Now's good - byHismercy

[UntoHim]

That's pretty weak, Mr. Drake, even for you.

Since the vicious ad hominem attacks go on "day in and day out" it shouldn't be so hard, now should it?
-

[Ohio]

Christ said to "deny yourself", meaning your evil desires but not to "deny thought". There's a difference. The point isn't to stop thinking but to align our thoughts with the Lord's. Paul speaks about holding every thought captive and making it obedient unto Christ and that those that are born of God's spirit are given a new mind, the mind of Christ. If you empty your mind, you're emptying yourself of Christ. When that happens, believe me, something/someone else will fill that void. Think about Luke 11:25.
Jo S, have you also witnessed Lee's awful exposition of natural affection in action? Lee taught that this "natural" affection damaged believers by "spoiling their offering," imagining that honey in the Old Testament was a type of brotherly love.

Yet Apostle Paul prophecies in II Tim 3.1-5 that Christians in the last days will be "without natural affection." Many of these descriptors have long been evident in those who were LSM's more ardent zealots.

[Ohio]

Ohio,

Your vicious ad hominem attack of charging me with defending Philip Lee is a real time example of the anger and bitterness that creates the toxic atmosphere that caused that sister to leave.

I’m still waiting for one example, one I tell you, where I ever supported Philip Lee.

Drake
That's all you got? You just lost your case.

Take a break, count to ten, and we'll talk more later.

[Drake]

That's pretty weak, Mr. Drake, even for you.

Since the vicious ad hominem attacks go on "day in and day out" it shouldn't be so hard, now should it?
-

No. Not a bit
You asked for one.

I gave you one from today. Fresh off the press.

But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.

A few months ago you, I believe, asked why more current members do not frequent this forum. There is your answer. I believe more current members would come to discuss but for those antics.

Drake

[Jo S]

......moral equivalency..............

.......ad hominem.........

.......non-sequitur.........



Drake, I see you have knowledge of informal fallacies however your application of that knowledge is all wrong.

Informal fallacies are commited in the context of a formal debate.

We're all just regular people here on the forum having a discussion and sharing our personal views. There are no formal debates going on here.

When Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" was he committing a fallacy? No, he was speaking the truth.

Please don't make people here feel guilty for expressing their emotions and make it as if they're being stupid for doing so. Let the Lord sort it all out.

/rant off

[Jo S]

..................

[ZNPaaneah]

No. Not a bit
You asked for one.

I gave you one from today. Fresh off the press.

But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.

A few months ago you, I believe, asked why more current members do not frequent this forum. There is your answer. I believe more current members would come to discuss but for those antics.

Drake

I agree with you that some on this forum see you as being a spokesman for LSM. I don't have enough evidence to make that judgement. You do defend LSM, and Ohio feels that since Philip Lee was the President defending one is defending the other. I don't agree with that, but Ohio has the right to express his opinion without it being called an ad hominem attack.

As for the forum "becoming toxic" I don't think that is fair. If you are going to get down and dirty discussing some ugly nasty business you should expect to get a little mud on you.

I don't know enough about your testimony, but I do know that I for one feel some responsibility. I was very active member of the church, and of LSM for years. I preached the gospel to hundreds, maybe even thousands of people and brought many people into the Local church. I only met Philip once and immediately had the sense that this was a lascivious man. This despite knowing he was WL's son, President of LSM, and in charge of other brothers I did respect like Ray Graver and Benson Phillips.

But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...

(of course you need to fill in the ...)

The reason I disagree with Ohio is because I was in LSM and so were many other saints. We had no idea what was going on in Anaheim even though we drove there with deliveries and even though one of the sisters abused by PL was sent to Houston where I was.

However, for those who did know what was going on I feel they all fell far short of the glory of God when it came to dealing with this, and for some of them I'd go so far as to say they sinned. After studying this issue for awhile I would say that WL sinned in numerous ways, RK & KR sinned in writing the whitewash, EM, and the other puppet elders who replaced JI, etal sinned in pleasing man and protecting a predator. I would say their actions speak louder than any words in despising the little ones abused by PL.

[Ohio]

But part of what makes this forum so toxic are comments just like that . The reason is simple. Ohio is engaging in button pushing. He picks this emotional issue, a clear failing, and then makes a false allegation that I defend the sin. The reason he cannot find one single example of my defending Philip Lee is because there are none. But he knew that when he said it. His objective was to attack and distract. He delights in the practice. His comments indicate anger and bitterness. That is why this forum has become toxic and why that sister left.

Those with a bad temper always blame the other person for "pushing their button."

What makes this forum so valuable is that it gets to the heart of the matter. It strikes the axe at the root. Drake supports a publisher named LSM which foments division around the globe, which brings churches under their legalistic bondage, which has long hidden a corrupt management, and which attacks those who would speak their conscience and shine a light on their unrighteous practices.

True to form, Drake then attacks me for bringing up these facts as so-called "ad hominems," claiming that I cause this forum to be toxic, chasing away current LC members, and accusing him of defending the sins of the former manager of LSM. While I never directly claimed that he defended Philip Lee's many sins, where was he when Philip laid waste many beloved brothers and sisters? How can he condone his silence? By claiming to be "one" with the brothers? By professing ignorance? Remember that, "Inaction in the face of injustice makes a person morally guilty of the injustice."

But here is what the Apostle says (2Cor 6) about actions like his:


What partnership has righteousness with lawlessness?
What fellowship has light with darkness?
What harmony has Christ with Belial?
What par has a believer with an unbeliever?
What agreement has the temple of God with idols?

Paul also says in 2 Tim 2.19, "Let everyone that names the name of the Lord depart from unrighteousness."

[Ohio]

The reason I disagree with Ohio is because I was in LSM and so were many other saints. We had no idea what was going on in Anaheim even though we drove there with deliveries and even though one of the sisters abused by PL was sent to Houston where I was.

Thanks, ZNP, and let me add to your post.

Regarding the quarantines during the "New Way" of the late 80's, my own excuse is ignorance. I know nothing! Because of Titus Chu's loyalties to Witness Lee, the facts of these events were not known or available to me or the brothers around me. He may bear liability, but I have none. In a vacuum of facts, I trusted the leaders around me, who trusted TC, who trusted WL over John Ingalls and many other brothers.

Drake, however, often testifies of his friendships with senior people at LSM. He has been active in the LC's since the mid-70's. He knows many of these Blended people personally. He also bears responsibility for what he was a partner to.

[Ohio]

You guys would know better but it seemed to me like she suddenly recognized I was no longer a part of the program and instantly put this guard up. It's like her natural inclination was to be warm and you know...human but training kicked in to suppress all of that.... Weird and quite frankly sad.

Anyway, let me know your thoughts on that.
Jo S, I can't tell if you are a brother or sister by your name, but if a brother then perhaps she suddenly realized that she needed "distance" from a brother. I can't second guess her thoughts.

Let me tell you my own experience. After 15 years in the program, I concluded that the only person totally safe to trust was Witness Lee. I had seen and heard enough by then not to trust any man completely, but was always taught in so many words that Witness Lee was the only completely faithful Christian on the whole earth today. I was not alone in that conclusion.

Now what does that tell you?

[Jo S]

Jo S, I can't tell if you are a brother or sister by your name, but if a brother then perhaps she suddenly realized that she needed "distance" from a brother. I can't second guess her thoughts.

Let me tell you my own experience. After 15 years in the program, I concluded that the only person totally safe to trust was Witness Lee. I had seen and heard enough by then not to trust any man completely, but was always taught in so many words that Witness Lee was the only completely faithful Christian on the whole earth today. I was not alone in that conclusion.

Now what does that tell you?

I probably should've been more clear. Things weren't like what I described until after I left the fold. That's why I found her reaction so strange. I thought maybe it had something to do with how LC'er are taught to act toward outsiders in the trainings they attend.

[aron]

Let me restate my point: suppose I was a Bible expositor and over the course of 20-odd years I gave several thousand speeches in front of hundreds of people at a time. And never in al those years did anyone ever say, "Brother Aron, maybe your logic is off, here." Not once.

Now, do you think that this is an environment conducive to the exercise of human thought, or one that rather suppresses thought? I'd say, clearly the latter.

Contrast that to Ravi Zacharias who actually welcomes independent human thought.

The LC version of "good order in the church" is not divine - it is culturally-derived.

[Evangelical]

I understand now where the LC's teaching that thinking is bad originated from. It comes from a twisted interpretation of Matthew 16:23.


Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.


So the interpretation here is that Christ is rebuking Peter's human reasoning rather than Satan himself operating through Peter. This view essentially makes "human reason" satanic thus rendering thought evil.


There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm




My question is if human reason is the "adversary to Christ" then what do you use to make your arguments?

Coincidentally Buddhism and other New Age philosophies teach that in order to acheive enlightenment, one needs to "empty the mind". This isn't Christian doctrine.

There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

[Jo S]

Nope. The full saying is

"get out of your mind and into your spirit". You left off the last part "get into your spirit".

It comes from:

Eph 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests.

It also comes from the Scripture where it talks about living and walking in the Spirit.

The focus is always about getting into the Spirit, not "out of the mind". In Eastern religions, it is different, their goal is to get out of their mind to escape reality, pain, suffering etc. Our goal is to enter into the reality of Christ by getting into the Spirit. Big difference.



There is little support for "Satan himself operating through Peter". This view makes Peter, a genuine believer basically into another Judas!

Barnes' Notes on the Bible says:

Get thee behind me, Satan - The word "Satan" literally means "an adversary," or one who opposes us in the accomplishment of our designs.
It is applied to the devil commonly, as the opposer or adversary of man; but there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus meant to apply this term to Peter, as signifying that he was Satan or the devil, or that he used the term in anger. He may have used it in the general sense which the word bore as an adversary or opposer; and the meaning may be, that such sentiments as Peter expressed then were opposed to him and his plans.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-23.htm





There is a big difference between the Eastern religion "empty the mind" in silent meditation. Clearly if we are functioning in the meetings (singing, speaking, talking, moving) our mind cannot be empty.

Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

You should review Lee's teachings before posting, it would save you some embarrassment as you appear to be an opinionated person without much facts to support what you write.

Not even a single "I" in that entire post :D Bless your heart, Evangelical.

[Evangelical]

When Jesus said "Get behind me Satan" to Peter He explained why He said this: "for you mind not the things of God but of Man".

Minding the things of man is also referred to us in Matthew when the Lord tells us not to take care over the things we wear or the things we eat.

In Hebrews we are told that all these people have been kept in bondage through "fear of death". So then this pervasive fear could be the way in which the "spirit of disobedience" is able to have a big influence on the world.

Therefore I think it is unsupportable based on the NT to ascribe every reference of "Satan" to being equivalent to Lucifer. Obviously, the fallen angels are "adversaries" to the Lord, and the serpent in Genesis could now be the "great dragon" in Revelation.

But if we narrow our view to "Satan" being "Lucifer" then we are easy to be deceived by anything, whether thought or deed, that opposes the will of God.

I consider that an accurate appraisal of the idea of Satan in the Bible, and supported by the majority of Christian scholarship.

I believe that Peter's concern for Christ's welfare reminded him of Satan's temptations in the wilderness offering him physical comforts.

[Evangelical]

Not even a single "I" in that entire post :D Bless your heart, Evangelical.

Lord Jesus bless you too Jo S! :D

[Evangelical]

The LC version of "good order in the church" is not divine - it is culturally-derived.

Can't it be both?

For example, the crab cakes and pot stickers are both culturally derived and divine.

[Jo S]

I consider that an accurate appraisal of the idea of Satan in the Bible, and supported by the majority of Christian scholarship.

I believe that Peter's concern for Christ's welfare reminded him of Satan's temptations in the wilderness offering him physical comforts.

Forgive me for being so blunt but you make it sound as if Christ suffered from PTSD. Disillusioned from his experience in the wilderness, he had a flashback and snapped at Peter mistaking him for Satan.

I think Christ knew exactly who he was speaking to.

[Evangelical]

Forgive me for being so blunt but you make it sound as if Christ suffered from PTSD. Disillusioned from his experience in the wilderness had a flashback and snapped at Peter mistaking him for Satan.

I think Christ knew exactly who he was speaking to.

You may be right. However, Christ was prone to angry outbursts when distressed, or hungry, for example, the fig tree...and the money changers in the temple. Not PTSD as such but normal human behavior. If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?

[Jo S]

If Peter was afflicted by Satan or a demon, why did Christ not just cast him out?

Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

[Drake]

Drake, I see you have knowledge of informal fallacies however your application of that knowledge is all wrong.

Informal fallacies are commited in the context of a formal debate.

We're all just regular people here on the forum having a discussion and sharing our personal views. There are no formal debates going on here.

When Jesus called the Pharisees "whitewashed tombs" was he committing a fallacy? No, he was speaking the truth.

Please don't make people here feel guilty for expressing their emotions and make it as if they're being stupid for doing so. Let the Lord sort it all out.

/rant off

Hi Jo S,

A fallacy in argument applies not just to formal debates. They are repeated here too.

Drake

[Drake]

ZNP>But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...”

I’ve done just that but feel no need to repeat it every time Ohio launches an ad hominem attack. He knows. No need to defend his button pushing. Your support will only encourage him to continue his angry and bitter personal attacks fostering the toxic atmosphere in this forum.

A good example of what the sister described.

Drake

[Ohio]

ZNP>But it seems to me instead of accusing Ohio of an ad hominem attack all you need to do is say I completely repudiate the sinful abuse of PL on the saints, but I am not willing to condemn LSM over this because ...”

I’ve done just that but feel no need to repeat it every time Ohio launches an ad hominem attack. He knows. No need to defend his button pushing. Your support will only encourage him to continue his angry and bitter personal attacks fostering the toxic atmosphere in this forum.

A good example of what the sister described.

Drake

Dear Drake, you are imagining things, which is kind of crazy since for 40+ years you have supported a ministry which made its fortune bashing the rest of Christianity. You got a persecution complex or something?

Sorry Drake, but Philip's sin is actually minor to me. By all accounts Lee's boys were not even saved. Apparently they never even met with the church.

The bigger sin was the way his Dad and the Blendeds have long covered for his sins, and then smeared the reputations of all those whose only "crime" was to protect God's people from his many abuses.

And you have long been complicit with that. :rollingeyesfrown:

[Drake]

Dear Drake, you are imagining things, which is kind of crazy since for 40+ years you have supported a ministry which made its fortune bashing the rest of Christianity. You got a persecution complex or something?

Sorry Drake, but Philip's sin is actually minor to me. By all accounts Lee's boys were not even saved. Apparently they never even met with the church.

The bigger sin was the way his Dad and the Blendeds have long covered for his sins, and then smeared the reputations of all those whose only "crime" was to protect God's people from his many abuses.

And you have long been complicit with that. :rollingeyesfrown:

Sorry Ohio, no changing the argument. You accused me of defending Philip Lee. It doesn’t matter whether you think his sin was great or small. You said I defended him.

Cite one example. Else you know what to do.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Probably for the same reason Christ didn't cast him out of the wilderness. Satan had the right to be there as well as having the right to fleetingly operate through a Peter not yet regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.

[Jo S]

The idea of satan having "legal rights" is really unsubstantiated by Scripture.

Satan is a usurper, he takes what he wants by force, he steals, attacks, and overcomes. Satan does not obey the law. He does not do anything legally.

Imagine, if a thief comes into your home, because you left the door unlocked, and the law then gives her a "legal right" to be there because you left the door unlocked. That's what this doctrine of "legal rights for Satan" is like. It not only does not make sense according to any laws of the land, it is not supported by the Bible.

I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".

[Evangelical]

I didn't say anything about it being "legal". We have the right through free will to commit sin but that doesn't make sinning "right".

Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.

[Jo S]

Rights are either moral or legal - the definition of a right is "a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something."

Satan having a "right to be there" implies he was entitled to oppress Peter.

Isn't that like saying a thief has the right to be in your home? A thief has the ability to enter your home, but he does not have the right. Satan had the ability to affect Peter, but he did not have the right.

You missed my point. Free will is the right.

[Ohio]

Sorry Ohio, no changing the argument. You accused me of defending Philip Lee. It doesn’t matter whether you think his sin was great or small. You said I defended him.

Drake, you have defended Philip Lee. Do you understand what it means to be an accomplice to a crime?

[Drake]

Drake, you have defended Philip Lee. Do you understand what it means to be an accomplice to a crime?

Provide the quote where I defended Philip Lee.

You can’t. It doesn’t exist. You know that else you would have plastered it all over already.

Now you are trying to change the argument to some convoluted “accomplice to a crime”..

One quote defending Philip Lee. Let’s see it.No more delays. Post it now.

Drake

[Evangelical]

You missed my point. Free will is the right.

How does Satan's free will prevent Christ from casting him out?

[aron]

the crab cakes and pot stickers are both culturally derived and divine.

You put out spiritual terms like "gaining Christ" and "walking in spirit" then dismiss cultural imperialism with a flippant remark. I can just see them all, coming in the door, to "gain your Christ".

Yes, it's uncomfortable, often, to try to think. We live in a confusing swirl of inputs, and our responses are often not as stable as we'd wish. But there it is. It's preferable to having Big Brother do our thinking for us.

The goal is clarity - to dwell in the light. That involves the mind as well as the heart.

[aron]

Witness Lee does not teach anywhere to "empty the mind". You would not be able to provide any such quote from Lee.

Instead, Lee taught about the mind/soul being subdued by the Spirit and the mind being changed by the Spirit. For example, he wrote a book "THE RULING OF THE SPIRIT OVER THE MIND". He did not write a book "HOW TO EMPTY THE MIND".

I must pass on a warning to you not to remain in your mind. When you exercise your mind, you go back to Babylon; you are not in chapters 21 and 22 of Revelation. Instead, you are in chapters 17 and 18; you are in Babylon. The call from the Lord in Revelation 18:4 is to come out of Babylon—“Come out of her, My people.” This means to come out of your mind. When you get out of your mind, you are out of Babylon. When you get into your spirit, you are in the New Jerusalem enjoying the riches of Christ.

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

[ZNPaaneah]

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?

[Ohio]

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?
Why can't we on this forum call out to those at LSM, "come out of her My people"?

Those who remain in bondage to LSM are remaining in Babylon.

[Evangelical]

If Witness Lee really wanted us to be in spirit, then why did he tell us to leave our mind? Why was he supposedly the only one who could safely use his mind?

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

[Evangelical]

You put out spiritual terms like "gaining Christ" and "walking in spirit" then dismiss cultural imperialism with a flippant remark. I can just see them all, coming in the door, to "gain your Christ".

Yes, it's uncomfortable, often, to try to think. We live in a confusing swirl of inputs, and our responses are often not as stable as we'd wish. But there it is. It's preferable to having Big Brother do our thinking for us.

The goal is clarity - to dwell in the light. That involves the mind as well as the heart.

You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.

[Ohio]

You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.
Didn't Drake teach you what Ad Hominem attacks are?

[Evangelical]

Didn't Drake teach you what Ad Hominem attacks are?

I'm demonstrating why it's important to get out of our mind and into the spirit. Foolishness comes from the mind, so turn to the spirit is the way.

[Ohio]

Provide the quote where I defended Philip Lee.

You can’t. It doesn’t exist. You know that else you would have plastered it all over already.

Now you are trying to change the argument to some convoluted “accomplice to a crime”..

One quote defending Philip Lee. Let’s see it. No more delays. Post it now.

Drake
There you go again! Changing the subject and the context to suit you.

I have long said that you are complicit in the coverup of Philip's sins by your extended relationship with LSM.

You distort this into demanding to see a post where you said so yourself on this forum. Obviously you would not do that. Nobody in their right mind would. "You have the right to remain silent ... "

[Ohio]

I'm demonstrating why it's important to get out of our mind and into the spirit. Foolishness comes from the mind, so turn to the spirit is the way.

If that was so important, would it not be found in scripture some where? Anywhere?

[aron]

Can we all just look at that quote from WL for a moment? "'Come out of her my People' this means to come out of your mind".

Is that not a prime example of how he used typology to mean anything he wanted it to?

And WL used his fallen human mind, not his spirit. Look at any Lee ministry passage - "This means that" and "this proves that". Why can't someone else say, "No that doesn't prove that"?

You sound like an idiot. That's what my mind is saying right now.
Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger. . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

But why the getting out of your mind was repeatedly stressed? (Other than to prevent the listeners to think). Did John write "I was out of my mind, and into my spirit on the Lord's day" in Revelation chapter 1? Whence the Lee formulation other than to suppress (competitive) thought in the listeners? Why was Lee alone capable of thought in the LC?

[Drake]

There you go again! Changing the subject and the context to suit you.

I have long said that you are complicit in the coverup of Philip's sins by your extended relationship with LSM.

You distort this into demanding to see a post where you said so yourself on this forum. Obviously you would not do that. Nobody in their right mind would. "You have the right to remain silent ... "

No. You are reframing your accusation.

You said I defended Philip Lee. Stop twisting the argument. You were specific so be specific in your proof. I don’t need to remain silent. I have been clear. You know that. You are engaging in the button pushing that has created a toxic environment.

Drake

[Ohio]

Hey! Ad hominem attack! Plus, I detect bitterness and anger . . .

The good news is, I don't detect any thwarted ambitions in your post.

Funny. Too funny. :hysterical:

[Jo S]

How does Satan's free will prevent Christ from casting him out?

How does our free will prevent God from stopping our own sinning?

[Jo S]

Funny. Too funny. :hysterical:

I wonder if one day the Lord will show us all the fallacies we've committed in our minds as we've posted here. As long as we didn't type them out we should be ok, right? :D

[Ohio]

I wonder if one day the Lord will show us all the fallacies we've committed in our minds as we've posted here. As long as we didn't type them out we should be ok, right? :D
How about all the fallacies our minds engaged while in the LCM?

And a little humor at times can be helpful!

It's good to get feedback from others. While in the LCM, there was active "encouragement" to accept only the viewpoints from our leaders, which in my case was both WL and TC.

For example, when I entered the LC back in the 70's, Jimmy Carter had just become President. Some of the brothers around me were happy because JC professed to be a Christian. TC on the other hand seemed to hate JC and would publicly mock him calling him "Peanuts" because he was a peanut farmer.

It's amazing how our own views are shaped by others without us even realizing it, or forming our own views. (Please -- no response to politics, it was just an example.)

[UntoHim]

You are engaging in the button pushing that has created a toxic environment.

You got it backwards my friend. If you find the atmosphere here toxic, it is only because of the subject matter that is discussed - the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee - is extremely toxic.

For many former members, the atmosphere in the Local Church became toxic in several ways. For some it became spiritually toxic. For others it became psychologically toxic. For some, especially for a number of women/sisters, it even became physically toxic. For some poor souls, they have experienced catastrophic damage in all of these areas.

One of the reasons this forum was initiated was to give these precious, yet broken and damaged, brothers and sisters a voice. As one of these broken and damaged ones, I realize that our "voice" sometimes expresses itself in a way that some may take as the expression of a "bitter" or "complaining" spirit. All I could tell anyone offended or concerned about this is that they might want to consider what kind of toxic atmosphere we came out of. Also, they may want to take into account the concerns that many of us have for those precious brothers and sisters that remain in that toxic atmosphere.
-

[byHismercy]

As you can see in the quote you gave, the purpose of getting out of the mind is to be in the spirit. "When you get into your spirit...."

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

[least]

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...
Rom 8:6
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Hi byHismercy
The past few hours I've been thinking "are the mind and the spirit mutually exclusive?" I've not thought of it this way until E's post (the post you quoted), even tho for years I have been hearing and reading " get out of your mind, get into your spirit." Or " don't use your mind, use your spirit." Or "don't be in your mind, be in the spirit."

The same bible verse came to mind: For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

There are other verses I'm considering, eg. spirit of the mind, renewing of the mind, ...
-

[Drake]

You got it backwards my friend. If you find the atmosphere here toxic, it is only because of the subject matter that is discussed - the teachings, practices and history of the Local Church of Witness Lee - is extremely toxic.

For many former members, the atmosphere in the Local Church became toxic in several ways. For some it became spiritually toxic. For others it became psychologically toxic. For some, especially for a number of women/sisters, it even became physically toxic. For some poor souls, they have experienced catastrophic damage in all of these areas.

One of the reasons this forum was initiated was to give these precious, yet broken and damaged, brothers and sisters a voice. As one of these broken and damaged ones, I realize that our "voice" sometimes expresses itself in a way that some may take as the expression of a "bitter" or "complaining" spirit. All I could tell anyone offended or concerned about this is that they might want to consider what kind of toxic atmosphere we came out of. Also, they may want to take into account the concerns that many of us have for those precious brothers and sisters that remain in that toxic atmosphere.
-

UntoHim,

I appreciate this response from you. I recognize the difficulty and have said many times that under the same circumstances I do not know how it would have affected me.

However, no matter how a person may have been impacted, it does not entitle them to behave anyway they like in this forum. They cannot run roughshod over others. That is the issue here. One poster in this forum knowingly and willfully accused another of doing something that he knew was not true. Rather than seek to correct his accusation after repeated objections he doubles down and twists the accusation into something else. That creates an environment where rational conversation is out the door. That is toxic. If you think it was toxic in the local churches then everything should be done to set the example here. I hear this moral equivalency argument in here quite often. It reads as an excuse for vengeance and casting off all restraint. Current members then become the object of anger and bitterness.

I am not advocating holding hands and singing kumbaya. I am advocating to disagree on the facts or present ones own view without misrepresenting another brothers viewpoint and then insist on the misrepresentation post after post. It is especially disturbing to me when the misrepresentation is masked with Gods Word. No lover of a God should use His words to mask falsehood and contention.

But look, it’s your forum. If you do not think Drake or others have a place here then I will leave. However, if I stay I will not allow Ohio to define what I believe or redefine what I said.

Thanks
Drake

[A little brother]

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

Amen! I think some LCers have forgotten this after speaking too much "getting out of the mind and be in the spirit". That kind of "life" became a blackhole leading everything to "be in the spirit" but nothing comes out of it, not the love that God wants - And you shall love the Lord your God from your whole heart and from your whole soul and from your whole mind and from your whole strength.

Paul pointed out clearly in Phi 1:9-10 the importance of knowledge and discernment which are matters related to the mind.

9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in full knowledge and all discernment,
10 So that you may approve by testing the things which differ and are more excellent, that you may be pure and without offense unto the day of Christ,

[aron]

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.

[Ohio]

The Little Flock of Nee began as an indigenous reaction to to imposition of Western culture on the Chinese, including particularly the RCC and Protestant ecclesiastical models. The LF was effectively a post-protestant model, embracing that one's history and ideas but attempting to go further.

But I notice that, like the Lutherans and Anglicans before, it shows its originating culture. Lee told us that China was "virgin soil"; my reply, there ain't no such thing. For example, the Acts 15 conference has repeated reference to "much discussion" as the Jewish participants tried to collectively assess God's will concerning their relations with the believing gentiles coming into their midst.

But to Nee in the Little Flock, that wasn't "normal", or normative. It was culturally uncomfortable - what if someone said something 'toxic'? The Western model is willing to risk that in its search for truth.

We don't know the details of the discussion in Acts 15. Probably some of them were racist, or at least culturally biased, and said some things that were better not printed. But they were allowed to discuss, as peers. They were allowed to reason with one another. I don't see anyone telling the other, "Get out of your mind".

"If David then calls him 'Lord', how can he be his son?" Matt 22:45. Jesus taught his disciples to think, to reason, and to discuss. A discussion is a mutual learning experience; it is not a lecture by one expert to a group of acolytes. The 'expert' is Jesus - he knows the Father's house. He has left us his holy spirit, and expects us to follow. I suggest that the "much discussion" model of Acts is worth remembering, here.
Great post here aron putting history in fresh perspective.

I and others completely bought into this "virgin soil" stuff presented by Lee by concluding that perhaps a different culture -- the one from China -- was somehow a "spiritual" culture because it was foreign to our own here in America. Besides Lee told us so. It took a couple decades for this foreign culture paradigm to get exposed by its bad fruit to us native Americans. So its no wonder that the LC's have become so "yellow" over the years.

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

[aron]

I also seemed to have missed the "much discussion" segment of the Acts 15 conference details. Under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In addition to the "much discussion" in v 7 (NIV), look at the decisionmaking process alluded to in verse 22:

"Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men. . ."

It doesn't say that one super-apostle decided something, but that a group of peers decided something together. I've told this story before, but it bears repeating: one of my elders tried to give a conference on one of Witness Lee's books. He was shut down by Anaheim. "Re-speak the latest conference".

Collective decision-making was foreign to this culture. It was top-down fiat.

I spent several years immersed in the LC, and learned first-hand their zeal, their dedication to their cause. But the cause for me is to tell the gospel of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and the forgiveness and eternal life available in his name. The Little Flock/Local Church gave me "truths" like: one apostle per age (an indefensible joke); one church per city (not true if ekklesia means a 'meeting' like the NT shows [see e.g., Acts 19:41]); the "intensified Christ for the degraded church" (doubtful if there were seven lamps of fire already burning before the ark in Moses' vision - "see that you build all things according to the vision given you on the holy mountain"); and "God's economy" (the only time Jesus spoke on 'oikonomeia' it was typically translated stewardship [Luke 16:2], as in 'responsibility', not 'dispensing').

[aron]

the Acts 15 conference . . . under Lee's ministry it was presented to us as "bad James" and thank God Peter woke up from his "Jewish slumber" to hit a home run for our team. We missed the value of "much discussion." It never fit into the "MOTA model." Paul, the first Protestant MOTA, was supposed to give us a word while everyone else obeyed.

In the Acts 15 conference there were 'senior members' like Peter and James. But it doesn't seem that they dominated the discussion, only that they concluded it.

Apparently multiple parties got to speak in Acts 15, and give differing views, then Peter and James got to conclude and vocalize group consensus. In the Little Flock/Local Church model, only the deputy God got to speak, and everyone else had to say, "Amen". Do you see the difference? In the Nee/Lee church model only one person got to speak and the rest had to echo. In the LC if anyone tried actual discussion they were told to "get out of your mind". If they persisted in attempting discussion, they were branded rebels, traitors to the cause and expelled.

And if their 'oracle' made logical errors, like in one place saying that the psalmist portrayed Christ through violent expressions ("this shows Christ defeating Satan") and elsewhere calling the same views "natural" or "fallen", or if the RecV footnote in one place said that the psalmist was blessed and rewarded for his fealty as Christ typified (e.g., Psalm 16, notably cited on Pentecost) while elsewhere footnotes panned the same views because "we all know that nobody can please God" (e.g., Psalm 15, Psalms 17-19), we simply had to say, "Amen", because the oracle had spoken. End of discussion. (or, better put, no discussion). "Get into your spirit, brother!"

Or if their deputy God erred and put his "unspiritual" progeny over the churches, to run roughshod over them, too bad. No commentary allowed, nor discussion. One must "take the cross" or some other pseudo-spiritual phraseology.

These kinds of experiences better fit a "cultural Christianity from the orient" model than the actual experiences shown in the NT.

The LC posits an 'expressed truth' or 'recovered truth' dominating each segment of the narrative, and one protagonist as its prime mover. In Acts 15, for example, Peter is perhaps the mover of the "gentiles can come in the church without restrictions" idea, acquiesced by James.

But we should stress that this idea only arrived at after open group discussion. The idea of one dominant oracular vessel holding one 'truth' per age doesn't fit the NT text nor church history. Only Jesus has such a place in the gospel narrative; none else. Those believe in the resurrection of Jesus find themselves in an assemblage of peers, of fellows, of mutuality, of "considering others as greater than oneself". Only Jesus is the Master.

[Evangelical]

When did the mind and the spirit become mutually exclusive?
Because in scripture, they are not...

Rom 8:6

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

The reason Lee uses the language "get out of.. " is because he relates it to Hebrews 3 and Hebrews 4, describing the three stages of getting out of Egypt, journeying through the wilderness, and getting into the good land. That is all documented in his book "The Kingdom". But people here fail to see that connection and the reason why Lee used the terminology "get out of the mind". Rather than consider the stated and obvious reasons why Lee would use that terminology, they prefer to jump to their own conclusions and blame Lee for teaching Eastern mysticism.

We get out of our mind (flesh/natural) by setting our mind (neutral) on the Spirit. That's what Lee taught. I think Lee used the same word mind with different connotations - one is negative, the other is neutral.

To express this more fully we could say:

We get out of our mind set on the flesh, by setting our mind on the Spirit.

Equivalently, we could say

"We get out of our mind set on the flesh and into a mind set on the Spirit by setting our mind on the Spirit."

More specifically, to break "mind" down into the three parts of will, thoughts and emotions:

"We get out of our natural thoughts and emotions and into spiritual thoughts and emotions by setting our thoughts and emotions on the Spirit."

It is important to note that here the will is used to set the mind on the Spirit, and this results in getting out of our mind set on the flesh. Setting the mind on the Spirit is the focus.

I don't see Lee ever teaching "get out of your mind" for the sake of getting out of the mind, as Eastern religions or drug users might. He always qualifies that with the goal of getting into the Spirit.

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.

[aron]

At least, people should read the book "The Kingdom" before jumping to conclusions about Lee's terminology.

If there is any group getting "out of their mind" in Christianity it is the tongue speakers, pentecostal worshippers who whip themselves into an emotional frenzy using choreography, dance and music, and sometimes mass hypnosis (Benny Hinn and others), drunk in the Spirit and "holy laughter", and Catholic contemplative meditators, not the local churches. Full control of mental faculties are retained before, during and after a church meeting.

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion

[Ohio]

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

Going to Anaheim was literally a "Trip" for most of us from Ohio.

What began for me initially as a focused time to study God's word morphed into shout-reading Lee's footnotes in the Trainings. It was publicly proclaimed that PSRP separated us from poor, poor Christianity. They were right. The more the better. There's nothing about PSRP that even included God's word. Reading banners to start the Trainings was the least of it.

And talk about a charismatic frenzy. Whoever started that practice of praying in small groups during the meetings? Thousands shouting over others in order to hear themselves. At times I felt like crawling into a hole to preserve sanity. Thank God for ear plugs!

[leastofthese]

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dubbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

Aron I agree with most of what you're saying, but I have to jump in because I agree with Drake on a point - I love when that happens! I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16.

I remember discussing speaking in tongues in one home meeting. I personally don't speak in tongues and have never attended a church that promoted it specifically as a practice (so no need to lash out at me Evangelical) but these people so blindly follow Lee that they mark all people who speak in tongues as crazy Pentecostals - they didn't even know any individuals who spoke in tongues to make this judgement (at least most of them). I shared my experience and it was met with silence from the older brothers and sisters in the room - this wasn't part of their morning revival so they didn't have much to contribute. Experiencing the Lord through His Word and His Body is so much sweeter than parroting what some dead dude with a questionable Christian Leadership says.

This is a perfect example of the toxic culture in the LSM churches and why brothers and sisters need to be warned - even today - of WHO they are following and WHAT this ministry really is. This ministry is not the Lord's work to build His one true church, Witness lee was not the great Christian leader of a dispensation. All praise to God that this is not our truth.

[aron]

I heard frequent condemnation of Pentecostals (much like what Evangelical was sharing) and, in that, didn't see arm waiving or jumping during my year visiting with the LSM ministry churches (and attending the December "training") in 2015-16. .

My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

[Evangelical]

I disagree. We were told to get out of our mind, period. No qualifiers. As with most of the Lee corpus, what may have originally related to scripture, however faintly, was dumbed down to the point of caricature, or worse. Shouting slogans became the way "out of our minds".

And we did a lot of jumping and shouting and arm-waving to manufacture an exalted state (at least, my group did. And I saw it in Anaheim too). So don't be so quick to try & distance yourself from pentecostalism. As Drake says, "That wasn't my experience."

And the videos I saw smuggled out of the PRC are even more damning when I consider what role that shouting slogans for hours had in producing ISIS-level craziness. Talk about an emotional frenzy. . . it was pretty clear on the video tape that they were suppressing the mind.

Again, go to the Acts 15 conference for comparison. Did the person who shouted slogans the loudest prevail? No, they had what most of us would call a discussion


The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.

[leastofthese]

My experience is 20 years ago so maybe it's changed, but back then your loyalty to the program, aka "being in spirit" could be assessed by: a) volume; b) sing-song cadence; c) repeating ministry verbatim; and d) rocking back and forth, head rolling, first pumps and karate chops, and hopping up and down. What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

They still practiced pray reading which the brothers demonstrate their connectedness to Witness Lee by the volume of their voice (tongue-cheek). All a dog and pony show to show off for the LSM gang - this according to one Full Timer on the inside. All bark, no Spirit, all talk, no walk. Sad man, sad place. The Pharisees would be jealous. Guy’s like my FT friend tried to shine light, change the culture of Home meetings, but most in the “Church Life” don’t want it. They’re comfortable in the bubble. But there is so much more!

[Drake]

What I saw from the PRC could most accurately be described as screaming. Like, veins-standing-out screaming.

Yikes Aron.

That bears very little resemblance to what a have observed in multiple localities over forty years. Then or now. PRC or elsewhere.

If I had experienced anything close to that description I would have been the driver of your getaway car!

Drake

[JJ]

Yes, it's been toned down quite a bit in recent years, but the longer you go back the sort of behavior aron described was quite common in TLR's California churches. Dick Taylor had a fierce karate chop and shouts! And now he's blended, and toned down quite a bit thank God :)

[Ohio]

Awesome-Karate chops! Man I missed out.

!
You should have seen those awesome Karate chops while fast-forwarding thru the videos.

[Weighingin]

The key thing is not the outward manifestation per se but the cause of that - is it emotional or is it spiritual? Even Jesus jumped up and down with joy on occasion. And for prophets in the Old Testament it was customary to strip naked and their behavior was bizarre.

However in Pentecostalism it is noticeably caused by the drumming rhythms and beats (similar to African tribal frenzy) and the expectation for God to "work a miracle" and the Spirit to "come down". Somehow their experiences are correlated with the quality of the music and sound effects, that without them they would not be able to produce those experiences. In fact Pentecostals are unable to produce these experiences without some kind of worship music playing in the background. This shows that they seek to touch their emotions to gain the Spirit. It's all about creating the "atmosphere". In the local churches the piano players can be more of a distraction to the atmosphere than anything else - there is really little comparison. "Stop playing honky tonk when I'm trying to touch the Spirit".

In contrast a spiritual person can access the Spirit of God through prayer or God's Word, and experience positive emotions, any time, regardless of outward circumstances. This can result in ecstatic behavior but like the Old Testament prophets comes through activity of the Spirit alone and not external stimuli.

To be clear, I don't believe there's a problem with using emotions to touch the Spirit, but the number of Kundalini videos on youtube makes me think it is dangerous if taken too far.
Hi Evangelical
Where are the references to prophets stripping naked and acting strangely? If someone was to do that in front of me, I'd be outta there! Thank you.

[Weighingin]

Yes, it's been toned down quite a bit in recent years, but the longer you go back the sort of behavior aron described was quite common in TLR's California churches. Dick Taylor had a fierce karate chop and shouts! And now he's blended, and toned down quite a bit thank God :)

Around 1982, I was looking at tapes and realized that in the testimonies,,there was a lot of empty shouting, hand waving, etc. These were before the turmoil in 1978. After that, those who remained seem to become more sober. One factor was there was sadness in seeing many leave. Also, I felt troubled at that time that I had lacked discernment. I believe others may have also felt this way.