Our answers to persistent refutations from the false \u201cSecond Generation Counseling Corner\u201d based on the Okamoto theory:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Okamoto group makes an excuse in the following:<\/p>\n
\u00a0\u201c\uff08In regard to the original sin\uff09\u3000the fact of the fall by Adam & Eve\u2019s sexual relationship\u3000(by the sexual organs) is wholly recognized. \u00a0It is a fact described in the Human Fall of the DP<\/i> and is mentioned many times in Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings.\u201d(Volume 2, Refutation-04<\/i>)<\/p>\n
But they modify the<\/i>\u3000<\/i>DP<\/i> concept of the fall and make it vague. \u00a0The Okamoto theory claims in the following:<\/p>\n
\u201cAccording to Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, the concept of the fall is not limited to such a fall as the \u2018one by a sexual relationship between man and woman\u2019 (The Complete Testament Principle<\/i> calls this the \u2018fall of the second blessing type\u2019) but includes a split of mind and body (the fall of the first blessing type), a murder of Abel by Cain, and the fall of an eight-member family, thus it is a wide concept.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n
The Okamoto theory: \u201cThere are three types of the fall.\u201d is an error. \u00a0In the last chapter of Correcting the Errors <\/i>this error is refuted (p. 245-256). \u00a0Furthermore, the fall of the eight-member family is explained in Correcting<\/i>\u3000<\/i>the E<\/i>rrors<\/i> (pp. 164\uff5e165).<\/p>\n
In addition, we encourage you to re-visit the consistencies and differences between Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings described in A Study of Reverend Moon\u2019s Speeches<\/i> in this booklet and the outlook of Henry Thiessen\u2019s.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto group claims as the following:<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Mori limits the concept of the original sin to an external sinful act of making sexual relationship by the first human ancestors but as discussed in the Problems with the Salvation Theory <\/i>in detail (p.112), in the original sin there are concepts not only of the sinful act by the first human\u3000ancestor\uff53\u3000but also of a more essential \u2018existential grasp\u2019, which is an internal motivation and nature, that is, a sin as a cause (\u2018corrupted\u3000nature\u2019 in Christianity).\u201d (Volume 5, Refutation-11<\/i>)<\/p>\n The Okamoto theory criticizes us [for our belief] that we limit the concept of the fall to having a sexual relationship (illicit sexual intercourse) by the first human ancestors. \u00a0But this is the concept of the DP<\/i>. \u00a0Besides, Reverend Moon says, \u201cThey (Adam and Eve) covered their lower parts, hid behind a tree, and trembled in fear. \u00a0Because they have made an illicit relationship against the Heaven\u2019s code and established the root of false love, false life, and false lineage. \u00a0All mankind who are descendants of fallen Adam and Eve, from generation to generation, were born with the original sin.\u201d (Blessed Family and Ideal Kingdom<\/i>, \uff50. 30; Correcting the Errors<\/i>, p. 250) \u00a0He clearly states that the original sin is to have had an \u201cillicit relationship.\u201d<\/p>\n There are many theological problems in the theory of Okamoto\u2019s such as the \u201coriginal sin as internal \u2018motivation and nature\u2019\u201d, which is the \u201ctheory of internal original sin.\u201d \u00a0They hide that. This theological issue is dealt in Chapter II of this booklet.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto group states: \u201cAs a conclusion, it is clear that by judging from the whole teachings of Reverend Moon, he uses the phrase \u2018the original sin,\u2019 implying \u2018the sin as a motivation,\u2019 which induces various sinful acts of fallen men.\u00a0 That is, he considers it as self-centered love (nature), which is identical with the primary characteristics of the fallen nature. (Volume 5, Refutation-11<\/i>)<\/p>\n They assert that in Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, the primary characteristics of the fallen nature (internal nature) and the original sin are used as an identical concept.\u00a0 There was no reference, however, to it in Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings. \u00a0This is their own understanding and nothing but a delusion.<\/p>\n The Okamoto group says,\u3000\u201cReverend Moon\u2019s teachings are absolute.\u201d On the contrary, they say, \u201cJudging from the whole teachings.\u201d\u00a0 Thus they have their own standard for judgment and treat the interpretation (self-understanding) from that as absolute.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto group quotes the following teaching as a reason for the theory of internal original sin:<\/p>\n \u201cSatan is the fallen archangel, leaving the position of a faithful servant to God and humans, challenged God, and competed with Him. \u00a0His motivation was based on egotism. \u00a0From his selfishness the origin of evil and sin arose.\u201d (Volume 5, Refutation-11<\/i>)<\/p>\n But this teaching cannot be the grounds. \u00a0This origin of evil and sin means that the motivation of fall is egotism and that this selfishness became the origin of good and evil. \u00a0The teaching does not mean that it [selfishness] was the original sin. \u00a0But the Okamoto theory wrongly reinterprets the original sin as selfishness. \u00a0The reason for the interpretation is that they have preceding knowledge of the theory of internal original sin (self-centeredness) in the existing theology.<\/p>\n Please read carefully. \u00a0The teaching indicates that what became the origin of evil and sin was (not from God) Satan\u2019s selfishness. \u00a0In addition, the theory of internal original sin, which ascribes sin to God, is wrong. \u00a0The original sin means the fallen act (a sinful act = an illicit sexual intercourse, adultery to have an illicit relationship). \u00a0The motivation and the act are not the same. \u00a0The two are to be distinguished. \u00a0The motivation may not lead to the act, it may just stay as such. \u00a0The motivation is not inevitable. \u00a0That is to say, the fall of first human ancestors was not inevitable.<\/p>\n The teaching distinguishes the motivation of the fall from the act which was the result of that.\u00a0 Therefore, the motivation is not the same as the original sin. \u00a0If the motivation or nature were to produce an inevitable result (the fall), it would mean that they already had the original sin (nature) before breaking the commandment, which would also mean that God endowed such a mind (evil nature) that has the inevitability to commit sin. \u00a0It would make God responsible for the sin, which would lead to the liberation of the individuals from their sins (= the apology for Satan). \u00a0Please think deeply what the 5% portion of human responsibility is.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto theory refutes as the following:.<\/p>\n \u201cIn spite of reading the teaching Mr. Mori quoted in the context, Reverend Moon\u2019s statement; \u2018The fall was an incident of the blood lineage which began with an illicit motivation,\u201d tells that the motivation is included in the concept of the fall but that [the fall] began from the motivation.\u00a0 Therefore, it should rather be understood that the fall is a \u2018totality of internal and external acts\u2019 with a time lapse, including the motivation.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n Perhaps influenced by our drastic refutation of the Okamoto theory, they state the same outlook as that of the Human Fall (the motivation and process of the fall) in the DP<\/i>, namely, the totality of internal and external act\uff53.<\/p>\n \u2460 Surely, the teaching states, \u201cThe fall was an incident of the blood lineage which began with an illicit motivation\u201d. \u3000It says that it \u201cbegan,\u201d but not that the \u201cillicit motivation is the original sin (an incident).\u201d \u00a0The error of the Okamoto theory is that the motivation is regarded as the original sin. \u00a0As discussed in the previous section, it is wrong to think that the motivation as inevitable and identify it with its result. \u00a0The fall includes the motivation but the motivation itself is not the original sin.<\/p>\n \u2461 The process of the fall explains how the act of the fall\u3000(an illicit act) with Satan\u2019s selfish love as the motivation got connected to Satan\u2019s lineage. \u00a0This process does not indicate the lapse of time. \u00a0The definition of the original sin as \u201cthe sin derived from the spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors\u201d as it appears in the DP<\/i> means that it describes the \u201cprocess\u201d of how the illicit spiritual and physical fall (the totality of internal and external act\uff53) committed by the archangel and Eve first and then by Adam and Eve got connected to Satan\u2019s lineage. \u00a0It does not mean a series of the \u201cflow of heart,\u201d excluding the \u201cact\u201d (the sexual relationship) as the Okamoto theory claims.<\/p>\n \u2462 The inheritance of the archangel\u2019s primary characteristics of the fallen nature is not only the flow of heart also the sexual relationship. \u00a0Will anyone get connected to Satan\u2019s blood lineage by kissing prior to crossing the line? \u00a0What does Reverend Moon say?<\/p>\n \u2463Needless to say, the DP<\/i> does not exclude the motivation or internal nature. \u00a0The Human Fall touches on the archangel\u2019s motivation and explains why the primary characteristics of the fallen nature came about in the Garden of Eden before the fall.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The Okamoto group refutes as the following:<\/p>\n \u201c(Mr. Mori and others) admits that the fall took place with certain time lapse by saying, \u2018\u2026the illicit act which does not lead to conception is also included in the definition of the original sin (the process).\u2019\u3000At first they say that the original sin is a result, but afterwards they say that\u3000\u2018the process is also included in the definition of the fall.\u2019 \u00a0Their logic is not, thus, consistent obviously.\u201d (ibid.)\u3000\u201cThat is, with the motivation as a starting point, a series of all mental and heartistic content based on illicit love up to the external, physical act of \u2018crossing the\u3000line\u2019 ought to be included in the concept of the fall.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n This paragraph is a dirty trick by changing the description subtly, claiming that we \u201csaid\u201d what we have not said.<\/p>\n \u2460 They say, \u201c(Mr. Mori and others) admit that the fall took place over a period of time.\u201d\u3000but we do not. \u00a0Rather, we say that the mere lapse of time is not relevant. \u00a0The process mentioned in the DP<\/i> does not mean a lapse of time but explains two fallen acts by the archangel and Eve, and Adam and Eve.<\/p>\n \u2461 In addition, the reference to the following: \u201cThe process is included in the definition of the fall.\u201d subtly comes to have a different meaning if we see it within the context. \u00a0The definition of the original sin in the Human Fall as \u201cthe inherited sin derived from the spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors\u201d sin by spiritual and physical fall of the first human ancestors\u201d explains \u00a0as the \u201cprocess\u201d how they got connected to Satan\u2019s lineage, and explains the connection.<\/p>\n \u2462 The original sin is a result (an act of the fall)\u3000of love. \u00a0It is the \u201cprocess\u201d that describes concretely the act of the fall (the spiritual and physical fall), which is the result of love. \u00a0Its logic is consistent.<\/p>\n \u2463 The Okamoto group asserts that the \u201cmotivation\u201d before crossing the line, namely, based on a \u201cseries of all mental and heartistic content based on illicit love\u201d is included in the concept of the fall. \u00a0However, as explained in the previous clause \u2460, the fall includes the motivation\u3000but the\u3000motivation is not the original sin because the theory of internal original sin makes God responsible for the sin. \u00a0The Okamoto group will not try to understand this point at all.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto group refutes as following:<\/p>\n \u201cAs explained on p.87 of the Problems with the Salvation Theory<\/i>, the self-centered motivation itself is the result of the fall that the first human ancestors could not make a father-son relationship with God, nor the unity of mind and body (the first-blessing-type fall)\u201d\u3000(Volume 5, Refutation-11<\/i>)<\/p>\n What is wrong with this sentence?<\/p>\n \u2460\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As Reverend Moon says, the first human ancestors were born as the son and the daughter of God. \u00a0There was a\u3000father-son relationship. \u00a0It is undeniable that there was not. \u00a0They do not understand the importance of this premise.<\/p>\n \u2461\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 As a result of the fall, the father-son relationship was lost.<\/p>\n \u2462\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The separation of mind and body also is due to the result of the fall.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n The Okamoto group mocks our belief as \u201cblood-sharing.\u201d \u00a0But \u201cblood-sharing\u201d is\u3000a concept that criticizes [a practice] that a messianic figure has physical illicit relationships with his followers.<\/p>\n On the contrary, blood lineage means a relation by blood with ancestors. \u00a0If the blood relation through marriage is called blood-sharing as the Okamoto group calls it, including ordinary marriage, marriage itself will be desecrated as blood-sharing. \u00a0So, they say that marriage is not blood-sharing and make an excuse that the claim of biological lineage is considered blood-sharing. \u00a0Blood lineage is bequeathed from parent to child by uniting a sperm and an egg in love through marriage. \u00a0The claim of biological lineage does not lead to the blood-sharing.<\/p>\n The concept of \u201cblood-sharing\u201d\u3000must be made clear. \u00a0As the Woo group practices,\u3000it is an\u3000act of seeking salvation through having a physical illicit relationship with a messianic figure, which is against the Heavenly law. \u00a0The blood-sharing\u3000lies not in a theory of biological lineage but in \u201chaving illicit relationships.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \u3000<\/b><\/b><\/p>\n The Okamoto group claims that Reverend Moon could not fulfill his messianic mission, so after his passing he will be resurrected through second coming in an figure called the \u201cfourth Adam\u201d and fulfill his unaccomplished mission.<\/p>\n Mr. Okamoto has been collecting Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings, attempting to have them spoken through the mouth of the \u201cfourth Adam\u201d\u3000after Reverend Moon\u2019s passing. \u00a0In addition, he will try to have his members believe that the fourth Adam\u3000is the resurrected Reverend Moon by the teachings. \u00a0Presently he is trying to create a \u201cfalse messianic kingdom\u201d by abusing the teachings on the foundation of the sacrifice of the blessed families [they recruited].\u3000 The \u201cfourth Adam\u201d\u3000is an unidentified person. \u00a0He is a false Messiah (puppet) Mr. Okamura made up.<\/p>\n In addition, the blood lineage Mr. Okamoto emphasizes should be the lineage of heart. Then why must the fourth Adam be Mr. Woo\u2019s illegitimate son who is biologically related to him? \u00a0This is logical and contradictory.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mr. Tatsunori Okamoto regards\u3000the Holy Wine Ceremony and marriage Blessing as just \u201cceremonies\u201d\u3000to enter the third Israel and does see that they liquidate the original sin. \u00a0He claims that the second generation has the original sin as well.<\/p>\n However, Reverend Moon says, \u201cThe Blessing movement<\/span> I have been advocating is not a mere matrimonial ceremony<\/span> but a holy event to liquidate the original sin and to be engrafted to Heaven by the original true blood lineage.\u201d(Peace Message<\/i>, p. 351)<\/p>\n As for the \u201cimmaculacy from the original sin\u201d of the second generation, he clearly states, \u201dOur children who are born thus have no original sin and they will enter the Heaven without passing through the process of salvation<\/span>.\u201d (Blessed Family and the Ideal Kingdom <\/i>\u2160<\/i>,<\/i> The Significance and Value of the Blessing, p. 690)<\/p>\n However, Mr. Okamoto insists, \u201cAccording to the education given so far by the UC organization, it was taught that children born to the parents of the conditional blessed families have no original sin. But isn\u2019t it a mistake? \u00a0There is no teaching indicating that the children of conditional blessed couples are born without the original sin.\u201d (95+13 Proposals<\/i>, Article 19, p. 27)\u00a0 He also says something silly: \u201cIs it truly possible that the eradication the original sin is done by just participating in the Blessing ceremony?\u201d(95+13 Proposals<\/i>, Article 54, p. 67)<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Blood lineage means that there is a blood relation with ancestors. \u00a0There is a teaching: \u201cBlood lineage is the privilege of privileges that parents can give only to children. \u00a0But due to the fall they received Satan\u2019s false lineage and fell to be Satan\u2019s children.\u201d\u3000(Peace Messages,<\/i> p. 39)<\/p>\n In addition, \u201cGod is the first Creator, Adam and Eve the second creators, and the children of Adam and Eve are in the position of the third creators.\u201d (Cheon Seong Gyeong,<\/i>\u3000True Family and Family Pledge, p. 2,566) \u00a0However, because of the fall God \u201ccould not see [Adam and Eve\u2019s] sons and daughters who were the third creators and grand children.\u201d (ibd., pp. 2,570 \u2013 2,571)<\/p>\n From the above teaching, the following can be said: In spite that Adam and Eve were the son and the daughter of God, born of God\u2019s lineage, they \u201ccould not be connected to God\u2019s lineage\u201d\u3000because they could not bear children (the third creators) connected to God\u2019s lineage. \u00a0That is, \u201cGod could not see a son and a daughter who were third creators, and grand children.\u201d (ibid.)<\/p>\n \u201cTrue love goes through the shortest distance.\u201d\u3000 God\u2019s love and the love of Adam and Eve should have become one (connected) by consummating their first love at a right angle. \u00a0Because of that God\u2019s lineage could not start there. \u00a0In other words, due to the fall of Adam and Eve, they could not connect their children to God\u2019s lineage.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Okamoto group says that the \u201cconditional blessed families\u201d still remain in Satan\u2019s lineage\u3000and that they need to receive the Blessing to liquidate the original sin. \u00a0The teaching given on March 10, 2003, regarding this point was quoted from the Family,<\/i> May 2003 and is introduced in their One Hundred Proposals<\/i> on p.59 and p.446:<\/p>\n \u201cAre you all married? (Yes.) But you were not blessed by God. \u00a0So, all is false. \u00a0It must be corrected. \u2026\u201d<\/p>\n However, this was not addressed to the blessed couples but to a crowd of some two thousand people, including ambassadors of peace and politicians who had not been blessed then. \u00a0Without such a background check, as soon as they find any teaching which they think seems to support their view, they jump to conclusions and quote it. \u00a0From this it is obvious how much their study of Reverend Moon\u2019s teachings lacks objectivity and precision.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n According to the Okamoto theory on their providential view, they conclude that the first seven-year course centering on Reverend Moon was from 1938 to 1945. They state as the following:<\/p>\n \u201cThrough a study on the teachings of Reverend Moon, we can see that it was after encountering with Jesus on the early morning of Easter at the age of sixteen that he realized his mission as the Lord of the Second Advent. \u00a0He said that before turning the age of 20 (18 years of age), he began his mission as the Savior. \u00a0\u2026\u2026.. It is written that he fulfilled the individual perfection (the first blessing) in 18 years and after that there was the first seven-year course from 1938 to1945 during which the family and tribal level foundations were established.\u201d (One Hundred Proposals<\/i>, p. 69)<\/p>\n This error in the Okamoto theory\u2019\uff53 providential view is discussed in Correcting the Errors<\/i> (pp.220\uff5e229) but in Reverend Moon\u2019s autobiography As a Peace Loving Global Citizen<\/i> published in Korea this year he states that the time he finally determined to live for God\u2019s Will was not when he \u00a0met Jesus but nine years after that.<\/p>\n \u201c\u2026after finishing studies in Japan I returned to my country. \u2026I received answers to many of the questions that I had struggled with no matter how hard I tried. \u2026I had the realization, \u2018the relationship between God and mankind is that of a father and his children, and God is deeply saddened to see their suffering.\u2019 \u00a0In this moment, all the secrets of the universe were resolved. \u00a0Suddenly, it was as if someone had turned on a movie projector. Everything that had happened since the time humankind broke God\u2019s commandment and walked the fallen path played out clearly before my eyes.\u00a0 Hot tears flowed continuously from my eyes.\u00a0 I fell to my knees and bowed my head to the floor. \u00a0For the longest time I could not get up.\u00a0 Just as when my father had carried me home on his back as a child, I buried my face in God\u2019s lap and let the tears flow. \u00a0Nine years after my encounter with Jesus, my eyes had finally been opened to the true love of Father.\u201d<\/p>\n -end-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Our answers to persistent refutations from the false \u201cSecond Generation Counseling Corner\u201d based on the Okamot … \u7d9a\u304d\u3092\u8aad\u3080 \n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n