Mike,
I am just going to address a couple of the points you made, then I
feel compelled to remove myself from this debate.
>From your post:
>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 have drastically altered what I stated and ascribe statements to
me which I never made.
Christian Science treatment is actually the complete opposite of what
you have stated here. To effect healing, prayer actually lovingly
removes any personal sense of responsibility for any discord, whether
it is physical, mental, moral or otherwise. This prayer is so
effective that the complete removal of any personal attachment to the
discord, dissolvesand eliminates the painful sense of disease and
completely liberates the individual, resulting in a complete return
to normal health, and usually improved health. WHen this personal
sense or attachment to discord is removed, it becomes unknown, and
since it is unknown, it is therby rendered unreal, which it always
was. There is absolutely no mention of disease as being the
individuals own doing or responsibility anywhere in Christian Science
literature, and any attempt to heal with this notion in mind would
render the prayer ineffective. Christian Science treatment begins
from the standpoint of perfection, Perfect God, Perf!
ect
Man, since we are His image and likeness. 'Mark the perfect man, and
behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace.' (Ps. 37:37)
Anything less would be missing the mark.
The proof is in the pudding, if you find it difficult to accept my
explanation, I can only submit the verified testimonies of over 60,
000 cases of spiritual healing through Christian Science treatment.
>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.
It is always unfortunate when a child is lost to sickness. I submit
that the record of success in treating children with Christian
Science is quite admirable, indeed children are generally more
receptive to Christian Science treatment than adults. I myself was
completely healed of a disease which doctors had diagnosed and
pronounced incurable. The prognosis was that I would die or be
severely crippled, medical treatment was given, but it was
ineffective. My parents turned to Christian Science treatment and in
a short time I was completely healed, much to the surprise of the
doctors. I am eternally grateful that my parents chose this
treatment, because it was effective. I would not be writing this
right now if they had not taken that decision. Medical treatment held
out no hope for me at all. The promise of Christian Science healing
is not an empty promise.
This is typical of the sort of healing that is quite commonplace
amongst Christian Scientists and we are all very grateful for any
healing. There are unfortunate instances when this treatment wasn't
successful, but they are few and far between. I think if the medical
faculty could boast the same record of success against it's record of
failures, we would be quite a bit further along in the alleviation of
this source of distress in families.
When a parent relies on medical treatment for their children, and it
is not succesful, do we hold those parents culpable for their childs
fate? The constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion, which is
enshrined in several democratic constitutions worldwide, provides for
the free expression and practice of one's religious beliefs. If
Christian Science practice was a wholesale failure, and people were
dropping like flies every time it was enlisted, then I would say you
might have an argument for prosecuting irresponsible persons. But it
isn't, it is a proven system of healing and has an enviable record of
success. We, like any responsible person, lament the loss of anyone,
child or adult, if healing is not achieved, by whichever methods to
effect healing are employed.
>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.
Like I said, I feel compelled to remove myself from any further
debate on this subject.
>I'm sorry if I offended you.
You didn't, but I accept your apology.
Stuart Kirkley
>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 - 19:21:59 EDT