Churchwork
07-28-2006, 05:34 AM
The leeists say the 3 aspects of emotion are love, hate and being affected. They probably took this idea from reading "Through it [emotion] we are able to express love or hate and to feel joyful, angry, sad or happy. Any shortage of it will render a man insensitive as wood or stone." (TSM, CFP, Vol. 1, Part 1, Ch. 1, p.36).
There is no mention of the emotion of "desire" on page 36 (TSM, CFP, Vol. 1), but the various aspects of desire are given in some verses under emotion on the following page (p.37).
It would seem to me the leeists erred, by thinking just because it was not included in that sentence then it should not be included as one of the 3 aspects of emotion, so for them love, hate and being affected is how they categorize emotion. The consequence is they are insensitive as wood or stone, possibly. Affection has degrees and types all along the spectrum, not just hate or not just love. Interestingly, the preceding sentence to the one above reads, "The instrument for our likes and dislikes is the faculty of emotion". Likes and dislikes are in fact desires, and desire also includes emotions of aspiring. Desire of emotion is closely linked to desire of the will, but they are different.
Why does CFP use completely different verses than the lsm version? on page 37. Whose was the original? I find it hard to believe Watchman Nee divided emotion into love and hate instead of including these two emotions within affection.
Look at the lsm version: it replaces the sentences above with "emotion is the organ of love, hatred, and sentiments. We can love and hate...". Twice it focuses on love and hate, without mention of likes and dislikes pertaining to desire of emotion. Perhaps likes and dislikes are the same thing to them as sentiments, but if so, where is the emotion of desire given in their version? It is non-existent which makes them insensitive to this emotion like wood or stone. Cults will likely try to curtail your individuality of desires and aspirings. Because such aspects of these emotions are excluded in the lsm cult to control its members, but not in the CFP version, we must conclude the CFP version is the original.
Isnt' that interesting? And why doesn't CFP have this same line in TSM as the lsm version? The lsm version reads, "The soul can hate...These few verses teach us that hatred is a function of the soul" right under their section on emotion of hate category? (p.37). It is non-existent in the CFP version.
Why are different verses being used by both versions? Either CFP owners are sinning, Witness Lee sinned, or they are both sinning? How can we find out what Nee originally wrote? I would be more agreeable with the CFP view, but just the same, what does CFP have to say about it? Can CFP honestly say they produced these verses themselves or copied them from Nee for the translation? I wouldn't dare ask a leeist these questions since I know they would not respond and they hate me for knowing the6 major sins of leeism (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm).
There is no mention of the emotion of "desire" on page 36 (TSM, CFP, Vol. 1), but the various aspects of desire are given in some verses under emotion on the following page (p.37).
It would seem to me the leeists erred, by thinking just because it was not included in that sentence then it should not be included as one of the 3 aspects of emotion, so for them love, hate and being affected is how they categorize emotion. The consequence is they are insensitive as wood or stone, possibly. Affection has degrees and types all along the spectrum, not just hate or not just love. Interestingly, the preceding sentence to the one above reads, "The instrument for our likes and dislikes is the faculty of emotion". Likes and dislikes are in fact desires, and desire also includes emotions of aspiring. Desire of emotion is closely linked to desire of the will, but they are different.
Why does CFP use completely different verses than the lsm version? on page 37. Whose was the original? I find it hard to believe Watchman Nee divided emotion into love and hate instead of including these two emotions within affection.
Look at the lsm version: it replaces the sentences above with "emotion is the organ of love, hatred, and sentiments. We can love and hate...". Twice it focuses on love and hate, without mention of likes and dislikes pertaining to desire of emotion. Perhaps likes and dislikes are the same thing to them as sentiments, but if so, where is the emotion of desire given in their version? It is non-existent which makes them insensitive to this emotion like wood or stone. Cults will likely try to curtail your individuality of desires and aspirings. Because such aspects of these emotions are excluded in the lsm cult to control its members, but not in the CFP version, we must conclude the CFP version is the original.
Isnt' that interesting? And why doesn't CFP have this same line in TSM as the lsm version? The lsm version reads, "The soul can hate...These few verses teach us that hatred is a function of the soul" right under their section on emotion of hate category? (p.37). It is non-existent in the CFP version.
Why are different verses being used by both versions? Either CFP owners are sinning, Witness Lee sinned, or they are both sinning? How can we find out what Nee originally wrote? I would be more agreeable with the CFP view, but just the same, what does CFP have to say about it? Can CFP honestly say they produced these verses themselves or copied them from Nee for the translation? I wouldn't dare ask a leeist these questions since I know they would not respond and they hate me for knowing the6 major sins of leeism (http://www3.telus.net/trbrooks/lsmlccult.htm).