Hebrews, chapter 10:
8: When he said above, "Thou hast neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and
offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law),
9: then he added, "Lo, I have come to do thy will." He abolishes the first in order to
establish the second.

Divine Principle and Moon's church calls the act of offering sacrifices to God and Rev. Moon 菟aying indemnity? for your sins. Yes as unbelievable as it sounds, Rev. Moon figured out a way to get thousands of people to cough up their hard earned money and work feverishly in order for them to fulfill their quota of 妬ndemnity conditions?. In one motion Rev. Moon has reintroduced and reestablished the banned practices of the Old Testament days.

Yes, 妬ndemnity conditions? is just another way of saying sacrificial offerings.

My ongoing problem with this whole thing is the fact that Jesus explicitly says in the New Testament that he has paid for the sins of all mankind. That we are to no longer offer sacrifices up to God but rather, we believe in him. Jesus made it very clear that he did not want anyone to continue to offer sacrifices anymore. Yet Moon's Divine Principles reinstates the act of offering up sacrifices and idol worshiping in a very logical and believable way. (LIES)

Even though there are many references in the New Testament proving that sacrificial offerings are not needed for salvation Moon makes sacrificial offerings (disguised as indemnity conditions) a central aspect and requirement of all his followers. What I find interesting is the types of "indemnity conditions" required of each individual are always different and no matter what stage in your life as a member you never cease to have to offer up sacrifices! Moon's favorite "indemnity condition" he seeks from his devotees is none other than, cold hard cash, of course. Other common conditions for devotees that no longer have cash to give are like: "you must move to _______ for ______ time and work on _________ project". Free labor is one of the cornerstones to Moon's success.

One of the things that bother me most is the notion that MONEY can buy your way into heaven and release your ancestors trapped in hell stories that the Moon teaches. There are countless documented examples of this on the net and other locations, even Moon's own speeches. One of my favorites (just to illustrate) are those marble vases that the membership was selling in Japan. They sold them to unsuspecting victim's with the main selling point being "If you do not buy this vase your ancestors will rot in hell and they will all chastise you when you go to meet them there!" Moon made millions (in Japan) on this scheme. But it finally came back to haunt them: Many of the duped Japanese filed a lawsuit against the UC Church and WON. In order to win they of course proved it was illegal, a fraud and that they were misled.

Here is a complete quote from an Internet Usenet post that I feel best articulates offering of sacrifices in the way of indemnity conditions:

"Robroy has pointed out in another thread how Unification Church members who suffer at the hands of Unification Church leaders often take the blame on themselves. They may not think that they personally deserve the mistreatment, but they tend to believe that by enduring the mistreatment without complaint, they are somehow "restoring" somebody else's failure to do something that God wanted. This is the concept of "indemnity" from Divine Principle which gets so widely applied by church members.

The reasoning goes like this. God expects all the sins of mankind to be "restored" in the Last Days. To restore these sins, a conditional offering must be made of some sort. Generally speaking, Unificationists believe that by enduring difficulties for the sake of Moon and the church, they are making a conditional offering that God can use to -- in effect -- compensate for (or "pay indemnity for") these past sins.

This idea completely undercuts the concept of Christian grace. In Christianity, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was in itself a good and sufficient condition for the repayment of mankind's sins, and the only other condition God requires is the faith of the believer.

Not so in Unificationism. The condition of Jesus Christ's sacrifice is seen as an insufficient condition, which "only" restored mankind spiritually, not physically. To get to physical restoration, then, new conditions must be offered. Unificationists believe that these new conditions are the suffering and sacrifice of Unification Church members as they serve the so-called new Messiah.

The problem with this viewpoint is that it reduces God to some kind of insane accountant. All the alleged providential failures of mankind's history are weighed in the balance, and a full and complete payment of
suffering must be made to compensate for them. God, thus, in the Unificationist's view, has not actually forgiven anything at all. He has merely permitted a sort of escape clause for Christians; they aren't forgiven, but they get to be treated as if forgiven after death. Meanwhile, God will fully requite the rest of wretched
humanity for its sins. In Divine Principle, God has forgiven nothing and will hold everyone to account. (This results in Unificationists subconsciously regarding Christians as the spiritual equivalent of welfare bums, who are being given a free ride while everyone else struggles to pay for it.)

Not only is God an insane accountant according to Divine Principle; he is also a sharp-eyed litigator. If God can't get the person responsible for the sin or providential failure to pay directly for their sin, then he will find somebody else who will be required to make the payment instead. Thus God is like a lawyer who, if the defendant is impecunious, draws some other party with deeper pockets into the action by making them a joint defendant, then presses the other party to pay up.

So for example, if a member is mistreated by a church leader, she will believe that God has appointed her to pay for somebody else's sin or providential failure, and therefore she has to cheerfully endure the
mistreatment in order to make this payment. This view of indemnity has two effects. First, this means that even if a church leader treats the members cruelly, it will always be assumed that there is ultimately some good reason for it, so the church leader is never truly punished for long. Moon may remove him for a while, but will soon put him back in some other position of authority. The removal is mere window-dressing.

The second effect is psychological; the member always feels that she has to endure mistreatment without protest, and therefore, on some level, she must have deserved it, or her ancestors deserved it, or her
nation deserved it, or her race deserved it, or whatever. By thinking this way, the cruel behavior of the church leader is never seen as "wrong", plain and simple.

In the final analysis, church members always believe that everything that goes wrong in the church (most notoriously, the Cleophas brutality) is ultimately due to their own failings, and no blame attaches to the church leaders.

By thinking this way, the bizarre doctrine of indemnity robs church members of their capacity to defend themselves against mistreatment. It also robs them of their intelligence; they can no longer think
straightforwardly about mistreatment, but instead have to find some elaborate theological excuse for it; as a result, they no longer think with clarity and often hold contradictory thoughts in their minds without resolving them. It is high time Unificationists abandoned the false doctrine of indemnity. Sincerely, K. Gordon Neufel

"I suggest that the purpose is to undermine a person's confidence in his ability to think and reason. Once you have been convinced that your ability to think and reason are faulty and incomplete, a person can step in and
claim to have perfect thinking, reason, and heart and then take you over. Also, there is no way to verify for yourself whether this person's claims are credible because you already know that you can't reason this kind of think out." B.Taylor