 Posted Saturday, August 09, 2008 7:57 PM
|
|
|
|
Hey zoarean,
Thanks so much for your comments. I’m very glad to know that mine are being received without animosity (at least by you). I was concerned that here, especially, where people come to find support because they feel they've been hurt by the very doctrine I espouse, it might not be loving to offer my views. But I also think that if we can talk with each other freely, honestly, and with enough respect to consider each other’s perspectives, it can be a positive learning experience for all of us. Anyway, I hope so.
Anonymous, I never have an issue with a teacher illustrating "a spiritual significance beyond the literal meaning", but where Christian Science goes wrong is where their "spiritual significance" denies the literal meaning of Scripture […]. Take for example John 5:20-23.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying here, and I don’t think I actually disagree with you in theory. I mean, I agree that a spiritual interpretation should not take the apparent meaning and twist it into something it is not (as I think I said to John). Where we differ, at least in this example you give, is in our sense of the correlation (or lack thereof) between the CS interpretation and what you call the literal meaning of the text. I think the CS view does work with and extend, but not change, the apparent meaning of the words of the text, that it does allow us to honor the Son just as we honor the Father, even though we don’t call Jesus God. I don’t know if I can really explain why this is, but I will try. In my mind, even though CSists make a distinction between the Father and the Son, they can still be thought of as equal in the way a human son can be the equal of his human father. A human father and son aren’t one and the same person, but they have the same genes, are made of the same “stuff” so to speak, and, especially when we say one is the equal of the other, have basically the same belief system and values. When a son grows to respect and admire his father, he will tend to adopt similar attitudes, beliefs, and also abilities. The father may even give or get the son a job at his place of employment so they can work alongside each other, although the son will have his own work to do. I see God the Father and Jesus Christ, the Son, as having a perfected and exalted form of this kind of relationship.
In S&H Mrs. Eddy says, “Human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike” (269). I take this to mean that traditional Christianity honors Jesus equally as it honors God, by understanding that God came to earth and was, at least for a time, a man, or at least a manlike being, in the form of Jesus (have I got that right? I’m not 100% sure about it, but that’s my sense of it). We, on the other hand, say, no, God was never a limited mortal man, BUT, we say, neither was Jesus! Really, Christ Jesus was the divine manifestation of God, as pure, as perfect, as spiritual, as like God in every way as it was possible to be and still be seen functioning in the human sphere. And (and this is important) we feel so much gratitude, so much reverence, for what Jesus gave to us by bringing that example of divinity into human experience, setting that example for us and showing us the way to salvation. We DO honor him, far, far above any other except for God. In fact, we honor him just as much as we honor God because we understand him to be created by God, sent by God, directed by God, and favored and beloved by God. In the CS view, God is, fundamentally, at the core of every moment of the human life of Christ Jesus. To dishonor Jesus would be equal to dishonoring God. Maybe this additional passage from S&H will help show what I mean. Mrs. Eddy says:
Meekly our Master met the mockery of his unrecognized grandeur. Such indignities as he received, his followers will endure until Christianity's last triumph. He won eternal honors. He overcame the world, the flesh, and all error, thus proving their nothingness. He wrought a full salvation from sin, sickness, and death. We need "Christ, and him crucified" (39).
So even though we look at the meaning of the words that you quoted from John in a somewhat different way, and we describe the relationship between Jesus and God differently, we CS people are really not trying to dismiss what the Bible text says either. Does that make any sense?
I am presently studying Koine Greek to be able to better know the depth of meaning sometimes couched in the original language. But to completely dispense with the literal English based upon an assumption that there is no way for an accurate translation to be made is largely disingenuous- sorry to be blunt- but it is a cop-out [...] To take such a position is to disparage the lifework of thousands of anointed linguists like Jerome, Wycliffe, & Tyndale.
I think it is great that you are studying the Greek. I wish I had the time to do it – maybe someday I will. And even though I still think it is not possible to come up with a particular set of words that everyone would be able to read the same way, I did not mean to imply that I think the work of scholars who are trying to give us a valid translation or interpretation is not valuable – it’s vital! Otherwise people like me who don’t know the original languages would be totally ignorant about what the Bible says. I guess what I really was trying to say was that while I think we can all agree that God is infallible, humans are not, so I always ask God to help me read my Bible and reveal the message that He has put in there for me. This way I feel that I can get past what would otherwise just be my limited human interpretation based on my limited human perspective and reach the truth that is in there, but that I might otherwise miss. This is what I think MBE means when she says, “As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.” Perhaps you are looking at the “anointed linguists” as having done this so that others don’t have to? (I have never heard of anointed linguists – are they literally anointed by someone or are you using that term figuratively?) I certainly like the idea that translators are praying their way through their translation work, but I don’t think that means the responsibility to do so myself is any less.
Well, sorry for going on and on. It is hard to explain this kinds of ideas in just a few words though!
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, August 10, 2008 8:06 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, Quote: "A human father and son aren’t one and the same person, but they have the same genes, are made of the same “stuff” so to speak, and, especially when we say one is the equal of the other, have basically the same belief system and values. When a son grows to respect and admire his father, he will tend to adopt similar attitudes, beliefs, and also abilities. The father may even give or get the son a job at his place of employment so they can work alongside each other, although the son will have his own work to do." We're not too far apart in this understanding, except to say that John 5 makes it clear that the Father & the Son largely have the same work to do. Verse 19- "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." This fact further demonstrates their equality. I am going through these "equality" verses (John 5:17- 47) one by one on my blog at the present time. Quote: "In S&H Mrs. Eddy says, “Human philosophy has made God manlike. Christian Science makes man Godlike” (269)." This second statement is where Mrs Eddy gets off the train of traditional understanding of Scripture to ironically transfer to the "human philosophy" bandwagon. Human nature causes all of us to want to think of ourselves very highly, but God- through Scripture, again brings the message contradictory to our nature- that we are all unworthy sinners continually "fall(ing) short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). In my estimation, there is no area where we could not disagree more with Mrs. Eddy. One message that God firmly establishes, from Genesis 3 to Revelation 22, is the fact that our righteousness is so much less than God's that our righteousness is only comparable to "filthy rags" (Isa. 64:6). I was raised in CS, & most of my family is still involved; I generally state the rhetorical "Are sin, disease, & death real?" in order to give the voluminous Scriptural evidence that, indeed, they are all real. This is fundamental to truly embracing the necessity of the Person of Jesus Christ as our only Savior. You go on to speak of Him as a mere "example" to mankind; this far underplays the true honor that He is due. Yes, He was an example, but any individual can be this to me. Accepting the Biblical teachings that I am truly a sinner, & God demands judgment for all sin, I am driven to Christ (the Person) as my only hope to avoid the reality of the "second death" (Rev. 21:18). In a sense the second death at least is not a realty, but only to those who embrace Jesus Christ & His sacrifice as substitutionary to the judgment a holy God must give in answer to our sin. Praise God that all judgment has been remanded to Christ, for when I allow Him to become my Savior, my judge & my Savior become one and the same glorious Person. So I avert the dreaded judgment day the Bible warns us is coming. Quote: "Perhaps you are looking at the “anointed linguists” as having done this so that others don’t have to? (I have never heard of anointed linguists – are they literally anointed by someone or are you using that term figuratively?)" I'm simply referring to linguists who don't seem to have to work at learning languages to the degree that most of us do. Seeing the ease at which a William Carey, for instance, readily picked up three distinctly different Indian dialects in the course of living there as a missionary in the 18th century leads me to believe he was anointed (gifted) by God for his task of bringing the Gospel to that nation. After ten years of traveling the country, by simply living & working amongst them, he had truly mastered their languages & was the first person to be able to hand them a Bible in a language they could understand. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, August 13, 2008 9:46 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, Did she have a relapse or was she suffering in some other way from the fall after this seemingly “miraculous” transformation? I don’t know, but even if that were the case, I don’t see why that has to negate the “falling apple” concept. She said in many places that she did not understand what had happened to her when the healing first occurred, at least not in a way that she could explain or even understand in words, and that it took her years (really, the rest of her long life) to explain it fully and clearly. I think Gill actually gives a pretty good response to your question in her discussion of these events. Explaining and summarizing Mrs. Eddy’s inspiration gained from the healing, Gill first says, “Alone with God and the Bible, the individual can find the resources not just for spiritual illumination but for physical well-being” (168). Then, commenting on this and also the controversy surrounding the “facts” of MBE’s healing, she adds, “This is a very radical message. Why should it surprise us that it took Mary Baker Eddy months and years not just to conceive its general outlines but to learn to rely upon it for herself and to begin formulating it for others?” (168).
I agree that it might take a person years to understand and apply the truths behind a healing such as Mrs. Eddy described. What I take issue with is that, in her autobiography, she made the healing sound immediate and, by implication, permanent. This is in line with what Gill describes as Eddy's "tendency to engage in creative manipulation of the past" (p. 165). If Eddy didn't mean for it to sound "so good," I'm not aware of her trying to put it into perspective for her followers. Indeed, every Christian Scientists I knew growing up thought that she rose from her bed permenently healed. Furthermore, I've read of other instances where she allowed followers to believe outlandish things about her, one example being some of her students' belief that she was the Woman of Revelation 12. According to Nenneman (p.279), she "may not have felt it necessary" to correct this misconception. That's unacceptable me since an honest spiritual leader would not allow her students to exalt her so her if she did not believe it herself -- that's the kind of thing that cult leaders do. About Jesus being God, hmmm… I think Zoarean made some good points in his post #14964 (August 10) but I'll add that the Bible calls both God and Jesus Alpha and Omega in the book of Revelation. They can't both be first and last if Jesus isn't God. This and many other verses paint a picture of Jesus being BOTH God the Son and the Son of God. Take just about any other Chrstian concept (heaven, judgment, what death represents, etc.) and the CS interpretation contradicts the Bible rather than spiritually illuminating it. On a different note -- I'm glad your end-of-the-semester week went OK. Having lived through several of those, I always empathize with people who are going through them.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 10:50 AM
|
|
|
|
Zoarean,
Thanks for your thoughts. I see what you mean about the work for Father and Son. This is something that is incorporated into the CS concept as well, though, again, a little differently. In CS, as you apparently know, we understand God as completely perfect, the only creator, the only Mind and Life, and everything in the universe, especially man, as reflecting his goodness, perfection, and intelligence. So the Son (who lived and demonstrated this) could do nothing of his own accord but, rather, like the reflection in the mirror, reflects the work that God is doing (the reflection as a metaphor is flawed, I think, but I can't think of a better way to explain it right now). Thinking about it this way, it is always God doing the work and the Son’s actions are just an expression of this, so it is, as you say, the same work.
As for the general Christian view of all men as unworthy sinners who must be saved through Christ, I think CS actually does teach this too, BUT (and, of course, this is where we take a much different view) the sinner is mortal man, which is not the spiritual perfect man of God’s creating but a mistaken view of what man is, and we need Christ, Truth, to help us understand and “put off” this “old man” (as Paul talks about in Ephesians 4) and "put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” Since we accept God as all good and the only creator, we cannot accept the sinning mortal man as real because all that exists is God and his perfectly good creation. However, we do accept that the flawed, mortal, material nature seems real and is real to us as long as we believe it to be, and unless we accept the Christ (Truth), follow the example of Jesus, and learn to demonstrate our righteousness and true holiness, then we are not saved from the sin and death that are the hallmarks of mortal man.
I imagine that you can find problems with this view as well, but I really appreciate the chance to discuss this with you because the traditional view is so problematic for me. If I am misunderstanding it or have somehow missed something that would help me to see it more positively, I would very much like to have it explained to me. As I understand it right now, the CS view makes so much more sense, though. That’s because I just can’t accept that an all-good and infallible God would make man so inherently flawed and so liable to sin, and then punish him when he acts in a way entirely consistent with his nature as a human being. God has all the power here, yet in the traditional view He doesn’t seem to use it for the saving of His entire creation. Why is that? I know there is the whole free will doctrine which says God could make us all do the right thing but then we would have no free will, no agency to act independently or to choose to love and obey him freely, which is what He wants. But I don’t believe people who don’t accept Jesus Christ as their personal saviors are making an informed choice. I don’t think they refuse to do so because they want to have fun while they are here on earth and are willing to pay for that fun with an eternity of damnation – I mean even a really flawed, really stupid man would not consider this a good choice if he really knew what it meant. People who don’t make the “right” choice do so because they don’t understand the implications of their choice. It’s like leaving a toddler in the median of a busy freeway and telling him not to walk out into the street. He might not, but if he did it wouldn't be because he knew he would get killed and thought the thrill of walking in the street was worth it. It would be because he didn’t understand the consequences of his disobedience. And wouldn’t the parents be to blame rather than the toddler for that toddler’s inevitable death? I think our heavenly Father loves us too much to leave us in such a precarious state. If you are right and I am wrong, though, then I am going to spend eternity without God even though I spent my life doing my utmost to serve and glorify Him. Where’s the justice in that? Doesn’t God have to be somewhat petty and mean-spirited to allow me, with all of my good intentions and sincere desire to follow and serve Him, to fall prey to this false doctrine that will damn me for all eternity?
Christian Science may not honor Jesus as a person and as a God in the way that traditional Christians believe he should be honored, but I think we give God so much more credit than traditional Christianity for being not just good but perfect, not just powerful but all-powerful, not just a creator but the only creator. And in giving God this kind of credit and honor, we honor as well His creation as made in his image and likeness, perfectly good, perfectly obedient, perfectly employed in the service of his maker, and perfectly happy to do the will of the Lord. We don’t honor the sinning, mortal man in this way, but, once man is saved from the false view and the evil that attends it and his perfection is revealed, that man, “which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” is worthy of the respect and honor due to his creator. However, if you think you can help me to see how your view honors God more, I would love to hear whatever you have to say on this topic.
By the way, I googled your blogger name, “zoarean” and found what must be your website, “Zoarean’s Purse.” It’s really cool; I can see that you are really working to understand the scriptures on a deep level. I will be reading more of it when I have more time. Thanks for mentioning it.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, August 14, 2008 11:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Linda,
I understand why someone who does not believe in CS would take issue with the “facts” surrounding MBE’s pivotal healing as you have explained them (I put “facts” in quotes because I still don’t know how much of what is being said here really qualifies as fact, although I do believe you are sincere in giving me your true estimation of the facts as you understand them). Perhaps it is just that it is easier for me to make allowances for these seeming inconsistencies and to accept that there is a reasonable explanation because I feel absolutely certain that I’ve seen the efficacy of CS practice as explained by this woman. I I trust that her efforts to explain this Science and to leave the knowledge of it for others to learn, practice, and benefit from were not just sincere but God-directed and informed. As far as the woman in Revelation goes, I think there were times when she wondered if she was, indeed, that woman, but eventually she came to understand everything in Revelation to be metaphorical and not to represent individual men as much as spiritual concepts, and she left that idea behind (that is my belief, but I am not 100% sure I have that right). Again, I don’t think she was being dishonest nor trying to exalt herself to the status of a cult leader or to make herself equal to God or Jesus, but there is no question that she did see her mission as God-derived and did believe she had a special role to play that was hers alone in providing the explanation of CS for the world. I guess I can see how both the real words she left behind and the stories about her, which have been embellished and exaggerated at times in the retelling, might make her appear to be exalting herself beyond what was her due.
And, again, to the Jesus = God idea, I appreciate the effort to explain this from yet another perspective, but I can see Jesus, as an idea of the one Mind, being the first and last along with, but not one and the same as, God. I don’t think that means that the CS interpretation contradicts the Bible, although it is definitely a different way of looking at it than do most Bible scholars. Actually, I think a lot of our views on these concepts are a lot closer than they seem on the surface, but I suspect you will not take my word on that  . On the up side, I think I’m coming to better understand the traditional interpretation of these many verses, and I think that is probably the best you can hope for from me. I can see that my perspective is probably never going to make sense to you any more than yours will to me, so I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this.
On a personal note, I appreciate the gentle way you present your views and the respect you demonstrate for my worth as a person. Thanks for the end-of-semester empathy. I am looking forward to finishing my coursework during the next year or less (but then will still have a dissertation to produce– lots to keep me busy!).
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, August 16, 2008 10:37 AM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, Quote: "So the Son (who lived and demonstrated this) could do nothing of his own accord but, rather, like the reflection in the mirror, reflects the work that God is doing (the reflection as a metaphor is flawed, I think, but I can't think of a better way to explain it right now)." I'm not sure where you see the flaw in your metaphor, but the flaw I see in it is it does not give Jesus His due. For sake of better illustrating my point, allow me the liberty to expound upon your analogy to say our sun represents the Father (or "God" in your metaphor) & earth's moon represents the Son. The sun would be the only source of light, power, & brilliant magnificence. The moon, while quite the celestial object in its own right, has no power of its own. It would not even be seen in the night sky apart from our sun's brilliance. I believe this would do justice to the Christian Science view. The problem is that, by His own testimony in Scripture, Jesus' glory exudes from Himself as well as the Father. With either illustration, the reflection has no innate luminescent power, & this is where neither metaphor confers upon the Son His proper honor. Isaiah 9:1-6 But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations. (2) The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. (3) You have multiplied the nation; you have increased its joy; they rejoice before you as with joy at the harvest, as they are glad when they divide the spoil. (4) For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, you have broken as on the day of Midian. (5) For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. (6) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Jesus is Mighty God in the OT too! And the "great light", the "bright & morning star" (Rev. 22:16) is truly the "Everlasting Father" to all He has given birth to by the power of His blood. He told us in John 3 that we "must be born again", & He later revealed in John 5:21 that He has power to "(give) life to whom He will". So, if it be true that we become "born again" as a "new creation" through Him, He truly is an "Everlasting Father" to our revived soul. I remember as a kid getting my first telescope at Christmas; the first object in the sky I sought out was a dual star system. I had been reading about it, but after finding it on my star chart, I was disappointed that it only appeared a single star through my dad's binoculars. But I still had faith in what the book had said- that in spite of my limited perception, it was indeed a two star system, yet I had to wait for Christmas to actually see it for what it was. Likewise, the world also had to wait for the first Christmas to fully perceive the glory of the second star of God.The Father & the Son are very much like a dual star solar system- for they illuminate each other. In John 17:4 & 5, Jesus tells His Father that He has glorified Him on Earth & then goes on to ask His Father: "glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." Quote: "Since we accept God as all good and the only creator..." I want to speak to this briefly to say we are "creators" in a sense as well. In John 10:34, Jesus quotes Psalms 82 when He tells the Jews "Is it not written in your law 'I said, you are gods'?" Even most reformers, who completely oppose the entire concept of man that man can save himself from judgment, must allow that man indeed has been granted a measure of free will that is allows him a limited sovereignty to follow his own desires (this does not, by necessity, impinge upon God's complete sovereignty). When God created man, He made us in His "image & likeness", but that does not & cannot mean that God replicated Himself. When He made us, He gave us some godlike abilities- a free will to follow the desires of our own nature- but He most certainly did not create another class of true "Gods"- for only He can be God. Understand, only He has the purity of perfect holiness & righteousness to rightly drive an unlimited sovereignty. Understand, being made in His "image & likeness" clearly does not extend to being made in the likeness of His holiness nor His character (His perfect righteousness). Pride is what drove Adam & Eve to want to eat of the tree of greater knowledge. They put their faith in the maxim that knowledge is power, & their lesser character drove them to greedily desire greater power (sovereignty) than they had been given. Their actions only proved their character to be beneath God's character. It is the same in the heart of man today. Our actions, our sin, prove our lesser character & our desperate need for Jesus Christ's personal holiness & His personal character to cover us. Jesus proved the mettle of His Godly character as He faced every challenge that we face in life- hunger, thirst, & apprehensions of unordained power (His forty days in the desert) & yet never sinned. He suffered tremendous emotional, mental, & physical pain with nothing less than God's own strength of character. Unlike any of us, He knew no sin, so proves our need for Him. Quote: "I don’t think they refuse to do so because they want to have fun while they are here on earth and are willing to pay for that fun with an eternity of damnation – I mean even a really flawed, really stupid man would not consider this a good choice if he really knew what it meant. People who don’t make the “right” choice do so because they don’t understand the implications of their choice. It’s like leaving a toddler in the median of a busy freeway and telling him not to walk out into the street." So as to refrain from my exploring of this topic again, please see my thoughts on free will in this thread. And please accept my apologies for not giving the link to my blog. By the way, I encourage open discussion there as well; all may feel free to give dissenting views in the comment section, for I make no claim to having full understanding all things pertaining to life & Godliness. My only prayer to God in this regard is that I would have all the understanding that I need to know. Though, after further inspection, God often shows me I don't need to know as much as I think I need to know. After closer examination, I sometimes find a lust for knowledge driving my need to understand so many things; I sense God telling me I don't need to understand it all. Some things I want to understand, but God blesses me instead with the greater gift of humility before Him by withholding understanding from me. Humility & faith must rule where understanding is lacking. I thank God for the times He has blessed with these, leaving me forlorn in understanding, but blessed instead with the greater gifts of a quiet & humble faith in Him & His Word. As Jesus said, we must often come to Him as little children. Children understand very little, but they believe very much. Paul directly addressed the disbelievers in God's particular & sovereign election of His children in Romans 9. He showed your very contention existed in His day as well- "Why does He still find fault? For who can resist His will?" & "Will what is molded say to the molder, Why have you made me like this?". God displays the completeness of His Word by responding to our every contention therein. But in this case, if Paul did have understanding to give to us in this regard, he did not see fit to give it. His only response was the humbling "Who are you, O man, to reply back to God?" We must remember that our lesser character makes it difficult, if not impossible, to perceive the ways of the Divine, & there are concepts that are far beyond our limited ability to comprehend. God says in Is. 55: "For (His) ways are not (our) ways & (His) thoughts are not (our) thoughts. For as the Heavens are higher than the earth, so are (His) ways higher than (our) ways, & (His) thoughts higher than (our) thoughts." I honestly believe the Christian Scientist would be far better off if he spent as much time dwelling on Psalm 51 as he does on Psalm 23. The hard truth of Isaiah 59 comes from the same prophet that gave us the comforting truth of Isaiah 40. The book of Romans does not begin with chapter 8; no, the blessed "adoption as sons" is only for those who have accepted the painful realities of the sin nature spelled out in the first seven chapters. The one is not better nor more inspired nor more literal than the other; they both speak truth & we must embrace both equally if we are to truly know the truth that can set us free. In all the thousands of times I've heard John 8:32 quoted from a CSist, I've yet to hear any freely give the full quote: "If you abide in my Word, you are truly my disciples, & you shall know the truth & the truth shall set you free." As they have done with so many other verses, CS parcels a verse to teach the opposite of what is actually being said. Spiritual understanding comes not by "knowing" any human's myopic perception of the Divine, but only by abiding in His Word & allowing God to dictate His own explicit testimony concerning Himself. Only God is a suitable witness of God. We rightly view God & man as we marry the teachings concerning His law & His grace together. One without the other us to causes a great lack in our necessary understanding. Embracing grace without law, or law without grace causes us to continue to sin & fall short of the glory of God. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Monday, August 18, 2008 4:42 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, I understand why someone who does not believe in CS would take issue with the “facts” surrounding MBE’s pivotal healing as you have explained them (I put “facts” in quotes because I still don’t know how much of what is being said here really qualifies as fact, although I do believe you are sincere in giving me your true estimation of the facts as you understand them). I think Mrs. Eddy's attempt to extract damages from the City of Lynn stands on its own, as does her printed statement (in the petition to Lynn, which is available to the public) that she was "still suffering" from the fall many months after its occurrance. And her letter to Mr. Dresser said that she was also suffering two weeks after the fall. Just doesn't sound like an "immediate recovery" to me... I can see Jesus, as an idea of the one Mind, being the first and last along with, but not one and the same as, God. I don’t think that means that the CS interpretation contradicts the Bible, although it is definitely a different way of looking at it than do most Bible scholars. Actually, I think a lot of our views on these concepts are a lot closer than they seem on the surface, but I suspect you will not take my word on that. Our views are not at all close. I will say, though, that you do an excellent job of explaining the things I used to believe. There's a chasm between us that's hard to imagine unless one has spent time on both sides. I am looking forward to finishing my coursework during the next year or less (but then will still have a dissertation to produce– lots to keep me busy!). I suspect that "busy" is an understatement. Hang in there!
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 7:53 AM
|
|
|
|
Zoarean and Linda,
[T]he flaw I see in [the reflection metaphor] is it does not give Jesus His due. For sake of better illustrating my point, allow me the liberty to expound upon your analogy to say our sun represents the Father (or "God" in your metaphor) & earth's moon represents the Son. The sun would be the only source of light, power, & brilliant magnificence. The moon, while quite the celestial object in its own right, has no power of its own. It would not even be seen in the night sky apart from our sun's brilliance. I believe this would do justice to the Christian Science view. The problem is that, by His own testimony in Scripture, Jesus' glory exudes from Himself as well as the Father. With either illustration, the reflection has no innate luminescent power, & this is where neither metaphor confers upon the Son His proper honor.
I agree that the Son as reflection has no power of his own; however, as you, yourself, pointed out, Jesus told us this is the case: Verse 19- "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise." , so I fail to see how this doesn't give Jesus his due. Honestly I can't understand your perspective which, on the one hand, says Jesus is God and, on the other hand, seems to be arguing that he, in his work and purpose, is different and separate from God. But truly I don't think you will be able to explain it to me in a way that will ever make sense to me, so don't feel you need to keep trying.
Thank you for explaining your views on creation. It helped to clarify for me why traditional Christians would feel so uncomfortable with the CS view. Your perspective that God cannot create a being like himself in character is completely antithetical to the CS concept. This does not mean that CSists believe God is not supreme or the only lawgiver. Indeed, we see not only Jesus but all mankind as a reflection of this infinite power, which, as your earlier explanation shows, is a being without individual power but necessarily reflecting the same actions and character as the original. Mrs. Eddy describes it this way: "As a drop of water is one with the ocean, a ray of light one with the sun, even so God and man, Father and son, are one in being" (S&H 361). I like this explanation, because I can understand how a drop of water is not the ocean but still expresses all of the qualities and characteristics of the ocean in its own small way. Your view is very different, and to me it is the one that does not give God his due, but I accept that in your mind it does. Still, I feel that the traditional view that we must follow the Word but aren't blessed with the capacity to understand it is a major cop-out since not understanding what the Word says makes it impossible to follow it. I feel this is the kind of teaching that lends itself to cultism, rather than CS teachings, because it instructs followers to practice blind obedience instead of informed decision-making. I'm sure it was in response to such traditional views that Mrs. Eddy felt compelled to say in the Preface of S&H, "The time for thinkers has come." (vii).
Finally, while I understand that you both sincerely believe that CS twists the "real" meaning of the Bible, I hope you will be able to accept that I strongly disagree, and that, in fact, I see traditional views as doing this very thing. Nevertheless, I feel this discussion has helped to clarify what this conflict is really all about, and so I appreciate your time and effort.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 2:35 PM
|
|
|
| | |