 Posted Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:34 PM
|
|
|
|
Wow, Anonymous. Take it easy. I did not say nor imply that 'you' run to the doctor for every little thing. I don't know who "we" are that you are talking about, but I was describing generally people who go with conventional medicine for their health care. No disrespect meant.
Sorry about using the cultic 'pat' answer, 'medical route'. Should I have used something more innocuous such as "conventional medicine"? There are many that swear by conventional medicine, some holistic, some homeopathy, etc. Sounds like you think you know a lot about cults. Also sounds like you have a huge chip on that shoulder of yours that your mother put there. I am truly sorry about that. I do know a lot of former 'child' Christian Scientists that now call CS a cult, who were raised in it and had a very strong parent or other adult relative in their life that "did them wrong" at a very critical time in their life (like childbirth) and have never gotten over it. That is why I stated that "I feel bad for many that I have read on this forum". Sorry again. Should I have been less caring and said "Hey, that is in the past. GET OVER IT!?"
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:37 PM
|
|
|
|
| OK, so why, Anonymous, do you feel bad for me? I have not shared any of my struggles with this forum, and I know you don't know me well enough to generate any feelings, good or bad, about me. Is it merely because I am an adult student of CS that you feel bad for me? Wow, if that is the case, I think you really need to get over your past.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 20, 2010 8:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Hello Ann (I don't know why your moniker is Anonymous but you then sign your name),
I did not state that you or others on this forum had not read S&H, but those in our society that has never read S&H, the arguments they use in relation to CS is what I was talking about. Please take a moment to read what I said, and not take things out of context: "It is sad that the standard arguments about CS that one hears from those that have never even read the CS textbook, are being used on this forum."
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:40 PM
|
|
|
|
It is sad that the standard misconceptions regarding former Christian Scientists that one hears from those that profess to follow it are still being used on this forum including:
- They do not understand Christian Science
- They never understood Christian Science
- They never will understand Christian Science
- They condemn anyone who does not believe the way they do
- Their Christian Science credentials are inferior to those who remain in Christian Science
- They overquote from the Bible because they do not understand Christian Science
- Their Biblical understanding is inferior because they do not understand Christian Science
- They do not understand Christian Science (oops, coming back around to that one)
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:14 AM
|
|
|
|
Hello Man:
I did want to respond to Ann on this forum (which I will do separately), but I thought I would address your comments. I have never come out and said that anyone or everyone here does not understand CS. That is not my place to judge you or anyone else. I was addressing specific subjects that, when looked at more carefully, may show a misunderstanding of some theological subjects that religion in general and CS specifically address.
For example, yesterday I read a posting from Ann that was discussing her belief that Mary Baker Eddy & CS teaches that the body is unreal. OK. If that is her understanding of what her study of CS tells her. There is nothing I can do about that. When she tells me her pedigree, that she is a 4th generation Christian Scientist, she went to all the CS schools and camps, that she is class taught and that she served in a CS church, that tells me that tells me that she was immersed in the CS lifestyle without really understanding it. Sorry to be so blunt, but when she then makes the statement "CS teaches that the body is unreal", I have to question her real understanding of that subject.
There are approximately 370 references to 'body' in Science & Health and 170 in Mary Baker Eddy's other writings, ranging from talking about the human or material body to the spiritual body. She writes on page 170 of S&H that Mind controls body and brain, and on page 98 body can only be saved by Mind (God). One may not agree with what Mrs. Eddy says about body or matter in these books, but one cannot say with a broad stroke that CS teaches that the body is unreal.
As I said before, much on this forum is one-sided, without facts to back them up, and taken out of context. I am sure I could quote things out of the Bible that are clearly taken out of context, and I am sure (you sound like you know the Bible pretty well) that you would not let me get away with it, right? So, I am just trying to correct some misinterpretations and mistaken views on a subject I study daily.
Thanks for listening.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 1:24 PM
|
|
|
|
twright,
I have never come out and said that anyone or everyone here does not understand CS.
I'm sorry, where was it that I said you claimed we didn't understand Christian Science?
As I said before, much on this forum is one-sided, without facts to back them up, and taken out of context. I am sure I could quote things out of the Bible that are clearly taken out of context, and I am sure (you sound like you know the Bible pretty well) that you would not let me get away with it, right? So, I am just trying to correct some misinterpretations and mistaken views on a subject I study daily.
Guilty, I do not write a balanced presentation of Christian Science. Not sure anyone does or should expect that. Would you suggest that we censor posts to present a less one-sided presentation? Christian Scientists are always welcome to post their views.
As to not having facts to back up what I write, I radically lived in Christian Science for more than 30 years including Christian Science class instruction and daily study of Christian Science. Perhaps you could provide at least one example of where I lacked facts or took something I wrote about Christian Science out of context.
BTW, what is the difference in your thinking between asserting that my views represent misinterpretations and mistaken views and asserting that I don't understand Christian Science?
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?
Did I miss your response to my response to your request that I share some Biblical texts I could not reconcile with Christian Science.
The practice of Christian Scientists to skip over whole and partial verses in their study is in itself somewhat suspect. Ignoring the context severely skews their interpretation and understanding of the Bible. Beginning from the premise that the Bible is full of thousands of errors inhibits comprehension and reconciliation. I'm reminded of a story about a Christian Science Second Reader who skipped over difficult to pronounce Biblical names stating, "hard word". Too many Christian Scientists from Mary Baker Eddy to the present generation skip over context due to what they find as unconformable or irreconcilable differences.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 7:59 PM
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, where was it that I said you claimed we didn't understand Christian Science? - You said it on Post #17811 above this one.
Would you suggest that we censor posts to present a less one-sided presentation? - Why would I do that? It's your forum, not mine. I am just a visitor.
BTW, what is the difference in your thinking between asserting that my views represent misinterpretations and mistaken views and asserting that I don't understand Christian Science? - I was focusing on Ann's misinterpretations and mistaken views, specifically about her assertion about body. Do I think that you don't understand CS? I don't know, I have not had a discussion with you on specific topics that relate to CS.
Did I miss your response to my response to your request that I share some Biblical texts I could not reconcile with Christian Science. - No, I haven't had the time to read your response as yet. Sorry, I have several full time jobs.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Hey DGB Man,
One of the bigger problems there is with this forum, is that you and others decide to broadly brush all current CSers with the same brush and put us all in the same category. I suppose if I met you in a business situation, and you found out I was a Christian Scientist, you would probably pre-judge me based on your past experience in CS. Wow, what a way to live. I hope you don't do that on a regular basis with anyone you meet. "How to win friends and influence people".
The practice of Christian Scientists to skip over whole and partial verses in their study is in itself somewhat suspect.
Too many Christian Scientists from Mary Baker Eddy to the present generation skip over context due to what they find as unconformable or irreconcilable differences.
Christian Scientists could also be considered to claim no need of Jesus.
DGB Man, I suppose I could broad brush stroke any person in your organized religion of choice, using stereotypes that I had built up over the years too, instead of meeting each person on their own merits, vs. categorizing everyone by their religious affiliations. I have tried to keep my discussions on this forum limited to a specific person's ideas or thoughts. I suppose I could counter all your broad brush assertions, by generalizing about ex Christian Scientists, that they are all misinformed, losers and whiners about how life has treated them. . But I won't because it is not true. Everyone has their own story.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:49 PM
|
|
|
|
twright There are approximately 370 references to 'body' in Science & Health and 170 in Mary Baker Eddy's other writings, ranging from talking about the human or material body to the spiritual body. There are exactly 376 uses of the word body in S&H, and exactly 170 in Mary Baker Eddy's other published writings. And yes, Eddy used the word in many different contexts. Similarly there are exactly 66 instances of the word 'unreal' in S&H and 58 more in Eddy's other published works. Interesting enough there are exactly 2 references in S&H where both terms are used together, and 3 more in Eddy's other published works. But this sort of analysis has little relevance to the idea that Christian Science teaches that the human material body is unreal. In truth, the unreality of all matter is one of the core principles of CS practice. To claim otherwise is quibbling at best and merely argumentive at worst. In a letter published in Misc Writings, p 469:1 subtitled, HOW TO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AND HEALTH, Eddy wrote My Dear Friend H.:.... Mind, or Soul, or whatever you may be pleased to call it, is the real Ego, or self, and that mortal mind with its body is the unreal and vanishing, and eventually goes back to its native nothingness. and then Eddy addresses the question at hand in a more direct fashion in Miscellany, Part II, Chapter X, 217:17-23
In the last Sentinel [Oct. 12, 1899] was the following question: "If all matter is unreal, why do we deny the existence of disease in the material body and not the body itself?" We deny first the existence of disease, because we can meet this negation more readily than we can negative all that the material senses affirm. She then goes on to remind us that Jesus presented his material body after his resurrection: The spiritual body, the incorporeal idea, came with the ascension. It is not too surprising then, that many would get the impression that CS teaches that the body, like all matter objects, is unreal. Pure, unadulterated CS does teach that the body is unreal, but also admits that it is a very hard lesson to learn. It turns out, that is the ultimate end of our spiritual development, and even Eddy recognized that such a state of being would not be met on this side of the grave. I don't delude myself with the notion that you will read this and suddenly see the light, twright, because I know you will interpret everything with the lens provided by your CS training and study. And that's ok; really it is. Many of us have been in the very same place, some of us not very long ago. When I was under the influence of CS, I was most persuasive in its defense, because I truly believed it was all Eddy claimed it was. But God has opened my eyes to a greater truth; Jesus Christ has led me to greener pastures. Peace.
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:22 PM
|
|
|
|
twright,
You said it on Post #17811 above this one.
#17811 was from you, may I presume you meant #17810? What was it about that message that led you to believe it was addressed to you? I did not state that you said former Christian Scientists do not understand Christian Science. You might consider taking a moment from your busy schedule to read it again.
Why would I do that? It's your forum, not mine. I am just a visitor.
You seemingly suggested that these forums are somehow one-sided and I thought perhaps you had an idea regarding how to correct that.
I was focusing on Ann's misinterpretations and mistaken views, specifically about her assertion about body. Do I think that you don't understand CS? I don't know, I have not had a discussion with you on specific topics that relate to CS.
I thought that Ann's response that referred to the Scientific Statement of Being was a good continuation of that discussion.
No, I haven't had the time to read your response as yet. Sorry, I have several full time jobs.
Sorry that you haven't had time to build on the discussion you started with me regarding teachings of Christian Science that are irreconciable with the Bible.
One of the bigger problems there is with this forum, is that you and others decide to broadly brush all current CSers with the same brush and put us all in the same category. I suppose if I met you in a business situation, and you found out I was a Christian Scientist, you would probably pre-judge me based on your past experience in CS. Wow, what a way to live. I hope you don't do that on a regular basis with anyone you meet. "How to win friends and influence people".
You are certainly able to apply a broad brush to me and the others on theses forums. Actually I don't apply the same brush to all Christian Scientists, but I do get a little edgy with those who clearly demonstrate their lack of knowledge of the foundational teachings of Christian Science and the Bible. I get especially edgy when someone claims to be a Christian Scientist but is unwilling or unable to support their position.
I suppose I could broad brush stroke any person in your organized religion of choice, using stereotypes that I had built up over the years too, instead of meeting each person on their own merits, vs. categorizing everyone by their religious affiliations. I have tried to keep my discussions on this forum limited to a specific person's ideas or thoughts. I suppose I could counter all your broad brush assertions, by generalizing about ex Christian Scientists, that they are all misinformed, losers and whiners about how life has treated them. . But I won't because it is not true. Everyone has their own story.
You've seemed pretty good so far at broad brushing. You seemed to have made some fairly broad assumptions about me. Please feel free to ignore any assertions or whining in which you believe I'm engaging. You asked me last week if I could "share some of the texts that (I) could not reconcile". I took the time to respond, but you haven't yet had time to even read my response. As you say, we all have our own stories.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|