 Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Here's a headline from a NYT story from July 22, 1097:
CRAZED BY EDDYISM, BUTLER A SUICIDE; Clinging to Copy of "Science and Health," He Leaps from a Fourth Floor window. BEATS OFF WIFE AND JUMPS His Delusion Was That His Dog Had a Mind He Controlled and That His Prayer Cured Everything
Here's the link: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C02EED7133EE033A25751C2A9619C946697D6CF
Garey
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:32 AM
|
|
|
|
| Forgive me, I think those were registered member specific links, but I fixed them they should work for anybody now; but if not, just register or search the archives for "True Origin of Christian Science".
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
| Thanks, Zoarean and Garey.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
| Yet another example of the amazing ability of a Christian Scientist to detach themself from reality to the point of not even grieving the loss of their own child to a medically curable disease. This mother loses her seven year old daughter to diphtheria while under the "care" of a practitioner, & then goes on to defend CS by stating that both her daughters had the disease, but only one died! Incredible!
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 8:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Frogs, Anonymous, and All,
It would seem to me that practicing Christian Science would be very difficult and confusing today, as opposed to in the "Good Ole Days" when at least CS was more or less cut and dried. "Radical Reliance" was what was taught until literally a few years ago, when the application to join the mother church was changed so that new members did not have to promise to abstain from seeking medical attention. Now we have the "Neo Christian Science" movement within the church, whereby many members and even practitioners says its OK (apparently)to seek medical help, at least some of the time. Adhering intellectually, rather than actually practicing, MBE's teachings seems to trump all else. To add to the confusion, and the inherent contradictions of this situation, you even have The Mother Church offering health insurance to their employees!!! (Check out their benefits link at http://www.tfccs.com/careers/pdfs/0508benefitsataglance.pdf). While many employees of TMC are non CS, are you going to tell me that all CS ones have not signed up for the plan? This would be like advertising birth control at a teen abstinence conference!!! Talk about mixed messages through actions. I wonder what MBE would think about this?
John
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 1:33 PM
|
|
|
|
zoarean
The NYT article, "True Origin of Christian Science", is interesting. It certainly supports perceptions I have of the origin of Christian Science. Given my conservative nature, however, it presents quite a dilemma to trust the NYT of even 1904. I assume that the Monitor did not reprint it.
Without a generally agreed upon smoking gun perhaps with some legal standing regarding the Quimby origin of Mary Baker Eddy's work, however, much of the Quimby allegations tend to be a red herring enabling diversions from the real issues. I think that even a notarized statement from Mrs. Eddy admitting she copied every bit of her work from Quimby would change little in the minds and arguments of some.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 1:34 PM
|
|
|
|
"Adhering intellectually, rather than actually practicing, MBE's teachings seems to trump all else."
I think this is it in a nutshell! Sometimes I get lost in all the 'culture' talk. Which was the culture? Those well-intentioned folks who attempted to practice according to the instruction of Science and Health in the 1940's, 50's and 60's? Or is those who 'practice' today with healthy doses of new ageism and liberalism? Or was it those who followed her like a guru during her lifetime, who seemed to place enormous emphasis on healing and demonstration, presumably with her instruction and approval?
It seems like today the movement makes a great deal of allowances to smooth over the obvious inability of human beings to prove the nonexistence of matter.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 21, 2008 2:52 PM
|
|
|
|
dawn comes,
Which was the culture?
The problem with Neo Christian Science culture is that while professing Christian Science they openly accept and espouse practices and philosophies that directly contradict the documented teachings of Christian Science.
Discussions on christianscience.com and other Christian Science web sites are quite illuminating. Mary Baker Eddy claimed her teachings as Christian with a Biblical basis. She taught a certain moral code with clear expectations. While I disagree with many of her doctrinal conclusions, I usually tend to believe that Mrs. Eddy believed her work had a Biblical basis.
Christian Science appears to be rapidly abandoning its principles. From smoking, drinking, and drug abuse to acceptance of anti-Biblical and nonmarital sexual practices, Christian Scientists appear to be moving farther and faster from the Christian roots upon which the movement was founded. The culture is overtaking the teachings.
Of course, Christian Science is not the only church faced with that challenge. Don't get me started on how so many of the mainstream churches have also abandoned the Bible for the sake of improving their recruiting opportunities.
I was once recruited by a "church" I consider an even more dangerous and apostate cult than Christian Science. Perhaps thinking I had left Christian Science because of the ban on drinking, the recruiter said they had no such prohibitions and I would be "allowed" to drink. While I was in Christian Science, a group of Methodists tried to entice me to join them talking about the great time they had at a retreat with mixed gender skinny-dipping. That was very confusing. In two significant cases, Pastors suggested to me that the Bible had no relevancy to major decisions they and the church faced.
If Christian Science or any church wants to be free of the Bible, they should first formally adopt that as their doctrine as at least one major body has done. If Neo Christian Scientists believe the Bible and teachings of Christian Science are not relevant, they are free to abandon them, look elsewhere, or form their own organizations. They should not, however, pretend their practice of the prevailing culture represents practice of the actual teachings.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, July 25, 2008 6:01 PM
|
|
|
|
| Do Go Be Man, Do_Go_Be_Man (7/21/2008)
I think that even a notarized statement from Mrs. Eddy admitting she copied every bit of her work from Quimby would change little in the minds and arguments of some.<><True, & conversely, it would change little in my mind if even there were a thousand witnesses to a "Moroni" giving her the words in gold tablet form, for Paul teaches that there can be no "new" gospel even if it should come by way of an angel (Gal. 1:8). Neither new revelations nor "demonstrations" hold water if they lead one away from worshipping Jesus as God & Savior; these have come & gone for many millennia, while God's Word continues witnessing to those who desire real truth. Too, we should not close the door to continued discussion because of hardened attitudes or even invective natures. Lots of "impossible" people have ended up giving their life to Christ- from Apostle Paul to the present day (my dad). Jesus responded to the disciple's question of "Who then can be saved?" with a clear declaration of God's sovereign ability to transform the most stubborn soul- " With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible." I get as frustrated as anyone with the tenaciousness of unbelief, but I must remember I was there as well for many years. We must continue to persevere with them for as long as God continues to grace us with an unspeakable love for their souls. I commend you for your patience with such persons at Christianscience.com. Pray; & press on as long as God leads & enables. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous (7/18/2008)
Nancy:
I was a freshman in 1985 at Principia College — why didn't you mention it by name? — during the crisis, and it was two students, Scott Shadrick and Charlotte Bertleson, and a child of a staff member who died from the measles. That's sloppy research, as was your claim that "Many at the school who did get measles did not die but instead experienced quick or gradual healings using prayer alone, but the implications of even one death viewed as preventable made the public at large critical." At one point at least 100 students were affected by the measles, including a friend of mine who wished to die. And the healings weren't quick, either. Some were quarantined for weeks. Many of us, myself included, got inoculated so we could get off campus for spring break. (I had been inoculated as a child before getting into CS in 1983.)
I well remember that year. It was ten years after I graduated from Prin. We alumni got a letter from the Board that talked for two pages about the wonderful healings and demonstrations of God's love. Buried at the end of the second page was the tersely worded sentence that two students had "passed on".
At that time, I was already struggling with CS. That was the breaking point for me. I withdrew from both TMC and my Class Association.
Ann (C'75)
|
|
|
|