Forgive me if I implied that you already knew I was a Christian
Scientist. I was quite sure it was your post I replied to about a
week ago which offered to the list several scientific texts written
about 125 years ago. My reply was to include Science and Health among
that list since it was written at the same period, and I fully
disclosed that I was a Christian Scientist in that post. Perhaps the
first post was written by someone else, perhaps you didn't read it. I
apologise for the insinuation I made.
I would be interested in knowing what the titles of these alleged
'objective' books about my religion, Christian Science, are. If they
are objective then they should stand up to pretty intensive scrutiny.
There have been many books and articles written which denounce
Christian Science, but it has been clearly demonstrated that they are
far from being objective.
You seem to know an awful lot about Christian Scientists to declare
that they 'cannot read the Bible objectively'. I guess you must have
a personal knowledge of each and every Christian Scientist on the
planet. I would be more careful when making such broadly sweeping
statements which are merely your opinion and not established fact.
As for Science and Health's 'key to the scriptures', this is a
section of the book which provides a spiritual interpretation of
Genesis, Revelation and a glossary of biblical and Christian Science
terms and phrases. You are absolutely correct that the Holy Spirit
will be our teacher (although you seem to have gotten the scriptural
citations wrong). I'm not sure what you believe the Holy Spirit to be
but I believe it to be the divine inspiration of Truth and Love,
which is ever present and a ready help to uplift thought and
consciousness above all mortal discord. Mary Baker Eddy was divinely
inspired by this Spirit of Truth and Love as she spent half her
lifetime studying the Bible to glean it's spiritual significance and
application to each and every human need. She wrote her findings out
in Science and Health which underwent dozens of revisions as she
strove to elucidate Christian Science more perfectly.
You are free to think what you will about any matter under the sun,
but the Bible warns quite pointedly about making judgement, lest ye
yourself be judged. To 'judge righteous judgement' seems to me to
indicate that we should be as objective as possible before rendering
judgement, and not to judge based on bias, prejudice, ignorance or
preconceived ideas. This is not always easy, I'll be the first to
attest. I'm sure we have all made erroneous judgements in our time,
but we all need to learn and grow into a better and healthier
understanding of those things we don't comprehend. You are free to
disagree with Christian Science and the practice of spiritual
healing, but I would advise that you gather better information before
you make any damning judgements. Calling any religion or society a
cult is a malicious and harmful action that only serves to cause
further division and ignorance, if not hatred, amongst unsuspecting
people who don't know any better and may be easily inf!
lue
nced. It is far from being a Christian practice, which, regardless of
our differing points of view, is still the highest form of charity
one can give.
As I mentioned before, there is a growing body of evidence that
prayer for spiritual healing does heal physical, mental and moral
problems. The Christian Science church is not the only religion which
practices this, but we do have a pretty good record of success. The
church does keep records of personal testimonies of spiritual
healing, all of which are verified by at least three independant
witnesses. In many cases, these witnesses are medical practitioners.
At present these number in the tens of thousands. Each week, at
testimony meetings in Christian Science churches worldwide,
testimonies of healing are offered in gratitude for the blessings
received through prayer. These verbal testimonies are not recorded,
but considering that the Christian Science church has been active for
over 100 years now, these alone must number in the hundreds of
thousands. That's a lot of evidence that spiritual healing and
Christian Science healing practice is a viable and valid system of
hea!
lin
g. Again, you can look at this evidence objectively, or you can
dismiss it, but the evidence is there for all to see. When a person
is not healed through Christian Science, does that mean that the
whole system is invalid? When a person doesn't recuperate under
medical and surgical methods, do we throw out the whole system of
medicine? CHristian Science does not create any mindsets which
forbids a person from seeking medical attention if they feel they
should. Christian Science applauds the medical profession for it's
noble ambition of providing physical relief to humankind. We believe
that it is spiritual relief that is really needed, but hold that
physical aids are not forbidden and certainly not condemned.
There is a lot of misinformation out there about Christian Science,
about it's theology, history and pracitce. Your summary of Mrs.
Eddy's ideas regarding Gen 2 are evidence of this. Also, Mrs. Eddy
never claimed she was a prophetess, as you state. In fact she would
be the first to denounce such a proclamation. Christian Science
teaches the exact opposite in fact, that deification of the person is
quite clearly a violation of the first commandment. Christian Science
is first and foremost a Christian religion, it is based on the Bible,
and we take quite seriously our duty to God by obeying the ten
commandments and living in accord with the Beatitudes. It is anything
but a cult.
Anyway, I would rather engage in a constructive discussion of this or
any other topics than slinging insults and personal jabs at each
other. Arguing 'ad hominem' is the most vulgar form of discussion
there is. If I engaged in that, I apologise, but you did make some
pretty nasty remarks against me and my religion. I notice that you
end some of your posts by signing off 'In Christ'. In the spirit of
Christs charity, I suggest we call a truce, and seal the deed with a
declaration of tolerance of other peoples beliefs. Peace is always
the more difficult, but ultimately wiser, course.
Sincerely,
Stuart Kirkley
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 18:58:05
MikeSatterlee wrote:
>Stuart,
>
>You wrote: Yes, I am a Christian Scientist, but you knew that didn't you?
>
>No, I did not. But I thought you might be. Either that or a Moonie. I've
>talked to both before. You sounded a bit like both of them.
>
>I wont bother discussing this subject matter or any other here with you
>because I believe that it is you who is most likely not capable of objective
>thinking. Christian Scientists cannot read the Bible objectively. In fact,
>Mary Baker Eddy's book Science and Health is subtitled "Key to the
>Scriptures." To accept her as having provided us with a "key" to
>understanding the scriptures is to reject what the scriptures themselves tell
>us, that we would need anyone to teach us, for the Holy Spirit Himself would
>be our teacher. (1 John 1:26,27)
>
>I believe that the Holy Spirit has taught me that Mary Baker Eddy was a false
>teacher, and that her teachings that Genesis 2 never happened, that it was
>all some bad dream Adam had, that our physical world does not really even
>exist, and that disease is not caused by germs, are all absolute foolishness.
>
>You object to the word cult being applied to your religion. But any religion
>that creates a mindset where some people would rather die than seek medical
>attention, due to their following the highly questionable biblical
>interpretations of some self-proclaimed prophet, or in this case prophetess,
>in my estimation is a Cult with a capital C.
>
>I recommend you read some "objective" books and articles on your church and
>on the woman who founded it.
>
>Mike
>
See Dave Matthews Band live or win a signed guitar
http://r.lycos.com/r/bmgfly_mail_dmb/http://win.ipromotions.com/lycos_020201/splash.asp
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 16:32:48 EDT