Chapter 1<\/b>\u3000<\/b>Unmasking the Book, the Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> Published by the Spiritual Group, the \u201cTribal Association\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
The spiritual group \u201cTribal Association\u201d published a book called the Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> in the name of the \u201cSecond Generation Counseling Corner\u201d (Nov. 1, 2008).\u00a0 The content of this book is based on the theory of Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto who is part of the Myung Sik Woo group.<\/p>\n
The group dissolved on April 12, 2006 after not being able to refute the contents of the book Correcting the Errors of the Spiritual Group, the \u201cTribal Association\u201d!<\/i> (Kogensha, Jan. 25, 2006) and was in hiding for a while.\u00a0 Although the purpose of the recent publication was to counter the book Correcting the Errors<\/i>, it does not touch upon any of the 23 points in Correcting the Errors<\/i>, except for the original sin and the blood lineage.<\/p>\n
Correcting the Errors<\/i> discusses the Human Fall centered on the original sin and the blood lineage, based on the viewpoint that Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings and the Divine Principle<\/i> (hereafter referred to as the DP<\/i>) are consistent.\u00a0 However, Mr. Okamoto and his group claim that Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings are inconsistent with the content of the Human Fall in the DP.<\/i><\/p>\n
In Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, it not only claims that there are inconsistencies, but that the DP is merely an \u201cinterpretation\u201d of his teachings (p. 23).\u00a0 They focus on their criticisms of the theory of the Human Fall, borrowing from the teachings of Protestant theology, and repeat their claim that the \u201cnature of the original sin is the primary characteristics of the fallen nature, which is the motivation of self-centeredness\u201d (p.120).<\/p>\n
The three of us (Mori, Kachi, & Takeuchi) call the Okamoto theory the logic of a Satanic apologist that conceals the original sin (adultery) (Rev. Sun Myung Moon\u2019s Copyright Part II<\/i>, Kogensha, p. 128, referred to as the Copyright<\/i> hereafter) and this publication proves why.<\/p>\n
The original sin is not a motivation of the mind (a cause) but is the effect of an \u201cillicit relationship.\u201d\u00a0 Reverend Moon said the following:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe fall began with an illicit motivation of the blood lineage.\u00a0 That is how the result of the fall was passed down through history until today as the original sin.\u00a0 It is amazing that the fact of the fall having been a consequence of a love act was revealed in Reverend Moon\u2019s time.\u00a0 This is something that is theoretically systematized through its historical background and content that cannot be denied.\u201d (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom<\/i>, pp. 436-437)<\/p>\n
Therefore, the fall was an incident that began from an \u201cillicit motivation which affected the blood lineage,\u201d but the original sin is a \u201csin that was brought about through the blood lineage due to the spiritual and physical fall of our first human ancestors,\u201d which is a \u201cconsequence of a love act\u201d (the DP<\/i>, p. 121). \u00a0Self-centeredness (the primary characteristic of the fallen nature) is a motivation, not the original sin itself.\u00a0 Reverend Moon says:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe hope for humanity is to take off the mask of the fall.\u00a0 What is the mask of the fall?\u00a0 It was a change of the blood lineage.\u00a0 What was the fall of the blood lineage?\u00a0 It was an illicit sexual relationship between a man and a woman.\u00a0 Who was it centered on?\u00a0 It was centered on Satan.\u201d (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,906)<\/p>\n
As one can see, when he says, an \u201cillicit sexual relationship between a man and a woman,\u201d Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings are consistent with the understanding of the original sin and the sexual relationships explained in the DP.<\/p>\n
In the Bible, it says that Adam and Eve fell from eating the \u201cfruit of the knowledge of good and evil.\u201d\u00a0 Is this \u201cfruit\u201d self-centeredness, which is a psychological element, or is it \u201cEve\u2019s sexual organ\u201d?\u00a0 If you go back to the origin, you will know what the original sin really is.\u00a0 Reverend Moon says very clearly that the \u201cfruit of the knowledge of good and evil signifies Eve\u2019s sexual organ.\u201d\u00a0 (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,871)<\/p>\n
However, Protestant theology focuses on a psychological analysis of the motivation of why they did not obey the commandment (psychological aspect) rather than the \u201cact\u201d of eating itself, and thus interprets the original sin as being within our minds.\u00a0 The Okamoto theory criticizes the Human Fall from this Protestant viewpoint, merely replicating the \u201canti-UC claims\u201d already made by anti-UC ministers.<\/p>\n
In understanding the original sin, we must not confuse cause (motivation) with effect.\u00a0 Otherwise we would not take \u201chaving an illicit sexual intercourse\u201d as the original sin and would take it lightly. \u00a0The self-centered motivation is, of course, a problem, too.\u00a0 Therefore, we must practice sacrificial love and accomplish the revolution of heart.<\/p>\n
The conclusion that the Okamoto theory makes in Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> is that the salvation theory of the UC is \u201cincomplete\u201d and that there are \u201csome mistakes in the understanding\u201d of the original sin and the blood lineage.\u00a0 They claim that Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings should be analyzed in detail and a new \u201cCompleted Testament Principle\u201d should appear to replace the DP<\/i>.\u00a0 It seems that they are haughtily trying to say that theirs is the \u201cCompleted Testament Principle.\u201d<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 1<\/b> <\/b>The<\/i><\/b> <\/i><\/b>DP<\/i><\/b><\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.1 <\/b>The Relationship Between Reverend Moon\u2019s Teachings and the DP<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Reverend Moon states that the DP<\/i> is a universal truth, and is the \u201csword of the Word created by Reverend Moon,\u201d a \u201cheavenly proclamation,\u201d and the \u201cmainstream constitution within God\u2019s heart.\u201d (The Copyright<\/i>, p. 145)\u00a0 Reverend Moon\u2019s understanding of the DP<\/i> has not changed over time.<\/p>\n
Even though there are certain truths that are revealed in Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings but are withheld from the DP,<\/i> there are no inconsistencies between his teachings and the DP.<\/i>\u00a0 If there is anything that is untrue, it should be determined by Reverend Moon, the True Parent.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.2 An Ontological \u201cConcept of God\u201d <\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
The DP<\/i> discusses God (the Ultimate Being) ontologically in the first place. What makes theology a theology is the way in which it perceives God.\u00a0 In fact, a solution to many theological problems depends on how God is perceived.<\/p>\n
Paul Tillich (1886-1965), in his systematic theology, describes God as \u201cexistence itself\u201d or the \u201cpower of existence,\u201d perceiving God in the same ontological way that the DP <\/i>does.\u00a0 He states that only this kind of concept of God can remove many of the problems and confusion involved in the disputes about God.\u00a0 He also said that this viewpoint of God is \u201cmore religious\u201d than a \u201ctheology that shuts God up in a supernatural environment.\u201d\u00a0 The concept of God as a \u201csubstantial existence\u201d is not an arbitrary understanding of God such as is the perception of God by Kant.\u00a0 He said, \u201cGod can be perceived as a moral standard (an existence), or supernatural revelations can be established through illogical fideism in which faith is at the base of the perception.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Kantian Principle ultimately guarantees the freedom and sovereignty of God, but loses sight of God as a \u201csubstantial existence.\u201d\u00a0 Tillich denied any kind of concept that was not founded on the actual existence of God.<\/p>\n
With the breakdown in the traditional value system and the loss of criteria of what is right and wrong, modern society is facing the crisis of family breakdown and social disorder.\u00a0 Tillich\u2019s achievement lies in trying to save this crisis by re-interpreting Christian theology through understanding God existentially, and attempting to systematize it.\u00a0 This concept of God had the \u201cmission of the John the Baptist,\u201d to make way for the acceptance of Unification theology.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.3 Champion in Eight Areas<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
We must not be misled by the part in the \u201cIntroduction\u201d that says a \u201cportion of the truth\u201d in thinking that it undermines the DP as being a universal truth.\u00a0 The content of the DP<\/i> unveils the mysteries of the Bible and sets forth the basis to unify religion and philosophy.<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon states in his Peace Messages<\/i> No. 13 and 16 that he is the champion of the following eight areas: 1God, 2Satan, 3humanity, 4the spirit world, 5Jesus, 6the core of the Bible and scriptures of all the religions, 7knowledge of human history, and 8true family values.<\/p>\n
The DP consists of contents that make Reverend Moon the champion of these areas.\u00a0 However, in Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, Mr. Okamoto states that because the DP<\/i> constantly quotes from the Bible, \u201cIt looks as if it is just another denomination of the Christian church\u201d (p. 26).\u00a0 He fails to see that the contents of the DP<\/i> can unify religions.\u00a0 The reason why the DP <\/i>often quotes from the Bible is in part to assure Christians that it is the theology of the Second Coming.<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon talks about the Human Fall in the following excerpt:<\/p>\n
\u201cLet\u2019s investigate where heaven and hell are separated.\u00a0 Are they in the air?\u00a0 Where are they?\u00a0 They are in your sexual organs.\u00a0 This is very serious.\u00a0 This truth turned heaven and earth upside down.\u00a0 Who can deny this fact?\u00a0 It is explained in the section of the Human Fall in the Principle<\/i> book that Reverend Moon published.\u00a0 If you\u2019re not sure, ask God.\u00a0 Nobody can oppose Reverend Moon\u2019s Principle<\/i> book which systematized something that you had never imagined even in your dreams.\u201d\u00a0 (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I<\/i>, p. 57)<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon said, \u201cThere is a Principle<\/i> book called the DP,<\/i> isn\u2019t there?\u201d (Family<\/i>, Jan., 2009, p. 50), indicating that the Principle<\/i> book signifies the DP<\/i>.<\/p>\n
On the one hand, Mr. Okamoto says, \u201cReverend Moon\u2019s teachings are an absolute standard.\u201d (95 + 13 Proposals<\/i>, p. 57). But, on the other hand, says, \u201cIt is dangerous to believe in \u201cthe Human Fall\u201d completely, and to do so is an act of blind faith.\u201d\u00a0 (Explanation of Completed Testament Principle<\/i>, Vol. 1<\/i>, edited by Okamoto, p. 57)\u00a0 This is hypocritical.\u00a0 Not only does he not follow Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, but he denies them.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.4 The Person Who Can Revise the DP\u00a0 <\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto asks, \u201cWhich should we emphasize more, the DP<\/i> or Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, when judging the truth?\u201d\u00a0 (95 + 13 Proposals<\/i>, edited by Okamoto)\u00a0 In Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> he explains that the DP<\/i> is merely \u201cone interpretation\u201d of Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, and that it being a \u201csystematic theological interpretation,\u201d there is more religious authority in Reverend Moon\u2019s direct teachings\u201d (p.23), trying to say that there are inconsistencies between his teachings and the DP<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The criteria for judging the truth is yes, his teachings, but the DP<\/i> IS the \u201csword of the Word that Reverend Moon created.\u201d\u00a0 They are both Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings and the very act of \u201cprioritizing either one of the two\u201d is wrong. There are no conflicts or inconsistencies within Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings.\u00a0 It is people\u2019s subjectivity that creates conflict and inconsistency.<\/p>\n
Even if there were mistakes in the definitions and explanations in the DP<\/i>, we are not the ones to revise it.\u00a0 If any kind of correction is necessary, the only person who can do it is Reverend Moon.<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon made it very clear that the \u201conly person who can revise the DP<\/i> is Reverend Moon.\u00a0 Do you know that?\u201d (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,722)<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon gave the \u201cauthority to revise\u201d the DP<\/i> to Reverend Jeon Ok Yu in 2009, but he is the only person who has the authority to do so.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.5\u00a0 <\/b>Who Has the Key? <\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
The Problems with the Salvation Theory <\/i>states, \u201cThe contents (revelations) the founder teaches are not something academically systematized. They are often metaphors, symbols and allusions that include poetic and difficult expressions (p.20) and therefore, they need logical and coherent theological interpretation.\u201d\u00a0 It says that a \u201ckey\u201d is necessary to interpret the metaphors and allusions.\u00a0 Mr. Okamoto probably wants to say that he has the key.\u00a0 However, the following are Reverend Moon\u2019s teaching on this topic:<\/p>\n
\u201cBeloved leaders of the world, Reverend Moon, the person standing in front of you, has the key to save humanity from the bond of Satan and guide them to heaven, from a position which has never been attained before in history.\u201d\u00a0 (Peace Messages, <\/i>p. 329)<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon also warns individuals who claim to have interpreted the truth: \u201cAre you saying you interpreted the Principle?\u00a0 You will not understand it unless I explain it to you.\u00a0 You won\u2019t understand what it means.\u201d\u00a0 (Family<\/i>, April 2007, p. 44)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.6\u00a0 <\/b>A Portion of the Truth<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Based on the part which says a \u201cportion of the truth\u201d in the Introduction of the DP<\/i>, Mr. Okamoto and his group declare in Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> that the DP<\/i> is not the ultimate scripture that theologically systematizes the philosophy of Reverend Moon, who is the Second Coming. (p. 27)<\/p>\n
We must understand why Rev. Hyo Won Yu wrote a \u201cportion of the truth.\u201d\u00a0 It was not to criticize the DP<\/i> by pointing out its limitations.\u00a0 In the Introduction, it goes on to say that \u201cwhen the time is ripe, more profound portions of the truth will be published,\u201d and that if there are any mistakes in the expression of the content of the DP<\/i>, the disciple (author) is held responsible.<\/p>\n
This is because if someone criticizes what Reverend Moon wrote, it would be an infringement upon the heavenly law and the person in question would have to pay a certain indemnity for that.\u00a0 That is why the author says he wrote it and that he would be responsible for it.\u00a0 This signifies relief for the person who criticizes [because he does not criticize Reverend Moon directly].\u00a0 They must understand this thoughtfulness.<\/p>\n
The expression a \u201cportion of the truth\u201d means that there are some \u201ctruths that are reserved\u201d in the DP<\/i>.\u00a0 The reserved portion and the DP <\/i>together make the truth whole (The Original DP<\/i>).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 2 <\/b>Theological Problems of the Original Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.1 The Significance of Investigating the Original Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
What is the original sin?\u00a0 Differences in the theory of the original sin lead to differences in the salvation theory.\u00a0 In that respect, the original sin theory makes up the core of the doctrine.<\/p>\n
The DP<\/i> describes the original sin as an \u201cillicit relationship\u201d between the Archangel and the first human ancestors.\u00a0 The Japan Communist Party ridicules this theory as \u201cabsurd.\u201d\u00a0 Mr. Sadao Asami criticizes the change of the blood lineage through the Marriage Blessing as \u201cblood sharing,\u201d and Mr. Koichi Iiboshi insists that \u201cThe evil of the UC begins where they claim that the first human ancestors had sex with Satan.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto was probably influenced by these anti-UC statements which criticize the theory of the Human Fall.\u00a0 That is how he came to claim that the original sin theory in Protestant theology (self-centeredness) is correct, and criticize the Human Fall theory described in the DP<\/i>.<\/p>\n
We must not neglect any of these criticisms, but must respond to each one seriously and make the truth very clear.\u00a0 This is because many people today are becoming slaves of free sex, destroying families by having illicit relationships, and thereby going straight to hell.\u00a0 We must sweep away the Satanic influences of illicit sex in human society and bring salvation to these people.<\/p>\n
We must investigate what the root of sin is and liquidate it.\u00a0 That is the whole purpose of finding out what the original sin is.<\/p>\n
Karl Barth (1886~1966) joined the Social Democratic Party even though he was a pastor.\u00a0 He realized later, however, that the Social Democratic Party lacked the \u201crecognition of sin\u201d that was written in the Bible.\u00a0 Reverend Moon emphasizes the importance of the Human Fall in the DP<\/i> which clarifies the root of evil and sin:<\/p>\n
\u201cIn order to solve all of the problems in the world and clean up humanity\u2019s morality problems, we must have the theory of the Human Fall.\u00a0 Humanity\u2019s problems will not be corrected unless we have that theory.\u00a0 (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, The Path to a Completed Testament Person, p. 1,615)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.2 The Point of Dispute Concerning the Original Sin Theory and the Blood Lineage<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
2.2.1 The Viewpoint of the Japanese Communist Party <\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
The Japanese Communist Party describes the DP <\/i>as an extremely bizarre interpretation of the Bible and criticizes the theory of the Human Fall:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe bizarre interpretation by the UC, which states that the identity of the serpent is the Archangel and that he fell because of an illicit sexual relationship, is one that cannot be seen even in any kind of heretical Christian denomination, and is completely made up without any basis in the Bible.\u00a0 It is no wonder that a decent Christian would not take the DP<\/i> seriously.\u201d (The Principle Movement and the Federation for the Victory Over Communism<\/i>, p. 123)<\/p>\n
They are saying that no other \u201cheretical Christian denomination in the world\u201d interprets the fall as an \u201cillicit sexual relationship.\u201d\u00a0 This is nothing more than a strategic expression, as are all of the others of the Japanese Communist Party.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.2.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The Christian View of the Original Sin and the Inheritance of the Original Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Liberal theology considers exploitation, suppression, discrimination, and inhumane, anti-democratic dictatorship a sin, and calls for reform of the establishments.\u00a0 This kind of social theory is used by Communists for their revolutionary movement, strategies and tactics.\u00a0 It is not the establishment that is a sin, but rather sin is that creates such a kind of establishment.\u00a0 Liberal theology is indifferent to the \u201cdogmatic\u201d notion of original sin, which is the root of all of the evils in society.<\/p>\n
The first person who used the word \u201coriginal sin\u201d was St. Augustine (354~430).\u00a0 He said the following:<\/p>\n
\u201cAdam\u2019s sin has passed down to every single individual in humanity.\u00a0 Since posterity is born through sexual relationships, having sex is the root of sin in double aspect.\u00a0 That is, the fact that every person is born through sexual relationships is already sinful, and the inclination to commit sins is also passed down as an inherent weakness.\u201d\u00a0 (An Introduction to Contemporary Christian Theology<\/i>, W.E. Hordern, p. 46)<\/p>\n
Protestant theology identifies the root of human illness with \u201csomething mental\u201d (greed, arrogance and self-centeredness).\u00a0 But when it comes to an understanding of how it began and how it is passed down, Hordern says, \u201cWe should learn from St. Augustine about his doctrine of Adam and the inheritance of his sin.\u201d(ibid.)\u00a0 He continues to say, \u201cWhat could be called the mental aspect of sin seems to have changed over time to something biological.\u00a0 It is hard to decide whether the psychological aspect of sin or its biological inheritance aspect should be more emphasized, and how to harmonize the two aspects as well.\u201d(ibid.)<\/p>\n
In this way, it is difficult to harmonize the two ideas.\u00a0 Christian theology split over this issue of identifying the original sin by its \u201cmental aspect\u201d or by its \u201cbiological inheritance aspect,\u201d and the conflict to choose one and reject the other ensued.\u00a0 Protestants deny the biological inheritance theory from their position of the justification by faith theory, whereas the Catholics believe in it as seen in Mary\u2019s Immaculate Conception.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.3 The Catholic View of the Original Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
2.3.1 The Immaculate Conception Concept of the Catholic Church<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Visiting Professor Kari Elisabeth Borresen of the PontificalCollege in Rome states the following in her thesis Mary in the Catholic Theology<\/i> (Who Was Mary?<\/i>\u201d):<\/p>\n
\u201cThe premise of the Immaculate Conception is based on St. Augustine\u2019s doctrine that the original sin comes from the father\u2019s reproductive act.\u00a0 Because of this, at the moment a rational soul is about to be infused, \u2018infectio carnis\u2019 (fetal infection) occurs\u2026\u2026.\u2026\u3000 The Christ avoided this infection through the work of the Holy Spirit when he became human\u2026……\u00a0 According to male-centered biology, the original sin is inherited solely from the father who plays an active role.\u201d (p. 126)<\/p>\n
This academic theory thus states, \u201cThe original sin comes from the father\u2019s reproductive act.\u201d This is the same understanding of the original sin as that of the DP<\/i>.\u00a0 This theory of the original sin and the theory of the Immaculate Conception both relate to the important theological issue of why Jesus was born without the original sin.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.3.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>Scholastic Theology in the Medieval Age<\/b><\/p>\n
\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
Let us look at the viewpoints of original sin by the Scholastics:<\/p>\n
\u201cSince the 8th<\/sup> Century (John of Damascus), the theory became more accepted that Mary was sanctified of her original sin because of her motherhood.\u00a0 The main Scholastic philosophers believed that Mary, being human, contracted a fetal infection as in any other conception, but was sanctified due to the intervention of the redemption.\u00a0 This intervention happened on two stages.\u00a0 The first stage happened inside the womb.\u00a0 The important thing was that at the moment of the sanctification, she was liberated from all of her sins.\u00a0 According to these fathers, Jeremiah and John the Baptist were also sanctified inside the womb.\u00a0 However, these sins were only large ones that would cause them to lose God\u2019s grace.\u00a0 (Jeremiah 1:5 \u201cBefore I formed you in the womb \u2026\u2026\u201d and Luke 1:15)\u00a0 The second stage of Mary\u2019s sanctification was at the moment of the conception of the Christ (Luke 1:35).\u00a0 At this moment, the original sin was completely eradicated from her.\u201d (ibid., Borresen)<\/p>\n The Catholic understanding of the original sin is similar to that of the DP<\/i>, that is, it is unlike a \u201cdisposition\u201d (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature).\u00a0 Moreover, the assertion that the original sin was inherited (Satan\u2019s lineage) as discussed in the DP<\/i> can be seen in the quote, \u201cMary, being human, contracted a fetal infection as in any other conception.\u201d<\/p>\n Moreover, one can also recognize the theories of the \u201cliberation from all actual sins\u201d and the \u201csanctification inside the womb\u201d in the principle of \u201crestoration inside Tamar\u2019s womb.\u201d<\/p>\n Reverend Moon says, \u201cIf you study Tamar, you will understand the whole of the Principle.\u201d\u00a0 (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom II<\/i>, p.77)\u00a0 In the Okamoto theory, which only reiterates the Protestant theological viewpoint, it is impossible to explain the restoration principle with regard to Tamar\u2019s womb, that is deeply related to the cleansing of the original sin.\u00a0 The best the Okamoto theory can do is to say, from their subjective conceptual viewpoint, that the \u201cseed\u201d stands for heart and the \u201cwomb\u201d for the Holy Spirit, and they will not admit an objective existence.\u00a0 As for the theories of \u201cfetal infection\u201d and the \u201cuterine\u201d sanctification and the \u201cseed,\u201d they would probably criticize them as a biological \u201cblood-sharing\u201d theory at best.<\/p>\n Borresen says, \u201cThe Catholic theological belief of the intervention, which precedes the \u201cfetal infection\u201d came about in relation to the holiday celebrating the Immaculate Conception.\u00a0 This belief spread in England at the end of the 11th<\/sup> century and spread all over Europe by the 12th<\/sup> Century.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n The concept of \u201creproduction\u201d being impure is the premise of this theory of the original sin.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2.4\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The Explanation of the Original Sin by Mr. Hideo Oki<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n \u201cThe term \u2018original sin\u2019 was first used by St. Augustine.\u00a0 The original meaning of the term is \u2018inherited sin\u2019 and \u2018hereditary sin\u2019, and was the sin that has been passed down all the way – generation to generation from fallen Adam and Eve through reproduction.\u201d (The Dictionary of Systematic Christian Theology<\/i>, p. 268)<\/p>\n This can be described as a Biblical interpretation of the theory of the original sin itself, which is explained as a lineage-like and hereditary sin of the sexual relationship in the DP.\u00a0 <\/i>The theory of the Human Fall is not an \u201cabsurd interpretation of the Bible\u201d that no decent Christian would take seriously, nor would any heretic sect claim, so as the Communists say.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Section<\/b> 3 Relationship between the Critique by Mr. Sadao Asami and the Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.1 Mr. Asami’s Criticism of the concept of the Human Fall<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Mr. Sadao Asami (United Church of Christ of Japan) criticizes the Human Fall as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cAn argument that man’s original sin is hereditary is found in traditional Christianity as well. \u00a0But what I would like to point out here is the peculiar theory, found in the DP,<\/i> claiming that \u2018the consequence of actions in sexual immorality as committed by Eve and Lucifer, and Eve and Adam as has been inherited for generations. (Mr. Sadao Asami\u2019s the Unification Church<\/i> = the Principle Movement,<\/i> p. 134)<\/p>\n Mr. Asami ridicules the Human Fall as a peculiar theory but would not dare to elaborate it. \u00a0It seems to be a tactic to effectively support his continuous deprogramming attempts.<\/p>\n The Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> based on arguments made by Mr. Okamoto, criticizes the Human Fall by elaborating specific reasons which Mr. Asami refrained from discussing. This book may shed some light on how the anti-UC ministers argue against the Human Fall in their deprogramming of UC members.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.2 Biological Concept of Blood Lineage<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n What Mr. Asami calls a \u201cpeculiar theory\u201d involves some teachings concerning the Human Fall, regarding how the original sin began and was inherited. \u00a0His view stems from the Protestant theology view concerning a relationship between the original sin and the laws of heredity.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.2.1 Sperms and Eggs and Blood Lineage<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Rev. Sun Myung Moon explains about sperms and eggs as follows:<\/p>\n “The life you inherited from your parents began when you inherited your father’s sperm and mother’s egg. \u00a0Where the sperm and the egg are united by love and thus a root is born, that is your child.” (Family<\/i>, March 2007, p. 7)<\/p>\n As such, Reverend Moon refers to the blood lineage in terms of biology, namely: Life’s succession from parents to children begins where a sperm and an egg are united in love.<\/p>\n However, it is not just from the biological argument on sperm and egg, that Reverend Moon lays emphasis, but he thinks more profoundly about love, saying, “\u2026 united by love and then a root is born.\u201d When we discuss love, we need to distinguish whether this love is associated with God’s lineage or Satan’s. Is it true love or selfish love? \u00a0This is a subject addressing the philosophical or theological sphere, beyond a mere scientific argument. \u00a0The Problems with the Salvation Theory <\/i>in line with Mr. Okamoto\u2019s argument, insists that “the lineage referred to in Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings is a relationship of heart” (p. 128), claiming that it is not transferable by means of a \u201cbiological substance\u201d, that is, \u201cbiological DNA like \u201csperms and eggs.\u201d (ibid.)\u00a0 He denies Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings again.<\/p>\n At the same time, Professor Kari Elisabeth Borresen talked about the discovery of ova as follows:<\/p>\n “With the discovery of mammals’ eggs by Karl Ernst Ritar von Beer in 1827, the premises of Christology collapsed, which tried to understand women based on male chauvinism. \u00a0Then, the functions of father and mother were deemed equal.” (Who Was Mary?<\/i>, p. 122) \u00a0Likewise, the discovery of the egg had a big impact upon the women’s rights movement and upon theology. \u00a0Reverend Moon talks about both sperm and egg, indicating his theological perspective concerning the essential equality of both genders.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.2.2 Blood Lineage and the Laws of Heredity<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n On blood lineage and the laws of heredity, Reverend Moon states as follows:<\/p>\n “What is the fruit of Good and Evil that makes descendants sinners for thousands of generations? It involves a blood relation. \u00a0If the root of sin is planted into the blood lineage, it will last forever, by the laws of heredity. \u00a0Such a dynamic is conceivable only in matters of love. Misuse of love is the very cause of the fall. (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I<\/i>, p. 435)<\/p>\n Likewise, the blood lineage and biological laws of heredity are inseparable. In the series of Peace Messages<\/i>, Reverend Moon said, “Life and love are combined to produce a blood lineage” (p. 126). Reverend Moon also stated as follows on the 28th True God’s Day:<\/p>\n “Have you seen life? Have you ever touched life? \u00a0Though we can recognize life forms, we cannot discern life itself. \u00a0We can never touch it. It is also true with the blood lineage. \u00a0It is generated in an innermost room where a couple loves each other. A blood lineage is generated when the sperm and the egg encounter with each other to create a life form.” (Family<\/i>, March 1995, p. 22)<\/p>\n Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage would not question either the lineage of heart or biological one, nor would it separate heart (love) from sexual intercourse unlike Mr. Okamoto\u2019s argument. \u00a0Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage is that of one formed through the union of love and sexual intercourse (a sperm and an egg). When he talks about God’s blood lineage or Satan’s, it is not just a relationship of heart without involving a sexual relationship. \u00a0Sexual intercourse should not be confused with the illicit \u201cblood-sharing rituals\u201d which are practiced by the Woo Myung Sik Group, and which violate the heavenly law.<\/p>\n Incidentally, Reverend Moon’s teaching, which Mr. Okamoto considers to be the conceptual basis of the “lineage of heart,” that is; “To restore the lineage of heart inviolable by Satan” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, p. 172) refers to the original blood lineage in which one can call God Father (True Son = Jesus). \u00a0Mr. Okamoto extracts only the phrase the \u201clineage of heart\u201d from his teachings, taking it out of context, thus making the concept of the blood lineage ambiguous.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Section<\/b> 4 Criticism of “Double Concepts of Salvation”<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.1 Unity between Mind and Body Can Be Achieved Only When the Blood Lineage Is Restored<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto attempts to argue about God’s blood lineage in isolation from both sexual intercourse and the lives of both genders. \u00a0This is the concept of the lineage of heart they emphasize.\u00a0 Mr. Okamoto preaches only about the individual union of heart with God, making the far-fetched claim that it alone can bind us with God’s blood lineage. This sort of subjective idealism is wrong.<\/p>\n No matter how hard a fallen individual person makes an effort (a change of mindset), without going through the Blessing, namely: \u201cengrafting\u201d (a change of the blood lineage through the Holy Wine Ceremony), the primary characteristics of the fallen nature cannot be eradicated. \u00a0Nor can one achieve the union of heart with God on the perfection level.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings say, “God’s heart is not flying into you from somewhere. \u00a0Unless you correct your blood lineage, nutrients or the lineage of heart cannot be bound at the root. \u00a0The restoration through indemnity involves the blood lineage and the realm of heart.” (Homeland,<\/i> p. 209-210, Correcting the Errors<\/i>, p. 156) \u00a0Likewise, “First, correct your blood lineage, then you can bind yourself to God’s heart and achieve unity between your own mind and body.” (Homeland,<\/i> p. 255)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.2\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The Legalistic View of Atonement Revealed by Reverend Moon<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> claims that the \u201clegalistic view of atonement” (the distinction between the original sin and the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) was necessitated in order to emphasize \u201csalvation\u201d in order to counter the anti-UC ministers. (p. 56).<\/p>\n On the contrary, the \u201clegalistic view of atonement” is the very view of salvation according to the truth Reverend Moon revealed.\u00a0 What it calls a certain condition (a necessary procedure) for the atonement actually refers to the Holy Wine Ceremony.\u00a0 The Blessing is the formula to restore mankind back to the state prior to the fall of Adam and Eve.\u00a0 The Holy Wine Ceremony is the \u201cceremony for the salvation of all mankind” by cleansing the original sin, as well as liberating and pardoning people from the dominion of Satan.<\/p>\n The original sin is to be cleansed by reversing the process of the fall through the Holy Wine Ceremony. \u00a0Thereafter, the motivation of the fall, or the primary characteristics of the fallen nature will be eradicated by practicing self-sacrificing love.\u00a0 In light of the principle of restoration through indemnity, the path of cleansing the original sin does not occur simultaneously as the path of removing the primary characteristics of the fallen nature.\u00a0 They are separate and the former precedes the latter.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.3\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/b>The Royalty Is Already Saved, too<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Now, Mr. Okamoto criticizes Correcting the Errors<\/i> by labeling the book as a \u201ctheory of a biological change of the blood lineage which denies the notion of saving the whole mankind.\u201d (p. 160)<\/p>\n However, blessed families have gone through the change of blood lineage, namely, the Holy Wine Ceremony, and have already reached God’s blood lineage.\u00a0 Both the first and the second generations of blessed families are the \u201croyal family\u201d and are already saved.\u00a0 In order to complete the Four Great Realms of Heart, Three Great Kingships and the Realm of the Royal Family, the blessed families are treading the path on the perfection level, which has not been trodden before by anyone in human history, while attending the True Parents and True Family.\u00a0 The \u201cmatrimony between the second generation and the direct lineage” signifies the elevation from the Royal Family into the King’s Family.<\/p>\n However, the followers of the Okamoto theory grossly misunderstand this, saying, \u201cThis matrimony between the second generation and the direct lineage is the only path to salvation,\u201d thus ridiculing the UC’s position as a \u201cbiological view of salvation that denies the salvation of all mankind.\u201d\u00a0 However, marriage is not a blood-sharing ritual.\u00a0 Moreover, both the Royal Family and the King’s Family are one family under God. \u00a0The Blessing surely envisages the salvation of all mankind.<\/p>\n The legalistic view of atonement means the Blessing, while what the Okamoto theory ridicules as a theory of a \u201cbiological change of the blood lineage” means the matrimony between the Royal Family and the King’s Family (=True Children).\u00a0 Therefore, there is no conflict on contradiction, nor any serious problems at all in the \u201cdouble views of salvation.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Section 5 Naive Criticism Is Not to Be Ignored in the Okamoto Theory (Questions about the Human Fall)<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.1 An Illicit Sexual Intercourse Not Leading to Pregnancy<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Concerning the view of the original sin in the Human Fall in the DP<\/i>, the Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> questions whether illicit sexual acts between Adam and Eve without bearing children nor generating the blood lineage, no matter how often they are performed, should not be regarded as the original sin. (p. 118)<\/p>\n Read the DP <\/i>carefully.\u00a0 The Human Fall elaborates the motivation, the process of the fall and its outcome. It does not merely discuss a specific action.<\/p>\n The act of the fall, called the original sin (to have an illicit relationship) does not refer to the physical fall between Adam and Eve alone, but includes the spiritual fall between the Archangel Lucifer and Eve. \u00a0Also, since it refers to inherited sin, the concept of the original sin includes the births of sinners as a consequence of the act of the fall.<\/p>\n Consequently, illicit acts not leading to pregnancy are included in the definition of the original sin (process). They are considered as sins. \u00a0In reality, did Adam and Eve have a child before being kicked out of the Garden of Eden, as described by Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings? \u00a0Did they have a child after they were kicked out? \u00a0As soon as they ate the fruit, they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon says the following:<\/p>\n “Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden after the fall, weren’t they? \u00a0Were they kicked out after they had a child? \u00a0If they fell through a love relationship, there is no way that their immorality was not discovered and could be kept while delivering a child before being kicked out? \u00a0A thunderbolt would strike fallen Adam and Eve. \u00a0They would face a fire immediately after their fall, without a lapse of time. Could God wait for days?\u00a0 No way. \u00a0Absolutely no way. Indispensable for bearing children is the life of a couple as well as a ten-month lapse in the womb before a child is born with a scream. \u00a0Thus, the conclusion is obvious. \u00a0There is no doubt that they were kicked out immediately after the fall, much before they could have a child. (Blessing<\/i> No.76, Spring 1993, pp. 120 -121)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.2 The Spiritual Fall Not Affecting the Biological Blood Lineage<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n A child cannot be born through the spiritual fall between the Archangel and Eve. \u00a0Its impact is limited to their generation only. \u00a0If it had been the fall of Eve only, she could have been saved fairly easily. \u00a0However, because even Adam who was the seed fell, their salvation has been prolonged. (The DP, <\/i>p. 111)<\/p>\n Regarding the illicit relationship between the Archangel Lucifer and Eve, if Eve had abided by the commandment: “Don’t eat of the fruit” (Genesis 2:17) and had not formed a reciprocal relationship with the Archangel in spite of Lucifer’s temptation, there would have emerged no loving passion between them. \u00a0Accordingly, Eve would not have crossed the line, leaving the Archangel with one-sided love and Satan’s primary characteristics of the fallen nature would not have entered into humanity.<\/p>\n That is to say, even if the Archangel who deviated from his position had had his self-centered motivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature), his motivation would have remained as such and it would not have led him to committing a sin. \u00a0In other words, the \u201cmotivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) remained as such and would not have caused a sin” and “the Archangel would not have turned into Satan.\u201d<\/p>\n As the DP<\/i> reads, “Eve received certain elements from Lucifer when she joined into one body with him through love” (p. 79 [English version]), Satan’s nature (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) entered into the humanity as a result of the act of the fall between the Archangel and Eve.<\/p>\n As a result of the fall, Eve’s heart was contaminated (not the other way around). \u00a0Needless to say, the Archangel’s primary characteristic of the fallen nature was the internal motivation and not the original sin (adultery or an external act) (The original sin and the primary characteristics of the fallen nature are not identical.). Even if an \u201cintention had an idea of the consequence,\u201d this is still the case.<\/p>\n As the DP<\/i> elaborates, all sins stem from the original sin.\u00a0 There were no multiple sins that violated the heavenly law prior to the original sin.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings point out that the Archangel Lucifer\u2019s (Satan\u2019s) self-centered fallen motivation was the \u201croot of evil and sin.\u201d (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom II<\/i>, p. 268)\u00a0 This root (motivation) was not created evil by God but it had originally been created good but later it turned into evil (monism). \u00a0Then, why did good turn into evil? \u00a0It was agitated by love.<\/p>\n The DP<\/i> reads, “The basic motivation that thus caused the primary characteristics of the fallen nature lay in the jealousy the Archangel felt toward Adam.” (p. 122) \u00a0Concerning this jealousy, it explains; “Any incidental desire occurring from the original nature of creation would be used for the development of human society; it could never cause man to fall.” (p.123)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.3 Hugs and Kisses<\/b><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The Okamoto theory says, “Before the action of crossing the line (an illicit sexual intercourse), there had been a series of actions such as hugs and kisses in violation of the heavenly law.\u201d (The Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i> p. 122), insisting that in that case an illicit sexual intercourse cannot be referred to as the first sin.<\/p>\n Then, it would become a very absurd logic that many sins were lined up before the original sin, eventually contradicting the definition of the first sin. (ibid.)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The DP<\/i> defines the sin (an illicit sexual intercourse) committed through the blood lineage as the original sin that violates the heavenly law. \u00a0The Archangel’s hugs and kisses that were directed to cross the line (p. 122) were conducted in the process of committing the original sin through the blood lineage. \u00a0These actions themselves had not violated the heavenly law yet but they were problematic since they were against the purpose of creation (God’s Will), and thus were about to violate the heavenly law.<\/p>\n However, if they had not crossed the line and thus had not committed the act of the fall, they would have just attempted to commit the original sin that would have violated the heavenly law.\u00a0 Thus the Archangel’s motivation (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) would not have come into humanity. \u00a0In that case, the salvation of Eve and the Archangel would have been much easier.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.4 Confusion of the Concept between Illicit Sexual Relationship and Blood Relationship<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto\u2019s theory also criticizes as follows:<\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The DP<\/i> description is as if having an adulterous relationship were tantamount to having a blood relationship. \u00a0This description has caused a gross misunderstanding of the concept of the blood lineage.” (The Problems with the Salvation Theory, <\/i>p. 132)<\/p>\n The reason for his criticism this way is because \u201cMankind is the posterity of Adam and Eve and not born of Lucifer’s biological blood lineage since Eve could not bear a child of Lucifer who does not have physical sperms.” (ibid., p. 134) \u00a0Consequently, it wants to say that humans cannot be related to Satan.<\/p>\n First of all, let us consider why the DP<\/i> argues the way it does. \u00a0Eve was romantically involved with Satan and became “Satan’s wife,\u201d who was involved with Adam in Satanic love, causing Adam to fall. \u00a0As a result of this illicit sexual relationship, Adam was born as Satan’s son (an evil change of the blood lineage).<\/p>\n It is the case that Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings show the following: “The responsibility for the fall started with Eve centering on Satan, and then shifted to Adam. \u00a0That is, as far as Eve who had received a false seed of life was concerned, Satan, who took over the position of God as the father stood in the position of delivering Adam (becoming one with Eve), constituting the fall. \u00a0Thus, Eve fell and put the Archangel and Adam in the positions of the father and the son respectively. (Family<\/i>, June 1992, p. 58; Correcting the Errors,<\/i> p. 115)<\/p>\n That is to say, the relationship of Satanic love and sex by Eve formed a father-son relationship between Satan and Adam, and she helped Adam establish a blood relationship with Satan.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon says, “Love has a vertical type and a horizontal type. \u00a0A father-son relationship is vertical while a conjugal relationship is horizontal. \u00a0The vertical love is related to the blood lineage, while the conjugal relationship is not. (Reverend Moon\u2019s Teachings at Workshops in Korea<\/i>, p.12) Likewise, the father-son relationship between Satan and Adam is vertical and connected to the blood lineage.<\/p>\n Why does the DP<\/i> define the \u201csin of the lineage by the spiritual fall and the physical fall”? (p. 121)\u00a0 Why does it also define the spiritual fall and the physical fall together, instead of separating them? \u00a0We should ponder these points rationally. \u00a0The DP’<\/i>\u2018s definition of the original sin indicates the process of how it was connected to Satan’s blood lineage.<\/p>\n The mistake of the Okamoto theory in criticizing the biological view of the blood lineage, hiding behind the lineage of heart, lies in separating love and a sexual relationship. \u00a0Reverend Moon’s concept of the blood lineage does not separate love from the sexual relationship. \u00a0As stated above, we should examine the formation of the blood relationships by means of Satan’s selfish love and various sexual relationships.<\/p>\n Adam and Eve were not born with the original sin, unlike fallen people. \u00a0They were born as God’s son and daughter without the original sin, and only after the fall did their blood lineage become that of Satan.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.5 Is It Inappropriate to Call Sexual Acts As Illicit Sexual Intercourse?<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto theory criticizes the Human Fall, saying, “Why was the act of the fall (the physical fall) between Adam and Eve called adultery? That expression is not appropriate, as it amounts to ‘premarital sex’ in contemporary terms, which may not be ethically appreciated but not subject to a heavy criminal charge according to the contemporary criminal law.\u201d (The Problems with the Salvation Theory,<\/i> p. 121)<\/p>\n However, Eve got involved with Satan in love (the spiritual fall) and became Satan’s wife. \u00a0Then she got sexually involved with Adam who was not fallen (the physical fall).\u00a0 As a result, fallen Adam who became one with Satan by establishing the father-son relationship had a sexual relationship with fallen Eve.\u00a0 These acts cannot but be described as \u201can illicit sexual intercourse\u201d or \u201clechery\u201d. \u00a0Describing them as premarital sex is rather inappropriate.<\/p>\n The acts of sexual relationships among the Archangel, Adam and Eve (the spiritual fall and the physical fall) were tantamount to a serious sin as the Satanic blood lineage started from there.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon says:<\/p>\n “The particulars of the original sin and the fall that I examined closely involved the illicit incidents of the first human ancestors with the Archangel” (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,863). “They committed illicit relations with the Archangel. This became the fundamental cause which wrecked the universe.” (Cheon Seong Gyeon<\/i>g, Sins and Restoration through Indemnity, p. 1,231)<\/p>\n There could be no graver sin than this, as the illicit incident with the Archangel “wrecked the universe.\u201d<\/p>\n But the Okamoto theory focuses on the internal nature of Adam and Eve in an attempt to conceal Satan’s sin (adultery).\u00a0 It reads, “Rather than internal nature such as motivations or thoughts, external behaviors like illegal acts are apt to be stressed.” (The<\/i> Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, p126), or “A more essential problem is the immature and self-centered nature (the primary characteristics of the fallen nature) which was transmitted to the descendants through sexual acts.\u201d (ibid, p. 121)<\/p>\n Incidentally, though it says that sins were “transmitted to the descendants through sexual acts,\u201d the problem is the sex acts that transmitted them.\u00a0 After all, when it comes to how the original sin is transmitted, the Okamoto theory also has to depend on the dogmas of St. Augustine or the Human Fall, as pointed out by Hordern.<\/p>\n As a conclusion, how would Adam and Eve\u2019s sin (the act of the fall) be judged since they were seduced to commit the sin while they were juvenile?\u00a0 “Human sins may not be subjected to a total punishment or destruction anticipated by Satan. \u00a0Rather, it would induce a pity and is not subject to just a pure punishment but a pardon or salvation at the same time.\u00a0 This point is indicated in the biblical passage in which God declared His punishments to the serpent, and Adam and Eve separately. Dictionary of Systematic Christia<\/i>n Theology, <\/i>Kyobunkan, p. 268\uff09<\/p>\n Satan’s sin (lechery) is a destructive and grave sin committed out of his own volition, as explained in this dictionary.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.6 Is the Notion of the Original Sin in Reverend Moon\u2019s Teachings Akin to Protestant Theology? <\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, citing Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings on a “disease of love” from God\u2019s Will and the World<\/i> makes a far-fetched argument: \u201cReverend Moon’s ideology is more akin to conventional Christianity (especially to Protestant theology) than the current concept of the original sin based on the (ambiguous) description of the DP.\u201d <\/i>(p. 111).<\/p>\n However, if you pay close attention to Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings on the “disease of love,\u201d he teaches that \u201cselfishness\u201d became the \u201cmotivation of the fall” (ibid., p. 110) and not the original sin.\u00a0 People like Mr. Okamoto interpret his teachings in that fashion because they read them from the biased viewpoint that the interpretation of the original sin in Protestant theology is correct. \u00a0It should rather be considered as close to that of Catholic theology.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.7 Is the UC Concept of Sin Akin to the Old Testament-Like Legalistic View? <\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto theory, citing passages from the New Testament, criticizes the concept of sin of the UC as similar to the Old Testament-like legalistic view, saying:<\/p>\n \u201cIt would result in openly denying words in the New Testament such as: \u2018Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.\u2019 (Matthew 5:28), showing how much lower its anachronistic Old Testament-like legalistic view is than the Christian concept of sin which appreciates the internal motivation and spirituality.\u201d (The<\/i> Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, p. 100).<\/p>\n This is the same criticism directed toward the UC as was directed by the Protestants to Catholic theology action-focused virtue as external legalism.<\/p>\n The Protestant notion of sin focuses more on the inner self, disregarding external behaviors.\u00a0 \u00a0This may be superior on one side but may lack social implication on the other.<\/p>\n Besides Jesus’ biblical passage (a thought of fornication) was addressed to fallen people, and not the kind of thought that was ever harbored by Adam and Eve, who had been created so pure and chaste as not to be ashamed of their nakedness. \u00a0But fallen people cannot eliminate such a thought, however desperately they may try, including receiving baptism in Christianity.<\/p>\n As St. Paul lamented about his “conflict between mind and body,\u201d fallen people cannot avoid “carnal desires” (sin) that would spring up ceaselessly. \u00a0Why is this so? \u00a0It is because we have inherited Satan’s blood lineage. \u00a0Unless we change our blood lineage through the Marriage Blessing and practice self-sacrificing love, we can never achieve the revolution of heart (the revolution of mind).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 1\u3000Unmasking the Book, the Problems with the Salvation Theory Published by the Spiritual Group, the \u201cTr … \u7d9a\u304d\u3092\u8aad\u3080