 Posted Saturday, July 26, 2008 6:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification. 
For me, though, it’s the traditional Christian view that causes me problems.
I understand what you're saying since I used to feel that way too. It's amazing to look back and see how my views have changed.
By the way, the CS and the Bible section of the Christian Way web site is a good place to see some of the differences we're talking about. You may have already seen this, but I thought I'd mention it since I find the comparison interesting.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 2:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Still, I do recognize that I can only decide what is right for me, and that everyone else must do the same. Hi again, Anonymous. I've been thinking about your above comment. I suspect we both agree that there is such a thing as transcendent truth, since that's what I was taught in Christian Science and what I still believe. By transcendent truth I mean something that is a fact whether or not people understand it -- not the relativistic truth that many people talk about today. Some things "are what they are" regardless of what people think about them. The "truth" about how we came into existence is absolute and transcends the various beliefs that people have about it. So while your statement that "I can only decide what's right for me, and...everyone else must do the same" works for preferences like ice cream flavors, but it can't apply to things like the facts of our existence. Deeply tied to the truth about our existence are the transcendent truths like who/what God is, the existence (or lack thereof) of heaven and hell, the reality of matter, the identity of Jesus Christ, etc. These things are "what they are" regardless of what people believe about them. So we both can't be right on these issues since we disagree on them. And if we both happen to be wrong, God, Jesus Christ, and the rest of reality will go on being what they are. The Bible makes is clear that we should know and love Jesus Christ. Mrs. Eddy's interpretation of Jesus Christ doesn't agree with what the Bible says about him, so I had to choose between the Mrs. Eddy's teachings and the Bible.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for reference to the section of the website on CS and the Bible. I had seen it already, but I decided to look at it again. It does help me to understand what the beliefs of traditional Christianity are based on, and this is something I’ve not understood in the past, so it is good to have a source that can help me with that. I can’t say that the position as presented there convinces me that the traditional view is right and the CS one is wrong, though. This is partly because I don’t think whoever wrote the explanations interpreted CS exactly right – the quotes from Science and Health are right, of course, but the commentary above the quotes shows, from my perspective anyway, just a surface understanding and doesn’t reflect the substance of a true CS view. But I’m sure if I tried to articulate traditional beliefs I would do a worse job than they have with CS, so I appreciate the effort.
What really holds me back, though, is that the explanations given of what the Bible says don’t jive for me with what the passages given as evidence are saying. For instance, on the page about Jesus Christ it says “The Bible makes it very clear that Jesus and Christ are the same person,” and then lists three passages which, in each case, make just as much sense if the words, “the spiritual idea of man” [which is what your website says the Christ means in CS – I might actually substitute the word “Truth” or the words “the divine manifestation of God” myself] are substituted for the word “Christ” in each of those passages. They don’t show me that Christ was a “person” at all. And the passages below that which are supposed to show that Christ is referred to in terms more appropriate to a physical man don’t really do that for me either. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me to read Luke 2:11 as “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the divine manifestation of God” and John 7:42 as “Hath not the scripture said, That the Truth cometh of the seed of David…” I could go on, but I expect you get my drift, and you probably wouldn’t appreciate me trying to poke holes in your entire doctrinal platform anyway.
As far as believing in transcendent truths, yes, I do. I agree that who/what God is and the nature of his universe and creation “are what they are” regardless of what we believe. But we do all have to decide what we think the Bible is telling us about it, at least right now. Right now you have decided one way, I another. But I also believe that God is too good to let us continue in a mistake when we are sincerely striving to do and be what He wants us to do and be. And since it seems clear to me that both you and I are doing this, even though we disagree right now, I think sooner or later we will find ourselves on common ground. Whether that ground is in your yard or mine, I think only time will tell  .
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, July 31, 2008 5:56 PM
|
|
|
|
And the passages below that which are supposed to show that Christ is referred to in terms more appropriate to a physical man don’t really do that for me either. I mean, it makes perfect sense to me to read Luke 2:11 as “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is the divine manifestation of God” and John 7:42 as “Hath not the scripture said, That the Truth cometh of the seed of David…” I could go on, but I expect you get my drift... In the context of these passages, "born" and "seed..out of the town of Bethlehem" refer to physical birth, not spirital birth. And in the verses that are listed below these on the web site, the "blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot" (1 Pet:19) is a direct comparison of the crucifixion of Jesus to physical sacrifices performed at the Jewish temple. "Christ crucified" (1 Cor 1:23) is another reference to Jesus' physical crucifixion, as is the phrase "that Christ should suffer, and...rise from the dead" in Acts 26:23. I can see how you might substitute "the divine manifestation of God" for "Christ" in the verses you did, but I don't see any way to substitute that phrase for Christ in the latter three verses because they would then say "the blood of the divine manifestation of God," "the divine manifestation of God crucified," and "that the divine manifestation of God should suffer." That's inconsistent with the Christian Science teachings about the divine manifestation of God, which could never bleed or suffer. It makes more sense to let the text say what it really says -- that Christ had physical characteristics and underwent a physical crucifixion and death.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 7:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
I will not get into my personal background with CS, although I have discussed this in many other posts on this site. Rather, I want to touch upon an area which is at the heart of everything of your post and what you will see here. (I also apologize in advance for my long post, but ask you to please stay with me).
I was taught that Mrs. Eddy took her teachings from the Bible. As I later discovered, in order for Mrs. Eddy to claim this, however, she did one of the most intellectually dishonest things in the annals of the written word.
As you know, she literally changed the meaning of key words in the English dictionary (i.e., she rewrote the English Language). This was done so that when key words are read by CS church members in either the Bible or in Science and Health, they are taken to have their new Christian Science or Metaphysical meanings as defined by Mrs. Eddy, instead of the meanings that are commonly accepted in the English language. (Ala the new definitions on page 579-599 of S&H.) Examples include Death, which is defined in the dictionary as a permanent cessation of all vital functions; the end of life; S& H on p. 584 as “An illusion, the lie of life in matter; the unreal and untrue; the opposite of life”. Flesh in the dictionary is defined as the soft parts of the body of an animal etc.; S& H on page 586 defines it as “An error of physical belief; a supposition that life, substance, and intelligence are in matter; an illusion; a belief that matter has sensation.” Mrs. Eddy defines the Euphrates River in the Middle East on page 585 of S&H as “Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.”, etc. And so forth…
Now, how does CS explain how Mrs. Eddy came to do such a preposterous thing (namely, to literally rewrite the dictionary and commonly accepted places on the map?) Mrs. Eddy, of course, believed she was the “revelator”, that the truth as she saw it, laid dormant in the Bible for 1866 years, until it was revealed to her and published in S&H. She was, in short, divinely inspired by an impersonal God or Divine Mind as she saw it.
But is that good enough? After all, Christians believe the New Testament is divinely inspired, but I’m not aware of any meanings or definitions in the Old Testament that were changed 180 degrees in the New Testament. Now, there are honest disagreements about the interpretations of certain passages, etc among various Christian denominations, Nobody, however, in orthodox Christendom has ever defined an actual river as “divine science”, etc. instead of a body of water.
Consider what has happened here. If you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words, redefining them at will, you can make the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu scriptures, the Constitution of the United States, or any other historical document or published work mean anything you want it to!!!
If you, Anonymous, had written a work about real people and utilized words whose definitions are commonly accepted to relate particular events or teachings (as the Apostles did in the New Testament), what right would I or anyone else have to change the meaning of those words to come up with an entirely different series of events or teachings??? (i.e. “we don’t like what this document says or the story it tells, so we’re going to change the meaning of a few key words in that document to come up with a story that we do like.”)
As an another example, suppose I read a hard copy of a CS lecture presented at a local branch church. Naturally, I don't like the meaning, so I decide to change the definition of key words in your lecture so that the message is more acceptable to me. I still claim, however, that the altered message is exactly what the author intended it to be in the first place!
I'm sure you'll agree with me that the lecturer wouldn't be very happy with me!
Of course, the above scenarios described are blatantly dishonest. Words mean particular things-words refer to specific things, or people, or events- that’s why we use them. If you don’t like an essay that’s been written by John Doe on a particular subject, write a different one which refutes it. Don’t redefine the words in John’s essay which gives it a new meaning more to your liking, and then have the gall to say that not only is your new version correct, but that after all is what John really intended to get across in the first place. Can you think of anything more disingenuous? But that is what Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science have done.
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 Christian Science 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.
I would really appreciate your thoughts on all of this, Anonymous, (if you've stayed with me to this point, for which I thank you if you have!!)
Best regards,
John
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 8:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Excellent points John.
Redefining words, some people do the same with numbers, claiming that there are only numbers from 1 to 9 and begin to redefine mathematical solutions to larger numbers. A family member, possibly one of the most intelligent people I know, makes this claim. Say if a number extends past 9 then that number can be made simpler, for example the number 24. I asked my family member if I was to ask him to go to the shop and bring home 24 oranges, is he instead going to make it a little bit simpler for him to carry home instead, 6 oranges (2 + 4 = 6). He may have felt a little bit silly, when this was pointed out. As I make a study of Biblical numbers and patterns, I feel frustrated that someone can just come along and in ignorance destroy these numbers that tell a story and are confirmation of a creative Father.
Cheers
Jan
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Linda,
Okay, well, I’m not really sure if we should even try to discuss this, since it seems unlikely we will ever come to the same conclusions no matter what is said. Let me see how well I can do with addressing your specific questions, though. I know that the traditional practice is to look at everything in the Bible as only able to be read or interpreted in one specific way, but you probably know that Christian Scientists believe there is a metaphysical way to look at all physical experiences, and Jesus’ experiences as recorded in the Bible are no different in that regard. What is hard for me, as someone without much of a background in the teachings of traditional Christianity, is to understand why others would so quick to assume that there is not a deeper, spiritual significance to these Biblical accounts of physical occurrences. I mean, yes, in Luke 2:11, the angel is talking about the birth of the baby Jesus, but could she not also be talking about the bringing into the world of the Christ, Truth? Even in the dictionary, one of the definitions of “born” is “brought into existence.” And to read John 7:42 as saying that the Christ, Truth is going to be manifested by someone from the house of David works for me to. In 1st Peter 1:18-19, it seems to me the author is asking us to think of it metaphysically, since he says we were not redeemed with corruptible things. The literal, physical blood of a lamb, even one without blemish or spot, would be corruptible, however. I understand the spiritual significance of the sacrificial lamb, and I believe the blood (or sacrifice) of the Christ refers to the sacrificing of a human sense of things,which will ultimately be required of everyone in order to reach the Christ Truth. In 1st Corinthians 1:23, the apostle says he and his followers “preach Christ crucified,” but it’s not only the fact that he was crucified, but also that he rose from the dead. Christ killed, without afterwards rising from the dead, would have been nothing special, right? (After all, two criminals were crucified on that day as well, but nobody cares to preach the thieves crucified!) As far as the last passage from Acts 26:23 I think it makes sense too - certainly the Christ, Truth, suffers under these limited, human, erroneous interpretations, and by rising above these lower views the Christ, as manifest in Jesus, shed light on the fact that ultimately error has no part of or power over the Truth.
One more thing I just have to say is that language is a very problematic medium through which to try to communicate absolute truth. Statements such as “let the text say what it really says” don’t work for me, because words do not have any inherent universal meaning. The meanings they have are socially constructed, inconsistent from culture to culture and even from person to person, and never fixed but rather always evolving. So there isn’t really just one fixed, universal meaning that can be called what the text “really says.” I believe that the words in the Bible are divinely authorized and every word is in there because God put it there, but I am also humble enough to recognize that my limited human mind is not big enough to grasp God’s message for me without God’s help. This is why Christian Scientists “take the inspired word of the Bible as their sufficient guide to eternal life.” By reading the Bible and then interpreting what we read based on inspiration gained through prayer, we can more easily bypass the inevitable human error and tap into the message God has for each one of us. Do these passages really mean that the Christ was a human person? Well, so far that is not the message that reason and revelation have provided for me. And working with the understanding that HAS come to me through reason and revelation has brought tremendous peace and healing into my life, so I am going to stick with it until God points me in another direction.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 12:40 PM
|
|
|
|
John,
I am going to respond to you because I think you have brought up some important points that need to be clarified, and I appreciate the invitation to share my perspective. It is a lot to think about, though, and I have a bunch of things I have to do this weekend, so I'm not sure when I will get to it. ASAP, though.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 1:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
Thank you very much for reading my post. I will be very interested to hear your thoughts as you are able to respond. Have a great weekend.
John
|
|
|
Posted Friday, August 01, 2008 1:22 PM
|
|
|
|
What is hard for me, as someone without much of a background in the teachings of traditional Christianity, is to understand why others would so quick to assume that there is not a deeper, spiritual significance to these Biblical accounts of physical occurrences. The spiritual meaning behind the physical birth of Jesus Christ is rich on its own and needs no enhancement or further interpretion. God the Son became God incarnate and set in motion a series of events that would culminate in the cross and resurrection. CS has to look for deeper spiritual meanings because is has denied the deity of Jesus and, therefore, cannot comprehend how wonderfully deep and spiritual the birth of Christ is. The Bible is the story of Jesus Christ from Genesis to Revelation. It's full of spiritual depth all on its own.
|
|
|
|