 Posted Monday, June 24, 2002 12:09 PM
|
|
|
|
| I read all of the stories on the web site and they encouraged me. My boyfriend is a CS and I have been told that my purpose in his life is to show him true Christianity. I, however, do not know where to start. I have done some research on CS but I need some more. If there are any ex CS that can show me some parts of the S&H that don't coincide with the Bible that I can tell my boyfriend I would appreciate it. I tried to read the S&H, but it just confused me. I had no idea what it meant. Thanks
|
|
|
Posted Monday, June 24, 2002 3:28 PM
|
|
|
|
CS is most definitely imcompatible with the Bible and Christianity. I am also not surprised that you were confused by the teachings of S&H.
An impartial examination can do nothing but create confusion. Why? Mrs. Eddy says that she takes her teachings from the Bible. In order for Mrs. Eddy to claim this, however, she did something that is very curious, unprecedented, and, I believe, one of the most intellectually dishonest things in the annals of the written word. What did she do?? She literally changed the meaning of key words in the English dictionary (i.e, she rewrote the English Language) !!! This was done so that when key words are read by CS church members in either the Bible or in Science and Health, they are taken to have their new Christian Science or Metaphysical meanings as defined by Mrs. Eddy, instead of the meanings that are commonly accepted in the English language. (These new definitions are found on page 579-599 of S&H.)
Look up a few words in both the Dictionary and Science and Health;
For example, Death is defined in the dictionary as a permanent cessation of all vital functions; the end of life; S& H on p. 584 says it is “An illusion, the lie of life in matter; the unreal and untrue; the opposite of life”. Flesh in the dictionary is defined as the soft parts of the body of an animal, etc.; S& H on page 586 defines it as “An error of physical belief; a supposition that life, substance, and intelligence are in matter; an illusion; a belief that matter has sensation.” Jesus in the dictionary is the Jewish religious leader whose life, death and resurrection as reported by the evangelists are the basis for the Christian message of Salvation-also called Jesus Christ. S&H says on p.589 that Jesus is “The highest human corporeal concept (a concept???) of the divine idea, rebuking and destroying error and bringing a light to man’s immortality.”
In addition to changes in the dictionary, Mrs. Eddy also came up with her own definitions for some well known places on earth. For example, Mrs. Eddy defines the Euphrates River in the Middle East on page 585 of S&H as “Divine Science encompassing the universe and man; a type of the glory which is to come; metaphysics taking the place of physics; the reign of righteousness.”, etc. Jerusalem Is defined on page 589 as “Mortal belief and knowledge obtained from the five corporal senses’ the pride of power and the power of pride; sensuality; envy, oppression, tyranny. Home, heaven.” An so on.
Now, what might explain how Mrs. Eddy came to do such a preposterous thing (namely, to literally rewrite the dictionary and commonly accepted places on the map?) Mrs. Eddy believed she was the “revelator”, that the truth as she saw it, laid dormant in the bible for 1866 years, until it was revealed to her and published in S&H. She was, in short, divinely inspired by an impersonal God or Divine Mind as she saw it.
But is that good enough? After all, Christians believe the New Testament is divinely inspired, but I’m not aware of any meanings or definitions in the Old Testament that were changed 180 degrees in the New Testament. Now, there are honest disagreements about the interpretations of certain passages, etc among various Christian denominations, Nobody, however, in orthodox Christendom has ever defined a river as “divine science”, etc. instead of a body of water!!!
Consider what has happened here. If you can arbitrarily change the meaning of words, redefining them at will, you can make the Bible, the Koran, the Hindu scriptures, the Constitution of the United States, or any other historical document or published work mean anything you want it to!!!
This is very important and should be closely looked at by your boyfriend. To illustrate this in still one more way, let's say you had written a work about real people and utilized words whose definitions are commonly accepted to relate particular events or teachings (as the Apostles did in the New Testament). What right would I or anyone else have to change the meaning of those words to come up with an entirely different series of events or teachings??? (I.e. “we don’t like what this document says or the story it tells, so we’re going to change the meaning of a few key words in that document to come up with a story that we do like.”) Convenient, huh??? That is blatantly dishonest!!! Words mean particular things-words refer to specific things, or people, or events- that’s why we use them!!! If you don’t like an essay that’s been written by John Doe on a particular subject, write a different one which refutes it!!! Don’t redefine the words in John’s essay which gives it a new meaning more to your liking, and then have the gall to say that not only is your new version correct, but that after all is what John really intended to get across in the first place. Can you think of anything more disingenuous? But that is what Mrs. Eddy and Christian Science have done.
Like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witness’s, and other cults, Mrs. Eddy knew that she had to find a place for Jesus Christ in her teachings or they would never be accepted in 19th Century America. Pure and simple. She was not stupid. She was a very intelligent and practical woman. It would have been suicide for her to say that she hereby was establishing the “First Church of Metaphysics”. People at the time considered her teachings to be unchristian(which they were and are.) Although it would have been the honest thing to do, removing Jesus altogether would have removed all doubt and crippled her movement. Now days, many people have come up with similar teachings in recent years and don’t feel they have to bother saying they are part of the Bible or Christianity. It is known as the New Age Movement, which includes many of the principals and practices that Christian Science uses.
But there was at least one time when Mrs. Eddy reveled her true thoughts on this subject.
From the book by Mrs. Eddy entitled First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany, she says on pages 318-319 "If there had never existed such a person as the Galiliean Prophet (Jesus), it would make no difference to me. I should still know that God's spiritual ideal is the only real man in His image and likeness."
Now, this is the real bottom line in Christian Science. Christ is not necessary for Christianity, at least as she sees it. All you need is the proper understanding that man is spiritual, not material flesh and blood, and you can overcome sin, sickness, and death itself. You have the power therefore to become your own God. Man is spiritually perfect, and can be just that if he gets his mind right. The birth, life, death, atonement, and resurrection of Jesus Christ is not necessary to know that “God’s spiritual ideal is the only real man”. This according to Mrs. Eddy’s own words!!! Her religion, although called Christian Science, would be there even if Christ had never been born, according to her own words. In short, according to Mrs. Eddy, you can have Christianity or at least CS without Jesus !!!
For those immersed in CS, this might be a good place to start with any honest examination of the religion.
'Hope this helps.
Best wishes in Christ,
TextText
|
|
|
Posted Monday, June 24, 2002 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear Anonymous #1,
As Anonymous #2 points out there are some contradictions between Christianity and CS. CS does twist Scripture and redefine terms. As Anon #2 notes, make sure you define your terms when talking about CS. I would caution you to be careful when dealing with your boyfriend. If you use a bad tone with him, you can end up closing the door with him. Ravi Zacharias wrote a book called "The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks With Buddha". In that book, Zacharias writes, "When you mix falsehood with truth, you create a more destructive lie." That is the case with CS. It has some truth which the defenders of CS point to. But the issue is the falsehood that has been added to it in the name of MBE's revelation. The result is a more destructive lie. Recognizing this mix of true and false will help your witness to your boyfriend. For instance, Anon #2 mentioned Mrs. Eddy's passage about it not making any difference if Jesus was real or not. God's image would still be true. This sounds like a blot on CS until one digs around and discovers that Christians like Billy Graham have made similar statements (I think Robert Peel quotes it in vol 3 of his MBE biography series). Or that a well known Christian hymn, "He Lives" has a line that reads, "You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart!" That's the sentiment that MBE was expressing in her passage. So just bringing that passage out as a counterpoint to your boyfriend may not work. There are plenty of folks on this site that can help you and your boyfriend sort out the fact and fiction of CS.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2002 2:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Anon#1,
Giving Anon #2’s post some more thought. I don’t think MBE’s redefining terms is quite as extraordinary as we think. Everybody does it to some extent. Poets are always using metaphors that change meanings of words. “My love (for my wife that is) is a Red Rose!” Really? It’s a redefinition of both love and rose, but it makes for effective communication J. Jesus redefined terms as well in his parables. In the parable of the sower, Jesus redefines common items seed, rocks, thorns, etc and gives them new meanings. So the redefining the English language isn’t the problem. The two real issues are 1) do CSers make it clear when they use redefined terms, and 2) do the redefined terms reflect reality. The problem is that CSers don’t always make it clear when they switch terms. So you can be talking with your boyfriend about some topic, say the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit to you is one Person of the Triune God. To him, he’s thinking the Holy Ghost being Christian Science, and Spirit is a synonym for a non-Triune God. As you can see, the conversation can quickly become confusing. The other thing is how close do CS redefinitions match the Biblical view. Here again there are problems. For instance is Jesus God (the Biblical view) or not (the CS view)? The Bible explicitly calls Jesus God, but when CS redefines Jesus, he is not God.
There are a couple of things that will help you understand where your boyfriend is coming from. First, Christian Science is metaphysics based. That means it doesn’t look at the world at face value. Metaphysics looks for the thing behind the thing. You see a pencil sitting on your desk. A metaphysician doesn’t see the pencil; he sees the engineering drawings from which the pencil was designed. He sees the chemical processes that make the lead. When a CSer looks at something like a person, they claim not to see the physical person; they claim to see the perfect ideas behind that person. They’re looking at the engineering drawings of the person, if you will. When they look at a sick person, they think if they recognize what the blueprint of that person shows (a healthy person) then healing will occur. It’s a bit like looking at a pencil that has been chewed on, and expecting the teeth marks to disappear by concentrating on the original engineering drawings of the pencil. So, when you’re discussing the great problems of theology and life with your boyfriend, keep in mind you are looking at the pencil, while he’s looking at the drawings. Getting him to look at the pencil will be progress J
The second thing that will help you keep from confusion is CS has a concept of the “Absolute” and the “Relative”. These are actually related to what I just mentioned. The “absolute” is what CS considers the ideal perfect universe. The “relative” is the corrupted false universe we “see” and “experience”. Depending on how good a CSer is, they can mentally switch back and forth between these concepts very rapidly. The result is either one is left feeling confused, or else they think CS actually is Christian after all. The CS understanding of the absolute and relative shows up in discussions with CSers when we make statements like “The Bible says man is a sinner, but CS says man isn’t a sinner.” The CSer will defend CS by pulling out a passage from MBE’s writings that show that CS does in fact teach the Christian view that “[Mortal] man is a sinner.” The [] are the relative view, and they may not be explicitly part of the sentence. Even if they aren’t explicit, the bracketed word is part of the sentence. They can then turn right around and pull out some other passages from MBE’s writings that show that CS teaches, “Man is not a sinner.” The absence of the [] shows the absolute view. So based on those examples you can see how frustrating discussing CS can be because we have to switch back and forth as fast as the CSer does.
Again, this website can help you get the Biblical viewpoint presented to your boyfriend.
One last thing. No one comes to Jesus without the Holy Spirit working on them, so the most important thing is to pray that the Holy Spirit will open your boyfriend’s eyes.
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2002 4:28 PM
|
|
|
|
GREEK TO ME WROTE:
One last thing. No one comes to Jesus without the Holy Spirit working on them, so the most important thing is to pray that the Holy Spirit will open your boyfriend’s eyes.
_____________________
Jim, I totally agree. Nothing else seems to hit all the right buttons like the Holy Spirit can. Suddenly, it's as if a person begins to see things in a whole new way. It can be quite drastic.
I'm proof!
Peter
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, June 27, 2002 7:19 PM
|
|
|
|
| The "Christian Science and the Bible" section of the web site ( www.christianway.org ) will give you some good comparisons of CS and the Bible. You might also contact Christian Way and ask for the tape series. The tape by Elaine Dallas goes into a lot of comparison between CS and the Bible.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, June 28, 2002 4:10 PM
|
|
|
|
For four years I was a Christian Scientist. I don't know what led
me to that church, except that I was spiritually searching for
something. My family wasn't particulary religious, except to go
to church maybe once or twice a year at a Baptist church where
they didn't even have membership. Over the last year, things
began to bug me in the Christian Science church. It was a constant
nagging sensation that God wasn't truly present in the services.
I heard too much gratitude and reverence for Mary Baker Eddy,
to the point of idolizing this woman.
During one Wednesday evening Testimony service, I walked out
and never went back. It was the last time I wanted to hear,
"I just want to give thanks to Mrs. Eddy and her gift of Christian
Science to the world." I hope that God can forgive me for ever
joining that church.
I came across Christian Way and they sent me their tapes and I've
read all the testimonies here from others. These tapes and the materials I have seen on this website reinforced in me that
I made the right decision. Thank you Christian Way for the service
you provide to others. I have now been baptized and attend a
church where the bible and God is our only source of gratitude.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, June 29, 2002 1:24 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Anonymous (#3?),
I made the right decision...I have now been baptized and attend a
church where the bible and God is our only source of gratitude.
It makes a difference, doesn't it! 
Hi Peter:
It can be quite drastic.
Have you caught your breath yet?  I know when I was saved, it was quite a big surprise! I really thought CS could have withstood the testing better than it did.
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 01, 2002 12:33 PM
|
|
|
|
Jim T and Peter,
You are both right! The Holy Spirit has all the answers to the questions we have. I have hesitated to start a thread on this very topic because I know the Holy Spirit will direct my path, but I feel He is wanting me to pose this question to the group. What are some of the ways you have witnessed to CSers that have helped to open their eyes to the truth about Jesus and break this strong-hold of CS? Or what was it that helped you to leave CS?
Like I said, I know that the Holy Spirit will direct me when I begin to witness to my family and friends. I have the tapes from the Christian Way. Elaine Dallas is amasing, isn't she? She found Jesus on her own. And I know that Caroline Poole began a Bible study with neighbors. Mine was my daughter witnessing to me after she read the New Testament and the Holy Spirit used her to answer all those questions I had and CS couldn't answer.
I would appreciate everyone responding with their stories. Thanks so much. I'm sure your stories will help others, also.
God's Blessings,
Susan
|
|
|
Posted Monday, July 01, 2002 5:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Hi Susan,
Ultimately it was the Holy Spirit that helped me to see lots of things. I believe this was also due to the fact that I found out later, there were a lot of people praying.
I never intended to leave totally. Never. But, God had other ideas.
Prayer can change more than any discussion can.
Peter
|
|
|
|