 Posted Friday, December 29, 2006 2:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Many people on this forum will be intimately familiar with the contents of the Christian Science textbook, and will have formed strong opinions about it. I wonder if it would be beneficial if you could make your views known by posting a review of it on Amazon. The reason I say this is that most of the reviews there are positive, clearly put there by committed Christian Scientists. To provide some balance to the picture I think it would be useful if other viewpoints were made available to the general public. If you imagine reading the book from the standpoint of someone who hasn't been taught Christian Science, the book stands out as an atrociously bad piece of literature, even before you begin to think about the theological or health care content. This makes writing a review fairly easy. Reviews can also be anonymous if you wish.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, January 05, 2007 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
| An excellent idea! And be sure to include, as examples, some of those bizarre compound-complex run-on sentences, which are so typical of Eddy, demonstrating her convoluted grammar which she so generously peppered with esoteric diction and polysyllabic vocabulary, not to mention her far-fetched metaphors, analogies, and similes!  Seriously, do let people know just what they're getting in for!  Just as a matter of curiosity, I will check it out, along with the reviews for L.RonHubbard's Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I live in Boston, and I'm amused at how often I here local Bostonians refer to the CS Center as "The Scientology Center!"  Sometimes I tease CS'ists by referring to "Christian Sciensology."  (I hear a 'hrumph!' from Erol and tmcl!)  My, what a fall in public awareness!
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, January 09, 2007 12:47 PM
|
|
|
|
| I've never actually read S&H, but sometimes I think I will just so I know more what viewpoint CSists are coming from. If I ever do, I'll make sure to go review it on Amazon then, but for now I have to leave it alone. Wow...people in Boston even get CS mixed up with Scientology? Mind you, there are some people in my church who get the two confused, but we're in Southern Illinois...not much of either one here (actually...there's not much of Scientology anywhere...except Hollywood). Maybe I'll read and review Dianetics sometime too...but that one would definitely be anonymous.
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Now as we have many parts in one body, and all the parts do not have the same function, in the same way we who are many are one body in Christ and individually members of one another."--Romans 12:4-5 (HCSB)
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, January 10, 2007 10:55 PM
|
|
|
|
| Drewr, Read S&H...Dianetics? I urge you to think of what you can do more profitably with your time. "Everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable." For that reason, I won't waste my time reading The Book of Mormon, even if it would be a good checkpoint to tell LDS missionaries, "Yes, I've read it, and here's why it's wrong." Scientology isn't as big as it was in the 70's and 80's, although I see some recruitment activity from time to time. I think people are confused because it is in the news, whereas CS is not. But just to give you an example, I heard on the police radio,* "The suspect went around the backside of the Scientology Center"--and he was nowhere near the Scientology church, er center, or building...whatever...which is on Beacon St. *BTW, I'm in law enforcement.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, January 11, 2007 7:43 AM
|
|
|
|
If you want to read poetic prose, read the novels of Kafka or Beckett. If you want to read the truth about the universe written by a woman who sometimes sacrificed elegance of style in the interests of saying exactly what she meant, read *Science and Health*.
Immanuel Kant, generally regarded as the greatest philosopher after Plato, was an appalling stylist. Yet I doubt if the style of his major metaphysical work *Critique of Pure Reason* is the main feature of the Amazon reviews. (Maybe it is--I haven't checked).
On the other hand, there is the case of Schopenhauer who was both a great philosopher and a good writer. (His writings contain much wisdom, though his views on e.g. the feminist issue are debatable at least.)
Erol
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, January 27, 2007 10:01 PM
|
|
|
|
I do not find it possible to consider MBE positing "the truth about the universe" with the same depth as philosophers like Kant & Schopenhauer, when MBE makes the most fundamental mistakes in logic. An example of her faulty logic is her "rule of inversion" in S&H 113:26-32:
"The divine metaphysics of Christian Science, like the method in mathematics, proves the rule by inversion. For example: There is no pain in Truth, and no truth in pain; no nerve in Mind, and no mind in nerve; no matter in Mind, and no mind in matter; no matter in Life, and no life in matter; no matter in good, and no good in matter."
Inversion is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, MBE did not continue on with examples like: "there is no sea water in salt, and no salt in sea water; no trees in monkeys, and no monkeys in trees; no...oops!"
Her greatest leap in logic is, of course, that God is All and we are created spiritually perfect, yet we err by believing in a material "dream" or "illusion" (both words used by MBE to describe our experience). Note that Christians allow that evil can exist even though God is omnipotent and good; while this may seem a contradiction on the surface, it is only so in a frame of reference that excludes the free will of man. In CS, people are just expressions of God like rays of the sun, and are therefore not autonomous.
My only excuse for having believed MBE's logic was that I was blinded by my pride and held Idealism in higher regard than the truth of the Bible, until God opened my eyes.
Dave
Ex-CS, now saved by grace!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:09 AM
|
|
|
|
Dave, Do Go, Linda:
Would anyone like me to share the Rev. Wiggin's (Mary Baker Eddy's Literary Advisor) synopsis of Christian Science? It's from a letter he wrote to a college friend, which was reprinted in McClure's magazine in 1907. I have an original copy. That's a far more interesting, and accurate read. And it's only about two pages!
It might help a few Christian Scientists think about things, as well. I don't know if it's available elsewhere; if not, I'd love to share it all the more. Let me know - perhaps it can be linked to the website, or posted here.
Birdstrike
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 11:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Birdstrike,
Posting Rev. Wiggin's letter might be interesting, however, might also present copyright and credability issues. Could you provide a link to it? That may also help better establish the source of the material.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 4:04 PM
|
|
|
|
There's no link; it's straight out of the book. It's a 100 year old copy of McClure's magazine, which was running a series on some of the more controversial religions of the day. A woman named Georgine Milmine came in with a truckload of material she was collecting on Christian Science, and a young Willa Cather helped put all of the material together. Much of this material eventually became the famous "Milmine" book, which Christian Scientists tried strenuously to suppress, but some of this material also came out in periodical form. I have read the "Milmine" book, but I didn't remember this McClure's piece in there!
Being 100 years old, and borrowing directly from it, there shouldn't be any copyright issues. I'd be just quoting from a 1907 McClure's magazine. I believe it would clearly be "Fair Use" even if there were a valid copyright.
And credibilty? Again, I'm just quoting from a 100 year old mag, and credibility issues have long since been hashed out (statute of limitations). It's a historical document now.
Kinda sad that we have to worry about retaliation though, huh?! I understand if you feel that it might not be appropriate. The world won't end if I don't post it!
Birdstrike
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, January 28, 2007 4:13 PM
|
|
|
|
If anyone wants it, feel free to send me a private message. I'll type it into an attachment and forward it off to you.
It really is good. Soon-to-be-famous Willa Cather herself admits that she couldn't top it as a summary of Christian Science and M.B.E., and uses it to close out the whole magazine's series.
Birdstrike
|
|
|
|