 Posted Monday, May 05, 2008 8:13 AM
|
|
|
|
One of the defining questions of my generation is Mary Ann or Ginger (referring to Gilligan's Island)? Defining questions for me as a former CSist include Jesus Christ or MBE? The Bible or S&H? There are those who would claim the choices are not mutually exclusive. This topic is intended to explore whether they are. The choice between Mary Ann and Ginger is obvious to me (Mary Ann), but other choices may not be so obvious to others.
A watchful Christian Scientist wrote in the Resources » Polio: An American Story thread (May 5, 2008 @ 2:21:37 AM):
...What Christian Science church, or any other church or organization, wouldn't defend itself again such attacks?...
...It's never the truth that Mary Baker Eddy gave us that fails us. As you must certainly well remember from your upbringing, it's our lack of our own understand of our unbroken relationship to God that fails us. Maybe you can take a little time to reflect on some of those truths you learned in your own upbringing...
I absolutely agree that we should not be surprised when a church, organization, or person defends itself from attack. The core of your message, however, illustrates significant reasons why I abandoned CS.
From the perspective of having studied CS for more than 30 years including class instruction, I developed the understanding that CS represents fundamental departures from God's word. For one, I came to understand that Jesus Christ brought us the truth that sets us free. MBE documented and taught her understanding of what she alleges to have found in the Bible.
MBE ordained as pastors of the Christian Science church the Bible and S&H. Her writings declare that the Bible is the foundation of Christian Science, that S&H "corroborates and explains" the Bible. Her explanations, however, often fail to corroborate Biblical truth. For example, she cites the popular 19th century claim regarding the thousands of errors in the Bible to substantiate and defend the need to develop "spiritual" definitions of Biblical teachings. We've discussed the mathematical implications of those claims elsewhere.
According to MBE, the Bible is flawed and key concepts do not depend upon the truthfulness of Scripture. Yet, she claims the flawed work as her foundation. Like the man who built his house upon sand, CS has questional integrity. Of course, there are those who would claim extra-Scriptural shoring up of MBE's foundation.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|