 Posted Tuesday, July 17, 2007 7:49 AM
|
|
|
|
Ginny:
'Sorry I didn't get this posted earlier.
My heart goes out to you as I read about your childhood and teenage years. It must have been terrible!
I wonder if it has ever occurred to you, however, that you may have substituted one set of bad practices and illusions for another, as it is so easy to do. I know there are many folks who have gotten on a wrong path truly believing they are following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
For example, Mrs. Eddy says that she takes her teachings from the Bible. In order for Mrs. Eddy to claim this, however, she did one of the most intellectually dishonest things in the annals of the written word.
As you know, she literally changed the meaning of key words in the English dictionary (i.e., she rewrote the English Language). This was done so that when key words are read by CS church members in either the Bible or in Science and Health, they are taken to have their new Christian Science or Metaphysical meanings as defined by Mrs. Eddy, instead of the meanings that are commonly accepted in the English language. (These new definitions are found on page 579-599 of S&H.)
Death is defined in the dictionary as a permanent cessation of all vital functions; the end of life; S& H on p. 584 as “An illusion, the lie of life in matter; the unreal and untrue; the opposite of life”. Flesh in the dictionary is defined as the soft parts of the body of an animal etc.; S& H on page 586 defines it as “An error of physical belief; a supposition that life, substance, and intelligence are in matter; an illusion; a belief that matter has sensation.” Jesus in the dictionary is the Jewish religious leader whose life, death and resurrection as reported by the evangelists are the basis for the Christian message of Salvation-also called Jesus Christ. S&H says on p.589 that Jesus is “The highest human corporeal concept (a concept???) of the divine idea, rebuking and destroying error and bringing a light to man’s immortality.”
In addition, Mrs. Eddy also came up with her own definitions for some well known places on earth. For example, Mrs. Eddy defines the Euphrates River in the Middle East on page 585 of S&H as “Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.”, etc. Jerusalem Is defined on page 589 as “Mortal belief and knowledge obtained from the five corporal senses’ the pride of power and the power of pride; sensuality; envy, oppression, tyranny. Home heaven.”
Now, how does CS explain how Mrs. Eddy came to do such a preposterous thing (namely, to literally rewrite the dictionary and commonly accepted places on the map?) Mrs. Eddy, of course, believed she was the “revelator”, that the truth as she saw it, laid dormant in the bible for 1866 years, until it was revealed to her and published in S&H. She was, in short, divinely inspired by an impersonal God or Divine Mind as she saw it.
But is that good enough? After all, Christians believe the New Testament is divinely inspired, but I’m not aware of any meanings or definitions in the Old Testament that were changed 180 degrees in the New Testament. Now, there are honest disagreements about the interpretations of certain passages, etc among various Christian denominations, Nobody, however, in orthodox Christendom has ever defined a river as “divine science”, etc. instead of a body of water.
Consider what has happened here. If you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words, redefining them at will, you can make the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu scriptures, the Constitution of the United States, or any other historical document or published work mean anything you want it to!!!
If you, Ginny had written a work about real people and utilized words whose definitions are commonly accepted to relate particular events or teachings (as the Apostles did in the New Testament), what right would I or anyone else have to change the meaning of those words to come up with an entirely different series of events or teachings??? (i.e. “we don’t like what this document says or the story it tells, so we’re going to change the meaning of a few key words in that document to come up with a story that we do like.”)
For example, suppose I read one of your CS lectures. Naturally, I don't like the meaning, so I decide to change the definition of key words in your lecture so that the message is more acceptable to me. I still claim, however, that the altered message is exactly what you intended it to be in the first place!
I'm sure you'll agree with me that you wouldn't be very happy with me!
Of course, the above scenarios described are blatantly dishonest. Words mean particular things-words refer to specific things, or people, or events- that’s why we use them. If you don’t like an essay that’s been written by John Doe on a particular subject, write a different one which refutes it. Don’t redefine the words in John’s essay which gives it a new meaning more to your liking, and then have the gall to say that not only is your new version correct, but that after all is what John really intended to get across in the first place. Can you think of anything more disingenuous? But that is what Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science have done.
As a practitioner and CSB, I would like your thoughts and comments on the above, if you are able to respond.
Many thanks.
John
|
|
|
|