Paralogical reasoning

Paralogical reasoning is the basis of the cult leader's discourse and is intended to convince the adept. A typical example is Annick Lasalmonie, analyzing the Moonist statements88: “Sexual sin is the most serious of all, because it is original sin; Eve was deceived by Lucifer ". First conclusion: "All vows from the beginning of creation are satanic". Second conclusion: "If Jesus had married, could remedy this situation ". We recall the thesis of the Moonists: "Moon is the new messiah". Proposal: Moon, getting married in March 1960 year young, eighteen-year-old girl, Man Malega, he was in the same situation as the first man, Adam, marrying Ewa who was sexually immature at the time of the merger.

This is why you can only become a member of the Moon Church then, when you are the son or daughter of Moon, and kinship is shown by the nature of mortal humanity. Only the wedding of Moon's "son" with one of his "daughters" is tolerated, after the trial period:

So each of you will have seven years for this, to be reunited with my father. So you go back to the seed position in the body of perfect Adam, not yet married. We can see, that the seed comes from the father, an undecided man. The seed is conceived, it must originate in the body of Adam. So far I have fulfilled this role myself.

So Moon doesn't just portray himself as a father, but also as a symbolic bridegroom:

We can be immersed in the marrow of the messiah's bones and we can become the seed of the messiah. Then this pure seed will be sown in the womb of a spouse without sin. Introducing the messiah into the marrow, a woman can become the seed of a messiah without sin. If both parents are sinless, their daughter will be without sin: it is the transformation of the offspring.

The paralogical reasoning of the guru makes it possible to justify all actions. Len's text also reveals his deepest desires. Such paralogics supports numerous sectarian threads. Here, too, it is difficult to distinguish between pathology and simulation; so much does this reasoning justify deception.