 Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:27 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
A form of logic malfeasance (a variation on "the straw man" argument") is to misrepresent your opponent's position and then attack that. You can do it with a gross misrepresentation, or a slight one, or by mis-using terminology, but it's all the same. One is not attacking the opponent's position, but rather a counterfeit or facsimile of it.
The fact that God/Christ/Jesus experienced death is foundational (fundamental! to orthodox Christianity: [b]He, who was sinless, suffered death on our behalf![/b]
As Charles Wesley, the great hymnist put it,
"Amazing love! How can it be?
That thou, my God, shouldst die for me!"
The Lord Jesus bless you and prosper you and send forth the Holy Spirit upon you!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:52 PM
|
|
|
|
| FollowingHim, Exactly on point. I’m thinking that the quote came from MBE’s Message for 1900, which is included in her Prose Works collection of writings. Intended as a sort of pep talk to the faithful, it is generally long on cheerleading and short on documentation. "Some modern exegesis on the prophetic Scriptures cites 1875 as the year of the second coming of Christ. In that year the Christian Science textbook, "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," was first published. From that year the United States official statistics show the annual death-rate to have gradually diminished. Likewise the religious sentiment has increased; creeds and dogmas have been sifted, and a greater love of the Scriptures manifested. In 1895 it was estimated that during the past three years there had been more Bibles sold than in all the other 1893 years." More examples of rather dubious scholarship (at least by today’s standard). To start with, why should the Second Coming of Christ lower the annual death-rate in only the United States? Moreover, in the US, the annual collection of death statistics on a national basis did not even begin until 1900 and then, with a national death-registration area of only ten states and the District of Columbia. There is some data for longevity rates from 1850 forward, but these show improvements starting prior to 1875. If you focus of the major causes of death, you find that TB deaths were falling, while cancer and heart disease deaths were rising in 1900. I think most people would give more credit to advances in the medical sciences since 1875, than to the first publication of S&H as the source of the declining death-rate. As for Bible Sales, there is no way to verify. According to the Internet Public Library (IPL) "No one really knows how many copies of the Bible have been printed, sold, or distributed. The Bible Society's attempt to calculate the number printed between 1816 and 1975 produced the figure of 2,458,000,000. A more recent survey, for the years up to 1992, put it closer to 6,000,000,000 in more than 2,000 languages and dialects. Whatever the precise figure, the Bible is by far the bestselling book of all time." Again, I would credit improvements in printing, distribution, and population growth over the introduction of S&H as causes for increased sales of the Bible. MBE was a remarkable woman, but methinks she overstates her case. The problem comes when the faithful take her every word as gospel.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 9:44 PM
|
|
|
|
[Moderator's note: this message asks an interesting question. The anonymous contributor, however, is likely someone whose behavior on these forums has caused him to be banned.]
Oh, I am sorry since Charles Wesley said it then it must be true, but where in the Bible does it say that God dies?
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, April 19, 2009 10:00 PM
|
|
|
|
[Moderator's note: this message asks an interesting question. The anonymous contributor, however, is likely someone whose behavior on these forums has caused him to be banned.]
BTW - Christ=God=Holy Ghost is fine as a Scientist, but they have different roles.
Christ=Jesus is fine too, but they have different roles - i.e. Son of God vs Son of Man.
Therefore you can say that Jesus died on the cross, but you should not say that Christ, the Holy Ghost or God could die on the cross.
You may have people on this blog backing you, but you look foolish to someone who is not Christian especially a Jew or Islamic who already thinks Christians believe in 3 gods. I follow the inspired word of the Bible and I don't follow everything Mrs. Eddy or Mr. Wesley say without seeing if it is Biblical and I would like to see someone who is not a Scientist open their heart and admit that Mrs. Eddy is right regarding this point.
Thank you,
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 20, 2009 10:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear All,
In discussing why Mary Baker Eddy "interpreted" the Bible, or "discovered" new meanings from mistaken words, etc., I think one factor needs to be considered.
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. If she had truly been intellectually honest, or courageous, she would have attempted this in her time. She was neither, however.
Best wishes in Christ,
John
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 20, 2009 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
You may have people on this blog backing you, but you look foolish to someone who is not Christian especially a Jew or Islamic who already thinks Christians believe in 3 gods. I follow the inspired word of the Bible and I don't follow everything Mrs. Eddy or Mr. Wesley say without seeing if it is Biblical and I would like to see someone who is not a Scientist open their heart and admit that Mrs. Eddy is right regarding this point.
You are absolute correct, and I admire your resolve to measure what you hear or read against the Truth of the Bible. I just have to ask: Since when has impressing those of other faiths been important to Christians? “but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumblingblock, and unto Gentiles foolishness;” 1 Cor 1:23 To me, this is not an academic exercise; it is an expression of my faith: the Trinity is Three Persons in One God. There is little to be gained in arguing the concept of Trinity. It has been debated for centuries. Three persons in one God still means One God. It’s not Three gods in One Person. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the limits of our language. How can I describe God? Words fail me, because God is more than words can ever express. He is the Word. He is Love. He is Spirit. He is the Creator of everything. He is I AM. He just IS. We are often tempted to think about God in human terms, but that doesn’t begin to answer the question. God is not a super human, He is…. God. Trinity comes from the interpretation of Scripture; granted, the term is not directly mentioned in the Bible. It was formulated early in the third century and became official doctrine iaw the findings of the 1st Nicaeane Council in 325. These sincere believers, elders of the church, tried as best as they could to describe God in terms of what they knew of the Scriptures. They drew on several Bible references used in support of the Trinity doctrine. One was the words of Jesus to the disciples following his resurrection: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:” Matt 28:19 Another comes from Paul’s blessing to the Corinthians: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with all of you." 2 Cor 13-14 And there are many more references, which when taken together support the idea of the Trinity. Now, back to the topic at hand. MBE certainly was not the first to reject the Trinity concept. But she may be the first to do so based solely upon her own individual study of Scripture. She is entitled to her own opinion, and so are you. You have to consider her credentials for making this kind of call. This is a concept so important that everyone must decide for themselves. More than once, MBE herself advised CSists: “follow your Leader only so far as she follows Christ.” With my own salvation on the line, I think I will trust to the judgment of the learned elders of the 1st Council of Nicaea and all the believers who followed them over MBE’s sincere but biased objections. But that’s me…
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 20, 2009 7:14 PM
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your nice reply. However, MBE did not reject the Trinity. She said that she did not like the term and I think she is correct, because when you Minister to others it is a stumbling block to some. To me, she actually expanded it from God/Truth/Spirit to God/Truth/Spirit/Love/Mind/Principle/Life/Soul.
My problem with CS is that I think MBE placed too much emphasis on healing, where that is the least important part and I think that most exCSers did not get healed the way they wanted. The point is that every time you have a problem you need to turn to God. This is what the Bible tells you to do and CS is the only religion that emphasizes it. So you may not be healed in your eyes, well done good and faithful servant.
Most Christians have rejected their denomination for one reason or another, but I think that if people will open their heart and look again at CS with new eyes that they may read things that they did not grasp when they were younger.
God Bless,
|
|
|
Posted Monday, April 20, 2009 8:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
Thank you for your kind correction. True, MBE did not exactly reject the Trinity. She made several statements on Trinity, and some seem a bit contradictory. Here is what she wrote in S&H: in a paragraph subtitled. "Tritheism Impossible,"“The theory of three persons in one God (that is, a personal Trinity or Tri-unity) suggests polytheism, rather than the one ever-present I AM. “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord." (p256) But further on page 331, subtitled “Divine Trinity,” she writes: “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 multi-form in office: God the Father-Mother; Christ the spiritual idea of sonship; divine Science or the Holy Comforter.” (emphasis added) Now, that sounds close to the usual Christian concept of Trinity, but do you see what is missing is the idea of three persons in One God. –it’s the personal Trinity that MBE does explicitly reject. Remember, think One God, three persons; –not three humans, but three identities who are One God. I apologize, because I feel totally inadequate to express this clearly. I agree that CS puts undue emphasis on the healing; it should be a small part, but CS forces the patient to choose between God and medical science. MBE in Rudimental Divine Science wrote: “Healing physical sickness is the smallest part of Christian Science.” But she also set forth her purpose in the Church Manual –“To organize a church designed to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing. That makes it an important part of the religion. I won't argue with you, -there are some wonderfully Christian values espoused in CS, but there are some concepts which have been changed and recast in CS to support MBE's metaphysical concepts. The danger is that, like the MBE translation of Trinity, the new definitions do not always fit traditional Christian forms.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:26 AM
|
|
|
|
| Dear Anonymous Christian Scientist, I'm not sure if you are still participating in the forum...I hope so. There is something I can never understand about Christian Science (tists)... You implied that the belief that Jesus is God is somehow a Roman Catholic belief. I find this to be one of the stranger lies of Christian Science. (Strange to me). I'm not sure what it accomplishes. When I left Christian Science and began reading the whole Bible, and finding out what other denominations believed, I was shocked to find out that most believed that Jesus was God! Why did my CS teacher and others say that this was "Roman Catholicism"?! Sure, there are liberal Protestant churches that deny Him but certainly not the traditional (original) Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, even Methodist... Why is this lie so pervasive in Christian Science? "The inspired word of the Bible" is clearly laid out in John 1 as others have said. Jesus is the Word of God, come in the flesh, as the scripture states. No need for 'interpretation' really. Even the Jews knew that He was claiming to be God - only God could 'come from heaven.' That's why they convinced the Romans to kill Him. Its always heart-breaking to me to see Christian Scientists dig their heels in against the clear teaching of the Bible. When the veil comes off our eyes and we see Him for Who He is - it is a glorious moment, not one to be feared! I hope you will! IJ
"Though you have not seen Him, you love Him. Though you do not now see Him, you believe in Him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory, obtaining the outcome of your faith, the salvation of your souls." I Peter 1: 8-9
|
|
|
Posted Friday, November 06, 2009 10:01 PM
|
|
|
|
followingHim decries Eddy's statement in the first tenet of Christian Science that, "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal life," as if it was wrong for her to publish her commentary on the Bible, in which she points out more and less inspired passages. To me, perhaps the most obvious example of less and more inspired passages is the difference between, "an eye for and eye, and a tooth for a tooth," and, "love your enemies," or Jesus' other admonitions to turn the other cheek. So what this comes down to is an argument about whose interpretation is correct, because followingHim admits he is interpreting when he says about the Bible, "Where it is symbolic, then I take it as symbolic. And where it is an allegory or a parable, then I interpret it accordingly." Then, who decides what is literal, symbolic, or allegorical, and how to interpret those allegories?
I think I will continue to decide for myself based on the redemptive and healing results of Eddy's prayers and understanding, which she shared in Science and Health, and which have helped me to be a better Christian, a better father and husband (who sees a difference between punishment and correction), and much better at successfully trusting God's healing power for myself and my patients.
I will continue to appreciate the damnation of all evil which Christian Science announces in rejecting its insidious claims on any of us: Where did God, in His infinite goodness, find anything to make evil from or allow it to exist? The allegory of Adam and Eve indicates how ridiculously beyond God’s character such imaginings are.
|
|
|
|