 Posted Monday, August 06, 2007 9:55 PM
|
|
|
|
| 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
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:48 AM
|
|
|
|
Zoarean,
I would like feedback from all (current & former CSists alike) on what has always seemed an extremely tenuous relationship...
You cited the Bible in your comment. MBE had an extremely tenuous relationship with the Scriptures. Therefore, it should be no surprise that the logic of CS would not synchronize with the Bible. As we discuss God's word with CSists (and many others), it is important to remember they do not acknowledge the Bible as God's word or at least that they consider it grossly flawed.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:58 AM
|
|
|
|
| Exactly. I remember becoming so frustrated (and defensive!) when constantly asked "Is your religion 'Christian'?" But the truth is that, in order to call yourself a Christian, you must accept that Christ suffered. I enjoy repeating the Apostle's Creed each Sunday as a reminder of exactly what I am professing. It could not be stated as so by Christian Scientists...
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:50 AM
|
|
|
|
" …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:
One of the key things to consider in comparing CS and the Bible is that MBE, consciously or unconsciously, founded or embraced a new religion (Metaphysics) then tried to make it "fit" the Bible and Christianity, instead of the other way around. Indeed, MBE initially called her new religion "Moral Science", not CS.
In fact, MBE, in a moment of candor, admitted that Jesus Christ was not even needed to embrace her teachings. If you look at one of her writings, Miscellany (318:32-319:2) she stated, “If there had never existed such a person as the Galilean Prophet, it would make no difference to me..” in response to a question at a lecture.
She had a problem, however. To advance her teachings, she had to find some way in 19th century America to persuade the world that they were Christian. People were not ready to accept the idea of leaving the Christian faith. She had to make metaphysics “fit” the Bible and Christianity somehow. Hence, the 100+ word rewrites in S&H, and “Christian Science” is born.”
I personally believe if MBE had been born 100 years later, she wouldn’t have bothered calling CS Christian. There would have been no need to, because all religions (or none at all) are quickly accepted socially in this day and age. She therefore would never have attempted to rewrite the Bible, and ignore such passages as you cite above. If she had truly been intellectually honest, or courageous, she would have attempted this in her time. She was neither, however.
It's difficult to find logic in MBE's and CS teaching, because it is not there. 'Just a thought.
Blessings in Christ,
John
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 2:12 PM
|
|
|
|
| Do Go, Dawn Comes, & John, "As we discuss God's word with CSists (and many others), it is important to remember they do not acknowledge the Bible as God's word or at least that they consider it grossly flawed."
Yeah, I guess the ones I talk with are somewhat rebellious to MC doctrine, because they claim that the Bible & S&H mirror one another, after accepting MBE's re-definitions. One way they depart from MC doctrine is they read other translations such as the NIV & the Amplified; as far as I know, the Pub. Society still only distributes the KJV. But I say even with those re-definitions, the Bible & S&H approach God in vastly different ways. Usually at this point they reply with the primary CS corner defense: "You just don't understand." But I call 'em on that & give what I see as CS in a nutshell- Gen. 1:26-27 totally embraced, to the complete exclusion of Gen. 3, Ps. 51, Is. 59, Matt. 5-7, Rom. 7, & a hundred other chapters as well. CS starts & stops with three words of 1John 4:8 instead of accepting the enlightenment of 1John 4:9-10. I tell them that I may not have spent as many years of my life studying CS as you, but I certainly wasn't asleep in SS either. I really was engaged, listening, & believing it until soon after my 18th birthday. I believe I do understand at least the essentials of CS. "I personally believe if MBE had been born 100 years later, she wouldn’t have bothered calling CS Christian." I agree & believe the only reason for all the "christianeze" in CS- the "cross & the crown," the re-written hymns, the first half of the name, etc.- was to blend in with, & draw converts from, the largely Christian culture of 19th century America. Nevertheless, as long as the CSists I talk to continue to claim the Bible as an inspired book, I have an open door. Thanks to all for your commentary. Please continue to comment as you feel lead. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 3:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Zoarean,
...they claim that the Bible & S&H mirror one another, after accepting MBE's re-definitions.
One thing about CS that I probably don't understand is how they can claim the perfection of S&H and the errancy of the Scriptures upon which they claim it's based.
What kind of mirror is S&H if it reflects error? I, of course, believe that S&H represents the flaw.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8:05 PM
|
|
|
|
| Do Go, Yeah, another hole in the cheesecloth armor of CS logic. But, I am constantly reminded by S & S (Spirit & Scripture) that I can compose the strongest case for the Gospel the world has ever seen, but if they are not called by God it would be a wasted effort. Consequently, most of my effort regarding CSists is spent interceding for them before the Almighty. Salvation- "with man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible!" (Matt. 19:26) zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:22 AM
|
|
|
|
[quote]Anonymous (8/7/2007)
It's difficult to find logic in MBE's and CS teaching, because it is not there. 'Just a thought.
Oh please, I am so tired of hearing that line "It's just a thought". You're not wrong, there is no logic in MBE's & CS teaching and I wish it was'nt there but the truth of the matter it is and it's killing families. God bless you and I am praying for you, all of you!
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 7:48 PM
|
|
|
|
| Zorean, Getting back to your original post--reconciling CS's concept of perfection with Jesus' suffering--a friend of mine once derided the CS (mis)understanding of Calvary as "a tidy metaphysical demonstration." Now I can't back this up with quotes from S&H, but I think the CS'ist would state that Jesus did it to prove to prove to the world that death is an illusion. She did say somewhere that "the incorporeal Christ could not die" and that Jesus "appeared to die, but didn't." Also, she made a reference to Jesus' recovering "in the cool of the tomb"--a variation on the old "swoon theory," held by many skeptics, that Jesus gave the appearance of death, but by some yogi-like skills, recovered later on. Two problems with this: 1) The Romans were very experienced professioals at crucifixtion. It's inconceivable that a Roman detachment botched the job. After all, didn't they stick a spear in his side as a "coup de grace," just to make sure? Then, 2) there is Scripture. Romans 5.8 tells us, But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
(Boldface added) This is an excellent verse to memorize and share with CS'ists. It emphasizes that the "incorporeal Christ" did, indeed, die! And you can use this as a springboard to the issue, that Jesus was, is, and always will be Christ! --and not some kind of "manifestation" of some kind of "Christ idea."
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:48 PM
|
|
|
|
followingHim,
there is Scripture. Romans 5.8 tells us, But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
I think you referenced the wrong kind of Bible. I think I recall a version somewhere that said,
Father-Mother God demonstrates His-Her Love in this manner: While we held an erroneous belief in Sin, Christ Jesus appeared to manifest the illusion of Death.
Maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps its just a scribner's error.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|