I was just wondering
MaxJd1
Most missions in my town are run by Christian churches, Salvation Army, etc.
After reading here about all the mansions that Rev. Moon has all around the
world, I was wondering what he does for the hurting and homeless folks all over
the world? One post talked about how Moon sent his workers oout to colllect
money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true? If
not, would you please tell what your church does in the way of charity? thanks
Max
Robroy826
>money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true? If
>not, would you please tell what your church does in the way of charity?
>thanks
You heard it right, Max. The Moonies don't have any money to waste on the poor
and starving children of Africa or anywhere else for that matter. He needs his
Millions$$$ to carry Stallings, Milingo, Edwards and all his other flunkies to
Korea where they can bow before him as their latest messiah. Frauds that they
are, you can't blame these guys too much for lusting after Moon's money. As
the good book says, "Love of money is the root of all evil," and this Moon guy
is evil personified. (RobRoy)
Bill Taylor
> In my spare time, I often visit our local missions and help with the
> homeless.
> Most missions in my town are run by Christian churches, Salvation Army,
> etc.
> After reading here about all the mansions that Rev. Moon has all around
> the
> world, I was wondering what he does for the hurting and homeless folks
> all over
> the world?
Moon said quite specifically that the homeless are not important in his
"providence." At one point, he owned a building in Colorado that he
rented for profit to an agency that helps the homeless.
I was told by an informed member that UC members help the homeless here
in my city of Santa Fe. I happen to be one of the leading coordinators
of homeless services in Santa Fe and can almost guarantee you that no
Unificationist has ever provided homeless services here. So, at least
we can see that they are committed to lying about something that they
think other people care about. At least they know that it is a
legitimate issue.
> One post talked about how Moon sent his workers oout to
> colllect
> money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true?
Quite true. He has this philosophy that if he gets rich, eventually he
will help the needy. He hasn't started yet. He also bought a farm with
cash contributions to raise crops for "starving Africans." He didn't do
any planting and instead used it as a game hunting ranch for his sons
and friends.
> If
> not, would you please tell what your church does in the way of charity?
Like everything else, they feel that they don't have to do anything
until 2000 years from now. That's when, they say, you should come back
and check.
--
BillT...@playful.com http://i.am/BillTaylor
Live a life that you love.
David Payer
> In my spare time, I often visit our local missions and help with the
homeless.
Congrats on your public service.
> Most missions in my town are run by Christian churches, Salvation Army,
etc.
> After reading here about all the mansions that Rev. Moon has all around
the
> world, I was wondering what he does for the hurting and homeless folks all
over
> the world?
RM's ministry has been a mixture of evangelism and service. He has as well
established many businesses which fund these endeavors. The group has
purchased many buildings around the world where literally hundreds of people
gather for meetings on a regular basis, hardly a reclusive "mansion" but
they are nice big buildings. RM has given much over the course of his
ministry to various groups directly or indirectly. I suggest you talk to
someone in your locality on a personal basis to find details. In this forum
you will meet the most angry opponents who have nothing constructive to say
but are filled with lots of criticism. Go talk to a local person to get your
own opinion.
>One post talked about how Moon sent his workers oout to colllect
> money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true?
No, it is not. We have had missionaries from Africa go to Japan to fundraise
and they were able to bring back money for their work. Our churches in
Africa run several schools and outreach programs.
>If
> not, would you please tell what your church does in the way of charity?
thanks
> Max
Max, there are many members actively involved in their communities doing
service as an expression of their faith. Our numbers of members in the US
are in the low 1000s and many cities have only a few families who deal with
the day to day rigors of life and may or may not be actively involved in
service work.
David P.
Bill Taylor
> > In my spare time, I often visit our local missions and help with the
> homeless.
> Congrats on your public service.
> > Most missions in my town are run by Christian churches, Salvation Army,
> etc.
> > After reading here about all the mansions that Rev. Moon has all around
> the
> > world, I was wondering what he does for the hurting and homeless folks
> > all
> over
> > the world?
> RM's ministry has been a mixture of evangelism and service.
Kind of like the ratio of meat and bread to preservatives in a
McDonald's hamburger.
> He has as
> well
> established many businesses which fund these endeavors. The group has
> purchased many buildings around the world where literally hundreds of
> people
> gather for meetings on a regular basis, hardly a reclusive "mansion" but
> they are nice big buildings.
Only a modest $43 million for his winter residence, not counting the
land value. The other half a dozen or so are even less. Of course, he
doesn't live in the U.S. year round. He has modest multi-million dollar
mansions in other countries as well. Even his own members are not
allowed to his primary residence which is protected by 20 armed guards.
However, on regular occasion, members are allowed to visit the garage at
his other 60 acre estate in the same town.
> RM has given much over the course of his
> ministry to various groups directly or indirectly. I suggest you talk to
> someone in your locality on a personal basis to find details. In this
> forum
> you will meet the most angry opponents who have nothing constructive to
> say
> but are filled with lots of criticism. Go talk to a local person to get
> your
> own opinion.
Good idea. They will be as vague, evasive, dishonest, and unsubstantive
as David is being here.
> >One post talked about how Moon sent his workers oout to colllect
> > money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true?
> No, it is not. We have had missionaries from Africa go to Japan to
> fundraise
> and they were able to bring back money for their work.
The fundraising part is accurate. However, to date, the money has been
taken from the Africans and not returned to Africa.
> Our churches in
> Africa run several schools and outreach programs.
> >If
> > not, would you please tell what your church does in the way of charity?
> thanks
> > Max
> Max, there are many members actively involved in their communities doing
> service as an expression of their faith. Our numbers of members in the US
> are in the low 1000s and many cities have only a few families who deal
> with
> the day to day rigors of life and may or may not be actively involved in
> service work.
Now, if Max actually takes your advice and checks out all of the service
projects that have been proposed and finds that perhaps none of them
were even begun, then what result would your advice have wrought?
You're right, I do get angry when you lie. I don't care what you do to
have fun and it's not entirely my business if you nothing to contribute
to others. You are completely aware that you are lying, or at least
being vague enough so that it might only qualify as 'deception'. But
you are completely aware that you are attempting to give a false
impression.
Just based on your theology, what would be the value of doing public
service? It's just not a component of what you stand for. And your
theology strongly encourages lying--I mean outrightly and you know it.
With over $200 million in real estate holdings which are reserved
exclusively for the private use of Moon (as you can see, I am not
including the public facilities like the New Yorker or UTS), one would
think that he would have the wherewithall to sponsor at least one social
service agency.
Do you have some objection to people reacting against outright lies?
Does that make a person an "angry opponent" with "nothing constructive
to say"? There would be an easy argument to make that Moon's largest
business investment in America (Washington Times) is constructed on that
very principle.
Robroy826
>are in the low 1000s and many cities have only a few families who deal with
>the day to day rigors of life and may or may not be actively involved in
>service work.
>
>David P.
A chip off the old Moon block, DP.....long winded but say nothing. I agree
that you poor folks out in the hinterlands are struggling to make ends meet,
but remember that its for a very good cause(s). One, Moon gets to live high on
the hog, and Hyo Jin has plenty of coke to run up his nose. BTW, has Hyo
started beating his newest wife yet? Just asking. (Rob)
Craig Maxim
"MaxJd1" <max...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010706125040...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
> One post talked about how Moon sent his workers oout to colllect
> money for starving Africans but built a mansion instead. Is that true?
Yes. He bought "East Garden" with funds supposedly raised for starving
Africans. East Garden is his mansion in upstate NY, and "starving Africans"
is Moon's all time favorite excuse for the members to raise money, though he
spends their money instead on his personal yachts and mansion and planes.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
Can you show us where Rev. Moon has ever asked our fundraising teams to
raise money for starving Africans?
Can you show us where the fundraising monies went to buy East Garden?
You know that the Unification Church fundraising monies are only one
source of income and there are and have been for many years multiple
businesses that also furnished donated large amounts to the purposes of
the Unification Church which over the years has totaled billions in
expenditures for such projects as ICUS, IRFF, CAUSA, etc. You have no
clue where the money came from for East Garden do you? You just spout
this little propaganda lie because it sounds good.
There are no personal yachts. Furnish us w/ the make and model and name
and registration number, and country of registration of even one yacht.
You know that Rev. Moon likes to fish and that the companies owned by
Rev. Moon have fishing boats all over the world, but there are no
yachts. Only commercial fishing boats.
Planes? Rev. Moon flew commercial airlines with all the hassles that
that caused, with hours and days of delays and waits in airports, until
finally after 40 years of a worldwide mission with multiple
international tours and visits, finally he received a gift of a jet last
year for his 80th birthday.
But I am sure that you are so much more frugal. I bet you keep Rosa in a
little one room cabin on your mountaintop, that only has an outhouse,
and you give all your money to your flower selling employees.
You do know that is how Craig makes money, don't you? He learned how to
sell flowers from Rev. Moon, and that is what he still does, only he
hires others to sell for him.
--
When someone is invaded by Satan, he loses all spiritual support
and inspiration. Trust in God, as well as a sense of gratitude
to Him, is lost. One begins to see everything through human eyes.
Chibum
>
>There are no personal yachts. Furnish us w/ the make and model and name
>and registration number, and country of registration of even one yacht.
>You know that Rev. Moon likes to fish and that the companies owned by
>Rev. Moon have fishing boats all over the world, but there are no
>yachts. Only commercial fishing boats.
I was in Ocean church in 1983 and spenta summer fishing with Moon in Gloucester.
He had a 45 foot yacht that was for his own personal use.
>
>Planes? Rev. Moon flew commercial airlines with all the hassles that
>that caused, with hours and days of delays and waits in airports, until
>finally after 40 years of a worldwide mission with multiple
>international tours and visits, finally he received a gift of a jet last
>year for his 80th birthday.
Moon had a jet before his 80th birthday. He may actually have 2 jets at his
disposal now. This is done under the wash times pocketbook.
>
>But I am sure that you are so much more frugal. I bet you keep Rosa in a
>little one room cabin on your mountaintop, that only has an outhouse,
>and you give all your money to your flower selling employees.
>
>You do know that is how Craig makes money, don't you? He learned how to
>sell flowers from Rev. Moon, and that is what he still does, only he
>hires others to sell for him.
Eric, you are one sick little puppy.
>
>--
>When Eric is invaded by Satan, he loses all spiritual support
>and inspiration. Trust in God, as well as a sense of gratitude
>to Him, is lost. One begins to see everything sick eyes.
Chibum
When someone is invaded by Moon he loses all sense of self determination and
identity. Trust in yourself, as well as a sense of your own value are lost. One
begins to see everything thru Moon eyes.
Eric B. Richardson
Chibum<chib...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >There are no personal yachts. Furnish us w/ the make and model and name
> >and registration number, and country of registration of even one yacht.
> >You know that Rev. Moon likes to fish and that the companies owned by
> >Rev. Moon have fishing boats all over the world, but there are no
> >yachts. Only commercial fishing boats.
>
>
> I was in Ocean church in 1983 and spenta summer fishing with Moon in
> Gloucester.
> He had a 45 foot yacht that was for his own personal use.
45 feet is not a yacht. It is a small ocean fishing boat.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >Planes? Rev. Moon flew commercial airlines with all the hassles that
> >that caused, with hours and days of delays and waits in airports, until
> >finally after 40 years of a worldwide mission with multiple
> >international tours and visits, finally he received a gift of a jet last
> >year for his 80th birthday.
>
>
> Moon had a jet before his 80th birthday. He may actually have 2 jets at his
> disposal now. This is done under the wash times pocketbook.
Not one that I know of, but if he did, good. He should not have to fly
the commercial airlines, they all hurl.
>
>
>
> >
> >But I am sure that you are so much more frugal. I bet you keep Rosa in a
> >little one room cabin on your mountaintop, that only has an outhouse,
> >and you give all your money to your flower selling employees.
> >
> >You do know that is how Craig makes money, don't you? He learned how to
> >sell flowers from Rev. Moon, and that is what he still does, only he
> >hires others to sell for him.
>
>
> Eric, you are one sick little puppy.
Your opinion really doesn't concern me.
--
When someone is invaded by Satan, he loses all spiritual support
and inspiration. Trust in God, as well as a sense of gratitude
to Him, is lost. One begins to see everything through human eyes.
MaxJd1
>Gloucester.
>He had a 45 foot yacht that was for his own personal use.
>
>
on the scene. Max
Chibum
bath. Not a commercial boat by any stretch of the imagination. This is not
exactly a state secret eric.
Chibum
When someone is invaded by Moon he loses all sense of self determination and
identity. Trust in yourself, as well as a sense of your own value are lost. One
begins to see everything thru Moon eyes.
Eric B. Richardson
Chibum<chib...@excite.com> wrote:
> It was a pleasure yacht used for fishing. It had a cabin w/ full kitchen and
> bath. Not a commercial boat by any stretch of the imagination. This is not
> exactly a state secret eric.
So? It is still a small ocean fishing boat. It has a place to cook meals
and sleep and go to the bathroom. 45 feet is barely a decent size cabin
cruiser. It is hardly a yacht.
What is your point? Do you think that there should be no fishing? No
fishing boats?
What is your point?
Chibum
assertion. Actually he has several. Capice!
In article <lbyron-A0A8FE....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com>, Eric B.
Richardson says...
Chibum
When someone is invaded by Moon he loses all sense of self determination and
identity. Trust in yourself, as well as a sense of your own value are lost. One
begins to see everything thru Moon eyes.
Eric B. Richardson
Chibum<chib...@excite.com> wrote:
> The point is that Moon had a personal yacht at his disposal contrary to your
> assertion. Actually he has several. Capice!
>
>
If you want to label a small cabin cruiser a yacht, then I can't dispel
your envy.
Dan Fefferman
>your envy.
Not to mention that these boats are not owned by SMM and are used for other
purposes when he is not around. Therefore, even though they may be at his
disposal when he's on the scene, they are in no sense his personal boats.
Dan F
Craig Maxim
"Eric B. Richardson" <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
news:lbyron-F87BB1....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
> 45 feet is not a yacht. It is a small ocean fishing boat.
(yot) yacht n. a pleasure ship used solely for its owner's personal
purposes. --
ship n. 1, a large vessel, usually seagoing.
Robroy826
>purposes when he is not around. Therefore, even though they may be at his
>disposal when he's on the scene, they are in no sense his personal boats.
>
>Dan F
>
You are on the mark this mornig, Dan. Old Goerbells would love the way you
SPIN things. Did you ever think of dumping Moon and going to work as Rep.
Condit's spin doctor? I bet the pay is better. (Rob)
Craig Maxim
news:20010709133650...@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> ===============================
> You are on the mark this mornig, Dan. Old Goerbells would love the way
you
> SPIN things. Did you ever think of dumping Moon and going to work as Rep.
> Condit's spin doctor? I bet the pay is better. (Rob)
He (Condit) could definitely use a spin doctor of Dan's caliber. Wonder what
her "big news" was? Maybe she was pregnant
with Condit's child?
Bill Taylor
Oh, come on. It takes a lot of excuses to be able to say that they are
not his personal boats. By the way, whose boats are they? Who says
when they will be available for Moon to use? How far in advance does
Moon have to reserve? Does he pay a fee to the owners when he takes
them out?
Craig Maxim
"Bill Taylor" <BillT...@playful.com> wrote in message
news:BillTaylor-43288...@nntp.mindspring.com...
> Dan Fefferman wrote:
> > > If you want to label a small cabin cruiser a yacht, then I can't
dispel
> > >your envy.
> > Not to mention that these boats are not owned by SMM and are used for
> > other
> > purposes when he is not around. Therefore, even though they may be at
his
> > disposal when he's on the scene, they are in no sense his personal
boats.
> Oh, come on. It takes a lot of excuses to be able to say that they are
> not his personal boats. By the way, whose boats are they? Who says
> when they will be available for Moon to use? How far in advance does
> Moon have to reserve? Does he pay a fee to the owners when he takes
> them out?
It's sad when finding more creative ways to lie is the essence of a person's
life goals and functions. It makes one wonder whether people like Dan
actually believe God will pat them on the back one day and say: "That was
the most ingenious lie I ever heard Dan, even I, God, didn't think of that
one before....well done, thou good and faithful servant."
Dan Fefferman
>not his personal boats.
No more than it does to say that the PopeMobile is not the Pope's personal car,
which it is not. It's owned by the church not the Pope. And in fact, the boats
used by Rev Moon are used for other purposes when he's not using them, while
this is not the case with the PopeMobile.
> By the way, whose boats are they?
Depends on which ones we're talking about. The ones I have knowledge about are
owned by a fishing company. I think the church may own some boats in the US
though, that are used for Striped bass fishing. The seminary owns one that he
used from time to time. I think he went out with my buddy Chuck Frumin in
Hawaii last time, on the charter boat that Chuck operates as his personal
business. The times I've fished with SMM in Alaska he doesn't use a "yacht" but
one of those "Good Go" boats that the other members also use--a 30-foot open
fishing boat. In Gloucester he used the Flying Phoenix, which was a cabin
cruiser, for Tuna Fishing.
>Who says
>when they will be available for Moon to use? How far in advance does
>Moon have to reserve? Does he pay a fee to the owners when he takes
>them out?
Irrelevant to whether he owns them personally. Does the fact that Bill Gates
can use the Intel company plane whenever he wants make it his personal
property. Answer: No.
Dan Fefferman
Dan Fefferman
>can use the Intel company plane whenever he wants make it his personal
oops!
THat should have been Microsoft.
dan
Bill Taylor
> >It takes a lot of excuses to be able to say that they are
> >not his personal boats.
> No more than it does to say that the PopeMobile is not the Pope's
> personal car,
> which it is not. It's owned by the church not the Pope.
I get the impression that the PopeMobile is used for the sake of others
and could never be considered as a luxury vehicle. Just because it is a
specialized and therefore expensive vehicle doesn't equate it with a
yacht. I wouln't equate a wheat combine with Moon's yacht either.
Does Moon use his yacht in order to be a public figure or are his
excursions private affairs?
> And in fact, the
> boats
> used by Rev Moon are used for other purposes when he's not using them,
> while
> this is not the case with the PopeMobile.
Are you sure? You made that up, didn't you. That's not the general
case with his mansions.
> > By the way, whose boats are they?
> Depends on which ones we're talking about. The ones I have knowledge
> about are
> owned by a fishing company. I think the church may own some boats in the
> US
> though, that are used for Striped bass fishing. The seminary owns one
> that he
> used from time to time. I think he went out with my buddy Chuck Frumin in
> Hawaii last time, on the charter boat that Chuck operates as his personal
> business. The times I've fished with SMM in Alaska he doesn't use a
> "yacht" but
> one of those "Good Go" boats that the other members also use--a 30-foot
> open
> fishing boat. In Gloucester he used the Flying Phoenix, which was a cabin
> cruiser, for Tuna Fishing.
All of which means that he doesn't have a yacht for his own personal use?
> >Who says
> >when they will be available for Moon to use? How far in advance does
> >Moon have to reserve? Does he pay a fee to the owners when he takes
> >them out?
> Irrelevant to whether he owns them personally.
Exactly the point. He has complete control over them and can use them
personally with a day's notice. It's irrelevant as to who has the
title. That's merely a technicality.
> Does the fact that Bill
> Gates
> can use the Intel company plane whenever he wants make it his personal
> property. Answer: No.
Dan, you know better. You don't need to be making this kind of silly
defense. We all know that he has huge resources, vehicles, and manpower
at his complete disposal for whatever purpose he chooses with no
accountability to anyone.
You often say that I am out of touch with how things are today in the U
movement. So, let's not have you start reverting to these pathetic and
outdated defenses.
Dan Fefferman
>Does Moon use his yacht in order to be a public figure or are his
>excursions private affairs?
Which boat are we talking about Bill? The nicest one that I know of is a 40
foot cabin cruiser that used to be anchored in Glouscester. He often brought
out public figures on it, inlcuding former heads of state, legistlators,
religious leaders, prmoinent scholars and others. So yes, he used it as a
public figure. Other times he used it as the flagship of a tuna fleet (in which
I was myself a captain and first mate two summers during Ocean Challenge). I
saw him sitting for hours in the same hot sun I was sitting in. Tossed in the
same rough seas. And toughing it out through the same rainstorms. He never left
the dock later than us, and never headed into port earlier. Sorry, but the
picture of the Rev living it up on some huge "yacht" like Onasis just does not
square with reality.
>{on the boats being used for other purposes] Are you sure? You made that up,
didn't you.
Absolutely not. All of the boats I have seen him use (about 5) were used for
other purposes when he's not there, and I do not know of any that are reserved
for his personal use. Of course I'm not omniscient though, may he has one some
that I don't know about.
> That's not the general
>case with his mansions.
Wrong again.Any houses the church maintains are also used for other purposes
including residences for pastors, retreat centers, lectures, meeting places for
worship, seminars, etc.
> He has complete control over them and can use them
>personally with a day's notice. It's irrelevant as to who has the
>title. That's merely a technicality.
Wrong. It is the basic difference between something that is corporately owned
and something that is privately owned.
>Dan, you know better. You don't need to be making this kind of silly
>defense. We all know that he has huge resources, vehicles, and manpower
>at his complete disposal for whatever purpose he chooses with no
>accountability to anyone.
Call it silly if you want Bill. But the fact is that these items are not owned
by Rev Moon any more than the president owned the Sequoia or Air Force One.
You may have the opinion that the UC doesn't really use its items for a
charitable purpose (where it owns them), but as a matter of actual fact, Rev
Moon is not the owner--and the church has proved in court a couple of times
that the cars he uses, the houses he stays in, the boats he occasionally uses
and other things are NOT his personal property but the church's.
>You often say that I am out of touch with how things are today in the U
>movement. So, let's not have you start reverting to these pathetic and
>outdated defenses.
Name calling doesn't win the argument Bill.
Dan
Bill Taylor
The fact that you won't face the issues squarely and instead give red
herring information gives me an understanding of your basic stand. You
keep inching closer toward loyalty over honesty. I hope that you expect
me to behave like a mother and tell you that there is something wrong
with this choice.
Moon has absolute discretion over many Unification Church assets. That
being the case, is it still relevant how the titles are held? In this
discussion, I don't see how except for the purposes of deception. I'm
not going to argue this point. It is clear that you know the basic
facts even if you are going to pretend something different.
> >Does Moon use his yacht in order to be a public figure or are his
> >excursions private affairs?
> Which boat are we talking about Bill? The nicest one that I know of is a
> 40
> foot cabin cruiser that used to be anchored in Glouscester. He often
> brought
> out public figures on it, inlcuding former heads of state, legistlators,
> religious leaders, prmoinent scholars and others. So yes, he used it as a
> public figure. Other times he used it as the flagship of a tuna fleet (in
> which
> I was myself a captain and first mate two summers during Ocean
> Challenge). I
> saw him sitting for hours in the same hot sun I was sitting in. Tossed in
> the
> same rough seas. And toughing it out through the same rainstorms. He
> never left
> the dock later than us, and never headed into port earlier. Sorry, but
> the
> picture of the Rev living it up on some huge "yacht" like Onasis just
> does not
> square with reality.
"Moon is not the most extreme example of (fill in the blank)
*self-indulgence* so therefore he is not self-indulgent." Somehow
either you seem to buy that kind of argument or you think that others
will. It's quite hackneyed.
> >{on the boats being used for other purposes] Are you sure? You made
> >that up,
> didn't you.
> Absolutely not. All of the boats I have seen him use (about 5) were used
> for
> other purposes when he's not there, and I do not know of any that are
> reserved
> for his personal use. Of course I'm not omniscient though, may he has one
> some
> that I don't know about.
> > That's not the general
> >case with his mansions.
> Wrong again.Any houses the church maintains are also used for other
> purposes
> including residences for pastors, retreat centers, lectures, meeting
> places for
> worship, seminars, etc.
So, let's just get to the point. Who is it that Moon has to see in
order to get permission to use church assets? Is there a committee?
> > He has complete control over them and can use them
> >personally with a day's notice. It's irrelevant as to who has the
> >title. That's merely a technicality.
> Wrong. It is the basic difference between something that is corporately
> owned
> and something that is privately owned.
So, you are either saying that Moon does NOT have discretion over how
these properties are used or you are deliberately trying to lie. Again
I ask, who is it who has the final say-so over how Unification assets
are used? Unless you are trying to be directly deceptive and dishonest,
you are saying that it is not Moon. So, who is it?
I think you are just lying and I have no evidence from you that you
would not lie to defend Moon. Please, I don't need clever rejoinders.
> >Dan, you know better. You don't need to be making this kind of silly
> >defense. We all know that he has huge resources, vehicles, and manpower
> >at his complete disposal for whatever purpose he chooses with no
> >accountability to anyone.
> Call it silly if you want Bill. But the fact is that these items are not
> owned
> by Rev Moon any more than the president owned the Sequoia or Air Force
> One.
Yes, Dan. You have my permission to lie. Does that make you feel
better? There really isn't any need of carrying this any further if you
don't have any personal commitments in the matter.
> You may have the opinion that the UC doesn't really use its items for a
> charitable purpose (where it owns them), but as a matter of actual fact,
> Rev
> Moon is not the owner--and the church has proved in court a couple of
> times
> that the cars he uses, the houses he stays in, the boats he occasionally
> uses
> and other things are NOT his personal property but the church's.
> >You often say that I am out of touch with how things are today in the U
> >movement. So, let's not have you start reverting to these pathetic and
> >outdated defenses.
> Name calling doesn't win the argument Bill.
Correct. Are you implying that I did this? Sounds like groundless
deception to me. Also, is winning the argument your game? So, go ahead
and win. You are using pathetic and outdated defenses. I believe that
I cited them and I am not using these words pejoratively.
I might need to apologize for giving you cogent facts which demonstrate
the depth of corruption in your movement. On the other hand, you could
confront them head on if they are incorrect. At least in this post, you
are unwilling to do that.
Craig Maxim
"Dan Fefferman" <feff...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010713160814...@ng-cj1.aol.com...
> You may have the opinion that the UC doesn't really use its items for a
> charitable purpose (where it owns them), but as a matter of actual fact,
Rev
> Moon is not the owner--and the church has proved in court a couple of
times
> that the cars he uses, the houses he stays in, the boats he occasionally
uses
> and other things are NOT his personal property but the church's.
Depends on what we are talking about. Bill is right about the technicality
issue. If I want something because I like it, and I can authorize the funds
to have it and then use it whenever I desire, and can then get rid of it,
replace it, get a better one, have it suited to my personal desires and
tastes, decide NOT to let anyone else use it, if I wanted to, buy one for
every place I like to visit, have the say on how it is maintained and who
maintains it, and use it whenever I desire and as often as I desire, with no
one to contradict my desires....... yes Dan, ownership is quite irrelevant
as a legal issue. It is useful only for legal tricks and ploys. The reality
is, that all the things we expect from ownership of something, Moon
enjoys.....as long as he continues to pretend to be a messiah. That is about
the only catch. He has whatever he wants, whenever he wants it, as long as
he keeps playing the game.
And on some issues, I would even say that legal ownership may or may not be
true for Moon. Do you know who the partners are in UCI? UCI is a FOR PROFIT
holding company (not a church) which owns the Washington Times, and on and
on and on and on. If Moon is one of the heads of that holding company, then
he certainly is an owner of quite a bit, isn't he?
Dan Fefferman
You mean baord members? I know some off hand. And I know Rev Moon is not one of
them.
> UCI is a FOR PROFIT
>holding company (not a church)
Oops again... You only got it half right Craig... UCI is not a religious
organization. But it is not organized as a for-profit organizaiton. It's non
profit, in other words, but not tax exempt.
> which owns the Washington Times, and on and
>on and on and on. If Moon is one of the heads of that holding company, then
>he certainly is an owner of quite a bit, isn't he?
But he is not one of the heads of that company Craig.
Hey that's okay, you got one out of three right... not bad.
Dan
Eric B. Richardson
feff...@aol.com (Dan Fefferman) wrote:
That would be a half right out of three, which is about 17%. It would
have to be a pretty steep curve to make a 17% a passing grade.
Dan Fefferman
>have to be a pretty steep curve to make a 17% a passing grade.
Yeah, but Eric, this is Craig we're talking about. He gets extra credit for
doing so much better than usual.
Dan
Bill Taylor
> >Do you know who the partners are in UCI?
> You mean baord members? I know some off hand. And I know Rev Moon is not
> one of
> them.
So, what you are saying is that Moon does NOT have overriding discretion
over UC assets. Do you really want to argue something THAT stupid? Or
do you want to convince us that you are being completely honest--it's
just that you are brainwashed? Could you be honest with us about your
point?
> > UCI is a FOR PROFIT
> >holding company (not a church)
> Oops again... You only got it half right Craig... UCI is not a religious
> organization. But it is not organized as a for-profit organizaiton. It's
> non
> profit, in other words, but not tax exempt.
So, up to now you have been arguing that the legal situation determines
reality. In keeping with that, do you now want to say that the UC is
not religious?
> > which owns the Washington Times, and on and
> >on and on and on. If Moon is one of the heads of that holding company,
> >then
> >he certainly is an owner of quite a bit, isn't he?
> But he is not one of the heads of that company Craig.
> Hey that's okay, you got one out of three right... not bad.
O.K. Dan. Let's say that Craig got it all wrong and that you trumped
him 3 times. Let's pat you on the back and then simply have you answer
the central question to this discussion--does Moon control UC assets
over and above any other individual or committee?
Anyway, this entire discussion is yet a larger level avoidance of the
question, 'what wonderful thing does Moon or the organization have to
offer to individuals or the world?'
I've been asking you this for a while.
Craig Maxim
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote in message
news:9iods1$920$1...@iac5.navix.net...
> And on some issues, I would even say that legal ownership may or may not
be
> true for Moon. Do you know who the partners are in UCI? UCI is a FOR
PROFIT
> holding company (not a church) which owns the Washington Times, and on and
> on and on and on. If Moon is one of the heads of that holding company,
then
> he certainly is an owner of quite a bit, isn't he?
UCI = Unification Church International
Craig Maxim
> Yeah, but Eric, this is Craig we're talking about. He gets extra credit
for
> doing so much better than usual.
My track record does not merit your remark, if you are concerned about truth
at all.
But of course, truth for you, is a game, something more fun to play with,
than as a matter of character.
Craig Maxim
> >Do you know who the partners are in UCI?
> You mean baord members? I know some off hand. And I know Rev Moon is not
one of
> them.
I believe that is possible, because I think it would be wise for Moon to
keep his name off things as much as possible. But I doubt you really "know"
either way. The principles in UCI is a closely held secret, and not made
public.
> > UCI is a FOR PROFIT
> >holding company (not a church)
> Oops again... You only got it half right Craig... UCI is not a religious
> organization. But it is not organized as a for-profit organizaiton. It's
non
> profit, in other words, but not tax exempt.
It is a FOR PROFIT HOLDING COMPANY.
Craig Maxim
> That would be a half right out of three, which is about 17%. It would
> have to be a pretty steep curve to make a 17% a passing grade.
I stated that UCI is a for-profit holding company. Which it is.
At best, you could make that a two-part statement.
Dan Fefferman
>So, what you are saying is that Moon does NOT have overriding discretion
>over UC assets. Do you really want to argue something THAT stupid?
What I said, Bill, is that Craig was wrong when he claimed Moon on the baord of
UCI. This isn't rocket science... although it seems that it is to you.
> Or
>do you want to convince us that you are being completely honest--it's
>just that you are brainwashed? Could you be honest with us about your
>point?
What should I do sit here and allow Craigs mistakes (you and he would call them
lies if I were equally mistaken about something BTW--proof of a double standard
at work) about Moon being on the UCI board and UCI being a for profit corp go
unchallenged?
>So, up to now you have been arguing that the legal situation determines
>reality. In keeping with that, do you now want to say that the UC is
>not religious?
Bill, maybe you are just confused about this because you don't realize that the
UCI and UC/HSA are two different corporations. UCI is not a religious
corporation and is not tax exempt, although it IS organized as a non profit. So
yes, UCI is NOT a religious organization. UC is a religious organization and is
both tax exempt and non profit. It's a simple matter of how the two entities
are organized under the IRS regulations.
>O.K. Dan. Let's say that Craig got it all wrong and that you trumped
>him 3 times. Let's pat you on the back and then simply have you answer
>the central question to this discussion--does Moon control UC assets
>over and above any other individual or committee?
Depends on what you mean by control. Legally no. Practically I'd say yes...
although my opinion is not based on first hand knowledge.
>Anyway, this entire discussion is yet a larger level avoidance of the
>question, 'what wonderful thing does Moon or the organization have to
>offer to individuals or the world?'
The same thing any religion does... and understanding of God and the universe,
and a way to bring God into one's life.
>I've been asking you this for a while.
Well, now you have an answer.
Dan Fefferman
Dan Fefferman
I'll tell you what... I work in the same building with UCI, and I'll make an
inquiry for you in the off-chance that I'm mistaken about it. If so, I'm
definitely getting oldtimers disease, because I just went through this with
them 6 months ago when a UC member on another list had the same mistaken
impression that you did.
As I understand it UCI is a non profit, but it is also NOT a charity. This is a
little aracane for those of us who are not familiar with IRS regulations and
corporate law, but it's really not that unusual. You are right that it's a
holding company though. It owns quite a few other companies and some of these
are for-profit. But the holding company UCI itself is not for profit. That's
how it was explained to me by UC's in house attorney, unless I'm really losing
it.
As for it's board being a closely held secret, I think you are ignorant of
corporation law.The board of directors of any corporation are a matter of
public record.
Dan
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Eric B. Richardson" <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lbyron-04EECC....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>
> > That would be a half right out of three, which is about 17%. It would
> > have to be a pretty steep curve to make a 17% a passing grade.
>
>
>
> I stated that UCI is a for-profit holding company. Which it is.
Not.
Wrong again.
>
> At best, you could make that a two-part statement.
>
>
>
--
To get random signatures put text files into a folder called ³Random Signatures² into your Preferences folder.
Bill Taylor
> Bill
> >So, what you are saying is that Moon does NOT have overriding discretion
> >over UC assets. Do you really want to argue something THAT stupid?
> What I said, Bill, is that Craig was wrong when he claimed Moon on the
> baord of
> UCI. This isn't rocket science... although it seems that it is to you.
So, you still steadfastly resist answering the central question. You
are beginning to bore me.
> > Or
> >do you want to convince us that you are being completely honest--it's
> >just that you are brainwashed? Could you be honest with us about your
> >point?
> What should I do sit here and allow Craigs mistakes (you and he would
> call them
> lies if I were equally mistaken about something BTW--proof of a double
> standard
> at work) about Moon being on the UCI board and UCI being a for profit
> corp go
> unchallenged?
Again, you are unwilling to answer the questions posed. Listen, Dan, I
don't have anything particularly at stake here. If you wish to purport
that some unidentified group of ghosts or something takes precedence
over Moon and that you are unwilling to discuss this any further, I have
no reason to beat the truth out of you. I'll accept that you just
refuse to brook this question. No need to ask again.
> >So, up to now you have been arguing that the legal situation determines
> >reality. In keeping with that, do you now want to say that the UC is
> >not religious?
> Bill, maybe you are just confused about this because you don't realize
> that the
> UCI and UC/HSA are two different corporations. UCI is not a religious
> corporation and is not tax exempt, although it IS organized as a non
> profit. So
> yes, UCI is NOT a religious organization. UC is a religious organization
> and is
> both tax exempt and non profit. It's a simple matter of how the two
> entities
> are organized under the IRS regulations.
Yes, I got that. And you were saying that since neither of these is
owned by Moon that he does not have any overriding influence over the
use of the assets of those organizations. So, if we are to ask the
perfectly obvious question as to whether Moon controls certain assets,
this questions is ruled moot by you because of the legal status of those
assets. Yet, when it comes to whether the UCI is for the purpose of
supporting a religious cause, we should trust that it is even though
legally that is not true. Again, I have no stake in exposing this kind
of duplicity. I am only asking that you be straightforward about it
yourself.
> >O.K. Dan. Let's say that Craig got it all wrong and that you trumped
> >him 3 times. Let's pat you on the back and then simply have you answer
> >the central question to this discussion--does Moon control UC assets
> >over and above any other individual or committee?
> Depends on what you mean by control. Legally no. Practically I'd say
> yes...
> although my opinion is not based on first hand knowledge.
It took quite a while to wrench this qualified answer out of you.
> >Anyway, this entire discussion is yet a larger level avoidance of the
> >question, 'what wonderful thing does Moon or the organization have to
> >offer to individuals or the world?'
> The same thing any religion does... and understanding of God and the
> universe,
> and a way to bring God into one's life.
So, you would say that Moon contributes nothing unique--that
Unificationism does "the same thing that any religion does."
How about a couple of follow up questions? What value is there in
creating another redundant religion? This would appear to be against
the DP unless the DP is really a rouse which masks other unspoken goals.
We should also use the Unificationist line of questioning to determine
value--is there any religion which accomplishes LESS than Unificationism
does? (This seems to be the usual standard of justification used within
Unificationism, doesn't it?) And what ARE you accomplishing?
> >I've been asking you this for a while.
> Well, now you have an answer.
You have been finding value in Unificationism for yourself but your own
stance doesn't represent Unificationism. I have reached some
conclusions about the organization/faith but I don't have any particular
stake in how it goes. I request that you just speak straight with me.
Craig Maxim
> What I said, Bill, is that Craig was wrong when he claimed Moon on the
baord of
> UCI.
I never claimed any such thing. You really have trouble reading posts
sometimes it seems. What I did was ASK you, whether Moon may be named as a
partner in UCI or not. So far, the only point we cannot resolve seems to be
whether UCI is a "for-profit" or a "non-profit" entity. This is somewhat
irrelevant to me now though, as you have said that UCI controls "for-profit"
businesses or enterprises. So it is just semantics. Even if it was all
non-profit, anyone can see that Moon certainly PROFITS from it regardless.
Dan Fefferman
>baord of
>> UCI.
Craig>I never claimed any such thing. You really have trouble reading posts
>sometimes it seems. What I did was ASK you, whether Moon may be named as a
>partner in UCI or not.
You are right Craig, and I apologize. You asked if I knew who the partners in
UCI were. You then said that IF Moon is a partner in UCI THEN.. etc.. and in
responding to Bill I recalled this incorrectly.
>So far, the only point we cannot resolve seems to be
>whether UCI is a "for-profit" or a "non-profit" entity.
That, plus whether the board members of UCI are a "closely held secret"--unless
you now admit that you were wrong about this.
> This is somewhat
>irrelevant to me now though, as you have said that UCI controls "for-profit"
>businesses or enterprises. So it is just semantics.
Well, we are getting closer to communicating with each other, anyway. But it's
not just semantics, it's also law.
Sure, the UCI owns some for profit businesses. And BTW, charities and churches
that are tax exempt can and do also own businesses that are for profit. For
example, the Christian Brothers order owns a winery that is for profit, and it
has to pay unrelated business income tax on that. Some churches own
corporations that run all kinds of business, from gas stations to farms to
retail establishments. They also routine hold large portfolios of stock in
major corporations. The Vatican even owns a major international bank. The
Unification Church (Not UCI) owns the New Yorker Hotel--or rather the Ramada
New Yorker as its now called--and pays taxes on the profits from that business.
These types of things are done all the time. THere's nothing criminal or even
unusual about it.
Dan Fefferman
Craig Maxim
> The
> Unification Church (Not UCI) owns the New Yorker Hotel--or rather the
Ramada
> New Yorker as its now called--and pays taxes on the profits from that
business.
> These types of things are done all the time. THere's nothing criminal or
even
> unusual about it.
I don't suggest there is anything criminal. What I suggest is that it is
meaningless, other than legal issues, whether UCI is non-profit or
for-profit, because the Moon family certainly PROFITS either way. By Moon
placing his family as the central point to his theology, Moon has a clever
racket going, where anything he wants to have or do financially, is
justified through his theology, or he merely makes a revised theology to
cover himself. The government will always have some degree of difficulty
nailing Moon, because of how he hides himself in the cloak of religion.
-Moon wants his followers to concentrate on bringing him more money....no
problem.....
Moon has a doctrine of the "formula course" which conveniently has the
follower spending all his time making money the first 3 1/2 years of his
church life, but then of course everyone conveniently forgets to take them
off, and some have fundraised daily for more than a decade.
-Moon wants to live in mansions and drive expensive cars......no
problem......
Moon says something like...."Father really hates living a life of luxury,
but it is necessary for the providence, how can father talk to diplomats
without mansions and limos? Also, if father were to live as a pauper, then
heavenly law would demand that all his followers live that way forever, as
the follower should not live higher than his master, that would violate
heavenly law."
It is a con, you have realized this for awhile now, and you have just
decided rather than leave, you will get your share of the pie. That is not
meant to offend, but I think most of the critics see it for what it is.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
So?
What a non-profit org does is generate money that is then channeled into
supporting its mission.
Eric B. Richardson
Bill Taylor <BillT...@playful.com> wrote:
>
> So, you still steadfastly resist answering the central question. You
> are beginning to bore me.
Oh, geez. Wouldn't want to do that...
Eric B. Richardson
> Yes, I got that. And you were saying that since neither of these is
> owned by Moon that he does not have any overriding influence over the
> use of the assets of those organizations.
Actually, Dan said exactly the opposite.
In reality, I think he has much less control over the businesses than he
would like.
Craig Maxim
> In reality, I think he has much less control over the businesses than he
> would like.
You have not been in the inside, or you would never say something so inane.
Moon has EXACTLY the control he desires to have. He knows precisely what he
can get away with and what he cannot. He knows how to get rid of people who
do not
serve his needs and replace them with ones that will.
I have personally been with Moon when he made precise criticisms of the SDI
film that
Charlton Heston narrated, and I can tell you that EVERY change Moon told
them to make,
WERE made.
Moon has complete control everywhere he wants it.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
Only in your paranoid delusions.
Craig Maxim
> > I have personally been with Moon when he made precise criticisms of the
SDI
> > film that
> > Charlton Heston narrated, and I can tell you that EVERY change Moon told
> > them to make,
> > WERE made.
> >
> > Moon has complete control everywhere he wants it.
> Only in your paranoid delusions.
So, I was just imagining watching Moon order changes to films produced by
AFC, and then I imagined them being carried out when I later watched the
film on television....or did I also imagine watching it on television too?
The state of your mind would be laughable, were it not so sad.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
Like you took notes and made sure every change was just as Rev. Moon
ordered it. Yea, right.
Anyway, the comment was concerning all companies not one little film.
You used your experience of one little film to act like it proved that
Rev. Moon had absolute control over all the companies that are started
by Unificationists, and it is just not true. You are living in paranoic
delusion if you think so.
As for what else you are imagining, I don't know. Evidenced by your
statements here and on your website, it is a great deal.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> The state of your mind would be laughable, were it not so sad.
>
>
BTW, Maxim, perhaps you can try to discuss something rationally, rather
than just being abusive.
Craig Maxim
> Anyway, the comment was concerning all companies not one little film.
> You used your experience of one little film to act like it proved that
> Rev. Moon had absolute control over all the companies that are started
> by Unificationists, and it is just not true.
I am not talking about companies that are started by individual members, but
of the ones that Moon directs to begin and or finances, etc.. For instance,
Monumental Molding is a company owned by a unificationist, but I have no
idea whether Moon helped finance it or controls it. I would not assume so,
but it is always possible. I do not automatically assume that EVERY Moonie
business is a Unification Church business.
And wrong, it was not ONE little experience. I have, on several occasions,
been allowed to sit in on Korean Regional Leaders meetings, and other such
high level meetings Moon has lead. I watched him direct activities these
companies would go in. I watched the Korean leaders ask Moon about certain
purchases, etc.. and what Moon told them to do, is done. I have watched
Josette Shiner, come and give a full report about things the Washington
Times was doing, and make sure he knew everything that was going on. And
similarly, Moon would respond to her comments and make decisions based on
what she told him.
Moon was supposed to have NOTHING to do with the AFC and the Times beyond
being the "founder" of these organizations. I personally witnessed that this
was not true. I saw the reality myself. You on the other hand, are a nobody
in the UC, and so all you have is the party line, which you believe without
question.
Craig Maxim
> BTW, Maxim, perhaps you can try to discuss something rationally, rather
> than just being abusive.
That's not abusive Eric, it is reality. I feel VERY sad for you, and for how
limited your critical thinking is. I know what it is to be that blinded by
mind control and idealism and things that are not tempered by experience and
rational thought. It is at once comfortable, to be told what to do, and
remain in a childlike state, as well as being horrible to be so debilitated
in personal growth.
Craig Maxim
> So?
>
> What a non-profit org does is generate money that is then channeled into
> supporting its mission.
The false family "IS" the mission of the UC. Don't you get it? It is a
business Eric. It is non-profit in name and legalese only. For example, I
have done some research and found out that Dan is right. UCI is labeled as a
non-profit organization, but it is not tax-exempt. Why have they not filed
for tax exemption if they are really a non-profit? Do you have any idea how
much money would be saved? But I now know why this is so. EVERY known
company under UCI is a for-profit business that must pay taxes anyway, so it
would benefit the UCI's owners little, in changing the structure over to a
tax-exempt corporation. It is clear from their original incorporation papers
that they intended to file for tax-exempt status, and in fact, in the
wording of those documents, they left open the possibility that they may one
day do so. But until now, they haven't. Why? Because it is all a for-profit
business, which benefits the UN-NAMED owners of UCI. We can take an educated
guess, that it's owners are ALL Korean and I would bet that Moon "IS" an
owner, or else he has a "trust" that is set up for that purpose, so that he
both owns it, as well as maintains a distance legally from it all.
I made a mistake when I spoke about a "board" not being named. I did say
"partners" and that is what I meant. Dan is right, that any "board" would be
public information, but NOT it's owners. The OWNERS of UCI is a closely held
secret, and Moon may in fact, be one of the owners, or the sole owner, or he
may have a trust set up to accomplish the same. It is possible Moon is not
an owner at all, but we may never know, because of the blatant secrecy of
UCI to hide that information, as they have no legal obligation to tell the
truth about it. Isn't UCI working for the world? Why are the owners a
closely guarded secret?
Start thinking for a change Eric. You are a low man in an intricate Ponzi
scheme. You make those above you wealthy, but get little for yourself.
Hammond
writes:
>
>That's not abusive Eric, it is reality. I feel VERY sad for you, and for how
>limited your critical thinking is. I know what it is to be that blinded by
>mind control and idealism and things that are not tempered by experience and
>rational thought. It is at once comfortable, to be told what to do, and
>remain in a childlike state, as well as being horrible to be so debilitated
>in personal growth.
Hahahahahahahahaahhhahaahahahhaahahahahahahahahhaahaha; gasp;
hahahaahahhahahahaahhahhahahaahhahahaahhaahhhahaahhaahahahahahaha; gasp;
hahahahahahahahahahahaahhahaahahahaahhahah......
Oh; you were serious...............schmmq hahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahha;
sorry
"Aggressive parental love (Agape) unifies the Cosmos into one inseparable
family of God."
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
Yawn, you really are quite boring. You have this little picture you
painted in your mind concerning me and other Unificationists, but it has
no bearing at all on reality.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> Moon was supposed to have NOTHING to do with the AFC and the Times beyond
> being the "founder" of these organizations. I personally witnessed that this
> was not true. I saw the reality myself. You on the other hand, are a nobody
> in the UC, and so all you have is the party line, which you believe without
> question.
What in the world would ever make you believe that the founder and owner
of any enterprise would not have input?
Dan Fefferman
> By Moon
>placing his family as the central point to his theology, Moon has a clever
>racket going, where anything he wants to have or do financially, is
>justified through his theology, or he merely makes a revised theology to
>cover himself. The government will always have some degree of difficulty
>nailing Moon, because of how he hides himself in the cloak of religion.
Do you actually believe that Moon's motivation in creating the UC and his
theology is to create a racket for his personal profit? Because the courts
certainly have disagreed with you on that.
>Moon has a doctrine of the "formula course" which conveniently has the
>follower spending all his time making money the first 3 1/2 years of his
>church life, but then of course everyone conveniently forgets to take them
>off, and some have fundraised daily for more than a decade.
What percentage of his followers actually spent more than 10 years in daily
fundraising, do you estimate? How many can you name?
>It is a con, you have realized this for awhile now, and you have just
>decided rather than leave, you will get your share of the pie. That is not
>meant to offend, but I think most of the critics see it for what it is.
Ahh... it's the old ploy.. "When you've been proven wrong on the particulars...
attack the person and deflect attention from the fact that you've been proven
wrong."
Dan Fefferman
Bill Taylor
> Craig
> > By Moon
> >placing his family as the central point to his theology, Moon has a
> >clever
> >racket going, where anything he wants to have or do financially, is
> >justified through his theology, or he merely makes a revised theology to
> >cover himself. The government will always have some degree of difficulty
> >nailing Moon, because of how he hides himself in the cloak of religion.
> Do you actually believe that Moon's motivation in creating the UC and his
> theology is to create a racket for his personal profit?
I believe that there is something more central than that and there is
abundant evidence that Moon is out for money far above many other
worthwhile goals.
> Because the
> courts
> certainly have disagreed with you on that.
Now, be clear with us Dan. You are saying that we should rely on the
courts for the determination of Moon's motivation. Now, should we rely
on the courts of the United States or would it be more appropriate to
use a global consensus?
I personally don't agree with you that the courts are should be
considered the ultimate judge of Moon.
(Why are you being such a slut for this guy? YOU don't believe that the
courts are the final arbiter of Moon's validity.)
> >Moon has a doctrine of the "formula course" which conveniently has the
> >follower spending all his time making money the first 3 1/2 years of his
> >church life, but then of course everyone conveniently forgets to take
> >them
> >off, and some have fundraised daily for more than a decade.
> What percentage of his followers actually spent more than 10 years in
> daily
> fundraising, do you estimate? How many can you name?
There certainly are some. Since you are asking for an estimate, I would
say about 200 out of 4000 of you. That's an easy 5%. If your
organization were legitimate, you would have access to those figures
rather than have to ask us.
> >It is a con, you have realized this for awhile now, and you have just
> >decided rather than leave, you will get your share of the pie. That is
> >not
> >meant to offend, but I think most of the critics see it for what it is.
> Ahh... it's the old ploy.. "When you've been proven wrong on the
> particulars...
> attack the person and deflect attention from the fact that you've been
> proven wrong."
Are you trying to say that Craig is also doing that?
Dan, I think that your personal twists on the same old arguments have
run out. You live in a culture of mindless fools. Do you really think
that you are somehow exempt?
Craig Maxim
> What in the world would ever make you believe that the founder and owner
> of any enterprise would not have input?
The heads of those organizations stating as much. Stupid to have believed
them, huh?
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
The Moonies Exposed - www.xmoonies.com
Craig Maxim - craig...@email.com
いいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいいい
Craig Maxim
> Yawn, you really are quite boring. You have this little picture you
> painted in your mind concerning me and other Unificationists, but it has
> no bearing at all on reality.
There's a guy in a bed, kissing a woman who is not his wife, they are both
naked. The wife comes home unexpectedly and she finds them their together in
what can only be seen as adultery. The wife is crying and furious at the
same time. The guy jumps out of the bed and tells his wife "It's not what
you think." ;-) The wife looks at him in disgust as the adultery partner
gets her clothes on and runs out of the house. Now the husband drums up a
false outrage, but it looks convincing, and he raises his voice now, and
says "Do I look like I'm playing here, I said IT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK, and
IF YOU WANT TO RUIN THIS RELATIONSHIP ON SUPERFICIAL CONCLUSIONS, then go
ahead, but you may regret it the rest of your life because you never
listened to the real facts, but only based our entire relationship on a
single unusual situation, that LOOKED a certain way to you. Is that what our
relationship means to you? Is it worth that little, that all the time we
spent together, all the pain all the tears, all the laughter, all the
special moments, everything, everything we have worked on and through. You
are willing to throw that away on something you have built up in your own
mind???"
Now she is confused a little. And she will actually sit there and listen to
whatever excuse he comes up with. And it will likely be a ridiculous excuse,
but it may sound good enough for the moment.
As objective observers, we know it was adultery and there was no other
motivation other than sex.
The fact that Moon has betrayed his wife and his members in exactly the same
way, and that you believe his ridiculous excuses, shows that you are
incapable of being objective and seeing reality for what it is. Whether it
is mind control, or whether it is just blindness to the emotional investment
that you are unwilling to see as lost, or whether it is a combination of
these things, is for you to work out. But if it were someone else, you would
see reality for what it is. But when it touches the man you have built up in
your own imagination, he is a god, and you serve him and excuse him and
worship him as such. No matter what Moon does, and now he has already
gambled in casinos, he has unleashed abuse in the form of Cleophas on his
trusting members, he has lied and he has been a failure as a husband (twice
divorced, several adulteries, children with four different women) and a
failure as a father (children from four different women, sending his own
children away to other countries, or to be raised by other leaders, he has
fed their drug addictions with huge cash handouts, overlooked their abuse of
spouses, their depression and problems, bragged about not spending 30
minutes with them) he has committed adultery several times. But there is a
spiritual reason for al the things he does that for us and for you, would be
sin, but for him, he is doing God's will. Why? Because it really makes sense
that adultery is a godly thing? Of course not. It is simply because through
conditioning, you have been trained to believe that anything Moon does is
not sin, but has to be something God would approve of. Does it make sense
that God would actually encourage someone to violate their marriage vows? To
damage their wife and children forever, through a betrayal of their intimacy
and trust? We can be sure that is not something the God of the Bible would
condone. But you have a different god. It is not the God of the Bible. It is
Moon. Moon is your god, and his word serves as law. You don't care about
reality, you don't care about scripture, you don't care about truth, you
don't even care what your own eyes and ears witness. Instead you will let
Moon tell you how to interpret the facts your brain receives. Moon will tell
you how to think, and you will allow him to do that. You have sold out, the
very essence of yourself as a person. You take pride in that, but people in
possession of their mental faculties and critical thought and rationality,
see you as a fool. You have allowed a man to convince you that adultery is a
heavenly trait, as is lying and gambling and any other sin one could name.
Not because these are really heavenly traits, but merely because THEY MUST
BE, or guess what? Moon is not really a godly man, much less a messiah. But
Moon HAS TO BE your messiah, so you will throw God and scripture and reality
out of the window, so you can protect your idol and continue your idolatry.
You will make reality false, just so your idol remains true.
You can call yourself bored all you like, but you are in a life or death
struggle and your life, your very soul is what is at stake.
Craig Maxim
> Do you actually believe that Moon's motivation in creating the UC and his
> theology is to create a racket for his personal profit? Because the courts
> certainly have disagreed with you on that.
No they haven't. Oh, I see. You mean the courts have determined that the UC
is a religion, and therefore in your mind that means that MOON'S MOTIVATION
is also religious. Clever of you Dan, but I'm not buying. But let's speak
about the courts determining that Moon's church is indeed a religion. Why
would I have any problem with that?
RELIGION,
a system of belief to which a social group is committed, in which there is a
supernatural object of awe, worship and service.
Moon has a system of belief, he has a theology, the group is committed to
his theology, and Moon is certainly an object of worship and awe. What
choice do the courts have really Dan? Moon practices a religion. So what? He
is the center of his religion. The entire religion is about worshipping and
serving him. What a great religion for a narcissistic disorder like Moon
suffers from?
> What percentage of his followers actually spent more than 10 years in
daily
> fundraising, do you estimate? How many can you name?
Oh, I have known several. I believe it is probably not the norm, but it has
been fairly common until recently. I would think that in places liek Japan
it still is common, maybe even the norm? You would know more than I would.
But I would say that the UC lets people fundraise far longer than 3 1/2
years, and THAT IS the norm. What stops it, is one of four things....
1) The person starts a family (this is probably one of the most common)
2) The person, usually quite by accidnet, is discovered to have more
worthwhile talents or abilities, and is moved to a new mission.
3) The person takes themself off fundraising and demands something else.
4) The person leaves the group altogether.
> >It is a con, you have realized this for awhile now, and you have just
> >decided rather than leave, you will get your share of the pie. That is
not
> >meant to offend, but I think most of the critics see it for what it is.
> Ahh... it's the old ploy.. "When you've been proven wrong on the
particulars...
> attack the person and deflect attention from the fact that you've been
proven
> wrong."
I think it is a different "old ploy" Dan. Namely, dodge and deflect the
truth when it hits too close to home. ;-)
Hammond
writes:
>
>There's a guy in a bed, kissing a woman who is not his wife, they are both
>naked. The wife comes home unexpectedly and she finds them their together in
>what can only be seen as adultery. The wife is crying and furious at the
>same time. The guy jumps out of the bed and tells his wife "It's not what
>you think." ;-) The wife looks at him in disgust as the adultery partner
>gets her clothes on and runs out of the house. Now the husband drums up a
>false outrage, but it looks convincing, and he raises his voice now, and
>says "Do I look like I'm playing here, I said IT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK, and
>IF YOU WANT TO RUIN THIS RELATIONSHIP ON SUPERFICIAL CONCLUSIONS, then go
>ahead, but you may regret it the rest of your life because you never
>listened to the real facts, but only based our entire relationship on a
>single unusual situation, that LOOKED a certain way to you. Is that what our
>relationship means to you? Is it worth that little, that all the time we
>spent together, all the pain all the tears, all the laughter, all the
>special moments, everything, everything we have worked on and through. You
>are willing to throw that away on something you have built up in your own
>mind???"
>
I'm breathless.....So how did she respond when you explained the real facts of
the situation?
Dan Fefferman
>is a religion, and therefore in your mind that means that MOON'S MOTIVATION
>is also religious. Clever of you Dan, but I'm not buying.
Craig:
Let's take what the German court just found. This is a long quote, but I think
it shows clearly that the court considered and rejected the idea that Moon's
motivation was financial:
"The teachings supported by the plaintiff (UC) constitute a statement on the
world in its entirety and on the origin and purpose of mankind based on a
transcendental reality. The plaintiff is therefore a religious community within
the meaning of Article 4 of the German Constitution. It is of no relevance here
that Moon and/or his followers also operate to a considerable extent in
political and economic fields ...
....Something different would only apply if the religious teachings of Moon
were only to serve him and his followers as a pretext for political and
economic activities and if these were merely "embellished" with religious
goals. Only in this case could Moon and his followers be accused of abusing the
right to cultivate a religion which would lift the protection afforded by
Article 4 of the German Constitution (cf. BVerwG, judgement dated 27 March
1992, loc. cit. P. 118). The court division is unable to recognise anything of
this kind. Moon, who was born and grew up in a Japan-occupied Korea, started to
preach his religious teachings back in 1945 or 1946 before he personally
encountered difficulties with communism. Following Moon’s torture and
imprisonment by the North Korean communists from 1947 to 1950 he was not
reported to have engaged primarily in political agitation, but rather in daily
worship. Furthermore, he was barred from the Presbyterian Church as early as
1948 owing to his different religious teachings. These facts alone prove that
Moon’s teachings have a religious foundation and do not result solely from
his personal experience with communism. As far as the economic activities of
Moon and his followers are concerned, it must be seen that the "Divine
Principles" were written between December 1950 and May 1952 and were published
in 1957....It was not until December 1959, however, that Moon set up his first
commercial enterprise "
> But let's speak
>about the courts determining that Moon's church is indeed a religion. Why
>would I have any problem with that?
Glad to hear that you don't.
>Oh, I have known several.[who stayed on the UC for more than 10 years] I
believe it is probably not the norm, but it has
>been fairly common until recently. I would think that in places liek Japan
>it still is common, maybe even the norm?
So if this is such a common practice, how come you cannot name even five people
to whom it applies? In fact you haven't even named one yet. The only one I know
is maybe the Gusmeister. Where is he when we need him anyhow?
>>You would know more than I would.
>But I would say that the UC lets people fundraise far longer than 3 1/2
>years, and THAT IS the norm. What stops it, is one of four things....
>
>1) The person starts a family (this is probably one of the most common)
>2) The person, usually quite by accidnet, is discovered to have more
>worthwhile talents or abilities, and is moved to a new mission.
>3) The person takes themself off fundraising and demands something else.
>4) The person leaves the group altogether.
You are right. I do know more about it than you. Like many anticultists, you
take a practice that happened in the 1970s and early 80s--we are talking 20
years ago here--and you speak of it as happening in the present tense.
Currently there are very few MFT teams, and people stay on them for a year or
two at most.
Dan Fefferman
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
>
> You can call yourself bored all you like, but you are in a life or death
> struggle and your life, your very soul is what is at stake.
>
>
I am really very touched by your concern. I know my soul is at stake, my
wife's, my children's, my friend's and their children's souls, and the
world population's, each and every individual's soul, not to mention the
entire ancestry of all of them.
I am working with Rev. Moon who is Jesus' chosen vessel for the
manifestation of his will; iow, Rev. Moon is the second coming. You are
holding onto a misunderstanding of God's will that will eventually do
you as much good as did that of the remnants of the Hebrew nation at
Masada.
Eric B. Richardson
feff...@aol.com (Dan Fefferman) wrote:
> You are right. I do know more about it than you. Like many anticultists, you
> take a practice that happened in the 1970s and early 80s--we are talking 20
> years ago here--and you speak of it as happening in the present tense.
More in the seventies, so we are actually talking closer to 30 years.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Eric B. Richardson" <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lbyron-99D46A....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>
> > What in the world would ever make you believe that the founder and owner
> > of any enterprise would not have input?
>
>
> The heads of those organizations stating as much. Stupid to have believed
> them, huh?
>
>
>
--------------------------------------
Unificationism revealed--
http://www.unification.net
http://www.Tparents.org/
http://dpcopy.tripod.com/
http://members.tripod.com/~jho2/
Questions: Damian Anderson dam...@unification.net
Eric Richardson lby...@home.com
--------------------------------------
I believe that what they said is that he would not have control.
Input and control are two different things.
If you believed that there would be no input, then you were perhaps
naive.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> > Yawn, you really are quite boring. You have this little picture you
> > painted in your mind concerning me and other Unificationists, but it has
> > no bearing at all on reality.
>
>
> There's a guy in a bed, kissing a woman who is not his wife, they are both
> naked. The wife comes home unexpectedly and she finds them their together in
> what can only be seen as adultery. The wife is crying and furious at the
> same time. The guy jumps out of the bed and tells his wife "It's not what
> you think." ;-) The wife looks at him in disgust as the adultery partner
> gets her clothes on and runs out of the house. Now the husband drums up a
> false outrage, but it looks convincing, and he raises his voice now, and
> says "Do I look like I'm playing here, I said IT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK, and
> IF YOU WANT TO RUIN THIS RELATIONSHIP ON SUPERFICIAL CONCLUSIONS, then go
> ahead, but you may regret it the rest of your life because you never
> listened to the real facts, but only based our entire relationship on a
> single unusual situation, that LOOKED a certain way to you. Is that what our
> relationship means to you? Is it worth that little, that all the time we
> spent together, all the pain all the tears, all the laughter, all the
> special moments, everything, everything we have worked on and through. You
> are willing to throw that away on something you have built up in your own
> mind???"
>
> Now she is confused a little. And she will actually sit there and listen to
> whatever excuse he comes up with. And it will likely be a ridiculous excuse,
> but it may sound good enough for the moment.
Of course this has nothing to do with Rev. Moon nor True Mother.
Eric B. Richardson
Bill Taylor <BillT...@playful.com> wrote:
> > What percentage of his followers actually spent more than 10 years in
> > daily
> > fundraising, do you estimate? How many can you name?
>
> There certainly are some. Since you are asking for an estimate, I would
> say about 200 out of 4000 of you. That's an easy 5%. If your
> organization were legitimate, you would have access to those figures
> rather than have to ask us.
>
Just to clear: remember just a couple of months ago, Bill was making up
estimates that around 5% of us die due to church negligence.
Craig Maxim
> I am working with Rev. Moon who is Jesus' chosen vessel for the
> manifestation of his will; iow, Rev. Moon is the second coming. You are
> holding onto a misunderstanding of God's will that will eventually do
> you as much good as did that of the remnants of the Hebrew nation at
> Masada.
Eric wake up. The man is an adulterer. Think a little bit. Break out of the
automatic dismissals of criticisms against Moon and instead ponder them, See
if they make any sense at all. Get out of the automation of quick dismissals
and then holding onto a single sentence like "your soul is at risk" and then
using that to jump into a programmed response of "yes, not only me soul, but
my neighbors souls, and the nation's souls and all our ancestors souls, and
generations of....." You just gloss over everything else, and when you get
something that triggers the party-line response in you, you jump on it.
Let's talk as adults here. Let's actually think about issues, and judge them
on their own merits and not through a filter of automatically trying to
justify and excuse. Think about these things Eric. Why would God ever use
adultery as a tool to create a holy and perfect family? Does that make
sense? Explain how it can make sense to our minds and hearts. It is a
critical issue, is it not? On it's surface, it appears to contradict
everything Moon supposedly stands for. Show me why it doesn't. I would like
clear and concise answers to these questions, if you have them.....
1) Why would God ask Moon to commit adultery?
2) Who created or first inspired adultery? God or Satan?
3) Supposedly according to DP, sex with someone makes you one body with
them, and you inherit all their fallen nature. How does the sinless messiah
not inherit the fallen nature of his adultery partner? Or does he? And if
so, how does he remain both sinless and yet have sin?
4) Is adultery a sin?
5) If adultery is not always a sin, what about homosexuality or bestiality?
Can these sins also be used by God through the messiah?
6) When you first joined the UC, did you ever dream that Moon as the
messiah, could be allowed to have adultery, have children through adultery,
be divorced several times?
7) If you never imagined Moon could do the above things, what changed? How
did you grow, so that adultery and divorce and children through adultery
were things the messiah should be about?
I appreciate your logical answers to these questions. I haven't seen any so
far. This is your chance, there are undoubtedly quite a few struggling
members who would be interested to see if there is any logical rationality
for Moon's actions.
Bill Taylor
> Eric B. Richardson...
> > I am working with Rev. Moon who is Jesus' chosen vessel for the
> > manifestation of his will; iow, Rev. Moon is the second coming. You are
> > holding onto a misunderstanding of God's will that will eventually do
> > you as much good as did that of the remnants of the Hebrew nation at
> > Masada.
> Eric wake up.
Aint gonna happen.
> The man is an adulterer. Think a little bit.
Aint gonna happen.
> Break out of the
> automatic dismissals of criticisms against Moon and instead ponder them,
Aint gonna happen.
> See
> if they make any sense at all. Get out of the automation of quick
> dismissals
> and then holding onto a single sentence like "your soul is at risk" and
> then
> using that to jump into a programmed response of "yes, not only me soul,
> but
> my neighbors souls, and the nation's souls and all our ancestors souls,
> and
> generations of....." You just gloss over everything else, and when you
> get
> something that triggers the party-line response in you, you jump on it.
> Let's talk as adults here. Let's actually think about issues, and judge
> them
> on their own merits and not through a filter of automatically trying to
> justify and excuse. Think about these things Eric. Why would God ever use
> adultery as a tool to create a holy and perfect family? Does that make
> sense? Explain how it can make sense to our minds and hearts. It is a
> critical issue, is it not? On it's surface, it appears to contradict
> everything Moon supposedly stands for. Show me why it doesn't.
Eric is mentally ill. Perhaps you are speaking to a wider audience but
you shouldn't expect Eric to think as an adult about these things.
> I would
> like
> clear and concise answers to these questions, if you have them.....
> 1) Why would God ask Moon to commit adultery?
"He never misused his sexual organ." It was not adultery because God
defines the word differently.
> 2) Who created or first inspired adultery? God or Satan?
Satan.
> 3) Supposedly according to DP, sex with someone makes you one body with
> them, and you inherit all their fallen nature. How does the sinless
> messiah
> not inherit the fallen nature of his adultery partner? Or does he? And if
> so, how does he remain both sinless and yet have sin?
"He never misused his sexual organ." It was not adultery because God
defines the word differently.
> 4) Is adultery a sin?
"He never misused his sexual organ." It was not adultery because God
defines the word differently.
> 5) If adultery is not always a sin, what about homosexuality or
> bestiality?
> Can these sins also be used by God through the messiah?
This question has been posed numerous times here and cannot be answered
by a Unificationist. The point is that Moon is a good adulterous Korean
man and such a man would never consider homosexuality or bestiality.
> 6) When you first joined the UC, did you ever dream that Moon as the
> messiah, could be allowed to have adultery, have children through
> adultery,
> be divorced several times?
"God's will is hard for you to understand." (Of course, no
Unificationist understands it either but they know well enough to simply
do what they are told and repeat what they have heard without question.)
> 7) If you never imagined Moon could do the above things, what changed?
> How
> did you grow, so that adultery and divorce and children through adultery
> were things the messiah should be about?
I think that the reality is that they all know that Moon is really about
self-aggrandizement and they like that, or at least they cannot escape
from that right now and all their friends agree with them.
> I appreciate your logical answers to these questions. I haven't seen any
> so
> far. This is your chance, there are undoubtedly quite a few struggling
> members who would be interested to see if there is any logical
> rationality for Moon's actions.
"Heart is above rationality." Not really as I have already proven, but
you can't expect them to abandon 25 years of being obstinate, can you?
You can't expect people who have made a career of being unrelated and
arrogant to have a sudden change of heart, can you?
The Shephard
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote :
news:9ivc5s$cq$1...@iac5.navix.net...> news:20010714231700...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
>
> > What I said, Bill, is that Craig was wrong when he claimed Moon on the
> baord of
> > UCI.
>
>
> I never claimed any such thing. You really have trouble reading posts
> sometimes it seems. What I did was ASK you, whether Moon may be named as a
> partner in UCI or not. So far, the only point we cannot resolve seems to
be
> whether UCI is a "for-profit" or a "non-profit" entity. This is somewhat
> irrelevant to me now though, as you have said that UCI controls
"for-profit"
> businesses or enterprises. So it is just semantics. Even if it was all
> non-profit, anyone can see that Moon certainly PROFITS from it regardless.
So Craig may I tell you, or better remind you the time of Jesus, when a
woman came to see him and poured expensice oils amd murrs, in his legs,
washed them and cleande with her hairs, according to your logic he was a
pro-profit or not. Read the bible what he told to one of his desciples when
they critizised the wman for spending so much money, for.....washing his
leg愀. If you will read carefully that answer than it is no meaning to
answer to your question now.
read it and tell me if that is not correct.
best
shephard
--
=============================================
In order to be Happy you must have three things:
.) smth to live for
.) smth to live on
.) smth to die for
Missing of one brings to misery, missing of two brings to tragedy.
Bill Taylor
> "Craig Maxim...
> > Dan Fefferman...
> > > What I said, Bill, is that Craig was wrong when he claimed Moon on
> > > the
> > baord of
> > > UCI.
> > I never claimed any such thing. You really have trouble reading posts
> > sometimes it seems. What I did was ASK you, whether Moon may be named
> > as a
> > partner in UCI or not. So far, the only point we cannot resolve seems
> > to
> be
> > whether UCI is a "for-profit" or a "non-profit" entity. This is
> > somewhat
> > irrelevant to me now though, as you have said that UCI controls
> "for-profit"
> > businesses or enterprises. So it is just semantics. Even if it was all
> > non-profit, anyone can see that Moon certainly PROFITS from it
> > regardless.
> So Craig may I tell you, or better remind you the time of Jesus, when a
> woman came to see him and poured expensice oils amd murrs, in his legs,
> washed them and cleande with her hairs, according to your logic he was a
> pro-profit or not. Read the bible what he told to one of his desciples
> when
> they critizised the wman for spending so much money, for.....washing his
> leg´s. If you will read carefully that answer than it is no meaning to
> answer to your question now.
> read it and tell me if that is not correct.
Are you pretending that this is somehow related? Does this somehow
demonstrate that Moon has or does not have control over UC assets? Does
this show that the UC is or is not a for-profit venture?
> best
> shephard
> =============================================
> In order to be Happy you must have three things:
> .) smth to live for
> .) smth to live on
> .) smth to die for
> Missing of one brings to misery, missing of two brings to tragedy.
Now we're getting somewhere. What do you have to live for, live on, and
die for?
Craig Maxim
"The Shephard" <mbr...@mailsurf.com> wrote in message
news:9j4dvm$142l$1...@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
> Read the bible what he told to one of his desciples when
> they critizised the wman for spending so much money, for.....washing his
> leg愀. If you will read carefully that answer than it is no meaning to
> answer to your question now.
> read it and tell me if that is not correct.
So, you think that you can compare Jesus and Moon?
Ok, let's go for it. Let's start with WHERE they lived......
Mt:8:20: And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of
the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
- Jesus was homeless.
- Moon lives in multi-million dollar mansions all over the world.
- Moon has plenty of places to lay his head, huh?
Your turn.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "The Shephard" <mbr...@mailsurf.com> wrote in message
> news:9j4dvm$142l$1...@ns.felk.cvut.cz...
>
>
> > Read the bible what he told to one of his desciples when
> > they critizised the wman for spending so much money, for.....washing his
> > leg´s. If you will read carefully that answer than it is no meaning to
> > answer to your question now.
> > read it and tell me if that is not correct.
>
>
> So, you think that you can compare Jesus and Moon?
> Ok, let's go for it. Let's start with WHERE they lived......
>
> Mt:8:20: And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of
> the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
>
>
> - Jesus was homeless.
> - Moon lives in multi-million dollar mansions all over the world.
>
> - Moon has plenty of places to lay his head, huh?
>
> Your turn.
>
>
>
>
So you think Jesus was bragging about that?
Craig Maxim
> > - Jesus was homeless.
> > - Moon lives in multi-million dollar mansions all over the world.
> So you think Jesus was bragging about that?
Tell us what you think Eric. Do you think he was encouraging his members to
buy him a mansion?
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
It was another way of noting that the Israelites and his own disciples
had failed to follow God's will, to recognize, believe and follow him.
Craig Maxim
> > Tell us what you think Eric. Do you think he was encouraging his members
to
> > buy him a mansion?
> It was another way of noting that the Israelites and his own disciples
> had failed to follow God's will, to recognize, believe and follow him.
You are soooo ignorant of scripture. You draw this conclusion for ONE reason
alone. To excuse Sun Myung Moon's wealthy lifestyle. Period. In your real
heart you would admire instead a man that lived simply and gave much of what
he had to others and lived to help others in need, but as a Moonie, you must
excuse your leader's high-flying lifestyle. In your real heart you know that
adultery is not good, ever. But as a Moonie you must excuse it, since your
"messiah" has been guilty of it several times (if not many). In your real
heart, you don't believe God lies. But as a Moonie, you must believe that
God lies, that Jesus lies. Why? Because YOUR messiah lies, and so to keep
him as a messiah, you have to decide that all messiah's lie, and that even
the highest moral force in the universe, God Himself, is also an occasional
liar.
It is hard to believe that you call that a religion, and that you actually
believe it will claim the world for God.
As to your belief that Jesus was actually encouraging his disciples to
realize that they should buy Jesus a mansion, let me bring some important
facts into your view, so you will see that was not the case in any way.
1) It is silly to believe at all that Jesus needed or required a mansion in
the first place. Why? For one, He knew from the very beginning of His
ministry that He would be crucified as a sacrifice. Jesus spoke of what must
come, from the earliest times of His ministry. The scripture explains that
He was clear always about His coming death on the cross, but that the
disciples would not understand this, until it finally happened.
Nevertheless, Jesus Himself, spoke of his coming "time" and "hour" on the
cross, from the earliest times of His ministry. He needs no mansion, he is
soon to die for the sins of the world. Because you don't read the Bible for
yourself, you rely on Moonie propaganda instead, but I can easily prove they
are wrong.
2) Jesus said He did not come to "be served" but instead "to serve". Jesus
came as a servant, that is what He himself claimed, and servants do not live
in mansions, they do not collect money from the crowds to benefit themselves
personally, at the expense and sacrifice of others. If Jesus claimed to be a
"servant" and instead lived as a wealthy man, who could believe His words
about anything else? Jesus would not confuse His followers by telling people
publicly that he came not to be served, but to serve, in the position of a
servant, and then privately expect His disciples to INSTEAD save up money
for a nice mansion for Him. That is the kind of trick SMM pulls, but Jesus
was an honest and sincere man who didn't do things like that.
3) Jesus had no cash flow problem. He and his disciples were financed by
wealthy people. They did not buy mansions, but instead used the money for
missionary travels and for food and clothes for the poor. Moon had no
problem telling his followers what to buy him for his birthdays, or whenever
he wanted another mansion, etc.. Jesus could have done the
same......if.......he was a charlatan like Moon, who claimed one thing
publicly, but lived a very different way in reality. Therefore it is clear
enough that Jesus had no interest in mansions for his personal use, or He
would have instructed his disciples to purchase one.
4) Jesus example in his earthly ministry was to give and to share. Think of
the people he healed, think of the feeding of the five thousand. This
example of sharing was later exemplified in His disciples as well. Scripture
clearly says that the disciples did not consider their property as personal
property. And from time to time they sold whatever they had and divided it
among the brethren as they had need. There is no example of high-living
either in Jesus, nor later in His disciples. It is therefore a big stretch
to believe that this was not always His heart and practice, as opposed to
your idea, that the messiah should live wealthy and have servants wait on
him hand and foot. Your idea, in every way, clashes with scripture, and
doesn't add up.
5) Jesus spoke about how difficult it was, impossible really, for a rich man
to enter Heaven. The Bible in fact calls the love of money the "root of all
evil". It is not logical to believe that Jesus would speak against money and
yet privately covet it and desire to live the very way He preached against.
When He sent His disciples out, He purposely told them not to take extra
shoes with them, etc.. He wanted them to depend on God for their needs, not
on personal wealth.
For these reasons and others, it is inconceivable that you are right, in
that Jesus should have lived the wealthy life your false father enjoys at
his member's expense.
One day, dignity and honesty will matter to you, and in that day, you will
be liberated from excusing the very unholy and immoral acts committed by a
charlatan you worship as a god. Until then, you will excuse Moon's gambling,
his abuse and violence, his adulteries, his degradation of women, even
incest with his own daughters would not be out of the realm of possibilities
for you any longer, you have been conditioned that thoroughly.
Eric B. Richardson
"Craig Maxim" <craig...@alltel.net> wrote:
> "Eric B. Richardson" <lby...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lbyron-E65CFE....@news1.rdc1.mi.home.com...
>
> > > Tell us what you think Eric. Do you think he was encouraging his members
> to
> > > buy him a mansion?
>
>
> > It was another way of noting that the Israelites and his own disciples
> > had failed to follow God's will, to recognize, believe and follow him.
>
>
> You are soooo ignorant of scripture. You draw this conclusion for ONE reason
> alone. To excuse Sun Myung Moon's wealthy lifestyle. Period. In your real
> heart you would admire instead a man that lived simply and gave much of what
> he had to others and lived to help others in need, but as a Moonie, you must
> excuse your leader's high-flying lifestyle.
Craig, I don't really have a great deal of admiration for a person who
lives simply and gives much of what he has to others. I really admire a
person who builds in society multiple avenues and traditions for others
to become prosperous on their own efforts. I admire someone who has
built a great interconnected empire, from which many, many people draw
their livelihood, and in addition uses billions of the profits from such
enterprises to continue to educate others on God's tradition and plan
for building a world of happiness, peace and love. That is what Rev.
Moon has done.
Someone who "gives" to the poor without having done that, in reality is
not producing anything, they are giving other people's hard earned
labor, which they begged from the producer, to other people. In a lot of
ways such a person is a leech and a parasite.
Jesus' gospel is not in opposition to that; you draw your conclusions
from a life that was cut short by murderous bigots. If they had
understood Jesus, they would never have murdered him. The gospel tells
us that clearly. You can't understand that, which makes most of your
writing misguided and harmful. You are preaching a sanitized,
mythologized gospel, based on the tragedy that the hard-hearted
crucified the Lord.
Craig Maxim
> Craig, I don't really have a great deal of admiration for a person who
> lives simply and gives much of what he has to others. I really admire a
> person who builds in society multiple avenues and traditions for others
> to become prosperous on their own efforts. I admire someone who has
> built a great interconnected empire, from which many, many people draw
> their livelihood, and in addition uses billions of the profits from such
> enterprises to continue to educate others on God's tradition and plan
> for building a world of happiness, peace and love. That is what Rev.
> Moon has done.
Bill Gates has a larger and more inter-connected empire than Moon could ever
hope to amass, and I guarantee you that Gates has given infinitely more to
charitable works than Moon ever will. Maybe Gates is your messiah?
> Someone who "gives" to the poor without having done that, in reality is
> not producing anything, they are giving other people's hard earned
> labor, which they begged from the producer, to other people. In a lot of
> ways such a person is a leech and a parasite.
Jesus was such a parasite then. And it is a shame you have such a childish
and narrow view of life and of the power of God. A single and pure
charitable act, can sometimes touch more hearts and influence more lives
than ANY empire ever could. You are like a little boy, dreaming of respect,
and you admire the people with worldly power, but you do not yet understand
true power. The power that comes from God's love. Jesus, from atop a cross,
as He was dying, looked down and forgave those who were murdering Him. That
one act, has touched and opened more hearts, than any empire ever
constructed by man. It was a single, almost imperceptible act, yet in the
love it portrays, it has been powerful and unforgettable, for countless
generations that have shared what a handful witnessed that day.
> Jesus' gospel is not in opposition to that; you draw your conclusions
> from a life that was cut short by murderous bigots.
Jesus life being cut short or not, would not change the Biblical admonition
that the love of money is the root of all evil, or Jesus' statement that it
is nearly impossible for a rich man to enter Heaven.
> If they had
> understood Jesus, they would never have murdered him. The gospel tells
> us that clearly.
Yep.
> You can't understand that,
Of course I do.
> which makes most of your
> writing misguided and harmful. You are preaching a sanitized,
> mythologized gospel, based on the tragedy that the hard-hearted
> crucified the Lord.
No sir. I am "preaching" the Gospel just as it is, not embellished, not
puffed up, not twisted and conformed to match the Inside Belly Church, or
any other of the gurus Moon followed BEFORE he decided he could be a better
messiah himself. Nope. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the power unto
salvation, just as it is, my friend. It is wonderfully rich, without adding
anything to it. The scriptures in the old testament testified and prophesied
that the messiah would be a stumbling block to his people, and they would
crucify him. Jesus himself taught of his coming death from the earliest
times in his ministry. There was no doubt, whatsoever. All there was, was
Jesus' own timing. He claimed that NO ONE had the power to take His life,
but He laid it down freely, at the hour of his own choosing, as a sacrifice
for many. What love. Thank God He extended that grace to me.