 Posted Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Camille,
To my experience the CS church had an unusually high number of members holding university degrees - as such reading only religious literature was no question.
Marion
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Hi SurferforJesus,
I have a practical idea for you. Perhaps your wife would consider spending time with you (or you and your children) reading the Bible. There are many lists available that allow you to read the entire Bible in a year. Perhaps it could be a challenge for your whole family. She may be comfortable only reading a King James and that is fine. If she would consider a version that might be more helpful to your children's understanding, God's Word is good. (I think they even have one divided up that way) Pray and see if God leads you to suggest it.
Just a reminder for you, the fight has never been yours. It is the Lord's and you have put it in the right place. It took my husband 15 years. He now loves the Lord and serves Him fully. Peace be with you.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:33 PM
|
|
|
|
<< He now loves the Lord and serves Him fully. Peace be with you. >>
Hello Priscilla,
Can you explain to me what you mean by 'serving the Lord fully"?
thanks
Camille
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 12, 2006 2:34 PM
|
|
|
|
<< Camille,
To my experience the CS church had an unusually high number of members holding university degrees - as such reading only religious literature was no question.
Marion >>
Hello Marion,
Do you mean they did not exclusively read cs literature?
Camille
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Camille,
Not sure if they read other Christian literature, but I am positive many of them read fiction, biographies and legal or other literature that's been related to their jobs. I know that many of the local church members consulted bible commentaries, lacking "approvel" commentaries, especially in German, they went for what they thought was best suited.
It would never have occurred to me that I should stop reading other than CS literature - if that request had been made, I'm sure I'd turned my back on CS immediately - it's just that general understanding was we should not try to learn CS from other than approved CS literature.
Marion
|
|
|
Posted Monday, August 14, 2006 5:53 PM
|
|
|
|
<< He now loves the Lord and serves Him fully. Peace be with you. >> >>
Camille,
That is an odd expression now that I look at it. He is now in full-time ministry as a pastor.
Priscilla
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 6:30 AM
|
|
|
|
For a wonderfully erudite book on Christian Science with broad literary and philosophical references, I couldn't do better than recommend Robert Peel's three-volume biography of Mary Baker Eddy.
Christian Scientists who read only the Bible and CS literature, are no different than other Christians who read only the Bible and fundamentalist literature, or Muslims who read only the Koran for that matter. Which is not to say that such a limited culture should be encouraged.
I got into some fascinating reading (inclucing Dostoyevsky etc. on the phenomenon of evil) after reading Peel. I'm sure others have had a similar experience. Anyway I can't recommend him too highly.
NB Christian Science Reading Rooms usually contain "standard" Bible reference books such as Smith's Bible Dictionary, Dummelow, Peake, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance etc., and have done so for as long as I remember.
Erol
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 7:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Erol,
NB Christian Science Reading Rooms usually contain "standard" Bible reference books such as Smith's Bible Dictionary, Dummelow, Peake, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance etc., and have done so for as long as I remember.
A great regret I have regarding being raised in the CS Sunday School is the limited exposure I had to Bible translations other than the King James (certainly a great translation in its time). I especially regret having not been exposed to the concept of original languages when I had the time and resources to study them. Given the CSists in my community and their Bible education, I should have been exposed to a higher rather than normal or lower level of sensitivity to such matters.
Smith's Bible Dictionary was the source of MBE's statement regarding the errors in the Bible (I need to look, but I think Smith referred to translations rather than the original texts). I still have my Dummelow and Cruden's, but Strong's was just a shelf book to which people referred almost as a status symbol, but did not use.
The problem with the CS obsession with CS literature is that most CSists in my experience (remember that is pretty broad) look on CS literature as a primary source with the Bible and its related resources as secondary at best.
As I've said many times before, MBE would have done well to have provided Scriptural proof texts in her writings and to have encouraged scholarly study of the Bible, especially of the original texts. Even today, the CS Publishing Society could do that and increase S&H sales at least for a time (if they do, I'd want credit on the title page). Instead, she chose to position the Bible as erroneous and provided her own corrections. She encouraged study of S&H far more strongly than study of the Bible. She spoke in far more favorable terms of the perfection of S&H than she spoke of the Bible. I suppose, however, that was natural given that S&H represented the differentiator of CS.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006 8:54 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
Well again, I don't really find the cultural lacunae in the practice of CS or any other religion very interesting to get into. The interest is in the texts and what they do or don't say. I don't recall MBE discouraging anyone from studying the original biblical languages, and indeed there are a reasonable number of CS people who have.
Those are the kinds of choices people make when they go to college, though there are usually ways to catch up later if one has the time and commitment. (I'm really reminding myself here...)
I'm not exactly sure what you mean that MBE should have provided proof texts. Do you mean in the original languages? I think that would probably have gone down like a rat sandwich with the average Joe in Peoria at the time ;-)
Having said that, MBE gives copious references to the Bible in her writings, normally with chapter and verse though not always. I don't agree that she encouraged study of S&H more than of the Bible. She regarded them as inseparable.
The belief that the Bible is not inerrant is not peculiar to Mary Baker Eddy. It is a commonplace of mainstream (non-fundamentalist) theology. and has been for many years as far as I know.
Erol
<< Erol,
NB Christian Science Reading Rooms usually contain "standard" Bible reference books such as Smith's Bible Dictionary, Dummelow, Peake, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance etc., and have done so for as long as I remember.
A great regret I have regarding being raised in the CS Sunday School is the limited exposure I had to Bible translations other than the King James (certainly a great translation in its time). I especially regret having not been exposed to the concept of original languages when I had the time and resources to study them. Given the CSists in my community and their Bible education, I should have been exposed to a higher rather than normal or lower level of sensitivity to such matters.
Smith's Bible Dictionary was the source of MBE's statement regarding the errors in the Bible (I need to look, but I think Smith referred to translations rather than the original texts). I still have my Dummelow and Cruden's, but Strong's was just a shelf book to which people referred almost as a status symbol, but did not use.
The problem with the CS obsession with CS literature is that most CSists in my experience (remember that is pretty broad) look on CS literature as a primary source with the Bible and its related resources as secondary at best.
As I've said many times before, MBE would have done well to have provided Scriptural proof texts in her writings and to have encouraged scholarly study of the Bible, especially of the original texts. Even today, the CS Publishing Society could do that and increase S&H sales at least for a time (if they do, I'd want credit on the title page). Instead, she chose to position the Bible as erroneous and provided her own corrections. She encouraged study of S&H far more strongly than study of the Bible. She spoke in far more favorable terms of the perfection of S&H than she spoke of the Bible. I suppose, however, that was natural given that S&H represented the differentiator of CS.
Do Go Be Man
<>< >>
|
|
|
|