Long ago a Christian missionary friend on asking him what is
Christian Science, answered by saying that it is like grape-nut,
neither grape nor nut. BTW I have been reading the Christian Science
Monitor for over 30 years. An excellent paper! Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
Sent: Fri 4/26/2002 4:19 PM
To: stucandu@lycos.com; asa@calvin.edu
Cc:
Subject: Re: Adam vs. 'adam / one cult's solution?
Hello Suart,
You wrote: You seem to know an awful lot about Christian Scientists to
declare that they 'cannot read the Bible objectively'.
By that I only meant the obvious. That Christian Scientists are strong
believers in the biblical interpretations of Mary Baker Eddy.
As such, they
all read the Bible with the preconceived notion that the way
in which she
interpreted many passages of scripture was the way God
intended all those
passages to be interpreted. Reading the Bible while strongly
holding such a
large set of preconceived notions about how many of its
passages were meant
to be understood can hardly be considered to be reading the
Bible objectively.
You wrote: 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,
I do not consider the Holy Spirit to be an "it." I consider
the Holy Spirit
to be a He. For I consider the Holy Spirit to be God Himself
and an equal
part of the Holy Trinity. Since you don't seem to believe
this way about the
Holy Spirit, I would guess Mary Baker Eddy also didn't
understand the Holy
Spirit as I have just described Him.
You wrote: 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.
"Divinely inspired"? Says who? I've spent half my life
studying the Bible
too. Does that make me "divinely inspired"?
You wrote: She wrote her findings out in Science and Health
which underwent
dozens of revisions as she strove to elucidate Christian Science more
perfectly.
If she was "divinely inspired" why did her work have to
undergo dozens of
revisions? Since it did, what makes you so sure it was
"divinely inspired"?
You wrote: there is a growing body of evidence that prayer
for spiritual
healing does heal physical, mental and moral problems.
I know of no Christian who will disagree with that.
You wrote: 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.
Pure semantics. The "Governing Body" of Jehovah's Witnesses claim to be
appointed by Christ over "all His belongings" and they say
they act as God's
only channel for truth on the earth. However, they say they are not
infallible and are not inspired in the same way the writers
of scripture
were. They prefer to say they are "guided" by God's Spirit.
What a bunch of
double talk! Either someone is "inspired by God" or they are
not. They are
either a prophet of God or they are an ordinary person just
like the rest of
us. For you to say that the writings of Mary Baker Eddy were
"inspired by
God" but then say that she was not a prophet of God is just
as much double
talk as that which the JW "Governing Body" feeds their
followers. Is it OK
with you if I call them a "cult"?
You wrote: Anyway, I would rather engage in a constructive
discussion of this
or any other topics ... In the spirit of Christs charity, I
suggest we call a
truce.
That sounds good to me. Unless you start saying some really
nutty stuff. Then
I may just have to call you on it.
You wrote: and seal the deed with a declaration of tolerance
of other peoples
beliefs.
Does that include tolerance of Satanic cults which practice
child sacrifices?
Just wondering.
In Christ,
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 26 2002 - 18:10:57 EDT