Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 52

Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1998 03:56:17 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Cc: Global Village Inn <>, Unification Faithful <HOME_HARBOR_INN@HOME.EASE.LSOFT.COM> Subject: Are you the one who was to come or should we wait for another? Since this was posted to both GVI and Unif-Evangelism, I am replying to both lists at once. On Sun, 27 Sep 1998, Chris Garcia wrote: > On the UNIF-EVANGELISM list someone who attended Father's service at > East Garden, the day after the 60 Minutes broadcast posted his notes on > the list. Here is an excerpt. > > "...This is where he spoke of Nan Sook. She saw that father loved Cain > children more than Abel children. She "built bitter feeling inside when > she saw no love in the family". Nan Sook concluded "he is not the > messiah because he cannot love his own family. True Children complained > that all the love and attention is directed toward leaders..." > > I've been thinking about this official response from Father to Nan > Sook's book and it distrubs me. It may that timid or disingenuous > leaders have hidden the books true contents from Father and he doesn't > understand the real nature of what's bugging Nan Sook. Or it may be > that because the faithful have dreadfully avoided it he thinks he can > fool us. But I think the real reason is more fundamental to his > character. I'm worried that he may simply be incapable of "getting it." I believe that True Parents are fully aware of the extent of Hyo Jin Nim's problems and have attempted various things without success so far. I believe that Nan Sook Nim's book has been translated for Father into Korean so that he could understand. Perhaps this experience with Nan Sook Nim will be a blessing in disguise for Hyo Jin Nim as it will require him to go deeper into himself to reconcile himself to his wife and children, and with his parents and with God. It may the the kick in the nuts that he needs to wake up and start on the process of personal and family restoration. I fully believe in the restorative and healing power of True Love, and in the final goal of the reconciliation of Hyo Jin Nim and Nan Sook Nim, even though she clearly does not appear to want that at the moment. Father recently spoke of eternal relationships of fate, which you cannot ever break no matter what. Since Hyo Jin Nim and Nan Sook Nim have five children together, they are bound together eternally by fate, whether they like it or not. I believe that the solution will come through the bitter course of tears to heal BOTH of their hearts. > Father has thing about "God's viewpoint." Graham has said many times > here that he thinks Father's crazy, but that may be close but not > exactly right. I think Father has this extremely rigid, predefined > world view, simililar to what I've seen in fundamental christians. > Everything goes through this filter. If the Bible says the earth is > flat, it's flat mister. If God created the world in 7 days, dinosaur > bones are a trick of the devil and so on. All the evidence in teh world > is not even part of the picture for them, because everything goes > through this rigid filter. I think Father has one of these filters > where his veiw is God's view and that's it. I think this Principle > Viewpoint is so case hardened in his head that everything is measured > against it and not against reality. This by itself is no big revelation > to anybody here, but what may be is what this train of thought > ultimately leads to: > > The King of Love may be incapable of intimacy or normal human love. > With anybody. You may say the same thing about God Himself. The point is that God and True Parents choose to pursue the goal of the providence of restoration, even if that makes no sense to the secular mind, and flies in the face of what one may want personally. > Mike Breen? Are you there? > > Our relationships with others, I believe, are based on our relationshps > with ourselves. Our relationship with ourself is affected strongly by > our image of God and how God looks at us. I think Father sees himself > as the ultimate Central Finger and consequently God as his Central > Finger. It can't be denied that it is from Father's tradition that we > get this image of God as an oriental emperor in front of whom we must > bow and give reports on our progress, as if this were an intimate way to > relate to the designer of our Souls. Gipetto and his Pinnochio, > striving to become a real boy. It is interesting to me that you use the term "Central Finger". This is either a Freudian spelling error, which is curious since it appears throughout, or it is a veiled phallic reference, or a traditional insult. As for your talk of relationship with oneself, who are we? Father defines himself in terms of his relationship with God and with his role in God's Providence. Everything else is secondary. I am God's son. That is who I am. It defines me. My mission is to pursue God's ideal of creation to give joy to God and humanity and to me and my family. That is why I am alive. > Maybe this is his only template for relating to everyone, even mother > and his kids. I don't think Father relates to Mother as her best "guy". > I don't think she will find in him a red hot lover, mush hearted > boyfriend and best buddy, no matter what he says about Absolute Sex > (whatever that is) and the holy sexual organs. HE IS NOT VULNERABLE TO > HER AS LONG AS HE CALLS ALL THE SHOTS. What about a woman's feelings? > What does he know about them? What about Mother? He's her central > finger. When she goes on the road to speak she is speaking what is > given to her, following the rituals set down for her. This > ventroliquist act holds intimacy at arms length. Intimacy is a full > time relationship. It's the key to good sex Absolute or Otherwise. A > woman who is not allowed to express strong feelings openly when she's > standing on her feet will not express them well on her back. If I'm > wrong somebody stop me. There is a place for intimacy, and there is a place for mission. I believe that Mother has the deepest love and admiration for Father, and has gone through incredible anguish and suffering with him, giving him 13 children, supporting him in the most difficult of situations, through imprisonment, through years of vilification in the media, through the death of their son, through the problems of their children, through the anguish of having to follow God's mandate at the price of their own family. I don't think any of us is in a position to condemn or criticize Father's level of intimacy with his own wife. I don't know about you and your wife, but I think Father has a wife and family to be envied, not to be scorned, despite all the problems. Every real family goes through heartaches and difficulties. If one perseveres to the end, solutions appear to the problems at hand. I firmly believe that quitters never win and winners never quit. Father is the all time consummate winner because of his perseverance through the most terrible of circumstances, digesting the bitterest of trials. And I believe that God and True Father have the deepest love for True Mother because she was the first woman in all of providential history to be fully victorious in her responsibility. She is to be admired and respected above all other women. I don't think that words can adequately express Father's love and gratitude to True Mother. You are attempting to put True Parents into the kitsch trivial mold of contemporary secular male-female relationships. Is it any surprise that True Parents do not fit that mold? You cannot understand True Parents from a secular point of view, you just cannot. The only way you can understand them is from the viewpoint of faith. Their lives are totally driven by the mandates of our shared faith. If you abandon that faith, you have no frame of reference to understand them at all. They make no sense, and your viewpoint takes on the bizarre paranoid Cult Awareness Network hues of suspicion, cynicism, and despair. The natural consequences of this loss of faith are to leave the position in which we can receive God's love, to begin to feel superiority towards our former object of faith, and to spread nasty gossip about them. This is the perfect embodiment of the four aspects of Satan's nature which we inherited from the Fall of Man. Then follow the excursions into all the formerly forbidden behaviors such as drugs, illicit sex, alcohol, homosexuality, and on the slippery slope to depression, despair, self-destruction and suicide. This is Satan's snare, and only those who are watchful and pray earnestly with repentance and humility to know God's Will will escape this final judgement. All of us will be held accountable for our service to the Lord. Since we knew him while on Earth, more will be expected of us than other people. > I also think he's the central finger for the kids, and not a daddy in > the normal sense and that this is where his present problems come from. > Cain and Abel children don't mix. We are followers with the name of > children. It's not the same thing and never can be. But followers are > not threatening. Compared to children ,followers are passive. NO > intimacy is required. We just raise our hands and yell "Yes Father" > which is all he wants. Ask him a personal question and you'll get a > cold stare. His feelings and viewpoint are never challenged by the > majority of us, but children challenge you. They ask questions, they > act out, they rebell and don't always follow the plans you make for > them. You have to invest time to understand them. Father invests his > time with us because - I hypothesize - it's emotionally easier and it's > the way he wants it. God so loved the world that he sent his only son Jesus, who gave up his life so that those who came after him could have eternal life if they believed in him. True Parents have likewise sacrificed their own familiar love relationships so that they could give life to all future generations, even if their own flesh and blood have had to suffer. They did not ask to be made an offering, yet they have been made the offering nonetheless. I believe that True Parents love their children every bit as much as Abraham loved Isaac, yet they are putting their own flesh and blood on the altar of heaven so that we ungrateful orphaned bastards can have life. We are ungrateful since we have no concept of the value of what is being offered to us, at great price. We are bastards since we were born of an evil love relationship. We are orphaned since we had no True Parents. What miserable people we are, born into a world of hell when our birthright was to be born into the heaven of the True Love of True Parents. True love gives love even to those who spit on the offering of True Parents. True love does not know the concept of an enemy, and treats every human being as a prodigal son who will one day come back to the bosom of God's love if the initiator of such love will just give a little more, forget that they gave, and give again, incessantly. That is a very bitter way to live. True love is not sweet for a long time, it is most bitter, and filled with gut-wrenching tears, where you feel you will vomit your guts up. It only becomes sweet when it bears fruit. > Nan sook says there is a language barrier between Father and the younger > children, and Father has said many times that the younger children are > mor4e pure than the older children. It may be that he find it easier to > relate to them since there is no problem or need of intimacy. The older > children are more on a level to challenge him and he may internally find > them a little more threatening. Note especially Ye jin and Hyo jin. Ye > Jin was described by Mike Breen as the "deepest", most questioning of > the true children. For a man with intimacy problems it might be hard to > deal with such a personality. Better to avoid on the pretext of God's > will, and in Father's case it is not a pretext. It's perfectly real to > him. Hyo Jin is the eldest son, the one a father would normally be the > most intimate with. Father himself has said that the most intimate > relationship in the Universe UNIVERSE!! Is the relationship between > Father and son. So what happened in HIS case? Yet tragically he spent > no time with him and gave him to others to raise. He says it was for > providential reasons, but a man in his position can excuse anything, > even otherwise adulterous relationships, by saying it is providential. I think you will find that Ye Jin Nim has had a very deep appreciation of the immense suffering that True Parents have undergone during the course of their ministry, and that they have suffered in seeing their own children suffer, but persevered because of the greater good of serving God and all humanity. Also, for all his faults and shortcomings, Hyo Jin Nim has a deep abiding love for his parents, even if he was not in control of his own life. We have probably all heard Hyo Jin Nim's love songs in which he sings with tears of his love for his parents. I believe you misjudge both Hyo Jin Nim and Ye Jin Nim. The younger children may not be able to communicate well with their parents. This is just further evidence that True Parents have sacrificed so much of what they could have shared with their own children to love us and those who come after us. > I think he unconsciously or consciously ran away from intimacy. I don't > think Father has necessarily sacrificed anyone. He has arranged things > according to the way he feels most comfortable relating to people, as > their central finger. His God's Viewpoint, that filter by which > everything is measured, is independent of how others see him or his > relationship to them. Their feelings are incidental and finally > irelevent except as they fit into a cosmic scheme. In my mind it brings > up the question as to whether he accountable to normal human feelings in > the same way the rest of us are. He may have related to Sammy's Paks > mother as a Central Finger, not even a good adulterer and when Mother > feels wounded he relates to her shame as a Central Finger to a > subordinate. It has nothing to do with him as a husband, because he is > not a fully realized husband. What are you mad about? I was only doing > God's will. You have no right to be mad. This has nothing to do with > you." In his central finger mind these things or anything is perfectly > acceptable as long as its providential, and people reactions may be > irrtating and irrelevant but he will take personal pride is brushing > them aside. He will not be changed. Do you know for a fact that Father has done these things that are alleged? Even if he has, is it not true that the Messiah is in a position to restore all the failures of all the central figures in history, and to restore the heart of God which was broken by the sexual fall of our first ancestors? Who knows what must be done to reverse that evil? Are you the arbiter of God's providence? If Rev. Sun Myung Moon is truly the Messiah, then we can absolutely trust his judgement on whatever he does or says. If he is not, then what is all the ballyhoo about? We may as well pack up our bags and go off and have fun, and then bye and bye, we will die, and we will find out whether we were right or wrong. There will be a GVI in spirit world where people bemoan the chances they had to serve the Messiah, but instead they put gall in his wounds by mocking him in public, even while at the same time attending church and appearing to be faithful disciples. God is not mocked, and Satan just snickers at the folly of such behavior. There are many people making their own personal hell today as we speak. Is it going to be you too? Et tu Brute? Who will be a Judas Iscariot, and who will be even more faithful than any of Jesus's disciples in serving the Lord. It is up to you. > Here's my last point: > > Many years and forty pounds ago, when I was a willowy yoga student, my > teacher told me "Be very careful how you choose a guru. Study his > character, because when you reach the end of the path he teaches, you > will be him." What is an ideal moonie? The patriarchal spiritual > parent of large numbers of people, relating to them how? As a Central > Finger. You can't be intimate with 120 people. No way. Janis Joplin > once said "Every night I make love to 20,000 people and then go home > alone." To be a spiritual guide you almost have to be a therapist. You > have to really invest well in a small number of people. If you were to > do everything you were given to do, you would also find it hard to > develop intimate relationships with your wife and child, because like > Father, you wouldn't be around. You'd be sacrificing the Abel children > for the Cain children, and that's a lonely life. > > Sigmund Garce Well buddy, you make your choices and you pay the price one way or another. Pay now or pay later. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. We love True Parents and we are proud of them. How about you? Sincerely, In the Names of our True Parents, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1998 19:27:18 -0400 (EDT) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Global Village Inn <> Cc: Unification Evangelism List <> Subject: Trumpet of God or Angel of Death? In a recent post on GVI, I said in reference to Chris Garcia's behavior on the Unif-Evangelism mailing list: "Remember Salman Rushdie. He had to learn his lesson the hard way." Dan Fefferman took this to mean that I was issuing a death threat against Chris Garcia. I am writing this without quoting anyone else's words so that I may post it both to GVI and UE, and elsewhere. I compared him to Salman Rushdie, because the hubris that Salman Rushdie and Chris Garcia exemplify corresponds to the arrogance of liberals in America who think they can trash Judeo-Christian values with impunity, expecting no consequences. That kind of mentality has prayer banned from public schools in America, and has the American taxpayers, a majority of whom are church-going Christians, in a position of having to pay for works of "art" sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, such as the infamous "Piss Christ" which consisted of a photograph of Jesus Christ on the cross, immersed in a jar of urine. Such people can be such crybabies when they reap what they have sown. A case in point was when a group of homosexuals staged a protest demonstration inside St. Patrick's Cathedral in New York City during mass, defiling the Holy Eucharist, which to faithful Roman Catholics is a gross insult. They were protesting against Catholic moral teaching on sexuality. The examples I cited before were to show that free speech must have its bounds. It is not okay to demonstrate against Catholicism in a Catholic church, it is not okay to express anti-Semitic slurs in a synagogue, it is not okay to express the views of the KKK or the Aryan nation in an AME Zion church, it is not okay to insult the prophet Muhammad in any mosque anywhere, it is not okay to insult Jesus Christ in any Christian church, AND, it is not okay to give the Central Finger to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and what he stands for on the Unif-Evangelism mailing list, or to heckle in church for that matter. Think of it like a Bible study, like a missionary gathering, like an evangelical leaders' meeting. Perhaps I should know better than to give Chris his Central Finger Salute right back, but I felt like going for the jugular this time, metaphorically speaking of course. Dan, and others here know me not to be a man of violence, though I can give people a fair tongue-lashing when I have a mind to. Unif-Evangelism was never intended to be a place to discuss controversial issues of any kind. It was created to provide a place for Web developers to work together to put Unification Church teachings online, cooperating globally to handle the many languages I have online, and was expanded to include more general discussion at the request of, who other than, Dan Fefferman. A recent consequence of this global cooperation was the creation of a Farsi web page. Arabic and Turkish web pages are now in the works. You may accuse me of being a propagandist and a shill for the Unification Church, I have been called worse. I take such accusations as a badge of honor, given the place they come from. I may be single-minded, but I am not mindless. And as for an embattled enclave, doesn't every religion start out like that, trying to gain a beachhead for God? The Unification Church has been a battled enclave for all of its history. I proudly stand on the beachhead of God's D-Day, representing True Parents, taking hits for a cause I believe from the deepest parts of my soul to be right and to be God's Will, despite every critic's naysaying. I am expected to more equal than others, more perfect, more blameless, more like a Holy Son of God than the other members of True Parents' extended global family because of the public position I have voluntarily assumed as the leading spokesperson for True Parents on the Internet. I do my level best to live up to that mission of Internet Messiah, and I take full responsibility for my shortcomings. When the Day of Judgement comes and God separates the wheat from the chaff, then I will stand humbly before my Maker just like everyone else and will have to account for every thought, word, and deed in my life. And so will every one of you. Let that day come soon! ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 07:34:21 -0500 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Reply to Bill Taylor Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification Bill Taylor wrote: > Why is it that there is a varied and heterogenous band that all seem to > take umbridge at the church? The fact that almost any faction you could > mention either has no interest in the Unification Church or they find > something repulsive about it seems to say something, don't you think? People do not understand the mission of the Messiah nor the principle of indemnity, even many UC members do not understand this. So, they misinterpret the actions of Rev. Moon. > Does the church have any kind of unified front that believes any > particular set of beliefs? Yes, it certainly does. The Unification Church teachings are based on the Divine Principle, Unification Thought, and the sermons of Rev. Sun Myung Moon. As you know, you can find an extensive representation of those teachings on my web site at: > Do you believe that the mind is subject over the body? Yes? In unfallen sinless man, the mind is intended to be subject over the body, but in fallen sinful man, the mind is the slave of physical appetite and desire. One of the primary purposes of the restoration of fallen man is to have the mind gain dominion over the body, based on the conscience and God's will. > Then is the thought of sin the actual crime or the action? We have a > contradiction > here, don't we? No, there is no contradiction. A thought, word or deed could constitute sin. The Divine Principle defines sin as follows: "Sin is a violation of heavenly law which is committed when a person forms a common base with Satan, thus setting a condition for give and take action with him." Fallen man stands in the midway position between God and Satan. His actions determine whether his life can be claimed by God or Satan. The way for us to come to God and leave Satan is by making conditions of indemnity. Conditions which lead us to Satan are called sin. > In Unificationism, only an actual physical act is sinful. Yet, informally, > it is the motivation or the thought which is the most important. Sometimes > the mind is subject; sometimes the body--it is completely situational based > on what would benefit Rev. Moon at that moment. This is not true. Unificationism does not say that only physical acts are sinful. The first stage of the Fall of Man was a spiritual fall, not a physical act: > 'NanSook's motivation was bad. Hyo Jin's motivation is good. His actions > can be discounted.' Lucifer, on the other hand, began with bad motivation > and that was alright; it was his action which was sinful. Not true. The motivation of BOTH was bad. However, they are both redeemable, since the heart of true love is one of forgiveness, long suffering and perseverance. If either one can demonstrate that level of love to an extraordinary degree, then they could reconcile and restore the integrity of their family and their individual lives. > Can blood tainted candy change a person's mind? Can physical indemnity > conditions make the body subject over the mind; can the body change the > mind? Did Lucifer's supposed contemplation of sexual relations with Eve > constitute sin or was it the act alone that was sinful? Which is subject, > mind or body? There is a fundimental and glaring contradiction in > rinciple in this regard. A condition of indemnity such as an offering accepted by God CAN and DOES change people. The offering of Jesus' life on the cross undoubtedly changed history, it changed people who believed in Jesus, but the change is spiritual and then has physical consequences. If a person repents of his sin and believes in Jesus, then this may cause him to give up his bad habits such as drinking and philandering which would then have a physical impact on his life. Contemplation of an evil act is a dangerous state to be in as it often leads to the act itself. The reason is that when we contemplate performing an evil action, then we make a condition to relate with Satan and not with God. So the thought itself also constitutes sin, but not as grave a sin as actually carrying out the sinful deed which compounds the problem. One sin leads to another. The spiritual fall led the the physical fall. The fall of Adam and Eve led to Cain's murdering Abel, and so on. > Which is subject, the spirit or the body? Is this a vertical relationship? In a true person, the spirit is subject, otherwise it is not. It is where the vertical meets the horizontal, since the spirit relates to God in a vertical way, and the body relates to the physical world in a horizontal way. > Can a vitality element reverse a vertical relationship? This is a nonsensical question. Vitality elements are the nourishment that are generated in the spirit by the performing of good deeds by the body. A vertical relationship is a relationship between persons who are at different levels, such as parent and child, God and man, and so on, in contradistinction with a horizontal relationship between peers. > We have a contradiction here, don't we? No. > Can a child raised in the direct dominion of God commit adultery? Not > possible in the Divine Principle. Yet it happened. ANYBODY can commit sin until such time as they achieve oneness with God, and then they would do nothing to hurt God, which would constitute sin. Clearly, someone who sins is not perfected, nor in the direct dominion of God. > If God's sinless Adam were to commit adultery, what would be the > consequences for humankind? If God's sinless Adam were to sin, then there would be dire consequences for humanity. However, according to the Divine Principle, the purpose for an action is important, not just the action itself. So, killing in a war to defend one's homeland may be virtuous, whereas killing for personal gain would be sinful. The same could be true of a sexual act. > What did Adam's illicit sexual relationship do to him? Did it make it > impossible for him to create a sinless lineage that took thousands of years > to restore? Now that Rev. Moon has admitted > to adultery, what are the implications for humankind at this juncture? Rev. Moon has admitted to no such thing. If you are referring to the claims of his daughter and daughter in law, may I remind you that neither of them in my view understand him or his actions or his mission, sad to say. Their own actions demonstrate this pretty clearly. > Perhaps he is simply a fraud. If not, he has doomed mankind for a few > thousand more years. That is mere speculation on your part. What did Jesus have to show for his efforts on the day he died? He was alone, and his disciples ran away. For the next 400 years, they were hounded and fed to the lions. Anyone with a secular point of view would say that Christianity was a failed cause, yet after 400 years of persecution, it gained acceptance, and then spread widely worldwide. So if you judge God's work by secular humanistic standards, you will surely be wrong. >, Santa Fe, New Mexico -- Damian Anderson
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:37:57 -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 Session of TMN was in great a success, yesterday. On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Michael Breen wrote: > Three points: > > 1. You just said Satan doesn't exist any more, no? Satan does exist. The original Satan who was Lucifer may have repented, but all his billions of buddies have not. It is like the Mafia. Chop off the head, and you get a new head. > 2. According to Father, the Lord has freed you already - through blessing No, we have not been freed from sin, only our blood lineage has changed, solving the problem of original sin. There are still three other kids of sin which must be dealt with: hereditary sin, collective sin and personal sin. > 3. God wants free and loving children not obedient servants. Yes, he wants us to be free, but in the process of restoration, if we do not understand our own responsibility, then unity and absolute faith, love and obedience are required to achieve the goal of God's providence. > Mike ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 16:51:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Spiritual conditions DO change history On Wed, 4 Nov 1998, Michael Breen wrote: > >> The second aspect is that we help create a heavenly force of influence > for God so that he can actually change this miserable world.<< > > Are we really doing this? Or is this shamanist exaggeration? > > Surely, the world will change through people who live in the real world. In > personal spirituality, you apply certain principles; in politics, you apply > political principles; in busines,s you apply business principles. It's high > time the UC stopped fooling itself that by doing "conditions" of a > spiritual nature, it is invisibly influencing the real world. Did the > 430-couple wives prevent a north Korean invasion in the 1960s by going out > witnessing? Of course not. But such ideas have value as a way of deriving > meaning and linking one's actions with the big world-changing picture. The > idea is, of course, that by thinking big you eventually actually become > big. Ironically, if you believe this literally, there's no need to become > big because you think you already are. You can see the consequence of this > thinking in the UC by the number of heavenly soldiers who are destitute or > on welfare in their 40s. (And wasting their days doing email, eh, Mike? - > ed) > > NB. I may change my opinion on this after I die. > > Mike Mike, I really have to disagree with you. While I am a UC member of 21 years standing, I am certainly a pragmatist also. Yet, I do believe that spiritual conditions create salvific energy which God can use to change the world. Look at the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism. Who predicted that? Father did so in 1985 and he was laughed at, yet he understood God's salvation providence, and he understood God's timetable which very few if any other people do. That is why we need him, and why we will continue to need him to direct the providence of restoration until it is all over. Then we can all take it easy when it is over. I believe in the principle of indemnity, and you cannot understand God's providence without understanding the central role of the principles of restoration. In the meantime, I trust Father's guidance, even if it looks absurd by humanistic secular standards, BECAUSE he has been right so many times in the past, and because I believe that the principles he teaches are true. As for destitute or on welfare at 40, I am about to close on a new 6 bedroom house and I am willing to teach others to do what I do for a living. I am working on a business plan right now. How about you? ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 16:50:07 -0500 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Unification critics are truly a sorry bunch Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification No. 6 wrote: > I have no doubt that if the oriental leadership had their fantasies > fulfilled each UC household and establishment would have a Telescreen a > la Orwell's 1984 so they could know at all times whether the members > were observing all traditions and going about daily activities in > approved UC fashion. > However the Stalag 17 picture you paint is not quite accurate. > Moon says things like put your jacket on by entering both arms in a V > and letting it slide down to your shoulders, avoid condoms and only have > sex in the missionary position, have maximum no. of offspring regardless > of income, etc. but the important thing is individuals are free to buy > or not too buy any given item and still remain in UC. Myself I > discounted such ramblings as rhetoric, the kind you get from an > ego-centric leader who knows he can do or say anything and his people > will gravely nod their heads, whether or not they follow thru. In other > words, gas. No one to my knowledge ever seriously tried to enforce any > of these "approved behaviors/techniques for living". When I read this and other similar posts, it makes me feel pity for the author. Why would someone be so obsessed with the adherents of a religious group that they would spend many hours every day vilifying and belittling the beliefs and practices of the group, especially when the comments you make are so divorced from reality as to be laughable? This reminds me of the stories told about the early Christians, that they were cannibals because Jesus told them to eat his flesh and drink his blood, or the stories that they engaged in sexual orgies because they had heard of the so-called love-feasts in which Christians ate together and showed their love for one another. Clearly in hindsight, we know this to be nonsense, but the Unification movement does not yet have the advantage of historical perspective. So when people hear the atrocity tales and speculations such as this one from "No. 6" who does not even have the guts to use his real name, they may believe them. In the long term however, history will show who are the dupes and who are those sincerely seeking to follow God's will. I know where my loyalties lie, and I can tell you that I love True Parents and I am proud of them, and I am not ashamed to say so in the face of all you hostile critics who would do anything to shake our faith them. Dream on! :-) In the holy name of True Parents, --- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 13:10:22 -0500 (EST) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Joe McWilliams, Damian's MFT slave driver On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, David.Perry wrote: > Damian said (among a lot of other things): > >ones I face daily. I look at GVI as the Judas faction of the > >Unification Church. While it may be distasteful, it cannot be entirely > >ignored, akin to poopy diapers. For twenty pieces of silver, Judas > >betrayed the Lord, and then killed himself when he recognized his sin. > >I would prefer the Judases of the UC to repent and then be embraced > >back into the fold, not to commit hara-kiri. > > I'm at a loss of words here. > > I don't know whether to say that you are an incredibly self-rightous, > obnoxious moron; > or to ignore you. > > Anyone who doesn't agree with you is Judas. It must be nice to have such a > simplistic view of life. You know, I think you missed your proper place in > history. You would have loved joining in the Spanish inquistion. > > Dave No, I don't mind an honest disagreement. I am referring to people who take their livelihood from the church and then stab True Parents in the back online. If you take your livelihood from the church and despise what it stands for, have the decency to resign and find honest employment elsewhere. Judas Iscariot was a trusted disciple of Jesus and betrayed him over love and money, possibly jealousy over a woman. It seems like he felt Jesus had betrayed the cause, much like our UC critics feel towards True Parents. I hate to see money earned with the blood, sweat and tears of our members given to ingrates. I noticed that in UC apostate circles, it is just fine to trash True Parents and any project they started and any leader they appointed. However, if you challenge the critics and their infernal dogma, the usual defense is to respond with ad hominem remarks and name calling, and of course, the old faithful, misrepresenting our teachings. Surely you can do better than that. :-) The Unification movement represents the attempt of a group of people to fulfill a clearly stated ideal. Even if a majority of people in that organization fall short of that ideal, does that make it worthless even to attempt to achieve it? To me, the organization is merely a disposable vehicle, one to repair or replace as required. What is essential is the ideal we are striving towards, that is not a negotiable item. I would appreciate it if the UC critics would distinguish between flaws in the ideal and flaws in those attempting to implement the ideal. If the goal we are striving towards is flawed, then we have no hope. But if our attempts are flawed, humans are incredibly resourceful at coming up with new ways of achieving a long-cherished goal. What is impure and unrighteous and ungodly must ultimately fade away, since it will not last or work, and since it is not of God. What remains is what is tested in the fire, and by the sands of time. That is what I want to see come about. But the endless bitching and moaning about how so and so failed to achieve what we all want is completely counter-productive. That is merely a smokescreen behind which we can hide our own miserable failures. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:14:53 -0500 (EST) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Subject: Dealing with difficult leaders On Tue, 15 Dec 1998 RNA wrote: > Damian writes: > > I would appreciate it if the UC critics would distinguish between flaws > in the ideal and flaws in those attempting to implement the ideal. If > the goal we are striving towards is flawed, then we have no hope. But > if our attempts are flawed, humans are incredibly resourceful at coming > up with new ways of achieving a long-cherished goal. > > RNA: > > However, it is difficult to do so if all new ideas springing from Americans > are vetoed by Koreans, and a lot of people here have experienced > that repeatedly, by their testimonies. That is where their Unificationism > and idealism diverged, because the practical idealism was not > welcomed. That is very far from my experience. In the case of the Unification Home Page, I took the approach that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. So, I did what I thought was right, and ignored the institution. When the institution of the church saw what I had done, it was welcomed by the hierarchy, once they understood it. If you are committed to something, you will not take No for an answer. :-) The same effort was very strongly condemned by the several members of this list who will remain nameless. Anything worth doing will come up against obstacles. Is that reason enough to wimp out when the going gets tough? I have chosen to avoid collaboration with inflexible leaders and done things on my own when the leader disagrees. One case in point was David Kim who insisted that I go on a mission of his choosing, when Father had told me to go to graduate school to study in the area of technology back in 1983. David Kim threatened to withdraw funding, to which I replied that I would fund my own efforts. Now, I am very glad that I do not have that albatross around my neck, since I paid my own way by borrowing and repaying the debt. When I first joined the church, I was asked to leave college. I negotiated with my central figure, and told him that I believed I would be a lot more useful to God's providence with a Cambridge degree that without one. I was able to work out a deal, and took a year off, then continued a year later and went on to graduate. > Damian: > > What is impure and unrighteous and ungodly must ultimately fade away, > since it will not last or work, and since it is not of God. > > RNA: > > It cannot happen too soon. Amen. > Damian: > > What remains is what is tested in the fire, and by the sands of time. > That is what I want to see come about. But the endless bitching and > moaning about how so and so failed to achieve what we all want is > completely counter-productive. > > RNA: > > Isn't this more or less what we hear about American members from Father > himself, repeated complaints that we failed to achieve a, b, and c.?. Is anyone perfect? :-) It may be that much of what Father does is also counter-productive, and ineffectual, though I don't doubt his sincerity for a moment. Then again, I believe that his wisdom frequently transcends our limited perspective. What looks to us like going the hardest possible way is for him the price to be freed from Satan's accusation. The way of indemnity often defies common sense. Father has tried even when he does not know what he is doing, and God rewards his efforts by sending along people who DO know what they are doing, based on his foundation of sincere effort. If Father complains that we do not accomplish A, B, and C, it is because he knows we are capable of it. Think of him as your track coach, and he KNOWS you can run that mile in under 4 minutes, even if you don't. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
From Tue Dec 15 16:16:50 1998 Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 16:12:33 -0500 (EST) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Subject: The heart of Cain On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Dan Holdgreiwe wrote: > But Damian is right. > > Not, of course, right about the truth of the universe, but right > about the nature of the Unification Church. > > Damian didn't invent the view that anyone who disagrees is Judas, > this is a near universal attitude among regional directors. It is > the essence of the Cain-Able teaching which (despite token protests > by Master Moon) is the central doctrine of Unification ecclesiology. > > In fact, Damian is to be respected for saying openly what the UC > slyly dances around. It is Unificationism itself (e.g. Kwakism or > Ahnism) which is incredibly self-righteous and obnoxious. Damian is > merely a propagandist too lacking in guile to engage in the usual > deceptions and double talk. Well, thank you Dan. That is the kindest thing you have ever said to me, even if it was intended in a rather backhanded way. I am a WYSIWYG kind of guy, what you see is what you get. I will speak my mind and you will know I am being candid, even if you hate it. Perhaps at the risk of being too frank, I will say that I regard someone who was formerly a disciple and now an ardent inflammatory and frequently dishonest critic, such a person is a Judas. That does not include people who agree with the goal and disagree on methods of accomplishing it. It refers to those who have betrayed God and the ideal, and who have betrayed their former friends and comrades in the cause. But, you know, God loves even Judas Iscariot, and gave him the Blessing. The Judas is the one who has the hardest time forgiving himself. As for the Cain-Abel doctrine, you are misrepresenting it entirely. Father's teaching on this is that Abel's role is to sacrifice himself so much for the sake of Cain that Cain is moved to tears and to repent and voluntarily surrender to Abel, and to find God through him. In turn, Abel finds God through restoring Cain. Such is the dynamic of the Jacob-Esau encounter. Perhaps I should make an effort to express myself in a less inflammatory way. It may ease tensions. And perhaps a little more empathy on my part would go a long way to taking you seriously. Here is what Father says about winning the heart of Cain: Rev. Sun Myung Moon New Hope Twelve Talks The Formula for God's Providence We are taught about the problem of Cain and Abel in the Principle. To save Cain, there had to be Abel. Abel was in the position of the unfallen brother who asks God to forgive the fallen Adam and Eve because of him. To win that position, Abel had to first receive God's love. That means, he had to come out of the sphere dominated by Satan. Once he had won that separation from Satan, God could love him. Having gained that position, instead of being arrogant, Abel should have been willing to die for Cain. These three stages are the important formula: First, the man who is willing to save the world should be able to defeat Satan; then he must come into the love of God; and finally, feeling the heart of God and his fallen brother, he must be willing to sacrifice himself in place of his fallen brother, in order to relieve God's grief and his fallen brother's grief. Only on that condition can both be taken back to God. We know from studying the history of God's providence that Abel was killed by Cain while he was in the process of following that formula. Here is what Father says about facing his critics: God's Will and the World Rev. Sun Myung Moon The Inheritance of Love September 21, 1978 Kamikawa, Japan Thirty years ago in Korea, people did not consider Reverend Moon of the Unification Church to be even a human being. I was dealt with in a miserable way, indeed. But there is not much difference between my personality today and at that time. Now I am nearly 60 years old. But at that time, as today, I was full of courage and vitality and was a very trustworthy person. But I was treated like the scum of the earth. Why did things go that way? Clearly, because there is Satan. The sphere of Satan and of Cain is never satisfied until they beat the realm of Abel to death. Ironically, however, they do want Abel to appear again. This is the heart of Satan. Because of this reason, I've been accepting without complaint and digesting all the persecution that has come my way from thirty years ago until today. Facing all the persecution head on, I have been fighting with perseverance and will power in order to overcome it. I'm a man who has very strong will power. Once I determine to do something, I go forward, even at the risk of my life. There isn't much difference between my body and yours. Any difference between us lies in the realm of thought and will power. I am strong because I have a way of thinking which is not only for the moment, but which extends to all of past, present, and future history and to the whole human race. In addition to that, I structure my thinking according to the pattern of God's dispensation. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 14:00:18 -0500 From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> Subject: Re: World Scripture - Donations Newsgroups: alt.religion.unification,talk.religion.misc,alt.religion.christian,alt.religion.islam Tilman Hausherr wrote: > In <>, Treelo <> wrote: > > >> through his donation he offers what he holds most dear. As a standard for > >> the faithful giver, the Bible recommends a tithe, or ten percent of one's > >> earnings. Through such gifts the believer is promised a place in heaven. > > > >In other have to buy your way into heaven. > > The 10% rule came from a time where church and state were the same, i.e. > 10% was all the taxes you had to pay. Churches who *still* ask for a > "tithe" of 10% conveniently "forget" this. > > Tilman I am surprised at you Tilman, you are usually more careful than this. The tradition of tithing comes from ancient times, from the patriarch Abraham (formerly Abram): Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, "Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand." Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. (Genesis 14:18-20) and also Jacob: Then Jacob made a vow, saying, "If God will be with me and will watch over me on this journey I am taking and will give me food to eat and clothes to wear so that I return safely to my father's house, then the LORD will be my God and this stone that I have set up as a pillar will be God's house, and of all that you give me I will give you a tenth." (Genesis 28:20-22) --- Damian J. Anderson
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 12:47:40 -0500 (EST) From: "Damian J. Anderson" <> To: Subject: Re: GVI Protected Kvetching? On Sat, 19 Dec 1998, David.Perry wrote: > DAMIAN said: > > > >More seriously though, I do not defend the flaws of the institution, > >but I don't think that endlessly regurgitating the obvious helps > >anyone. > > If the flaws are so obvious why haven't we seen change for the better during > the past 20 years? > > Dave Perhaps it is because there have not been people who were both willing and able to take responsibility for those problems. I see a lot of people who can see the problems, but I don't see many willing to solve them. In the last few years I have come to see that people have done their best and their best was often not good enough. So, among all of the current and former members of the UC or even some to come, let's hope that there are a few good men and women who will be willing and able to take responsibility for the big problems of the world and the institution that has carried this vision. ITPN, -- Damian J. Anderson