Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 50

Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 07:41:33 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Texts <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification, talk.religion.misc, alt.religion.christian, alt.christnet.theology Subject: How will Christ come again? On Sat, 9 May 1998, Maria wrote: > Rev Moon cannot be the second coming of the Messiah because it will be > Christ Himself who will come in the last days. Malachi 4:5 prophecied the coming of Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. But when the time came, it was not the same Elijah who returned, but John the Baptist in the spirit and power of Elijah. This is mentioned in Matt 11:14, and Luke 1:17. Likewise, although people are expecting Jesus to come back, another man will come with the spirit and power of Jesus. The book of Revelation says that when Christ comes again, he will come with a new name, known only to him and to the Father. (Rev 2:17, 3:13, 19:12). -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Sun, 10 May 1998 15:30:23 GMT From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Is Homosexuality Immoral? Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification,,, alt.politics.homosexuality In article <>, (John De Salvio) wrote: > > No, I never said in that sentence that being gay was or wasn't > > immoral. I only stated that "normal" and "born that way" are not > > acceptable excuses for immorality. If you can make a statement that > > anything at all is immoral, I am saying that if someone does what you > > think is immoral, but says it's OK because they were "born that way", > > that their excuse is not acceptable. Having a predisposition to wanting > > to do something that is immoral doesn't make it moral to do it. > > 1. Do you think homosexuality is immoral? > > 2. Why? ("Because society-God-the Bible says so" is not acceptable). > > John > desalvio["AT" SYMBOL] 1. Do I think homosexuality is immoral? Yes. It is completely contrary to God's will and to God's ideal of the family. Not only that, but I think that all sexual relationships other that those within the commitment of eternal marriage are immoral and evil. 2. Why? You particularly refuse to accept authority. This is an interesting reflection of your attitude. This means, you do not accept any universal standard of right or wrong, since for you, God, the society or the Bible are not authorities. Actually, I don't care what the society thinks is right or wrong, since so often, the society has been wrong. There was a time when various societies have condoned all manner of evil, including slavery, genocide, killing of children, abortion, adultery, divorce, burning of heretics, homosexuality, pederasty, cannibalism. So, we cannot take the society as a yardstick of values. So is the Bible our source of absolute, eternal and immutable values? There was a time when there was no Bible. So who is authorized to set a standard for human conduct? The only possible source of absolute values must be the absolute being, God. God existed when there was no universe, no human beings. God created two kinds of human being, male and female, in his image. The perfection of the image of God is in the eternal union in love of the couple, and any other sexual union is a deviation from the standard. The norm of sexuality is an eternal union of man and woman, one man, one woman, once and for all. This means to me that all other sexual unions, homosexual, heterosexual outside marriage, human with an animal, parent with child, and so on, are evil. They break down the fundamental fabric of human existence, the family, the place where we should be nurtured in love from the time of our birth. Any homosexual relationship is inherently and undeniably inferior to a heterosexual monogamous eternal marriage, since it has NO POSSIBILITY for the creation of life. Homosexuals who have children must go outside the relationship of the two same-sex individuals to conceive a child. Children are the fruit of the deep love of a man and a woman. Every time I look at my children, I am reminded of the deep love I have for the woman who together with me brought each child into the world. Each time I look at her, I am deeply grateful to her and to God for enabling me to become a Daddy. This cannot happen in a homosexual relationship, it is physically impossible. When we have children, then we are able to experience the fullness of God's love for us, since in loving them, we come to experience the immense love he must have had in loving us. We also teach children that they are inherently lovable, for who they are, not for what they do, so that they can go out into the world with a sense of security in being loved. Parents' love is the source of the belief that I am lovable, and that I am loved. This is the source of self-esteem, not the feel-good social programs that have been devised to cover up the awful scar of wounded hearts who have been betrayed by divorcing or unloving parents. Those who have not had children may have difficulty relating to the experiences of parenthood. There is no doubt in my mind that parents are qualitatively different from other people. They have had the experience of being needed by a crying hungry or sick child and have gone beyond themselves to love another. No other experience in my view forces us to be unselfish to such an extraordinary degree. Without being a parent, you don't experience that. Being an older brother, an uncle or babysitter is not the same. When you bring a new life into the world, then you are responsible for the life of another human being, a tiny fragile defenseless human being, 24 hours a day. The responsibility changes as the child matures, but the fact that the two of you created that life is an awe-inspiring miracle. A case in point is Madonna, the singer. She has changed her attitude on a lot of things as a result of being a mother. Taking the responsibility of parenthood seriously does such miracles for people's character. It is a great improvement. Before, her main interest was partying, having fun, having sex, making money. All of a sudden, she has a new interest in her life, she is concerned about how she is affecting the community and the children of the world, and the entertainment she was producing now appears clear for what it was, profane. Not only do we experience going beyond ourselves in loving our children, but after a very short time, our child comes to love us as a natural response to our loving our child. Also, we come to love our spouse more deeply for giving us the precious experience of being able to have that child in our lives. Then when there are multiple children, there is the dynamic of sibling love. Also, children have relationships with their grandparents. So, the love of man and woman is multi-dimensional, since the natural consequence of uninhibited love between a man and a woman is that life and love are generated from that union. Love and life and our family multiply and grow when a man and a woman truly love each other. This is not possible in a homosexual relationship. It is sterile. Homosexuals have many diseases as a result of their sexual practices. It is part of a culture of death, disease and decay. Where there is homosexuality, promiscuous sex and divorce, true love cannot exist. For whatever reason, those who do not have a spouse and children are missing out on one of life's greatest avenues of fulfillment. One homosexual whom I knew who has since died of AIDS said that he was suicidal as a teenager and went out of his way to contract AIDS, deliberately. Promiscuity was a form of suicide for him. He lived with AIDS for about 10 years until his death at about the age of 29. The culture that promotes sex without tying it to the root of life, and to the commitment to eternal love is a recipe for despair, desolation, decay, disease, and death. There can be no hope in such ephemeral love, there is the ever-present fear of betrayal, the knowledge that there is no true or lasting love there, and worst of all, the paralyzing fear that "I am not lovable, or worthy of love." I asked Craig Maxim whether he was a parent, not to pass judgement on him, but to suggest that there is a realm of experience that he has not yet touched. I venture to say that the same may well be true for Bill Innocent and John De Salvio. Why is it that homosexuals complain that the society makes them feel guilty? They do so to project their guilt onto the society. The fact is that their God-given conscience is making them feel guilt, shame, self-loathing. Our conscience is a blessing, but to those who are living in this kind of sin, it seems like a curse. Like it or not, we are blessed, or cursed, with a conscience. And my argument ultimately appeals, not to the universal authority of God, although I do accept that authority, but appeals to the authority of the conscience. Even atheists recognize the existence and importance of the conscience, even if they do not recognize God. This is a good starting point. Sincerely, -- Damian J. Anderson
From Mon May 25 17:18:03 1998 Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 17:08:15 -0400 (EDT) On Sat, 23 May 1998, Maria wrote: > Damian J. Anderson wrote: > > > > View of the Principle > > of the > > Providential History of Salvation > > > > Founder's Address by > > The Reverend Sun Myung Moon > > > > Presented at the Inaugural Banquet of > > THE WASHINGTON TIMES FOUNDATION > > April 16, 1996 - Washington, DC > > > > No Bride for Jesus > > 9 of 11 > > > > Jesus was aware of his path as the Messiah, and he lamented by > > himself these lonely circumstances and the serious obstacle they > > presented to fulfilling the will of God. The Messiah is the True > > Parent. And to fulfill that mission he needed to receive his > > substantial bride. Jesus had to reverse, at the very root, the false > > love by which the Archangel had caused the fall of Eve, who was > > growing up as the sister of Adam. Consequently, Jesus, in the place of > > Adam as the Son of God, should have received as his bride the younger > > sister of someone in an archangelic position. That bride was to have > > been none other than Zechariah's daughter, the younger sister of John > > the Baptist. To fulfill this in a world where Satan plays the role of > > owner and lord, Jesus needed a foundation of protection formed by > > absolute faith. Tragically, the entire foundation ended up collapsing > > around him. > > > > This would not have happened if Zechariah and Elizabeth, who had > > received the revelation and spiritual support from God, had maintained > > absolute faith. If they had fulfilled their responsibility, Mary would > > have been in contact with them continually, even after her three-month > > stay at their house. God chose Zechariah's family as the foremost > > representatives of the entire world, so that even after the birth of > > Jesus they would protect, serve, and witness to him as the Messiah. > > They not only should have served Jesus as the Son of God and Messiah > > with utter devotion, but they should have learned the will of God > > through Jesus and followed him absolutely. Also, John the Baptist was > > born to serve Jesus and should have fulfilled his responsibility to > > guide everyone he led to repentance to believe in Jesus and receive > > salvation. > > > > But unfortunately, although Zechariah, Elizabeth, and John the Baptist > > testified at first to Jesus as the Son of God, there is no evidence > > that they served him as such. The respected priest Zechariah was > > simply a spectator. John the Baptist stood separate from Jesus. These > > circumstances blocked the people from following Jesus and made his > > path very difficult. And once this family lost faith in Jesus, looking > > at him through human eyes, there was no room for them to help him > > receive his bride. > > > > We should also consider the influence that Joseph and Mary's > > relationship had on Jesus. Mary had to restore the positions of Eve > > and Tamar through indemnity, so she should have remained as only the > > fiancée of Joseph. Providentially, they could not be husband and wife. > > It was God's desire that they not have sexual relations either before > > or after Jesus' birth. Joseph still loved Mary after Jesus was born, > > but Mary should have wanted to separate from Joseph to raise Jesus as > > the Son of God. > > > > But the real circumstances did not make this easy to do. Even though > > Mary's original mind told her that she should not do so, she had > > sexual relations with Joseph. They had children, which was a > > repetition of Eve's mistake. With this condition, Satan invaded them. > > With the exception of Jesus, everyone who should have protected Jesus > > came under the dominion of Satan: his father, his mother, his > > Abel-type brothers (John the Baptist and his brothers) and his > > Cain-type brothers (the children of Joseph). > > > > -- > > Damian J. Anderson > > > This chapter is sheer fiction and is no way supported by any > authoritative teaching of any sort whatsoever. It is neither supported > by scripture nor by tradition. Who does Mr Moon think he receives his > authority from to put out such erroneous material? If he wants to unite > all faiths he is going the wrong way about it because no Christian could > ever accept what he preaches here. > May God have mercy on his soul and all those who propagate this false > teaching. Which part do you think is fictional? Clearly Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus was born. The scripture says this. You cannot be selective of what you take from scripture. Secondly, there is no evidence that John's family supported Jesus, even though they knew that Jesus was special, and there were prophecies at the time of his birth. In fact, John the Baptist never became a disciple of Jesus, though he was groomed for the mission. I suspect that it is not my interpretation that is fictional. Regards, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 17:17:13 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Re: SMM: The Cause of Human Conflict On Sat, 23 May 1998, Maria wrote: > Damian J. Anderson wrote: > > > > The Healing of The World > > An Introduction to the Life and Teachings > > of Sun Myung Moon > > > > 9 of 34 > > The Cause of Human Conflict > > > > God is a being of infinite love, goodness and power, yet evil exists. > > Reverend Moon struggled for many years to discover the cause of evil. > > If we look at ourselves, it is apparent that we contain two > > conflicting desires: one which tells us to lift other people up and > > care for them, and one which tells us to take care of our own comforts > > first, regardless of everyone else. Where does this conflict come > > from? Did God, after creating a beautiful and ecologically balanced > > system of life, somehow err and design His highest creation with an > > inherent contradiction, like a cup with a hole in it? Of course not. > > > > If there were, in the heavens or in the earth, other gods beside > > God, there would have been confusion in both! > > > > There is no record of events that explains how evil came into this > > world. The Bible tells of Adam and Eve committing the first sin. But > > the story is shrouded in symbolism, and lacks clarity as to precisely > > what Adam and Eve did. Certainly, the sin of the first human ancestors > > had awesome consequences, as all their descendants have been affected > > by it. Reverend Moon discovered how the first human ancestors lost > > their relationship with God and how, consequently, their descendants > > were separated from God. > > > > -- > > Damian J. Anderson > > The sin of Adam and Eve was that of disobedience to God, all sin is > disobedience to God. The story of Adam and Eve is not to be taken > literally. It is an allegory. Therefore it is pointless to the story to > wonder what exactly they did beyond what is written in the story itself. > It is the story of the human condition. They were expelled from the > garden of Eden, a heavenly state. I do not take the story of Adam and Eve literally in the sense that it was not a talking snake who tempted Eve. Nevertheless, the man and woman who were intended to be the Lords of Creation sinned and God's heartfelt desire to create a world of goodness was destroyed by sin. You may say that it is merely allegory, but what basis do you have for saying that? Science tells us today that the human race may well have come from a single couple. From the fact that after they sinned they were ashamed of their nakedness, it seems pretty clear to me that they sinned sexually. > Abraham on the other hand, who was > obedient to the Lord, and all his descendants, received a promise as a > reward for this obedience. In repeated covenants God promised salvation > to His people. This salvation eventually came through the life, death > and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Our Lord, the Son of God, who is one > with God the Father and God, the Holy Spirit, whom He sent down to His > followers on the first Pentecost and to all who believe and are baptised > in Him ever since. You too, through the merit of your baptism, are able > to receive the Holy Spirit, the one and only teacher. But we must be in > a state of Grace, which means, we have to be obedient to the word of God > as handed down the ages by the church He founded with Peter and His > successors as the human authority to teach as guided by the Holy Spirit. > Anyone else is an impostor! > We of ourself have no power to save ourselves. God saves! He is all > powerful, all mighty and the all loving God. He does not need us, we > need Him! Although we have some degree of salvation, clearly it is incomplete, or else, we would again be living in the Earthly Paradise. When salvation is complete, God will be able to dwell fully and completely with His children. Until then, we must wait in eager longing as Rom 8:23 says, for the revealing of that salvation. > Chapter Five part 2 of 'Blessing and Ideal Family' which I read some > time ago does not make sense, when one considers that without God's > grace we are totally powerless. We of ourselves cannot re-create the > world and restore it. We cannot buy back the world with all the money we > can make. That teaching is pure materialism and slavery. > How can we give anything back to God who owns everything and gives to us > all we possess? Although God is the rightful owner of everything, Satan has taken a claim on it due to the sin of humans. We are enslaved to sin and evil until the day of final liberation when God's reign will be established on the Earth. > May God have mercy on your soul. Thanks a lot. In case you did not know, those are the words of the hanging judge. -- Damian J. Anderson
The Vitality Element and Vertical Relationships (Bill Taylor) wrote: > Subject: Since you asked, DP questions... > Date: 23 May 1998 04:25:29 EDT > From: (Bill Taylor) > Organization: Urmia Institute > Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification > > Vitality element: In a vertical relationship, how does the object > participate in the creation of the subject? Bill, I saw your list of questions and was intrigued, and would like to take them one at a time to answer, as my time permits. Your question is in regard to the vitality element. Perhaps my knowledge of Divine Principle or Unification Theology is insufficient but I don't see the immediate connection between that and the object participating in the creation of the subject. Therefore, I will simply respond from my own experience. As you may know, I am the father of four children, and very proud of them too I might add. It may seem like a tautology to say that a man is not a father until he has children, but it is also a practical reality. What I mean is that causing a child to be conceived and born is one thing, but to learn to nurture a child as a father is a learning and growing experience, one that we are given time to grow into, thankfully. So, I would say that having children and the challenge to love them calls forth something in the human being that causes growth. So in this way, you could say that the child participates in the growth of its parents, just by virtue of needing to be loved and cared for. In the Jewish tradition, a man is not considered to be fully a man until he is a father. May I also add that I have seen a lot of accusations flying around on this forum, and I will have nothing to do with them. On the whole, I am willing to answer sincere questions, in as much as I can make the time available to invest in this activity. What I do not want to do is respond to questions which are barely veiled accusations, or mockery of Unificationist beliefs and practices. One of my main goals is to provide timely access to Rev. Moon's recent speeches online, and I cannot do that and answer interminable questions online, so I need to be discriminating to some extent. I am already very much behind, and now that I have achieved some milestones in my day job that I needed to accomplish, I am going to set aside some more time for church related work on the Internet. I have yet to see a sincere question or statement coming out of Craig Maxim, Dennis Smith or Tilman Hausherr on this forum, and I frequently see them mocking the church, its beliefs or its members. You have done this too. I will have nothing to do with that. As for failings of church members, that is rather inevitable until we are all perfect, so I suggest we dispense with the tattling on who is doing what, and with whom, as it serves no good purpose, whether true or not true. If someone is doing wrong, then you had better pray hard for that person to do right, and to live according to the heavenly way of things. As St. Paul said, love does not delight in the sin of others, but delights in the truth. (1 Cor 13:6) You have insisted on honesty. I can accept that. In general, I prefer to talk about the theology, vision, goals, and ideals of the Unification movement which I have been a part of now for over 20 years. I prefer to keep off the subject of failings of the church, as you could have a field day talking about the failings of any church or any of its members. No church is perfect, nor are any of its members, so it is unreasonable to expect it. If there are institutional abuses, which are the policy of the organization, that is another matter, and should be dealt with through the proper channels. Since you have said that you do not read my postings of Unification teachings, then I will mail my individual replies to you as well as post them, since they are part of a public discussion. The only reason I participate in it is that I believe that your questions represent a reasonable inquiry into Unification theology and other people may benefit from the answers. Whether people like it or not, I have taken it upon myself to be a spokesman for Unification teachings on the Internet, and so I speak from my own authority, and do not necessarily represent official church positions. However, I do believe that what I say is pretty close to official church teachings where I claim to represent them. Having attended the Unification Theological Seminary and studied Rev. Moon's teachings in detail for many years, I hope that I can answer your questions. Sincerely, In my True Parents' Name, -- Damian Anderson
On Tue, 16 Jun 1998, FS wrote: > Dear Damian. > > Your messages are always inspiring. Your productive mind always brings > positive energy. > > I am curious and intrigued at the idea of international marriages. > > How do join people say Korean to American? > > Take me for example, although I agree that this is very good idea, the > probability of marrying a Korean woman would be a miracle. I live in Los > Angeles but do not know any oriental lady. > > How does Rev Moon make it happen ? > > Genetically it makes a lot of sense. I have read that distant genes > produce smart children. > > Reading the material you kindly sent me. I thought the idea is > wonderful, I was just curious on how Rev. Moon performs that kind of > miracle. > > Thanks for your hard work. It is really appreciated. You, have been > called upon to perform a very special mission on this planet. > > I am convinced that somehow you are acting as a messenger of the > Almighty. > > I say this because reading your column has changed me drastically. I am > a software engineer. When I come home after a hard's days work I always > have something to look forward to. > > Your reward with the Lord will be a great one. > > Thanks > > FS Dear FS, Rev. Moon is a very spiritual man who has a great ability to find good matches for people. One friend of mine just said that a young lady from Sri Lanka had found husbands for all her sisters, but she needed a husband. She requested a matching from Rev. Moon and was matched with a Brazilian man, and they are very happy about it. If you want to be matched, please contact the local Unification Church, and tell them of your interest in being matched with a Korean woman. The address list is at: And you are right that the more different the parents are, the more beautiful and talented the children tend to be. In plant breeding, they call it "hybrid vigor". Best wishes, and thanks for your kind words. Sincerely, -- Damian J. Anderson
Hi KR, On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, KR wrote: > Dearest Damian, > > I'm sorry for such a delayed response relating to the New World Society and > seeking a Unification representative. > > I have a question for you: > I've heard recently that several Orthodox churches have broken away from > the Parent Orthodox Council (I'm not sure right now what the technical name > for that is) and joined the Ecumenic Christians. > > Is this the same as the Unification movement, the Ecumenic movement? No, the Unification movement is the ministry begun by Rev. Sun Myung Moon in Korea in 1954. You can find extensive information on it at: > I had thus far been splitting Christianity into three basic groups (there > are others including Jehovah's Witnesses and the LDS Church...) of: > > Catholic > Orthodox > Protestant > > I think it would be appropriate to also include Unification. What is your > opinion? You are welcome to consider the Unification movement as a separate branch of Christianity, but in fact, we are more a post-Christian religion, in that we believe that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is the man who fulfills the role of the expected returning founder of all the major world religions. > Do you know how many different churches have officially joined > the Unification movement? Or is there a Unification church separate from > this ecumenic movement? The Unification Church has been absorbed into the wider True Family Values movement sponsored by the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification. > I guess the clarification I'm trying to make is... is the Unification > church a non-denominational movement or a multi-denominational movement? The intent of the Unification movement is to be multi-denominational, and unifying not only Christians, but also other major world religions too, such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so on. The goal of all religions can be fulfilled by the establishment of the ideal of the family with God at its center. > Thank you so much for your time, > KR You're welcome. Sorry to be so late in answering. Regards, -- Damian J. Anderson
Subject: Afterlife Hello KR, You will find many of your questions on the Unification Church view of the afterlife answered in: Insights Into the Afterlife 30 Questions and Answers on What to Expect by Nora M. Spurgin Regards, Damian Anderson On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, KR wrote: > I'm not expecting a quick response to this, since it is a very in depth > question that will, of course, need serious consideration by each of you. > For those of you who are not elders in your religions, you may chose to > discuss this topic with a religious leader in your community, so that you > feel more comfortable with your response. > > I'm now going to start giving the pages some flesh and this is the first > question I'm going to ask: > > What do you believe in for the afterlife? > > Here are some specific topics to consider in your response: > Heaven > Hell/Outer Darkness > Purgatory > Reincarnation > Rebirth > Resurrection (i.e. can a human (besides Jesus, for the Christians) come > back to life after death?) > > For those who specifically believe in Heaven and/or Hell (and if there are > other names I should be using, please please please let me know), what > specific things must one do to enter into either one of these places? And, > for Christians specifically, does your church belief in the three stages of > Heaven described in the New Testament? (I'm sorry I don't have a specific > citation to give you... I do remember though that the stages are Telestial, > Terrestrial, and Celestial...) > > Thank you all for your time! > My deepest apologies for the slowness of progress in this project... I > refuse to publish anything now, but stuff approved by representatives, > which may take a little longer but which will avoid any possible > misconceptions, etc. that I absolutely insist on excluding from this. > > Peace be with you and yours! > KR -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 11:31:14 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Pioneer <> Newsgroups: alt.religion.unifcation,alt.atheism Subject: Re: SW: Can spiritual growth take place on the other side? (Posted and mailed) Austin Cline wrote: > In article <>, > "Damian J. Anderson" <> wrote: > > Can spiritual growth take place on the other side? > > > > Yes, it appears to be a law of the universe that growth is always > > possible. According to many accounts, the spiritual world has > > teachers and guides (those who have died, sometimes centuries > > before, who have the mission to guide newcomers who want to learn > > and grow in the spirit world). > > According to what accounts? > > And how reliable are they? > > For children, teachers are provided > > to give them basic knowledge, and people in the position of > > parents provide them with essential love. > > Why? > > How? > > How do you know? Pioneer, The above and other accounts of the spirit world are based solely on people's experience. You may well say that this is an unreliable source of knowledge, and indeed, your main concerns appear to be epistemological. In other words, you want to know how does one obtain knowledge about the thing. You could say the same thing about the appreciation of art or mountain scenery. There are certain objective things which people report to be the case, and certain things which are subjective impressions. The matters of spirituality and personal growth are not easily quantified by their very nature, but that does not invalidate the observations of those who have experienced them. It just means that you have to use your own judgement in what you accept and what you do not. Evidently, you are skeptical about the whole issue of life after death. But then you may be skeptical about a whole lot of other things such as the value of marriage and having children. These are questions of values and beliefs. To some extent, people choose what they want to believe, until a powerful stimulus persuades them otherwise. Believe it or not, there was a time when I was an unbeliever. That was when I was a teenager, beset with troubles in my life. Now I am a man, I have left such ideas behind me. I believe in the existence of a benevolent creator of the universe who loves each one of us, and I believe that this benevolent creator intended His love relationship with us to be everlasting. Thus, the belief in eternal life is a natural corollary of the belief in a benevolent creator. I think there are plenty of reasons to believe in a benevolent creator, and do not doubt that one day, you will believe it too. Perhaps that moment will only come when you discover the reality of the afterlife. > -- > Austin Cline: Publicity Coordinator, Campus Freethought Alliance > Regional Director, Council for Secular Humanism Sincerely, --- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 17:38:36 -0400 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Bill Taylor <> Subject: Faith and Works Bill Taylor wrote: > Damian J. Anderson wrote: > > >The most difficult thing for a person who has been deeply steeped > >in a particular religious tradition is to realize that the form > >alone is not what elevates a person; it is the heart. > > In Unificationism, it is actions which change and elevate a person. > Actions are causal to the heart. I suppose it sounds better to say that > the heart is the cause so you will say that when it is more convenient. > Is there actually a truth behind this or does the truth vascillate? The truth is unchanging. Unificationism teaches that performing good actions changes one's heart, an experience that anyone knows who has ever done a good deed. The repeated practice of kindness towards others does change one's spirit in a good way. This is the issue of the vitality element that Bill referred to. The converse also holds true, that those who repeatedly do evil deeds develop a dark and evil spirit, which becomes numb to the conscience, to God, to repentance and remorse. So, it is the heart which matters. One's internal motivation determines what kind of actions one performs. We can nourish our spirit by two methods. One is through prayer and devotional study of God's word. In Unification theology, this is what we call the life element which comes from the spirit. The other way is through living for the sake of others. In Unification theology, this is what we call the vitality element which comes from the body. For a balanced spiritual development, both an internal life of faith and good deeds are required. This is in agreement with the letter of John who says that those who love God love their neighbors, and those who do not love, do not belong to God. And James says that faith without works is dead. The mind of man is able to envision great deeds of altruism and the body is able to implement them. When the body of man serves the highest good, according to the highest ideals of his mind and conscience, he comes to resemble God, who is supremely good. This is the meaning of the unity of mind and body centered upon God. It is that simple. This is the simple expression of Unification theology of the attainment of personal perfection and holiness. Those on this group who constantly harp on about Unificationists being dishonest, misleading, and all kinds of shady practices are not speaking out of Christian love, but are breaking the commandment that God gave to Moses not to bear false witness against their neighbors. Ephesians 5: 19-23 says: The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who are accusing Unificationists of dishonesty and other vices are spreaders of lies, strife and division, while we are doing our very best to be patient, kind, and self-controlled and to impart our vision of life and the world without strife. I am quite happy to led God be my judge, and not to worry about the spreaders of strife. Sincerely, In the name of True Parents, --- Damian J. Anderson