Christian Science, or, you're not really sneezing

[Birdmonster]

Dearies,

After a rather startling weekend among Christian Scientists, I was half shocked & then appauled to learn about their stance on disease, not because I'm high and mighty, but because there were kids involved. Let me explain.

Two Christian Scientists have a 4 year old girl. Her nose is running profusely. She obviously has a cold. While the pair of devouts would acknowledge the physical mucus-iness of it all, when I mentioned that their baby girl might have a cold, they basically scoffed at me. There are no such things, I was informed. Illness is all in the mind, a symptom of bad deeds & worries, etc. A nice philosophy, in a weird sort of way--but not for kids. I mean, what of chicken pox? How can this be explained? Christian Scientists? I'm very curious.

While we're at it, why can they wear glasses but not condoms? Seems...well....rather convenient. Not to judge, but you see where I'm coming from.

[Speaker for the Dead]

About the glasses vs. condoms thing.

I think the biggest difference is that most people (you may be an exception--I don't want to generalise) tend not to ejaculate reproductive fluids from their eyes. Catholics, at least, ban condoms as part of a larger anti-birth-control stance.

[Birdmonster]

Barring the fact that I have been known to have especially verile eyeballs, this misses the point entirely. Aren't glasses at the very least a crutch that opposes Christian Science's disease-less God? Shouldn't your eyes just heal miraculously? Or are we with near-sightedness living lives of shame and heresy? In the same vein, I'd think that condoms, like medicine or glasses, impose a human will on the body which is the special domain of the CS God.

[Speaker for the Dead]

Hm, I guess I did miss the point.

The standard reply, as far as I know, is that we are nearsighted, mortal, disease-ridden, and generally imperfect because of the Original Sin, which (in hindsight) was a bit of a mistake.

However, the difference between disease and reproduction is that disease doesn't (shouldn't, anyway) create new humans. People-making is generally seen as an especially deity-dominated field. That's why condoms are forbidden.

However, other external fixer-upers, like glasses, are allowed because we aren't really changing anything about ourselves. We can take the glasses off at any time. They're just another piece of functional clothing that doesn't permanently alter the body.

That's how I understand this position, anyway.

[Birdmonster]

A good answer, methinks. Once I get a chickenpox answer, I'm converting, if only for the quality of their publication, the Christian Science Monitor.

[Kowalski65]

If, as they claim"Illness is all in the mind, a symptom of bad deeds & worries, etc. "then surely short sightedness can be cured by thinking happy thoughts.
Now why didnt I think of that when Granny died

[Birdmonster]

I've tried thinking piously but I'm still legally blind.

[chrisk]

[sarcasm] Oh, don't you know that what modern science calls 'chicken pox' is REALLY the witchfingers and is caused by evil errant spirits that have a grudge against little babies??[/sarcasm]

(this should not be taken as a real representation of CS belief or mine, just a measure of my opinion of their attitude.)

[Birdmonster]

I predict some angry Scientists a-coming.

However, witchfingers caused me to stiffle a little cackle at work which of course caused my co-workers no end of jealousy. No fun allowed is the general rule round these parts.

[Celyn]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

I've tried thinking piously but I'm still legally blind.

But you should have a bird's eye view!


OK, I have never wondered this before, as I spend a great deal of time *not* knowing anything about Chtrisian Scientists, but, on the eyeglasses thing, how would they feel about, say, laser-thingy surgery to correct eyesight? Would that be different because it is not relkaly like glasses that you can put on and take off?

[Birdmonster]

Well, that would be, by definition, a surgery, right? I don't see how that would differ from, say, surgery for pancreatic cancer. In other words, I severely doubt the CS God allows such a thing.

[Captain Amazing]

Here's what Science & Health says, if you were wondering:

Health is not a condition of matter, but of Mind; nor can the material senses bear reliable testimony on the subject of health. The Science of Mind-healing shows it to be impossible for aught but Mind to testify truly or to exhibit the real status of man. Therefore the divine Principle of Science, reversing the testimony of the physical senses, reveals man as harmoniously existent in Truth, which is the only basis of health; andthus Science denies all disease, heals the sick, overthrows false evidence, and refutes materialistic logic. Any conclusion pro or con, deduced from supposed sensation in matter or from matter's supposed consciousness of health or disease, instead of reversing the testimony ofthe physical senses, confirms that testimony as legitimate and so leads to disease.[/quote]

[ralph124c]

So, how come Christian Scientists die? If disease is just a bad state of mind, these folks ought to last a good long time. Anyway, how does such ignorance persist? You can deny the reality of the physical world, but after a while, you ought to realize that infections are "real", and relief comes from antibiotuics, not reading someprayers.

[Jake]

The unnessary death of a child because of religious belief is just wrong. Wrong.

[Birdmonster]

I'd love to get a Christian Scientist in here somewhere...I know you're out there. There are tons of learned Mormons kicking around, as I found out from a recent post.

[Lemur866]

Well, you have to remember that this religion was invented in the 1800s, when prayer and positive thinking really were the best treatments available for most diseases. Compare Christian Science to other medical quakeries of the day...homeopathy, etc, etc, and they don't look so bad. Then along came Louis Pasteur...

[Balthisar]

If illness is just a state of mind (badly paraphrasing the knowledge above) then what is the problem with taking medicines or performing surgury? If the problem doesn't exist, then the medicine is treating nothing, so where's the problem?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

I'd love to get a Christian Scientist in here somewhere...I know you're out there. There are tons of learned Mormons kicking around, as I found out from a recent post.

I doubt it.

Few Board members would swallow that stuff, & I can't really see the lurkers going for it either.

[Birdmonster]

IIRC, Christian Science came about in 1906...medicine wasn't that good, but we aren't talking 1800s/Civil War style.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Balthisar

If illness is just a state of mind (badly paraphrasing the knowledge above) then what is the problem with taking medicines or performing surgury? If the problem doesn't exist, then the medicine is treating nothing, so where's the problem?

Because taking medicine or having surgery is

1. A lack of faith. You're saying that you don't believe prayer or faith healing can cure you, because if you did, why take the the medicine.

2. An active affirmation of the physical and material world. By saying, "I'll take this medicine", you're actually making yourself sicker, because you're saying that illness has a material cause and that the medicine can affect you materially. So what you're saying is that belief in the physical world has validity.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by Birdmonster

IIRC, Christian Science came about in 1906...medicine wasn't that good, but we aren't talking 1800s/Civil War style.

Eddy probably first came up with Christian Science in 1866, and published "Science and Health" in 1875. The First Church of Christ, Scientist, was founded in 1879.

[Birdmonster]

...IIR(in)C

[Owlett]

Few Board members would swallow that stuff, & I can't really see the lurkers going for it either.

I've been an SD lurker for over a year, and this thread was enough to push me into becoming a member (which I'd been meaning to do for a while).

I am not a practicising Christian Scientist today, but I was raised a Christian Scientist, in a family that was CS for at least four generations back on both sides. I also worked at the church headquarters for a few years in the 1980s (as an editor at the Christian Science Monitor), so I know something about the religion.

Lordy! I don't know where to start in responding to some of the things posted on this thread. I'm glad to say that Captain Amazing, whether he is CS himself or simply possesses rudimentary research skills, has managed to be factually accurate in his posts. As for the rest . . .

So far as I know, there is no prohibition against Christian Scientists' using condoms or any other method of birth control. Although the main CS text, Science and Health, includes at least one passage suggesting that sex should be undertaken solely for procreative purposes, that idea is not actively "preached" or "enforced." One is free to interpret it in daily life however one wishes. I know of many Christian Scientists who have planned their families (or avoided having families altogether) through artifical means. So, don't lump us in with the Catholics on that one.

Insofar as I can put it in simple terms, the main tenet of Christian Science is that humans (and indeed all creation) were made in the image and likeness of God and thus are, in their essence, as spiritual and perfect as the Creator itself. Material existence, with all of its imperfections, is an illusion of the material senses---not fundamental reality. (Some people see hints of Platonism or various eastern religions in that.) CS believes that Jesus healed people not because he was a supernatural being with powers unavailable to others, but because he understood the essential reality of harmonious spirit and the unreality of discordant matter, and his knowing that about people---and in some cases helping them to know it---brought their experience into line with that truth (i.e., healed the body, soul, what have you).

In their approach to disease, addiction, relationships, poverty, and any other troubles that present themselves, devout Christian Scientists attempt to follow Jesus's example and heal those problems through prayer. "Prayer" in that case doesn't mean petitioning God to fix something broken, but reaffirming for themselves the essential harmony of man and the universe as God created it ("knowing the truth," CS folks often call it). In many cases that I've seen over the years, when someone does that consistently and with a whole heart, for oneself or others, material conditions fall into line with that truth. I guess Christian Scientists are far from the only people who think that the body can be a manifestation of the thought. They simply approach problems of the body by treating the thought (the causes), not the symptoms.

I've only scratched the surface there, and have not yet addressed the issues of children and CS, why Christian Scientists "die," or various inconsistencies in people's practice of CS (why glasses but not doctors?). Unfortunately, I've run out of time at the moment. I'll try to follow up later tonight or tomorrow, if folks are genuinely interested.

[Contrapuntal]

Originally Posted by Owlett

.

Insofar as I can put it in simple terms, the main tenet of Christian Science is that humans (and indeed all creation) were made in the image and likeness of God and thus are, in their essence, as spiritual and perfect as the Creator itself. Material existence, with all of its imperfections, is an illusion of the material senses---not fundamental reality.

If we are created perfect, in the image of God, how can it be that our material senses are fooled by an illusion?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

Originally Posted by Owlett

I'll try to follow up later tonight or tomorrow, if folks are genuinely interested.

Folks are genuinely interested.

[Contrapuntal]

Twain on Christian Science

[Birdmonster]

Owlette: I wrote the OP and am VERY interested. Especially in the whole children/chicken pox (just as an example) vein. The ideas about harmony / optimism are a breath of fresh air in Western religions, however, the idea that a child could be refused treatment of an easily cureable illness because of his/her's parent's religious practices is a bit distressing. I had a personal issue with this recently.

[tim314]

Please do continue, Owlett. I'd really like to know the facts about the CS stance on the treatment of disease. (And at the risk of sounding like a wannabe-mod, I hope every will remember what forum we're in . . . )

In particular, I'd like to know what CS doctrine says about providing medical treatment to sick children. If a CS practioner has a child who is sick, are they forbidden (or discouraged) by CS doctrine to provide that child with medicine, surgery, etc.?

If so, is this because they believe that providing the child with medicine doesn't have any significant effect on their chances for recovery?

And if so, how do they respond to the fact that the mortality rates of many diseases have fallen off precipitously after the development of medical treatments designed to combat them?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

Originally Posted by tim314

In particular, I'd like to know what CS doctrine says about providing medical treatment to sick children. If a CS practioner has a child who is sick, are they forbidden (or discouraged) by CS doctrine to provide that child with medicine, surgery, etc.?

This site has afew words on this question.

There exists a chronic state of tension between the Church, its practitioners, and medical doctors over the substitution of Christian Science healing techniques for conventional medical treatments. However, this does not frequently escalate into conflict, as it often does between Jehovah Witness parents, their children and the courts. In instances where there would be a difference of opinion between Christian Science parents and medical authorities, the Church's policy is to strongly encourage parents to cooperate with those authorities. It is not known how frequently this advice is taken by individual members. The Church urges the reporting of communicable diseases, vaccination, and the provision of certified midwives or other medical attendants at childbirth as required by law.

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

If we are created perfect, in the image of God, how can it be that our material senses are fooled by an illusion?

Ah, that's a central problem. In the CS view, material senses are not part of the perfect man (CS texts use "man" generically); they are themselves illusionary. Of course, some consciousness that feels like "us" sees and hears and feels things materially. CS calls that consciousness "mortal mind," in contradistinction to Divine Mind, which is God. Mortal mind is not considered to have any fundamental reality, but why we perceive it is not really explained, IMO. I would guess the reasoning is that why we think we perceive illusions isn't nearly as important as realizing that they are, in fact, not reality.

Some people, if they consistently saw mirages, would want to know *why* they saw them. Others would be satisfied with discovering that they were, in fact, mirages and then not paying them any heed. (Kind of like Nash, at the end of "A Beautiful Mind," refusing to give any credence to the images that his mind dreamed up.)

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by tim314

I'd like to know what CS doctrine says about providing medical treatment to sick children. If a CS practioner has a child who is sick, are they forbidden (or discouraged) by CS doctrine to provide that child with medicine, surgery, etc.?

If so, is this because they believe that providing the child with medicine doesn't have any significant effect on their chances for recovery?

And if so, how do they respond to the fact that the mortality rates of many diseases have fallen off precipitously after the development of medical treatments designed to combat them?

The link that Hoodoo Ulove posted has good information (thanks, Hoodoo; I wasn't familiar with that site, and I learned some interesting things there).

An important thing to realize is that there are no CS "religious police" or clergy forbidding you to do certain things, checking to make sure you're obeying, and chucking you out of the church if you're not. (Heck, I haven't really been a full-time practicing Christian Scientist for about 13 years, but I'm still on the membership rolls of the central organization because I pay my dues every year.)

It's very much an individual thing. Christian Scientists want to rely on prayer for healing because they've seen it work for themselves or others and because they think it makes them a better person by bringing them more in line with their true spiritual nature. So most Christian Scientists will approach a problem themselves or for their children prayerfully. If they want help and support, they'll call a Christian Science practioner to advise them and pray for and with them. (Practitioners are people who have had a specific level of formal Christian Science teaching from church-certified teachers and who agree to enter that practice. My grandmother was a practitioner.) Often, healing results (or seems to result, for those who have trouble swallowing the whole premise).

However, if a problem seems to be getting worse rather than better, or if the situation is so accute that fear or pain overpowers one's ability to think clearly and calmly (which is essential for any mental discipline), it is perfectly acceptable to use medical treatment if that will help you get to a place where you can then resume prayerful treatment with a clear mind. I've known well-respected Christian Scientists to do that, and no one shows up to excommunicate them or anything.

The individual nature of CS can lead to apparent inconsistencies, such as people who wear glasses but don't go to doctors, or (in the case of my family growing up) go to the dentist but not to doctors. The reason has to do with what the individual Christian Scientist thinks he or she can handle. Science and Health states, "Emerge gently from matter into spirit." In other words, don't think that because you've just learned about your true spiritual nature, you can suddenly stop eating or jump off tall buildings or what have you and instantly demonstrate Mind over matter, any more than someone who has just started running or who jogs a few miles once a month is going to be able to finish a marathon. You handle what you can in CS, and hopefully, as your understanding grows, you handle bigger things. Thus, although a devout Christian Scientist may wear glasses, he or she is probably working consistently to try to overcome that apparent need. It's an ongoing spiritual journey.

As for the issue of children, the CS parents I've known (including my own) have been responsible, loving people, who want to take good care of their children, physically and spiritually. They will take try to heal an illness through prayer, and they will teach their children to do that to. (That what Sunday School is for.) If the situation appears dire, however, or a child is suffering acutely, most CS parents will take immediate steps to improve it materially. Occasionally, though, such steps come too late, or a parent will let stubbornness or self-righteousness prevent him from taking those steps. Such cases are very sad, I agree. But I guess CS parents are no more immune to bad judgment than parents at large.

[cmyk]

I understand the "Christian" part, but where exactly does the "Science" come in?

I don't mean that to sound offensive in any way, i'm just curious... from what I've read so far, it seems a bit of a misnomer. Of course, an organization can call themselves whatever they wish, but the word science means a very specific thing to me (knowledge through emperical evidence). It just doesn't seem to apply.

[ralph124c]

Interesting thread. As i said, CS represents a very different philosophy about the nature of reality. It makes sense, but once again, we are confronted by the physical world itself. We learn from physics about why a falling body speeds up-and the science of physics appears (at least to me) to be consistent. On the other hand, I do not see such consistency from the CSC. I live near Brookline, MA, and the CSC has every house that mary baker Eddy lived in, ppreserved as museums. You really realize on seeing these places, how much of a product of the 19th century, that this faith is. It was an era when infant mortality was around 25%, and most people died before age 65, and most doctors were little more than pill-pushing quacks. But since the time of mary baker eddy, we have learned so much, and our medicine is so much better.
So, will the CSC die out? it looks like they don't make many converts.

[Contrapuntal]

Owlett, to echo part of tim314's post, how does CS account for the fact that medical treatment allows one to obtain a clear mind, when the underlying cause is just an illusion? In other words, how does medical intervention correct a problem that is not really there?

[Opus1]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

So, will the CSC die out? it looks like they don't make many converts.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/cr_sci.htm:

The church went through a period of rapid growth during the first half of the 20th century. Membership leveled out by 1950 and has since gradually declined. "...the closing of hundreds of branch churches over the past two decades suggests that attrition is the biggest threat the Church faces." 19 Current membership data is unknown; the Church does not publish statistics.

I have heard from other sources (although nothing I can remember right now, so don't yell "cite" at me), that current church membership is one third of its peak, and declining still, and that most of this decline is directly linked to the overwhelming evidence of the germ theory of disease and other medical information that Christian Science disputes. It's similar to a religion that preaches a flat earth or that man can never fly--possible centuries ago, but tough to get or retain members today.

[dqa]

Owlett, can you explain the need for the Christian Science Monitor. I am daily grateful for whatever tenet of the religion resulted in this newspaper, but I have never understood why an essentially secular newspaper would be part of the church's mission.

Also, I read somewhere that CSM used euphemisms rather than saying that a particular person died. This does not seem to be the case now. Was it true while you were there, or is this story simply untrue?

[oliverar]

Owlett said some people see a link between Platonism and CS, but musing on the descriptions - and what I knew of it already - it seems more like Gnosticism to me (ie from the mainstream Christian viewpoint a form of heresy popular in the 2nd century): especially the central concept that matter and sin/suffering etc have to be transcended and only the spirit is fundamentally real. (having said that I think many gnostics saw matter as created by an evil demi-god being, as opposed to the true God who created spirit -not a belief I assume is found in CS).
The bit about how CS sees the individual 'mortal mind' as illusory and God the only ultimate reality sounds a bit like Buddhism or mystical Hindusim.
Either way, it all diverges a lot from traditional Christianity which views matter as originally 'good' and deliberately created by God, and people as unique individuals deliberately created by God with body and soul and eternally retaining their unique-ness (and, ultimately, a form of body as well).
Mainstream Chrsitainity also does not see sin or disease etc as illusory, but resulting from the 'fall' because of Adam and Eve, and solved by faith in the redeeming power of JC and not just by rising above it all in some way. Then again whether or not mainstream Christainity is more genuine than any other sort is anyone's guess.

I once had a CS friend and he explained some of the beliefs, which I found frankly quite bizarre. I mean, If matter is all illusory why did God create it in the first place? And what would the point of life be without any of the material stuff that we deal with day to day? (not to mention without individual identities). And if bad stuff is all caused by sin and lack of faith etc then what about eathquakes and tsunamis and the like? And why do apparently good, and even saintly, people get ill?

As for 19thC medicine, I agree with the poster who mentioned all the quacks etc. I used to regularly read newspaper from the 1880s in my job and they were packed with ads for potions and pills that would supposedly cure almost anything.

[Eggerhaus]

and what, praytell, is in the CS Reading Rooms? Are they libraries?

[DrMatrix]

Since this thread is about explaining what Christian Science is all about, I'm going to move it to Great Debates, where witnessing belongs.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator

[drewbert]

Originally Posted by dqa

Owlett, can you explain the need for the Christian Science Monitor.

I'm not Owlett, but the CSM site has plenty to say on that question.

[What Is Schwa]

Woah. Thank you Owlett for shining some light on CS. I've never given them any serious thought and am now actually considering investigating my local church.

I got the impression you weren't exactly a practicing member. If this is the case, might I ask why?

[Marley23]

I dated a Christian Scientist for more than a year and a half, and in conversations like this she would always stress that most Christian Scientists did not hesitate to take medication or have surgery when it was necessary. According to her the people who refused those things for themselves, much less their kids, were extremists.

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by kevsnyde

I understand the "Christian" part, but where exactly does the "Science" come in?

I don't mean that to sound offensive in any way, i'm just curious... from what I've read so far, it seems a bit of a misnomer. Of course, an organization can call themselves whatever they wish, but the word science means a very specific thing to me (knowledge through emperical evidence). It just doesn't seem to apply.

I'd have to check Mary Baker Eddy's writings to say for sure, but the way it was explained to me is that "Science" is meant to denote a systematic application of principles. There's some passage that says the understanding of something or other lets one "demonstrate with Scientific certainty the rule of healing." That's the general idea---it's an attempt to distill Christianity into a systematic body of knowledge or set of principles that can be applied consistently.

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by dqa

Owlett, can you explain the need for the Christian Science Monitor. I am daily grateful for whatever tenet of the religion resulted in this newspaper, but I have never understood why an essentially secular newspaper would be part of the church's mission.

Also, I read somewhere that CSM used euphemisms rather than saying that a particular person died. This does not seem to be the case now. Was it true while you were there, or is this story simply untrue?

The Monitor was one of the last things Mary Baker Eddy founded. (It was around 1904, and she was in her 90s, I think.) I believe it was an attempt to combat the rampant sensationalism and yellow journalism of the age. Of course, it was also a way to bring the church to public attention and give it a good reputation (as it still is today).

In my experience, church members have tended to see the Monitor as serving two important purposes: to expose problems in the world that need praying about, and to present some of the positive side of the world (maybe seen as evidence of God's principles in action?). The paper doesn't flinch from covering heavy issues, but it makes a concerted effort to be objective and balanced, to avoid hysteria, to take a reasoned approach to things, and to not wallow in misery.

When I was a kid in the 1960s/70s, many older Christian Scienists didn't use the words "die" or "death." Instead, they spoke of people as "passing on." I wouldn't be surprised if the paper did the same at that time. But by the time I was there in the mid-1980s, it had no such linguistic oddities. However, it would airbrush cigarettes out of photos, I think. (Smoking is forbidden in CS.)

I haven't gotten into the whole issue of CS and death. Maybe tomorrow, when I'll have more time. (This darn work stuff . . .)

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by Eggerhaus

and what, praytell, is in the CS Reading Rooms? Are they libraries?

They are part bookstore, part lending library (founded at a time when there weren't as many of either one around, especially in small towns). They're open to the public, though the hours tend to be limited since they're staffed by volunteers from the local congregation. You'll find all of Mrs. Eddy's writings there, various church periodicals and pamphlets, and the Chrtistian Science Monitor newspaper. They also typically have a study room full of Bibles, Bible commentaries, and other theological study aids. They're intended to be a quiet place where you can read, study, or pray. Of course, for those not lucky enough to have SD, they're also somewhere where you can ask questions about CS.

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by Contrapuntal

Owlett, to echo part of tim314's post, how does CS account for the fact that medical treatment allows one to obtain a clear mind, when the underlying cause is just an illusion? In other words, how does medical intervention correct a problem that is not really there?

It's all in your thinking. The great enemy of applying CS truths is mortal mind, which can become clouded in fear. (Of course, maybe it's also mortal mind that's applying the truths; who knows?) If taking some material step helps you feel calmer---i.e., gets you past a fear-filled state where you can't master and control your thinking---then it helps in that way, while not having any bearing on the fundamental reality of the situation.

[Owlett]

Originally Posted by What Is Schwa

Woah. Thank you Owlett for shining some light on CS. I've never given them any serious thought and am now actually considering investigating my local church.

I got the impression you weren't exactly a practicing member. If this is the case, might I ask why?

Christian Science still very much informs the way I view the world and approach life. But I don't regularly practice spiritual healing anymore (relying instead on medicines) or attend church (other than the occasional holiday, when it feels like an important part of the celebration).

The main reason is sheer laziness. Like other mental disciplines, CS requires hard work and practice. Often, I don't feel up to making the effort, even though I think I'd ultimately be a better person for it. It's pretty much exactly the same reason why I got on Weight Watchers in 1998, lost 30 pounds, and in recent years have steadily put in all back on. I wasn't willing to be disciplined enough to make it work.

Secondary reasons are that I've never been very good at following the church's teachings on sexuality (pretty much, none outside marriage) or its prohibition on drinking. Moreover, I'm a lesbian, and the church is fundamentally unsure of what it thinks about homosexuality. (more info at http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chsc.htm).

[RaftPeople]

Originally Posted by Owlett

As for the issue of children, the CS parents I've known (including my own) have been responsible, loving people, who want to take good care of their children, physically and spiritually. They will take try to heal an illness through prayer, and they will teach their children to do that to. (That what Sunday School is for.) If the situation appears dire, however, or a child is suffering acutely, most CS parents will take immediate steps to improve it materially. Occasionally, though, such steps come too late, or a parent will let stubbornness or self-righteousness prevent him from taking those steps. Such cases are very sad, I agree. But I guess CS parents are no more immune to bad judgment than parents at large.

So, do you have any kind of independent studies that shows prayer can indeed cure significant illness, like cancer?

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

Our CS church shut down, after 5 years.
Murfreesboro just yawned.
The CS bookstore is still here, & it is the dustiest window on the Town Square. I've never seen anybody there.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by ralph124c

So, how come Christian Scientists die?

Nobody's perfect. Don't all religions work like that? They all teach people ways to be good, but just being a member - or even being a really devout practitioner - doesn't make you perfect.