Companion blog for the essay: "UNIFICATIONISM a critique & counterproposal"


"A religion does not need to be interpreted literally
in order to be valuable and taken seriously."
—Anonymous

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Commented on: http://familyfed.org/news-story/man-woman-equality-is-in-love-51017/#comment-10475

Dear sisters and brothers,
How can there be any such thing as "misbegotten children"? With respect, isn't that a misinterpretation of Genesis and the Divine Principle? In the United States of America, we hold this truth to be self evident; "All men are created equal." (and women) Where does that leave room for "misbegotten children"? Isn't the whole notion of "misbegotten children" just a social construct?
Doesn't every part of creation hold both "eternal" and "temporal" aspects? The "fallen" or temporal, the works of time and space, doesn't mean less than, does it? Doesn't "purely begotten children" just mean without "the knowledge of good and evil"? Isn't it really just a point of view problem? Every child is "pure"!

Thank you for considering my questions.

Best regards
Mark

PS

I forgot to say thank you for all your good work and providing this website!