Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 3:34 AM
|
|
|
|
| I found an interesting blog by a Christian Scientist which appears to be an anonymous commentary on the "New Christian Science". As I read the content, it reveals so much of the believed but unspoken Christian Science. The ideas and opinions on the blog are similar if not identical, to those I was taught. It also shows those that will come to Christian Way and deny that Christian Scientists really hold those opinions that, yes, it is a part of the doctrine. http://chrsci.blogspot.com/2008/09/unacceptable-compromises.html
|
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
| I posted some things that have been on my mind for some time now concerning Christian Scientists' desire to control the weather. zoarean
|
|
Posted Saturday, September 06, 2008 5:51 PM
|
|
|
|
| I thought the "Unacceptable Compromise" essay really shed light on the "peer pressure" not to go to the doctor concept that the Christian Scientists deny exists. This is also where so many of them end up in the deadly spiral by not seeking medical treatment and thereby sacrificing themselves. In the purely Christian Science world, this guy is right and is following it to the letter. Although the theology is flawed at best, this is really what these people believe!!!!
|
|
Posted Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:49 AM
|
|
|
|
| This article is so very disturbing to me, but unfortunately reflects that mental set of the staunch radical reliant Christian Scientist: if you can't heal yourself you dont understand your religion. It is the thinking of a person with no compassion who hasnt the wisdom to comprehend he may find himself with a health problem that HE cant heal someday. These people dont want to be human..... they dont act it....AND they glorify in it. But I am old enough to have seen that too often "what goes around comes around". Those who pointed the finger at others for seeking medical attention found themselves in the same position, with the overwhelming health problem that they could not begin to cope with. Those who so coldly refused to pray for another human being under medical care found themselves in a hospital with no one to pray for them, but maybe family members who would now make an exception, who now scrabbled to find and study the words of respected Christian Scientists who wrote articles about how it WOULD be OK to pray. The statement at the end of the article referenced...about medical care being "a convenient fig leaf should the need arise" just stuns me. It is obviously coming from the mouth of someone who has never had an extrememly serious health issue and who is so out of it they cant perceive it happening to a Christian Scientist. This DOES happen to people, even good, class taught life long Christian Scientists, and even practitioners and teachers. Maybe they cant breathe from pheumonia or they get in an accident where their life blood is pouring out of them. People get their arms lopped off in farm equipment and their legs crushed into 100 pieces in car accidents. People have unimaginable pain from some cancers. So they go to the hospital and they have grabbed a "convenient fig leaf"? He writes these people off as not being "loyal and true Christian Scientists"? HOw crass!!! I DO wonder if HE found himself in a situation where he could not breathe....say his house was burning down and he had smoke inhalation...as he was gasping for breath....would he stop and "know the truth" or would he grab some oxygen from the tank in the ambulance? The scary thing is, Im not sure. While I have seen so many of them get medical attention in desperate times, I have also seen them sacrifice themselves, and DIE. If I am overly passionate about my disgust for Christian Science you all must forgive me. I was not raised a Christian Scientist so it is not a philosophy instilled in me by my parents. But I have lived with it for more than 50 years and I have watched someone I love DIE for no good reason other than their dedication to the concept of radical reliance. While I used to just roll my eyeballs at ridiculous statements, or hide my stunned reactions to outrageous behavior, I came to the end of the line when I witnessed this death. I was not going to ENABLE the Christian Scientists in my life to continue their CS SPEAK/BEHAVIOR around me and act like it was normal and acceptable. I have put Christian Science out of my life... ended decades long relationships with Christian Science friends and I have thrown my radical reliance, S&H toting, Christian Science husband out of the house. While this site has given me a lot of validation for what I feel, its frustrating and aggrivating when active CSers come here and speak the same old gobbeldygook. I find it SO hard to comprehend how this just goes on and on and they cannot see the forest for looking at one square inch of bark on one tree. And its a life and death issue. People's LIVES hang in the balance. My own husband has clung to radical reliance when his very life was in the balance, even though he witnessed the same failure of Christian Science healing as I have, among our friends and his family over an entire lifetime. He still sat there and said in no uncertain terms "IT WORKS!" I have tried to say to him, dont go by what you read in books or periodicals, dont go by what people have told you, just go by your own experience, what you have seen with your own eyes...its just no use. *sigh* His CS sister fell and hurt her ankle recently. A day later I remember her saying she was healed of the swelling but not of the pain. Healing the pain took several weeks. This is such a good example of how a Christian Scientist thinks and interprets health issues. She totally does not comprehend that: 1) swelling goes down if its not broken 2) if one thing was healed why not the other? 3) if it took weeks it was not a healing, it just got better Square Peg
|
|
Posted Sunday, September 07, 2008 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
He still sat there and said in no uncertain terms "IT WORKS!" I have tried to say to him, dont go by what you read in books or periodicals, dont go by what people have told you, just go by your own experience, what you have seen with your own eyes...its just no use. *sigh* Remember that Christian Science fits most of Robert J. Lifton's criteria for thought reform (mind control). The CS mindset and behavior patterns are much easier to understand if viewed in light of these criteria (as in my book). I feel and understand your frustration -- it's frustrating to watch someone suffer needlessly.
|
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 9:07 AM
|
|
|
|
Just fyi, not all Christian Scientists agree with the moralistic and self-righteous comments on the blog at the link given above. I have just posted this comment in reply:
While there is no question that CS offers a wonderful alternative to medical care, one, in fact, that has proven to be far more reliable and efficacious, I think your ideas, which expose a "holier than thou" attitude, are very far from the practice of Christian Science that Mrs. Eddy taught and demonstrated. Remember that the chapter in Science and Health called "Christian Science Practice" begins with the story from Luke of Jesus expressing compassion toward the unnamed, "immoral" woman who was willing to accept the harsh censure and judgment of her peers to find the Christ, Truth, and rebuking the self-righteous indignation of the Pharisee at her presence. Each of us must work out our own salvation, and each of us has work to do, or we would not be here. If you are seeing church members who are struggling to demonstrate Christian Science, then you are not seeing them correctly and YOU have more work to do. Remember, "Jesus beheld in Science the perfect man, who appeared to him where sinning mortal man appears to mortals" (S&H 476). If you, like Jesus, work to see God's own likeness in every church member, then the healing work being done in your church will inevitably increase and fewer individuals will feel the need to turn to medical means. Rather than judging and condemning your fellow church members (something that the Rule for Motives and Acts tells us we should pray to be delivered from), I suggest you concentrate on learning to express more of the "true brotherliness, charitableness, and forgiveness" ("A Rule for Motives and Acts," Church Manual, page 40), which are the true hallmarks of Christian Science practice.
Although I'm sure you will not agree with everything I've stated either, I think it is important to put on record that the Christian Science does not dictate what choices people can or should make, and people who judge and condemn others' decisions are the ones who are truly succumbing to the false suggestions of mortal mind. Mrs. Eddy expected all Christian Scientists to do their own thinking, to make their own choices, and to rely on CS because it worked, not because it was expected or demanded. In my opinion, this guy's ideas are way out of line.
|
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 1:55 PM
|
|
|
|
"While there is no question that CS offers a wonderful alternative to medical care, one, in fact, that has proven to be far more reliable and efficacious,..."
Oh yes, there is most definitely a question that it is more reliable than medical care. Who says it isn't? Has CS anything other than anecdotal testimony, sincere as it may be. Where are the scientific studies that prove your claim? I might add, there actually have been some scientific studies in other faiths of healing. But TMC and CS have never submitted to this, or am I just not familiar with them? As for reasons for CS healing, I refer you to my six explanations under the "Principia Thread".
John
|
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 2:23 PM
|
|
|
|
Has CS anything other than anecdotal testimony, sincere as it may be. Where are the scientific studies that prove your claim?
If anecdotal testimony was accepted as valid then the anecdotal evidence regarding the failures of Christian Science should also be valid. Thus, Christian Scientists would still be on shaky scientific ground.
Scientific evidence regarding the power of prayer exists, but not for the reasons taught by Christian Science.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 2:41 PM
|
|
|
|
| Should the standard of radical reliance be different in the case of a practitioner? I for one, would feel totally hoodwinked if the practitioner who worked for a loved one (who did not survive) then turned to medical science for themselves when they got sick. I can see how a regular member could slide, but the church (and a practitioner) who allows the practitioners to be journal listed should expect a higher standard from them.....meaning that the person who takes on a "patient" really CAN heal and would use it for themselves effectively. Does the problem here seem self evident? If you call a practitioner for a problem and they are themselves seeking medical care, what does that say about Christian Science? (Ok, us "exer's" already know, but how does the church and practitioners approach this?)
|
|
Posted Monday, September 08, 2008 3:15 PM
|
|
|
|
Gentle Dove (9/8/2008) Should the standard of radical reliance be different in the case of a practitioner? I for one, would feel totally hoodwinked if the practitioner who worked for a loved one (who did not survive) then turned to medical science for themselves when they got sick. I can see how a regular member could slide, but the church (and a practitioner) who allows the practitioners to be journal listed should expect a higher standard from them.....meaning that the person who takes on a "patient" really CAN heal and would use it for themselves effectively. Does the problem here seem self evident? If you call a practitioner for a problem and they are themselves seeking medical care, what does that say about Christian Science? (Ok, us "exer's" already know, but how does the church and practitioners approach this?)
I can tell you in the case of my mother who was a practitioner, she lied about her medical use, or rather keep it a secret.
|
|
|
|