 Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 12:39 PM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous October 31, 2009, @ 1:36:08 PM,
What is your take on this manual passage ... Rereading the manual this morning, I can find a few more you are violating.
Do you not think TMC monitors this site?
Okay, you weren't asking me, but I will give you my take on it.
Yes, I know for a fact that The Mother Church monitors this site. Is that supposed to surprise or intimidate anyone? We've only had one occassion where intimidation appeared attempted by anyone actually connected with The Mother Church and that was probably not authorized. I'd be interested to know what other provisions of the Manual of The Mother Church you believe were violated.
Suppression of free speech is a valuable tool for tyranny. Aristotle established what we now refer to as the communication theories of sterilization and innoculation. I ran across one of my early posts that mentioned that:
Someone told me once upon a time about two theories of communication based in part on ideas going back to Aristotle. Theory of Sterilization says that so long as you prevent exposure of a population to other philosophies you can keep them thinking your way. The danger of that is any opposing exposure is more likely to infect them and turn them against you. Theory of Innoculation says giving them controlled exposure to other philosophies can reduce the opportunities for infection.
CS has effectively used Sterilization from the beginning and taken measures to prevent infection such as the avoidance of "noxious fiction" and unauthorized literature. One of the things that kept me in CS so long was I did have limited exposure to all kinds of non-CS stuff. The problem was that it inadvertently worked towards the Theory of Innoculation.
Debate exposes truth and lies. Sometimes it reveals the weaknesses in the positions presented. Sometimes it reveals the weaknesses in the presenters. In revealing the weaknesses of presenters, debate provides opportunity for the presenters to strengthen their weaknesses or to turn away from the weaknesses of the positions they held. Truth should never be feared.
In the time of Mary Baker Eddy, lectures and debates served a gap now served by television, radio, and other media. People attended lectures and debates for entertainment and managed to learn in the process. I think that Mary Baker Eddy may have feared widespread criticism of Christian Science because she knew it was a cheap suit waiting for the weak threads to be pulled. She knew that Christian Science could not withstand reasoned discussion and debate unless those who pursued it remained sheltered.
Do Go Be Man
<><
P.S. Before you ask, I did prepare a response before approving your post. Seemed appropriate to quickly respond to something that that could be interpreted as intimidation and suppression of free speech.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, October 31, 2009 2:32 PM
|
|
|
|
Ah, yes. "Personal Sense". I haven't heard that term in years. I think it was my 'personal sense' that always used to long for my raging throat infections to go away. I don't remember hearing exactly that it 'made mischief'.
I might politely (and kindly, I hope) point out that it seems a bit odd to me that you would suggest that we 'negative' former Scientists take a passage from Mrs. Eddy under advisement regarding our behavior. I doubt many of us read Science and Health, and I have read many charitable comments from our regular posters. Most of us seem to understand that the average Christian Scientist is a very well-meaning soul. We probably have a lot more compassion than you think for those still in the movement.
Unlike Do Go, I don't much separate the teachings from the culture. I think the teachings are responsible for the culture.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 9:56 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous (10/31/2009)
Recent Anonymous,
What is your take on this manual passage:
Article X - DEBATING IN PUBLIC
No Unauthorized Debating. SECTION 1. A
member of this Church shall not debate on Christian Science in public debating assemblies, with
out the consent of the Board of Directors.
Rereading the manual this morning, I can find a few more you are violating.
Do you not think TMC monitors this site?
What is your point? We are no longer members of the Mother Church (at least I am not, I told them to take my name off the rolls), and they have no authority over what non-members care to discuss on the internet, any more than the Vatican does.
If unauthorized debating is a violation, why do so many Christian Scientists come and argue with us here?
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 10:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Ann,
What is your point?
From the context and past experience, I think the point was to intimidate Christian Scientists who post here. They are certainly welcome to post a correction to my assumption.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, November 02, 2009 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Do Go,
That surprises me, unless the poster meant to distance him/herself from some of the more contentious CS's who have posted here. Maybe that was it.
Anyway, I have to admit that I would have found such a comment offensive even when I was a devout CS. I have always believed in free speech, and figured that if I got into a debate and got my arguments smashed, that was my own responsibility.
I'd like to add also, in relation to the insistence on stopping CS treatment being just a personality quirk, that my teacher stopped treatment for a little girl who was rushed to the ER -- he told the mother to take the child out of the ER, that it would be better if she died rather than accepting medical treatment. Since he is a CSB, and also currently on the Board of Directors, this does not sound like it's just his personal opinion.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, December 08, 2009 9:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Ann, just about every Scientist I know is a Berean, where they go home and study scripture and if a Church member makes a statement, they call her on it. They ask, "where is that in the Bible"? Every Church has members who put their own interpretation on CS and the Bible and that is why the S&H serves as our Pastor in written form. There are many passages in the Bible that could have several interpretations and some passages appear in contradiction, just as passages in S&H may seem unclear to me, but my continual study helps bring these passages to light.
Eileen
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, February 21, 2010 5:18 PM
|
|
|
|
| It's not an awful site. It looks like a group therapy site for ex-Christian Scientists who didn´t make the grade. It just seems full of embittered individuals who left Christian Science before they understood it and were able to solve their emotional problems. As usual, the posters here hold Christian Science to a standard to which they clearly don´t hold any other religion. The cliché commentaries about hypocrisy in the church and misinterpretation of scripture can be applied to any and every church in existence. Maybe you should change the direction of the site more toward an anti-organized religion site in general. The doom-saying directed toward the CS camps and college really just sounds malicious. Sounds like people need a warm cup of soup and a hug from their daddies.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, February 22, 2010 10:01 AM
|
|
|
|
From my years in Christian Science, I remember that the attitude of most was that if you didn't agree with Christian Science, then you just didn't understand it. The assumption being conveyed that anyone who really understood it would agree with it. Convenient -- the church is never at fault. The former member is. Very cult-like.
There are many passages in the Bible that could have several interpretations and some passages appear in contradiction, just as passages in S&H may seem unclear to me, but my continual study helps bring these passages to light.
The above from one poster is a good indication of this attitude. If you aren't healed, if you don't understand, if you don't agree, then it's all your own fault.
It's not an awful site. It looks like a group therapy site for ex-Christian Scientists who didn´t make the grade.
Yes. It IS group therapy for former Christian Scientists. People leaving cult-type groups usually need some form of emotional support.
It just seems full of embittered individuals who left Christian Science before they understood it and were able to solve their emotional problems.
What makes you assume I didn't understand it? I was raised in Christian Science, a 4th generation C.S., a Principia graduate, attendee of the A/U camps, class taught, Second Reader in the church, and a practitioner. It seems a bit arrogant for you to just assume that I didn't "make the grade". Perhaps I would have to have become a CSB to "make the grade"? But likely it's just that you can't stand the idea that someone as steeped in Christian Science as I was could possibly disagree with it and leave it. Well, deal with it. That's what happened.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 1:22 PM
|
|
|
|
I'd like to add also, in relation to the insistence on stopping CS treatment being just a personality quirk, that my teacher stopped treatment for a little girl who was rushed to the ER -- he told the mother to take the child out of the ER, that it would be better if she died rather than accepting medical treatment. Since he is a CSB, and also currently on the Board of Directors, this does not sound like it's just his personal opinion.
I understand why a CSB would stop CS treatment if a child was taken to the ER for medical treatment because s/he wouldn't want to interfere with the belief that medical treatment could be efficacious, but I find it hard to believe that s/he would say it would be better for a child to die than accept medical treatment. That's a ridiculous statement and one that would not be considered a Christianly Scientific perspective by any of the CSists I know. One time when I became very concerned about what appeared to be a tumor the size of a walnut on my daughter's body, I told my CS teacher that I felt we should get it diagnosed and find out what treatment options a doctor would recommend, and he was entirely supportive of that choice. He agreed to offer prayerful CS treatment right up until the moment we decided to engage medical treatment and to continue to offer general prayers (but not treatment) if it seemed right to us to go the medical route. So he prayed for us while the doctor was examining her, and we were comforted when the doctor told us it was not cancerous. However, he also told us it would only grow bigger unless it was removed and referred us to a surgeon. I reported this to the practitioner, who continued to give CS treatment during the week we waited for our appointment time with the surgeon. During that week, the tumor shrank visibly every day, despite the fact that this was exactly opposite what the doctor told us to expect, and by the time of our appointment it was smaller than a pea. When the surgeon took a look at her he almost laughed and said that this certainly did not warrant surgery and that we would just need to watch it. Shortly after that visit it disappeared entirely and never returned (that was over 13 years ago now), and we discontinued the Christian Science treatment in addition to never needing to return to the doctor. This, to me, is a responsible application of CS treatment when a child's life appears to be threatened. I also know one CSB who is now on the Board of Directors who once told a mother that she should take her child to the ER in order to quiet the concerns of the non-CS family members and community, but that he would continue to work for the child because the mother's confidence was not in the medical treatment but in the efficacy of CS, and that child was healed very quickly. These are the kinds of practical, compassionate, and supportive responses that I expect and have always received from CS practitioners when I have called on them.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 2:04 PM
|
|
|
|
| Glad to hear of your daughter's good outcome, Anonymous! but I find it hard to believe that s/he would say it would be better for a child to die than accept medical treatment. That's a ridiculous statement and one that would not be considered a Christianly Scientific perspective by any of the CSists I know. Unfortunately, I've heard of this happening with more than one practitioner. I doubt it happens very often, but it does happen. I know a woman who finally rushed her daughter to the ER for lifesaving surgery after three days of CS treatment (the daughter was dying of a ruptured appendix and peritonitis and was in a coma by the time her mother took her to the hospital). A couple of the woman's CS friends rushed to the hospital and begged her to have the surgery stopped. Her practitioner later said that it would have been better to let the daughter die than to get the medical help.
|
|
|
|