (i) Moon claims that
> Jesus Christ failed in His mission; (ii) Moon claims to be the SECOND COMING
> OF CHRIST; (iii) Moon claims that he will fulfill the Messiah's mission.
> Clearly, the Unification Church is heresy from the perspective of the
> biblical Christian faith.
>
> I wonder why Moon's followers never respond when their secret beliefs are
> exposed? Could it be that their whole movement is based on deception?
>
> "Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. ...
> test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false
> prophets have gone out into the world" (First John 2:22; 4:1).
>
> In Christ's name,
> Jim Browning
Dear Rev. Browning,
These teachings that you speak of are not hidden teachings. The teachings
related to Jesus are found in numerous publications available for you to buy
from HSA-UWC Publications and also from the web at:
HSA-UWC Publications
http://www.hsabooks.com
Also, you can read many of those books online on my web site at:
Unification Home Page
http://www.unification.net
For example:
Divine Principle
http://www.unification.net/dp96
Rev. Moon has proclaimed his messianic mission publicly. See:
Proclamation of the Messiah
http://www.unification.net/prmes
How about
True Parents and the Completed Testament Age
http://www.unification.net/hjh/hjh930701.html
True Family and I
http://www.unification.net/1995/950625.html
View of the Principle of the Providential History of Salvation
http://www.unification.net/1996/960416.html
I have made it my business to make all of those teachings public for many
reasons, but among them, so that people like you could not claim that they were
somehow secret. These teachings are not and were not secret, they were just not
distributed very well. And we begged people to come and hear our workshops, and
as early as 1988, we had 7000 ministers such as yourself come to Korea to hear
our teachings in the homeland of our faith. The fact that you were able to
attend a workshop shows you that this information was available to you.
Sincerely,
In the name of True Parents,
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net
http://www.unification.net
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:23:34 -0400
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
To: goodms01@BLARKwfu.edu
Subject: Re: If you are not "pro-choice" what choice are YOU providing
Cassandra wrote:
> Damian J. Anderson wrote:
>
> > A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
> >
> > A woman who has sex with a man whom she does not love, and is not committed
> > to in marriage is committing a crime against the child who could come from
> > that union, and against herself, and against the man, and against society.
> > Needless to say, the man is doing wrong too.
> >
> > But all this bleating about abortion misses the point. The moment of choice
> > is whether to have a sexual union, not whether to destroy its natural fruit
> > which is life.
>
> So what if a woman, say a married college student, gets pregnant and knows she
> and her husband -- also a student -- cannot manage the child properly?
Any couple who kills the fruit of their own body does not deserve to be
a parent. There are plenty of people willing to love that child without
your having to play God and kill the innocent.
> And what about rape? I assure you, that is NOT a choice.
Do two wrongs make a right?
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 14:49:51 GMT
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
Subject: Re: If you are not "pro-choice" what choice are YOU providing
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, talk.abortion, alt.abortion
In article <1998070122200200.SAA27779@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
rosamaxim@aol.com (Rosa maxim) wrote:
> >From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
>
> >A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
>
> You are a vulgar individual.
Why thank you Rosa. Coming from you, I take that as a compiment. The language
of the common people is so direct, is it not? :-)
Damian Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:17:25 -0400
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
To: Osmo Ronkanen <ronkanen@cc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: If you are not "pro-choice" what choice are YOU providing
Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> I seem when a man and a woman have casual sex the woman is a criminal
> and the man is a victim.
No, they are both criminals in the eyes of God.
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 1998 10:41:14 -0400
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
To: "Carlos M. S. Antunes" <cmsa@global-one.pt>
Subject: A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
Carlos M. S. Antunes wrote:
> In talk.abortion Damian J. Anderson <damian@unification.net> wrote:
>
> > A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
>
> Is there any intelligent reason behind this or is just because you say so?
Is there a difference between the two? I said it because I believe it. A woman
is free to behave like she is a daughter of God and to love one man for all
her life, or to behave like a whore, opening her quiver to every arrow that
pleases her, profaning the holy temple that God gave her as her body, and as
the dwelling place of God. In the prophets of the Old Testament, God rages at
the faithlessness of Israel who acted like a whore going after many lovers.
The dividing point of heaven and hell is how we use our sexual organs. The
cause of hell on earth in the first place was our first ancestors Adam and
Eve, who were naked and unashamed, who misused their sexuality, and brought
shame, sin and guilt into the world.
Any woman who has sex with any man not her husband acts like a whore. And any
man who has sex with a woman not his wife acts like a whoremonger. Abortion is
a convenience for whores and whoremongers, so that they can hide the
consequences of their misdeeds.
Every major religious tradition abhors adultery, fornication, homosexuality,
bestiality, incest, and rape. This is the accumulated wisdom of all of our
ancestors. Do you have the hubris to suggest that you know better?
This reference on the theme of adultery may be of interest:
World Scripture - Adultery
http://www.unification.net/ws/theme059.htm
In the name of True Parents,
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Thu Jul 2 15:23:18 EDT 1998
Rosa Maxim wrote:
> > Yes, I was stressing this word because if you believe that without the
> >shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, then you are saying that
> >without his dying on the cross there is no salvation. Therefore Christ must
> >be rejected and die on the cross to bring salvation.
>
> Ron, are you happy that Sun Myung Moon has given (you believe) physical
> salvation to you ?
>
> This would not have been possible without the fall, therefore Adam and Eve MUST
> fall to give you physical salvation. Is that right ?
Jesus was able to forgive sins while he was on the earth, because of the
authority vested in him by God. There was no need for him to die on the
cross to forgive sins.
As far as salvation of our body goes, this is promised in scripture in
Romans 8:23 and Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the man who has come according
to God's promise so that this can be fulfilled through the marriage
Blessing. We can rejoice in our own salvation, but we will rejoice more
when the heartache of God is liberated by the salvation of every living
soul, on Earth and in the spiritual world. As the apostle Paul said
to Timothy:
I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession
and thanksgiving be made for everyone-- for kings and all those
in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all
godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior,
who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the
truth. (1 Timothy 2.1-4)
and the prophet Ezekiel said:
"As I live," says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death
of the wicked." (Ezekiel 33.11)
Saying that Adam and Eve must fall so that we can have salvation is
like saying that it is good to have cancer so that a nice doctor can
cure me. Frankly, I would rather not have cancer, no matter how nice the
doctor is likely to be. Likewise, I think that God would have preferred
that His children not fall, no matter how wonderful the savior may be.
The concept of Bishop Augustine of Hippo in his book "Christian Doctrine"
(written 395 - 427 AD) of the felix culpa, the "happy fault", is poor
theology in my view. James J O'Donnell paraphrases him as saying:
Just as he will say elsewhere that the fall of Adam was a felix
culpa (happy fault) because it made possible the incarnation, so
obscurity is the result of sin, but it provides opportunities for
the redeemed intellect that would not be available otherwise.
(http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/twayne/aug2.html)
Adam and Eve DID NOT have to fall, and it would have made all our lives
much easier if they had not. I hope that answers your question, Rosa.
ITPN,
---
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 1998 16:26:12 GMT
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
Subject: Re: HERESY: REV. MOON claims to be CHRIST!
Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, talk.religion.misc,
alt.religion.christian, alt.christnet.theology
In article <6nf239$reb@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
"Jim Browning" <revjwb@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> DON'T BE DECEIVED! I participated in some training sessions of Rev. Moon's
> Unification Church to learn the truth of what they believe.
Okay, I answered the canard about the reputed "secret" teachings of the
church, which are not secret, in my last post.
> Many people don't know Rev. Moon's radical claims: (i) Moon claims that
> Jesus Christ failed in His mission; (ii) Moon claims to be the SECOND COMING
> OF CHRIST; (iii) Moon claims that he will fulfill the Messiah's mission.
> Clearly, the Unification Church is heresy from the perspective of the
> biblical Christian faith.
Let's take these claims that you make one at a time:
(1) The point here is not what Jesus accomplished, since we teach that
through Jesus' death and resurrection, those who believe in him and obey him
obtain spiritual salvation. The point is that we teach that Jesus' mission
was a lot bigger than that. The mission of Jesus was the same as the mission
of Adam, namely, to build the eternal world of goodness on the earth. This
did not come about because the people of his day failed to understand him and
follow him. So, a secondary and lesser goal was fulfilled, which is still
praiseworthy. The world is not the Kingdom of God on Earth, yet in the Lord's
Prayer which we read in Matt 6, Jesus prayed for the Kingdom to come on Earth
as it is in Heaven.
So, Jesus succeeded in bringing salvation to those who believe in him, yet
that salvation is not complete, since we still live in a world in which we
have to struggle against sin.
The mission that Jesus did not accomplish was the one which was postponed to
the Second Coming. This new level of salvation, the salvation of our bodies,
was spoken of by the Apostle Paul in Romans 8:23.
(2) Rev. Moon claims that he and his wife have taken on the responsibility to
accomplish the second and greater mission that Jesus left unaccomplished, but
which God yearns to see fulfilled, namely, the rescue of every last human
soul living or who ever lived, to bring them into the reign of God on Earth
and in Heaven. Not only is this the mission of the Second Coming, but it is
the mission of every faithful Christian, to make the world one where God can
dwell, in peace and harmony.
(3) This was pretty much covered by (2), that Rev. Moon will accomplish the
Messiah's mission.
--
Damian Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, DF wrote:
> In a message dated 98-07-02 15:26:36 EDT, you write:
>
> << This may have been true in the distant past, but for many years now, we
> have been proclaiming our teachings to anyone who would listen.
> And since 1992 when True Parents began their speaking tours, it has
> been very clear that True Parents are proclaiming their messianic
> mission. >>
>
> Agreed, except for the term "distant." Many people formed their opinions about
> the UC during the 1970's and 80s--or from books and reports issued in those
> days--when we still dissembled on this point. We did so following Father's own
> example, since he was still in John the Baptist's position. This standard is
> no longer appropriate today, but unfortunately we still bear the
> responsibility and must pay the price for our previous actions.
DF,
Does it mean then that because people formed opinions of the UC in the
1970's and 1980's, that we are unable to disabuse them of their wrong
assumptions about us? I know that when I joined in 1977, nobody told me
that Father was the Messiah, and when I finally asked directly after
hearing the conclusion of the lectures, I was told to pray about it.
Given the providential time, that is what had to be said before
Father's foundation was significant enough. But now, it is not the
case. We did not do wrong, by not stating Father's mission forthrightly
at the time. We did what was appropriate at the time, just as Jesus
told his disciples not to tell of his messiahship while he was with
them. After the Resurrection and the Pentecost, they did not hold their
tongues, but spoke freely. Now is that same pentecostal time for the
Unification movement. I believe that Father wants us to shout the
teachings of the Divine Principle from the rooftops so that everyone
can hear. Just as the public has to change with the times, so must we,
hence the talk of wineskins. Let's be flexible like new wineskins! :-)
ITPN,
--
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998 13:51:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Damian J. Anderson" <damian@unification.net>
Subject: Re: A woman's right to choose ends when she opens her legs.
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, DF wrote:
> In a message dated 98-07-02 15:03:11 EDT, MAW write:
>
> << I wonder what happens in the case of Rape. I've always felt that it is OK
> because the child has no spirit until born, am I wrong about that? >>
>
> I've been thinking about this in light of what Father has taught on the
> subject, and I'm afraid I have to disagree with the conclusion--not to mention
> the misogynist tone--of the title of this thread.
>
> Here's what Rev Kwak, with Father's approval published about this issue in The
> Tradition Book I
>
> Abortion is acceptable when...
>
> "The mother's health is endangered... (or) if certain tests confirm that the
> unborn child has irrevisible deformites that would seriously inhibit life
> (i.e. spina bifida, Down's syndrome, etc) ... (or) if the child was conceived
> through rape, incest, or any circumstance involving a break in the spiritual
> order."
>
> The latter phrase--"any circumstance involbing a break in the spiritual
> order"--is clearly a reference to out of wedlock conception. Thus, abortion
> should not be viewed by unificationists a merely a convenience for adulterers
> and whoremongers, but also as a remedy for their misdeeds. Thus, if a woman
> conceives a child in adultery and later realizes her error, she should have
> the right to get an abortion.
DF,
Is that truly what Father teaches on the subject? I have never heard or
read of Father say anything indicating the acceptability of abortion,
notwithstanding the statements made by Rev. Kwak. On a subject as
critical and controversial as this, I wonder at why he has kept so
quiet. And you may know that Father gave a considerable amount of money
to the Walters family in our community to take care of a child born
with Spina Bifida. It leaves me pensive.
It reminds me of a coworker who just came back from Russia. He had many
pretty and respectable looking young women and offer him sex, for
money. He laughed at them and said that in America, they do it for
free! Why would he want to pay for it? Is there any difference between
a woman who offers sex for money and one who has sex with many men just
for the vice (read fun) of it? And of course the same applies to the
men who take them up on it. One of the reasons Father declaims so
strongly against Americans is this propensity for this lifestyle of
illicit sex, and propagandizing for that lifestyle worldwide through
the media.
As for the tone of misogyny, Father sometimes come across that way too.
But is it not true that a woman who welcomes all comers to her bed acts
like a whore? This is the root of all evil, lest we forget.
Perhaps we should say, a woman's right to life ends when she opens her
legs to the wrong man. And a man who has sex with a woman not his wife
forfeits his right to life. Those who commit this sin are worse than
murderers and deserve to die. It is only by virtue of the mercy of the
ever-merciful, patient and loving God that such people are not
destroyed. We have to wake up to the real evil of this free-sex
culture, and not just say it is a peccadillo.
ITPN,
--
Damian J. Anderson damian@unification.net http://www.unification.net