The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / Recovery and Health Issues / Christian Science / Latest Posts

RE: Christian Science

Swingdancer — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:57:48 GMT

I share this frustration. I introduced Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

The word translated evil is "ra" and it more closely means calamity, the idea remains in tact. This caused confusion that led to the posting of a question about it and the answers came in, 2 of three so far suggest that the Bible isn't correct. But if you look at Numbers and Deuteronomy the very same God is telling Moses that He would afflict the Mideanites to make the job easy for the Jews and He also told Moses that they were to kill any woman that was not a virgin and to kill all of the boys.

My count of tainted books so far is Genesis, (myth and allegory) Job (allegory) Daniel (allegory) Jonah I would guess is a big?? and now we can add Isaiah to the list. The book of John is wrong because God cannot create flesh let alone become it. If you read Numbers and Deuteronomy we will need to add them to the list because the God of these books also doesn't match the God of CS. Careful how many you remove, eventually there will be none left.

The Bible is either the word of God or it is not. If it is inaccurate we cannot trust it and I say "EAT, DRINK AND BE MERRY FOR TOMMOROW WE DIE"

May God Bless You,

RE: Christian Science

followingHim — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:14:30 GMT

...and the Reverend Mr. Wiggins was a Unitarian minister, by the way! He apparently thought the whole thing was quite a hoot, as he has no theology to define himself or defend anyway. It seems he not only edited her extensively, but wrote lectures and talks. One talk he wrote for her was so well received, she gave it many times, and came to believe that she had written it herself, or so he said, according to Bates. It eventually wound up adapted as a chapter in S&H, but I forget which.

James, I remember approaching my father about the Quimby matter, too--but not as an inquiry. Rather, I was using it as a baseball bat to try to beat him into theological sensibility. Obviously, my efforts failed--spectacularly. But I remember his response. "Son, these matters have been researched and dealt with."

"By whom"?

"By The Mother Church. They know all about them. There's nothing to them." And that was sufficient for him. If there was a "reasonable" response by "reasonable people" he was quite satisfied.

Pity.

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 17:32:04 GMT

Reverend James Wiggin is the editor I think you're talking about.

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:56:38 GMT

I just read about that, there was a minister who helped Mrs. Eddy rewrite S&H to make it more understandable. He never came to believe in it, but he liked Mrs. Eddy, evidently. Can't remember his name. I'll have to look for that first edition online.

Ann

RE: Christian Science

SharonMarie — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 10:27:40 GMT

Square Peg,

Interesting article, thanks for posting it. As far as MBE having a greater command of the language I can pretty well assure you that is not the case. I have a copy of the 1st Edition of S & H and it is an absolute joke. Only when MBE hired a man (and for the life of me right now I can't think of his name, but I have read about him) to edit S & H completely did it turn into the book it finally became. The original edition is written so badly it is laughable. I have also read that the Mother church and the Publishing Society has bought up every copy of that original edition they could get and destroyed them. I don't wonder because it appears to have been written by someone that couldn't put a complete thought together.

There is absolutely no doubt that the entire premise on which her book was written was Quimby's.

Sharon

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:14:08 GMT

Square Peg,
Interesting -- I am just now reading Willa Cather's biography of Mary Baker Eddy, and the Quimby material is heavily quoted also. I took the History of Christian Science at Principia, and read Peel's trilogy that it was based on, but always accepted their claim that MBE was rewriting Quimby's stuff for him, and that's why it sounded the same. But Cather's book quotes Quimby's material that was written before he ever met MBE, which I knew nothing about! It's eye opening (not to mention disturbing!) to read all this information about MBE and the history of the church and religion without the "official" spin. Disturbing, because I can't believe the religion four generations of my family relied on is so flimsy in its foundation. Plus, I was stunned to read how much MBE was involved in Spiritualism AFTER the famous "fall on the ice", considering how much she denounced it in her writings! Anyway, history shows that spiritualistic theories, including spiritual healing, was rampant at that time, evidently even more than New Age thinking is now (in that middle aged well-off ladies were heavily into Spiritualism in the 19th century), and that MBE seems to have been part of that, but took it much farther a la Quimby.

Ann

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 17:13:37 GMT

Interesting article, Square Peg.

RE: Christian Science

Phoenix Rising — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:42:49 GMT

Isabella,

I would like to apologize to you for my strong response to your posts. I DO think you have tried to lay out what you believe in a frank and thoughtful way and you have been even tempered in your responses to others here. Perhaps I could have toned down my words. However, you express many of the frustrating qualities of Christian Scientists, and with most of us here these are people we love who have suffered and maybe died, and who expressed the same thoughts, beliefs and selective intelligence that you do. I have been deeply upset about the needless death and suffering that I have seen and thats why I come here...to talk about it with others who understand my outrage and my frustrations. The things you say here just get me fired up again.

For myself, I can't see the sense in arguing words in the Bible. As you said, words mean different things to different people. But logic is another thing. You obviously are an intelligent woman. That said, can you explain this statement you made early on here about Christian Science healing? "once tried it is proven" How do you figure that? You get a headache, or a stomach ache or the flu and pray and it goes away so Christian Science is proven? Im not sure its wise to say that if *anything* works once its always going to work. And faith healing is practised in many religions. Just flip on the TV. How does a healing PROVE Christian Science?

Another thing you said was "how can you refuse the principle of Christian Science if it proves itself day by day?" Please take some time to read (and think) about the many posts here and the many witnesses to the failure of CS. All of us are here because it wasnt working and people suffered, people died, people lived out their lives with illnesses that just never went away. Please dont brush these people off as not intelligent, not strong in their faith, not class taught, not TRUE followers. That is simply a refusal to see the facts. I have lived among Christian Scientists for 50 years and I have seen bowel cancer not healed, (he went to a hospital on the brink of death and WAS healed there, with surgery) I have seen cerebral palsy not healed, a serious life long hearing disability not healed, broken bones not healed, diabetes not healed (this CSers went blind from that), pancreatic cancer not healed (a practitioner, died..in the hospital) kidney failure not healed (died in the hospital..from too long untreated diabetes), congestive heart failure not healed (was told by the teacher he had nothing serious...suffered for months), decade long prostate problems not healed (until surgery), decades of gout not healed (pills can fix that overnight) and much more. You have read posts in this thread about outbreaks of measles in Prin. 95% of the US population is vaccinated. The only outbreaks you see are among people who dont get vaccinated. Is this Christian Science proving itself day by day? I think not. "How could a Christian Scientist find that it doesnt work?" You tell me. How DO you interpret these failures?

You also said "people dont even try to gain a more spirital understanding of Christian Science" You are deluding yourself if you think that because Christian Scientists dont get healings they are just not smart and studied like you. They ARE. Why dont you consider what other reason there could be?

You mentioned how you were healed of a broken finger in 10 minutes. This is just the kind of testimony that is tossed around everywhere among CSers. Doctors themselves do all kinds of tests before declaring what the problem is, then they treat it. Its really logical and intelligent. Christian Scientists like you will listen to whatever possibilities are bandied about, pick the worst case scenario and then when the problem goes away its a healing of that worst case scenario. I would suggest that you didnt have a broken finger.

Many people go through life with no serious health issues. They live a long life and die peacefully in their sleep. But you are only a true witness to yourself and your immediate surroundings. An intelligent person would apply more than a few logical tests to a doctrine that they would bet their life on. I would not bet my life on a statement that you healed your broken finger, because it was not proven that you broke your finger...it was a guess, a possibility. Thats not logical or intelligent. You know that in court you can not testify to what anyone else said like it is a fact, its hearsay, and cannot be a fact because you heard someone else say it. But CSers bet their lives on hearsay every day. The people you speak of who are all fine are only fine as far as you know. I hope they ARE all fine, but if they are typical CSers they probably dont know they are diabetic until they eventually go blind or have kidney failure. The men are not telling you of their prostate problems, most dont even know what that is...they just cant pee. They probably wear glasses and possibly a hearing aid...they get decay in their teeth, thinning hair, bad breath. I really doubt they are all fine. They suffer from the lesser and greater health issues that we all have over time. You dont enter many CS churches without seeing some big lump on someone face or neck covered with a big bandaid. Some illnesses show, some dont. A real CSer is NOT going to broadcast their health problems to anyone.

Lastly, I dont see how you can give so much credit to MBE, calling her theories "divinely inspired revelation" when Quimby was preaching pretty much the same thing and its common knowlege that she was a follower of his. It would be more correct to say "Quimby inspired" than God inspired.

Quimby worte this in "Concerning the Use of Medicine" written in 1864:

"I am frequently asked if I am opposed to the use of medicine. To this question I answer that as the people are now educated, they believe a lie as a truth and therefore to tell such persons the truth would be to them like telling lies. So I would not destroy the law but fulfill it and wisdom is the end of the law to all who believe. To those who believe in disease there is, according to their belief, neither forgiveness nor cure except through the medium of medicine. But to those who have been born again or who have learned that disease is the result of a belief, disease has no power, and consequently medicine is useless. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all these things shall be added unto you." That is, seek first the science of health which is wisdom, and then all things will appear plain to your understanding."

ahhh that was a catchy little phrase..."science of health" ..... MBE's divine inspiration eh?

Square Peg

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:27:26 GMT

I forgot to mention, it was that time when there was the measles epidemic at Prin that sealed it for me. When I got the letter they sent the alumni, talking about the measles. They buried the announcement that three students had "passed away" in the next to last paragraph on the second page of the letter. I was stunned. Within less than a week, I called the Mother Church and told them to excommunicate me or whatever they do to take your name off their list.

Ann

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:23:06 GMT

I loved my time at Prin. I felt at home, although I always felt everyone else was a "better" CS than I was (read the Lesson more deeply, kept their thoughts on God more). Of course, I also met and fell in love with my husband there, so that made the experience that much more wonderful! But it is a beautiful campus, the classes were small, the people were nice. My aunt lives in St. Louis, so I had family near.

I graduated in 1975. I wanted to keep in touch with friends from there, but only a couple were responsive. My husband (later ex-husband) was much better at keeping in touch. He later taught there in 2002, but that Christmas he collapsed from liver failure, and never went back -- he was under medical care, but fighting it, until he died in 2004.

I left the church after our divorce (because he was gay). I felt I'd followed all the rules, but did not have that happy life I was promised if I was "good enough". I also discovered that my two decades of sinus problems that I had worked and worked in Science to heal would not heal (my nose used to run so badly when I was Second Reader that the First Reader was passing me tissues at the podium!). Then one day I discovered Dristan!!! It cleared it right up. I felt like such a fool, kicking myself all those years for being such a bad CS that I couldn't heal sinus problems, when there was a little pill that would clear it right up. Now I find if I eat right, I don't even need the pills!

I did keep in touch with three or four friends from Prin, but my ex-husband's death has severely strained my relationship with them. Two of them called to say they were sorry, but one seemed offended that our marriage had broken up (she was our maid of honor, and seemed personally offended that she was moh at a marriage that broke up). The other spoke of my ex as having the "belief of a diseased condition" of being gay and needing to Know the Truth, and I spoke very sharply to her about that, since I am very supportive of gay rights and his right to come out and be who he really was. Plus, my sister is also gay, and my niece, so I was not pleased to hear her talk that way.

The third friend and her husband really presented a CS quandary for me. We introduced this couple while at Prin -- the wife and I were roommates, and her later husband and my ex were both Southies. We introduced them and they fell in love and got married a year after graduation. We got engaged at their wedding, and I was maid of honor and my ex was a groomsman. So we had a very close relationship. Well, they came out to the West Coast to visit their son after my ex died, and I got together with them, eager to share old happy memories.

But they refused to talk about him, or even mention his name. When I brought up a good memory, even, they would turn away or change the subject. It was as if they wanted to forget he even existed.

These are 30+ year friendships, and I would like to keep them going just for tradition, but I can't feel the same about them now, with all that CS denial!

Ann

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:47:28 GMT

Christian Science is circular logic that only makes some sense if you accept the original premise, that evil, mortal mind, the material universe, do not exist. Once you realize that premise is flawed, the rest of the system breaks down entirely. Basically, a theory has been put out there, and tested, and failed. I believe matter is temporary, and spirit is eternal, but that is a long way from saying matter does not exist at all. I have heard all the arguments from infancy, the math errors, the visual illusions that the sun appears to circle the earth when we know it is the other way around. But the fact is, we live in the material world, even if it is not our ultimate spiritual reality, and we have to deal with it. To be blamed whenever we are not able to "demonstrate" and heal a material problem is not helpful nor healthy.

I was talking with my sister about all this, and she reminded me of when I was home for vacation from Principia, and she was in high school. She was very sick, and her throat closed up so that she couldn't get food or water down. She lost 20 pounds in two weeks, and was very thin, but of course we had her talking with a practitioner and we had no medical care for her. Finally, she got well, but slowly. We were lucky she didn't have severe dehydration or pneumonia or who knows what.

About two years later, she was traveling and the same symptoms came back. She went to the emergency room, was diagnosed with tonsillitis, and given antibiotics, which cleared the problem up in less than a week, less than half the time the CS "healing" took. I have read a lot of claims that CS heals when medical care fails, but I have not observed that in my life and the lives of people I know both in and out of CS. They struggle and struggle with CS, and then if they go for medical care, the problem is cured.

A philosophy is meant to be discussed and tested and can be followed if it suits you. But this goes beyond philosophy to hold out promises of perfection and healing that are rarely, if ever, fulfilled, and people's lives are affected, negatively. In my opinion, CS should remain a philosophy, not a way to create a demanding and restrictive, and ultimately dangerous, lifestyle.

Ann

RE: Christian Science

Swingdancer — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:20:12 GMT

I have been pondering this question for a while, I have been very busy getting ready for a dance my wife and I were putting on with our dance instructor. What I was looking at was James Chapter 1

13When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

I was listening to RC Sproul talking about the origins of evil on a radio program and while I didn't hear him use the above passage he said that God ordained evil. Strong words that I'm not sure that I totaly agree with but that was where I began my search. It seems to me that evil begins in free will which God created not only in humans but in angels which you can see clearly in Genesis and Job chapter 1. There may be other points that I am missing and I am open to look them up but this what I found and it makes sense to me so far.

The idea of a perfect God that could not make error sounds good to me except as I read in the "Answers article" that the Super Moderator reffered me to I found the same question at the end of each answer! If there is no matter then we must at least have some kind of conciousness that sees the error of our error leaving the question back at the begining and that is, "What is the source of the error?"

May God Bless You,

RE: Christian Science

Gentle Dove — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 15:21:21 GMT

Ann and Al: I saw the post about the origin of error as well on their website. Of course they used the standard: where does the mistake in math come from? What they skip over and never address is that 2+2+5 is a mistake and the whole idea / existence and/or possibility of a mistake had to originate somewhere. IF the way they believe were correct, the possibility of any sort of mistake would not exist and there would not be any need at all for correcting error of any kind. What went wrong so that we even need healings, etc.? They never GET to the answer and once all twisted in their own confusion they just refer you to "The Books".

RE: Christian Science

nomorecs — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:47:46 GMT

Sorry, I keep forgetting to log in. The above message is from me.

Ann

RE: Christian Science

Swingdancer — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:24:21 GMT

Anonymous,

"I think, is that the Truth is the Truth, and even if there had been no Jesus, the Truth would not change."

I have been trying to understand how Truth is established in CS. In orthodox Christianity the Bible is the "Truth" that settles all disputes among believers. In CS is S&H the final authority or the Bible?

May God Bless You,

RE: Christian Science

Temperance — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:46:43 GMT

As an ex-CS, I understand everything that you are trying to say to us. For me now it is all about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus and the personal relationship that I have with him. I don't think that anyone who has encountered the living Christ will ever turn back to MBE and CS.

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 13:18:34 GMT

[quote]Hmmm, I posted an apology and an explanation for Square Peg who was clearly offended by one of my posts in this thread but it hasn't shown up.[/quote]

Like Do Go Be Man, I monitor the forums but can't be on them all the time. Your posts came when I was asleep and then away from my computer all morning. I suspect that you and I are in different time zones which can further complicate things.

[quote]My feeling is that if medicine or some other treatment is going to make life more bearable, then people should go for it. However I almost never do that because my experience has shown me medicine and other treatments based on the belief that matter is real never help me, whereas CS always does.[/quote]

I can see why you prefer Christian Science, and I wish all CSists had your attitude. I know people who have had to step down from teaching CS Sunday School and from other church positions while seeking temporary medical care. While I can understand the logic of this, I can also see why it would make people feel like spiritual failures (and also why these people would delay medical care even when not obtaining a CS healing).

[quote]Actually, my graduate studies have reinforced for me the idea that reading is always an act of interpretation in which the words on the page are understood based on the many other contexts in which the readers have heard or seen those words used. This means that every reader is going to absorb a slightly different message than the one I actually had in mind, and the farther away from my own time and place that reader is, the harder it will be for that reader to construct a meaning that approximates my original meaning. [/quote]

Yes. But interpretations tend to give shades of meaing rather than completely different meanings. I think Mrs. Eddy's interpretation turned the original meanings upside down.

Don't feel pressured to answer this question if it will reveal too much about your identity, but what will your degree be in?

RE: Christian Science

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:57:57 GMT

Anonymous August 24, 2008 @ 12:14:43 PM,

[quote]Hmmm, I posted an apology and an explanation for Square Peg who was clearly offended by one of my posts in this thread but it hasn't shown up. Did the moderators decide what I was saying would be bad to publish or did it just not go through?[/quote]
Though we monitor these forums fairly regularly, the moderators don't automatically approve all messages as soon as they appear of even necessarily as soon as we see them. For example, I use two different methods to monitor the forums, my regular PC and my PDA. With the PDA, I can see messages on a very compact screen. Thus, for longer messages, I often wait until I can read them more clearly on my PC.

Thank you for your apology to Square Peg. The medium of web forums can often distort the actual intent of a message making offense appear where none was intended or enabling new points of view that result in revised opinions.

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Christian Science

zoarean — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:22:13 GMT

Anonymous,

John asks some good questions & I don't want to distract from them except to respond your statement:

"But truly I don't think you will be able to explain it to me in a way that will ever make sense to me, so don't feel you need to keep trying."

I just want to say that it is no trouble for me to "keep trying"; in fact it gives me great joy to discuss the glory of my Redeemer with anyone who will listen; if I win them over, all the better, but understand that my chief pleasure is simply expressing the grandness of the Person of Jesus Christ. To me, it is a form of worship, & I know nothing more enjoyable.

I have more to say, but again I pray that you first consider John's excellent questions.

zoarean

RE: Christian Science

Phoenix Rising — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:35:10 GMT

How very patronizing you are, so typical of the Christian Scientists I know, looking down on everyone else because they supposedly can't really think and because they can't really understand.

Consider this....as much as YOU may have studied the Bible, S&H and MBE's writings there may be tens of tousands of people who have studied all manner of religious writings more than you have...does THAT allow them to have a valid but different belief than you, which they may deem the correct one? Ahhh, but Mary Baker Eddy said that only you guys are the TRUE THINKERS right? No one else can really think clearly at all can they? What you are expressing is elitism. Guess what, your arent smarter than everyone else because you have bought into Christian Science theology, nor are you the only real thinker.

Frankly its sickening to see the bar of "the true faith" raised to include only those of the highest intellect, the most Biblical study, the "true thinkers". This intellectual elitism is one of the trappings of Christian Science that I find extememly repellant but its adherants seem to exult in. Whatever happened to the faith of the grain of a mustard seed that would move a mountain? Anyway, when has the Bible ever been that important to Christian Scientists? There are only a limited number of carefully clipped passages that the lesson sermon repeats over and over. And any good CSer in dire need will not be seen carrying around the Bible, he is clutching Science and Health.

If God provided the Bible to mankind as His word then it ought to help the beggar in need who picks it up and leafs through its pages, whether he is one of MBE's true thinkers or not, whether he has spent a lifetime studying its pages or not. Whats more, you have placed yourself in an inner circle where the bar of faith not only excludes all other Christians, but those in your own religion too, who, after a lifetime of study, still dont fully understand enough to get a healing. Seems to me that there is no better test of faith than these radical reliance Christian Scientists who reject all medical care in the face of painful, dire illnesses and DIE for their belief that a healing will come...THATS FAITH!!!! Unfortunately, its faith in the wrong thing and they died for their mistake.

I wonder that you can even exalt yourself above them, faithful followers of MBE, but who were supposedly not smart enough, or who just could not grasp the true understanding. Many of us here at this site have seen too many Christian Science induced tragedys that could have been avoided. While Im sure you feel wonderful while you are riding your high horse, we really dont want to see you fall off, because it just might be one more needless tragedy.

Square Peg

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:42:18 GMT

Anonymous,

[quote]I understand why someone who does not believe in CS would take issue with the “facts” surrounding MBE’s pivotal healing as you have explained them (I put “facts” in quotes because I still don’t know how much of what is being said here really qualifies as fact, although I do believe you are sincere in giving me your true estimation of the facts as you understand them). [/quote]

I think Mrs. Eddy's attempt to extract damages from the City of Lynn stands on its own, as does her printed statement (in the petition to Lynn, which is available to the public) that she was "still suffering" from the fall many months after its occurrance. And her letter to Mr. Dresser said that she was also suffering two weeks after the fall. Just doesn't sound like an "immediate recovery" to me...

[quote]I can see Jesus, as an idea of the one Mind, being the first and last along with, but not one and the same as, God. I don’t think that means that the CS interpretation contradicts the Bible, although it is definitely a different way of looking at it than do most Bible scholars. Actually, I think a lot of our views on these concepts are a lot closer than they seem on the surface, but I suspect you will not take my word on that.[/quote]

Our views are not at all close. I will say, though, that you do an excellent job of explaining the things I used to believe.:) There's a chasm between us that's hard to imagine unless one has spent time on both sides.

[quote]I am looking forward to finishing my coursework during the next year or less (but then will still have a dissertation to produce– lots to keep me busy!).[/quote]

I suspect that "busy" is an understatement. Hang in there!

RE: Christian Science

zoarean — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 10:37:43 GMT

Anonymous,

Quote:

"So the Son (who lived and demonstrated this) could do nothing of his own accord but, rather, like the reflection in the mirror, reflects the work that God is doing (the reflection as a metaphor is flawed, I think, but I can't think of a better way to explain it right now)."

I'm not sure where you see the flaw in your metaphor, but the flaw I see in it is it does not give Jesus His due. For sake of better illustrating my point, allow me the liberty to expound upon your analogy to say our sun represents the Father (or "God" in your metaphor) & earth's moon represents the Son. The sun would be the only source of light, power, & brilliant magnificence. The moon, while quite the celestial object in its own right, has no power of its own. It would not even be seen in the night sky apart from our sun's brilliance. I believe this would do justice to the Christian Science view. The problem is that, by His own testimony in Scripture, Jesus' glory exudes from Himself as well as the Father. With either illustration, the reflection has no innate luminescent power, & this is where neither metaphor confers upon the Son His proper honor.

Isaiah 9:1-6 But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. (2) The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. (3) You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil. (4) For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. (5) For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. (6) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Jesus is Mighty God in the OT too! And the "great light", the "bright & morning star" (Rev. 22:16) is truly the "Everlasting Father" to all He has given birth to by the power of His blood. He told us in John 3 that we "must be born again", & He later revealed in John 5:21 that He has power to "(give) life to whom He will". So, if it be true that we become "born again" as a "new creation" through Him, He truly is an "Everlasting Father" to our revived soul.

I remember as a kid getting my first telescope at Christmas; the first object in the sky I sought out was a dual star system. I had been reading about it, but after finding it on my star chart, I was disappointed that it only appeared a single star through my dad's binoculars. But I still had faith in what the book had said- that in spite of my limited perception, it was indeed a two star system, yet I had to wait for Christmas to actually see it for what it was.

Likewise, the world also had to wait for the first Christmas to fully perceive the glory of the second star of God.The Father & the Son are very much like a dual star solar system- for they illuminate each other. In John 17:4 & 5, Jesus tells His Father that He has glorified Him on Earth & then goes on to ask His Father: "glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed."

Quote:

"Since we accept God as all good and the only creator..."

I want to speak to this briefly to say we are "creators" in a sense as well. In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalms 82 when He tells the Jews "Is it not written in your law 'I said, you are gods'?" Even most reformers, who completely oppose the entire concept of man that man can save himself from judgment, must allow that man indeed has been granted a measure of free will that is allows him a limited sovereignty to follow his own desires (this does not, by necessity, impinge upon God's complete sovereignty). When God created man, He made us in His "image & likeness", but that does not & cannot mean that God replicated Himself. When He made us, He gave us some godlike abilities- a free will to follow the desires of our own nature- but He most certainly did not create another class of true "Gods"- for only He can be God. Understand, only He has the purity of perfect holiness & righteousness to rightly drive an unlimited sovereignty. Understand, being made in His "image & likeness" clearly does not extend to being made in the likeness of His holiness nor His character (His perfect righteousness). Pride is what drove Adam & Eve to want to eat of the tree of greater knowledge. They put their faith in the maxim that knowledge is power, & their lesser character drove them to greedily desire greater power (sovereignty) than they had been given. Their actions only proved their character to be beneath God's character. It is the same in the heart of man today. Our actions, our sin, prove our lesser character & our desperate need for Jesus Christ's personal holiness & His personal character to cover us. Jesus proved the mettle of His Godly character as He faced every challenge that we face in life- hunger, thirst, & apprehensions of unordained power (His forty days in the desert) & yet never sinned. He suffered tremendous emotional, mental, & physical pain with nothing less than God's own strength of character. Unlike any of us, He knew no sin, so proves our need for Him.

Quote:

"I don’t think they refuse to do so because they want to have fun while they are here on earth and are willing to pay for that fun with an eternity of damnation – I mean even a really flawed, really stupid man would not consider this a good choice if he really knew what it meant. People who don’t make the “right” choice do so because they don’t understand the implications of their choice. It’s like leaving a toddler in the median of a busy freeway and telling him not to walk out into the street."

So as to refrain from my exploring of this topic again, please see my thoughts on free will in this thread. And please accept my apologies for not giving the link to my blog. By the way, I encourage open discussion there as well; all may feel free to give dissenting views in the comment section, for I make no claim to having full understanding all things pertaining to life & Godliness. My only prayer to God in this regard is that I would have all the understanding that I need to know. Though, after further inspection, God often shows me I don't need to know as much as I think I need to know. After closer examination, I sometimes find a lust for knowledge driving my need to understand so many things; I sense God telling me I don't need to understand it all. Some things I want to understand, but God blesses me instead with the greater gift of humility before Him by withholding understanding from me.

Humility & faith must rule where understanding is lacking. I thank God for the times He has blessed with these, leaving me forlorn in understanding, but blessed instead with the greater gifts of a quiet & humble faith in Him & His Word. As Jesus said, we must often come to Him as little children. Children understand very little, but they believe very much. Paul directly addressed the disbelievers in God's particular & sovereign election of His children in Romans 9. He showed your very contention existed in His day as well- "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" & "Will what is molded say to the molder, Why have you made me like this?". God displays the completeness of His Word by responding to our every contention therein. But in this case, if Paul did have understanding to give to us in this regard, he did not see fit to give it. His only response was the humbling "Who are you, O man, to reply back to God?" We must remember that our lesser character makes it difficult, if not impossible, to perceive the ways of the Divine, & there are concepts that are far beyond our limited ability to comprehend. God says in Is. 55: "For (His) ways are not (our) ways & (His) thoughts are not (our) thoughts. For as the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our) ways, & (His) thoughts higher than (our) thoughts."

I honestly believe the Christian Scientist would be far better off if he spent as much time dwelling on Psalm 51 as he does on Psalm 23. The hard truth of Isaiah 59 comes from the same prophet that gave us the comforting truth of Isaiah 40. The book of Romans does not begin with chapter 8; no, the blessed "adoption as sons" is only for those who have accepted the painful realities of the sin nature spelled out in the first seven chapters. The one is not better nor more inspired nor more literal than the other; they both speak truth & we must embrace both equally if we are to truly know the truth that can set us free. In all the thousands of times I've heard John 8:32 quoted from a CSist, I've yet to hear any freely give the full quote: "If you abide in my Word, you are truly my disciples, & you shall know the truth & the truth shall set you free." As they have done with so many other verses, CS parcels a verse to teach the opposite of what is actually being said. Spiritual understanding comes not by "knowing" any human's myopic perception of the Divine, but only by abiding in His Word & allowing God to dictate His own explicit testimony concerning Himself. Only God is a suitable witness of God. We rightly view God & man as we marry the teachings concerning His law & His grace together. One without the other us to causes a great lack in our necessary understanding. Embracing grace without law, or law without grace causes us to continue to sin & fall short of the glory of God.

zoarean

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:46:39 GMT

Anonymous,

[quote]Did she have a relapse or was she suffering in some other way from the fall after this seemingly “miraculous” transformation? I don’t know, but even if that were the case, I don’t see why that has to negate the “falling apple” concept. She said in many places that she did not understand what had happened to her when the healing first occurred, at least not in a way that she could explain or even understand in words, and that it took her years (really, the rest of her long life) to explain it fully and clearly. I think Gill actually gives a pretty good response to your question in her discussion of these events. Explaining and summarizing Mrs. Eddy’s inspiration gained from the healing, Gill first says, “Alone with God and the Bible, the individual can find the resources not just for spiritual illumination but for physical well-being” (168). Then, commenting on this and also the controversy surrounding the “facts” of MBE’s healing, she adds, “This is a very radical message. Why should it surprise us that it took Mary Baker Eddy months and years not just to conceive its general outlines but to learn to rely upon it for herself and to begin formulating it for others?” (168).
[/quote]

I agree that it might take a person years to understand and apply the truths behind a healing such as Mrs. Eddy described. What I take issue with is that, in her autobiography, she made the healing sound immediate and, by implication, permanent. This is in line with what Gill describes as Eddy's "tendency to engage in creative manipulation of the past" (p. 165). If Eddy didn't mean for it to sound "so good," I'm not aware of her trying to put it into perspective for her followers. Indeed, every Christian Scientists I knew growing up thought that she rose from her bed permenently healed. Furthermore, I've read of other instances where she allowed followers to believe outlandish things about her, one example being some of her students' belief that she was the Woman of Revelation 12. According to Nenneman (p.279), she "may not have felt it necessary" to correct this misconception. That's unacceptable me since an honest spiritual leader would not allow her students to exalt her so her if she did not believe it herself -- that's the kind of thing that cult leaders do.

[quote]About Jesus being God, hmmm… [/quote]

I think Zoarean made some good points in his post #14964 (August 10) but I'll add that the Bible calls both God and Jesus [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=alpha+and+omega&x=11&y=11]Alpha and Omega[/url] in the book of Revelation. They can't both be first and last if Jesus isn't God. This and many other verses paint a picture of Jesus being BOTH God the Son and the Son of God.

Take just about any other Chrstian concept (heaven, judgment, what death represents, etc.) and the CS interpretation contradicts the Bible rather than spiritually illuminating it.

On a different note -- I'm glad your end-of-the-semester week went OK. Having lived through several of those, I always empathize with people who are going through them.:)

RE: Christian Science

zoarean — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:06:33 GMT

Anonymous,

Quote:

"A human father and son aren’t one and the same person, but they have the same genes, are made of the same “stuff” so to speak, and, especially when we say one is the equal of the other, have basically the same belief system and values. When a son grows to respect and admire his father, he will tend to adopt similar attitudes, beliefs, and also abilities. The father may even give or get the son a job at his place of employment so they can work alongside each other, although the son will have his own work to do."

We're not too far apart in this understanding, except to say that John 5 makes it clear that the Father & the Son largely have the same work to do. Verse 19- "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." This fact further demonstrates their equality. I am going through these "equality" verses (John 5:17- 47) one by one on my blog at the present time.

Quote:

"In S&H Mrs. Eddy says, “Human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike” (269)."

This second statement is where Mrs Eddy gets off the train of traditional understanding of Scripture to ironically transfer to the "human philosophy" bandwagon. Human nature causes all of us to want to think of ourselves very highly, but God- through Scripture, again brings the message contradictory to our nature- that we are all unworthy sinners continually "fall(ing) short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). In my estimation, there is no area where we could not disagree more with Mrs. Eddy. One message that God firmly establishes, from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22, is the fact that our righteousness is so much less than God's that our righteousness is only comparable to "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). I was raised in CS, & most of my family is still involved; I generally state the rhetorical "Are sin, disease, & death real?" in order to give the voluminous Scriptural evidence that, indeed, they are all real. This is fundamental to truly embracing the necessity of the Person of Jesus Christ as our only Savior. You go on to speak of Him as a mere "example" to mankind; this far underplays the true honor that He is due. Yes, He was an example, but any individual can be this to me. Accepting the Biblical teachings that I am truly a sinner, & God demands judgment for all sin, I am driven to Christ (the Person) as my only hope to avoid the reality of the "second death" (Rev. 21:18). In a sense the second death at least is not a realty, but only to those who embrace Jesus Christ & His sacrifice as substitutionary to the judgment a holy God must give in answer to our sin. Praise God that all judgment has been remanded to Christ, for when I allow Him to become my Savior, my judge & my Savior become one and the same glorious Person. So I avert the dreaded judgment day the Bible warns us is coming.

Quote:

"Perhaps you are looking at the “anointed linguists” as having done this so that others don’t have to? (I have never heard of anointed linguists – are they literally anointed by someone or are you using that term figuratively?)"

I'm simply referring to linguists who don't seem to have to work at learning languages to the degree that most of us do. Seeing the ease at which a William Carey, for instance, readily picked up three distinctly different Indian dialects in the course of living there as a missionary in the 18th century leads me to believe he was anointed (gifted) by God for his task of bringing the Gospel to that nation. After ten years of traveling the country, by simply living & working amongst them, he had truly mastered their languages & was the first person to be able to hand them a Bible in a language they could understand.

zoarean

RE: Christian Science

zoarean — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 09:30:23 GMT

Anonymous,

[quote][b]Anonymous (8/6/2008)[/b][hr]Christian Science teaches there [i]is[/i] a spiritual significance beyond the literal meaning and Christian Science is, essentially, MBE’s understanding of this spiritual significance. Now I can understand people thinking that she got it wrong, that when the Bible talks about the Euphrates River that it should not really be considered a reference to divine Science. But Mrs. Eddy saying that she understands this to be the spiritual significance when she really [i]does[/i] believe this to be the case, even if she is wrong, is not intellectually dishonest. It is only dishonest if she were to say this with the intention of deliberately twisting the author’s meaning. But I don’t think that was her intention. I believe she truly studied, reasoned, and prayed for inspiration in order to come to an understanding of the intended meaning and that what she has in Science and Health does, in fact, represent a divinely inspired revelation. Therefore, her glossary definitions don’t seem at all preposterous to me.[/quote]

Anonymous, I never have an issue with a teacher illustrating "a spiritual significance beyond the literal meaning", but where Christian Science goes wrong is where their "spiritual significance" denies the literal meaning of Scripture. Many great Christian teachers, going back to the Apostles & indeed, Jesus Himself, went beyond the lucid understanding to illuminate some deeper truth. But that deeper truth did not stand in opposition to the overt truth of Scripture. Take for example John 5:20-23:

"For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him."

Now, I imagine the CSist can interpret a "spiritual significance beyond the literal meaning" of this passage, but I see no way that can be done without their interpretation being in contradiction to the literal meaning. I see Jesus cogently revealing Himself as equal to the Father of Heaven as He speaks of His passionate & particular intimacy with the Father of all creation, while I see Mrs. Eddy reducing Jesus to something far less. I see no way to accept both interpretations; one must superimpose the other. Which one is correct? I choose the literal to be the only one worthy of my trust.

I do not suppose to know Mrs Eddy's inclinations as she composed her works, but I do know, from studying her works alongside the Bible, that she practiced gnosis. Certainly Do Go is right that she never "embraced Gnosticism" (despite the many parallels between CS & some derivatives of that belief), but Gnosticism founded its origins, even its name, upon the idea of an esoteric & intuitive revelation of spiritual truth that is defined as gnosis. This philosophy of individually understood truth stands in oppposition to the wider corporate revelation of the Bible as God's standard instruction to mankind whenever the intuitive understanding opposes God's expressed understanding.

Now I understand many may have cause to quibble with that expressed understanding, given the changes in a language over the years. For that reason, I am presently studying Koine Greek to be able to better know the depth of meaning sometimes couched in the original language. But to completely dispense with the literal English based upon an assumption that there is no way for an accurate translation to be made is largely disingenuous- sorry to be blunt- but it is a cop-out. How does international trade work every day without accurate translation? What's the point of diplomacy if we & the Russians can never precisely communicate?

To take such a position is to disparage the lifework of thousands of anointed linguists like Jerome, Wycliffe, & Tyndale. They dedicated their life to the accurate translation of the original texts. Many tarried on into persecution & death as well- such was their conviction regarding the significance of precise translation. It is because of God anointing their ability & desire for their task that we have such confidence today in passages like the one quoted above. I own fifteen English translations of the Bible- each themselves based upon many different Greek & Latin texts; but every one is in agreement with the statement "Whoever does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent Him." The same Greek word for honor- transliterated "timao"- is used in respect to what is due both the Father & the Son. Some may speak to the fact that I have fifteen translations to contend that there are many different interpretations, but this illustrates the opposite point. No scholarly translation disputes the fundamental elements of true Christianity- that sin & judgment are real, & Jesus, from His place as the Chief Judge- alone holds the key to our salvation.

[quote][b]Anonymous (8/6/2008)[/b][hr] Or was I right in the beginning to think that maybe it was better to let it drop…
[/quote]

I greatly appreciate the thoughtful discourse you bring. So much of the internet is simply one party trying to belittle another. Far too often, emotions overwhelm respectful discourse. Though your doctrine is different than my own, your attitude is a breath of fresh air. I pray that I have been the same to you.

zoarean

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 08:07:28 GMT

[quote]I am a PhD student and I teach as well, and this is the last week of summer semester, so I’ve had papers to write, papers to grade, finals to study for, etc., etc… [/quote]

Been there, done that. I hope your week wraps up well!

[quote]when she had the healing of the fall it suddenly started to make a lot more sense,[/quote]

One thing that bothers me about this healing is that, several months later, Mrs. Eddy petitioned the city of Lynn for monetary damages on the grounds that she was still suffering. Her petition states:

"Having suffered much, and still suffering from the effects of that fall, she earnestly petitions your Honor for the recompense of justice in a pecuniary point, so far as that may atone for her injuries and loss." (See Nenneman's Persistent Pilgrim p.86-88 and Gill's Mary Baker Eddy)

How do you feel about Mrs. Eddy later reporting this as an "immediate recovery" and as the "falling apple" that led to her discovery of CS? (Retrospection) There seems to be a giant inconsistency here.

[quote]I find Jesus saying that he is NOT God [/quote]

I used to feel that way too until I looked at Jesus as a total picture. If he had just stood on a hill and announced "I am God incarnate," then his ministry would have been cut very short because the people would have just killed him where he stood. (Actually, at least once the people did recognize his claim to deity and try to kill him on the spot as described in [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:48-59;&version=31;]John 8:48-59[/url] where he said, "I tell you the truth...before Abraham was born, I am!" (per Moses and God) and the Jews, recognizing his claim to deity, picked up stones to stone him.)

Jesus claimed the authority to forgive sins (Mark 2:3-10), and the power over his own death and resurrection ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:17-18&version=9;]John 10:17-18)[/url]. He also alluded to himself as greater than the temple and as Lord of the Sabbath" ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2012%20:6-8;&version=31;]Matt 12:6-8[/url]). Pretty blasphemous stuff if you're not God incarnate.

RE: Christian Science

Do_Go_Be_Man — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 18:25:08 GMT

Anonymous August 6, 2008 @ 5:39:10 PM,

[quote]Interesting Sunday School story Do Go- what did your class's teacher have to say about that?[/quote]
I have no idea what my teacher thought of it, never had the occasion to share it with him. I only shared it here as a cute story about young Christian Scientists and illustration of an earlier time.

[quote]... I'd really like to know, if you think CS has got it so wrong, why you want to help people get back to the "true" CS teachings ...[/quote]
As I have mentioned many times on these forums, I see that Christian Science associated with The Mother Church represents at least two major schools of practice:

[li]Those who try to remain faithful to Mary Baker Eddy's teachings (orthodox)[/li]
[li]Those who actively deviate from Mary Baker Eddy's teachings and are thereby Christian Scientists in name only[/li]
I no longer believe either adequately represents sound Biblical teaching regarding important theological issues. While I have strong issues with Mrs. Eddy's teachings, I believe that the majority of the worst atrocities associated with Christian Science result from its abuse. By my study of her teachings, Mrs. Eddy did not intend anyone to suffer or sacrifice themselves on the altar of Christian Science. There are those who would disagree, but I believe she would be horrified by many of the acts committed in the name of Christian Science shared on this site.

The culture of Christian Science often deviates from Mrs. Eddy's teachings. If someone believes that Christian Science represents what is best for their lives, they should study it and practice it to the best of their ability. Cherry picking through it and mixing it with philosophies taught by Mrs. Eddy as incompatible is not practicing Christian Science. Her teaching did not embrace Gnosticism, what we now call New Age, or exotic religions.

My latest foray onto christianscience.com regards the use of coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, and drugs by Christian Scientists. I thought that would be an easy one. Even the moderator, however, gave a soft non-answer regarding the Christian Science position. I jumped in with what Mrs. Eddy actually taught rather than an expression of personal opinion. I did the same thing in the thread regarding the identity of the serpent in Genesis 3, but that has not yet been approved for public view.

The Mother Church is not alone in its apparent practice of denying its own teachings for the sake of retaining or attracting members. I recall a relevant Christian Science axiom, "stand by Principle and Principle with stand by you". Alexander Hamilton said it a slightly different way, "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything."

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Christian Science

Do_Go_Be_Man — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 13:39:07 GMT

Anonymous August 6, 2008 @ 4:23:41 PM,

[quote]When I read the Bible, I find Jesus saying that he is NOT God (although certainly come from God, God's beloved Son, and all that).[/quote]
The odd thing for me regarding this Jesus is/is not God thing is that I was first taught that Jesus is God in a Christian Science Sunday School. I remember talking with my classmates when I was probably about 6 or 7 years of age about how God managed to squeeze Himself into a human body and where did the rest of Him go when He did. Maybe that's when I was led astray, not 30 years or so later when I began accepting the Bible in context.

Methinks the Christian Science church has changed drastically over the intervening years. As I continue to participate in the christianscience.com discussion forum, I find myself writing some of the only responses consistent with orthodox Christian Science. Imagine the irony of that! Certainly shocks me and I've already threatened to ban myself from these forums if I keep up such aberrant behavior. :)

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Christian Science

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 17:30:09 GMT

Linda,

[quote]The Bible is the story of Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation. It's full of spiritual depth all on its own.[/quote]
Of course you're right that the story of Jesus Christ is from Genesis to Revelation and full of spiritual depth.

From my years in Christian Science and continued exposure to it, I see a danger in being so solely focused on spiritual meaning that we miss or deny the literal meaning. Jesus really did live and die. His life and Resurrection are real and literal.

Unlike for some, it really does make a difference that the Galilean Prophet exists.

Do Go Be Man
<><

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:22:57 GMT

[quote]What is hard for me, as someone without much of a background in the teachings of traditional Christianity, is to understand why others would so quick to assume that there is not a deeper, spiritual significance to these Biblical accounts of physical occurrences.[/quote]

The spiritual meaning behind the physical birth of Jesus Christ is rich on its own and needs no enhancement or further interpretion. God the Son became God incarnate and set in motion a series of events that would culminate in the cross and resurrection. CS has to look for deeper spiritual meanings because is has denied the deity of Jesus and, therefore, cannot comprehend how wonderfully deep and spiritual the birth of Christ is.

The Bible is the story of Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation. It's full of spiritual depth all on its own.:)

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:56:26 GMT

[quote]And the passages below that which are supposed to show that Christ is referred to in terms more appropriate to a physical man don’t really do that for me either. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me to read Luke 2:11 as “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the divine manifestation of God” and John 7:42 as “Hath not the scripture said, That the Truth cometh of the seed of David…” I could go on, but I expect you get my drift...[/quote]

In the context of these passages, "born" and "seed..out of the town of Bethlehem" refer to physical birth, not spirital birth. And in the verses that are listed below these on the web site, the "blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet:19) is a direct comparison of the crucifixion of Jesus to physical sacrifices performed at the Jewish temple. "Christ crucified" (1 Cor 1:23) is another reference to Jesus' physical crucifixion, as is the phrase "that Christ should suffer, and...rise from the dead" in Acts 26:23. I can see how you might substitute "the divine manifestation of God" for "Christ" in the verses you did, but I don't see any way to substitute that phrase for Christ in the latter three verses because they would then say "the blood of the divine manifestation of God," "the divine manifestation of God crucified," and "that the divine manifestation of God should suffer." That's inconsistent with the Christian Science teachings about the divine manifestation of God, which could never bleed or suffer. It makes more sense to let the text say what it really says -- that Christ had physical characteristics and underwent a physical crucifixion and death.

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:17:15 GMT

[quote]Still, I do recognize that I can only decide what is right for me, and that everyone else must do the same. [/quote]

Hi again, Anonymous. I've been thinking about your above comment. I suspect we both agree that there is such a thing as transcendent truth, since that's what I was taught in Christian Science and what I still believe. By transcendent truth I mean something that is a fact whether or not people understand it -- not the relativistic truth that many people talk about today. Some things "are what they are" regardless of what people think about them.

The "truth" about how we came into existence is absolute and transcends the various beliefs that people have about it. So while your statement that "I can only decide what's right for me, and...everyone else must do the same" works for preferences like ice cream flavors, but it can't apply to things like the facts of our existence.

Deeply tied to the truth about our existence are the transcendent truths like who/what God is, the existence (or lack thereof) of heaven and hell, the reality of matter, the identity of Jesus Christ, etc. These things are "what they are" regardless of what people believe about them. So we both can't be right on these issues since we disagree on them. And if we both happen to be wrong, God, Jesus Christ, and the rest of reality will go on being what they are.

The Bible makes is clear that we should know and love Jesus Christ. Mrs. Eddy's interpretation of Jesus Christ doesn't agree with what the Bible says about him, so I had to choose between the Mrs. Eddy's teachings and the Bible.

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:33:58 GMT

Thanks for the clarification.

For me, though, it’s the traditional Christian view that causes me problems.

I understand what you're saying since I used to feel that way too. It's amazing to look back and see how my views have changed.

By the way, the CS and the Bible section of the Christian Way web site is a good place to see some of the differences we're talking about. You may have already seen this, but I thought I'd mention it since I find the comparison interesting.

RE: Christian Science

Linda — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 07:20:08 GMT

Glad to hear you've had such a good experience with CS, Anonymous. I see why you support it so strongly. I loved CS but left when I discovered that Mrs. Eddy's spiritualized definitions for words actually contradict (not illuminate) their original meanings, so the healing issue was secondary for me in my decision.

[quote]She expected CS healers to heal quickly and effectively and certainly did so herself all the time. [/quote]

Can't let you get away with this.:) Mrs. Eddy had at least one recurring health problem during her later years and sometimes required morphine for relief. She also had members of her staff hold "watches" for her as she slept because she often had problems at night, and she held them responsible if she had a bad night (for example, see Dickey's Memoris of Mary Baker Eddy).This indicates that she did not heal "quickly and effectively...all the time." I'm not trying to bash Mrs. Eddy here -- just to set the record straight.

RE: Christian Science

Swingdancer — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 18:38:35 GMT

Hello Isabella,

I have never been a CSist but I did marry one. When I met her she was a Baptist like me and she has just recently rejected the teachings of orthodox Christianity and returned to CS. I have learned alot about CS and its teachings and it could not be further from orthodox Christianity.

I have not been a Christian my whole life. I personally experienced an unexplained healing when a massive bump on my right arm grew over a period of three days suddenly went away while I watched. I was about ten years old at the time I didn't attend any church and the last place I would have looked was God. He may have been the source or maybe it was just my body doing what it was designed to do but either way I have no medical proof of what it was or why it appeared and went away.

I have also seen many healings in New Age metaphysics as well as disaplines such as reflexology aromatherapy and acupuncture but that doesn't mean I'm willing to surrender my faith in Christ Jesus to find a way to twist scriptures and make any of them a Biblical science.

God made His Word simple so that we could understand the basic principals as a child would. We shouldn't and don't have to dig under rocks to locate simple Biblical Truths such as found in John 1:1 (The Word God Became Flesh vs. 14). I don't have to understand how He does it just that it is so, I do however believe that one should seek the answer as to how even if we conclude that we could never do this ourselves. If the Bible offers us the answer we should accept it and stand corrected if we are wrong.

Every one does have their own way to go but the Bible says that there is only one way to God, in John 14:6 Jesus says "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". He is not just a guide that was sent here to be "The Way Shower" but the only path to God the Father.

May God Bless you

Swingdancer

RE: Christian Science

Gentle Dove — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:26:54 GMT

Hi Isabella.

I understand your dismay. I myself use to feel the same way. The unfortunate thing is that by the time you realize that CS is not the "Comforter" it is usually too late. If you read many of these posts, you will see that many of us have lost loved ones who were life long, devoted and loving Christian Scientists. Many suffered terrible pain and died agonizing deaths....all the while holding to their "truths". The tragedy is that who knows how many would be alive today if they had paid attention to their bodies (which we know is not in accord with Christian Science) and had heeded warning signs of disease. One cannot watch these terrible deaths and think..."my, this must be the promise contained in Science and Health!" Furthermore, too many of the "healings" people think they have can only be a remission and resurface with vengence later. The majority of the healings are not medically diagnosed so there is no real way of knowing WHAT the condition truly was. Christian Science is not the only religion that has healing and beautifully answered prayers, although its teachings tend to lead one to believe there is no other answer. One of the most liberating feelings about leaving CS is to realize that it is ok to be in our bodies, on this beautiful earth, and to be free to feel and think AS WE CHOOSE. To think that everything that happens is a result of your thoughts will eventually lead many to unstability. While there is some truth to keeping thoughts pure, you do not have to "THINK" your wholeself out of existence. WE ARE NOT ILLUSIONS! God knew what he was doing and has not made any mistakes by creating me in the form I now appear. We have lessons to learn in this mortal existence and to spend your life trying to "overcome" the belief is a waste of this experience....with all the bad and good. Jesus also knew what he was doing and did not need MBE to improve, clarify, modify, or change any of his life's work. Please read the stories on this website. Do not be afraid to look. Any truly intelligent study involves looking at all points of view and not being afraid anything contrary would be animal magnetism, error, mortal mind or any of the other "scarey" things that keeps Christian Scientists in their blinders. Reasoned, informed decisions are far better than being ruled by the fear of discovering what you don't want to believe or that something bad will happen to you if you dare question or look.

RE: Christian Science

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 12:37:42 GMT

Isabella R.,

Welcome to the Christian Way forums. Thank you for your openness to seeking answers.

[quote]Dear Members of the "Christian Way" Church..[/quote]

Christian Way is not a church. We are former and current CSists who work together to better understand our common backgrounds in CS.

[quote]...how you can refuse the principle of Christian Science if it proves itself day by day?[/quote]

The former CSists on these forums found that CS ultimately did not prove itself in spite of many decades of study and experience. Those of us who found and were found by the real Jesus Christ, found that He does prove Himself every day.

[quote]The mistake is, that people don't even try to gain a more spiritual understanding and test Christian Science.[/quote]

Please pardon my apparent impatience. Nearly every CSist who finds this site claims that the former CSists here did not ever have or somehow lost our understanding of CS. As I recently wrote, none have ever addressed the fact that many of us were class taught, studied CS for decades, some were CS Journal-listed practitioners, some were recognized at the highest levels of the church to have an understanding of CS worth passing on. We tried and gained an understanding of CS that ultimately failed to meet the tests of compliance with God's word and practical application.

Do Go Be Man
<><