| Name |
Views and Comments | Date |
| Christine Klein |
I think people need to question the true defintion of Christian science , Mormon and JEHOVA WITNESS FAITHS . I think this is very important to discern what christian science vs an uneducated person really is. I think the mormon cult and Jehova Witness teachings should be banned from all bills and laws being passed now and in the future because there's teachings that the sect leaders teach against that would put peopel in danger and one of them is mainly against blood transfusions and medical advancement. This should be banned from Ammending bill AB 16 but the bill has very excellent outlines and ideas in it. Allowing a cultish exemption could ruin an idea and ones with very high integrity. How dare religious cults teaching ever become a deciding factor within medical technology. Reading all the nice ideas in this bill and then reading other parts of the bill upset me a lot. I think all high school kids should have HPV Gardisal immunization after a blood test. In some cases all immunizations should be something they have to do like it or not and in some sick peoples ideas of slavery certain drugs aren't necessary. Law makers and people of the law enforce people to get drugs to help them against anger and other types of human and normal reactiions and become obsene and slave obsessed as a temporary solution to their own aggressions and should not be allowed anymore than a cult saying they shouldn't have treatment. I don't support people who say killers kill because they are schitsophrenic. They are killers and there is no medicine to stop them from their misbehavior. As much as I believe in some things at the same time I don't believe in others. In the recent bill that could be passed for immunization there should never be an exemption for children to get their immunization shots based on ones faith. BIG NO NO...... Forever.. No more open doors for cults within laws and medical technology but if there's a good reason then it's o.k.
Christian science is not all that bad. Midevil beliefs are. |
12/22/2007 |
| rabidrobot |
Thirteen posts or not, I find your argument weak. The positive action of "prayerful treatment" is not the neglect. The neglect is in "leaving undone and unattended to" or "disregarding" the medical treatment that could help a child. It is unconvincing to claim that the official church take is that receiving medical attention is up to the individual. Parents have been exempt from punishment for allowing their children to die because, they claim, their Christian Science religion prohibits medical treatment. If this is not what the religion requires, the "Mother Church" should have said so explicitly, and the parents either punished for their negligence or required to put a different label --Christian Science Orthodox, maybe?-- on their beliefs. Eating the cake yet still having it comes to mind with your assertion that when Christian Scientist parents' children die it is through an unfortunate misunderstanding of doctrine on their part, yet when a child recovers from their ailment it is a miraculous proof of God's healing. Personally, I grow weary of religious people using the argument that those who do wrong in the name of their religion aren't "true" or "real" such-and-suches. Airplane hijackers aren't true Muslims, polygamists aren't strict Mormans, pedophile priests aren't authentic Catholics, child neglecters aren't real Christian Scientists, &c. If these criminals don't represent your faith, then your church should do more than spam a comment board on a book discussion to clear up the misconception --in particular to the actual members of the church. In conclusion, I found it especially humorous when you tried to use earthly logic to defend your belief that "matter is an illusion". The phrase "...a complete contradiction of itself" in particular made me grin. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
I understand the worthy worry and fear that arises from the thought that child neglect or abuse can be condoned by the law, and completely agree that if indeed the act is deemed "neglect," or "abuse" the case should not pass without due punishment and reformation. It is however quite an enormous misunderstanding of the teachings of Christian Science to consider prayerful treatment "neglect" or "abuse" One definition of the word, neglect from Webster is,
1 : to give little attention or respect to : DISREGARD
2 : to leave undone or unattended to especially through carelessness.
|
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Neglect, in essence has to do with thoughtlessness, and carelessness. Regardless of the material outcome of a Christian Science treatment the essence of that treatment is to do with understanding that if "God is Love" and man is created in His [spiritual] image and likeness, then man is in fact a reflection of God's divine love. A Christian Science treatment, to do purely with the reflection of divine Love, always made manifest through human kindness and care, is then in fact an exact antipode to the concept of neglect. Without the overwhelming quality of love, and focus on tender care, a treatment would have no relevance to the teachings of Christian Science. In fact without love and tender care as the focus of a treatment, it could well be deemed "abuse,"
1 : a corrupt practice or custom.
|
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
The basic dilemma and point of contention has to do with differing opinions on the nature of life. If one believes in eternal life; believing true life to be spiritual, and not material--a reflection of God's eternal Life--they would obviously regard material health differently from one who believed that this material life we appear to live is all that there is. If it is absolutely true, and can be proved, that life begins and ends in matter, failure to choose medical aid would undoubtedly be the epitome of cruelty and ignorance. However if through one's personal experience of what the world would call "miracles," and Christian Scientist's call "proofs of God's healing," one might begin to believe in a different concept of life as spiritual, in which material death is not an end at all but just another more extreme form of material belief. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Without actual demonstrations of divine healing, Christian Science would indeed be an inane and ignorant practice. There are myriad accounts and testimonies of healing, in which professionals in the field of medical science can give no material explanation for the occurrence of healing, in such Christian Science periodicals as the CS Sentinel and the CS Journal and most notably in a book written by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder and discoverer of Christian Science, "Science and Health with key to the Scriptures." Without this empirical evidence of divine healing, Christian Science would have no basis, nor would Jesus’ have without his demonstrations of God’s healing power. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
It makes sense to me why Marci Hamilton’s explanation of Christian Science theology is innocently false and unfortunately misleading. Understandably, she deals with and looks mostly at cases in which Christian Science was not demonstrated; cases in which parents involved did not have success with understanding the teachings themselves. She has only viewed the nature of Christian Science through the lens of failure. Imagine if one’s entire experience and view of medical science was that of treatment of AIDS in Africa, where in the best situations life is merely prolonged in a drugged, perhaps, painless slide into death. Would they be convinced of the superior nature of medical science as a valid form of care? Might they deem medical science a corrupt practice or custom? Is it not only fair in both medical science and Christian Science to sincerely consider the successes with the failures to determine whether one is in fact without basis; then one might, with some confidence, declare the corruption of one or the other. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
For the record, no where in the teaching of Christian Science is it written, or faithfully taught, that a Christian Scientist may not seek medical attention if he or she may choose. The true teaching of Christian Science, the belief also held by the Mother Church in Boston MA, is that everyone is on their individual path with God, seeking the understanding that true life is divine and entirely spiritual. "If patients fail to experience the healing power of Christian Science, and think they can be benefited by certain ordinary physical methods of medical treatment, then the Mind-physician should give up such cases, and leave invalids free to resort to whatever other systems they fancy will afford relief" (Science and Health with key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, pg. 443:14). "Until the advancing age admits the efficacy and supremacy of Mind, it is better for Christian Scientists to leave surgery and the adjustment of broken bones and dislocations to the fingers of a surgeon, while the mental healer confines himself chiefly to mental reconstruction and to the prevention of inflammation. Christian Science is always the most skilful surgeon, but surgery is the branch of its healing which will be last acknowledged. However, it is but just to say that the author has already in her possession well-authenticated records of the cure, by herself and her students through mental surgery alone, of broken bones, dislocated joints, and spinal vertebrae" (401:27). |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Another common misconception quoted from Marci Hamilton’s article is "that illness is evidence of sin that needs to be treated by prayer." Christian Scientists believe that Spirit is all that is real, and that "matter is the unreal," thusly, sin, being any of various beliefs in the reality of matter, is likewise "unreal." Therefore, the belief that "illness is evidence of sin," is believing in the reality of sin—a complete contradiction of itself. Christian Scientists heal the misconception of sin in the same manner as they heal the misconception of illness. They believe that the two are one in the same, utterly unreal, and thus unable to act on one another. Sickness is not punishment for sin. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
That Christian Science Practitioners might "chide worried parents not to give into the temptation to obtain medical attention and to pray more fervently" as Marci Hamilton claims is a worrisome thought. The last thing an understanding practitioner would do is "chide" a "worried" person. As I earlier stated the essence of Christian Science is the expression and reflection of divine Love made manifest. If nothing else the practitioner’s job is to love and care for every one of their patients. A chiding practitioner is either an oxymoron or an unfortunate case of malpractice, not the teaching of Christian Science. If the practitioner would chide the concept of sin, as Jesus did to the temptation of his own belief of sin saying, "Get thee behind me Satan," then he would do his patient well, aiding in the destruction of the belief. In every case lovingly done, it would be entirely clear to the patient that the only chiding be directed toward the concept of disease or sin, not the individual. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Lastly Marci Hamilton’s implication that "practitioners" and "nurses" hold the office of "end-of-life care" is utterly contrary to their actual job description as "defenders of life," A practitioner who believes that there is an end to life is yet another oxymoron or mis-informed individual. I can guarantee that the origin of the term "end-of-life-care" came from either political legislation or from the field of medical science, for every Christian Scientist strives to understand and demonstrate life-eternal. Christian Science Nursing Facilities are havens for the sole purpose of healing and recovery. An individual who made it clear their wishes to enter a CS Nursing facility with the intent to die, and not rely on Christian Science would not be admitted, they would rather be directed to conventional senior home. All residents must prove that they are working with an approved practitioner of Christian Science with the intent of demonstrating complete and total healing. |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Thank you for considering this critique of Marci Hamilton’s article. I hope that it helps to shed light on the healing side of Christian Science and clarify some common misconceptions. I leave you with this statement from the Science and Health with key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder and discoverer of Christian Science: |
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
"If ecclesiastical sects or medical schools turn a deaf ear to the teachings of Christian Science, then part from these opponents as did Abraham when he parted from Lot, and say in thy heart: "Let there be no strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdmen and thy herdmen; for we be brethren"" (444:13).
|
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
I understand the worthy worry and fear that arises from the thought that child neglect or abuse can be condoned by the law, and completely agree that if indeed the act is deemed "neglect," or "abuse" the case should not pass without due punishment and reformation. It is however quite an enormous misunderstanding of the teachings of Christian Science to consider prayerful treatment "neglect" or "abuse" One definition of the word, neglect from Webster is,
1 : to give little attention or respect to : DISREGARD
2 : to leave undone or unattended to especially through carelessness.
|
7/12/2005 |
| Evan Bryant |
Why do I get a warning that HTML tags and links are not allowed? My message had no tags or links and the message came up anyway. Please let me know what I should do? Is there a direct email I can reply to? |
7/12/2005 | |
