Good point, Marley23.
I guess documentation would be nice - my major point of curiosity is how this happens. I’m sure there’s a scientific or rational reason for this occurring - whether we know this reason might be another matter altogether.
WRS
Another important part - the posts above refer a lot to praying. What is prayer in Christian Science? Is it communication with God? Is it telling God one’s desires and thoughts? Is it praising God? Is it sitting still to feel His presence? How does one pray? How does praying normally differ from praying for healing?
WRS
Not to get mystic, but I think there is something to a positive attitude leading to medical healing with or without religion.
It’s a tiny sample, but with the exception of the aunt I mentioned above, all of the Christian Scientists in my family lived into their late 80s and early 90s. Of course they were/are also all non-drinkers and rather non-aggressive personalities, both of which I suspect contribute to a longer life-span.
Agreed. There’s plenty we don’t know about the subjects involved - the mind, its influence on healing, medicine in general - but a positive outlook certainly doesn’t seem to hurt, and it can probably be said to have helped in a number of cases.
These are all excellent questions you’re asking, WRS…you strike me as very inquisitive and thorough and still open-minded on this, wonderful qualities all around. I’ll take a stab at it…
Yes…I mentioned this in my earlier post, but there are many, many, many documented Christian Science healings. What I imagine is frustrating for an objective observer, though, is that you will find most of those healings in sources from the Christian Science Publishing Society such as the Christian Science Sentinel and the Christian Science Journal. This is not to say, however, that there are no objective, non-involved verifications out there. They’re just likely to be harder to come by. It’s not that surprising, really…the Publishing Society, and the Committee on Publication that corrects/responds to press about the church and Mrs. Eddy when necessary, have reasons for keeping good records of this stuff, and while some individual doctors or researchers might also, the larger, more skeptical medical and research community probably wouldn’t. Anyway, I’m sure they’re around, but I haven’t done extensive research into it myself. But the healings found in Publishing Society publications aren’t as shaky a source as you might think. For one thing, the Sentinel and the Journal have been around since the 19th century and have been publishing gobs of testimonies, healings and articles every week and month, respectively, for all that time. Testimonies of healing (or “demonstration,” as you’ll often hear CSers call it–the demonstration of the universal truths Mrs. Eddy put forth, the demonstration of the “science” of healing) must always be verified by two third parties. Sometimes they’re witnesses, sometimes they’re friends who can vouch for the person’s character, and in many cases they’re medical doctors. In fact, the Sentinel/Journal have published many corroborating letters from medical doctors that support testimony. Furthermore, the Publishing Society is a reputable source–The Christian Science Monitor, the newspaper that they publish, is known for its integrity and consistency by people in all walks of life.
Something else that’s cool is that Harvard Medical School (I’m fairly certain about this one) now has Science and Health on its list of required reading, since it’s teaching tomorrow’s medical professionals a bit about holistic and alternative medicine and the mind-body connection–a sign that the field is progressing, I’d say. There’s also a Harvard Mind-Body Institute. So Harvard might be a place to start in looking for third-party verification, I don’t know. The Committee on Publication is also good to contact–I’m sure they’d be happy to hook you up with verification of healings and maybe even find an independent report of some kind. I know that doesn’t seem ideal from an objectivity standpoint, but it’s a place to start. So are these websites: www.tfccs.com and www.spirituality.com. A good book that I’ve read bits of and that contains many testimonies, affidavits, and commentary on Christian Science in the world today is Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age by Robert Peel.
Branching off of that for a second, what bothers me about most modern medicine today, CS or no CS, is the way that they approach a lot of things. Medical providers (to say nothing of insurance companies!) all too often look at the mind and the body as completely separate entities, and that’s simply not the case. I agree with what you said about positive attitudes, too, Bill. It’s not just a flaky cliche; there’s really something to it. Whether that’s a testament to the healing powers of the human mind or the powers of aligning the mind more with God is up for debate, but the important thing is that it’s true. And as far as verification is concerned, a final thought…I was discussing this with my mom in hopes of gaining some wisdom on it (she’s a lot more active with church stuff than I). She told me that the best proof of a healing out there is how the person who is healed feels inside…because only that person knows how the complete realignment of their thought (that may have also happened to manifest itself physically or in relationships or in other ways) felt like, and knows that it worked. Strong evidence can be gathered for it having happened, but no independent source can really verify matters of the personal heart and mind.
Which brings me to the questions on prayer…
Well, it’s kind of all of the above, really. Prayer IS communication with God, and Mrs. Eddy writes that “desire is prayer,” although that doesn’t really mean you pray by going “hey God, I want a new bike” or something like that. God also knows your desires even before you ask. And sure, it can be praise, too…you’re acknowledging and affirming in your mind all the wonderful qualities that God possesses and deriving glorious joy from it and all. You can sit still to feel His presence if you want, but you don’t have to sit still or be silent or be loud or be anything in particular to pray. You just have to do whatever it takes to hear that “still, small voice.”
Praying “normally” isn’t all that different from praying for healing, although if you’re praying for healing you might focus on specific spiritual concepts/qualities of God that you therefore possess as a perfect child of God…like if you have a broken leg, you might focus on the idea of wholeness, oneness, continuity…if it’s a relationship problem you think of divine love and seeing that person as a child of God…that sorta thing. The most important part of prayer is bringing your thoughts more in line with God and broadening your understanding. The best answer for this, really, lies in the first chapter of Science and Health, which is in fact entitled “Prayer.” So it’s obviously a pretty important concept in Christian Science. Here’s an excerpt from the first few pages: (you can easily get the full text online here: http://www.aequus.org/online.html )
BornOfStardust:So, I’m not sure if I understand correctly, but CS doesn’t believe that Jesus came in the flesh-- he’s just a mystical “idea”. And that people are not actually sick, so he didn’t actually heal them. And that people are not actually sinful, so his death was merely a “lesson”-- it did not actually cause sins to be forgiven, since sin doesn’t actually exist.
What I would like to ask is where does Christian Science get these ideas about Jesus from, since it’s clearly not from the Bible or even the apochyphal gospels? It seems to be based solely on the ideas of this 19th century lady, Mary Baker Eddy.
And from your post, CS-er read the Bible like a devotional too. But how do CS-ers reconcile their beliefs with the Bible, seeing as in some places, it calls them lies, in no uncertain terms?
I did not interpret what BornOfStardust wrote that way at all. Jesus the man demonstrated the Christ idea. His death and resurection showed that life is eternal (I am not preaching this idea to my fellow Dopers, just giving my interpretation of what I read.)
Here is the first tenet of Christian Science.
1. As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life.
There are 6 tenets and you can see all of them by clicking the link about 2/3 of the way down this page of www.beliefnet.com. I find this site to be a great resource whenever I have question about a religion.
In Science and Health, Mary Baker Eddy writes:
She also wrote:
Does this mean that Christian Scientists do not brush their teeth, take showers, etc.? What does MBE mean by “hygiene”?
WRS
<hijack>
I’ve been anxiously watching… when do we get to meet Mrs. WeRSauron?
</hijack>
I have to admit that if Christian Scientists didn’t do this, it might’ve been a hindrance to my relationship with Stardust. But she does brush her teeth, and I imagine that Christian Scientists do this just like everyone else.
I have to admit that if Christian Scientists didn’t do this, it might’ve been a hindrance to my relationship with Stardust. But she does brush her teeth, and I imagine that Christian Scientists do this just like everyone else. 
But why would Christian Scientists brush their teeth and take showers? Why use material things - matter does not exist - to heal and take care of the body, instead of depending on Mind?
WRS
Some additional lines from Science and Health that may shed some light:
This hits to the question of hygiene and maintenance-type stuff (and this is not the only time it’s addressed, but it’s the one I could find most quickly). The upshot of it is, of course you need to brush your teeth and wear clothes and remain clean. You are also expected to abstain from alcohol, tobacco and recreational drugs, and though they may not seem related on the surface, the underpinning idea is that by maintaining yourself physically, you free your thought from concerns of the body. Thought is what is important, not the body. Who wouldn’t be distracted from prayer and right thinking by a rotten tooth, or shivering, or sunburn (or being wasted or drunk)? Knowing that, we clothe ourselves and eat and maintain hygiene, simply because most of us are not ready or able to understand ourselves as purely spiritual. If we could, we would ascend. Since we can’t, we cut distractions down to a minimum.
In other words, all Christian Science adherents work at their own pace, so to speak. It is up to each individual to decide their own course within the religion, up to and including being ready to heal themselves or others. I know many who, though devout, have sought medical treatment for ailments which were too much for them to deal with alone, or to deal with through prayer. Sometimes fear of disease is so overwhelming that medical treatment is the better choice. And that’s OK. It’s not what CSers hope for themselves or others, but it’s not a mark of shame or failure, either.
Moreover, it’s not that CSers don’t acknowledge sickness, or pretend that those suffering aren’t really suffering. It’s that sickness is not and cannot be a fundamental truth about anyone. Instead of understanding my friend as “chick with cancer,” I understand her as a perfect, flawless child of God. I don’t pretend that she doesn’t have cancer, I simply don’t acknowledge that the cancer could ever be part of her identity, part of her real, immortal self. The idea, or identity, of her is constant. Cancer is powerless to destroy the true woman.
Ah. I think I can see something.
Everyone labels themselves - sick, well, gay, straight, male, female, single, married, tall, short, fat, thin, choleric, joyous, etc. None of these define what the person really is - the person’s spirit or soul defines what the person really is. So, I could be sick, but it’s just my body that is sick, not me. I am my spirit, my body is separate. I am not my body.
Is this more along the lines of what Christian Science is trying to say?
WRS
I’d say that’s along the lines of what CS is trying to say. That’s an interesting way to put it, actually, I’ve never thought of it in terms of “labels” like that. And moreover–and most importantly–acknowledging your true self, which is a spiritual child of God and not an ailing mortal, causes the rest of your life to sort of naturally align itself with your purer picture of yourself. It’s very analogous to lots of things in life that I’ve always found to be true and that I’m sure many others have too: sometimes if you want a particular thing very badly, like to find the love of your life or to feel good about yourself or make friends, the more you try the less you succeed. Same goes for if you dwell too much on a negative label. But if you let go and focus on being yourself and expressing all of the good qualities that you know you possess, everything else sort of falls into place. So CS kind of takes that an extra step and says, that sort of clarity can be achieved through God.
Going back to rumraisin’s Bible issue for a moment, since I haven’t been back on here to respond to it yet (thanks btw, gwendee–and of course Marley for vouching for my hygiene 
). First of all, no, Jesus wasn’t a mystical being, he was a man, but he expressed divine ideas and showed us that life is eternal, which is why he was important. And showing us that we are always forgiven and can align ourselves with God to rise above mortal cares was nothing to sneeze at. So yes, he absolved us of sins and healed the sick–by showing us that we don’t have to submit to them in the first place. Anyway…I’ve gotten accusations thrown at me a few times about Christian Science not being based on The Bible. (Which is ironic, because CSers sure do study it a lot, and Mrs. Eddy sure did spend three years with the thing before writing Science and Health.) But I strongly question any assertion that The Bible would call CS beliefs (or those of many other religions) “lies in no uncertain terms.” Bible scholar I am not, but I do know this: if what you’re going for is a face-value, literal interpretation of the Bible, you’re going to get a very conflicting picture. Let’s face it: inspired Word of God, perhaps, but as told by man. Many, many different men. And then translated and who knows what else a bunch. So what’s important to get at is the underlying truths in the verses and stories, which is what CS does. It looks at a spiritual interpretation of the Bible; it tries to get at the broader picture. A good way to look at the Bible, I think, is as man’s spiritual journey. First he is created (as he remains today) in God’s image and likeness. Then there is a mist, and then the Adam and Eve parable (yes, I believe it’s a parable) pops up and you have a largely vengeful God and a sinful man for some time. There are periods of rise and decline–sometimes man is in touch with God and is therefore prosperous; other times he turns away and worships false idols, and then things go to hell. But gradually, understanding deepens, and finally Christ comes as the ultimate reconciliation of man to God. Furthermore, there are many parts of the Bible that show Jesus’ lack of reliance on material things and total reliance on God. The “take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, drink, put on, etc” part of the Sermon on the Mount comes to mind. There’s also the “flesh profiteth nothing, spirit profiteth all” bit. This is all off the top of my head, so sorry not to give references or exact quotes. And when Jesus healed, he didn’t say “Take two of these and call me in the morning” or “Hey God, heal this guy? Pleeeeease?” He said, “Father, I know that thou art with me.” He acknowledged God’s presence and understood that his prayers were already answered, and when he looked at his fellow man he saw absolutely nothing but a perfect child of God. This allowed him to heal, and this healing principle is demonstrated through CS. And when you can demonstrate something, you know there’s likely to be something to it. So those are my, uh, four and a half cents on that issue. 
More exhaustive answers could certainly be given, but I’m not in much of a position to do it. Cheers!
In fact, he said “As a Jew, my mother always wanted me to be a Doctor. Let’s see what I can do.”
Hehehe!!!
Mwah.