Hello Suart,
You wrote: 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.
Your answer strongly implies that you believe that some, possibly many, do.
That is enough for me to want to stay clear of your religious system.
You wrote: 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.
I'm not really interested in Christian Science's definition of God. I came to
this list to discuss the Bible and science with fellow Christians. I didn't
think anyone here would find it necessary to be asking, "What is God?" or
"Who is God." If you really don't know the answers to those questions, I
don't think you belong here. If you think the traditional Christian answer to
your question, the one you think I would likely give you, is wrong, I don't
think you belong here. If your answer to the question you asked differs
substantially from the traditional Christian answer to your question, I don't
think you belong here.
You wrote: If you have not felt divine inspiration after studying the Bible
for so long, I really feel for you.
Obviously when I said that I do not claim to be "inspired" I meant in the
same way the writers of scripture were at the time they wrote the words they
did. In a supernatural infallible way.
You wrote: She [Mary baker Eddy] wrote her findings out in Science and Health
which underwent dozens of revisions as she strove to elucidate Christian
Science more perfectly.
I responded: 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 answered: You really like to look for chinks in the armour don't you. But
there aren't any, let me assure you.
There aren't? You say you don't idolize the woman. But to listen to you go on
and on about how wonderful she was, how loving she was and how she cared
about "each and every" person, I could swear I was listening to a member of
the Unification Church talking about Rev. Moon.
You wrote: there is a growing body of evidence that prayer for spiritual
healing does heal physical, mental and moral problems.
Having failed to carefully read what you wrote, and thinking you had simply
said that there is a lot of proof that prayers are often very effective in
helping the physically ill to regain their physical health, I responded: I
know of no Christian who will disagree with that.
However, I now realize that that is not what you said. What you said was that
our spiritual health is directly linked to our physical health. By saying
that you were, I believe, promoting the Christian Science claim that all
physical illness is a manifestation of spiritual sickness. If this is what
you were saying I know of no Christian who will agree with you. Though some
physical illness can be brought on or exacerbated
by such things as stress and depression, the vast majority of physical
illness is the result of physical causes. Physical causes such as, a high fat
diet, malnutrition, inadequate hydration, inadequate sleep, overeating,
undereating, old age, inadequate exercise, bodily impacts, germs, bacteria,
viruses, poisons, smoking, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, heredity, etc., etc.,
etc.
The claims of Christian Science that all or even most physical illness is
caused by the poor spiritual health of the person who is physically ill is
rubbish. It is neither Christian nor science. Such a teaching calls into
question the spiritual health of the person who is physically sick, making
him or her feel worse. The one who is physically sick is suspected and
sometimes accused of having some secret sin in their life, or failing to have
maintained a close relationship with God, or failing to have put enough faith
in God. What a terrible thing to do to someone who is already sick. Make them
feel guilty and ashamed for bringing the illness they have on themself by not
having lived a sufficiently "spiritual" life.
You wrote: Child sacrifices would be a criminal act ... There is nothing
criminal in practicing Christian Science.
Tell that to the children of Christian Science practitioner parents, children
who have died because their parents failed to take them soon enough to a
doctor when they desperately needed one.
This is not supposed to be a list to debate the beliefs of cults. I did not
come here for that. But when you earlier offered Mary Baker Eddy's totally
off the wall answer to why there are two creation accounts in Genesis ("Only
one is true," you said.), I felt compelled to call her interpretation
"rubbish." For, in my opinion, any interpretation that maintains that part of
God's word is not true cannot be considered to be a Christian interpretation.
I'm sorry if I offended you.
In Christ,
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 02:17:44 EDT