Chapter 2 Homepage of the Spiritual Group \u201cTribal Association\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
Correcting the Errors of the Pseudo \u201cSecond Generation Counseling Corner\u201d<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 1 Human Fall, the Origin of Sin and Other Issues<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In January 1995, an anti-UC minister proponent of the \u201cPrinciple criticism\u201d, the late Kouichi Iiboshi states in his book Was Eve Lewd? <\/i>(Shoudensha) as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cChristianity called this disobedience against God by the first human ancestors the original sin.\u00a0 However, in fact, this disobedience is not the only sin.\u201d (p. 79)<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 The nature of sin varies depending on the theologian: they name egoism, pride, faithlessness, disobedience, disloyalty, and so on. \u00a0In any case, it is the Protestant view of the original sin that sees sin as internal nature (mentality).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.1 The Protestant View of Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Henry Thiessen(1883~1947) states, \u201cSin exists as a nature in all men before it reveals itself as an act.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cThe act which appears externally is based on the evil nature.\u201d \u00a0\u201cThe criminal law pays more attention to the motivation than to the criminal act itself.\u201d (Systematic Theology, <\/i>pp. 403~404)<\/p>\n
Moreover, he defines the concept of sin as \u201cSin should not be limited to the actual act alone. \u00a0It should include the status out of which sin arises.\u201d (ibid.)\u00a0 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)<\/p>\n
Mr. Thiessen says, \u201cChristians think the reason why they deviate from God\u2019s law is that fallen nature exists within them and that they repent more for that fact than the actual sinful act.\u201d (ibid., p. 404)<\/p>\n
However, as the DP points out, there is a question: \u201cEven if a devout believer repents, why do sinful thoughts (\u201cphysically intruding sin\u201d, p. 187) spring up time and again?\u201d (The limitation of the salvation by the cross)\u00a0 Besides, there is a deeper question as to why man became such a sinful being.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.2 Essence of Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Thiessen states the essence of sin to be as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe essence of sin is egoism. It is difficult to conclude what the essential principle of sin is. \u2018St. Augustine and St. Aquinas conclude that the essence of sin is pride, and Luther and Calvin a lack of faith.\u2019 \u00a0However, none of these leads to the ultimate nature of sin. \u00a0As 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.\u201d (Systematic Theology, <\/i>p.406)<\/p>\n
Likewise, Thiessen concludes that \u201cthe essence of sin is egoism.\u201d \u00a0He says that every other sin derives from it. \u00a0It is obvious that the Okamoto theory follows this view.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.3 Study of the Teachings of Reverend Moon<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.3.1 Self-Centeredness Is the Motivation of the Fall<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon (True Father) says, \u201cEvil is the realization of selfishness towards the world.\u00a0 God\u2019s altruistic principle of giving was distorted to an un-Godly selfish principle of taking.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cThe root of evil is Satan.\u201d \u201cHis motivation was selfish. \u00a0Evil and the root of sin came from his selfishness.\u201d (God\u2019s Will and the World<\/i>, p. 266)<\/p>\n
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).<\/p>\n
The differences are as follows:<\/p>\n
\u2460 Thiessen does not clarify their relationship with the root of evil Satan and man.<\/p>\n
\u2461 Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings state that Satan\u2019s selfishness is the motivation but do not state that selfishness (the primary characteristic of the fallen nature) is the original sin.<\/p>\n
\u2462 Thiessen states that man fell due to his free will (p. 409) but Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings state that the fall took place due to unprincipled love. \u00a0That is, selfishness was the motivation, and the fall did not take place due to free will. (The DP<\/i>, p. 127)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.3.2 Relationship with an Object (the Principle to Give and the Principle to Take)<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Reverend Moon says, \u201cAll of our characteristics come from God. \u00a0We know that we have a selfish tendency. \u00a0It is a natural tendency since God Himself was once self-centered.\u00a0 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. \u00a0However, the moment He started working on the creation, He started living for the sake of the creation, not for Himself.\u201d (God\u2019s Will and the World,<\/i> p. 262)<\/p>\n
As Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings say, unless you recognize the difference between \u201cto be all alone\u201d and \u201cto have an object,\u201d you may tend to misunderstand the clause that God Himself was self-centered. (Refer to Correcting the Errors<\/i>, p. 180)<\/p>\n
The relationship with an object is one based on the principle to give, not the egoistic principle to take.\u00a0 It is Satan that made the selfish principle to take in human relationships.\u00a0 In a fallen man the principle to give (God\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.4 Problems with the Theory of Internal Original Sin in Protestantism <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
There are many theological problems with the view of Protestant theology that the original sin lies in internal nature.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
However, \u2460 it has not been resolved as to how sin came about; \u2461 also, there is the question: did God create man with a \u201ctendency to commit sins\u201d from the beginning? \u00a0If it is the case, then man can never be saved; and evil and sin will never be removed from society. \u00a0However, God, who judges sin, is not the root of evil and sin.\u00a0 Therefore, \u2462 the question arises: how did the sinful nature get into Adam\u2019s nature?\u00a0 Besides, \u2463 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<\/i>, p. 408)\u00a0 Therefore, we assert that we cannot say that internal nature holds the original sin.<\/p>\n
We should know clearly why Reverend Moon labels internal nature (self-centeredness) as the motivation of the fall, and not as the original sin.<\/p>\n
Mr. Iiboshi\u2019s question in Was Eve Lewd?<\/i> \u00a0does not concern itself with the above-mentioned problems.\u00a0 Not only does he just ignore them, but he goes on to admit the fact that we cannot be saved and even asserts: \u201cMankind commits sins without ceasing.\u201d (p. 140) \u00a0The theory of the internal original sin comes from the view of Protestant theology, and Mr. Okamoto\u2019s theory has a similar problem.\u00a0 For the most part, Mr. Okamoto states [it] as a labyrinth of the righteousness of God (The Problems with the Salvation Theory,<\/i> 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)\u00a0 Therefore, the problem still remains as to \u201cWhy sin occurred in man\u2019s heart? \u00a0Why did God create such a heart?\u201d<\/p>\n
As for the questions of how the primary characteristics of the fallen nature (self-centeredness) came about and how they entered into Adam\u2019s nature, in the end, Thiessen honestly states, \u201cWe do not know how on earth this first polluted thought entered into the pure heart of a human being.\u201d (Systematic Theology,<\/i> p. 409) \u00a0However, Mr. Okamoto and others continue to assert strongly that [it is] the original sin as internal motivation and nature (Volume 5, Refutation \u2013 11<\/i>) and will never say honestly, \u201cWe don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n
Likewise, the theory of internal original sin in Protestant theology contains many problems and it cannot pinpoint [the cause] definitely. \u00a0Thus, W. E. Hordern says, \u201cThe root of the human sickness is mental but we need to learn St. Augustine\u2019s 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.\u201d (An Introduction to the Contemporary Christian Theology, <\/i>p. 47)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.5 Unification by the Human Fall<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
According to Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, the original sin (sin of lineage) is an illicit sexual intercourse (effect), the \u201cmental nature\u201d which Hordern refers to is selfish love (cause). \u00a0The fall is the effect which was brought about by this love.<\/p>\n
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.\u00a0 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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
1.6 Mr. Okamoto Did a Complete About-Face<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto\u2019s view on the original sin is not that of the theory of the Human Fall.\u00a0 It is the same concept of the \u201cessence of sin\u201d as that of Thiessen\u2019s.\u00a0 He sees Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings on the sickness of love (\u201cSelfish love became the motivation for the fall.\u201d) from his biased view of the theory of internal original sin. \u00a0Then, 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.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 2 Criticism of the Human Fall from the Viewpoint of Molecular Biology<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.1 Confusion of the Existing Theory of Heredity with the Heredity of the Blood Lineage<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Iiboshi states, from the viewpoint of Protestant theology that the original sin lies in internal nature (mentality \u2013 a tendency towards sin), and criticizes the theory of the original sin (an illicit sexual intercourse \/ sin of the lineage) in the Human Fall.\u00a0 He also ridicules the idea of the blood lineage of Satan from Mr. Sadao Asami\u2019s viewpoint based on molecular biology, condemning it as a bizarre theory and demanding that it be explained scientifically.<\/p>\n
However, the heredity of sin in the Human Fall is not the existing theory of heredity that the anti-UC group is rejecting.\u00a0 We are not saying, \u201cIf you commit a sin, your genes will change and the sin will be passed on to your descendants as biological genetic information.\u201d \u00a0We are saying, \u201cDue to the fall, the blood lineage changed and the Satanic lineage was passed on by the laws of heredity. \u00a0The 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.\u201d<\/p>\n
The anti-UC group is confusing the existing theory of heredity with the theory of the heredity of the blood lineage.\u00a0 Mr. Okamoto is committing the same mistake.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.2 The Reason That the Anti-UC Group Calls the Human Fall a Bizarre Theory (Occultism)<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Sadao Asami criticizes [the theory of the Human Fall], saying, \u201cThe 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.\u201d (The Unification Church = the Principle Movement,<\/i> pp. 132- 133)<\/p>\n
Mr. Iiboshi also criticizes [the theory of the Human Fall], saying, \u201cThe theory of an evil blood lineage which the UC preaches is a bad case of occultism.\u201d (Was Eve Lewd?<\/i> p. 141) \u201cSince the angels are spirits and thus do not have physical bodies, it is impossible to have sexual intercourse.\u201d (ibid. p. 115) \u00a0The reason he mentions this is because he follows the (suspicious) view of the anti-UC group which asks, \u201cCan a baby be born of Eve\u2019s intercourse with an Archangel who does not have a physical body?\u201d<\/p>\n
From this, we can understand well why Mr. Asami and others call the Human Fall theory a bizarre theory.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.3 The Theory of the Satanic Blood Lineage Must Be Explained Scientifically<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Human Fall states that \u201call men came to be born of Satanic lineage, apart from God\u2019s.\u201d and mentions the \u201cdescendant of the devil.\u201d (The DP, <\/i>p. 73 [English version])\u00a0 In the Bible Jesus says, \u201cYou are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father\u2019s desires. \u2026\u2026 He is a liar and the father of lies.\u201d(John 8:44)<\/p>\n
Mr. Iiboshi criticizes this theory of Satanic lineage, telling us to prove [it] physiologically (as follows): \u201cWhy don\u2019t you explain your bizarre theory scientifically that Eve converted to the blood of the devil because she had intercourse with the devil?\u00a0 How are you going to prove it physiologically and medically? \u00a0If you guys mention science so haphazardly, it will disgrace the name of science.\u00a0 Besides, I\u2019m so amazed to hear that you believe that the evil blood is passed on to descendants.\u201d (Was Eve Lewd?, <\/i>p. 94) \u201cIt is a bad case of occultism.\u201d (ibid., p. 141)<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.4 Morality and the View of Original Sin<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Moreover, Mr. Iiboshi praises the theory of original sin in man, saying, \u201cMan has original sin.\u00a0 Because of that he continues to commit sins. \u00a0The 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.\u201d (ibid., p. 141)<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto\u2019s 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] \u201cChristianity which places weight on the internal mentality is morally far superior [to that of the UC].<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
2.5 A Story of the Marriage between an Angel and a Human Daughter<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
However, Mr. Iiboshi takes up the \u201cstory of a marriage between an angel and a human daughter\u201d 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:<\/p>\n
\u201cHe explained in his book, Summa Theologica<\/i> 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\u2019s logic. \u00a0It is as follows: \u201cIt is possible that the devil rapes a human woman and impregnates her. \u00a0However, how can the devil who is a spiritual being without semen impregnate the human woman?\u00a0 That is, the devil became a sodomite, receiving semen from a man and then became a lecher to inject semen into a woman\u2019s body.\u201d \u00a0When 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. \u00a0The UC which makes a big fuss about science should learn from him even a little bit.\u201d (ibid., p. 116)<\/p>\n
Likewise, the anti-UC people argue on the theory of the Satanic lineage, bringing up physiological or scientific points. \u00a0When 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.<\/p>\n
However, in the age of molecular biology, Mr. Okamotos\u2019 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\u2019s teachings and thus has nothing to do with physiology (biology), falls into the realm of ignorance. \u00a0They are the ones who should learn from Thomas Aquinas even a little bit.<\/p>\n
The salvation of all mankind means the Blessing which denies the blood-sharing practice.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 3 Questions Martin Luther Harbored<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Martin Luther (1483\uff5e1546) states, \u201cWhy did God allow the fall of Adam? \u00a0He could have held him from falling or have created us from other descendants or purified first descendants. \u00a0Why did God create us all as the same defiled beings?\u201d (Luther<\/i>, Tomoo Matsuda, p. 223)<\/p>\n
Then he says, \u201cSearching for the mystery is not what we should do. \u00a0Rather we should revere this mystery.\u201d (ibid.) \u00a0But the reason of the Lord of the Second Coming must resolve this mystery.<\/p>\n
There is a story that an inhabitant in Kagoshima raised a question to Francisco de Xavier (1506\uff5e1552) as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cI understand that surely the devil exists, and that this is the principle of evil and the enemy of humankind.\u00a0 But if so, I cannot recognize the Creator.\u00a0 Because it is contradictory to say that the good Creator who created all things created evil.\u00a0 If you say that the Creator created human beings, when the human beings whom He himself created were tempted by the devil, why didn\u2019t He protect them and why did He let them be tempted?\u201d (Restoration of National Spirit<\/i>\u2019, Keiichiro Kobori, p. 65)<\/p>\n
These adverse questions can easily be answered by anyone who knows the Human Fall, which was inspected and published by Reverend Moon.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 4 Ignorant and Uncivilized Criticism of the Devine Principle<\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto and others told a transparent lie, \u201cWe haven\u2019t corrected the DP<\/i> as we like but have persistently tried to point out the differences between [the DP<\/i>] and the teachings of Reverend Moon (Sun Myung).\u201d (Volume 3, Refutation<\/i> – 6<\/i>) on the topic of the \u201cMeasures of the UC\u201d on their pseudo \u201cSecond Generation Counseling Corner\u201d (homepage)..<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4.1\u00a0 <\/b>Contradictory Value Recognition Toward the DP<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto and others say in their refutation, \u201cWe have never denied the utmost value of the DP. <\/i>\u00a0We admit that the DP<\/i> is the most excellent doctrine of all religious doctrines.\u201d \u00a0But they assert that the DP<\/i> contains the nature of a transitional phase (partial nature) and the \u201cmixing of human elements,\u201d and \u201cWhen we compare Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings at the perfection stage with the DP<\/i>, there are theological (doctrinal) issues as in the Bible.\u201d (Introduction<\/i>, Refutation<\/i> \u2013 02)<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto and others take the way of praising and looking down on [the DP<\/i>]. \u00a0While they look down, saying, in the Problems with the salvation theory<\/i>, \u201cBecause the DP<\/i> quotes many verses from the Bible, the UC just looks like as though it were just one of Christian denominations\u201d (p. 26) and they say next, \u201cWe have never denied the utmost value of the DP<\/i> .\u201d\u00a0 They blatantly make such contradictory remarks.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
4.2\u00a0 <\/b>\u00a0Are Reverend Moon\u2019s Teaching Different from the DP<\/i>? <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr. Okamoto and others say, \u201cTo believe that both the DP<\/i> and Reverend Moon\u2019s 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.\u00a0 The DP<\/i> was never written by Reverend Moon, holding Reverend Hyo Won Eu\u2019s hand.\u201d (Volume 3,<\/i> Refutation<\/i>–5<\/i>) Thus they assert the differences between Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings and the DP<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The Bible was compiled after the death of Jesus.\u00a0 But the DP<\/i> is the book which Reverend Moon inspected word for word.\u00a0 It was not compiled the same way as the Bible. \u00a0If the Bible had been written by Jesus, then the doctrine of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible would be deemed correct.\u00a0 The above-mentioned argument is an ignorant and outrageous criticism without recognizing the differences of the way the Bible and the DP<\/i> were compiled.<\/p>\n
By the way, Bultman (1884\uff5e1976) said in Jesus<\/i> (Miraisha), \u201cWe know very little about Jesus\u2019 life and personality,\u201d (p. 16) which shocked people. \u00a0He also stated that the Synoptic Gospels (60\uff5e90\u2019s) 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 \u201cthere was the church (mission) at the beginning,\u201d therefore, \u201chistorical Jesus\u201d cannot be reconstructed from the Gospels.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Section 5 Malicious Quote of Reverend Moon\u2019s Teaching <\/b><\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Then which side is telling the truth? \u00a0Let us examine [it] through Reverend Moon\u2019s teaching.<\/p>\n
\u201cYou will give lectures on all of the words of the DP <\/i>by reading it.\u00a0 The DP <\/i>was not written by President Eu (Hyo-won)<\/span>. \u00a0It was inspected (by Reverend Moon) page by page. \u00a0No one should muddle with what I have done<\/span>. \u00a0Every thing is in place<\/span>.\u00a0 Even if there are errors, it is not that I haven\u2019t known them.\u00a0 I must leave them as they are. \u00a0I can\u2019t tell everything.\u201d (Correcting the Errors<\/i>, p. 270)<\/p>\n As for the DP<\/i>, Reverend Moon says, \u201cEverything is in place.\u201d \u201cThere are several errors.\u201d \u00a0It 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). \u00a0If there are any errors in the concept of the original sin, he would not leave them as they are.\u00a0 We should interpret that the Human Fall was also inspected by Reverend Moon page by page.<\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto and others skipped maliciously the underlined sentences of Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings and extracted and used the rest on their homepage (Introduction) and the One Hundred<\/i> Proposals <\/i>(p. 177) but their interest is to extract the phrase; \u201cThere are errors.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cSeveral errors\u201d have been exaggerated to the degree that the DP<\/i> \u201ccontains many erroneous points\u201d (ibid., p. 188) and in the end they said boldly that the UC should not hold onto the \u201cDP <\/i>of the old age\u201d (ibid., p. 432), which is a \u201cpartial truth.\u201d \u00a0But Reverend Moon states that we do not renounce the DP <\/i>but \u201cWhen the Original DP<\/i>\u2019 appears, the DP<\/i> will be included in it.\u201d (Family<\/i>, April 2009, p. 12) \u00a0Their self-proclaimed study \u201cbased purely on Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings alone\u201d (Volume 7<\/i>, Refutation-13<\/i>) is just like it is described above.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.1 What Is the Universal Truth (Principle) in the Overall Teachings of Reverend Moon?<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto and others state as follows.<\/p>\n \u201cThere is an expression that the DP<\/i>\u2019 is the sword of heavenly teachings and a heavenly proclamation which Reverend Moon created, but regarding \u2018the main stream constitution in the heart of God,\u2019 Reverend Moon says that it is the DP <\/i>only. \u00a0It is a more accurate interpretation to say that Reverend Moon\u2019s assertion does not point to the DP<\/i> 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)<\/p>\n Here again, they try to explain desperately about the differences between the DP<\/i> and the principle in the overall teachings [of Reverend Moon].\u00a0 Then, what is the principle as the universal truth?\u00a0 As Reverend Moon says in his teachings, the \u201cgreat DP<\/i> of the UC,\u201d (Cheon Seong Gyeong<\/i>, The Origin of The Universe, p. 1,725) it is the DP<\/i> that Reverend Moon inspected but not the \u201cComplete Testament Principle\u201d in the Okamoto theory, which has not been inspected by Reverend Moon. \u00a0Of course, there are reserved parts in the DP<\/i> but there is no conflict or contradiction between the reserved parts and the contents of the DP<\/i>. \u00a0Both are the Principle.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.2 Makeshift Wisdom<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto and others argue that \u201cThe content that \u2018Reverend Moon is the champion in eight areas\u2019 is not extracted from the DP<\/i> but from Peace Messages<\/i> 13 and 16).\u00a0 The passage which mentions discussing whether the description in the DP<\/i> is completely in accord with Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings is completely off the point.\u201d (Introduction<\/i>, Refutation-03)<\/p>\n However, the DP <\/i>is the grounds for the reason Reverend Moon is the champion in eight areas.\u00a0 Each page in the DP<\/i> was inspected by Reverend Moon. \u00a0That is why it has been called Reverend Moon\u2019s DP<\/i> book. (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom I<\/i>, p. 57) \u00a0We are not discussing whether the surface meaning of the description in the DP <\/i>is completely in accordance with that of Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings when we discuss oneness between the two.\u00a0 What they call \u201coff the point\u201d is makeshift wisdom.\u00a0 We want them to say more meaningful things without any sophistry when they refute or criticize us.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.3 The Messiah Will Solve Metaphors and Codes<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to Mr. Okamoto\u2019s theory, he argues that the \u201ckey\u201d which appears in Peace Messages<\/i>, which reads, \u201cthe person who is bringing the key which leads to Heaven\u201d (p. 329) talks about the mission of Reverend Moon who came as the Lord of the Second Advent.\u201d(Volume 4, Refutation <\/i>–7<\/i>) \u00a0He continues to say, \u201cThe concept of the \u201ckey which leads to Heaven\u201d and that of the \u201ckey\u201d to solve Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings which were told in metaphors and codes are quite different.\u201d\u00a0 \u201cThe person in the position of the \u2018restored arch-angel\u2019 must appear to be able to solve the teachings which Reverend Moon spoke in the position of God.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto and others state the necessity of the key to solve the \u201cmetaphors and symbols\u201d (codes) and use sophistry of any sort. \u00a0Let us inspect what they mean and who is going to solve them based on Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings.<\/p>\n \u201cMajor 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. \u00a0Therefore, important contents are described in metaphors and symbols. \u00a0The metaphors and the symbols will clearly be solved only by the Messiah who comes from Heaven.\u00a0 Therefore, \u2026\u2026\u2026 through the teachings of Reverend Moon, the heavenly secret about the providence of God\u2019s salvation which runs throughout the whole of Old and New testaments has clearly been revealed. (Peace Messages<\/i>, pp. 282\uff5e283)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Adam is the one who fell and lost the Word.\u00a0 Therefore, it is Adam (the Messiah) that will restore the Word.\u00a0 The \u201ckey\u201d which the Okamoto theory mentions is the key to open the Pandora\u2019s box.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Section <\/b>\uff16<\/b> Theological Issues in 2000-Year Christian History<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto and others argue: \u201cThe way they speak as if they had discussed all the theological issues in 2000-year Christian history by the writing of the DP<\/i> shows their ignorance of theology.\u201d (Introduction, Refutation-03)<\/p>\n Although they have said, \u201cIt is the utmost scripture among religious scriptures,\u201d how ignorant they are of the DP<\/i>! \u00a0Now, let us refute them concretely.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.1 Pre-Existence of Jesus, Resurrection and the Original Sin <\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n It is hard to accept the message for a contemporary man\u2019s rational. \u00a0Regarding the \u201cresurrection of the dead,\u201d Bultmann did not take it as a historical objective occurrence but interpreted [it] existentially and subjectively (self-understanding); An issue of \u201cresurrected Jesus\u201d 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).\u00a0 These revelations are inconceivable rationally for the contemporary man living in the age of molecular biology.\u00a0 But the DP<\/i> clearly explains them in Christology, Resurrection, and the Human Fall.<\/p>\n These are a \u201cnon-religious interpretation of the messages in the Bible\u201d according to Bonhoeffer\uff081906-1945\uff09.<\/p>\n 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?<\/i> on the resurrection and the original sin as the following:<\/p>\n \u201cHonestly speaking, I don\u2019t think it is possible to resurrect a corpse.\u201d(p.89), \u201cAnother hard subject is the original sin. \u00a0It is said that man the sin since his birth. \u00a0It may be so but so what?\u00a0 That is my honest feeling.\u201d (p.92)<\/p>\n The DP<\/i> does not force a \u201csacrifice of intellect\u201d 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. \u00a0The DP<\/i> holds the substance (the champion in eight areas) which can unify Christianity which has the 2000- year history.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.2 Unification of Catholicism and Protestantism by the DP<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Next, let us see what Reverend Moon has said regarding the unification of Christianity.<\/p>\n \u201cFor Christianity to unify Catholicism and Protestantism at the world-level summit, there is nothing but the DP<\/i>. \u00a0Because only the DP<\/i> can solve mysterious Biblical contents\u2026 it has to go that way\u2026it can not but unify them.\u201d (Reverend Moon\u2019s Teachings at Workshops for Men in Korea <\/i>p. 222)<\/i><\/p>\n To unify Christianity, there must be theological contents which can bring unification. \u00a0It is the DP. \u00a0But the Okamoto theory made strange remarks: \u201cWe should not mix the DP with the DP<\/i> book.\u201d(Public Debate, <\/i>February 21, 2006)\u00a0 It was his sophistry as always.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.3 New Natural Theology Theologians and Scientists have Been Seeking<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The ignorant claim made by the Okamoto theory is as the following:<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Mori \u2026.. picked up the ontological concept of God by Tillich who criticized Kant\u2019s concept of God, and said that it was a theology with the mission of John the Baptist for the DP<\/i> but that is not relevant to the problems in the DP<\/i> The Problems with the salvation theory<\/i> points out. \u00a0The DP<\/i> book has no explanation on which relates the problems of Kant\u2019s concept of God and the ontological concept of God by Tillich with the ideology of Reverend Moon.\u201d (Introduction, Refutation-03)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.3.1 Relevance of the Philosophy of Kant to the DP<\/i> (the Word)\u00a0 <\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Immanuel Kant (1724\uff5e1804) 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<\/i> (Vol. 2), Iwanami Books, p.164) and criticizes it as \u201cout of the domain of the object\u201d of experience (p. 158) \uff08It goes on infinitely, questioning what the cause of the first cause is.\uff09. \u00a0Further, he asserts that \u201cThe existence of God must be required as an inevitable condition to make the supreme good possible.\u201d (Critique of Practical Reason<\/i>, Iwanami Books, p. 250)\u00a0 This philosophy of Kant\u2019s denies natural theology (an ontological proof of God) and it is the philosophizing of \u201cevangelism\u201d which affirms that the recognition of God comes from faith.<\/p>\n Like Kant\u2019s philosophy, the \u201crecognition of God by faith which has no grounds on objective beings\u201d 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. \u00a0It is intellectual negligence.<\/p>\n We should understand why the VOC theory (the critic & counterproposal of dialectic materialism) is important to liberate God and alienated people. \u00a0The Principle of Creation in the DP<\/i>, 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.<\/p>\n Also, looking at the Principle of Creation from the viewpoint of Christology in the DP<\/i> (a perfected man having realized the purpose of creation and Jesus), it subsumes evangelical theology (Christ center principle) of Barth and others.<\/p>\n Reverend Moon says in regard to the purpose of creation (the purpose of existence), \u201cif there are a subject and an object, there is definitely a purpose and a direction.\u201d (Cheong Seong Gyeong,<\/i> the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,773); \u201cToday physics has progressed, and they say that every atom has consciousness\u2026\u2026..\u00a0 This theory is identical with the principle of dual characteristics of the UC.\u201d (ibid., p. 1,774); \u201cThere can\u2019t be an effect without a cause. \u00a0There can\u2019t be a scientific theory which negates the law of causality.\u201d (ibid., p. 1,784)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 6.3.2 Relevance of the DP (Reverend Moon\u2019s Teachings) with the Ontological Concept of God by Tillich<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Great philosophers and theologians have been split into two camps with one side attacking natural theology while the other side defending it.\u00a0 Tillich criticizes evangelical theology of Barth as a \u201ctheology which confines God in a super-natural domain\u201d and an \u201cirrational faith dogmatism which believes in the basis of cognition.\u201d\u00a0 He defines the ultimate being (God) as \u201cBeing-Itself\u201d and \u201cPower of Being\u201d (\u201cthe power within all beings which enables them to be,\u201d \u201cthe power to guide all beings to their objectives\u201d). \u00a0This \u201cPower of Being\u201d is the Universal Prime Force in the DP<\/i>.<\/p>\n And he claims that \u201cGod as the Force of Being transcends all beings and the totality of the beings (the world).\u201d (Systematic Theology,<\/i> Vol.\u2160, p. 300) and \u201cThe structure of beings themselves is the fate of all other things, and thus the fate of God.\u201d (ibid. p. 299).<\/p>\n This \u201cstructure of beings\u201d is the four position foundation in the DP<\/i>.\u00a0 It is the very being on which Heidegger (1889\uff5e1976) questioned, \u201cWhat is a being?\u201d (Being and Time<\/i> Vol. 1, Iwanami Books, p. 23)<\/p>\n As for the Power of Being in Tillich\u2019s theology, Reverend Moon says, \u201cThe Universal Prime Force means the essential force of God.\u201d (Cheong Seong Gyeong<\/i>\u2019, the Origin of the Universe, p. 1,794) \u00a0\u201cIn every being there is an innate universal force which enables to make the force of internal action.\u201d (ibid., p. 1,771)<\/p>\n As mentioned above, the DP<\/i> 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 <\/i>asserts. It is very logical. \u00a0The DP <\/i>called a \u201cheavenly proclamation\u201d is at the top of contemporary theological thoughts. \u00a0They will be astonished by the Original Divine Principle<\/i> when it appears.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 2 Homepage of the Spiritual Group \u201cTribal Association\u201d Correcting the Errors of the Pseudo \u201cSecond Gen … \u7d9a\u304d\u3092\u8aad\u3080