 Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi guys
Had seen your site many moons ago and was just cruising it now and was curious as to why all the emphasis on decrying CS? I am so sorry to hear that many of you have been hurt, injured or damaged by your involvement with it. But does it really matter what religion you are as long as that religion gets you closer to God and Jesus?
Also, do you not believe in spiritual healing? Just wondering. I attend a variety of churches regularly and one of the non-denominationals (Hope Chapel) advocates and expects physical healing... at least that is my understanding of their beliefs. Have most of you really not had healings, whether physical, emotional, financial, mental? Heck I rarely have a day go by when I haven't seen God's transforming grace doing something in my life that seemed improbable if not impossible. I am not a religious person by nature but go to church because I love God and Jesus so much and I have always loved how Christian Science (be it S&H, an article or lecture) has helped to deepen my understanding of God's great love for us and what it meant for his son to come to us. But to me it's all about understanding God and his love for us, not about religion
So again, just wondering, is CS really so bad that you have to rescue people from it? big hugs to those who've been disillusioned, brainwashed or living in 'fantasy'land
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:34 PM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous January 15 @ 11:26:37 PM, Glad you stopped by again. Good questions! ... why all the emphasis on decrying CS... does it really matter what religion you are as long as that religion gets you closer to God and Jesus?
From my experience (including about 3 decades studying CS and CS class instruction), I found that CS drew me away from God and Jesus. The more I studied the Scriptures in context and tried to reconcile God's word to CS, the more I found God and Jesus in the Bible and not in CS teachings. MBE claimed the Bible is full of thousands of errors and at least implied the perfection of S&H. Claiming the Biblical basis of CS came to make no sense to me unless I rejected the teachings upon which it was allegedly based.... do you not believe in spiritual healing?
I absolutely believe in God's healing grace. A member of my family is experiencing a serious medical crisis this week (no details for the sake of anonymity). Individually and through prayer lists, I estimate that I have asked more than 600 people to lift up my sick family member, his doctors, and the rest of our family to the Lord for His special Grace of healing, wisdom, comfort, patience, and traveling mercies. As each element of the crisis resolves, I give thanks to God to His Glory. I do not give thanks to the human founder of any earthbound organization, her writings, or the movement she founded. Prayer is a powerful privilege that God granted us as we pray in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ. Please pray as you feel led.I am not a religious person by nature but go to church because I love God and Jesus so much and I have always loved how Christian Science (be it S&H, an article or lecture) has helped to deepen my understanding of God's great love for us and what it meant for his son to come to us. But to me it's all about understanding God and his love for us, not about religion
"Religion" takes many forms and many meanings. CS does indeed appear to provide understanding of God's great love for us. It took me more than 30 years to think otherwise. I would disagree that it provides understanding of what it meant for Him to give His only Son. CS denies the reality of sin and the reality of God's creation. In denying sin, CS also denies the import of Jesus' ministry and sacrifice.... is CS really so bad that you have to rescue people from it?
Gonna let you in on a little secret... as a "five-point Calvinist" (merely a label of convenience to indicate the direction of my beliefs), I believe that only the Holy Spirit calls us to Him. Therefore, I have no power to rescue anyone from anyone or anything. He found me dead in my sin and called me to Him. I was unable to do anything to help even myself. Why He would choose such a broken mess as me is a great mystery. So, given that belief, why have I expended so much time and effort in writing more than a 1,122 posts in these forums (actually more than that as we archived a lot)?My participation in these forums has nothing to do with rescuing anyone, I can't do it and don't have the time to waste. It is also not to do battle with anyone except myself. Each time someone challenges my criticisms of CS, I use the opportunity to examine the criticisms from a Biblical perspective. Many times, I also read parts of once familiar CS writings as a check on what I study now and what I left behind. Thus, I have had hundreds of opportunities to reconsider CS and to dive deeper into Scriptures in almost surgical excisions of CS teaching that once so dominated my life. If in the process I have shared anything useful along the way, it has been in the spirit of the Great Commission and application of the scientific method. As you read my posts, I pray that I have in some small way been successful in encouraging putting God's word first and the teachings of man last. I don't care much what denomination someone finds most suitable for themselves, even if it's CS. Frankly, I crave and cherish the opportunity to discuss and explore God's word with anyone even if they disagree with me. Unfortunately, I'm frequently disappointed as too many discussions in these forums dissolve into ad hominen attacks and attempts to introduce anti-Biblical source texts. If you disagree with me, so be it. Understand, however, that I would like to understand the Biblical basis of your disagreement. Thank you for your questions and the opportunity tonight to write. Writing helps me clear my head and focus on what is important. Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:05 AM
|
|
|
|
First of all I must say I love your screen name! I find it very inspiring. Second, wow, what a quick reply - thanks so much! I'd never written into a forum before and am not a big debater or discusser (too lazy to spend the time or do that much typing hee!) and am not apt to refute anything anyone might say here as I am just a guest who had a few questions. But I adore your obvious love of the scriptures and am so impressed by your continued questioning and studying. What a blessing that you have found what works for you to draw you closer to God. And by the way, count me in on praying for your dear family member
Last, I have no doubt that many people are blessed by the selfless effort you put into sharing your insights in this forum. Thank you so much for letting me be part of it. God bless!
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:20 PM
|
|
|
|
But does it really matter what religion you are as long as that religion gets you closer to God and Jesus? The problem is that the Jesus of CS isn't the Jesus of the Bible. The God of CS isn't the God of the Bible. Have you ever had someone misunderstand you or make incorrect assumptions about you -- and then try to relate to you as the person they have decided you are rather than as the person you really are? It certainly doesn't make for a close relationship. I can't belive that God appreciates being redefined and then worshipped in a way that "works" for someone but misrepresents Him in the process.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 18, 2009 6:59 AM
|
|
|
|
Even though this thread is over a year old, it's a good one.
Anyway, "what's so bad about being in CS?"
Is that partly what you're asking? I guess that's in line with asking "What's so bad about not being CS?"
When I first left CS, I had to do it completely, or it'd take me lifetimes just to purge all the false teachings out of my head. Cold turkey.
I think the answer lies in the search for truth.
Anyone who's ever loved CS should be able to know what's so great about knowing the truth, for real. So, based on the Bible's idea that 2 or 3 witnesses were reasonable to expect, to back up someone's testimony, I reasoned that truth should have witnesses too. That's how I started looking. Witnesses have to pass some requirements to be valid. You don't just listen to anybody.
My favorite witness is the Bible, or the Word of God. When he says something really important, more often than not, it's repeated, at least twice. It's like he knew his kids wouldn't get it the first time.
There were other ancient people who had a hold on the wisdom of God as well. There was a ruler in India, thousands of years ago, who wrote the stuff on pillars. That was another witness. I liked that especially. Some of the wisdom of the Bible was attested to by Native Americans. I guess you get the idea.
Then there was the stuff that all Christian Churches could relate to and agree on. That was easy. Usually they could relate it back to clear Bible verses. There were others with views that were inspired. Some were in this world, like psychologists and medical people. Some were saints and mystics.
Sometimes you could get at the truth by looking at the opposite of what the "enemy" wanted you to obey and believe. Again, it had to check out with the Bible.
That being said, there are lots of good points in CS; but that isn't the problem. That's the lure that lulls people into a feeling of safety. The problem is where CS diverged from the true teachings of Jesus' mission. You know, the cross, and him as the Lamb of God, and the forgiving of our sins... bought with his precious blood.
On an eternal scale, you could describe it this way: you have choices. If you believe in who Jesus is, and come to him (follow him), you'll do the things he prescribes, and believe what he gives, and you'll get eternal life in the hereafter - in the GOOD PLACE! (If you can't do all that, but can at least believe in him for the works' sake, he still accepted that, since you were also believing in him.)
Nowhere does it say that he's going to give you all of eternity to work it out yourself. He refers to himself as the Way,... the door... no other way in but through him. Doing it all by ourselves ISN'T one of the options. If it leads us to finding our way to the door, Jesus, then it might be alright. If we've already found him, and then leave him, to go chase after another way, that would be dangerous for our soul. Nothing would make the enemy happier.
If you want training in holiness, read about the people who were holy. You don't have to go to CS for it. There were saints and martyrs, mystics and doctors of the church who can explain things we've always wondered about. It's part of the ministry training, for both protestant and catholic.
Back to that point about where we're spending eternity... Most Christians believe in a heaven and a hell. Some also believe in a place in between, where you get to work out some things, but are heaven-bound. Simply put, if you give me a choice, between the end of this life opening the door to heaven OR opening the door to another go-round endlessly until I get it right (and ascend), I hope you can guess which one I want! And if I land in that preparatory purgatory, before I'm ready for heaven, at least I'm "nearly there."
Do you think Mrs Eddy was teaching such a place? With all the redefining she did, it's possible. Oh, I hope not. Imagine linking up with a religion whose highest promise is to be able to deliver you to purgatory. OUCH.
It's an act of brotherly love to try to tell folks that there's a better way.
And to be fair, there's a lot that current flocks of Christians could be doing to aim for heaven. Aiming for purgatory seems a bit like aiming for a "D" in a class. What happens if you miss your mark? What if your teacher is in a cranky mood the day he grades your final? In a good mood, he could curve the grades, or give you that extra few points to pass you. In a sour mood, after seeing thousands like you, you're much more likely to be "doing time" and paying the penalties. Only, in the Judgement, there aren't any chances to take the class over.
The thing is, there ARE severe (Judgement Day) penalties, in the New Testament, for any who are found to have been teaching false doctrines. IF you've been in CS, you know that there are at least some people you've explained it to. You may even, like me, have brought some into the religion - or reinforced a friend's faith in CS, causing them to stay, when they were ready to leave. I'd be sunk if it weren't for Jesus forgiving my sins at my baptism, so completely.
And I know there are things in CS that slap Jesus on the face, with denials and blasphemies. Once again, I want that mercy and forgiveness, like you wouldn't believe. Don't you think everyone in CS would, if they knew what they were doing?
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:59 PM
|
|
|
|
| To you, CS might be a problem because you see it as diverging from Biblical teachings, but CS people don't see it that way (I suppose you know that, but I thought it should be said anyway). I believe in who Jesus is, I am a faithful follower of his word, I do the things he prescribes. I understand that he is the Lamb of God, I absolutely believe that he died for our sins (certainly he would not have had to go through that crucifixion experience if we had not been mired in the sinful belief that man is mortal), and I accept that we are redeemed by his supreme sacrifice. Because I understand this, I know I can expect life eternal, and I will find it by following Jesus because I know that Jesus is the Way. I think CS differs from traditional Christian doctrine by saying we must work out our own salvation, but we do that by following the commands of Jesus, so in the end it doesn't seem that different to me (I know there are plenty who will argue with me on that one, but nevertheless, that's how I see it). One way that we do differ is that CSers don't believe anyone ends up permanently in hell. People might make their own hell by refusing to follow the teachings of Jesus and by becoming mired in the belief that there is a power opposed to God, but CS teaches that evil must, of necessity, through suffering or the practice of CS, be destroyed so eternal harmony can and will eventually be reached by all, even those who might temporarily resist the word. Therefore I think it's completely inaccurate to say CS's highest promise is to deliver us to purgatory. CS teaches that we don't even have to wait for death to experience Heaven. It teaches that the kingdom of Heaven is at hand (which either means here or near, depending on which translation you read) and that, therefore, we can and should repent right now of sin and begin our experience of eternity without delay. We CSers are definitely not aiming for purgatory (sorry if I missed reading an earlier post that explains where that comment came from). We're all about attaining the kingdom of Heaven.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 7:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Here's why CS is soooo damaging.
I am 46 years old and have been a CSist since I was 10.
Six months ago I FINALLY started to have my doubts and now I know that it is destructive and paranoid.
The view of Jesus and God I have no doubt is off because MBE herself was a narcissistic lunatic.
I have no idea what the correct view of God is anymore and I would never again pretend to know.
It depends on who you talk to,right?
But for me,the most destructive part of CS is the radical view of never using medical treatment.
CSists will always tell you that you are "free" to have medical intervention if you wish but the darker side of that is there is always a sense of guilt and failure if you do and that if you pray long and hard enough you will get your healing.People are dying waiting for their healings and it is so,so warped.
I'm sure people find healing in all sorts of ways with medical,with holistic,with prayer...whatever.
The notion that you cannot mix medical intervention with prayer is insane.If there is a divine guide for us all,i would think that we should be allowed to use any means to get well and be at peace.
thanks all!
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 8:41 AM
|
|
|
|
Another danger would be the claim made by CS, of following Jesus' teachings, when in truth it rejects his teachings about hell, and about his dying for our sins and redeeming us by his blood. CS rejects more than that. If Jesus said it, taught it, got it from the Father, IT's TRUE. We can bank on it. How can anyone claim to follow Jesus as Wayshower, and then throw out half of their Wayshower's teachings?
That's messed up.
Either CS believes Jesus is God... I AM... like he claimed... or CS has essentially called him deceptive, misled or insane (which he most certainly wasn't!)
Can't have it both ways. Use your logic! If CSers have got any scientific inclinations at all, it really shouldn't be all that far of a stretch.
I've never known any in CS to willingly (or otherwise) admit that Jesus is God. They'll aver that Christ is Truth (while separating Jesus from divine mission). But they won't make the obvious connection. Jesus IS Christ. Christ is Truth. Truth, God, therefor must be one with Jesus in a most complete way. [If a=b, and b=c, then a=c] MBE loved to use mathematical examples to prove her point, but not a single person in CS will allow for that in areas where they disagree.
Jesus had a relationship to The Father unlike anything any of us has ever had. John 20 tells it through Thomas' response to seeing Jesus, full of holes from his Passion. "My Lord and my God." Jesus didn't correct him. Trust me, if it weren't true, he would have stopped Thomas right there and told Satan where to go. No. Jesus let it stand as statement of fact, and moreover, he blessed Thomas for it. These were righteous men, who wouldn't betray the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the I AM, for anything. Jesus simply let the truth be know.
So what's so dangerous about CS? What's so dangerous about a teaching which claims to be absolute truth, and then denies half of what Jesus taught? Hmmm. You tell me.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 11:20 AM
|
|
|
|
I hope all who have left CS have found themselves a Church home. There's nothing worse than walking through life without God... without morals... without ideals to work for. And as flawed as mankind is, we really do grow and benefit from having a family support, whether in church or in relatives. If it isn't one way, it's the other: somebody could surely use our help.
It takes a while before the spiritual emergency clears up, and you start to find solid ground again. I'd have to say it's probably the toughest challenge I've ever been through. The dark night of the soul is what someone called it. Wilderness, others call it. However blinding it feels, God will still guide us, even if we can't feel it or see it for a while.
The reason I'm careful of what I say about MBE is because of the feelings of those who are still CS, who may happen to read this site. If it's too much of an attack on her, it smells of persecution. You have to be willing to prove what you're saying, for it not to be libel. And you can't have hateful intent. And as for persecution, we all know the more you level dislike or hatred on someone (or their favorite cause), the more they cling to their beliefs.
If it's just about venting anger, I understand that. But you might want to consider warning folks, if you can! I mean, I love my folks, and my cousins, who are still in CS. I might not agree with my children's choices, but I would never go around calling them names for it. Earned or not, those hurt. It isn't the kind of behavior we want to be known for, is it?
I don't know how many of us had dysfunctional families, or dealt with the guilt of parental burdens from sick or challenged children. I suspect that like the other problems of life, it's pretty much the same stats for our crowd as for those of other religious backgrounds. I was rather hoping this site could be a warm place, where people used the things they'd learned about living the Sermon on the Mount, and other cherished teachings, to encourage each other and help those early on the journey. So I'm silly. If threads are spiked with anger and lashing out, who's going to benefit? Safe places are the ones where the growing is done.
If folks have left CS, only to degenerate into apathy and anger, there's been nothing gained. I know there's the betrayal of finding out that someone misled us. I'm aware of the unusual nature of the author of Science and Health. In trying to reach my mother before her death, 3 years ago, I took a look at S&H. Though some of my assessments might be considered debatable, or biased (towards Christianity), they stand as what I found, and what I felt I saw. Bear in mind, I also came from the position of having been a devout CSer myself. I was looking at something that had been a cherished part of my life. And I was looking with the eyes of an adult, trained in English, and with a special interest in honesty and substance.
When I was immersed in CS, I never noticed the >103 counts of self-glorification in S&H... or the 15 counts of bragging... or the 43 put-downs or intimidations. I never noticed the 127 counts of claiming it's 100% true, or the 93 counts of claiming it to be God, Comforter, Second Coming, or (from) Holy Spirit. I also didn't notice the 49+ times she claimed it wasn't human theory, opinion, contradiction or hypnotism; and I certainly hadn't noticed the 25 instances of opinion given in S&H. Just a question for you: what happens to a person's mind if you read (or hear) the same 93 assertions over and over again, for days, weeks, years, or decades?
When I came across MBE's standard for crediting quotes, using context, what constituted quackery and religionism, I shared it with my mom. Page 112:26-31. Also 341:4-8. Two good rules. So, naturally I took a look at the way MBE used the Bible. As for giving credit, 40% of her quoting failed her own standards. In Context analysis, 12% could be located, to evaluate context. In Quality Analysis, 88% were of no scientific value. Add that to 16 examples of her attacking the Bible, I'd have to seriously question her work.
To be fair, she wasn't alone in her style or treatment of Bible. There was a fad, during her time, which allowed for such misuse. Today, it doesn't fly, but back then, lots of folks may not have known any better. Just be aware that her Bible quotes aren't just the ones she put quotation marks around. People ought to be careful that they don't misuse the Bible when they use it. I located about 993 Bible quotes throughout S&H. I looked at them 4 ways: completeness, staying true to context, accuracy (quoting KJV), and giving credit. Just for the record, I'm as tough on any Christian writer I come across. When they quote, I expect them to do it responsibly. IF they misuse the privilege, I throw out the book, after correcting it! And I am aware of the differences between the interpretations of teachings, from Evangelical to Apostolic, and from Charismatic to formal. I have no problem with allowing for that, and I hope others will do the same courtesy for me. There's a lot more to learn about, and I'm eager.
Back to those Bible quotes:
Completeness [154 were full quotes; 641 +1/2 were partial quotes; 196 + 1/2 were paraphrased]. Some of this could be considered subjective, but after enough examples, some of it has to be taken seriously.
Staying True to Context [337 were clearly IN context; 634 seemed to me to be OUT of context; and 22 were too vague to tell].
Accuracy (according to KJV -though she might have used other translations]375 appeared to be botched up. I really can't stand that, but it's a common enough problem. Fortunately it isn't a crime. I'd just hope for better in an inspired work. Giving Credit [471 had no credit given; 114 had exact credit given (book, chapter, & verse); and 408 had other credit (ranging from vague, to speaker, or book)]
What does that say to you about the resource book you're depending on for your authority in your spiritual interpretation of everything?
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 23, 2009 5:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Back to those Bible quotes:
Completeness [154 were full quotes; 641 +1/2 were partial quotes; 196 + 1/2 were paraphrased]. Some of this could be considered subjective, but after enough examples, some of it has to be taken seriously.
Staying True to Context [337 were clearly IN context; 634 seemed to me to be OUT of context; and 22 were too vague to tell].
Accuracy (according to KJV -though she might have used other translations]375 appeared to be botched up. I really can't stand that, but it's a common enough problem. Fortunately it isn't a crime. I'd just hope for better in an inspired work. Giving Credit [471 had no credit given; 114 had exact credit given (book, chapter, & verse); and 408 had other credit (ranging from vague, to speaker, or book)]
Very interesting and eyeopening, Jennifer agnes!
|
|
|
|