 Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:20 PM
|
|
|
|
Just wondering why you don't like calling Mary Baker Eddy Mrs. Eddy. Are you opposed to calling married ladies "Mrs."? I don' t understand your objection.
RP
|
|
|
Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
| Why do you believe that CS's don't believe on the Son? The Bible lessons (includint S&H) affirm that they do.
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:27 AM
|
|
|
|
| RP, I can't speak for the original poster (from way back in February 2005), but it is generally accepted practice to use the formal title for a first reference and shortened forms for all subsequent references to a particular individual. For example when I first mention Mrs. Eddy in a post, I will use the "Mrs." title or even, the full name, Mary Baker Eddy. Later references might be shortened to Eddy or MBE. It is not a sign of disrepect, unless someone chooses to think that way.
There are a few Christian Scientists who revere Eddy to the point that they think it is highly disrespectful to refer to her in anyway other than the formal "Mrs. Eddy." This viewpoint was articulated in a statement, 'Mrs. Eddy's Place,' published by the CS Board of Directors in the CS Sentinel, June 5, 1943: "...
1. Mrs. Eddy, as the Discoverer and Founder of Christian Science, understood herself to be the one chosen of God to bring the promised Comforter to the world, and, therefore, the revelator of Christ, Truth, in this age. 2. Mrs. Eddy regarded portions of Revelation (that is, Chapter 12) as pointing to her as the one who fulfilled prophecy by giving the full and final revelation of Truth; her work thus being complementary to that of Christ Jesus. 3. As Christ Jesus exemplified the fatherhood of God, she (Mrs. Eddy) revealed God's motherhood; she represented in this age the spiritual idea of God typified by the woman in the Apocalypse...." Not everyone subscribes to this view of Eddy, and while I recognize her considerable accomplishments, I do not believe she deserves any special veneration today. Eddy is not being singled out in this treatment. How often do you hear someone refer to Albert Einstein as Mr. Einstein or Adoph Hitler as Mr. Hitler? Even when he was our President, many commentators referred to George Walker Bush, simply as Bush or GW or even Dubya. As for me, I am not offended if someone wants to call me "Kat" --I've certainly been called worse names...
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:28 AM
|
|
|
|
| Anonymous, The objection is not to the idea of Jesus as the Son of God, but rather the Christian Science denial of Jesus' Identity as described in the Gospel of John (1:1,14) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ....And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
|
|
|
Posted Monday, August 03, 2009 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
Just my two cents worth... 
I find it truely saddening that Christians from all denominations insist on picking on one another, creating negativity toward one another if they are not riding in the same car (so to speak). There is so much hurt, anger and sadness in the world already and I do not understand why ppl of the Christian faith - all the many colors - cannot respect each others beliefs and enjoy the beauty and wonder of being with God. I wonder if the 'Interfaith Dialogue' means much to many ppl? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith
Imagine if all the denominations could get along with respect. Jesus would be happy, I am sure...
|
|
|
Posted Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:44 AM
|
|
|
|
Anonymous Posted August 3, 2009 @ 7:48:54 PM,
I find it truely saddening that Christians from all denominations insist on picking on one another, creating negativity toward one another if they are not riding in the same car (so to speak). There is so much hurt, anger and sadness in the world already and I do not understand why ppl of the Christian faith - all the many colors - cannot respect each others beliefs and enjoy the beauty and wonder of being with God. I wonder if the 'Interfaith Dialogue' means much to many ppl? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith
Imagine if all the denominations could get along with respect. Jesus would be happy, I am sure...
Yes, it is saddening that we focus on our differences and typically ignore the common truth we profess to seek. Christian compare themselves to Islam, Islam to Buddists, Buddists to Shinto, ad infinitum.
Interesting that the Interfaith article does not accurately portray the traditional Cross.
Here's the thing... the Principle of Non-Contradiction precludes us from all being right regarding the matters on which we disagree. We might all be wrong, but we can't all be right. Theists and Atheists cannot both be correct regarding the existence of God. No amount of good intentions to get along will change the fact that God is or God isn't.
There are a few basic principles in which I believe and from which my overall beliefs develop:
God is: He exists, always has existed, and always will exist.
God is the Creator: He created the universe, He created the Earth, He created me.
God documented His work in His word, the Holy Bible: the Bible accurately represents God's work and His relationship to His children.
Obviously, anyone who does not believe in God, His Creation, and His word may be able to have a beer with me, but they're not going to agree with my theology. I have many friends whose company I enjoy, but we are wise enough to avoid discussions of politics, religion, and the weather. Such discussions in such contexts would just frustrate us and not change anything with the probable exception of our friendship.
There are those who believe the Bible is at best only a collection of ancient wisdom and history. Representing thousands of years of proven counsel should be good for something, but every generation seems to believe they have nothing to learn from past generations. "Been there, done that, got the tee shirt" has no relevance unless it's self-referential. I happen to believe in God and His word based on my own experience as well as learning from the past.
Anyway, there are those in the Interfaith movement who know how wrong I am about Life, the Universe, and Everything. They are also convinced about how wrong adherents of other faiths are, but severely conflicted in expressing it. The greatest intolerance I've encountered in my life towards me are those who profess tolerance for all and condemn my "intolerance".
It would be wonderful if we could mutually examine the facts without attacking one another. I'm not prepared, however, to reexamine the existence of God, His role as Creator, or the accuracy of His documentation of His Creation. Already spent a lot of time on those issues and satisfied with what I found. I am prepared to examine and discuss how we each interpret His word and can get along quite well with anyone who does not declare God a fraud. Perhaps I am as unforgiving and intolerant as some claim. Maybe I am just a naive zealot incapable of seeing truth when it bites me. Oh well.
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
|