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.
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.
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.
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.
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 :smack:
[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.)
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.
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?
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.
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]
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.
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.
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…
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?
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.
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.