It seems her Messiah said the 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust were paying their just indemnity for killing Christ., and that they had to suffer for 2,000 years as a result.
Like many religious leaders, he reserves his greatest opprobrium for those who love people of the same gender. In a world where every psychopath and mass murder is the fruit of heterosexual relationship I find the logic confusing.
The official church website employs hamfisted alliteration in its description of homosexuals as dirty dung eating dogs. He longs for the day when [t]here will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated ... If not then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders.
As with many religions there is an obsession with sex, but Reverend Moon surpasses his compatriots. He likens the vagina to "the mouth of a poisonous rattlesnake with sharp teeth to bite man’s sexual organ". Sex not performed under his watchful eye is forbidden - a picture of he and his wife must be present and bowed to thrice when a wedding is consummated. Also required is a holy handkerchief, one per partner, with oddly specific laundry and storage instructions. Holy salt is a must. Holy pepper is not mentioned. Special outfits are required.
If these preparations have not served to dampen sexual appetite, you are allowed to engage in ritualistic sex.
At this point I find the power of parody leaves me, vanquished by Moon's ability to produce text that defies exaggeration. I quote directly from the official church site, knowing I could never do better:
"To perform the act of love, the man lies on his back and the woman lies on him. The woman takes the initiative in the position of subject. The man cooperates so that both can succeed in fulfilling the act of love.
After the act of love both put on the Holy Gowns and stand in the same positions as before the act of love (Figure 2). The man offers three bows to the woman. The woman offers a prayer of thanks for having made this man reborn as Adam in the Formation Stage.
This concludes the first day. Go to sleep in peace. Sleep in pajamas and nightgown. Do not have a physical relationship outside of the content of the ceremony."
You may be interested to know that on the third day the newly weds are allowed to experience the second and final approved position - man on top.
I enjoy talking to street evangelists. It's a cheap hobby, though I do spend a few quid on books. I know I'm likely alone in this interest but I have a favour to ask. If you see this stall on the GPO, stop for two minutes and ask about the church's stance on purging gays. It's important that ideas like these are exposed to the oxygen of reality, and based on our last meeting I'm fairly sure she thinks I'm Satan. Maybe she'll see sense over time. Whatever happens, if she offers you a handkerchief, decline.
11 comments:
You regret your civil tone towards a woman whose leader justifies, after the fact, the genocide of the Jews, and who speaks badly of homosexuals.
What tone do you use when you speak with a woman or man whose leader justifies the deaths of thousands of Africans because he considers condoms immoral? Or who fed into the anti-Semitism that fuelled that genocide? All while, of course, speaking badly about homosexuals.
What's so unusual about the Moonies that you single them out?
Why the Moonies? It's a blog on street evangelism, I take what I can get. You seem angry at me. Have I misread?
Addendum: she sees the issue as unimportant as in a few years there won't be any gay people. God has a right to kill who he chooses. Moon was not wrong to call gays dirty dung eating dogs, though she would not use the language herself. All this while smiling, and recommending I join a debate society.
Not at all angry. But I do find it remarkable (and thus worthy of remark) that you find this specific religion so reprehensible. Meanwhile, you talk to adherents of other equally detestable religions as though they hold valuable wisdom that deserves respect.
Why do you not simply 'respectfully disagree' with this lunatic, as you do with, for example, Christians.
What an oddly specific remark! I've blogged about a Christian course, a Christian creationist book, a Christian creationist street preacher and a modern Christian myth.
Of my other posts, both Sai Baby and Moon consider (or in Sai Baba's case, considered) themselves to be Jesus's successors.
The Moonies are, by definition, more improbable than Christianity. (If Christianity has probability X, then the Moonies have a probability of X, multiplied by the probability of Mr Moon being correct, multiplied by the probability of all world religions being accurate and from one god, which automatically results in a smaller number.)
I have Christian friends. I don't deny it. They're good, smart people and I enjoy debating with them.
I'm a bit stumped on this one. Have we met? Could you elaborate?
I don't mean to confuse. And we have met, but that's beside the point.
Christians believe their god ordered several wars, going so far as to specifically order the men to marry any pre-adolescent girls they found alive after killing their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters.
That is disgusting.
And just one example among dozens, if not hundreds, of horrors that all Christians accept as part of the will of their god.
And yet, you don't regret your civil tone when speaking with a Christian. You blog about disagreements with Christians, I'm sure, but civilly.
So I ask you, why are the Moonies so bad in comparison?
I think Geoff was met with a peculiarly specific kind of religious delusion in this woman and has written appropriately about it; there is nothing inconsistent in his tone whatsoever.
Again, he regrets speaking civilly with a person exhibiting characteristic A, but does not regret speaking civilly with another person exhibiting the same characteristic. And he states that his regret stems from the discovery that the person exhibits the characteristic.
(Characteristic A being believing genocide to be justifiable when so ordained by a deity.)
That is inconsistent. Full stop.
If you find a flaw in that logic, please explain.
I shall explain at length and in excruciating detail in the form of a new blog post.
After a nice cup of tea and dinner.
You posted a new blog post. Was that your detailed response to my question?
I know you can do better.
Look, it's past midnight, I should really be asleep, but I just wanted to adress a couple things very quickly.
One: Unification.net is not an official website of the unification church. It is a private website owned by someone who, these days, has severe doubts about his faith in the Unification Church.
Two: Sun Myung Moon, nor any of his followers, justify mass murder, or any kind of murder. What he does is he explains it. Jesus was not meant to die. The Jewish people were the people who God had especially prepared to recieve the messiah, the tempel. They were to accept him in open arms and spread his message throughout the Roman Empire "of wich Israel was a part" so that through the Roman's, Christ' message could be spread throughout the world. The mission of the Jews was HUGE! Yet they failed misserably, and instead called for Jesus' murder. It was the Roman's who put him on the cross, but the Roman's knew nothing about God, so there responsibility was less. On the other hand, when the Jews failed their responsibility, Stain took the opportunity to accuse them and send his deamons to destroy them, splitting them up and spreading them around the world so they couldn't protect each other anymore. If they had accepted Christ they would have been able to be put into an even closer position to God and God would have been able to protect them. Instead, they left God, and Satin's dominion over them was strengthened.
That's all I have time for right now.
Post a Comment