 Posted Saturday, March 13, 2010 1:44 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks DGB Man:
As you stated in your post "I found I could no longer reconcile Mary Baker Eddy's teachings with the texts upon which she allegedly based her teachings. As the claimed foundational text of Christian Science, I found that the Bible superseded anything offered by Mary Baker Eddy."
Can you share some of the texts that you could not reconcile? You say that the Bible is the "claimed" foundational text of CS. Do you mean that you have found that it was not founded on the Bible, but something else? If so, what?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 13, 2010 4:58 PM
|
|
|
|
| twright, Thanks Linda. ...I know of several people who, although not quite in the same way as you had with CS, had a terrible experience with math in school, and developed quite a dislike for it, due to the teachers, the circumstances and the times in which they were exposed to it. I don't think math was the problem in those instances.
I think you overlooked the statements in my personal story which make it clear that I did not have a terrible experience in CS and did not hate it. I believed and loved it but left for doctrinal reasons. It wasn't until I was out that I realized the harm it had done to me. So while well intentioned, I don't think your analogy of hating math because of a terrible experience in school really applies here. And yet, the traditional Christian churches are actually moving more in the direction of spiritual healing than ever before. Many cutting edge medical organizations have been considering the mental state of the patient as a central aspect of their healing work for many years now (look up the Harvard School of Medicine annual seminars on the state of medicine). I agree that the mind can affect the body. But I haven't seen the "mind/body" people teaching that the body isn't real. That's a HUGE difference between CS and what I suspect the Harvard people are teaching. By its very definition, "mind/body" implies that both are real. While they have a tough time explaining the healings of our Master, they have a tougher time explaining the ancient prophets, and their healing spiritual work, from Elijah and the raising of the dead boy, to having an ax head float, to seeing the holy ghost as chariots of fire around Elisha, to the miracles of Moses. I suspect they say the same thing that I say -- that God was responsible for these miracles. No spiritually scientific system needed -- just God showing his power and accomplishing his purposes through people and circumstances. I loved math and calculus, but I will never try and convince anyone that math is or isn't for them. I think CS poses real spiritual and emotional dangers, and that is why I speak out. I would warn people against math too if I felt that it was spiritually and emotionally dangerous. 
Thanks for listening. Thank you, too.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 13, 2010 5:42 PM
|
|
|
|
twright,
Thanks, Man, but I can't click on your story without knowing your name. I would like to read about your background. Thanks.
Click on my name in the top left corner of this post. That will present a drop-down that includes "View Member Profile", select that. Then click "View members biography..." in the personal information block.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 13, 2010 10:51 PM
|
|
|
|
twright,
Can you share some of the texts that you could not reconcile? You say that the Bible is the "claimed" foundational text of CS. Do you mean that you have found that it was not founded on the Bible, but something else? If so, what?
Over the years of writing in these forums, I've shared many instances of where Mary Baker Eddy disagrees with the Bible. Christian Scientists and those claiming support of Christian Science have typically lowered the discussion to claims such as I never understood Christian Science or such. I will, however, once again take a brief, high level dip in the pool.
As a Christian Scientist, Genesis 2:6 was a favorite verse for explaining the origin of error and proving the unreality of matter:
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
It provided a very satisfying bit of verse to explain the appearance of evil, error - a fog came up and obscured Creation, hid God's perfect work from those He perfectly created as His perfect children.
The context, however, does not necessarily represent a fog:
... in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
What if what went up from the earth was not a fog, but a flow of water such as from a spring?
Based on the verse immediately preceding Genesis 2:6, plants did not yet exist because God had not yet cause it to rain and that man was not yet created. Verse 6 then describes something variously described as a mist or a spring watering the land. Verse 7 describes the creation of man. Verse 8 brings the elements of verses 6 and 7 together in response to what had not yet occurred in verse 5. Verse 9 describes what happened because of what God brought together in the previous verses.
Assuming that the "mist" in verse 6 was a fog could turn out to be a non sequitur, based upon the context.
Oops, I left out the context of the whole first chapter of Genesis where God created the heavens and the earth that the mist obscured in chapter 2. It's getting late, I'm up past my bedtime, and loosing a hour of sleep tonight because of daylight savings time.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 10:28 AM
|
|
|
|
I remember how in Sunday School and at Principia, there were many analogies to math made when describing Christian Science. It seemed to make sense to me at the time, thinking CS was a science like mathematics.
But that really doesn't make sense. It does make sense that if you can't understand how 2 x 4 = 8, then you need more study and understanding of math. However, math does not insist that your present existence is unreal and that you will never be healed unless you understand that 2 x 4 = 8. It's okay if you study math from a hospital bed. It's okay if you fail math -- not great, but you can still live your life and get your spouse to balance your checkbook. You won't die or be maimed if you fail math. Your children will not die if they don't understand math.
It really trivializes suffering to tell a person who is ill or dying that their healing depends on their understanding of C.S., "just like understanding math," and if they die it is their own fault for failing in understanding.
If a scientific theory, such as a very advanced math problem or something of the sort, cannot be consistently demonstrated to be solved by a particular mathematical theorem, over and over again with provable consistency, then that theorum must be discarded and a new solution sought. Christian Science has NOT been proven over and over again. Its "proofs" are not studied, not verified, and purely anecdotal. That is not science, and cannot be compared with the science of mathematics.
In Christian Science, we were taught deductive reasoning for healing. This is accepting certain premises, then reasoning from that premise to the deduction. God is omnipotent, God is Love, God did not create matter, therefore error and matter cannot be real, therefore only spirit is real and spirit cannot be sick, therefore sickness is not real, therefore I am not sick. However, the deductive reasoning in C.S. brings you to a conclusion that is refuted by your senses. Admittedly, these senses are physical, and can observe only physical situations, but the healing, if and when it comes, is also observed and claimed to be proven, by the evidence of the physical senses. Indeed, the evidence of the physical senses is required for the healing to be claimed as such.
Deductive reasoning only works if the premise it is based on is true. If the premise, such as God did not create matter, turns out NOT to be true, then the entire system breaks down. Since Christianity, including C.S., is based on the Bible (however loosely or fundamentally), you would have to turn to the Bible to get your premise, and the Bible doesn't say anywhere that matter is unreal. Temporal, perhaps, but not unreal. It's possible, obviously since Mrs. Eddy did so, to interpret certain passages that way, but those are not the only possible interpretations. In (physical) science, when your premise isn't scientifically demonstrable in a consistent way, the premise must be investigated. If the investigation shows the premise to be uncertain, then your entire system is uncertain. You can't just state that your premise is incontrovertibly true, then explain away all failures as failures of the person attempting to prove the premise. When there are failures by those who have been highly trained all their lives to put this system into practice, you need to reexamine your premise.
Put another way, to be more anecdotal, my grandfather was raised in Christian Science by his mother, who converted to Christian Science when she heard Mrs. Eddy speak in 1907. (My grandfather was born in 1908). He went to Principia, and went through class instruction, and was a pillar of his church his entire life, serving as First Reader more than once, and doing some practitioner work in his later years. When he became ill, he studied for hours every day. He called a practitioner for assistance. He attended Sunday and Wednesday services without fail, attended his association meeting, and read the Lesson-Sermon every day, as he had done his whole life. And, whatever it was he had, whatever the "belief" was, he died of it.
I know, we heard these stories all the time, and dismissed them as the failure of understanding in that particular person.
My question is, if such a person as my grandfather, a lifelong, class-taught, devout C.S. practitioner, cannot understand Christian Science well enough to demonstrate a healing, then who can? Is it reasonable to follow a religion so difficult to practice that even those raised in it and trained at the almost-highest levels cannot do so?
For me the answer is No. Walk away.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Monday, March 15, 2010 4:50 PM
|
|
|
|
| Way to go Ann!!!! To further your point, MBE was an 'expert' in CS, and even she couldn't overcome whatever her 'belief' was at the end and died. This was with the prayerful support of numerous followers too.... And yes, I know people die -- that is not the point.
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 8:42 AM
|
|
|
|
twright,
I have a perhaps erroneous sense that you have abandoned this discussion. If I may, I'd like to add a thought...
"...the Pharisees and their scribes grumbled at his disciples, saying, 'Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?' And Jesus answered them, 'Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.'" - Luke 5:30-31 (English Standard Version)
Christian Scientists consider themselves God's Perfect Children, sinless, and only in need of the strength of their own understanding. I came to understand that I am not righteous. I am a sinner in need of healing and forgiveness. Jesus tells us that He came to call my kind to repentance and those who are well have no need of Him. In the claim of Perfection, Christian Scientists could also be considered to claim no need of Jesus. I no longer make such a claim. I was dead in my sins and Jesus called me to Him with all my imperfections.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:29 AM
|
|
|
|
Ann
thank you . you make some good points.Very well stated.Hard to refute the illogic of denying the testamony of the senses but ultimately using the sense testimony to declare healing. We exist in a world of senses. that is not necessarily a bad thing.
There is ,in Native American tradition, the symbol of the place where sky (the spiritual realm) meets earth (where man is ). This place where the two come together is the sacred place. I see Jesus as just that. the point in time and space where spirit and flesh come togethe. The most sacred of all places. Sacred because the act of love is what brings God to man. As opposed to man coming to God. All of God's love for us is made manifest in Jesus.
Not preaching to you Ann ,really just throwing it out there. It's working for me just that way.
Do Go-
Your final statement is touching. And here is something that cs misses in its declaration that the physical is unreal; God made himself manifest in the flesh to come to and be right where man is. That is the elemnt missed in cs. They say God is always right with us but seem to say also that God has no concept of the sin we are stuck in or the error we seem lost in because He is of purer eyes thn to behold evil.
but Jesus DID come to us in our sin and not as some etherial truth but as one of us. Mortal ,with flesh and bones and blood. When I was in cs I would often feel hopeless because I was seemingly overcome by the testamony of my senses and reasoned that since God was never aware of the 'error' I was experiencing that he could not emathize or show compassion. So it was always up to me to shut out the 'lie' and come back to God's light. A daunting task as I fought with my perception of self.
Jesus on the other hand is the evidence that God does see our aflictions and know our frailties. And in fact he came into our world of 'error' to save us.The fact that I can ask for help with the assurance that He is come to save and rescue and is able where I find myself unable...Is sooo sweet. This is Love at its highest!
born free
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 9:46 AM
|
|
|
|
born free,
You make some excellent points too. One of the remaining traits I still find in myself even though I left the church so long ago, is this need to be perfect. I do seek medical treatment for my health challenges, but so often I find myself ashamed to go see the doctor, because my health is not perfect and I fear to be judged as inadequate and as having caused my own bad health. I will find myself thinking I have to get rid of any symptoms, or eat perfectly or somehow be able to prove that I am not to blame for any health problems BEFORE I go to the doctor. This must be a legacy of Christian Science, that I find it shameful to actually need the doctor! When, of course, the doctor is there to help me with health problems, not to judge me because I have health problems! I fight this mindset every time I see a doctor or dentist.
Ann
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Ann, I also feel ashamed at the doctor's office. In fact, I am often embarrassed to have any kind of 'weakness', and it is hard for me to ever admit to a doctor that stress could be be partly the cause of any symptoms. Although perfectly normal, to me it feels like 'failure'. My blood pressure is always high when I'm there, and I always joke about it and change the subject. It would be a real challenge to me to admit that I am anxious to be there, or to say why!
I thought your post of two days ago was just excellent.
|
|
|
|