Responses to Questions on
Unificationism on the Internet - Volume 63

From damian@UNIFICATION.NET Fri Feb 16 01:05:21 2001 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:24:03 -0500 From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> Reply-To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: [UE] Unificationism's view of God's omnipotence (Posted to ARU, mailed to UE) "Martin Anderson" <> wrote in message news:OyGi6.21467$ > So now we have an up-and-coming generation of children of all you > "true" and "blessed" parents. Are they without sin, and if not, what > value has the concept of "original sin" ? > If for instance Moon's children were born without original sin, where > is the advantage in this, if it turns out that they are no better and > no worse than anyone else's children? > Possibly having one's original sin removed makes no difference, which > to most scientifically minded investigators would suggest that it does > not exist. Martin, The reality is that no matter how blessed or pure a child may be born, we still grow up in a world full of evil and corruption all around us. The original human ancestors grew up in a pristine environment and yet fell away from God. So it is not an automatic thing at all that a child will grow up pure and Godly. As a parent yourself, you know that there are a lot of influences which are not good for kids. So I say, there are no guarantees, and parents have to be vigilant. Ultimately, kids have to take responsibility for their own lives in order to grow up to be Godly individuals. Parents must guide them, especially in the vulnerable years of adolescence. As of tomorrow, I will have two teenagers in the house, and two more getting there. > > I hope that I've cleared up your misunderstanding about our founding myths. > > (Don't you get it? If God is wimpy, so are we.) > > No Hamm, I do not. What really comes across is that you only really > know people, not God. So from a "We are made in God's image" > assumption you are really saying "If people are wimpy so is God". > The question is do you make such a proposal and think no further ? > I would hesitate at this point to try to constrain any possible God > with my own limitations even if I were "made in his image". > More untenable still would be to believe that one's creator was not > only a wimp, but perhaps yet wimpier than we, and to presume to help > him in his imagined weakness. > Now this really would cause Occam to cut you up. > > Martin I do not agree with Martin's or Hamm's assessment that God is powerless in Unification theology. On the contrary, God is all powerful. However, He is constrained by His own principles in the ways in which He acts. One inviolable principle is that mankind attain perfection of love and perfection of their families and this world by fulfilling their own responsibility. Out of love, God does not intervene in our proper domain of responsibility, because without accomplishing this on our own, we cannot become worthy to inherit the Kingdom of God and live in love with God and our fellow human beings. Some things we must do for ourselves, and God will not interveve. This does not make God powerless or a wimp. It means that He is willing to wait for love freely offered, rather than obtain it by force, which would not be love at all. Damian --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To change your subscription to this list, or add other lists, please go to: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From damian@UNIFICATION.NET Fri Feb 16 01:05:27 2001 Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 01:03:47 -0500 From: Damian J. Anderson <damian@UNIFICATION.NET> Reply-To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> To: UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Subject: [UE] God's point of view (Posted to ARU, mailed to UE) "Martin Anderson" <> wrote in message news:MyGi6.21465$ > Hammond, > You asked me to "see things from God's point of view" and I explained > that as an agnostic I found this rather difficult. I am now trying to > attempt what you suggest based upon certain necessary > assumptions....and the less assumptions the better. > Firstly I need to assume that there is a God, and then I need some > tool with which to divine the nature of this putative being. > I suggested the additional premise that "Man was made in God's image", > which would seem a logical starting point for such an investigation > since it is a commonly held belief amongst theists and of all possible > secondary assumptions, seems to me the most likely. > > As an agnostic however, it *is* an assumption. I "*Take it to mean* > made in God's spiritual image rather than physical." for the purposes > of trying to comply with your request. > > Clear enough? > Can we now begin? > > Martin Martin, I think you make valid points here. There was also a time when I approached the subject of God as an agnostic, so I can empathize with your position, and stand in your shoes to some extent. As an unbeliever who had been raised in the Catholic faith, at the age of about 20, I came to recognize my need for something of an absolute rather than transient nature upon which to base my life. I referred myself back to Jesus Christ whom I believed to be a good man, the problem being that I did not believe in God, or did not know what God was. I did believe that Jesus was a profoundly good man, but I did not know what to make of his claims to be the Son of Man or the Son of God or the Messiah. But I figured that I could trust what he said, or is said to have said. So, when Jesus said that he was the Son of God, or accepted Peter's testimony to that effect, it made me think that even if I did not know God, I could know something of the God Jesus spoke of through Jesus' life and character. So, based on the belief that Jesus was a good man who testified to God as his father, I thought it important to study Jesus' life to learn about God. One thing Jesus taught us was that we should pray to God, and that is something I had not done since I was a child. So, on Easter Saturday, 1977, when our mother asked me whether I was going to confession, I shocked her by telling her that I would. I went to the church and told the priest that I had not been to church in six years and had committed every sin in the book, not quite true, but I was still young and didn't know that. And I told him that I wanted to come back to God. He gave me a list of Our Fathers, Hail Marys and Glory Bes to say and let me go. I felt a certain rebellion against those old formulae, but I swallowed my pride and went out into the church to pray. For the first time in 6 years I prayed, and I felt the incredible warm embrace of God for the first time in my life. It was such a memorable experience. When my brother Ian who had come with me wanted to leave, I wanted to stay some more. I don't remember whether he left or stayed, but I stayed a while more. So, to get back to the original point, I came through rationalism to a limited belief which did not violate my strict logical standards. Based on that, I put what little I knew into practice and had a mystical experience. That was the beginning of my adult journey of faith. After that, I began to read the Bible avidly and ask many sorts of questions based on this new information, namely, God is alive. Four months later, I met the Unification Church, and I felt sure that this was the path God was leading me to. If God is alive, then, there are so many questions to ask. Why are Christians so divided? Why is there so much suffering in the world? If God is really alive, why don't believers take God seriously? My suggestion to you is this. I don't know God's point of view. But from a belief in the goodness of God, God's point of view will be the most altruistic, the most generous, the most forgiving, the most good viewpoint that you can possibly imagine, and then some. That is why when I read Rev. Moon's words, I am awed by his vision of an altruistic God which expands my imagination of what it is like to be good, of what it is like to be a philanthropist, of what it would be to love one's bitterest enemy, of going beyond all the bounds of what one now knows to be good, and expands that exponentially. The primary reason above all others that I love Rev. Moon and believe in his vision is that he expanded by ideal of the good, and challenged me to live up to it. If I fail in that endeavor, that is my sin, not his. What he has or has not done is not for me to ever truly know or judge. Each one of us must go naked before our Maker and account for our lives. I will do that, and you will do that, and Rev. Moon will do that, and all the people in all of history will do that. I stand knowing that I fall short, but ever persevering to do better. I know that my redeemer God is just and loving and I do not fear His judgment. As a side note, one of my main stumbling blocks to believing in God was that the theology of Christianity as I knew it violated the laws of physics, that God could create out of nothing, and being a student of theoretical physics, I was eager for God not to violate His own laws. The Divine Principle creates a logical framework through which I was able to understand the way in which God creates which does not violate the laws of thermodynamics or relativity. It also explained the work of God in history, which I found fascinating and an added bonus, to help understand how God is working to achieve His ultimate goal of the Kingdom of God. It also explains about God's ideal and the mission of the Messiah. If you want to know God's ideal, just apply the same rule of thumb of the greatest good you can imagine, and that gets pretty close. Sincerely, Damian Anderson --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To change your subscription to this list, or add other lists, please go to: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wed Feb 28 01:45:21 2001 Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 01:43:05 -0500 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Damian J. Anderson <> Subject: Conscience "Martin Anderson" <> wrote in message news:JaCm6.30080$ > Hi Damian, > > I'm not so sure whether it is helpful to compare Rev Moon to Hitler > without looking at the motivations either. What I would say is that > there is inherent danger in an organisation lead by a man asking for > obedience and loyalty above all. Rev. Moon does not ask absolute obedience to himself. He is calling on us to be absolutely obedient to God's will, and he applies this standard to himself too. Dan talks about it in one of his sermons: Rev. Moon's sermon on Jan 1, 1996 spoke mostly about the conscience: True God's Day In the sermon: Find Your True Self November 23, 1994 Rev. Moon talks about the conscience being the dwelling place of God. So the party line is that the conscience should take precedence. > I like Dan Fefferman's attitude that individual conscience should be > the yardstick of one's behaviour and not loyalty to the party line. Well, Rev. Moon's teaching is that "conscience is before teacher, before parents, before God". He spoke about this many times in 1994 > I also appreciate the fact that it was you who stood up against the > Cleophas beatings, sadly though, only when you and yours were in line > for his attentions. > Tell me,....why did you not stand up before this on a matter of > principle when all those others were being hauled off to be dealt > with? > What would have happened if you or your close friends had not been > selected? Martin, I stood up to this as soon as I was aware of what was going on. We were the first in line. I had asked Dennis Orme about rumors of this abuse that I had heard, and he denied it. When I found out about it, I confronted the African spiritualist, and Dennis Orme, denouncing him for lying to me about it. > How did such a state of mind develop in the church that this had been > going on for months, was widely talked about, and yet only stopped > when forceful action was taken by individual influential church > members to resist? Why does such an acquiescent attitude prevail > amongst the members and where might this have lead? Where might it yet > lead? Rumors are one thing, facts are another. When I saw the reality, I opposed it. Who else did? Some approved of what was going on, saying that his corporal punishment brought repentance. I denounced it, saying violence had no place in my view of a church. Likewise, when Rev. Moon was aware of the abuses committed by this individual, he put a stop to it, and sent him back to Africa. > This is the fear that is being expressed here. I don't think you can hold an organization accountable for the sins of one man. Look at the long history of war between Catholics and Protestants, between Christians and Muslims. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. I acted in a way that I saw as repsonsible when the need arose. > Regards, > Martin Damian
From Thu Mar 22 15:12:07 2001 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:11:50 -0500 (EST) From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Unification Church Internet Evangelism mailing list <UNIF-EVANGELISM@LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Subject: Reparations for slavery DMC, The article was about the suppression of free speech primarily. I think the UC community has an interest in upholding the first amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, and the ability of people to speak their mind without being gagged by the liberal media and academia. There are no end of crimes committed by human beings in the past for which people may want reparations. Do you now want Egypt to make reparations for enslaving the Hebrews? Do you want the Hebrews to make reparations for the genocide of the Canaanites? Do you want the French to make reparations for the Norman invasion of England? When will it end? Do I have to pay for reparations to slaves when neither I nor my ancestors kept slaves? I am the descendent of impoverished Irish, Scots and Germans in Europe. It was rich American Southern planters who kept slaves. There are plenty of opportunities for the descendents of slaves in America. The big problems of US blacks have very little to do with slavery at this point in my view. The perpetuation of this victim mentality holds back African Americans. I am sorry to say so, but welfare and handouts make black Americans dependent, expecting others to solve their problems for them, rather than taking advantage of opportunities that exist for everyone. People come from places impoverished and devastated by war like Vietnam with absolutely nothing and make it in America in one generation, not because of special handouts, but because they work hard, get married and stay married, support one another, and do not have multiple babies with different fathers who will not support their progeny, and then expect the overtaxed American taxpayer to feed and support their children. I am frankly sick and tired of hearing how blacks are being kept back by racism. It is about time they took hold of their own destiny and stopped blaming others for their own moral weaknesses. You want to succeed in America? Then encourage kids to take advantage of the free education that exists, and then go to college, and develop skills that are in demand. I work in an environment which is very much racially mixed. We have blacks, whites, Chinese, Indians, Vietnamese, Europeans, Africans, Russians, all kinds of people. We live in a society which is racially mixed and people are in general very tolerant and supportive of one another regardless of race. The specter of racism is bandied about by the race baiters of this world like the Rev. Jesse Jackson because he makes a living out of perpetuating its ugly stereotypes, and blackmailing companies by leveraging liberal white guilt and the threat of boycotts. There are plenty of handouts reserved only for minorities and women in America. When I wanted to start a business and get government contracts, I could not do so because my company was not minority or woman owned, yet I was just as underprivileged as the next man. I was a poor white immigrant. Whatever happened to Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision of a country where people would be judged not on the color of their skin but by the content of their character? The current US civil rights movement has turned that on its head and demanded that you look at the color of their skin and not the content of their character or their accomplishments. THAT is racism. I came from a family of 12 kids. By today's standards, we were some of the poorest of the poor in our society. I worked hard and did well in school, and went to a good university, paid for by government grants. When I was a kid we did not have a TV or a telephone, or a refrigerator, or many of the modern conveniences now owned by the "poor", but I made it. We lived in low income government housing. My family received government handouts for the working poor, like free school meals, and school uniform allowance, and family allowance and so on. What I did have was a school and a public library and parents who believed in education. Is this the official position of the UC? Hey, I don't know. But this is a forum for discussing issues that concern UC members, so let's talk about it. If people want to get out of poverty, it helps to look at those who have done it, and learn from that. The story of American immigrants is a great success story. The bogeyman of racism does a disservice to American blacks, it is a lie, and talk of reparations to resolve the problem is about as much use as expecting to be a success by winning the lottery. It is time to stop coddling American blacks and treating them as if they are somehow inferior and less able to succeed than other human beings. It is time to stand up as men and women and be a success. My best friend at work is the black brother who sits next to me, and he went to public schools in New York City, and got bachelor's and master's degrees and earns exactly the same as I do. We are among the highest paid individuals in the company because we as a team offer a service that they need and are willing to pay for. There is your reparations. The USA is the land of opportunity for all regardless of skin color, but the road to success is perseverance, dedication and hard work, not government handouts. It is also high time UC members took advantage of those opportunities. Sincerely, Damian Anderson On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, DMC wrote: > Pushing the envelope, when it is only half open. Reparations is an issue > that should be seriously studied. Since this article has appeared on this > site does it suggest that the UC community has an answer for it, or is > concerned about this issue. > > If the answer is no and I believe it is, then why Push The Envelope in Our > Faces? > > Not all social are addressed by us. Where is the model amongst us to show > Americans that there is a clear and concrete solution? > > DMC -- Damian J. Anderson <>
From Mon Apr 23 02:49:07 2001 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 03:32:36 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Damian J. Anderson <>, Unification Evangelism List <> Subject: Re: ARU and the official UC web site Craig, Perhaps a gracious acknowledgement that you were mistaken on both counts would have been more appropriate than what you just wrote. It is a sad fact that most religion newsgroups on Usenet are dominated by the vociferous critics of those faiths rather than their adherents. While I would have preferred that the newsgroup alt.religion.unification would have been a place where people could discuss the aspects of their faith that give them hope and inspiration, I am a realist, and recognize that such dialogue needs to be confined to a more restricted environment than an open public newsgroup. So, I take advantage of ARU to disseminate news and information relevant to Unificationism, and occasionally make personal comments on the subjects. But I prefer not to get involved in the nasty flame wars which seem to be the bread and butter of much of the discussion here. I believe that Rev. Sun Myung Moon is a great man with a vision and ideas which are prophetic and exactly what is needed for our time. But I also recognize that great men are typically disparaged by mediocre minds and hearts during their lives. Such is the fate of Rev. Moon. The generation that opposed the abolition of slavery is dead and gone, and the abolitionists are regarded as heroes. The critics of Rev. Moon will pass into history also, and the legacy of Rev. Moon will outlast them. Damian Anderson "Craig Maxim" <> wrote in message news:LSuA6.7766$ > > "Damian J. Anderson" <> wrote in message > > > > Wrong on both counts Craig. I did create the alt.religion.unification > > newsgroup, though I do not claim ownership of it. > > Just about all of you insinuate or imply a sense of ownership, with comments > like: "This is OUR newsgroup, WE created it and you have no right to be > here, if we didn't allow it." Yes, they really make comments like this, and > you have also made some comments that personalized the newsgroup as if you > were the owner or moderator. If you hadn't proposed such a group, someone > else would have, whether member or critic. > > > As for my web site, it was designated the official Unification Church web > > site by Rev. Dr. Chang Shik Yang as of January 1, 2001. Dr. Yang is the > > leader of the UC for the North American continent. The web site has been > > online since March 1, 1995. > > > > Damian Anderson > > I'm sure you're proud of that. Unfortunately, all your efforts are wasted on > a meglomaniac, and you will face the painful truth one day. > > > "Craig Maxim" <> wrote in message > > news:8vKz6.7243$ > > > alt.religion.unification is a newsgroup, not an email list. It's not > > really > > > correct to say that Damian Anderson is the founder. It belongs to no > one. > > > It is carried by newsgroup servers, and Damian Anderson could neither > > change > > > or eliminate it if he wanted to. You do not quite understand what > > > newsgroups are and how they function. This is along the lines of Damian > > > letting everyone think that his website is the official one, and not > > > correcting > > > people when they call it the official site.
From damian@UNIFICATION.NET Mon Apr 23 02:52:27 2001 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 03:43:17 -0400 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] What is engrafting to the true lineage? Chibum, I am perfectly able to think for myself. I have four college degrees and my customers pay me very well for my technical services as a computer consultant. It seems that you have an unreasoning prejudice yourself against the UC. I have found the ideas of Rev. Moon to be good. You believe otherwise, and nobody is forcing you to go against your conscience. The concept of engrafting comes from St. Paul's letter to the Romans: Romans 11:17-24 If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in." Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree! Damian Anderson "Chibum" <> wrote in message news:VcIE6.1225$ > Damian, > > How can you not be following blindly when your own( an Dan's) idea of conscience > is defined by DP and measured against Moon himself . It is a totally closed > system . It is a totalistic system that insures you will never be free. This > system defines totalism. They don't even leave you alone in the spirit world > because Moon has you there as well.In your mind nothing exists outside of the > Principle which has Moon as the perfect example of God in the flesh,and DP as > the ultimate truth , so even your conscience cannot live outside DP and Moon. In > such a system your ability to think critically of Moon and DP is severely > restrained. What's interesting is that your ability to analyze and criticize > areas outside of Moon's influence probably function fairly well. Giving you the > false impression that you could never be duped. However if I were to ask you to > pray to God about Moon being a fraud,...well you know the answer. In your world > view not even God much less your conscience can exist outside the Principle and > Moon. > > Btw, Did you know that Applewhite( Heave's Gate, UFO sect messiah) asked his > followers to "engraft" to him? > > In article <>, Damian J. Anderson says... > > > >Chibum, > > > >Rev. Moon does not suggest that we should follow him blindly. He says > >clearly that our conscience should guide us. My understanding is that prayer > >and reading scripture should strengthen and build our conscience so that > >when the moment of test comes, we will know what to do without having to ask > >someone. And if you don't know, pray for wisdom. > > > >Dan Fefferman summarizes Rev. Moon's teachings on the subject pretty well in > >his sermon: > > > >Before Absolute Faith and Obedience: > >A Case for the Primacy of Conscience > > > >By Dan Fefferman > > > > > > > >Regards, > > > >Damian Anderson > > > >"Chibum" <> wrote in message > >news:vLoD6.2135$ > >> Much has been said in the UM regarding this engrafting process that is > >essential > >> for the Kingdom to come. I'm not sure exactly what it's about but a rather > >> chilling vision of engrafting is presented in the book " Destroying the > >world to > >> save it" by Robert Jay Lifton. Lifton had the opportunity to interview at > >length > >> the leadership of the Japanese sect Aum Shirinyko ( remember the gas > >attacks on > >> Japanese subways?) His interviews presented a group of religious fanatics > >> desperately trying to become clones of their leader. They considered their > >> leader Asahara, the greatest spiritual master of all time. He promised to > >reveal > >> all the secrets of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism thru his > >esoteric > >> practices which involved chanting, breathing and various yoga postures. > >> Asahara's followers beleived that their teacher was the living embodiment > >of God > >> and had reached the highest levels of enlightenment. By becoming one with > >him > >> they could also reach these levels and directly know God and build the > >Kingdom. > >> What struck me was this complete devotion to becoming like the master.It > >> reminded me of my MFT experience where my only perception of reality was > >> following my commander's orders. Master's view of reality was supposedly > >so > >> enlightened that the followers endured anything and did anything in order > >stay > >> connected and in the master's good graces. The core members entire view of > >> reality was controlled by their guru. Eventually this process made murder > >a > >> reality because the Master said it was neccesary for the Kingdom. Even > >after > >> Asahara was imprisoned and tried for the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo > >subway , > >> many members felt they had let the Master down . They had been completely > >> indoctrinated into the belief that the Master could do no wrong and his > >view of > >> reality was so enlightened that all a member had to do was follow and > >reach > >> total enlightenment. > >> > >> I'm not implying that the UM is building any weapons of mass destruction > >or > >> planning an apocalytic event but at what point do members disagree with > >Moon > >> view of reality and to what degree. Does engrafting and becoming one mean > >that > >> everyone sees things thru Moon's eyes? > >> > >> Chibum > >> When someone is invaded by Moon he loses all sense of self determination > >and > >> identity. Trust in yourself as well as a sense of your own value are lost. > >One > >> begins to see everything thru Moon eyes. > > > > > > Chibum > When someone is invaded by Moon he loses all sense of self determination and > identity. Trust in yourself, as well as a sense of your own value are lost. One > begins to see everything thru Moon eyes. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To change your subscription to this list, or add other lists, please go to: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Tue Apr 24 01:43:54 2001 Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 02:37:36 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Damian J. Anderson <> Subject: Craig Maxim's unrelenting stream of venom "Craig Maxim" <> wrote in message news:dgaB6.8105$ > You are pathetic. You are so accustomed to lying now, and it is so natural, > so a part of who you are now, that you > can't even remember to turn it off when you are dealing with an X-Moonie, > someone who knows better. You threw a > lie on me so casually, not even thinking that I was there myself, I know > better. You lie now without thinking. That is what > you have become through Sun Myung Moon. That is what you are now. It is > tragic. I hope you find somewhere, enough > decency and self respect one day, to realize more, to return to truth and > self, and find the potential God instilled in you. > > But for now, lying is so much a part of your personality, that you forget > when you can't lie to someone, and when you can. With Craig Maxim going on and on and on with his endless stream of venom, of which the above is an example, there is really no reasoning with him, so back in my killfile he goes. Plonk! 1 John 2:9-11 Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness. Whoever loves his brother lives in the light, and there is nothing in him to make him stumble. But whoever hates his brother is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness; he does not know where he is going, because the darkness has blinded him. 1 John 3:10-15 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother. This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother's were righteous. Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you. We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him. Damian Anderson
From Fri May 4 01:18:58 2001 Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 00:24:13 -0400 From: Damian J. Anderson <> To: Damian J. Anderson <> Subject: Democracy and Unificationism Chibum, There is no need to abandon democracy in order to have a nation run on the basis of religious principles. All that is required is persuasion of the people and the elected officials of the merit of those ideas, and the ideals can be accomplished within the current democratic systems. I believe that the future world will be a federation of some kind on the model of the USA with a central government and local state governments, except that the states of the worldwide federation will be the former nation states. The idea of nation is rapidly evolving due to modern communications, transportation, and the coalescing of cultural and religious ideals. To prevent tyranny, such a future world government would have to have many checks and balances similar to those in the US Constitution. Rev. Moon has been traveling around the USA to educate religious leaders with his vision. They can then run with that vision and apply those ideas in their own sphere of responsibility without the direct intervention of our church or any strict hierarchy. It is the vision that counts, not political power. Damian Anderson "Chibum" <> wrote in message news:HCeI6.8421$ > Dan and Eric, > > let's not forget that our Forefathers recognized the dangers of authoritarianism > and devised a system( democracy) that included checks and balances that would > protect the nation from an absolutist meglamaniac or messiah type figure. If you > look at Asia , you see countries( especially Korea) still dealing with > authoritarian structures that breed corruption and cronyism in just about all > aspects of life. I would go so far as to say that human evolution is headed > towards a greater freedom of choice and responsibity. > > Moon's vision of a Korean kingdom of heaven is steeped in authoritarian control > and represents a great leap backwards in human evolution. It runs so counter to > the American spirit of self determination and self reliance that one wonders why > it is being taken seriously. Perhaps what we need is a return to the good old > days of feudalism .