I'm a Unificationist, ask me questions!

[Me Myself]

That is why I don't believe it's literal!

I know you don´t but why do you shout at me?

 

[Spirited]

I know you don´t but why do you shout at me?

Because you are all the way in Ecuador and I want you to be able to hear me!

 

[Me Myself]

Because you are all the way in Ecuador and I want you to be able to hear me!

Hopefully the frubals will come all the way from heeeere!

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't really understand the purpose of this question.

It's about when personal belief moves in to condemning, challenging what other people say/do/are and potentially in to imposing rules and restrictions upon them. People blindly convinced that their specific faith is unerringly correct can't be negotiated with and history repeatedly demonstrates how badly that can turn out.
For example, that you consider homosexual acts a sin doesn't really matter but what you (or your leaders) would seek to actually do about it were you placed in some position of power most certainly does.

 

[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?

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.

You did not answer the question.
Do you feel that "dirty dung eating dogs" is a fair and equitable description of Gay and Lesbian individuals and families?

 

[Spirited]

You did not answer the question.
Do you feel that "dirty dung eating dogs" is a fair and equitable description of Gay and Lesbian individuals and families?

It was never a description of individuals. Religion looks at things from the collectivist perspective that it holds, this is not targeted to or specifically addressing the actions of one person, but rather the actions that are associated with identifying with a certain group. I don't think it is fair as a condition. I don't think it's fair for people to have eating disorders or other problems that I discussed within a previous post. But if I am to call something undesirable, and offer a description of it, how would you like me to do so?

Think about what you would consider to be a "fair and equitable" description of my viewpoint. I'm sure that you would desire to use words such as "ignorant" or "indoctrinated/brainwashed". These words absolutely have negative connotations to them, but you would certainly (and have already displayed it to be so) not mind using these words to describe me.

But since you seem to prefer I use direct language - even though it will certainly make you mad and further believe I'm a bigot - I will do so. "Dirty" and "Dog" are clearly referring to the way in which homosexual people must resort to having intercourse if they so desire to do so. The dung eating comment I presume has more meaning within a Korean cultural context. You must of course realize this speech was given in, as he delivers his speeches in the Korean language.

While this is certainly not sensitive towards the feelings of people in this situation, it is not ambiguous, unclear or "up for interpretation" as so many other political figures and religious leaders try to be. We believe that all people can go to the kingdom of heaven, so it is our responsibility to try to guide the world away from sinful behavior. As I stated earlier, we don't believe that people are inherently bad, just that certain actions are absolutely unacceptable even if someone is predisposed to performing those actions.

People are born into poverty and many physical disabilities. Life is not fair or equitable, I don't understand why someone trying to designate an action or lifestyle as negative must be so.

I will remain polite to you, I request that you do the same.

 

[Spirited]

It's about when personal belief moves in to condemning, challenging what other people say/do/are and potentially in to imposing rules and restrictions upon them. People blindly convinced that their specific faith is unerringly correct can't be negotiated with and history repeatedly demonstrates how badly that can turn out.
For example, that you consider homosexual acts a sin doesn't really matter but what you (or your leaders) would seek to actually do about it were you placed in some position of power most certainly does.

Beliefs are not and never have been personal. Trying to squelch the opinions of people opposed to the homosexual agenda is just as restrictive as religious organizations telling followers to not support homosexuality as a lifestyle.

The accusation you put upon me of blindly following anything is extremely offensive, you clearly have not been reading my posts. If you have, then I suggest you ***** your reading comprehension. I chose this faith based on empirical observations of philosophy and other religions throughout my life. I rationally accept Rev. Moon as the Messiah and savior of humankind. I left Christianity because I felt that the Bible was far too inconsistent with scientific facts. I place evidence above faith and have even stated that I don't possess faith in a conventional way. You are a perfect demonstration of another problem with the homosexual agenda. Accusation of individuals. I have compassion in my heart for people who struggle with this condition, I have stated this enough. The goal is to help people through things such as this, not condemn them to any kind of hell or damnation. Stop projecting your views of anti-gay religion upon me and actually listen to what I've been saying for seven pages, then you might be able to stop falsely accusing me and personally attacking me.

Don't even get me started on history repeating itself, except that you would of course deny any allegations that homosexuality has had negative affects on past societies, and steadfastly profess that nothing I say has value. The truth is you don't really care what I have to say, you prove that by how angry you get when I simply try to explain my position.

Blind acceptance is believing that everything the liberal media says should be absorbed into our culture. It's believing that it is ok to hold a single sided argument that no one is allowed to dispute. I will not sit by passively while people attempt to strip the world of something I find to be it's only hope. I will not be told that I am ignorant because I disagree with the liberal agenda. And I will not tolerate those who would trample over my rights without allowing for opposition.

I don't hold onto a religion because I like it, I enjoy the routine, I like having convictions, I take pleasure in the smell of stuffy buildings and the plastic of folding chairs. I take part in this because I feel that it is the universal and absolute path to the salvation of mankind. People will disagree and persecute me. Every major world religion has gone through periods of intense almost unbearable persecution, but I will not be swayed.

 

[HonestJoe]

Beliefs are not and never have been personal. Trying to squelch the opinions of people opposed to the homosexual agenda is just as restrictive as religious organizations telling followers to not support homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Who's squelching any opinions? I'm specifically asking about potential practical consequences.

The accusation you put upon me of blindly following anything is extremely offensive, you clearly have not been reading my posts.

I never accused you of anything. I was explaining why I asked the question (as you specifically asked) but I accept that your responses don't indicate complete blind faith.

You are a perfect demonstration of another problem with the homosexual agenda. Accusation of individuals.

The fact you've leapt to accuse me of something I've not done makes this somewhat ironic. I've no idea what the homosexual agenda I'm meant to be following - I only used it as an example because it had already been brought up as a clearly defined aspect of your beliefs that relates to other people. I'm referring to a much wider issue (wider than your faith, wider than religion as a whole).

Quite frankly, if you're not able to address my relatively neutral responses to your offer to discuss your faith without imagining some form of attack, it was probably a mistake for you to start the thread in the first place.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The Unificationist comes to this thread to tell people how gays and lesbians are ****-eaters and then cry-cries because some people are just slightly more spirited in their question-asking.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Spirited]

Who's squelching any opinions? I'm specifically asking about potential practical consequences.

I never accused you of anything. I was explaining why I asked the question (as you specifically asked) but I accept that your responses don't indicate complete blind faith.

The fact you've leapt to accuse me of something I've not done makes this somewhat ironic. I've no idea what the homosexual agenda I'm meant to be following - I only used it as an example because it had already been brought up as a clearly defined aspect of your beliefs that relates to other people. I'm referring to a much wider issue (wider than your faith, wider than religion as a whole).

Quite frankly, if you're not able to address my relatively neutral responses to your offer to discuss your faith without imagining some form of attack, it was probably a mistake for you to start the thread in the first place.

It's about when personal belief moves in to condemning, challenging what other people say/do/are and potentially in to imposing rules and restrictions upon them.People blindly convinced that their specific faith is unerringly correct can't be negotiated with and history repeatedly demonstrates how badly that can turn out.
For example, that you consider homosexual acts a sin doesn't really matter but what you (or your leaders) would seek to actually do about it were you placed in some position of power most certainly does.

In the context of this post, the personal beliefs in question would obviously be my own. Afterwords talking about "blind faith" and then subsequently drawing an example of myself in the sentence immediately following that shows pretty clearly what you were intending to do. If you are going to accuse someone, at least be willing to hold that position, don't get cold feet and deny it because I called you out.

If you are not willing to shed fallacious forms of argumentation like begging the question, you probably shouldn't be engaging in a debate either. I feel that any impartial judge would agree with me that you had very aggressive and condescending tones contained in your post. I did not see any unbiased questions about my faith, but more a monologue about my blindness and my apparently imposing world view. If you are unable to see how your post was personally insulting, perhaps you shouldn't concern yourself with how others interact in social environments.

My religious views on the whether or not homosexuality immoral or not has very little to do with the actual content of my religion. Since we cannot agree, rather than verbally bludgeoning me, can we move on?

 

[Spirited]

The Unificationist comes to this thread to tell people how gays and lesbians are ****-eaters and then cry-cries because some people are just slightly more spirited in their question-asking.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Being rude and flagrantly attacking someone is not "spirited". I didn't come to this thread to tell people anything in particular. I came to answer questions that, nearly instantly, became the focus of the thread. I didn't call anyone dung eating or otherwise, I just explained the reasoning behind this quotation, as I understand it.

I would much rather address other questions that delve into the depth and beauty of the faith than get hung up on a laundry list of what we consider to be sinful. Would you feel so comfortable bashing a Muslim who believed that eating pork was a mortal sin? I have a feeling you wouldn't.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Being rude and flagrantly attacking someone is not "spirited". I didn't come to this thread to tell people anything in particular. I came to answer questions that, nearly instantly, became the focus of the thread. I didn't call anyone dung eating or otherwise, I just explained the reasoning behind this quotation, as I understand it.

I would much rather address other questions that delve into the depth and beauty of the faith than get hung up on a laundry list of what we consider to be sinful. Would you feel so comfortable bashing a Muslim who believed that eating pork was a mortal sin? I have a feeling you wouldn't.

Are you seriously equating a Muslim or Jew eating pork with discriminating against a group of people?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

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!

Will Obama be re-elected?

 

[HonestJoe]

In the context of this post, the personal beliefs in question would obviously be my own.

Not obviously at all. The bit about blind faith and the consequences through history was a wider one. My question is a general one that applies to the religous pretty much across the board. You just offered me the platform to ask it (which is actually quite rare).

From your responses, I don't think you're personally working on blind faith. Of course, that raises other questions but I'm not going to press them now.

My religious views on the whether or not homosexuality immoral or not has very little to do with the actual content of my religion. Since we cannot agree, rather than verbally bludgeoning me, can we move on?

As I said, my question wasn't about homosexualty - that was just the example already in the thread. I would have prefered another one because of the excessive emotion surrounding that topic. Feel free to address the question in the context of other aspects of your faith that pertain to other people's actions.

 

[javajo]

Coming on the clouds to me is symbolic of coming in an age where people have dominion over all of the Earth.

Jesus promised many times he would return. When he returns at the 2nd Coming, as it says, every eye will see him.

22And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. Luke 17

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Mathew 24

 

[tumbleweed41]

It was never a description of individuals. Religion looks at things from the collectivist perspective that it holds, this is not targeted to or specifically addressing the actions of one person, but rather the actions that are associated with identifying with a certain group. I don't think it is fair as a condition. I don't think it's fair for people to have eating disorders or other problems that I discussed within a previous post. But if I am to call something undesirable, and offer a description of it, how would you like me to do so?

Think about what you would consider to be a "fair and equitable" description of my viewpoint. I'm sure that you would desire to use words such as "ignorant" or "indoctrinated/brainwashed". These words absolutely have negative connotations to them, but you would certainly (and have already displayed it to be so) not mind using these words to describe me.

But since you seem to prefer I use direct language - even though it will certainly make you mad and further believe I'm a bigot - I will do so. "Dirty" and "Dog" are clearly referring to the way in which homosexual people must resort to having intercourse if they so desire to do so. The dung eating comment I presume has more meaning within a Korean cultural context. You must of course realize this speech was given in, as he delivers his speeches in the Korean language.

While this is certainly not sensitive towards the feelings of people in this situation, it is not ambiguous, unclear or "up for interpretation" as so many other political figures and religious leaders try to be. We believe that all people can go to the kingdom of heaven, so it is our responsibility to try to guide the world away from sinful behavior. As I stated earlier, we don't believe that people are inherently bad, just that certain actions are absolutely unacceptable even if someone is predisposed to performing those actions.

People are born into poverty and many physical disabilities. Life is not fair or equitable, I don't understand why someone trying to designate an action or lifestyle as negative must be so.

I will remain polite to you, I request that you do the same.

I will take that as a yes.

 

[Spirited]

Are you seriously equating a Muslim or Jew eating pork with discriminating against a group of people?

Telling people not to live a certain lifestyle that I don't think is permissible of anyone is not discrimination. We do not berate them for being born as they are born, but that does not mean we must feel it is acceptable for them to marry and adopt children. Also please understand that the views are absolutist in nature. We don't justify homosexual couples adopting because "look how many bad heterosexual parents there are". We don't condone bad or abuse parenting in any form. We are strict with the sexuality of our members as well, we don't just have some randomly horrible standard pertaining to gays because we want to abuse them. Absolute truth and goodness are just that. They are immutable and nonnegotiable, they are within other branches of Christianity as well.

Will Obama be re-elected?

I highly doubt it, though I know there are people still left that are not yet totally disappointed by him.

Not obviously at all. The bit about blind faith and the consequences through history was a wider one. My question is a general one that applies to the religous pretty much across the board. You just offered me the platform to ask it (which is actually quite rare).

From your responses, I don't think you're personally working on blind faith. Of course, that raises other questions but I'm not going to press them now.

As I said, my question wasn't about homosexualty - that was just the example already in the thread. I would have prefered another one because of the excessive emotion surrounding that topic. Feel free to address the question in the context of other aspects of your faith that pertain to other people's actions.

Then I have horribly misinterpreted what you meant and I apologize. I will reread your post when I have time and try to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

Jesus promised many times he would return. When he returns at the 2nd Coming, as it says, every eye will see him.

22And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.
23And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.
24For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day. Luke 17

23Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
25Behold, I have told you before.
26Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not.
27For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Mathew 24

Reverend Moon has spoken in every country of the world. He is not one of those hermit Messiah figures who lead fifty people into the desert to die in a sweat lodge. I find that if you examine Revelations with a realistic interpreting eye, that he absolutely fulfills all the criteria within. Lightening that all eyes shall see sounds a lot like television for example. Coming on the clouds sounds like airplanes and Earthly dominion. I feel that Revelations is an explanation of what the times will be like at the return of the Messiah. But, as I said before, if you take these passages to be literal, our faiths are incompatible. I will not be swayed by suggestions that the Bible is to be taken literally, I left Christianity because I could not convince myself that that was to be true. Do you believe the Earth to be six thousand years old?

Also, as I asked before. Can you describe to me, without the use of scripture, what the coming of the Messiah would need to look like for you to believe it was real?

 

[javajo]

Reverend Moon has spoken in every country of the world. He is not one of those hermit Messiah figures who lead fifty people into the desert to die in a sweat lodge. I find that if you examine Revelations with a realistic interpreting eye, that he absolutely fulfills all the criteria within. Lightening that all eyes shall see sounds a lot like television for example. Coming on the clouds sounds like airplanes and Earthly dominion. I feel that Revelations is an explanation of what the times will be like at the return of the Messiah. But, as I said before, if you take these passages to be literal, our faiths are incompatible. I will not be swayed by suggestions that the Bible is to be taken literally, I left Christianity because I could not convince myself that that was to be true. Do you believe the Earth to be six thousand years old?

Also, as I asked before. Can you describe to me, without the use of scripture, what the coming of the Messiah would need to look like for you to believe it was real?

I can only tell what I believe from my understanding of the Bible. I believe the Rapture of the Church where we are caught up and changed and will be with Jesus in Heaven where he has gone to prepare a place for us that where he is we may be also, will happen before the Great Seven Year Tribulation, the Seventieth Week of Daniel where God will deal with Israel and many will be saved and martyred and the Antichrist will reign and all that. Then I believe Christ returns (The 2nd Coming) at the end of those seven years with tens of thousands of his saints and defeat those who follow the Antichrist and False Prophet, and that is when all eyes will see him and they shall wail and mourn. I do not believe he is walking the earth now.

 

[dmcantre]

If the Messiah were to come on the clouds like the bible says, then why would the bible also say:

"But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation" -Luke 17:25

Clearly if Jesus came on the clouds with all the trumpets and angels proclaiming his entry, would he not be readily accepted by all? So why would Jesus say the second coming would be rejected and suffer?

Relatedly, the bible says, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed." -Luke 17:20

The Divine Principle addresses this: "Even at the first advent, the Kingdom of God had already arrived on the earth with the birth of Jesus. Yet the Jewish people could not see it, for since they were still waiting for the return of Elijah from heaven, they could not believe in Jesus. Likewise, at the Second Advent, although the Kingdom of God will dawn upon the earth with the birth of Christ, Christians who believe that he will come on the clouds accompanied by supernatural events will disbelieve in the Lord and thus not see the Kingdom of God." -Divine Principle pg 387

 

[zuluniner]

spirited: you say you are not brainwashed or indoctrinated, but what intelligent, self respecting person would believe the claims of some poor asian dude from north korea of being GOD, in hopes of becoming wealthy off of the backs of the weak and credulous (which unfortunately is exactly what he managed to do). its no coincidence that your faith has been prosecuted by many governments for money fraud.... tell me, since your great leader sun moon jupiter started this faith, how much money has he made? how much was he worth before, and how much now?

why dont you believe in scientology too while you are at it? i know they would love to get a piece of your life savings too.... why dont you believe in jose louis de jesus miranda who also claims to be the second coming of christ and also has a great following and became wealthy off of the backs of his followers? WHAT A JOKE.