The Christian Way Forums / The Christian Way Forums / Doctrinal and Bible Related Issues

Beliefnet Article

Gentle Dove — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 11:08:16 GMT

I found this interesting article about Christian Science on Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/220/story_22057_1.html

If you cannot love an eternal torment god

rodgertutt — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:22:55 GMT

If you cannot love an eternal torment god

For the first 500 years after Christ, universalism was the prevailing doctrine believed and taught by the Christian church.

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml

Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years

The author, J.W. Hanson wrote “The purpose of this book is to present some of the evidence of the prevalence in the early centuries of the Christian church, of the doctrine of the final holiness of all mankind. The author believes that the following pages show that Universal Restitution was the faith of the early Christians for at least the First Five Hundred Years of the Christian era. He has aimed to present irrefragable proofs that the doctrine of Universal Salvation was the prevalent sentiment of the primitive Christian church.

The salient statements and facts in all which will be found in these pages show that the most and ablest of the early fathers found the deliverance of all mankind from sin and sorrow specifically revealed in the Christian Scriptures.” And they were using the Bible in its original language. This online book also explains why and how this changed.

Up until now, after reading this post, many believers in eternal torment have said something like, “I truly sympathize with your sufferings, but it’s what the Bible says that matters, not whether or not it makes you suffer.” That’s why I want to say right at the outset that many of the links posted here show that a correctly (literally, not interpretively) translated Bible actually teaches universal salvation, not eternal torment, or even annihilation.

I’m 69 years old. The idea that God lets anyone suffer forever has caused me more suffering, including a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78, than all the other sufferings of my life combined.

This suffering was caused by the fear produced by not being able to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever and wondering what this god would do to me for not being able to love him. Even though I was and am trusting for my salvation in what Jesus accomplished by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of His cross, I was, and still am unable to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever. Here are testimonies similar to mine.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.html

http://greater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/consequences.html

If you are like me and cannot love a god who would let anyone suffer forever, you can copy and paste (if necessary) the following urls into the address bar and find out that a literally (not interpretively) translated Bible actually teaches universal salvation, not even annihilation.

THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD

If necessary, copy and paste the following urls into the address bar.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm

At the top and bottom of that same THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD page, there is the following link to fourteen other writings in the same series that are related to this same subject.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm

Don’t kid yourself. If anyone suffers forever JESUS IS DOING IT TO THEM

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm

THE GOD THAT CALVINIST AND ARMINIAN ETERNAL TORMENTORS PROFESS TO LOVE

The eternal torment theology of the Arminian Christian relies on so-called “free will” and luck.

The god that Arminian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

“Unless you are lucky enough to find out about my son during this lifetime, and even if you are that lucky, if you don’t have the good sense to cooperate with my son properly before you die, then I am going to raise you from the dead and I will sustain you alive in an inescapable state of eternal torment forever.”

The eternal torment theology of the Calvinist Christian relies on God alone, not “free will” at all. It is summed up by the word TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the elect.

The god that Calvinistic eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures

"I created most of you for the purpose of torturing you forever. However, I am going to choose a few of you undeserving ones to go to heaven where you will be happy forever." John Calvin said there will be infants a span long in hell because they were not among the elect. (A span is the distance between the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger.)

And then both the Arminian and Calvinistic eternal tormentors say that the feelings that they have for this god of theirs is “love.”

To read a description of eternal torment combination Calv-Arminianism see

ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE IN JESUS CHRIST – Charles Slagle
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Absolute-Assurance-in-Jesus-Christ.html

This next url sums up the end result of all three

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm

Without God’s sustaining power everyone would cease to exist.
So if anyone were to suffer forever, our all-powerful God (Who is Love in essence, not just loving) would be fully 100% responsible for it. We would have to conclude that any definition of the manifestation of “love-in-essence” includes eternally sustaining people alive in an inescapable state of suffering. What a travesty; what a revolting definition of love it is that God, Who is love personified, would grant any creature a will so strong that they can choose themselves into an irreversible state of never ending suffering!

Thank God the Bible does not teach such an insane idea!

Here is what the God that universal transformationists love and worship with complete abandon will do. He will complete the process of salvation for the first fruits of election, (the remnant chosen by grace), after the first resurrection. Then He will complete the process of salvation for the non-elect after the great white throne judgment. For some, it will include an experience in the lake of fire.

Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to guarantee that any necessary "kolasis aionian" (age-during corrective chastisement) will be 100% effective in changing wrong attitudes. All acts of sin have been forgiven for everyone. Attitudes cannot be forgiven. Attitudes must change. This is what the lake of fire which is the second death will do. It will last no longer than God sees is good for everyone involved.

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/TheLakeOfFire-Eby.html

You can Google up good articles on this subject by typing in kolasis aionian

Also see

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm

For anyone who cannot love an endless-hell god ---
BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST RESOURCES

Copy and paste the following urls into the address bar

http://www.christian-universalism.com/links.html

http://www.christianuniversalist.org

Also see

Information, and frequently asked questions in support of a correctly (literally, not interpretively) translated Bible teaching universal salvation,

http://www.tentmaker.org/bloglinks.htm

http://www.tentmaker.org/sitemap.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html

(If necessary, copy and paste them into your address bar)

and they will learn that the Bible actually teaches universal salvation instead, not even annihilation.

Or, they will go to the search engine at the top of http://www.tentmaker.org and will type in a key word or phrase from any argument or scripture passage. Ten articles will come up refuting the claim that the Bible teaches eternal torment or annihilation. Then they may click to the next page and ten more articles will come up, and so on and so on for many pages.

The many entries in my guestbook that is accessed towards the bottom of my front page at http://greater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/

and the many entries at http://www.tentmaker.org/visitorcomments.htm
show just how much this information is helping people.

Also see http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.html

This was the information that enabled me to recover from a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78, and it gives me great joy to keep learning that it is helping more and more other people too!! I’m 69

I am also going to guide you to the testimony of a man whose experience was almost identical to mine. Even the thought processes that took him into, through, and out of his breakdown are the same as mine. His name is Charles Slagle.

He answers the question, "Which view of salvation is true?"

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Absolute-Assurance-in-Jesus-Christ.html

MBE & Jesus- a Question...

zoarean — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:55:48 GMT

In relation to a recent anonymous commenter's discussion on the incongruity of CS & logic, I would like feedback from all (current & former CSists alike) on what has always seemed an extremely tenuous relationship- MBE's view of suffering & death as M.A.M. while she embraces Jesus as the complete fulfillment of the "Christ idea." I mean, how could He be the perfect "reflection" of the spiritual idea, if He went around constantly insisting that He must both suffer & die? (ie-"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer & on the third day rise from the dead." Luke 24:46) Why did He insist repeatably in John 6 that we must "eat His flesh & drink His blood?' How was this not wholly just "mortal mind" thinking?

zoarean

Is Jesus Christ?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 21:03:04 GMT

A thread entitled, "[url=http://christianscience.com/forums/showthread.php?t=166]Is Jesus Christ?[/url]", on a Christian Science discussion forum site received some attention from the moderators. One of the moderators stepped in saying, in part, "...everyone, please take a deep breath and a step back and bear in mind that there are lots of perspectives out there ... the moderators won’t allow debate about who’s right and who’s wrong."

I echo, share, and respect their request, "Thanks for continuing in a spirit of goodwill and respect." Linda and I have had to make similar requests here from time to time. While the Christian Science moderators appear to prefer to limit the discussion to the Christian Science perspective, contributors here may appreciate the opportunity to continue examining the Christian Science and Biblical perspectives.

The discussion began asking about the Christian Science perspective regarding whether Jesus is Christ. The thread, however, also included questions and responses regarding the Biblical perspective.

Out of respect for the Christian Science moderator's request, I did not respond to a post that included the statement, "Jesus was Christ, and so are we all. Jesus just knew it and exemplified it best." I was about to ask where the Bible or even Science & Health supports such an assertion.

Do Go Be Man
<><

God and His people -- Love, judgment, a balance?

Linda — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:28:06 GMT

This thread follows up on a discusison started in the thread entitled [url=http://www.christianway.org/forums/Topic14674-11-1.aspx]New to Forum....Inzane99[/url]. The following comments were made:

Linda: [quote][Mary Baker Eddy] also limits God by only acknowledging His "Love" side while ignoring His justice, His hatred of sin, etc. [/quote]

Rosebud3: [quote] I am having a lot of trouble in my home because my husband is using God's hatred and justice, as you call it, as a way to continue verbal and mental abuse of myself and my daughter. Hardly anyone meets his standard and he is full of hate and violence , he says , but this is okay because he's saved etc. or God loves him and he is righteous and that's the kind of person he is. If God is like him and what he describes I would be happy to go to Hell. I've been living with first physical abuse, then divorce, now mental abuse after remarriage. I can't stand "his God". [/quote]

As Do Go Be Man and I said in the other thread, your husband is misrepresenting God. God doesn't hate sinners; he hates sin. The proof? Jesus died on the cross "while we were still sinners." ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=5&verse=8&version=31&context=verse]Romans 5:8[/url]) He loved us so much that he took the punishment we deserve for our sins and gave us a way to have a relationship with him despite the fact that we can never live up to his standards of holiness. So he is a God of love even while he is a God of justice; he maintians a perfect balance between the two.

God wants his followers to hate sin but to love and support each other. Believers are described in the Bible as "the body of Christ," and each is each given specific gifts and talents that keep the church healthy and work for the good of everyone. ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2012%20:4-21;&version=31;]Romans 12:4-21[/url]) Paul compares the body of Christ to a human body, where each part has a function which is important to the rest of the body (toes are not elbows, but each is important to the body and needs to be healthy for the good of the whole body.) Believers are instructed to live in unity, being "completely humble and gentle...patient, bearing with one another in love." (see [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Eph%204:2-3;&version=31;]Ephesians 4:2-3[/url])

Paul tells the Ephesians to "submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." And when he specifically tells wives to submit to their husbands, he also tells husbands to love their wives "just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" -- in other words, the husband is to love his wife sacrificially and as his own body. (see [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%205:21-%2033;&version=31;]Ephesians 5:21-33[/url]). Without getting into the whole "submit to husbands" issue here, my point is that believers are to submit to each other (for each other's good) and husbands are to cherish and nurture their wives.

The Bible does address some cases of Church discipline toward its members, as when Paul told the Corinthians that they should not associate with people who claim to be Christians but who are sexually immoral, greedy, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, or swindlers. ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%205:9-11;&version=31;]1 Cor 5:9-11[/url]) The context is that a church member was having sex with his father's wife, and the church members at Corinth didn't seem to have a problem with this. Paul made the point that immorality within the church would spread and damage it. But in his next letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructs them not to punish someone too severely but to, "forgive and comfort" the person after administering the church's discipline ([url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Cor%203:4-11;&version=31;]2 Corinthians 3:4-11[/url]).

Rosebud3, I don't see your husband's style of "Christianity" in the Bible.

Is death real?

Linda — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:47:59 GMT

A previous post made the statement:

[quote]Since God is eternal Life itself, to Him/Her there is no death. Your uncle can feel this love just as much now as anytime previous to his passing. [/quote]

The above statement agrees with CS beliefs, but it disagrees with the Bible. I'll start with a statement from Hebrews:

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%209:27-28;&version=31;]Hebrews 9:27-28[/url] (emphasis added)

Whose Dream are You?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Wed, 07 May 2008 20:05:51 GMT

If you search S&H at www.spirituality.com, you will find 58 entries including:

"Mortal existence is a dream of pain and pleasure in matter, a dream of sin, sickness, and death; and it is like the dream we have in sleep, in which every one recognizes his condition to be wholly a state of mind. In both the waking and the sleeping dream, the dreamer thinks that his body is material and the suffering is in that body." (S&H S&H 188:11-17)

"Mortal body and mind are one, and that one is called man; but a mortal is not man, for man is immortal. A mortal may be weary or pained, enjoy or suffer, according to the dream he entertains in sleep. When that dream vanishes, the mortal finds himself experiencing none of these dream-sensations. To the observer, the body lies listless, undisturbed, and sensationless, and the mind seems to be absent.

"Now I ask, Is there any more reality in the waking dream of mortal existence than in the sleeping dream? There cannot be, since whatever appears to be a mortal man is a mortal dream. Take away the mortal mind, and matter has no more sense as a man than it has as a tree. But the spiritual, real man is immortal." (S&H 250:14-27)

"The parent of all human discord was the Adam-dream, the deep sleep, in which originated the delusion that life and intelligence proceeded from and passed into matter. This pantheistic error, or so-called serpent, insists still upon the opposite of Truth, saying, "Ye shall be as gods;" that is, I will make error as real and eternal as Truth." (S&H 306:32-307:6)

MBE considered mortal existence as a dream. With the exception of references to the Adam-dream, however, she left us guessing about whose dream we believe ourselves to be. She also left us in the dark regarding how we interact with one another and, for that matter, how we could study material media such as S&H.

So, whose dream are you? Who must be awakened for you to be free of your illusion of mortal existence? Are we a collective or individual dream?

Do Go Be Man
<><

Mary Ann or Ginger?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Mon, 05 May 2008 08:13:42 GMT

One of the defining questions of my generation is Mary Ann or Ginger (referring to Gilligan's Island)? Defining questions for me as a former CSist include Jesus Christ or MBE? The Bible or S&H? There are those who would claim the choices are not mutually exclusive. This topic is intended to explore whether they are. The choice between Mary Ann and Ginger is obvious to me (Mary Ann), but other choices may not be so obvious to others.

A watchful Christian Scientist wrote in the Resources » Polio: An American Story thread (May 5, 2008 @ 2:21:37 AM):

[quote]...What Christian Science church, or any other church or organization, wouldn't defend itself again such attacks?...

...It's never the truth that Mary Baker Eddy gave us that fails us. As you must certainly well remember from your upbringing, it's our lack of our own understand of our unbroken relationship to God that fails us. Maybe you can take a little time to reflect on some of those truths you learned in your own upbringing...[/quote]

I absolutely agree that we should not be surprised when a church, organization, or person defends itself from attack. The core of your message, however, illustrates significant reasons why I abandoned CS.

From the perspective of having studied CS for more than 30 years including class instruction, I developed the understanding that CS represents fundamental departures from God's word. For one, I came to understand that Jesus Christ brought us the truth that sets us free. MBE documented and taught her understanding of what she alleges to have found in the Bible.

MBE ordained as pastors of the Christian Science church the Bible and S&H. Her writings declare that the Bible is the foundation of Christian Science, that S&H "corroborates and explains" the Bible. Her explanations, however, often fail to corroborate Biblical truth. For example, she cites the popular 19th century claim regarding the thousands of errors in the Bible to substantiate and defend the need to develop "spiritual" definitions of Biblical teachings. We've discussed the mathematical implications of those claims elsewhere.

According to MBE, the Bible is flawed and key concepts do not depend upon the truthfulness of Scripture. Yet, she claims the flawed work as her foundation. Like the man who built his house upon sand, CS has questional integrity. Of course, there are those who would claim extra-Scriptural shoring up of MBE's foundation.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Second Coming

SharonMarie — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:15:51 GMT

During a Bible study, our Pastor asked me what CS has to say about the second coming of Christ. To the best of my recollection at this point, CS is supposed to BE the second coming, can someone confirm that belief for me?

Sharon

Healing -- what did Jesus require?

Linda — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 16:51:12 GMT

A Christian Scientist recently made the following statement to some former Christian Scientists:

"I just had a wonderful healing by applying the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy. Do you people heal the sick as Jesus required?"

A friend of mine responded to the CSist and shared his response with me. I am posting it below with his permission:

Dear [name removed]. Thanks for writing. You ask a very good question. I hope you will consider the following points in response....

1. Although Jesus did heal the sick because this was a prophecy of the Messiah (Matthew 11:5), and Jesus several times gave his disciples the power to heal, I am not aware of anywhere in the Bible where Jesus required all of his followers to focus their ministry primarily upon healing the sick. Instead, Jesus emphasized a concern about destruction of the soul far above healing illnesses that might destroy the body:

"And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)

"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:28)'

2. On this point, Mrs. Eddy quotes the first half of John 14:12 in Science and Health, and I'm sure you are familiar with this portion of the verse: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also..." This is quoted on the walls of some churches. However, Mrs. Eddy does not mention (and I've yet to see a church wall that mentions) the last half of this verse --"and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." Jesus raised people from the dead, but are Christian Scientists doing a greater healing work than raising people from the dead? Obviously not. Only a healing of the soul can be greater than the physical healings that Jesus did — and this is what he instructed His followers to do.

3. A point that always concerned me during the 25 years I was in Christian Science (even though I obviously never mentioned it to anyone at the time) were the instances in which I failed, and others failed, in seeking healing. Surely you have had physical problems or other challenges that were not fully resolved through Christian Science. If not, I'm sure your church has people with glasses, hearing aids, dental work, surgery, and the like which testify to their inability to find a healing in certain areas of their life. Why does healing fail? Mrs Eddy said this should not happen -- "If the student adheres strictly to the teachings of Christian Science and ventures not to break its rules, he cannot fail of success in healing." (Science & Health 448: 26-28) — but yet failures of healing are all around.

4. There are of course some healings in Christian Science. This is what kept me going in the church for 25 years. However, when I left the church, I found an amazing thing — the healings continued. Repeatedly, over and over, I have experienced illness and injury from which I have recovered. Just recently I had a seemingly debilitating pain in my knee that simply went away after a couple of weeks of taking it easy. Sometimes I seek medical care, but more often that not the restorative powers of my body simply get better over time. For 25 years, I attributed these "healings" to Christian Science, but I now know that I was wrong. Many times, bad things (including illness and injury) simply get better over time. It happens to everyone.

5. Even if you can't recall a failed healing, and even if you believe that you've had some truly miraculous and otherwise unexplainable healing, surely you must recognize that one day healing will fail you. Hebrews 9:27 puts it plainly — "it is appointed unto men once to die." This is the penalty for our sin (Romans 6:23 — "the wages of sin is death"). Because of this, Jesus taught concern over the destruction of your soul far above physical problems or the need for physical healing."

The point is that, while the body can never attain a permanent healing, the soul can -- and Jesus was more concerned for our souls than for our bodies. As my friend pointed out, the "greater works" that Jesus talked about must have referred to healing our souls rather than to healing our bodies.

When Charles Burke's grandmother, a practitioner, died a terrible death, Charles realized that Christian Science does not heal the soul, which is all that really matters. His story is on the Christian Way web site at http://www.christianway.org/Personal%20Stories/testimony%20of%20Chrarle%20Burke.htm. It's worth reading.

Father-Mother God. CS Trinity?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 19:00:59 GMT

[i]Father-Mother God,
Loving me,--
Guard me when I sleep;
Guide my little feet
Up to Thee.[/i] (Mis 400:13-25)

Those of us who grew up in CS likely had this poem by MBE inscribed on a plaque over our beds. Something on the radio this afternoon caught my ear and reminded me of it.

I bring it up because I got to thinking about how this probably earliest memory of CS teaching may differ from or be alike to Father-Son-Holy Ghost, you now, that pesky Trinity thing. Earlier discussions seemed to indicate that CS does not support the concept of the multiple persons of God. Even the idea of the Seven Synonyms being the CS Septinity didn't seem to work. This prayer, however, represents some issues in my clouded thinking and understanding. My apologies if anyone considers me disrespectful. I'm struggling to make clear what once seemed so clear. It's possible that [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:13-35;&version=47;]Luke 24:13-35[/url] offers some insight on my altered state of clarity.

MBE says in S&H (332:4) that Father-Mother is the name for Deity. Does she mean that God and Deity are the same? What about what God told Moses in [url=http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%203:14;&version=47;]Exodus 3:14[/url]? Maybe God has a bunch of names including I AM, LORD, and Jehovah then some he didn't share during Biblical times. Did He give up His Biblical names?

Sorry, I got confused for a moment. Back up. MBE did teach the triune nature of God.

[i]Life, Truth, and Love constitute the triune Person called God,--that is, the triply divine Principle, Love. They represent a trinity in unity, three in one,--the same in essence, though multiform in office: God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter. These three express in divine Science the threefold, essential nature of the infinite. They also indicate the divine Principle of scientific being, the intelligent relation of God to man and the universe.
[/i] S&H 331:26-3

Okay, so. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not the Trinity. Life, Truth, and Love are the triune, triply, trinity, three. But then she seems to backtrack into a bit more familiar territory setting up the threefold nature of the infinite being - God (Father-Mother), Christ (Son), and Science (Holy Comforter). Seems somewhat fuzzy like through one of those glasses darkly, but I do see a three theme.

Guess I should just quit while I'm behind. My head seems to hurt. Oops. Old habits. My head hurts.

Happy Easter to all. He is Risen!

Do Go Be Man
<><

CSist Answers Required Please

jesusmyhealer — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:03:26 GMT

Could a CSist answer some questions for me please to help me understand a few things? It can be Yes or No answers.

1. Did Jesus Christ come in a real body?

2. Is Jesus the son of God?

3. Was Jesus Christ revealed as God's Son by Baptism in water and by shedding his blood on the cross?

4. Has the day of the Lord already begun?

I would love a response.

Thanks!

What's Wrong With Christian Science?

slugbiscuit — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 19:20:48 GMT

I'm not going to sugar coat this at all. To start with, Christian Science finds it's source in ignorant and superstitious philosophies (pantheism, gnosticism, etc.) which Paul, in the Bible, warned us against. Christian Science teaching leads it's students to believe that, once learned, they become a power unto themselves for the glory of Mary Baker Eddy and the C.S. church. There was NEVER a time, in all the time that I attended the Christian Science church while growing up, when a word of glory was given to God, or a petition made in the name of Jesus (John 16:23). I never heard anyone at a Wednesday night testimonial give thanks to Jesus Christ for their healing - NEVER - they thank Mary Baker Eddy and Christian Science for their healing. They thank the practitioner, and the practitioner says, "I healed them". Christian Science places glory and power on the wrong shoulders. Mrs.Eddy, herself, has been quoted as saying, SHE was not able to overcome the belief in something, or mesmerism had broken down HER every defense, and her students were POWERLESS to treat against it. Her power ,if indeed she had any, was the power of THIS world. The Bible teaches us to rest in the Lord - to rely on Gods' strength and not our own - that man does not triumph by his own strength, but by the strength and the grace, the mercy and the will, the love and the might of the all-mighty God. Jesus said, "I am the vine and you are the branches....apart from me you can do nothing". Mrs. Eddys' own failures condemn her as a false teacher.

If one were to commit to following another persons' interpretation of the Bible, it would be advisable to find out as much about this person as possible - their credentials, where they studied theology, etc. - along with a close scrutiny of their life, to see how these things stack up under the microscope. Jesus said, "you will know a person by their fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit". On close examination of Mrs. Eddy's "tree", we find that she had the arrogance to find fault with Jesus: "Had the Master utterly conquered the belief of life in matter, He would not have felt their infirmities" (Science and Health - 1875 - pg.130). "Had wisdom characterized all His sayings, He would not have prophesied His own death and thereby hastened it or caused it" (miscellaneous writings - 1897 - pp 83&84). "The idea given of God this time is higher, clearer, and more permanent than the one given eighteen centuries ago (letter from Mrs.Eddy to student). With this last statement, Mrs.Eddy exalts herself above Jesus. The Christian Science Journal added to this by saying, "a woman perceived the nothingness of matter, though Jesus did not, and she was able to interpret the feminine idea of God, which is essentially higher than the masculine, because it was the last and therefore God's best idea. That's nice....the last time someone wanted to exalt themselves above God...was Satan!!

The 1943 Christian Science doctrinal position states: "We believe Mary Baker Eddy represents the second coming of Christ" (contrary to every prophesy of Jesus concerning himself). It further states, "We believe her to be the 'Woman of the Apocalypse' referred to in Revelation Chapter 12. Mrs.Eddy, and also the cult called 'Shakerism', believed this woman in Revelation to be the 'Feminine Principle of Deity' - in other words - essentially - God.

As to Mrs.Eddy's being, at least, God sent: we know that in her early days as a teacher in the BUSINESS of healing, she was quoted as saying, "So long as a student believes in a personal God and the response to prayer, they cannot progress in the scientific religion". She could not overcome it! Even to the most haphazard observer, this would infer some sort of unholy alliance in her corner - and why should that surprise anyone? Mrs.Eddy associated with Spiritualists during the time she was writing Science and Health. She attended se'ances - often times serving as 'Medium'. Sworn testimonies (Mary Ellis Bartlett & Mrs. Richard Hazeltine) have her channeling spirits from the dead, through her body - a practice strictly forbidden by God, in the Bible.

Mrs.Eddy's own followers accused her of violent emotional outbursts, hypocrisy, love of money, and having an obsession with malicious mesmerism (spelled paranoia). In all, she was known to be vindictive, arrogant, traitorous, egotistical, hypocritical, selfish, power-hungry, tyrannical, obsessive, blasphemous and above all else, cold, calculating and shrewd. The Apostle Paul states, "The sinful nature produces idolatry, participation in demonic activities, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, divisions, the feeling that everyone is wrong except those in your own little group.... let me tell you again as I have before, anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God".

To those who would not be surprised to find Mary Baker Eddy in Heaven, I would say - if so - she probably wouldn't be hard to find. She'd be sitting at the same table as Hitler, Stallin, and Mussolini (I'm being facetious)...but, of course, those guys were mere school boys compared to Mrs.Eddy. They only killed the body, where as she (whether knowingly or unknowingly) partnered with the Devil to rob countless masses of people their opportunity of having eternal life with Christ Jesus in Heaven. A kindly, benevolent "Mother" trying to help mankind? I think NOT - far from it! She was trying to help herself to money, glory, and power.

Mary Baker Eddy and the Christian Science Church attempt to cheapen Christianity by making a philosophy and a business out of it - a series of "tricks to healing" based on baloney - boxed and wrapped for a price! Jesus healed in response to FAITH because He had Authority to heal - life itself, found it's source within Him. Jesus healed because He had compassion on the people. His main mission was NOT to show us the "trick to healing". Jesus came to give His life, a ransom, for our sins - so we could find salvation through Him and only Him.

Jesus told his disciples, "Follow me and I will teach you how to catch men". Satan, the great deceiver, also knows how to catch men - and 'healing' makes attractive bait. The same power used by Pharaoh's magicians to replicate (to a lesser degree) the miracles God did through His servant Moses, is the one and same power wielded by Mrs.Eddy to heal - knowing full well, that converts are made through healing. Healings that support a false gospel are not from God - they are from the Prince of THIS world - Satan!

Make no mistake - Mrs. Eddy, with all her insane vernacular, is the enemy of all that is Christian. When you see the REAL Mrs.Eddy - the person behind the teaching, and see her for who she was, what she said and what she did - you find nothing but a pathetic phoney, who stole her philosophies from Quimby, Hegel and Leiber. She teaches that portions of the Bible are LIES, she ignores Jesus' prophesies about Himself - only to exalt herself in his place. Clearly, her actions and words do not stand up to Biblical scrutiny. Her writings are not those that anyone should give any credence to - and Mary Baker Eddy is not the person anyone would want to hinge their eternity on.

Forgiveness

slugbiscuit — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:51:53 GMT

Just wondering...no one ever said we needed to forgive Judas for betraying Jesus, so I was wondering if we, who are former Christian Scientists, need to forgive Mrs. Eddy for all the grief her doctrine has caused us ....not to mention the countless numbers she has led away from the truth to die in their sins. Do we forgive her - or place her in the same catagory as Judas or for that matter...Satan? Forgive, so that our Heavenly Father will forgive us our sins...or does it apply to one who is directly opposed to Gods word?

"Jesus never said he was God" - A Response

Linda — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:13:43 GMT

I've heard CSists make the statement that Jesus never said he was God (in fact, I used to say that myself). I'm providing a link to a nine minute YouTube presentation that addresses the issue. The presentation is a response to Muslims, but I think it's a good response to anyone who doesn't believe in the deity of Jesus.

Here's the link to [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVI_TMBggLs]Islamic Arguments #1[/url], presented by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

The Writings of a Bunch of Men

Do_Go_Be_Man — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:24:26 GMT

Linda wrote 1/3/2008 @ 11:29:58 AM in New to Forums -- Introductions and Personal | Newbie - Former Christian Scientist:

Anonymous,

Welcome to the forums! It's nice to meet you.

[quote]Ms. Eddy had a healing..she made an effort to understand it...[/quote]

Hmm...I'd be more impressed by that healing if she hadn't tried to extract money from the City of Lynn six months later on the grounds that she was still suffering. That "healing" seems like a shaky basis from which to launch a whole new religion.

Regarding why we should heed the Bible -- You seem to view it as the writings of a bunch of men who simply recorded their ideas. If that's the case, then you're right that it should be superceded by more modern ideas. But if God chose to reveal himself through the writings of men -- and if he directed those writings -- then I doubt that they would become less relevant with time. The Bible contains too many fulfilled prophesies for me to think it was just the writings of a bunch of guys. And, incidentally, it's odd that Mrs. Eddy would say that CS is based on the Bible if it's so outdated and full of mistakes. Like her "healing" from her fall on the ice, she seems to have based her CS teachings on a faulty foundation if the Bible is what she makes it out to be.

Let's take this discussion to a new thread if you feel like discussing it further. It might fit better in the Doctrinal category. [Smile]

MBE the 2nd Coming?

Gentle Dove — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 08:22:09 GMT

The monitor's religious article titled "The Second Noel" discusses the second coming of the Christ was through MBE. I thought there was a severe theological split among Christian Scientists regarding this issue. Didn't this idea cause the bruhaha over the Bliss Knapp book? If the Monitor is printing this idea in its religious article, is the party line now?

The Real Truth

Do_Go_Be_Man — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:12:58 GMT

The following message was posted in another area of the forums. It presents some good questions. It was not appropriate for where it was originally posted, so I've moved it here.

Do Go Be Man
<><

Post by Anonymous November 13, 2007 @ 12:54:15 PM

How does anyone really know for sure that what they believe is actually the real truth? Does it really matter if you prove your correctness over someone else? I mean there are so many religions out that that could be either right or wrong. Why is it so important to have a religion where the sole purpose appears to be the conversion of Christian Scientists? I would just as well let people believe in what works for them. I have been reading a fair number of these forums recently and much of what I see seems to lots of arguing. Does that help anybody all that much?

Is God Inerrant?

Do_Go_Be_Man — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 16:01:05 GMT

CS teaches that God is perfect and good, therefore all He created is also perfect and good, therefore there is no sin, disease, and death - as creations of God, we are His Perfect Children unadulterated by evil.

MBE teaches:
[i]"All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all." [/i](S&H 468:10-11)
[i]"God is Mind, and God is infinite; hence all is Mind."[/i] (S&H 492:25-26)

These appear to be wonderfully logical conclusions, but are the foundations of these teachings valid? The premise depends upon the inerrant perfect goodness of God. How do CSists know that to be true?

Do Go Be Man
<><

Harry Potter in the hands of children

rising sun — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:08:38 GMT

During a recent visit to my home town where I reconnected with CS friends of the family, I was somewhat surprised to see their very young (and very bright) children reading the latest Harry Potter book, after having read all the others in the series. Two older women in the church were also raving about how much they also enjoy Rawling's writing. I will admit right here & now that I have not read the series, as I am rather a non-conformist when it comes to a world-wide craze - especially when it surrounds a topic we are so clearly warned about in Deuteronomy 18. Even practicing witches are concerned about the number of young children exploring things about the occult that they would not introduce to their own children until they are 18 years of age.

As a substitute teacher in both public and separate schools, I am frequently asked in the teacher's Day Plan to read excerpts from Harry Potter. On one occasion I frankly told a 4th grade class that I was not completely comfortable doing so. Instead, I opened the class for discussion about how the children felt about the books, and if they had any concerns or fears. Well, you should have seen the number of hands that went up. There were concerns about friends who were busy learning incantations to curse the people they were upset with, one little boy was worried that his sister was "going over to the dark side", dabbling in things he was afraid of. Others were noticing the content of each book in the series growing "darker & darker". After encouraging the kids to speak up to their teachers/parents about their concerns, I closed the topic by asking if they knew where they could go for help if they were worried or afraid. They mentioned counselors & psychiatrists but I waited until some brave little soul mentioned "prayer". Isn't it ironic that public schools will open their doors wide to the spiritual world of Harry Potter but not allow prayer?

I shared these children's responses with one of the older CS pillars of the church who is just getting into Harry Potter now. She responded, "I'm sure the CS children will look at the books from a different perspective than other children" which, perhaps, insinuates that they will not experience the element of fear or worry because they don't believe evil has power? I can't believe a child can read about witchcraft, whether it's used for "good" or "bad" and remain unaffected.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

Secret Class Notes

Gentle Dove — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:58:23 GMT

Can someone who has taken class please explain to me why the notes the students take are so secret. Why do they have to be destroyed or mailed back to the teacher on death? I have NEVER had this question fully answered....only the typical vague response from the Christian Scientists. WHAT MAKES THE NOTES SO SECRET??????

What did Mrs. Eddy consider "the inspired Word" of the Bible?

Linda — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 09:53:46 GMT

A Christian Scientist made the following statment in the thread entitled [url=http://www.christianway.org/forums/Topic13751-14-1.aspx#bm13846]"Is CS starting to rub off on me? [/url] (post #13846):

[quote] One thing I have not seen on this site yet is the fact that Mrs. Eddy wrote in the Manual of the Mother Church of Christ, Scientist is the first tenet: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life." (Manual Pg 15:3) What I see on this site is the opinion that Christian Scientists choose Mrs. Eddy's words over and above The Bible. [/quote]

The problem with Mrs. Eddy's statement is that she doesn't define what she means by "the inspired Word of the Bible." I used to think she meant "the Bible," but now I understand that she meant only PARTS of the Bible -- parts of her choosing. Please allow me to clarify...

First, consider what Mrs. Eddy says about the Bible:

"[Jesus] spake of Truth and Love to artless listeners and dull disciples. His immortal words were articulated in a decaying language, and then left to the providence of God. Christian Science was to interpret them; and woman, “last at the cross,” was to awaken the dull senses. . . ." (Mary Baker Eddy, Miscellaneous Writings, 100:1-6)

She also claims that the Bible contains “manifest mistakes in the ancient versions . . . thirty thousand different readings in the Old Testament, and . . . three hundred thousand in the New [Testament] . . .” (S&H 139:16-19)

Mrs. Eddy says that CS finds its authority in the Bible, but that Bible turns out to be severely flawed. So SHE decides which parts of the Bible are "inspired," and she provides new or expanded definitions for many of the words central to an understanding of Christianity. Using her new definitions, she makes the Bible say things that it doesn't really say unless filtered through her definitions. That is why many people on this forum say that CSists choose Mrs. Eddy's words over the Bible.

Bible & CS - My Mums Reasoning

jesusmyhealer — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 04:01:47 GMT

You may recall from previous posts I have a mum into CS and I cannot convince her otherwise.

So today I asked her (I will make these short so I don't have pages of writing for you to read):-

Me: Mum CS is a dying faith, each year the number of followers is reducing!

Mum: The Bible said "you will know the true followers coz the numbers will be few"

Me: They call MBE Mary Faker Eddy, people believe she was not called from Christ at all that she took a book from one of her husbands and re-wrote it to create CS (and I explained a but more.

Mum: Did they believe Jesus? Did they not deny him? Did they not call him names etc?

Me: The church I attend believe in Baptism and Speaking in Tongue.

Mum: You don't need to be baptised again, Jesus said "Suffer it to be so" In other words, do it as a symbolic thing for the people but you are already Baptised with the Holy Spirit and there's no such thing as speaking in tongue, Jesus did not want us to babble, he understands all languages and did not have a language that only he spoke, he wanted everyone to understand him.

She has an answer for everything I question her with and when you think about it just by looking at a couple of the examples above, they sound reasonable do they not?

I would like to know what others think particularly about the examples I have given and if I could go back to Mum with a different point of view coz I have to say, I had no come back with her responses!

Please I would love to hear from you!

I am trying to learn and connect with my new faith and do not want to be spending time looking up things about CS which I don't give a hoot about but I can't let this go, I need to convert my mum first, please help!

Bible verses pointing toward the deity of Jesus

Linda — Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:03:27 GMT

I thought it might be helpful to have a thread dedicated to collecting Bible verses and passages that point toward the deity of Jesus.

We have discussed and even debated the deity of Jesus all over this discussion forum, and there are even a couple of threads that address the topic but then diverge into wider discussions. I hope this thread will stay on topic and will include a long list of exmples showing Jesus, his followers, and even his enemies saying and doing things that point toward his deity.

The Christian Way Web site has a section addressing the deity of Jesus. That's a good place to start when looking for verses on the subject. I'll start with a verse that happens to be covered on that list, but which is precious to me:

In Acts 20:28 Paul told the church leaders at Ephesus:

"Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood." (KJV, emphasis mine)

A purely spiritual God wouldn't have blood -- but the God-Man Jesus would!

true Christian doctrine hard to swallow after life in CS?

Anonymous — Sat, 26 Feb 2005 00:55:30 GMT

I am very happy in a lively, evangelical church and have never regretted the step I took 19 years ago in accepting Jesus in a personal way, yet there are still some points of doctrine that are not easy to accept. Years ago, I found myself in Bible School alongside my husband only 2 years after making the new commitment. I would question things all the time...must have looked like a real rabble-rouser (is that a word in your part of the country?) Other students would say under their breath, "Why doesn't she just accept it on faith" etc. So many of the fundamentals of the faith were absolutely foreign to me that eventually I stopped asking questions so as to absorb what was being taught. I've always had a few reservations about more literal interpretations of scripture, and have learned to keep my thoughts to myself when in certain circles.

In an effort to raise my two young children in the faith, and not confuse them with my doubts/questions, I definitely kept my opinions to myself on some issues. Now my kids are mature teenagers, very capable of holding their own in discussions of a spiritual or religious nature, so I find I'm less cautious about sharing different views. I always tell them the important thing is to have a close relationship with God, acknowledge Jesus for who He really is, accept his sacrifice for us, remember that the Holy Spirit is always with us guiding our choices, our attitude, etc. Those burning questions we have can wait until we get to heaven where we can ask unabashedly for answers.

Coming from a CS background, of course I had trouble with the creation story, the concept of Heaven and Hell as localities, the very existence of Hell (which I still struggle with for that matter), a literal interpretation of some passages in the Bible, the anthropomorphic qualities of Jehovah as presented in the Old Testament, the annihilation of certain people groups who got in the way of the Children of Israel as they pursued the promised land. In CS, it used to be so convenient to explain away the God of the Old Testament as a somewhat imperfect concept of God, perceived by the early writers to be subject to jealousy, anger etc. Now I'm expected to accept that description of God as true to His nature, and frankly it's quite difficult. This is a major paradigm shift. I'm just glad that now I have the guts to openly discuss my questions where before, I was afraid of exposing my longheld, differing beliefs.

Admittedly, part of the challenge is that I have chosen to attend churches of a more fundamentalist base, whereas if I'd chosen to settle somewhere more mainstream I'd have plenty of company sharing my questions! Has anyone else had trouble with these issues?

Science and Health inerrant??

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Oct 2003 04:04:06 GMT

This is a very serious question and it has troubled me for some time.

I guess I'm a former CS. I live and work in St. Louis (wink, wink) so it's hard to be a former CSer for sure. And I've been in CS all my life. I haven't told anyone out here that I'm a "former" ANYTHING yet. For a lot of reasons.

Here's my question.

Is Science and Health considered to be inerrant? I asked this of two CS and they said, Yes.

I said, "How can that be? MBE said the Bible had 330,000 mistakes and yet she also said that her work was based solely on the Bible. How can a work 'based solely' on another work - be BETTER than the original - upon which it is based?"

The reply - "Because HER work was divinely inspired."

I gasped and said, "Do you not believe that Paul and Matthew and John were divinely inspired?" They said, "Well yes, of course."

"Then how did their get so many 'mistakes'? And how did S&H stay so pure?"

The answer I was given - "The Bible was translated and rewritten and those errors arose in the translation."

I replied, "But MBE did almost 500 revisions of her work. That is not pure and unadulterated inspiration. That's a lot of perspiration and work. She made mistakes and lots of them. She was doing her best - no doubt - but S&H can not be inerrant. She was a human being. She died - she did NOT ascend. She was imperfect."

The original statement was repeated that S&H came thru PURE and DIVINE inspiration; therefore, it IS perfect and with out a single flaw.

Finally, I said, "Look, if you say MBE's work was perfect, you're saying SHE was perfect and there was only one perfect human and that was Jesus. If you're saying she was perfect, then you are idolizing and worshipping her and that is a violation of the 1st commandment and everything that Jesus taught."

And they said, "We do not worship her; we appreciate her place in divine revelation."

I walked away from this conversation feeling like the person with whom I spoke had been brainwashed. But - BUT --- this question continues to bother me and I'd like to hear other thoughts.

Is Science and Health inerrant?

GB

1 John 3:1-3

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Jul 2002 20:37:53 GMT

What thoughts do you have regarding 1 John 3:1-3? This passage may arguably represent the most pervasive attempt by CS to use the Bible. MBE states in the Manual of the Mother Church that it is the correlative scripture for her Scientific Statement of Being to be read in Sunday and Thanksgiving Services.

(1) See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. (2) Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we will be like him, because we shall see him as he is. (3) And everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. - 1 John 3:1-3 (ESV)

When I was in CS it had always seemed to me to clearly support the concept of God's perfect children. I hadn't really given it much thought in recent years, but was drawn to it this weekend. The emphasis in CS always seems to be on . . . we are God's children now . . . Reading it now, the grammatical tenses seem to indicate a future state of perfection unknown to us or the world - what we will be has not yet appeared . . . (emphasis added).

In isolation, other parts of 1 John 3 could possibly be read to support the CS view or the orthodox Christian view of our current state of perfection or lack thereof. 1 John 1:8-10, however, seems to be pretty clear regarding our current state regarding sin:

(8) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (10) If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. - 1 John 1:8-10 (ESV)

Being so new to the forum, I'm not sure how my starting off another new topic will be received. I'm asking this in a desire for help in gaining a new, clearer understanding of this pivotal passage and hope that is how it wil be considered.

Do Go Be Man