Hello Mike,
My rebuttal follows each of your points. Thanks for toning down the
insults, like I said, constructive dialogue is preferable to hurling
insults at each other.
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.
Christian Science leads to an understanding of the spiritual message
of the scriptures. This only comes about by heartfelt study and
investigation of the Bible. We use Science and Health as an aid to
better understand the spiritual meaning behind the scriptures. You
make it sound as if we are dumb automatons that merely plug in Mrs.
Eddy's ideas automatically and without question because we accept her
ideas unquestioningly. I seriously doubt that the majority of
Christian Scientists work this way. We have to figure out the meaning
for ourselves and see how it makes sense to our own thinking first.
This is not always easy, and requires one to be objective in
examining our own thinking. Therefore, I think we do read the Bible
objectively, because we read it to find out how it might give meaning
in the here and now, and this can only be realised if we objectively
examine what we are reading and how we are interpreting it.
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.
Of course the Holy Spirit is God, if I used the word 'it' then it was
just a simple word usage. No disrespect was meant. You declare that
the Holy Spirit is God Himself, well, just what is God? Just what is
God? Christian Science supplies a definition and explanation which
helps to reveal what God is, but I would be curious to know what you
think or believe God to be.
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"?
If you have not felt divine inspiration after studying the Bible for
so long, I really feel for you. To me, divine inspiration is the
essence of love and truth. When Jesus healed the deaf, dumb, sick and
blind, he did it out of the utmost compassion for others. He loved
them supremely and unselfishly. This, to me is what divine
inspiration is, the power that gives animus to unselfish deeds. WHen
we say, 'To err is human, to forgive, divine', that divinity is the
healing power of unselfed love, which forgives effortlessly, and
uplifts the forgiver and the forgiven into a diviner state of
consciousness. Divine inspiration, IMHO, is the perception of
infinite good and the infinite possibilities of realising good as the
only real power there is, and then to want to share that sense of
goodness with your fellow man.
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 really like to look for chinks in the armour don't you. But there
aren't any, let me assure you. Mrs. Eddy quite happily explains this
herself in Science and Helath and some of her other writings.
Essentially she says that the human language is inadequate to fully
express the language of Spirit, and she struggled, as I'm sure all of
us have, with finding the right words to most faithfully express her
meaning. THere isn't anything unusual about that. Authors constantly
revise their works to better express their meaning. As for being
divinely inspired, I guess it was her unselfish approach to make her
meaning clearer for others which again inspired her to revise her
work.
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.
Then why do you take such issue with Christian Science. If you look
at the evidence of tens of thousands of written and corroborated
testimonies, and give this an objective study, how can you, as a
Christian, in light of your statement above, dismiss Christian
Science healing as anything less than a sincere and valid Christian
practice. I'm afraid your apparent condemnation of CHristian Science
does not jive at all with this statement, and leaves me a little
mystified as to what motivates you as a Christian.
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"?
I don't think calling any group a cult without fully investigating
their movement is appropriate or helpful. Nor do I think it is
consistent with the spirit of Christianity. There have been countless
numbers of people who have been inspired by God. The apostles were
inspired by God, yet we call them apostles, not prophets. In your
other post I believe that you said that Mrs. Eddy was a self
proclaimed prophet. THis is completely untrue. Like I said, she
never made this claim, and her followers don't make it either. It is
a claim made most often by those who negatively criticize Christian
Science without having all the facts or without making an objective
analysis.
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.
Which is why I called you on your remarks.
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
Child sacrifices would be a criminal act, making these people
criminals. There is nothing criminal in practicing Christian Science,
or Jehovahs Witnesses, or any of these other religions which the
mainstream religions like to call cults, simply because they don't
understand them and aren't willing to accept them as legitimate
followers of the generally accepted notion of what Christianity is.
If you take the definition of a cult correctly, then a lot of
religions, and many of the established orthodox religions, could be
considered cultish also. The deification of any person by a group of
people is, in my understanding, what a cult is. SInce many orthodox
religions have a heirarchy of priests and clergy which govern the
church laity, and who are supposed to be infallible, because they are
supposedly appointed by God, then these might be fairly considered to
be cults. I won't make that judgement, but it is food for thought,
don't you think.
Grace be with you,
Stuart Kirkley
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 - 19:08:35 EDT