Talk:Divine Principle

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wolli Kangron vs. Divine Principle

I expected to see a discussion here of whether the title of this article should be Wolli Kangron or Divine Principle. All of the articles in English that I have seen that mention the book call it Divine Principle, which is certainly as it should be. The name in English is Divine Principle (even readers of the 1996 translation Exposition of the Divine Principle usually refer to the book as Divine Principle). This could be confusing given the existence of more than one translation referred to as Divine Principle (a confusion that already existed before the 1996 translation), but this is a confusion that exists in the real world and so is more worthy of comment in the article than pretending the confusion doesn't exist. This article is in English; it seems more logical to me that the title be Divine Principle and the redirect be Wolli Kangron. I am rather new to Wikipaedia, however. Would someone like to explain the contrary view? -Exucmember 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has been almost two months and no one has commented on what seems to me to be an obvious mis-naming of this article. I will move the article to Divine Principle and make Wolli Kangron the redirect if no one responds. -Exucmember 07:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there was no objection here, I moved the page for you. Jonathunder 17:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to neglect this point so long. I've been away. ;-)

Please see my post at the bottom of the page, where I recommence addressing this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work

This article needs a lot more work. I think it should explain the basic tenents set forth in the book. I'll come back to it and add to it as I can. Next time I visit this article, I will place a list of hoped for changes here. Everyguy 07:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations

The quotations added to the article do not appear intended to convey the gist of the text, but rather to highlight certain views in order to reach a particular conclusion. As such, they do not conform to NPOV and so I suggest that we remove them. -Will Beback 05:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Will, I respectfully disagree with your judgement in this case. If you read the DP as a whole, the gist of it is to declare the coming of a new political age under a literal religious "King." It is common knowledge that Unificationists believe, and advocate for, Rev Moon as that King (see "True Love King"). Are not the political statements in the DP very relevant to any student trying to understand the gist? If you read The German Ideology would not the political vision for the future expressed there-in be the gist of it and everything else the rationalization for it? With regards and thanks Marknw 20:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Will, I added the rest of what I put on the Unification Church page also. I would appreciate your opinion on it. Regards Marknw 21:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations, especially long excerpts, do not belong in Wikipedia. Wikiquotes is our sister project created specifically for the purpose. Our job here is to summarize, not quote. As for the theocracy stuff, I agree that it is important but we also need to retain balance. For example, if there are five important points then we shouldn't devote 75% of the article to just one of them. Since it is a major topic, it should probably get an article of its own. Looking over Category:Unification Church, is see that Godism might be a repository, or even Theology of the Unification Church. Otherwise, suitable titles might be "Unification Church views of government" or "Politicial views of the Unification Church".

Thank you Will, I'm a little confused. Every time I tried to summurize the points in the past, a Unificationist would come along and delete my edits saying it was just my POV. I had to resort to the quotes just to make the point without it seeming to be my POV. Any suggestions? Also, my main point is that the political ideology is written into the Divine Principle itself. How can the reader know that if they can't read it for themselves? It is not just the UC "point of view" on politics. The political ideology itself written in the DP is what drives the UC view. Similar to the way the political ideology of Karl Marx or Chairman Mao inform and motivate a communist activist, the political ideology in the DP motivates Unificationists. The point I'm trying to communicate is that the Divine Principle is not just theology, it also contains a theocratic political ideology that Unificationist consider as canon. I may be mistaken, but it is my impression that the UC related organizations spend the vast majority of their resources (Washington Times) and efforts on political activism in the US and all over the world. The reason for it is written into their "holy scripture" the "Divine Principle." Regards and thank you for your help. Marknw 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, I rearranged things a bit. Let me know what you think? Regards Marknw 14:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about a specific book. So comments from Moon given in a different forum that don't addess the book are misplaced. The book is avaiable online, so extended quotes are also unneeded. Links to the quotations in context would be much better. -Will Beback 01:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Will for your suggestions. Could you please address my concern about summurized edits being deleted for being my POV? I can try your suggestion, but I have a feeling it will be deleted shortly as that was my experience before. Rev Moon is the Author of the Divine Principle. Again, my point is that there is a poitical ideology expressed in the Divine Principle. It would very difficult to make my point without talking about Rev. Moon, the Author, or quoting him and the DP. Can you see my point? I am open to suggestions however. I do feel strongly the religious theology POV needs to be balanced with an understanding of the political ideology. Will, could you please elaborate a little more about how we can come up with a working solution? Thank you again, regards Marknw 01:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Will, Just as an expample this segment is entirely from certain religious POV that has the affect being a believer's direct evangelizing witness for Rev Moon.

"presentations of his teachings with biblical, historical and scientific illustrations. Moon gave Eu special instruction regarding the content of these texts and then checked them over meticulously. These efforts resulted in Wolli Hesol (Explanation of the Divine Principle), published in 1957, and Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle), published in 1966. Since then, Wolli Kangron has been the basic text of Moon's teachings. According to its preface, Wolli Kangron expresses universal truth; it inherits and builds upon the core truths which God revealed through the Jewish and Christian scriptures and encompasses the wisdom from the Orient."

To say that the DP is "historical", "scientific", "universal truth", and "revealed by God", is that not pretty heavy duty quoting and POV also?

This other segment is very misleading about the content and sounds like a endorsement:

"The first part deals primarily with theological concepts, such as the nature of God and His creation, the human fall, and others. The second part deals with the process through history by which God continues to work to eliminate the ill effects of the human fall, and restore humankind to the relationship with God that would have existed if the fall had not occurred."

My question is, what is the purpose of this article anyway? Isn't to try to give the reader a quick synopsis of the content of the book? Not just from a believers viewpoint, but also from an attempted neutral point of view?

Regards Marknw 02:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the purpose is to summarize the book and give its context. Short quotations are suitable, but not long ones. Just try to keep the article properly balanced. If anyone removes proper material alert me, another eidtor, or admin. Thanks for your cntributions to Wikipedia. -Will Beback 03:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exucmember Edits

Hello Excumember, I am happy to colaborate with you on this article also. With Regards Marknw 06:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-interpretation of history and the Bible based on numbers?

I thought that the Divine principle re-interpreted the history and the Bible based on numbers. If this is true (I may have misunderstood or misremembered) then please state this in the article. Andries 18:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are somewhat correct in your understanding. Numbers are very important in the Divine Principle, as they are in the Bible - which is why you see a bunch of 3s, 7s, 12s, 21s, and 40s when you read it. However I don't think you could say that the numbers are the main thing. Maybe the best thing to do is check it out yourself. Steve Dufour 08:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallels of History

Is it not appropriate for you to consider putting in the parallels of history, which I believe is one of the very astounding revelations of the Principle? --F345 09:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add a chart? I'd suggest making it vertical (left collumn OTA, right collumn NTA) rather than the tradtional horizontal chart used on the blackboard. You can see excatly how to do tables at Help:Table. -Exucmember 20:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meat in due season

Included in the balanced view of the Divine Principle should be at least the contention of what it really is; in light of the gospel of Christ; added as an alternate theory of what the providential role of Rev. Moon as the "faithful and wise servant" spoken of by Jesus as being put "over" the "house of God" or "de facto ruler over the Church" as over the Pope though he was Korean exactly correspondent to the position that Joseph also was given by Pharoah "over" the "House of Egypt" as over "the kingdom as de facto ruler" though Joseph was a foreigner. The "meat in due season" that this servant then brings forth could then be "seen" in the light of the remarkable though flawed book "Divine Principle" Rev. Moon did produce. we then could actually see if the "profile" Jesus made fits Rev. Moon; as with the "beatings" and so forth along with the "eating and drinking" of those given in marriage and being given: Jesus specifically saying that the children of the resurrection to come would not marry nor be given in marriage. Thus we could "balance" the hypothesis of Rev. Moon being the Messiah or the Lamb with the other hypothesis that he may have to go through a providential course not entirely clear to him until the end: very much like a way to warn him in the "future" that had been "pre-arranged" by God should he begin to err: this is fact being the "sign" long foretold by John appearing in the internal providence as "the greatest in the kingdom of heaven" which is the position of Joshua leading in the children of the 12 tribes of Israel into One Earth and "stopping" Mr. Sun and Mrs. Moon as Joshua once stopped the Sun and the Moon who stood in those positions; the Child in the Name of Christ Jesus that Jesus "lifted up" as "the Head" being the One in the position of the Tabernacle or Lord of the Second Advent that Joshua goes before; not Joshua as the image-identity of the Lord of the Second Advent as Rev. Moon asserts in his book; ( forgetting that Joshua stood in the position of the Messenger as walking before the Priests carrying the Ark; and the Tabernacle as the Body of Christ that is the Temple of God on earth; with the Ark signifying where God "sat" within Christ as being "in him". ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unicorn144 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book and teaching

Let's try to distinguish between the Unification Principle, i.e., the core teachings of the church - and Divine Principle (any of several books which present the core teachings). --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I am proposing that Foundation for the Messiah be merged into this article as:

by its own statement it is one of the "concepts in the Divine Principle" -- so surely belongs here
it has no third-party sources establishing notability independent of DP.

It will also have the advantage of introducing three whole citations to this previously completely unverifiable article. Maybe it'll start a trend. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Completely agree. -Exucmember (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general' it's less work to merge (or at least apply a {merge} tag than to "prod" an article with a deletion tag. Unless you're doing it to get our attention. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prod-tag an article when (i) there is no clear-cut article it should be merged into (as happened far more frequently prior to the creation of List of Unification Church affiliated organizations‎) and/or (ii) the prod-ed article contains no verifiable information to be merged. Of course the prod-tag also has the advantage that it sets a definite deadline (whereas merge-tags can stay in place for months, or even on rare occasions years, without any decision being made). Incidentally, if you think an article that has been prod-tagged should rather be merged, it makes more sense to be WP:BOLD and merge it yourself (particularly if its an article you created) rather than simply replace the prod-tag with a merge-tag. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of third-party sourced material

This article cites third-party sources in its bibliography section, but there is virtually no discussion in the text which draws on them. Such discussion should be added to the article, including both description of what the text says (from any of a large number of sources that are not yet mentioned in the article) as well as criticism. -Exucmember (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject and Object

Merge Subject and object (Divine Principle) per Ed Poor's request -- though nothing in this article other than its name suggests relevance to DP

Maybe we church members have not done a good job explaining the teachings we believe in (and live by). I spent 2 hours today conducting a Hoon Dok study group on the topic of Subject and object. We contrasted it with Cain and Abel, for one thing.

But with copious references like this I don't know how anyone can say it's not relevant to DP. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But with copious references like this I don't know how anyone can say it's not relevant to DP." Very easily. The article did not mention DP even once, and this lengthy reference does not explicitly mention it until near the bottom. How then is the average reader meant to infer a close relationship between this topic & DP? Telepathy? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there the comparison with Marxism? There doesn't appear to be any suggestion (citation) that anyone has suggested any equivalence, so why the "defence before accusation" statements? If there is such suggestion it should be referenced here - else remove the comparison? TheresaWilson (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. As I merely merged the article, rather than being the original author, I cannot tell you with certainty. My impression is that Unificationism to a considerable extent defines itself as an inversion of Marxism/'anti-Marxism', and often does so using heavily Marxist terminology. Whether such terminology/comparisons/etc is actually helpful to the average reader (who is neither a Unificationist nor a Marxist) is also a good question. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This section contains the only reference to Marxism, nowhere is there any reference to anyone comparing the two. It appears to have dropped out of the sky. The two paragraphs:

"The Unification Thought idea of subject and object contrasts markedly with the Marxist idea of thesis and antithesis. Karl Marx posited that progress comes when the latter overcomes or destroys the former. Reverend Moon, on the other hand, asserts that progress comes via the cooperation between the two parties or beings.^{[citation needed]}"

and

"The Marxist analysis asserts that commerce is coercive or corrupt, on the grounds that producers exploit laborers and that the profit they make by selling manufactured products should go entirely to the laborers (see labor theory of value).^{[citation needed]}"

have no relevance without some external reference. TheresaWilson (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<unident>It may not be directly mentioned in DP, but it does crop up now and then in Unificationism -- I can remember a Unificationism-articles-regular insisting that Dialectical materialism was an appropriate 'see also' for the article on some Unificationist or other. If you want more information, I suggest you ask Ed Poor, who wrote both the first and second statement that you are querying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]