I'm a Unificationist, ask me questions!

[Shermana]

Well, the Link is to Unification.net and a published sermon by the Rev. Moon that compares Gays and Lesbians to "dirty dung eating dogs".

Do you feel this is a fair and equitable description of Gay and Lesbian individuals and families?

Dung eating is fairly common among them I understand, the males at least.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Well, the Link is to Unification.net and a published sermon by the Rev. Moon that compares Gays and Lesbians to "dirty dung eating dogs".

Do you feel this is a fair and equitable description of Gay and Lesbian individuals and families?

Dung eating is fairly common among them I understand, the males at least.

Thank you Sherm, for that beautiful example of inaccurate generalization and blatent bigotry.

You must be so proud.

 

[Shermana]

Intestinal Protozoa

LIFE CYCLE AND MORPHOLOGY

E. histolytica exhibits a typical fecal-oral life cycle consisting of infectious cysts passed in the feces and trophozoites which replicate within the large intestine. The infection is acquired through the ingestion of cysts and the risk factors are similar to other diseases transmitted by the fecal-oral route (see Table). Contaminated food and water are probably the primary sources of infection. The higher prevalence in areas of lower socioeconomic status is likely due to poor sanitation and a lack of indoor plumbing. However, E. histolytica is rarely the cause of travelers' diarrhea and is usually associated with a long-term (>1 month) stay in an endemic area. A higher prevalence of E. histolytica infection is also observed in institutions, such as mental hospitals, orphanages and prisons, where crowding and problems with fecal contamination are contributing factors. A high prevalence among male homosexuals has also been noted. Humans are the only host of E. histolytica and there are no animal reservoirs.

Upon ingestion the cysts pass through the stomach and excyst in the lower portion of the small intestine. Excystation involves a disruption of the cyst wall and the quadranucleated ameba emerges through the opening. The ameba undergoes another round of nuclear division followed by three successive rounds of cytokinesis (ie, cell division) to produce eight small uninucleated trophozoites, sometimes called amebulae. These immature trophozoites colonize the large intestine, especially the cecal and sigmoidorectal regions, where they feed on bacteria and cellular debris and undergo repeated rounds of binary fission.

 

[Spirited]

Well, the Link is to Unification.net and a published sermon by the Rev. Moon that compares Gays and Lesbians to "dirty dung eating dogs".

Do you feel this is a fair and equitable description of Gay and Lesbian individuals and families?

While I am aware that to many, this appears to be an offensive passage, it is hardly more offensive than the things that are frequently said, by homosexuals and atheists, about religious nuclear families.

The terms "mindless robots", "breeders", "mere animals", and "brainwashed idiots" come to mind. I don't understand why it is ok for spokesmen and women of one party to use all the inflammatory speech that they wish, while a single quote by a religious leader against homosexuality (which has been against religious doctrines since before it was a political issue) causes absolute fury and uproar.

Richard Dawkins is celebrated by Atheists and Gays alike as being a kind of hero. He also directly, frequently not so articulately or sensitively, insults religion. Please don't confuse the word "debunk" with the word "insult". Debunking or disproving can easily be done without a single offensive comment. When insulting words are brought into play, however, the argument turns into an ad hominem attack upon the people holding the argument, rather than a focus on the content itself. I see this approach being used time and time again by many of the parties who are focused on destroying religion.

Whether one likes it or not, the point that he is trying to make still stands. IF the purpose of life is to have a family and a lineage, then the most selfish decision a human being could make would be to deliberately pursue a form of pleasure that directly prevents that from happening. You CANNOT accept these arguments from a relative viewpoint, which I think is something that a lot of antagonists get hung up on. We don't believe that God is relative. A sin is a sin. A rock is a rock. It is not immoral in our doctrine to HAVE homosexual feelings, it is immoral to act on them. Similarly to how it is not immoral to desire to get drunk every night, but it is the concerted effort not to, that sets one apart from those that do.

We do not hate homosexual people. We don't hate anyone. But, we do not tolerate. Toleration inherently implies a lack of love. Do you marry someone because you tolerate them? Do you desire to live with those that you tolerate or those that you love? Is it possible that some behaviors are simply unacceptable and the responsibility of the individual who exhibits said behavior to control it and stop it? In any other form of abnormal psychology, this would be said to be the case (individuals with OCD, ADD, Schizophrenia, etc. . .). If we call homosexuality a choice, than it can be determined that an individual is capable of controlling his actions. If it is said to be apparent from birth as a physically traceable defect, then we should consider it an illness. But what I see more frequently, is that it is considered to be neither of these two things consistently, and only whichever provides the strongest argument in the current political or social climate.

Another major part of Unification thought, is centered around intercultural marriage, for the sake of world peace. One cannot hate a culture that ones own grandchildren are a part of. Homosexuality is a barrier to world peace, yes, I just said that. The Middle East will never be at peace with a country that celebrates open homosexuality and allows same sex unions. Similarly to how many Americans will never be able to tolerate or respect the way women in the Middle East are treated. Toleration, in truth, does not work. It is by it's very definition suggesting that there is a significant problem that must ignore or accept in order to coexist. The Middle East will have to change the way it treats women in order for the world to embrace it harmoniously, we cannot just say that because they are religious that they must be "tolerated". Likewise, homosexuality cannot be permissible in the United States if world peace is a goal, it is necessary that this be changed.

A major blockade to really understanding the different view points of religion and the United States/some European nations is this: America is the most individualistic nation in the entire world (Geert Hofstede). The thought culture of our nation is based entirely around the individual and his pursuit of pleasure. Even religion is only accepted by Atheists as a pursuit of pleasure, though they don't call it that directly. Homosexuality is defended under the pretext that it is an individuals right to pursue "happiness", but that word has been entirely changed to "a pleasurable lifestyle" in the context of the arguments made. Other cultures do not see life from this perspective. It is not about having a masseuse and an easy chair for many other societies, it is about promoting a healthy collective ideal. Collectivism is, by it's very nature, more idealistic and ideals always involve religious or philosophical/social/ethical concepts. Even Communism and Atheism, which expressly deny the existence of a God, are ideals, and can be determined thus by the observation of their actions. Communism has a tendency to worship the Social Structure (see 1984)/ contemporary North Korea) rather than a God, so they can certainly cannot be said to be abolishing Faith or servitude to a cause so clearly and permanently above themselves. I will continue expressing my opinion on pursuit of pleasure below, but I will tackle the next question on my list at the same time.

So another poster asked one of my favorite questions. "What if you're wrong?".

How about I give you the answer of my favorite Atheist?

[youtube]6mmskXXetcg[/youtube]
Richard Dawkins - "What if you're wrong?" - YouTube

While I don't find him to be particularly articulate, I love this argument because I can quite literally flip it the opposite way.

If I am absolutely wrong about the existence of ANY God, not just my own, then will I regret my actions and my convictions? No. Will I regret deciding to give my life to a higher cause, donate large sums of my money to charity (as promoted by the UC) and attain a sense of personal growth and value? Absolutely not. Will I regret trying to spread the message of my own faith? Absolutely not, because I have seen the positive impact it has had on my life and those that I have helped.

I genuinely enjoy the feeling I get from helping others, it is intoxicating and beautiful. I enjoy denying myself the pleasures of drinking and drug use, which I have seen destroy many lives. I see no purpose in justifying promiscuous sex when it causes so many emotional problems and diseases that can ruin peoples lives. I see no problem discouraging people from engaging in homosexual activities that may even cut their life expectancy in half

(Studies show that the average lifespan of a homosexual is 43-46 years | redblueamerica.com).

Lastly, tying these two points together and going back to my pleasure argument, I would like to say this: if I am wrong and my actions are simply inhibiting homosexuals from freely and fully experiencing life for no reason at all (other than the health risk I noted), I will simply be acting in the way that they have towards heterosexuals and their religious beliefs. For if religion truly serves no purpose but individual peace of mind, then it is reduced to a worldly pleasure - the pursuit of happiness - and thus no different from homosexuality. I have only done to you what you have done to me, and if there is no absolute determination by which that can be said to be wrong, than I have no shame for having done so.

 

[HonestJoe]

So another poster asked one of my favorite questions. "What if you're wrong?".

You seem to be referring to me but that wasn't actually what I asked (I think this question is pointless, which is why Dawkins resorted to his crowd-pleasing non-answer - I suspect he's your favourite atheist for the same reasons I dislike him).

My question was how have you determined what God desires of us and (do you believe) that you could be wrong about that?

 

[Spirited]

You seem to be referring to me but that wasn't actually what I asked (I think this question is pointless, which is why Dawkins resorted to his crowd-pleasing non-answer - I suspect he's your favourite atheist for the same reasons I dislike him).

My question was how have you determined what God desires of us and (do you believe) that you could be wrong about that?

Through my the religious teaching of Reverend Moon and my own search for truth in philosophy and other religions. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. If I am RIGHT than about 98% of the rest of the world is, by default, wrong. Likewise if somebody else is right, then I am wrong by default. I don't really understand the purpose of this question.

Do I think I am wrong? Obviously not, because I am here defending and more or less evangelizing my faith to this forum. If we presume religion is guesswork and you just luck into the right answer by birth, then I have a very, VERY small statistical chance of being right. If we presume, however, that I have selected to follow this faith based on the results of my search for God and truth, than of course statistics arn't valuable in determining whether or not I am right.

Ultimately, it must be up to each person to find his faith, I am well aware of that. But, that does not mean that the truth which we are all trying to find is relative, just that the path to the truth may vary from person to person. I also don't think that you need to BE a Unificationist. One who simply lives by our values - which can be found throughout world philosophies and theologies, which are what lead me to this faith - will be able to live a beautiful exemplary life. The only thing within our doctrine that necessarily requires that someone know of our existence is our marriage blessing, which we try as hard as we can to promote and proliferate throughout the world, in the hopes that one day there will be a great reuniting brotherhood of mankind.

If that doesn't answer your question then please elaborate.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What is a Unificationist?

 

[Spirited]

What is a Unificationist?

Unificationism is a religious establishment based on and lead by the teachings of Reverend Doctor Sun Myung Moon. Our main doctrine is "The Exposition of the Divine Principle", which is an explanation of the Bible and other teachings. The movement is called "Unificationism" because our most fundamental belief is that in order for the kingdom of Heaven to come to Earth, we must unify as one people under God.

The rest of our teachings are focused on how to bring about world peace and perfect oneself through understanding and practicing love in all aspects of life.

We also believe that Reverend Moon is the second coming of Christ.

 

[zuluniner]

Unificationism is a religious establishment based on and lead by the teachings of Reverend Doctor Sun Myung Moon. Our main doctrine is "The Exposition of the Divine Principle", which is an explanation of the Bible and other teachings. The movement is called "Unificationism" because our most fundamental belief is that in order for the kingdom of Heaven to come to Earth, we must unify as one people under God.

The rest of our teachings are focused on how to bring about world peace and perfect oneself through understanding and practicing love in all aspects of life.

We also believe that Reverend Moon is the second coming of Christ.

do you by any chance have a large portrait of sun myung moon hanging over your fireplace or anywhere else in your house?

 

[Spirited]

do you by any chance have a large portrait of sun myung moon hanging over your fireplace or anywhere else in your house?

Yes, absolutely. I put one on my piano with the rest of my family photos, and I keep a mini one in my wallet. Hardly any different than tattooing someones name on your arm or otherwise. People have posters of their favorite musicians.

His teachings have empowered my life, so I have no problem with displaying his picture. I don't, however, have a vanity plate or a fish on the back of my car.

 

[zuluniner]

Yes, absolutely. I put one on my piano with the rest of my family photos, and I keep a mini one in my wallet. Hardly any different than tattooing someones name on your arm or otherwise. People have posters of their favorite musicians.

His teachings have empowered my life, so I have no problem with displaying his picture. I don't, however, have a vanity plate or a fish on the back of my car.

the wallet part got me good. do you also have pictures of the rest of your family in your wallet? or just sun moon? is it part of your religion to have pictures of him in and around your house? is it part of the doctrine? do you have your own book as well. like the mormons have the BOM?

 

[Spirited]

the wallet part got me good. do you also have pictures of the rest of your family in your wallet? or just sun moon? is it part of your religion to have pictures of him in and around your house? is it part of the doctrine? do you have your own book as well. like the mormons have the BOM?

Yes I absolutely have a picture of the rest of my family in my wallet. I carry a picture of Rev. Moon because I witness a lot, and it's nice to have one to show people. I don't carry it out of some voodoo superstition that it will bring me good luck or good fortune.

It is certainly not a focal point of our doctrine to have pictures of him in our houses, though most members do. Our "Family Pledge" is said before a picture of him when available.

As for a book, we have quite a few, I suggest you read the previous pages of this thread, as it is not very long and contains more information about that. I have no problem answering more questions you may have.

 

[doppelganger]

Hey everybody, as the title suggests, I am a member of the Unification Church and I'm here to answer any and every question that you have.

I am probably the only member of my faith movement to ever use this forum, so this is an exciting opportunity for anyone who's curious about other religions.

Have at it!

What do you consider the most important and central principle of Unification? What is the "showstopper" idea that really inspires you to continue in your faith?

 

[Spirited]

What do you consider the most important and central principle of Unification? What is the "showstopper" idea that really inspires you to continue in your faith?

That it offers a rich fulfilling explanation of spirituality and the "after life". It embodies philosophical ideas that I like and rejects those that I had felt were out of place or just plain wrong (Nietzsche). Most of all, it embraces rather than rejects science, and gives an explanation of the Bible that does not contradict contemporary knowledge. I never had difficulty swallowing any of it's values (it didn't promote cannibalism and I didn't have to have intercourse with anyone lol).

It explains God throughout the Bible in such a way that I don't need "Faith" by a conventional understanding. I don't have to believe in anything that has obvious contradictions throughout science, like the age of Earth. It shows me the value and truth of the Bible without all the convoluted uncertainties that I felt while reading it without the guidance and perspective I gained from the divine principle. Lastly, it's explanations are extremely thorough and leave very little unanswered or ambiguous.

I also found his explanation of the path to world peace to be nothing short of profound and I see the movement taking action, rather than being sedentary like so many other older established religions.

 

[doppelganger]

That it offers a rich fulfilling explanation of spirituality and the "after life". It embodies philosophical ideas that I like and rejects those that I had felt were out of place or just plain wrong (Nietzsche).

What do you think was wrong about Nietzsche? Have you studied his writings much?

Most of all, it embraces rather than rejects science, and gives an explanation of the Bible that does not contradict contemporary knowledge. I never had difficulty swallowing any of it's values (it didn't promote cannibalism and I didn't have to have intercourse with anyone lol).

How so? Do you have examples of differences in interpretation in the Unification approach that better resolve conflicts with science?

It explains God throughout the Bible in such a way that I don't need "Faith" by a conventional understanding.

I'd enjoy reading more detail of your thoughts about this. Can you elaborate on how Unification explains "God" that obviates conventional faith?

Thanks. This is very interesting. I don't think I've ever dialogued with a Unification member before.

 

[elmarna]

TOLERATE= to accept a way thought or feeling that is not your own or you wish to have.
i have watched you write your opinions. Some contradictory in nature.
you have a understanding & a way you look at things.
tolerance has nothing to do with love.
LOVE= is a feeling that carries a devotional aspect to happiness.
i am generally confused & it is defeating the purpose of your thread.
I really am not sure what God is to you & why a picture of the founder of the church is to be mentioned? is he more important then God or your own life?
it is a hope you will let me see this clearly so i approach you with respect in a reasonable way.
with great sincerity - thank you!

 

[Spirited]

What do you think was wrong about Nietzsche? Have you studied his writings much?

How so? Do you have examples of differences in interpretation in the Unification approach that better resolve conflicts with science?

I'd enjoy reading more detail of your thoughts about this. Can you elaborate on how Unification explains "God" that obviates conventional faith?

Thanks. This is very interesting. I don't think I've ever dialogued with a Unification member before.

I have studied a brief selection of passages by Nietzsche - philosophy was my major for a short while - and I had a problem with his exclusion of God, because I have always felt that there was a higher power in the universe.

Unificationists do not believe that the Earth was created in 6 days. I find that to be a little hard to accept and was impressed that an explanation of the Bible would explain the genesis story a little differently. We believe that "years" in the Bible usually represent periods of time or stages of a process.

We describe God as omniscient without requiring absolute predestination. This is the focus of a long chapter in our main doctrine, so I cannot really summarize it effectively, but I'll try to give you the gist of it. The concept is that God predestines that the world will come to be in a certain state that he ultimately intends and desires, but he does not determine the length of time or means by which humanity will bring itself to that state. We think the bible is mostly figurative, a good example, other than Genesis, would be Revelations.

We don't believe that God directly interferes with the physical world. Similarly to how one would not expect a great scientist to create a life form, but then constantly have to alter it's state or environment as it grows in order for it to survive. A truly exceptional scientist - this is obviously hypothetical, but the point is allegory - would not need to interfere, as the life form he would create would ideally be self sufficient and able to live on it's own.

We also believe in the concept of Chakra that is very prevalent throughout Asian cultures, and we use this as an explanation for miracles. Miracle healing can occur through this spiritual energy rather than it just being God directly coming down and arbitrarily poking people he likes and leaving others to suffer and die.

Lastly we believe in a very tangible spiritual world, populated by the souls of those who have passed on, that is very interactive in our lives. This is a very broad area to charge headlong into in a tangent, so I would rather answer specific questions than try to tackle this haphazardly.

Thank you for your questions and your positive attitude, I welcome you to ask as much as you would like answered.

For anyone who is really seriously interested in debating with me, arguing with me or simply learning more I'm willing to Skype chat as well.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

What are you religious beliefs?

 

[Spirited]

TOLERATE= to accept a way thought or feeling that is not your own or you wish to have.
i have watched you write your opinions. Some contradictory in nature.
you have a understanding & a way you look at things.
tolerance has nothing to do with love.
LOVE= is a feeling that carries a devotional aspect to happiness.
i am generally confused & it is defeating the purpose of your thread.
I really am not sure what God is to you & why a picture of the founder of the church is to be mentioned? is he more important then God or your own life?
it is a hope you will let me see this clearly so i approach you with respect in a reasonable way.
with great sincerity - thank you!

Thank you for being so respectful, I greatly appreciate it. I do not know that I agree with your definitions of love or tolerance, that perhaps is where a conflict arises in our understanding. The definition of the tolerance I hear of most frequently in my own country refers to the accepting of lifestyle choices that contradict what many religious people to be God's will. My religion is based on love, not as a fuzzy feeling that you either get or you don't, but a verb. Action love. The groups that seek tolerance in my home nation of America are extremely intolerant, even by their own definitions, of religion.

I don't see the contradiction of my above posts, please show me and I promise I will do my very best to explain my meaning or at least understand what it is that has confused you in that respect.

Reverend Moon is certainly not more important than God is within our beliefs, however, we do believe that he is the second coming of Christ. We do not consider Jesus to have been God, so we thus do not believe that Rev. Moon is God, as we believe he is the second coming of the messiah. We treat him as other Christians treat Christ, though often times, not quite as zealously so. We do not minimize the value of Jesus and we certainly respect and study his teachings as well as our own.

I hope this helps.

 

[Spirited]

What are you religious beliefs?

I can't answer a question that broad in any brief manner, please read my posts throughout this thread, they are becoming more and more comprehensive as more questions are asked and answered.