 Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 5:59 PM
|
|
|
|
I read many of the stories on this "Introductions". Just makes me shake my head.
Hi. I'm a lifelong third generation CS. Normally I wouldn't bother posting on a site like this, but I felt I had to respond, and to the site's credit, dissenting views seem to be tolerated.
It saddens me that so many of you had such terrible childhoods. Parents that are distant, uncaring, willing to ignore their children's basic physical and emotional needs are a disgrace to parenthood. I have heard many such stories and even worse-including types of abuse that I wouldn't repeat. You see, my work brings me into contact with a lot of recovering alcoholics and substance abusers.
Most have come from dysfunctional families. They have come from a myriad of religious and non-religious backgrounds. Some even came from Fundamentalist backgrounds (I'm shocked by the guilt some of these Fundamentalist parents put on their young children for their "sinful" thoughts). None came from CS families. Not saying it couldn't happen, just pointing out that family religion is not a critical factor.
My family certainly didn't treat me the way many of you have described, and neither did the families of the children I grew up with in Sunday School. If your parents have treated you so badly, don't blame CS, blame your parents. It's tough to do, to think it could have been their fault, that is. It's much easier to accept if you can blame it on their religion. That way, it lets them off the hook, and gives you something to vent your frustrations on.
I'm curious about something. I can understand that many people do not find Christian Science their cup of tea. They choose to leave it, and join another religion, or become agnostic, some even become atheists. But what drives the need to form a group with the purpose of trashing it? Accusing CS of being baseless or even evil? Why waste your time? Why the chip on the shoulder?
49merc
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:46 PM
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the forums, 49merc. Glad you stopped by. Like you I was a third generation CSist, but I decided to leave the religion when I was thirty. I actually loved CS and found leaving it to be a long and painful process, but I couldn't stay after discovering disparities between the Bible and CS teachings in a number of key areas. It was only after leaving CS that I began to recognize the harm that CS teachings and practice had done to me as it taught me to minimize my own deeply human feelings and needs while trying to understand and demonstrate the "unreality" of sin, disease and death. I came from a happy family with loving parents, but this damage still occurred. I struggled for years before finally figuring out why I was suffering so much. (My story is posted in the Personal Stories section of the Christian Way web site. Click here if you'd like more details. what drives the need to form a group with the purpose of trashing it? Wow -- if we wanted to "trash" CS, we would be handling things a lot differently. We actually make a big effort to keep things polite.  Seriously...many of the people who come here have deeply troubling stories to tell. We give them a place to share their stories and receive support from people who understand what they have been through. That can be a big help to people who are trying to work through their issues. Some of us here have recognized some troubling differences between what CS teaches and what the Bible says. We point out the differences, not to "trash" CS but to help people see differences that we consider too big to ignore. (From my perspective, Mrs. Eddy has "trashed" a lot of the Bible in her writings by misquoting and misapplying it.) You're right that disfunction happens in lots of families and religions. After studying the issue in depth I have concluded that, even at its best, CS tends to cause emotional damage. I wouldn't have believed that until I left CS and was able to look at CS from "the outside." I hope I've helped clarify our motives a bit. If not, feel free to ask for more clarification. |
|
|
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:53 PM
|
|
|
|
| 49merc, "It saddens me that so many of you had such terrible childhoods." You are correct in saying that many CSists are loving parents to their children. My own were kind & wonderful as they raised me, highly committed CSists as they were. But those that speak of poor CS mentors often make valid criticism, for when CS is taken to its philosophical extreme, it can cause people to be extremely cold & indifferent to those who seem constrained to "imperfection"- particularly the handicapped & the chronically sick. At any rate, I agree that some across society's spectrum take their philosophical viewpoints to extremes; some so much so that often their original goal gets lost. I think we both can agree on one common goal- to be like Christ- but we differ on who exactly Christ was & is to us today- a Person or an Idea? "I can understand that many people do not find Christian Science their cup of tea." I think this is somewhat of a trite way of describing the major change of heart many of us had as we left CS. We grappled at length, some of us for years, with our traditions & the view we wanted to have of God & ourselves versus the picture the Bible clearly paints of who He is & how we are to approach Him. I did not leave CS because it was not my "cup of tea"; to the contrary, CS strongly appealed to my fleshly desire to have a God who had nothing but peaches & cream for me in my life- a less holy God that could simply ignore my past & present depravity & had no need to deal with it (judge it) in concrete fashion. But I was forced to accept reality- that God does have wrath & He is to be feared; as Solomon said: "The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." Ecc. 12:13 May God bless you & speak to you on this forum. zoarean
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 8:35 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Linda, I used the word trash after reading this post:
http://www.christianway.org/forums/Topic14285-23-1.aspx
Comparing MBE to Stalin and Hitler????? Except they were schoolboys compared to her???????
I think that easily qualifies as trashing, and something less than polite.
You state that CS even at it's best causes emotional damage. Wow. I guess we can agree to disagree on that one.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, February 26, 2008 9:28 PM
|
|
|
|
49merc,
Welcome.
One of the good things about forums such as this is that they enable the presentation of diverse ideas (in spite of what some of our critics may claim). Pretty much, the only requirements for posting here are to stay somewhat on topics relevant to our common experience with CS and conduct one's self in a civil manner in accordance with the terms of use.
Not even Linda and I always totally agree on everything we post. We welcome anyone to join the discussions to share their experiences with CS. Most current CSists have as much difficulty relating to the experiences of former CSists as we once had as CSists.
Can't say that I'm especially comfortable comparing MBE to Stalin and Hitler, that's for God to do. I am, however, comfortable comparing myself to them. One of the things I've learned from studying the Bible in its full context and authority is the reality of sin and the reality of our need for God's forgiveness. My sins are grievous and my need for God's Grace great.
I too was a third generation, class-taught CSist thoroughly dedicated to the movement, practicing radical reliance, and believing in the power of my understanding. For more than 30 years, I declared myself God's Perfect Child, "did my work", and dutifully gave thanks to CS, S&H, and MBE during Wednesday evening meetings. I was president of my CS Org, chair of various regional CS events, and looked forward to Annual Meeting and Association.
A bothersome concept got introduced during CS class instruction, we could and should study the Bible beyond the limited context of the CS Lesson-Sermon. Being the literally minded soul that I am, I began reading a lot more of the Bible and began noticing how CS skipped over certain passages. Anyway, the day came for my personal day on the road to Emmaus and I understood what God had to offer me in His word did not require new definitions and acceptance of its imperfection.
Now I totally realize that it probably sounds like I'm talking some language other than English. I certainly had great difficulty understanding the Christians who tried to witness to me as a CSist. I hope, however, that you can accept that the Holy Spirit did something good in me and that I'm not here just to trash CS. He also used CS for my good.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:34 AM
|
|
|
|
49merc:
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 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, 49merc, 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 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.
I would really appreciate your thoughts on all of this 49merc, (if you've stayed with me to this point, for which I thank you if you have!!)
Best regards, and thank you for posting and being part of our discussion
John
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, April 03, 2008 7:54 AM
|
|
|
|
But what drives the need to form a group with the purpose of trashing it? Accusing CS of being baseless or even evil? Why waste your time? Why the chip on the shoulder?
I came to this forum after watching a CS friend slip to death over the course of several months. Although greatly alarmed at his decling health I did not express my concern to him, thus becoming the maliciious malpracticer and making his task all the more difficult. He did not seek the help of the dark side...the evil materia medica, he was a good Christian Scientist to the end, trying to get a healing. Of course, it never came. I was shocked to learn that shortly before his death he told his teacher he was thinking of going to the hospital, described some of his symptoms and his teacher told him it was nothing to worry about he had had those very same symptoms and it was nothing serious.
When he died I understood, on a personal level, that Christian Science kills. What issue is bigger than life and death? What is more shocking than watching people suffer needlessly? What can be more important than life? Even animals fight to survive, but somehow this religion overrides a human being's primordal gift of the struggle for survival. This religion usurps a mature adult's power to think on their own two feet. Lets see now, the religion who couldnt heal me of gout over the last 25 years is gonna fix this? The guy over the phone who tells me this is not serious knows what he is talking about...not a doctor, just some guy who is diagnosing me over the telephone...when I am thinking , my instincts are telling me...this is bad I better got to the hospital?
I came here because I was extremely distressed and needed to talk to someone. I needed to vent. Christian Science IS evil and frankly, it IS baseless. (MBE didnt get CS from God she got it from Quimby. Do you think its just a coincidence that she studied Quimby's teachings then God spoke to her and told her essentially the same thing?) Christian Science has killed more people than Jim Jones and if the world reviles him it should revile Mary Baker Eddy. If the world describes those people as sheep led to the slaughter , then so too are CSers. "Shepherd show me how to go?"...yeah they show you all right, the path to suffering and an early grave if you are not lucky.
So a waste of time? Seems to me this is a VERY IMPORTANT issue, and more people OUGHT to be talking about it. People are suffering and dying out there. Thats way more important than gas prices right?
Square Peg
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, April 03, 2008 5:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous 2/26/2008 7:59:31 PM,
But what drives the need to form a group with the purpose of trashing it? Accusing CS of being baseless or even evil? Why waste your time? Why the chip on the shoulder?
To understand why we spend time "trashing" CS requires exposure to CS and an understanding of the Bible apart from it. It appears to be quite benign, attractive, and truthful. CSists, for the most part, are wonderful, gentle, loving people. On the surface, it appears to be a logical, genuine exploration of God's word for those who cannot understand it otherwise. It removes the hard parts like sin and God's judgement. Unfortunately, it also leaves out the easy parts like the personal nature of God's love and redemption (at least in a manner that is Biblically accurate).
Even if CS were all it claims (it's not), however, there remains a huge problem. The culture of CS demands that anyone practicing it do so perfectly at any level or die trying. Thus, the new student is expected to "demonstrate" CS as perfectly as the multi-generational, class-taught "student". The stigma of failing to radically rely on CS is overwhelming. The culture of CS does not even allow the level of medical interaction permitted by MBE. Practitioners rarely use the privilege of consulting with physicians even to understand the "underlying error".
MBE taught that CS never fails, only CSists. Can you imagine being served contaminated food at a restaurant, getting sick, then being taught and believing it was your fault because of the weakness of your understanding of sanitation practices? Imagine also continuing to serve that food to your children with the encouragement of your family and friends.
I am under no illusion that any CSist will ever be converted as the result of anything any of us write in these forums. Only the Holy Spirit is capable of opening hearts, minds, and souls. I can, however, pray that He will use our musings, ventings, and expostions in some manner to glorify Him. Man, I do sound like a Jesus freak. Yep, and glad of it.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 8:08 AM
|
|
|
|
| As for the use of the term "trashing"... let me redefine it as those in CS are so apt to do. If "trashing" is used in terms of just getting the facts of our own experiences out in the public eye and it doesn't happen to comport with what the Christian Scientists want to hear....then call it trashing. In the real world (not the "reality" of the CS'er) its called being able to call the shots as you see them, not as you want them to be. It is called, "THE FACTS". Yes, we have seen with our own eyes people die senselless deaths by relying on CS. Yes, we have actually felt the pain as children while our parents "knew the truth for us"... and many later suffered after effects of being denied medical treatment. (See the recent post regarding the article of the young woman who had to have her leg amputated when she was an adult because of an untreated infection in childhood). ,Do Good, you stated that " the new student is expected to "demonstrate" CS as perfectly as the multi-generational, class-taught "student" This is so true, however, it leaves the impression that the multigenerational class taught student is able to demonstrate it as well. It is after a lifetime of watching those multigenerationals and class taught CS fail miserably that the light bulbs begin to really go off! Those multigenerational class taught ones use the "they just don't understand" so frequently and you nod you head and go ok, well maybe...But, then when they succomb and you have to say ..THEY must not have understood either...what then? After too many of these any logical person would have to surmise that the problem is not with the person, but the entire philosophy.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, April 04, 2008 8:37 AM
|
|
|
|
Gentle Dove,
Do Good (sic), you stated that " the new student is expected to "demonstrate" CS as perfectly as the multi-generational, class-taught "student" This is so true, however, it leaves the impression that the multigenerational class taught student is able to demonstrate it as well.
I also said that if the claims of CS were true and they are not. There are so man | | | |