Dear Stuart,
I am both a Christian and a scientist and believe one cannot make the
Christian faith into a science. Science deals only with the physical
and man has a non-physical (soul) element to him. I have great
respect for Christian Scientists since they do not have the
proselytizing zeal of the Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, etc. I find the
latter evil since they prey on people who do not know Scripture well
yet recognize it as the Word of God.
Take care,
Moorad
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart d Kirkley [mailto:stucandu@lycos.com]
Sent: Fri 4/26/2002 7:04 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: Adam vs. 'adam / one cult's solution?
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 : Sat Apr 27 2002 - 11:13:26 EDT