Thank you for this response, I'm actually not quite sure what to
make of it. Does this mean that Christian Science is neither
Christian nor Science, because I would obviously take issue on both
counts. But it seems I have my hands pretty full already, so I'm
hoping that it is just a good humoured joke, which I believe is what
you intended, as I got a chuckle out of it. Thanks, and I'm glad you
find the Monitor as journalistically excellent as I do. Thanks again.
Stuart
--On Fri, 26 Apr 2002 17:40:15 alexanian wrote: >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 > > >
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 - 19:10:03 EDT