Chapter 2


Chapter 2 Homepage of the Spiritual Group “Tribal Association”

Correcting the Errors of the Pseudo “Second Generation Counseling Corner”

 

Section 1 Human Fall, the Origin of Sin and Other Issues

 

In January 1995, an anti-UC minister proponent of the “Principle criticism”, the late Kouichi Iiboshi states in his book Was Eve Lewd? (Shoudensha) as follows:

“Christianity called this disobedience against God by the first human ancestors the original sin.  However, in fact, this disobedience is not the only sin.” (p. 79)

Certainly, if internal nature (mentality) is the original sin, we can list all kinds of natures. Then, Protestant theology questions wha,t out of various propensities the essence of the sin is.  The nature of sin varies depending on the theologian: they name egoism, pride, faithlessness, disobedience, disloyalty, and so on.  In any case, it is the Protestant view of the original sin that sees sin as internal nature (mentality).

 

1.1 The Protestant View of Sin

 

Henry Thiessen(1883~1947) states, “Sin exists as a nature in all men before it reveals itself as an act.”  “The act which appears externally is based on the evil nature.”  “The criminal law pays more attention to the motivation than to the criminal act itself.” (Systematic Theology, pp. 403~404)

Moreover, he defines the concept of sin as “Sin should not be limited to the actual act alone.  It should include the status out of which sin arises.” (ibid.)  He sees as symptoms, which come out of the root of the rotten nature, things such as darkened intellectual power, wicked vain thoughts, shameful lust, bad words, tainted intelligence and conscience, a will which fell into a wicked way, etc. as mentioned in the Bible (ibid, p.405)

Mr. Thiessen says, “Christians think the reason why they deviate from God’s law is that fallen nature exists within them and that they repent more for that fact than the actual sinful act.” (ibid., p. 404)

However, as the DP points out, there is a question: “Even if a devout believer repents, why do sinful thoughts (“physically intruding sin”, p. 187) spring up time and again?” (The limitation of the salvation by the cross)  Besides, there is a deeper question as to why man became such a sinful being.

 

1.2 Essence of Sin

 

Thiessen states the essence of sin to be as follows:

“The essence of sin is egoism. It is difficult to conclude what the essential principle of sin is. ‘St. Augustine and St. Aquinas conclude that the essence of sin is pride, and Luther and Calvin a lack of faith.’  However, none of these leads to the ultimate nature of sin.  As long as the Bible teaches that the essence of being devout means the love of God, the essence of sin is the love of oneself.” (Systematic Theology, p.406)

Likewise, Thiessen concludes that “the essence of sin is egoism.”  He says that every other sin derives from it.  It is obvious that the Okamoto theory follows this view.

 

1.3 Study of the Teachings of Reverend Moon

 

1.3.1 Self-Centeredness Is the Motivation of the Fall

 

Reverend Moon (True Father) says, “Evil is the realization of selfishness towards the world.  God’s altruistic principle of giving was distorted to an un-Godly selfish principle of taking.”  “The root of evil is Satan.” “His motivation was selfish.  Evil and the root of sin came from his selfishness.” (God’s Will and the World, p. 266)

The point of agreement with Thiessen is that the essence of sin and the root of evil and sin are selfishness (the primary characteristic of the fallen nature).

The differences are as follows:

① Thiessen does not clarify their relationship with the root of evil Satan and man.

② Reverend Moon’s teachings state that Satan’s selfishness is the motivation but do not state that selfishness (the primary characteristic of the fallen nature) is the original sin.

③ Thiessen states that man fell due to his free will (p. 409) but Reverend Moon’s teachings state that the fall took place due to unprincipled love.  That is, selfishness was the motivation, and the fall did not take place due to free will. (The DP, p. 127)

 

1.3.2 Relationship with an Object (the Principle to Give and the Principle to Take)

 

Reverend Moon says, “All of our characteristics come from God.  We know that we have a selfish tendency.  It is a natural tendency since God Himself was once self-centered.  This might surprise you. We must know that before God created the universe and man, He was all alone without thinking of anything else but Himself.  However, the moment He started working on the creation, He started living for the sake of the creation, not for Himself.” (God’s Will and the World, p. 262)

As Reverend Moon’s teachings say, unless you recognize the difference between “to be all alone” and “to have an object,” you may tend to misunderstand the clause that God Himself was self-centered. (Refer to Correcting the Errors, p. 180)

The relationship with an object is one based on the principle to give, not the egoistic principle to take.  It is Satan that made the selfish principle to take in human relationships.  In a fallen man the principle to give (God’s law in the heart) and the selfish principle to take (the law of sin in the body) are struggling fiercely (the separation of heart and body: Romans 7:23).

 

1.4 Problems with the Theory of Internal Original Sin in Protestantism

 

There are many theological problems with the view of Protestant theology that the original sin lies in internal nature.  Whether the fallen nature of man was passed down from his ancestors, or it settled from his habits or experiences, it is a fact that every human being has the original sin.

However, ① it has not been resolved as to how sin came about; ② also, there is the question: did God create man with a “tendency to commit sins” from the beginning?  If it is the case, then man can never be saved; and evil and sin will never be removed from society.  However, God, who judges sin, is not the root of evil and sin.  Therefore, ③ the question arises: how did the sinful nature get into Adam’s nature?  Besides, ④ as Thiessen points out, the view that sin lies in internal nature brings forth the problem that we lay the responsibility on God and thus we end up liberating human beings from the fault of committing sins. (Systematic Theology, p. 408)  Therefore, we assert that we cannot say that internal nature holds the original sin.

We should know clearly why Reverend Moon labels internal nature (self-centeredness) as the motivation of the fall, and not as the original sin.

Mr. Iiboshi’s question in Was Eve Lewd?  does not concern itself with the above-mentioned problems.  Not only does he just ignore them, but he goes on to admit the fact that we cannot be saved and even asserts: “Mankind commits sins without ceasing.” (p. 140)  The theory of the internal original sin comes from the view of Protestant theology, and Mr. Okamoto’s theory has a similar problem.  For the most part, Mr. Okamoto states [it] as a labyrinth of the righteousness of God (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, p. 86), but strongly asserts: [The fall] occurred as one on the individual level (the fall at the first blessing level) in the form of the establishment of an individual entity with self-centeredness. (ibid., p. 87)  Therefore, the problem still remains as to “Why sin occurred in man’s heart?  Why did God create such a heart?”

As for the questions of how the primary characteristics of the fallen nature (self-centeredness) came about and how they entered into Adam’s nature, in the end, Thiessen honestly states, “We do not know how on earth this first polluted thought entered into the pure heart of a human being.” (Systematic Theology, p. 409)  However, Mr. Okamoto and others continue to assert strongly that [it is] the original sin as internal motivation and nature (Volume 5, Refutation – 11) and will never say honestly, “We don’t know.”

Likewise, the theory of internal original sin in Protestant theology contains many problems and it cannot pinpoint [the cause] definitely.  Thus, W. E. Hordern says, “The root of the human sickness is mental but we need to learn St. Augustine’s doctrine on Adam and the heredity of the sin, when it comes to the questions of how it started and how it was passed on.” (An Introduction to the Contemporary Christian Theology, p. 47)

 

1.5 Unification by the Human Fall

 

According to Reverend Moon’s teachings, the original sin (sin of lineage) is an illicit sexual intercourse (effect), the “mental nature” which Hordern refers to is selfish love (cause).  The fall is the effect which was brought about by this love.

The unification of the theories of the original sin is not an easy task, but it does not mean that we should reject the theory of the heredity of sin and accept only the other theory concerning psychological analysis.  It is none other than the Human Fall theory that solved both the motivation of the fall (psychological analysis/the primary characteristics of the fallen nature), which was the cause of the fall and the original sin (biological hereditary aspect / sin of the lineage) as the effect, stating both as the motivation and the process.

It is impossible to unify Christianity with the Okamoto theory, which is inclined towards a psychological analysis but it is possible with the Human Fall theory alone, which revealed the primary characteristics of the fallen nature and the original sin.

 

1.6 Mr. Okamoto Did a Complete About-Face

 

Mr. Okamoto’s view on the original sin is not that of the theory of the Human Fall.  It is the same concept of the “essence of sin” as that of Thiessen’s.  He sees Reverend Moon’s teachings on the sickness of love (“Selfish love became the motivation for the fall.”) from his biased view of the theory of internal original sin.  Then, he emphatically insists that the teachings state the motivation (selfishness) as the original sin. He, and others, are so-called ideological converts, who gave up the theory of the original sin in the Human Fall and will inevitably be losers in an ideological fight.

 

Section 2 Criticism of the Human Fall from the Viewpoint of Molecular Biology

 

2.1 Confusion of the Existing Theory of Heredity with the Heredity of the Blood Lineage

 

Mr. Iiboshi states, from the viewpoint of Protestant theology that the original sin lies in internal nature (mentality – a tendency towards sin), and criticizes the theory of the original sin (an illicit sexual intercourse / sin of the lineage) in the Human Fall.  He also ridicules the idea of the blood lineage of Satan from Mr. Sadao Asami’s viewpoint based on molecular biology, condemning it as a bizarre theory and demanding that it be explained scientifically.

However, the heredity of sin in the Human Fall is not the existing theory of heredity that the anti-UC group is rejecting.  We are not saying, “If you commit a sin, your genes will change and the sin will be passed on to your descendants as biological genetic information.”  We are saying, “Due to the fall, the blood lineage changed and the Satanic lineage was passed on by the laws of heredity.  The original sin is genetic, carried through the blood lineage and there is nothing other than the problem of love that is involved in this issue.”

The anti-UC group is confusing the existing theory of heredity with the theory of the heredity of the blood lineage.  Mr. Okamoto is committing the same mistake.

 

2.2 The Reason That the Anti-UC Group Calls the Human Fall a Bizarre Theory (Occultism)

 

Mr. Sadao Asami criticizes [the theory of the Human Fall], saying, “The theory that the result of an act of a sexual relationship remains as blood lineage (Satanic blood lineage) would be fine for a ancient man but is an amazing new theory for the age of molecular biology.” (The Unification Church = the Principle Movement, pp. 132- 133)

Mr. Iiboshi also criticizes [the theory of the Human Fall], saying, “The theory of an evil blood lineage which the UC preaches is a bad case of occultism.” (Was Eve Lewd? p. 141) “Since the angels are spirits and thus do not have physical bodies, it is impossible to have sexual intercourse.” (ibid. p. 115)  The reason he mentions this is because he follows the (suspicious) view of the anti-UC group which asks, “Can a baby be born of Eve’s intercourse with an Archangel who does not have a physical body?”

From this, we can understand well why Mr. Asami and others call the Human Fall theory a bizarre theory.

 

2.3 The Theory of the Satanic Blood Lineage Must Be Explained Scientifically

 

The Human Fall states that “all men came to be born of Satanic lineage, apart from God’s.” and mentions the “descendant of the devil.” (The DP, p. 73 [English version])  In the Bible Jesus says, “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. …… He is a liar and the father of lies.”(John 8:44)

Mr. Iiboshi criticizes this theory of Satanic lineage, telling us to prove [it] physiologically (as follows): “Why don’t you explain your bizarre theory scientifically that Eve converted to the blood of the devil because she had intercourse with the devil?  How are you going to prove it physiologically and medically?  If you guys mention science so haphazardly, it will disgrace the name of science.  Besides, I’m so amazed to hear that you believe that the evil blood is passed on to descendants.” (Was Eve Lewd?, p. 94) “It is a bad case of occultism.” (ibid., p. 141)

 

2.4 Morality and the View of Original Sin

 

Moreover, Mr. Iiboshi praises the theory of original sin in man, saying, “Man has original sin.  Because of that he continues to commit sins.  The theory of original sin in Christianity which makes man strongly aware that he is bound to commit sins is highly valuable as a theory of morality.” (ibid., p. 141)

Mr. Okamoto’s theory also emulates this assertion and states that the UC view of sin is a legalistic one like the Old Testament and that [the view of sin of] “Christianity which places weight on the internal mentality is morally far superior [to that of the UC].

 

2.5 A Story of the Marriage between an Angel and a Human Daughter

 

However, Mr. Iiboshi takes up the “story of a marriage between an angel and a human daughter” in Genesis cited by the UC and says that Thomas Aquinas (1225~1274), the greatest theologian of the 13th century struggled a lot about how to interpret this story, explaining it as follows:

“He explained in his book, Summa Theologica on how the devil, a spiritual being had a sexual relationship with a human woman, impregnated her and fathered a child of the devil, utilizing St. Augustine’s logic.  It is as follows: “It is possible that the devil rapes a human woman and impregnates her.  However, how can the devil who is a spiritual being without semen impregnate the human woman?  That is, the devil became a sodomite, receiving semen from a man and then became a lecher to inject semen into a woman’s body.”  When we compare this logic with that of the UC, both sound nonsensical but we can see that the logic of Thomas Aquinas stands on a firmer physiological viewpoint.  The UC which makes a big fuss about science should learn from him even a little bit.” (ibid., p. 116)

Likewise, the anti-UC people argue on the theory of the Satanic lineage, bringing up physiological or scientific points.  When we hear all of their arguments, only the theory of Mr. Iiboshi who quoted Thomas Aquinas, though it is still muddled, stands out among all other theological thoughts of the anti-UC group and is a step closer to that of the UC in terms of understanding the concept of the Satanic lineage.

However, in the age of molecular biology, Mr. Okamotos’ stubborn assertion that the Satanic lineage is the lineage of heart by extracting the phrase, the lineage of heart from the context of Reverend Moon’s teachings and thus has nothing to do with physiology (biology), falls into the realm of ignorance.  They are the ones who should learn from Thomas Aquinas even a little bit.

The salvation of all mankind means the Blessing which denies the blood-sharing practice.

 

Section 3 Questions Martin Luther Harbored

 

Martin Luther (1483~1546) states, “Why did God allow the fall of Adam?  He could have held him from falling or have created us from other descendants or purified first descendants.  Why did God create us all as the same defiled beings?” (Luther, Tomoo Matsuda, p. 223)

Then he says, “Searching for the mystery is not what we should do.  Rather we should revere this mystery.” (ibid.)  But the reason of the Lord of the Second Coming must resolve this mystery.

There is a story that an inhabitant in Kagoshima raised a question to Francisco de Xavier (1506~1552) as follows:

“I understand that surely the devil exists, and that this is the principle of evil and the enemy of humankind.  But if so, I cannot recognize the Creator.  Because it is contradictory to say that the good Creator who created all things created evil.  If you say that the Creator created human beings, when the human beings whom He himself created were tempted by the devil, why didn’t He protect them and why did He let them be tempted?” (Restoration of National Spirit’, Keiichiro Kobori, p. 65)

These adverse questions can easily be answered by anyone who knows the Human Fall, which was inspected and published by Reverend Moon.

 

Section 4 Ignorant and Uncivilized Criticism of the Devine Principle

 

Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto and others told a transparent lie, “We haven’t corrected the DP as we like but have persistently tried to point out the differences between [the DP] and the teachings of Reverend Moon (Sun Myung).” (Volume 3, Refutation6) on the topic of the “Measures of the UC” on their pseudo “Second Generation Counseling Corner” (homepage)..

 

4.1  Contradictory Value Recognition Toward the DP

 

Mr. Okamoto and others say in their refutation, “We have never denied the utmost value of the DP.  We admit that the DP is the most excellent doctrine of all religious doctrines.”  But they assert that the DP contains the nature of a transitional phase (partial nature) and the “mixing of human elements,” and “When we compare Reverend Moon’s teachings at the perfection stage with the DP, there are theological (doctrinal) issues as in the Bible.” (Introduction, Refutation – 02)

Mr. Okamoto and others take the way of praising and looking down on [the DP].  While they look down, saying, in the Problems with the salvation theory, “Because the DP quotes many verses from the Bible, the UC just looks like as though it were just one of Christian denominations” (p. 26) and they say next, “We have never denied the utmost value of the DP .”  They blatantly make such contradictory remarks.

 

4.2   Are Reverend Moon’s Teaching Different from the DP?

 

Mr. Okamoto and others say, “To believe that both the DP and Reverend Moon’s teaching are his own is an unscientific and outrageous view which ignores the reality the same way as the fundamental Christians who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.  The DP was never written by Reverend Moon, holding Reverend Hyo Won Eu’s hand.” (Volume 3, Refutation5) Thus they assert the differences between Reverend Moon’s teachings and the DP.

The Bible was compiled after the death of Jesus.  But the DP is the book which Reverend Moon inspected word for word.  It was not compiled the same way as the Bible.  If the Bible had been written by Jesus, then the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible would be deemed correct.  The above-mentioned argument is an ignorant and outrageous criticism without recognizing the differences of the way the Bible and the DP were compiled.

By the way, Bultman (1884~1976) said in Jesus (Miraisha), “We know very little about Jesus’ life and personality,” (p. 16) which shocked people.  He also stated that the Synoptic Gospels (60~90’s) were not the books which wrote historical facts objectively, but the product of the faith of the EarlyChurch which was compiled with the standpoint that “there was the church (mission) at the beginning,” therefore, “historical Jesus” cannot be reconstructed from the Gospels.

 

Section 5 Malicious Quote of Reverend Moon’s Teaching

 

Then which side is telling the truth?  Let us examine [it] through Reverend Moon’s teaching.

You will give lectures on all of the words of the DP by reading it.  The DP was not written by President Eu (Hyo-won).  It was inspected (by Reverend Moon) page by page.  No one should muddle with what I have done.  Every thing is in place.  Even if there are errors, it is not that I haven’t known them.  I must leave them as they are.  I can’t tell everything.” (Correcting the Errors, p. 270)

As for the DP, Reverend Moon says, “Everything is in place.” “There are several errors.”  It does not mean that he is saying that there are errors in the essence of the doctrine (the concept of the original sin or the blood lineage).  If there are any errors in the concept of the original sin, he would not leave them as they are.  We should interpret that the Human Fall was also inspected by Reverend Moon page by page.

Mr. Okamoto and others skipped maliciously the underlined sentences of Reverend Moon’s teachings and extracted and used the rest on their homepage (Introduction) and the One Hundred Proposals (p. 177) but their interest is to extract the phrase; “There are errors.”

“Several errors” have been exaggerated to the degree that the DP “contains many erroneous points” (ibid., p. 188) and in the end they said boldly that the UC should not hold onto the “DP of the old age” (ibid., p. 432), which is a “partial truth.”  But Reverend Moon states that we do not renounce the DP but “When the Original DP’ appears, the DP will be included in it.” (Family, April 2009, p. 12)  Their self-proclaimed study “based purely on Reverend Moon’s teachings alone” (Volume 7, Refutation-13) is just like it is described above.

 

5.1 What Is the Universal Truth (Principle) in the Overall Teachings of Reverend Moon?

 

Mr. Okamoto and others state as follows.

“There is an expression that the DP’ is the sword of heavenly teachings and a heavenly proclamation which Reverend Moon created, but regarding ‘the main stream constitution in the heart of God,’ Reverend Moon says that it is the DP only.  It is a more accurate interpretation to say that Reverend Moon’s assertion does not point to the DP itself as the book which Reverend Hyo-won Eu wrote but rather to the principle as the universal truth which exists in the overall teachings of Reverend Moon. (Introduction, Refutation-02)

Here again, they try to explain desperately about the differences between the DP and the principle in the overall teachings [of Reverend Moon].  Then, what is the principle as the universal truth?  As Reverend Moon says in his teachings, the “great DP of the UC,” (Cheon Seong Gyeong, The Origin of The Universe, p. 1,725) it is the DP that Reverend Moon inspected but not the “Complete Testament Principle” in the Okamoto theory, which has not been inspected by Reverend Moon.  Of course, there are reserved parts in the DP but there is no conflict or contradiction between the reserved parts and the contents of the DP.  Both are the Principle.

 

5.2 Makeshift Wisdom

 

Mr. Okamoto and others argue that “The content that ‘Reverend Moon is the champion in eight areas’ is not extracted from the DP but from Peace Messages 13 and 16).  The passage which mentions discussing whether the description in the DP is completely in accord with Reverend Moon’s teachings is completely off the point.” (Introduction, Refutation-03)

However, the DP is the grounds for the reason Reverend Moon is the champion in eight areas.  Each page in the DP was inspected by Reverend Moon.  That is why it has been called Reverend Moon’s DP book. (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I, p. 57)  We are not discussing whether the surface meaning of the description in the DP is completely in accordance with that of Reverend Moon’s teachings when we discuss oneness between the two.  What they call “off the point” is makeshift wisdom.  We want them to say more meaningful things without any sophistry when they refute or criticize us.

 

5.3 The Messiah Will Solve Metaphors and Codes

 

According to Mr. Okamoto’s theory, he argues that the “key” which appears in Peace Messages, which reads, “the person who is bringing the key which leads to Heaven” (p. 329) talks about the mission of Reverend Moon who came as the Lord of the Second Advent.”(Volume 4, Refutation 7)  He continues to say, “The concept of the “key which leads to Heaven” and that of the “key” to solve Reverend Moon’s teachings which were told in metaphors and codes are quite different.”  “The person in the position of the ‘restored arch-angel’ must appear to be able to solve the teachings which Reverend Moon spoke in the position of God.” (ibid.)

Mr. Okamoto and others state the necessity of the key to solve the “metaphors and symbols” (codes) and use sophistry of any sort.  Let us inspect what they mean and who is going to solve them based on Reverend Moon’s teachings.

“Major teachings of each denomination centering on the Bible are the books of secret revelations in which the way is hinted for human beings who fell into ignorance due to the fall of human ancestors to come back before God.  Therefore, important contents are described in metaphors and symbols.  The metaphors and the symbols will clearly be solved only by the Messiah who comes from Heaven.  Therefore, ……… through the teachings of Reverend Moon, the heavenly secret about the providence of God’s salvation which runs throughout the whole of Old and New testaments has clearly been revealed. (Peace Messages, pp. 282~283)

As described here in the teachings, the metaphors and the symbols (codes) will be disclosed only by the Messiah who comes from Heaven, not by the person who is in the position of the restored arch-angel.

Adam is the one who fell and lost the Word.  Therefore, it is Adam (the Messiah) that will restore the Word.  The “key” which the Okamoto theory mentions is the key to open the Pandora’s box.

 

Section Theological Issues in 2000-Year Christian History

 

Mr. Okamoto and others argue: “The way they speak as if they had discussed all the theological issues in 2000-year Christian history by the writing of the DP shows their ignorance of theology.” (Introduction, Refutation-03)

Although they have said, “It is the utmost scripture among religious scriptures,” how ignorant they are of the DP!  Now, let us refute them concretely.

 

6.1 Pre-Existence of Jesus, Resurrection and the Original Sin

 

Existing theologies believe in the pre-existence of Jesus that he was before Abraham was and was a being equal with God, going back to the beginning of the world as the song in praise of the Word (logos) stated in the first chapter of John.

It is hard to accept the message for a contemporary man’s rational.  Regarding the “resurrection of the dead,” Bultmann did not take it as a historical objective occurrence but interpreted [it] existentially and subjectively (self-understanding); An issue of “resurrected Jesus” for which Barth, in his argument, said to believe as an objective event; and the original sin (eating the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).  These revelations are inconceivable rationally for the contemporary man living in the age of molecular biology.  But the DP clearly explains them in Christology, Resurrection, and the Human Fall.

These are a “non-religious interpretation of the messages in the Bible” according to Bonhoeffer(1906-1945).

According to Shotaro Yasuoka, an Akutagawa award novelist, who became a Catholic after he met Shusaku Endo, he states in his book with the co-author Yoji Inoue (a priest), Why Did We Become Christians? on the resurrection and the original sin as the following:

“Honestly speaking, I don’t think it is possible to resurrect a corpse.”(p.89), “Another hard subject is the original sin.  It is said that man the sin since his birth.  It may be so but so what?  That is my honest feeling.” (p.92)

The DP does not force a “sacrifice of intellect” and nor does it deal with many difficult theological issues beside the above such as the Trinity and the Second Coming in the air as matters just to believe in but it explains them rationally as science and religion under one unified theme.  The DP holds the substance (the champion in eight areas) which can unify Christianity which has the 2000- year history.

 

6.2 Unification of Catholicism and Protestantism by the DP

 

Next, let us see what Reverend Moon has said regarding the unification of Christianity.

“For Christianity to unify Catholicism and Protestantism at the world-level summit, there is nothing but the DP.  Because only the DP can solve mysterious Biblical contents… it has to go that way…it can not but unify them.” (Reverend Moon’s Teachings at Workshops for Men in Korea p. 222)

To unify Christianity, there must be theological contents which can bring unification.  It is the DP.  But the Okamoto theory made strange remarks: “We should not mix the DP with the DP book.”(Public Debate, February 21, 2006)  It was his sophistry as always.

 

6.3 New Natural Theology Theologians and Scientists have Been Seeking

 

The ignorant claim made by the Okamoto theory is as the following:

“Mr. Mori ….. picked up the ontological concept of God by Tillich who criticized Kant’s concept of God, and said that it was a theology with the mission of John the Baptist for the DP but that is not relevant to the problems in the DP The Problems with the salvation theory points out.  The DP book has no explanation on which relates the problems of Kant’s concept of God and the ontological concept of God by Tillich with the ideology of Reverend Moon.” (Introduction, Refutation-03)

 

6.3.1 Relevance of the Philosophy of Kant to the DP (the Word) 

 

Immanuel Kant (1724~1804) denies the purpose of existence for beings, regards the proof of existence of God (the first cause) by the law of causality as the delusion of dogmatism (Critique of Pure Reason (Vol. 2), Iwanami Books, p.164) and criticizes it as “out of the domain of the object” of experience (p. 158) (It goes on infinitely, questioning what the cause of the first cause is.).  Further, he asserts that “The existence of God must be required as an inevitable condition to make the supreme good possible.” (Critique of Practical Reason, Iwanami Books, p. 250)  This philosophy of Kant’s denies natural theology (an ontological proof of God) and it is the philosophizing of “evangelism” which affirms that the recognition of God comes from faith.

Like Kant’s philosophy, the “recognition of God by faith which has no grounds on objective beings” by evangelical theology confines God in the domain of heart (a subjective notion the individual believes, who does not have grounds on the family-level four position foundation), leaving the natural world to an exclusive stage for atheism and materialism.  It is intellectual negligence.

We should understand why the VOC theory (the critic & counterproposal of dialectic materialism) is important to liberate God and alienated people.  The Principle of Creation in the DP, a basis for the VOC theory, is a new natural theology (the principle of existence) which has been sought by theologians and scientists since the Newton era.

Also, looking at the Principle of Creation from the viewpoint of Christology in the DP (a perfected man having realized the purpose of creation and Jesus), it subsumes evangelical theology (Christ center principle) of Barth and others.

Reverend Moon says in regard to the purpose of creation (the purpose of existence), “if there are a subject and an object, there is definitely a purpose and a direction.” (Cheong Seong Gyeong, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,773); “Today physics has progressed, and they say that every atom has consciousness……..  This theory is identical with the principle of dual characteristics of the UC.” (ibid., p. 1,774); “There can’t be an effect without a cause.  There can’t be a scientific theory which negates the law of causality.” (ibid., p. 1,784)

 

6.3.2 Relevance of the DP (Reverend Moon’s Teachings) with the Ontological Concept of God by Tillich

 

Great philosophers and theologians have been split into two camps with one side attacking natural theology while the other side defending it.  Tillich criticizes evangelical theology of Barth as a “theology which confines God in a super-natural domain” and an “irrational faith dogmatism which believes in the basis of cognition.”  He defines the ultimate being (God) as “Being-Itself” and “Power of Being” (“the power within all beings which enables them to be,” “the power to guide all beings to their objectives”).  This “Power of Being” is the Universal Prime Force in the DP.

And he claims that “God as the Force of Being transcends all beings and the totality of the beings (the world).” (Systematic Theology, Vol.Ⅰ, p. 300) and “The structure of beings themselves is the fate of all other things, and thus the fate of God.” (ibid. p. 299).

This “structure of beings” is the four position foundation in the DP.  It is the very being on which Heidegger (1889~1976) questioned, “What is a being?” (Being and Time Vol. 1, Iwanami Books, p. 23)

As for the Power of Being in Tillich’s theology, Reverend Moon says, “The Universal Prime Force means the essential force of God.” (Cheong Seong Gyeong’, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,794)  “In every being there is an innate universal force which enables to make the force of internal action.” (ibid., p. 1,771)

As mentioned above, the DP has contents which unite all philosophies and theologies, and it is not merely teachings of one religion or one denomination as the Problems with the salvation theory asserts. It is very logical.  The DP called a “heavenly proclamation” is at the top of contemporary theological thoughts.  They will be astonished by the Original Divine Principle when it appears.