 Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 6:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Since the forum announcements say that active CSists are welcome to participate, I assumed these motives were not out of line
Anonymous,
As I said in the post above yours, we have thread categories so that people can decide where they do and don't want to read. It would be helpful if you and others would come up with nicknames to help us keep track of which Anonymous poster is talking -- but you truly are welcome here.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, April 11, 2009 6:37 AM
|
|
|
|
I've been praying about how to respond here.
Galatians 5: 13-25 was among my readings this morning. It speaks of overcoming self-indulgence, and it's fruits (among which are "antagonisms and rivalry, jealousy, bad temper and quarrels, disagreements, factions and malice," as the New Jerusalem Bible translates part of it in verses 20b-21a). I never thought of those as self-indulgence, but welcome the interpretation since it gives all Christians more impetus to try to get along peaceably, and with love. This site is no exception. St Jane De Chantal (who was around before our nation began to be settled) tells of using the fruit of the Holy Spirit to combat and overcome the behaviors that are self-indulgent.
In the interests of bridge-building, I'm all for it, and believe it's very needed for the healing of those who've met with mistreatment in CS, and for successful transitions to other religions. To fail to transition completely is to stay UNDER the bridge. No one but trolls could be happy there. Bridges are vital. My husband & I built them, and our marriage has stayed strong. I managed to build a few with relatives and salvage our relationship after I left CS. At first many of them were inclined to yell at me and be cross. That was their pain speaking, I believe. It pays to pray through that, and get to the next step of healing the broken hearts.
I've noticed that CS tends to be a religion of self-denial. So, to does Roman Catholic, when you look at it. Any of Christianity has the potential of self-denial as they turn from the world and the flesh, and yield to Christ more and more in their lives. Hindu and Buddhist have also strong elements of self-denial as well. The fruit of the Holy Spirit are prized highly.
Now, On this site, I've tried to respond as patiently and kindly as I know how to the ridicule and attacks I've received. I've noticed that such attacks or mean-spirited comments have the effect of stopping the flow of good threads. Unless I miss my guess, it intimidates lots of people into keeping their views to themselves. There's no reason for rotten behavior on this site; it merely looks like someone passing on their own abuse. That's not even healthy from a psychology perspective. If this thread causes people to grow, that's great! If it makes some uncomfortable, I'm sorry, truly. If I could help, I would; but the best cure is something the individual has to seek, and it may vary.
As for our Christian Science friends posting here, primarily to correct the lies and misconceptions that have come up regarding CS, that's completely innocent. When I first joined TMC, I worked on the COP committee, which did just that. I was too young to be an assistant, so they took me on as a deputy. There was a lot to do, even for teenagers. Today, no matter what religion is being maligned, I hate to see people spewing out lies, where truth would be just as easy to offer. Personal experience isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about needless slander and libel - the kind with malice. If people who've left CS are able to follow Paul's advice, and that of St. Jane de Chantal, and many others who guide us to act like Christians, we'll be of far more benefit to those coming out and recovering. Honesty is always better.
15787 I hope you don't evaporate! I've been tempted to throw in the towel, several times, due to inappropriate remarks that totally ignore the points. I'll write back, if you feel like carrying on this conversation more privately. If you'd rather research your bridge thoughts, I can recommend Scott and Kimberly Hahn's books for the Catholic perspective on lots of stuff; and Dr & Mrs Norman Vincent Peale are on the mark for much that is Christian in the protestant sector. There are other authors who are marvelous, and have input that I've treasured. I was hoping for interaction of the quality I've seen in my Bible studies, and interdenominational groups who are on fire with the Holy Spirit. I don't care for the types that jump down your throat impatiently, or call names, just to intimidate you if possible. That's no kind of Christian. It usually takes a lot of prayer and love to answer and continue in spite of that kind. I know you're up to it.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, April 11, 2009 10:18 PM
|
|
|
|
With love and prayers to everyone.
Regarding the post addressed to" CS 4 me" ...........My name is not "CS 4 me." It is "no more CS 4 me". There is a huge difference.
The "no more" is the most important part of my signature, please do use it.
And please Anonymous posters do extend the courtesy of giving yourself a nom de plume and sign your posts. Thank you.
Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts on this thread as well as on other threads. I have learned so much here and it has been life giving to say the least.
I have devoted my life to the search for understanding of God, the Bible and human beings. The older I get, the more I realize how little we all know and how much more there is to learn. And gratefully you all know so many things that I want to learn. However, I am sorry that I have to be honest, but there is nothing more I want to learn from a CSist. I am happily trying to avoid their posts, but it isn't easy when they don't sign them (another of those passive aggressive tricks or traps that are classic CS).
I am here on this thread because I want to know what MBE considers "the inspired Word", This is important to me as I have a CS family who corner me into discussions that I do need intelligent inspired Biblical defense for. I think the thread started out great with vibrant, informative Bible-first chat in 2007 and then was partially dug up again in 2009 and digressed quite a bit into MBE too much. My experience was that it went a few long posts too far off track and no longer meshed with the original title or tone. Enough said, other than thanks guys and gals for hanging in there with your thoughts.
Prayers for all C.S. Pentecostal, Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Islam, Jew, you name it!, you have my love and prayers.
Tomorrow I will be another chance to grow with the help of the Inspired Word.
no more CS 4 me.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 13, 2009 7:56 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear No More CS 4 me,
I use he phrase "inspired word of the Bible" as a prime example of CS cult-speak, also known as "secret language." People in close-knit sub groups often have their own lingo: police use cop-speak, stock traders have have their own slang, and so on. All this is quite legitimate.
But when we get to political, ideological and religious groups, this issue becomes more, er, slippery--and insidious. Here people often use language to accomplish purposes other than simple communication: it's a subtle form of deception, where they say one thing, but know that the listener is understanding another.
"Inspired word" is such a case. Biblical Christians believe in some degree of "Divine inspiration" in the creation of the Scripture texts with varying degrees of belief in "inerency." For the most part, Christians believe that all of the Bible, from Genesis 1.1 to Revelation 22.21 was given by God to men who then wrote it down.
Not so MBE. She subscribed to the so-called "Higher Criticism" that began in Germany in the early 1800s, and has pretty much taken over most of Western Christendom: that the Bible is of human origin, and simply reflects the religious & spiritual thoughts and aspirations of the men who wrote, collected, and edited the 66 books. They tended to think some parts of the Bible (especially the New Testament) were more enlightened and "spiritual" than others (e.g. O.T.)
But here's where she differed. Whereas the "Higher Critics" (UGH! I hate the term!) relied on "literary," "historical," "form" and "document/textual" criticism, Eddy considered herself "Scientific," i.e. "Spiritual-Scientific--you know, her own peculiar peudo-"Scientific" sense of things. Thus, rather than attempt to apply some form of scholarship to the texts, she would approach it with "Spiritual understanding," using the word Science interchangably.
It comes down to this: Parts of the Bible she liked and found supportive of her metaphysics, she considered "inspired." Those parts that disagree with her beliefs were uninspired and/or corrupted. The CSist would say that one has to apply one's "Spiritual Understanding" to the Bible to know which is which. And that means yet another level of subjectivity to the process: one's interpretation of the Bible must also be "inspirited."
Forgive me if I've been rather verbose and indirect. But there are two variables to the CS approach to understanding and interpreting the Bible: (1) Figuring out which parts of the Bible are "inspired," and (2) applying one's "Spiritual sense" to the study of it.
One last thought: things like objective sin, death, and judgement tend to be "uninspired."
|
|
|
Posted Friday, April 17, 2009 8:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear no more CS 4 me,
Would it help if I asked what sort of material your family tends to rely on for their ambushes?
The loopholes were a major problem, though; and I got the impression often that my mom was humoring me by listening, because when we spoke the next time, we had to cover all the same territory again. It was like she'd listened, just so she could go back to restock her ammo; and when she was feeling strong again, or better prepared, she came back for more.
Generally, No CSer would argue with St John's writings. Generally they love the Sermon on the Mount. I held my ground on that, since CS claims that John was the most spiritual of the disciples. Yet the parts of his writing that they emphasize tend to skirt around the undeniably doctrinal (Christian) parts.
Dear Annonymous,
Thank you for the way you put that, especially about that loophole word "inspired." Sometimes mom meant that the Bible was inspired; and sometimes she meant that only the parts she considered "inspired" were her authority. It varied, and shifted, as much as the facts in the hands of a car salesman (no offense to those guys!).
As for that insider lingo, I once took a Realtor's course, just to understand my dad, and what his standard of "honesty" was. And Yes, their version of honor and honesty was different than the general standard. I've come across that also in religious settings, like the previous poster mentioned.
So, my mom was intending one set of meanings, while the general meaning was vastly different. You almost needed a translator to keep up with it; and I found that very annoying, as an ex-CSer who had no desire to think that way again! It's only by the grace of God that I have my sanity still.
Invariably, I had to refer back to her references, and from there to the Bible notes I'd made (as a Christian). And invariably, it never seemed to make a dent in her beliefs. Then one day... out of the blue, she mentioned something she'd "always believed" -a Christian concept no CSer would have spouted- and I realized THAT's how it works. She'd accepted it without even realizing it. I hadn't tried to argue her into it, just kept the conversation loving, and continued to address those loopholes. You know, pave the way for her to understand what we Christians were talking about. Of course, it wasn't just me: others (like my middle brother and a woman at work) had been talking to her as well. And yeah, there were multitudes of prayers, from our support networks, and in our daily prayer work. No one goes into spiritual battles like these alone. God knows who his sheep are, and how to find them. HE knows how to find the ones who want to find him. I believe CSers really do want to find him. It's just kind of hard when the key basics of Jesus' teachings are hidden or rejected. The challenge becomes, perhaps, evangelizing through their loopholes. It isn't easy. It is crucial to be able to answer their well-rehearsed statements and threads of belief with well grounded and biblically provable verses and teachings that even they can't disprove. Mom didn't have to agree with me; in fact we usually hung up giving each other permission to believe the way each felt led... It was enough to give her something to wrestle with.
Prose Works had 2 places where MBE challenged listeners to only follow her as far as she followed Christ. I took that one to the bank. I knew Mom would as well. It helps to know your family...
I know there's a lot more to be brought up in this thread; please forgive me if I've repeated anyone's points. There's a lot of practical discussion possible - and proofs - worth looking at.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:14 AM
|
|
|
|
| Sorry to jump in so late in the discussion. But I am new here and wanted to share this in response to the question: --what MBE considers "the inspired Word" I think she means her inspired word –her interpretation as laid out in her primary book. There are only 5 references to this concept of “inspired word” in her book, Science and Health, and 3 others in her separate writings. Essentially, she claims that sometimes the original meaning of the Scripture was tainted by a scribe who missed the full import of what God was saying, but don’t worry, she was inspired enough to correct these mistakes in the Bible, and restore God’s true message for us. See S&H page 319 starting at line 21 for her explanation. OK, but setting aside the possibility that God might choose some dull student to collaborate on writing Scripture (which is a whole other topic) , I will readily admit that I don’t normally read the Bible in the languages it was originally written. And I don’t have a complete understanding of the nuances of the original words in their historical context. But I do have access to Bible Dictionaries and Commentaries that do a good job of filling in these gaps. And MBE used some of the same references. Interestingly enough, she mentions Smith’s Bible Dictionary in her extended explanation of the concept of the inspired word. On page 320 of S&H, she invokes this highly respected volume thus: In Smith's Bible Dictionary it is said: "The spiritual interpretation of Scripture must rest upon both the literal and moral;" Oddly enough, I could not find that quote in my copy of Smith’s Bible Dictionary. More puzzling, is MBE’claim, intending to illustrate her point, that Smith’s article on Noah includes a more inspired translation of Genesis vi. 3. It is not there, at least not in my copy of Smith’s Bible Dictionary, nor in one of the searchable on-line version I found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/smith_w/bibledict.toc.html One of the definitions Smith includes which in some ways contradicts the MBE explanation is the in his entry on the term. Inspiration:
"an extra-ordinary divine agency upon teachers while giving
instruction, whether oral or written, by which they were taught
what and how they should write or speak." Without deciding on
any of the various theories of inspiration, the general doctrine
of Christians is that the Bible is so inspired by God that it is
the infallible guide of men, and is perfectly trustworthy in all
its parts, as given by God. Implausible as it seems, given all the attention and critiques of the past, it appears that MBE erred – at least in attributing this reference to the venerable Dr. Smith.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, April 18, 2009 9:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear Jennifer and Mere Cat,
About all I can say is WOW and thanks! I needed that!!!!!
Most sincerely,
no more CS 4 Me
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Mere Kat, thanks for your fascinating scholarship!
An impression I have of Eddy is that she was very eclectic in her reading, especially in the retention of what she read. I gather she read all sorts of interesting things, sifted out what she liked, digested and assimilated it, and discarded what she didn't. This would help explain how so many different things wind up in the CS synthesis: unitarianism, universalism, Eastern metaphysics, spiritism, "higher criticism," Quimbyism, and so on.
It is also my impression that she was not a rigorous scholar, not by any means! I think she made mental notes of things she liked, and just integrated them in, not noting or remembering where she had picked it up. I recall (sorry, can't cite the location) where she once opined, "Some Biblical scholars have computed a date for the Second Coming of the Christ to be 1875,"* (date of S&H publication, 1st edition). (Let's leave alone that peculiar issue of whether CS is "the Comforter/Holy Ghost" or "the Second Coming of Christ" or both.) She offered no reference or specifics, so there's no telling how pseudo-responsible or wildly crackpot her "scholars" could be. Note that the 1800s were rife with people who had the "restored" or "recovered" or something the "lost church" or "forgotten Gospel" or something.
Anyway, MereKat, my point is that just because Eddy cited a source or author doesn't mean she was responsible in handling it!
Jennifer Agnes, something I've done in the past may be useful to you: when a CSist uses a word that I know has a secret, double, or ambiguous meaning, I force an interuption to make sure we share the same understanding--or to root out the deception. Example:
CS: "I always turn to Christ when--"
Me: "You mean, you turn to JESUS, right?
CS: "I mean I rely on Christ--"
Me: "I rely on JESUS, too!"
CS: "Oh, I wouldn't want to rely on a mere man, even if he was very spiritual, I have to rely on the Christ!"
ME: "Well, what do we mean by 'the Christ?' I'd say one person who ought to know would be the Apostle Peter! He was there! In Matthew 16.15,-17 Jesus asked him, "Whom say ye that I am?" Peter--remember, he was the chief disciple!-answered, "Thou art the Christ! He didn't say, "You sure demonstrate the 'Christ' more than anybody I've ever seen!' or "You seem to be achieving 'Christ-hood' better than the rest of us!' He said, 'Thou artthe Christ. So you see, my friend, it's a basic and simple syllogism:** Jesus IS the Christ, and the Christ IS Jesus--they are one and the same!
CS: "But Mrs. Eddy says--"
ME: "Whom are you going to believe--Mrs Eddy, or Peter, who actually knew the guy? You don't have to be a literalist or a fundamentalist to accept this. Just take the Bible--and Peter---at its word!
*paraphrase from memory--sorry!
**CS'ists LOVE syllogisms! It's a form of argument they readily understand.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 11:44 AM
|
|
|
|
To rebut - I love this conversation:
Fundy - When Christ died on the cross.
Me- Oh you mean when God died on the cross.
Fundy - Oh no God can't die.
Me - I thought Christ is God.
Fundy - Oh yes, Chirst is God, but God can't die.
Me- How about the Holy Spirit?
Fundy - Oh He can't die either.
Me - So Christ must be a step below, correct?
Fundy - Well I guess that makes sense.
Me - Good, now you are talking like a real Muslim.
Fundy - I did not know that is what the Muslim believe.
Me - They do and that is why you need to check out Christian Science which teaches Christianity how Jesus taught it and stop following your Church that tells you how to believe with no logic behind it.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:05 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|