Talk:Church of Christ, Scientist/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Church of the Axiom

I dont know what the Church of the Axiom is, but it appears to have little or nothing ot do with this topic. It may be a prank, or may be real, but I make no judgment aside form the fact that mentioning it multiple times seems desperate. If anything, the position seems more approapriate to an artilce on the nature of Jesus. There is no reason to associate it with this article, and I am taking it out.

L.A.F.

Christian Science a cult?

Some people think so, although the CS church is so well entrenched in most of the places it exists that it's thrown off the cult label, except among hardcore religious conservatives and hardcore left-wing secularists. People call Mormonism a cult, but few consider it one (at least in the U.S.).

I'm surprised how many people in this article think that the cult idea doesn't apply, which I suppose if you don't consider all the facts seems fine and dandy. First, since it calls itself Christian Science the assumption is that it is in some way Christian -- otherwise they should have used a different name. Second, one of the first definitions of a cult in Christian tradition is when the canon of the Bible is either considered to be a dual-authority with another book or requires another book for correct interpretation (such as Mormonism with the Book of Mormon which itself has no matching historical evidence) which evidently is also the value given to Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Third, the Christian view on sin, that we willfully disobey the commandments of God, is not even remotely close to the intepretation that Christian Science, which as stated in the article, sin and death under CS aren't real, and yet we still have people die (even Mary Baker Eddy died). Such a view by these definitions is an illogical fallacy and is an insult to Christian values while still claiming to itself be Christian. I mean, this faith has every right to believe what they want, but if it has even one contradiction with the basic Christian view (and the Bible!) then it has no right to be called Christian (thus, Christian cult, not just any cult). The claim of a lack of neutrality is true, since there is no mention of Mary Baker Eddy's writing to every single one of her known members requesting money for various reasons (including a request for money to buy 3 coats with reason) that is historically sound in addition to any other such criticisms that would give it value as a neutral composition that addresses these criticisms. I'd be curious to see if there are any Christian Scientists here that can refute any of the claims made in Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. Quadra23 23:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Real quickly, I would like to offer a thought on the above writer's notion that: "the Book of Mormon which itself has no matching historical evidence" and that making it non-canonical. I am not a Mormon; however, you cannot really hope to begin a discussion on the historical reality of certain biblical texts as a way to discredit religious groups as "cults." I doubt you want to open the can of worms that is the discussion of the historial facts of the bible, and use that as a proving ground for religous truth.

L.A.F.

Quadra is working by a strict Sola Scriptura view of a cult that originates, and is limited to, Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christianity. The meaning of cult in Christian history is quite different. Originally it just referred "to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities carried out within a particular group." The more negative, in intent, use of the word cult in Christian history was to describe the devotion to idols and non-Christian gods. Although heathen or pagan was generally preferred for such religions. A more modern view indicates a cult is a minority religion that rejects mainstream values. Then you get the ideas in cult checklists that are applicable to the secular world. A Christian evangelist variant of the modern idea is basically where Quadra's comes from. Because One of the first definitions of a cult in Christian tradition is when the canon of the Bible is either considered to be a dual-authority with another book or requires another book for correct interpretation is really a definition of some form of heresy in older Christian tradition/history. The Joachimites for example had a post-Bible book they revered and based some of their teaching on, but the word "cult" wasn't used of them. Instead the Fourth Lateran Council called them "heretical and insane", "perverse teaching", etc.[1] The use of "cult" in the way Quadra does is as stated a modern phenomenon in Christianity, originating in the twentieth century. In the nineteenth century groups like Mormons or CSers were criticized more as charlatans, false religions, false prophets, perverse, etc. This doesn't deal with your point about the Bible contradicting history, but I don't think Quadra would ever agree to that so it's not likely that'll mean anything to him/her.--T. Anthony 08:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Besides, it's one thing to say that some people consider CS a cult (which is true), and then back it up only with a French parliamentary report. If this is a claim that requires documentation, then I think a hell of a lot more than one parliamentary report would be needed.

Also, I think there could be better ways of incorporating the "cult" charge. Perhaps by tying it in with the objections that conservative Christians have with the religion (denies Jesus's divinity, denies the Trinity, etc.), as that's the main group of people that keeps the cult charge alive about CS.

Note that I'm not trying to impose my own opinion here; in fact, I'm going to remain silent on the cult question! But as someone brought up in CS, I can say confidently that because CS got itself widely accepted as a proper religion decades ago, only fringe elements on the left and right still cry "cult," so I think an emotionally charged POV word like "cult" should be treated carefully and in the proper context. --Dablaze 22:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Hem. I really disagree with you that one should back up the accusation of Christian Science being a cult by the opinion that some conservative Christians have that Christian Science is not a really Christian religion, on points of theology.

To me, being a cult or not being a cult has nothing to do with theology, Jesus, the Trinity and what else; this is also the stand taken by the parliamentary report that I cited, which never discusses theology. Being a cult has to do with a variety of actions and attitudes that the religious group takes: for instance, inciting members to cut themselves out of their families and friends not belonging to the group; inciting members to secrecy about the group's proceedings; renouncing normal medical treatment; strongly inciting members to spend vast amounts of money on the religious group; etc.

On the other hand, one of the possible characteristics that this reports and others take for cults is insistence on faith healing at the expense of normal medical treatment. Because of this, I suspect that, in France and other countries, many would call Christian Science a cult. Because it incites its members to put themselves and their children in harm's way when effective solutions are available. David.Monniaux 08:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cult or not? I would say no, but then in my mind, "it isn't a Cult until they drink the Kool-Aid." That's a hyperbole, of course, but unless a religious group has (1) a focus on a charismatic leadership that defines (and redefines) doctrines; (2) a record of criminal activity or conspiracy; and (3) exhibits totalitarian behavior (that is, tries to control the whole lives of its members, possibly through isolation from society at large) it likely shouldn't be called a cult. It may be a cult, or a proto-cult, but we can't tell yet. This term should probably only be applied if it is totally obvious (that is, esentially everyone who isn't a member agrees that it is a cult), or in reterospect. (That is, using the above "Kool-aid rule".) Also, while I am a Christian and studying to become a scientist, I am certainly not a Christian Scientist in the sense of belonging to the religion under discussion - I disagree with a number of their ideas including the rejection of conventional medical science. But that's beside the point: the fact that I disagree with their teachings does not make them a cult. Bryce 00:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

More on the cult thing

David, I think you're absolutely right when you say that:

I think we have to make a clear difference between stating that some organization X is a "cult", and stating that some person or some organization Y considers X a cult (assuming that Y is important enough that its opinion matters).

However, the only opinion you have presented is that of the French parliament in the form of the one report you cited. Not to detract from the parliament's opinion, but it's just one opinion. The U.S. Congress, on the other hand, considers it a full-fledged religion, and a viable medical option besides, since it allows for Medicare funding of Christian Science practitioners and nursing homes. Do they cancel each other out?

I'm not saying that some people don't consider it a cult for good reason; all I'm saying is that the church from the moment of its founding has worked very hard to gain mainstream acceptability, and, frankly, it has succeeded -- public opinion considers it a religion rather than a cult. Those who consider it a cult are definitely a minority, so to just say "Some say it's a cult" is a bit misleading.

To put this in perspective, most Muslims don't consider Christianity a monotheistic religion because of its belief in the Trinity, but I don't think it would be accurate to write "Some say Christianity is not a monotheistic religion." You have to take into account who's saying it and why, whether it's a widely accepted view or not. It's not widely accepted among anyone besides Muslims that Christianity is polytheistic, and it's not widely accepted, as far as I've seen, that Christian Science is a cult.

Again, does that make these minority views incorrect? Obviously not; they both have good reason for believing what they do. I'm just saying that if a certain view is not widely held, or held only by a narrow or homogenous segment of the population, then it would be POV to obscure that fact with a blanket "Some say" statement.

In fact, if you'd be into it, maybe you could write a section on the whole cult/religion issue in Christian Science, because it's still a source of concern for them despite the mainstream respectability they've achieved. --Dablaze 15:14, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

(I hope you don't think that I'm trying to whitewash the church at all -- in fact, I was the one who added church history and real-life descriptions of Christian Science practice, which someone else on this page called a "detractor's" point of view. I'm just very leery of putting a highly-charged term like "cult" on this page without context because it is simply not a neutral word. I'm not saying it shouldn't be used; I just think it and words like it should be used with care, because its use almost always leads a person to form an opinion based on emotion instead of the factual content of the article.)

---

As you probably know, many European countries, one the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand, have different ideas on what constitutes a cult or a religion. Generally speaking, in the United States, having a religious motivation, especially Christian, for some act or stance makes it somewhat respectable; this is not the case elsewhere.

We must here distinguish the legal status of religious organizations and their perceptions. France, by law, does not grant official recognition to any religion, thus discussing whether it's considered a full-fledged religion is a bit irrelevant in that context. As far as I know, the association(s) organizing Christian Science worship in France have the same legal status of "association of worship" than the diocesan associations organizing Catholic worship, etc. The notion of "cult" is not a legal notion.

The parliamentary report did not say Parliament considered Christian Science a cult. It cited documents that considered it a cult. Reports also listed a number of behaviors that were associated with cults; one of the serious ones was the pretense of providing health services without qualification, or ordering patients to abstrain from medical treatments. Therefore, Christian Science fits some of the characteristics of a cult. Certainly, if you were to describe such actions in the French general public, people would definitely consider this "cultish" behavior.

Note that nothing in this reasoning deals with theology, which French law and most of the French public are totally unconcerned with; as opposed to your quote about some Muslims considered Christianism not a monotheist religious. David.Monniaux 09:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Oy.

OK. Let's try to clear this up.

First, the United States does not "grant official recognition" of any religion; indeed, the First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits this. There are people on both sides of the issue who will sue at the drop of a hat to ensure that the government is observing a balance between religious freedom and freedom from religion. It's quite exhausting, but it keeps everyone honest, I suppose.

The only "recognition" that a religion gets in America is granted solely by public opinion, which is purely "unofficial." If any group is acknowledged by society at large as a religion, then it's a religion. That's it. It happened with the Mormons, it happened with the Christian Scientists -- hell, it even happened with the original Christians. What's a religion but a socially acceptable cult? :-)

This is not quite true. There is official government determination of what qualifies as a religion and what does not. The IRS makes a determination of whether or not a group can qualify for a religious exemption to paying corporate income taxes. Each year many groups are ruled NOT RELIGIONS and are denied the tax benefit. And each year many are deemed new religious groups are granted the tax break. For example, for 25 years, the Church of Scientology fought to gain official recognition as a tax-exempt religious group and they finally succeeded in like 1991. Other groups constantly fight to get the tax-exemptions because it means huge tax savings to the members of the church that are donating.

Now, if Christian Science is considered "cultish" in France, that's one thing. The Belgian government considers the Hasidic Jews and Quakers as cults (Cult#Belgium), but I think most people would disagree with that. The religion/cult question is purely one of POV that obviously depends on the society asking the question.

Of course, the French and Belgian governments are free to call any group they want a "cult." But I think we have a culture class here: as an American, I have been brought up to believe that the government has no place in religion, whether promoting, recognizing, or classifying it. So I just have a hard time giving any credence to what the French government or any government thinks about Christian Science or any other religion. (CS eligibility for Medicare funds is admittedly a de facto recognition, but nothing "official." And even that legislation is constantly under fire.)

The whole point!

This is all academic -- the question of a group being a cult or religion is completely subjective.

You should know that the word cult is not a neutral word in English, which I'm assuming is not your native language. It carries very strong and very negative connotations, and is highly problematic to use in a neutral way.

I know it very well. The translation in French is secte and has the same very negative connotations. Note that culte simply means worship or religious practice, and is especially used in a legal context to qualify the activity of associations that support religious practice (thus, yes, the diocesan associations of the Catholic Church are associations cultuelles).

Given that a cult is in the eye of the beholder, all I'm saying is that to use the word "cult" without placing it in a very careful context would constitute POV, regardless of your intentions.

So if you're going to use it, I think the only responsible way to use it in the way you intend would be to say, "Some governments, such as France's, consider Christian Science a cult because of its rejection of medical science." Or, "Many evangelical Christians consider Christian Science a cult because it rejects the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus."

And if you're going to give a French parliamentary report in French as evidence, I think you should provide a translation of the relevant sections. I doubt that most readers of the English Wikipedia know French. --Dablaze 16:35, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is more complex than that. The French government, as I said, never considers religions per se, but only organizations. Legally, and constitutionally, it hardly ever officially deals with religion properly said, only with organizations.

Furthermore, official government classifications are given in legislation on the one hand, regulatory instruments and decisions issued by the executive on the other hand; parliamentaries reports are neither, so they do not constitute anything like "the opinion of the French government". Therefore, reporting that the French government has classified any group as a cult, or not classified it, would be extremely misleading.

I'll try to rephrase the matter. The point is, a significant proportion of the opinion in many countries would definitely consider a religion that orders its followers to be "cultish", even though it is respectable in the United States or in other exotic locales.

Furthermore, it's not only a question of classification. Parents refusing medical care for a child whose essential well being is in jeopardy would probably face criminal charges and/or removal of child custody. I suspect that a "religious group" advocating breaching the law would not be in good standing with respect to public order, which is one of the criteria for being considered a bona fide association of worship with respect to the eligibility for exemption of taxes from donations. I'll have to check whether Christian Science enjoys this status. David.Monniaux 17:43, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's just not a cult

Look, guys, CS is just not a cult by any definition. Some people who only hear about their refusal of medical care may think it's crazy, but that alone doesn't make a religion a cult.

You want to join CS? Great. You want to leave? Great. You can go to the churches any time you want without joining. There are no secrets or secret doctrines; everything is out there for anyone to see. There are no upper levels or differences between members, except that those who want to practice healing as their actual job can go through a special course to be licensed by the church as a practicioner of their method of spiritual healing.

Not to mention, even as a member you don't have to practice spiritual healing. There are certainly lots of other aspects to the church, just as with any other, such as moral and ethical teachings...

Even if you do decide to practice healing, you do it only to the extent you want to. It's a very individualistic religion. In fact, individuals' practice of it wouldn't change much at all if you simply got rid of all the churches and sold the books.

The whole thing is completely open and without coercion or pressure. How can this be a cult? Furthermore, if you've ever been to a service, you'd see that it's very traditional compared to a lot of other 'orthodox' churches. They have readers who read from the Bible and Science and Health, 3 hymns, a soloist, and a collection. They have sunday school and children's rooms for infants. In every other way but the issue of emphasis on healing and some doctrinal or philosophical disagreements, it's a better church than a lot of the old-school ones.

Now maybe if some whack-jobs in the boonies start their own branch and completely deviate from the mainstream, they could get cultish, but look at the vast majority of churches and you really could not come away thinking that...

I agree, not a "cult"

Our article on cult is pretty good. As it makes clear, there's no bright-line definition of what's a cult and what isn't. "Cult" is for the most part a derogatory term that someone applies to a group that they don't like.

The big point for me is that Christian Science has survived for almost a century after Mary Baker Eddy's death. I think of a cult as usually being tied to a particular charismatic leader and usually unable to survive without one.

Our article says "a cult is a cohesive group of people (often a relatively small and new religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be far outside the mainstream."

Well,

• Christian Science isn't "relatively new" (over a century old).
• It isn't "relatively small" (probably well over 100,000 adherents, though exact numbers are hard to come by... and probably shrinking).

So, that leaves us with whether it has practices that are "far" outside the mainstream, whatever that means. Well, Christian Science is, in fact, Christian. The most controversial aspects relate to faith-healing. But you can make a pretty good case for faith-healing being not too far out of the Christian mainstream. Many Christian denominations, particular the evangelical ones, practice it, and there's reasonable authority for it in the New Testament. And, for that matter, what Christian Scientists do is not terribly different from a lot of New Age "alternative medicine."

Now, let's look at the dictionary. The two relevant definitions seem to be

1. A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.
2. A usually nonscientific method or regimen claimed by its originator to have exclusive or exceptional power in curing a particular disease.

Let's parse 1: a) extremist, b) false, c) unconvential living, d) authoritarian, charismatic leader

Speaking boldly, in the U.S. one could say Christian Science is generally considered to be false. At least, most people do not accept Christian Science healing as a valid substitute for medical treatment.

But it's not considered to be extremist. It's just another church in town. Its followers do not live in an unconventional manner. They dress normally, don't live in central compounds, typically are middle-class and above and behave as such, send their kids to school, and so forth. In many areas of the U.S. people will have Christian Science neighbors and coworkers and have absolutely no idea they are Scientists until they happen to say something casually. And even Christian Science medical practices are not wildly extremist. I think you'd have to be a Christian Scientist to know the subtleties, and you'd probably get different stories from different people, but Christian Scientists do not usually let family members die for lack of medical attention

While you could have made a case for it once having had an "authoritarian, charismatic" leader, the fact that the denomination has survived Mary Baker Eddy's death by nearly a century... and that authority since her death has been conspicuously decentralized, she has no identifiable "successors..."

So, I think Christian Science fails a, c, and d, and b is pretty much a matter of opinion.

Now, lets take 2. I do not think this applies to Christian Science (nor do I think this is the meaning people intend when they call Christian Science a cult) because it does not relate to curing a particular disease.

I think it is way outside of the mainstream to call Christian Science a "cult."

(And it should be obvious from the language and terminology I've used in discussing Christian Science that I am not a Christian Scientist). Dpbsmith (talk) 12:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It's just not Christian

To be Christian, Christian Science needs to not contradict or de-value the Bible or any of the sayings mentioned in it. As noted in the following examples this does not happen.

1. Not conventional? You bet:

While Christian Science affirms its oneness with other Christians in that it worships the One God revealed in Jesus Christ, it departs from orthodox Christianity at several significant points. Christian Scientists believe in what they term the "allness of God" and hence the "unreality of disease, sin and death." Thus Christ does not defeat evil but demonmstrates its lack of any reality beyond our belief in it. AmericanReligion.org (cf. CARM: Christian Science)

2. Scripture is not inerrant CARM: Quotes from Mary Baker Eddy (first quote is a contradiction of John 3:16, John 14:6 and numerous other passages).

3. Mary Baker Eddy claimed that her writing was divine and that she was assigned to intepret Scripture:

"Instead of preachers (the CCS has no ordained clergy), Christian Science's Sunday services consist mainly of prescribed readings from the Bible, followed by interpretive readings from Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (which Eddy thought was divinely inspired -- "I should blush to write of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures as I have, were it of human origin and I apart from God its author; but [since] I was only a scribe echoing the harmonies of heaven in Divine Metaphysics, I cannot be super-modest of the Christian Science Textbook.")." (Quote: Biblical Discernment Ministries)

"Christian Science, like many other cults, claims further revelation that goes beyond the Bible‑that is to say, new divine truth previously unrevealed." Handbook of Today's Religions

"Christian Science claims for itself that the Bible is its final source of authority. When one tunes into their TV presentation they will see them read from the Bible and then Mrs. Eddy's interpretation from her Science and Health. It gives the impression that they are into the Bible. But the fact is if one listens carefully everything that is said is reinterpreted to mean something other than the way it was written. They will spiritualize Biblical passages and the final authority always lies in the hands of Eddy’s book." LetUsReason.org

By inserting the above quote, you seem to be complaining about Mrs Eddy having written down her interpretation of the bible. How is this any different from a preacher in other denominations who offer their view/interpretation of the bible? Who is to say the preachers in these cases is any less 'wrong' in interpreting the language of several hundred years ago? We do not live several centuries ago, English has changed its forms of expression, yet the King James Bible has not changed its forms of expression. The Good News Bible is a different form of expression and I could argue that its interpretation departs from the King James Bible's, but I think it is pointless to get into a debate, instead we should just recognise each person's right to draw inspiration from whatever source they see fit. (Dec 22 04:03 UTC)

Do you need more examples? You discussion lacks any real analysis while above direct quotes are noted and can be verified and sourced. Is more proof needed? Quadra23 20:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand at all. It appears to me that you have made some private definition of "Christian" and then complain that Christian Science doesn't conform to it.

One dictionary (AHD4) defines "Christian" as:

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Christian Science clearly meets definitions 1 and 2. (I don't mean to imply that it doesn't meet the others as well, but it is easier to see objectively that it does meet the first two).

As for "beyond the Bible," Roman Catholicism clearly goes beyond the Bible (which does not include the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the doctrine of papal infallibility, etc.). Would you say that Roman Catholics are not Christians? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In the case of the first definition, Christian Science only follows the life and teachings of Jesus as Mary Baker Eddy outlines in her book Science & Health with a Key to the Scriptures (similiar to how Mormons use the Book of Mormon to interpret Scripture). Note that this is not the same thing as in Christianity the Bible is authorative by itself (i.e. it doesn't contradict itself) not needing yet another interpretation by a religious leader. The second definition holds only because it is derived (though very loosely, as you will see) from the teachings of Jesus. For example, Jesus' teaching on sin (Matthew 9:2, Mark 2:9 cf. Romans 3:23 and Romans 6:23) is not the same view as Christian Science states that sin is an error in our own beliefs that causes us to think it exists when it doesn't (S&H references are also listed there). For the third and fourth, you can reference the second again since on the issue of sin (for one example) Christian Science says it doesn't exist and we just think it does while Scripture (such as the passages above, and others) say that sin must be forgiven which implies that it must exist and that it needs removal (i.e. washing by Jesus' blood, cf. Hebrews 9:22). The biblical view of sin is so fundamental to Christianity that to make such a large contradiction is to make a new Christianity (which is no longer the same as biblical Christianity) that is either not founded on the Bible alone and/or readily contradicts the Bible. The fifth is almost a no-brainer as a lot of non-Christian faiths hold some sort of concern for others (perhaps not to the extent of "love your enemy as yourself" as Christianity teaches). If you need more proof I will gladly provide it. This definition is by no means private -- its exactly what the Bible says for itself, and in this case, compared to what Christian Science says it believes while claiming itself as Christian.

Some of these are valid. The first statement is a narrow Sola Scriptura Protestant view that mostly has to be dismissed for the purposes of most Encyclopedias. Why dismissed? Because the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Roman Catholic Church, and Anglicanism all accept the Council rulings before Chalcedon. So the definition would cut out in least 60% of Christianity and probably more as non-Christian. However the Christian Science view of sin and Jesus Christ is different enough that it's rejecting very core aspects of Christianity. The view that they aren't Christians likely deserves mention, but I think it has been.--T. Anthony 10:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As for the Catholics being Christian, I suppose you could use the exact same example I used above. If forgiveness is to be achieved through Mary (as many, though perhaps not all Catholics believe) why doesn't the Bible say so? Why does Jesus say He's the only way (John 14:6) and why does Paul say we have only one mediator that is Christ (1 Timothy 2:5)? Christianity is based on the Bible so lets go back to the Bible for these answers -- its all there. Also note that being part of a Christian denomination doesn't make you a Christian unless you actually live out the Biblical teachings in your daily life. Quadra23 09:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sigh then you just get silly. Catholicism predates Protestantism by in least 14 centuries. The objections you raise could also be used against Eastern Orthodoxy. So did Christianity just appear with Jan Hus after being gone for 13 centuries? Sadly this throws into question valid points you had earlier because according to the Barna Poll I believe that only 7% of the US could count as Biblical Christian. Probably less than that as he was only vaguely dealing with the ways Protestantism is non-biblical. For example how do Protestants deal with the Canticle to Mary in Luke 1:46-55 which is similarly worded to the Hail Mary? Or Jesus's condemnation of divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:27-32 or stronger admonition in Mark 10:5-12. Or the Epistles of James and Peter? Or that the books they call "apocrypha" are in some of the oldest Bibles we have? Added to that forgiveness comes from God not Mary in my religion too. The intercession of Mary does not mean the power of forgiveness must or does come only through her. For some people though it's easier to relate to someone who is only human and therefore intercession. In any event can't you understand that your minority position can't be made the default one?--T. Anthony 10:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually you are being silly in your first comment, do you have some source to say Catholicism is really that old?!Quadra23

Ignatius of Antioch. Although if you want I could merely date it from the first council accepted by Catholicism and not Orthodoxy. This would be the Fourth Council of Constantinople in the ninth century, which still would make Catholicism five centuries older. Although saints, seven sacraments, and Mary as ever virgin is shared by Orthodoxy and I believe also by Oriental Orthodoxy. In any event yes some form of Catholicism dates to in least the second century AD. Whether it's the Anglican, Orthodox, or Roman Catholic meaning is open to interpretation.--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point was do you have proof that Catholicism is exactly the same as the Early Church such as mentioned in the book of Acts? Age isn't the point here, the deviation from the original beliefs and values -- I'm talking about the truth aspects not tradition ones, are definitely quite different and Catholics have to "skip" certain portions of Scripture entirely as their Catholic values would contradict (i.e. The Pope is a man voted by men not God, he is not infallible and he is human just like everyone else). Just because a lot of groups believe something doesn't make it true -- especially when their source (that's supposed to be) the Bible doesn't support their claims. Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As some of the claims you reject were accepted by most of pre-16th c. Christianity I'm not sure what to say to this. If you want to deal exclusively with Papal Supremacy or Immaculate Conception that's a different discussion. In any event can you give anything to truly show the early Christians were anything like Protestants? Ignatius of Antioch to the Ephesians, Justin Martyr, and the Council of Ephesus all speak of the role of Mary. So where was Christianity from the fourth century to the fifteenth?--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just cause the Catholic church says the first Pope was Peter doesn't make it true, for example consider this. Protestants don't glorify Mary, but neither is she side-lined. Mary is not "God", nor the "Mother of God" though she was divinely chosen to bring the Lord to earth as a virgin -- just as God has a purpose for each of us and must choose if we want to fulfill it by trusting Him completely for the things we don't know at the time.Quadra23

Mary is not any kind of Goddess in Catholicism. The implication is offensive and foolish.--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Christianity isn't defined by one denomination's interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing inherently unChristian about believing that scripture isn't inerrant. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia, we should call Christian any group that calls themselves such - even if we go on to point out their differences with the rest of the Christian churches. This is not a place for religious people to thrash out doctrinal differences.

Foolish and offensive? I have gone to Catholic schools where such was taught! At least some in Catholicism do call Mary the Mother of God (just as they view here as intercessor) -- although they probably don't understand all the implications. Its foolish to tell someone their experience is foolish and offensive when its true! Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no way to know whether your experience is true. I can tell you it is false though, in the sense that you are offensively mischaracterizing the faith. My maternal ancestors have been Catholic for centuries and my nephews go to monastic school. Mary as the mother of God? Yes of course. That's in the Council of Ephesus and the Gospels of course agree she was the mother of Jesus. She is not "the Mother of God" in the way you're meaning nor does Catholicism teach that. The Gospel of John is clear that Jesus was the word and the Nicene Creed is equally clear he existed before his incarnation. That you went to some really lousy Catholic schools is sad, but says little about the faith. Although schools that teach such off-kilter theology should be admonished so contact a bishop on them if you can.--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

However, claims by Catholics of the "Virgin Mary" easily forget the siblings that Jesus had and that by Jesus' death she could have no way still been a virgin.

See Theotokos, the Orthodoxers also believe in Mary as ever Virgin. The idea we are totally unaware that siblings of Jesus are mentioned implies an ignorance by Catholics that is unfair. Both Catholics and Orthodoxers have explanations for this.--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, true Christianity is unpopular. Orthodoxy isn't entirely based on the Bible and as such has its own mistakes. Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So Protestantism or your view of Biblical Christianity really is it huh? Why? Because St. Jerome or Athanasius decided what books should be in your Bible? On what authority is the canon of your Bible correct? What angel appeared to Wesley or Williams or Luther or Jerome to tell them canonicity? As you rest all your Christianity on a single book as is, rather than have it as the basis of a living faith, do you have a response to this?--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' condemnation as you say also documents that a provision was made due to the "hardness of their hearts", and I quote, It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied...Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. (Mark 10:5,9, NIV). Saying what you said about what appears to be an inconsistency is like saying God had no right to make provisions for Adam and Eve sin of disobedience -- can you tell God what He should do (i.e. can the clay tell the potter what it wants to be?)? I know I can't.Quadra23

The provision described as harsh was the Mosaic one allowing divorce. If you say that Jesus said no man can render a marriage asunder, how do you divorce? The mention of Adam and Eve is a non-sequitir as I wasn't talking about that. So essentially your answer is to not answer. Jesus said no divorce and remarriage and that no man can render a marriage asunder. Now can you give a response to that? Does your religion in least require divorce be a religious ceremony where God plans or arranges it somehow?--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You obviously missed my point about Adam and Eve, God made provision (although He would have preferred they made the right decision, this shows that God loves us so much that He'll let us make our own mistakes) -- why do you seem to have a hard time understanding that? What I meant, that you don't seem to get, is that God knew about people divorcing before He institution marriage just like He knew Adam and Eve were going to sin before He laid down the rules in the Garden of Eden (if He didn't -- than He wouldn't be God). God lets us make our mistakes but we will be judged for the consequences. Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay I get that now. God knows we will make mistakes so he doesn't stop divorces from happening. He allows a sin to occur for free-will. So yes that explains why divorce exists. It also explains why fornication, adultery, and even murder exist. However I wasn't asking why divorce exists. Did you really not understand that? I was always asking why divorce and remarriage is allowed in your form of Christianity when Jesus said don't do it. I don't think Catholics believe Jesus thought he could make divorce magically disappear, but it does seem to be against the Gospels. Although Matthew seems to allow it in cases of "lewd contact." Is that your reasoning? Because again that's the question, why do your churches allow divorce and remarriage if you are so much more in line with Jesus than you feel we are?--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The books in the "apocrypha" were decided in the times of Early Church to be inconsistent with the rest of Scripture and as such were not considered part of the canon -- some reasons are suggested here. Notice it also took until the 1500's that Catholics finally included it in their Bible.Quadra23

This is, of course, a myth as I indicated earlier. It's also a dodge as it's choosing to just ignore my point. Anyway the Vulgate of Jerome was skeptical, but he translated them and distributed them. The Council of Trent made canonicity explicit where it had not been before, but simply duplicated from the Council of Florence(oddly called the Council of Basel at Wiki). The Septuaginit was used by the Early Christians and the Codex Claromontanus canon of the fifth century includes the Catholic and Orthodox "apocrypha." The Eastern Orthodox Churches also recognize most of the books deemed apocrypha in Protestantism. Even in the canon of Jerome or Athanasius they are deemed useful to read, if secondary and questionable. So does your denomination in least encourage the reading of them while rejecting them as a basis for doctrine?

(I'm guessing you do as your link mentions that both the Anglicans and Martin Luther considered them worth reading)--T. Anthony 07:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

In terms of Mary as intercessor --its just bad theology since first there is no basis, second those who died can not pray on our behalf (they are dead having no control over what happens on earth)Quadra23

The idea the dead can't pray for the living was considered an error in Christianity as early as the Fourth century, possibly earlier.--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah?! Then how come some groups still consider doing so? For example, why do Catholics still pray for the dead before funerals?! Why do Mormons do the Baptism of the Dead?! Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I said the idea that the dead can not pray for the living is the error. Praying for the dead is a separate and even more universal matter. Prayers for the dead exist in Judaism as they do in Christianity. In Orthodoxy it's to comfort those asleep in the Lord. In Catholicism it's for the souls in Purgatory.--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

finally such prayer can easily turn into idolic worship where the Creation is praised above the Creator (breaks the first commandment). Minority position?! You must forget that true Christianity has always been unpopular -- salvation is free but you have to give your all to Jesus to receive it (Matthew 16:25 cf. Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24). Quadra23 05:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're simply showing my point. Christians can not agree with each other what is Christian. As such discounting even a denomination like this one is tricky. I do believe Protestants are Christians and would not get into this argument if you weren't so narrow. However if we're going to be strict then in a strict interpretation I do not believe Protestantism is Christian. It is a manmade rebellion against what the Nicene Creed, Anglican version even, calls the "One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Most of Protestantism is a creation of men who misinterpreted Paul even though this warned against in the Epistles of Peter. It lacks the necessary connection, through tradition or Councils, to the first Christians. In that way then strictly speaking Christianity is Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and Oriental Orthodoxy. Now this could still mean that it is a "New Christianity", much like Swedenborgianism or the Mormons. However again I would never argue such a strict and uncharitable position. I consider most of these new kinds of Christianity based on Bible interpretation to be Christian. That said I will gladly be strict if you stick to your own version of narrowness.--T. Anthony 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not a Christian denomination, and so far you have no invalidated any of my remarks regarding the facts that Christian Science shows itself as non-Christian. You call it narrow but I call it -- A Christian is a "follower of Christ" which means they will follow the Christ of the Scriptures. If the Bible is narrow than so be it! The Bible defines Christianity not man. Anyways, I don't mind Christian Science saying they "claim to be Christian" but so many people seem discontent with that fact and like it to say "Christian denomination" which it is not -- and you still have yet to disprove my points that show it as not being Christian which is the original issue here. Quadra23 01:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Because you made this a wider issue. Whether Christian Science is Christian or not I think could be open to debate. If you look above I acknowledged you made some good arguments on the idea they may not be. Their views of sin and the nature of reality are quite outside the mainstream of Christianity. What I don't like is your belief that your narrow view must be pushed on this or any article. I matched your intolerance with "my own" to make a point, which sadly will always escape you. All you have is your version of the Bible so every argument with you is by necessity circular. (Or worse in some cases you don't even really deal with my Biblical counterarguments at all well) Still the point isn't that you are not a Christian because you accepted a different variant of Christianity. I accept that you are a Christian. The point is that this is not the "Protestant Encyclopedia." You can't have your or your church's definitions of Christianity pushed on everyone. And neither can I. Pope Benedict XVI once said, as Cardinal, that Protestant churches are not churches in the proper sense of the word. That doesn't mean I'm dutybound to edit articles to reflect that. I'm not going to go to say the article on the Church of Christ and add that they aren't "really a church." People count these CSers as some kind of Christianity. Maybe you don't like it, and maybe I don't even exactly agree. However it's what they're deemed and they count themselves as Christians. If your dispute is them being called Christian then I ask that you drop the NPOV dispute tag because when it comes down to any Christian denomination is considered non-Christian by someone.--T. Anthony 03:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

That said if you want explanations for why they are Christian the obvious is that no other term seems useful. They apparently strongly emphasise elements of the Christian Bible and consider themselves followers of Christ. They consider Christ to be the eternal spirit of God, if apparently distinct from Jesus. This makes them vaguely similar to early Christian heresies, but these are usually called "early Christian heresies." They don't seem to consider Mary Baker Eddy to be the final Prophet or Goddess. Islam in some respects believe they follow Jesus, but believe that Muhammad is the greater prophet who came after him. If Christian Science teaches that Mary Baker Eddy is greater than Jesus you have a point that it'd be inconsistent to see it as Christian. In any event if you can think of a term for people who follow Christ as the savior than create a category for that. To be honest I'd accept maybe "Neo-Christian" and then put this, Swedenborgianism, and maybe like Children of God or NRMs in.--T. Anthony 03:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd go with the Neo-Christian thing, I just don't feel right knowing what I know about the Christian Science faith in comparison to Christianity and then just calling it straight out Christian when its not the same thing -- as we seem to agree somewhat on the point. I'm not sure what you mean by other names and wouldn't mind you further explaining what you mean by them. I'm sorry if it seems narrow to you, but also don't forget that the Bible speaks of a Narrow Way to Life and a Broad Way to Death which is consistently the case here as well. My conclusion would be is that if your faith claims to hold up the Bible but then your faith contradicts the Bible then the fault is with your faith -- not the Bible. Quadra23 05:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My concern though is that such a "New Christian"/Neo-Christian deal would be too POV. I know you just won't accept this, but we can't really go on your or my definition of Biblical strictness. It works great for church, but it's not right for an encyclopedia. You know what I'm saying here? Okay I'll quote to you the article on Christian Scientists from my Encyclopedia Americana. This could be copyvio, but it's not going in the article or anything. Still if it needs to be removed later I understand.

Now then it says of Christian Scientists, and the article is called Christian Scientists, "Christian Scientists are members of the Church of Christ, Scientist a Protestant denomination that first received a state charter in Massachusetts in 1879."(Encyclopedia Americana Volume 6 page 645) Also Encyclopedia Britannica discusses how it is similar and different from "other Christian churches." So do you see what I'm saying? Demanding a standard of Biblical correctness not required by any Encyclopedia would just bog this place down. Plus many here are not Christian so it's unrealistic for us two to agree to some standard even we can't agree too entirely.--T. Anthony 06:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Considering the way things work on the web (vs in print), someone could click in read the first paragraph and then for whatever reason not read any further (i.e. say they had to leave their computer) or figure they read all they needed to know. If you ask them later they will say, "Christian Science is a Christian denomination" and most likely won't realize the issues that make it different to the point of contradicting Christianity, as we discussed. I thought the purpose was to have people explore the issue, and if you state a definite that's not entirely true (i.e. which is why I think "claim to be Christian" is a better phrase to use since it is NPOV and warrants discussion, further review and maintains interest). If you want this encyclopedia to indirectly lie to people than that's your business, and a poor reflection on Wikipedia, but now that I've stated the Biblical Christian position I can't be held responsible for the falsehood of the statement in the article. No offense to anyone in Christian Science -- the problem is in Mary Baker Eddy's incorrect interpretation and a desire by some to call something Christian that isn't. localhost 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholics are Christians, Protestants are Christians, Mennonites are Christians, Southern Baptists are Christians, and Christian Scientists are Christians. Within each denomination there are those who maintain that only their particular denomination is Christian. And they can give reasons. But they are not using the dictionary definition of "Christian." Dpbsmith (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is absolutely ridiculous. Christianity isn't defined by one denomination's interpretation of the Bible. There is nothing inherently unChristian about believing that scripture isn't inerrant. For the purposes of an encyclopaedia, we should call Christian any group that calls themselves such - even if we go on to point out their differences with the rest of the Christian churches. This is not a place for religious people to thrash out doctrinal differences.

I agree it got ridiculous. The majority of the world's Christians would not agree with Quadra's definition of Christian, I don't, and Quadra agreed they would not. I think this religion can be declared neo-Christian or heterodox from a theological perspective, but I don't think that's Wikipedia's job. Wikipedia isn't a theological site and going with how a minority of Christians define reality would be a disservice. Still I think objections to them being Christian should be mentioned. Especially as some indicate the religion has lately moved away from Christianity and it's important to how others view them.--T. Anthony 04:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the article must mention that Christian Science's link to Christianity is controversial. There is a general current of belief that has been widely confirmed by Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants alike for centuries -- taking into account their famous disagreements on certain issues -- and recognized by historians. See C.S. Lewis's _Mere Christianity_ and Donald Treadgold's history books. The Nicene Creed ("I believe in one God the Father almighty... and in his Son Jesus Christ... and in the Holy Spirit...") is used by all three sects as a concise statement of their beliefs, and converts are required to say it as proof of their belief. (The filioque dispute is a secondary issue. Some recent denominations have forgotten this creed but would generally agree with its substance and use.) The Bible as the sole authority is a Protestant innovation; others would say the Bible is part of the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. But both views are Christian. Christian Science contradicts or mis-emphasizes major portions of this current of belief; that is why it's not Christian. It's fine to say they claim to be Christians, but one must also mention that many mainstream Christians do not think so. Wikipedia cannot take a POV and call them heretics, but should mention that the controversy has reached this level. --Sluggoster 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Mary, the Orthodox believe Mary remained a virgin throughout her life, but this is just a pious assumption, not doctrine. The only doctrine is that Jesus did not have a human father. The Orthodox see no evidence for Mary's immaculate conception. They believe Mary prays for us the same way all Christians living or dead pray for each other. She was the first Christian, remained faithful when even the Apostles doubted, and was a woman: this shows remarkable inner strength. That is why she receives the highest ritual respect among humans. The Orthodox believe there should be no doctrines about Mary, only about Christ. (Source: I was Orthodox for five years as a convert.) --Sluggoster 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation on that. On CS I agree the controversy should be mentioned. I think I switched it to "generally considered to be a Christian denomination" rather than just saying it's Christian because I think that's accurate. That doesn't deny many Christians reject the notion. I also added a link from CARM. Although I see I accidentally soft-pedalled one statement.--T. Anthony 02:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What Christian Science is

I'm actually not sure still what Christian Science is after reading that article. Is it the one where they won't use modern medicine etc or am i thinking of something else? oh, and is it a cult?

The article is more about the Church organisation that grew around the Christian Science ideas (i.e. the article is about the Church, and not 'Christian Science' per se). It would help if there was a Wikipedia page specifically titled "Christian Science", to make the clear distinction, otherwise people are missing out on the essence of what Christian Science is and instead are dwelling on human organisations. I suppose the best answer to the question "What is Christian Science", is answered by Chapter 12 of "Science and Health", the title of the chapter is "Christian Science Practice". It includes a section with the heading "Mental Treatment Illustrated" which explains how Christian Science is applied in order to effect healing. It points out the ways in which it differs from the medical practices of the time, in some cases explaining why medical practice did not cure things which Christian Science could (being, the basing of decision-making on wrong concepts of what the cause was). I would like to point out that "Science and Health" says nothing of any need to create a Church Organisation for the practice of the teachings of Christian Science. Dec 21, 4:35 UTC

Well, the title of the article is "Church of Christ, Scientist," not "Christian Science." Current Christian Science is a redirect to this article but it doesn't have to be. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a similar movement called "Religious Science", I happened on one of their churches in New Jersey while looking for a phone. Seemed a lot like CS, except more ecumenical, not specifically Christian. Anyone know enough about them for an article?

I have done a Religious Science stub, and have included Religious Science in the differentiation at the bottom of this article. --Gary D 19:32, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should be considerably improved by now. "Cult" is a subjective and loaded POV term. Most CS consider ourselves much more boring than that. Religious Science is a sort of distant spinoff and may have its own entry by now; if not, follow Unity or New Age links and you might get something. Chris Rodgers 08:34, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Look forward to technical corrections for blank spaces around comment tags; cause is not obvious to me, as coding is not my profession. Comment tags DO illustrate / discuss POV in revisions, necessitating the revert with partial incorporations. Chris Rodgers 08:46, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Wiki code is not my forte; may have to resort to discussion page if comment tags don't work.

proper: How can you not observe how POV that is? You can't assume a point at issue, no matter HOW right you believe yourself.

no easy definition: As one who's observed the process and results more closely than you, this is a highly apt descriptive.

answer...that CS has cured. This is PLAINLY stated AS its POV, and therefore IS NPOV. Documentation is abundant: see e.g. Peel, A Century of Christian Science Healing; Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age, and a study whose name I can't think of; I know of a terminal cancer healed in its last 24 hours and much more, plus medical reactions to them. Wouldn't matter if you disputed anyway, point is, the WORDING is NPOV.

is less empirical (comment). No, that's your POV again: assertion alone proves NOTHING.

controversial. Omit adverb, POV either way

normally: Many of these were UNtreatable cases, the individuals were pursued all the same. Stet.

criminal negligence: Your assertion very fails NPOV! One such case was even reversed as a witch hunt involving no such negligence. The judge’s very refusal to allow evidence on behalf of efficacy itself was outrageous and may even have been later censured, don't recall.

The above comments were moved out of the main article by Darrien 09:14, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

---

CS has healed. True. So has Catholicism. So has Islam. So has Judaism. So has independent prayer without religion attached. So has medicine. Healing can occur in many ways, and many miracles are documented. A family friend had a drunken husband and a deaf daughter. One night she woke to hear her daughter screaming. She went out of her bedroom and found her husband passed out on the floor and her daughter standing over him. She turned to CS. Her husband sobered up. Then someone suggested she take her daughter to a doctor in St. Paul who treated the deaf. The doctor found the daughter had 10% hearing in one ear, and outfitted her with a special hearing aid. This woman was so grateful she became a practitioner. Yet in complete reversal, CS members are told not to mix medicine and prayer. Huh? I am a former CS, leaving the church at age 12. Glad I did. In my POV, CS and members are typical religious right, showing intolerance to others. The sign on the door "ALL ARE WELCOME" is simply not true. Ask any gay or lesbian who has tried to enter. While I am not gay, I do believe that Jesus embraced all people.

---

"Because spiritual healing is not coerced"

This still implies that non spiritual healing is coerced, thus, it is not NPOV.

Had thought new wording avoided this. The intent is not a contrast with conventional medicine but instead to note that, while spiritual treatment is mostly the norm in CS, reliance on CS is not coerced but is a matter of choice, where individuals are free to resort to materia medica should they deem it appropriate. (It's sometimes argued there are social pressures, but this is the exception, not the norm, and I have not observed it in my own experience.)

How about "Because followers of Cristian science are free to seek traditional medical care if they choose, the courts have been hesitant in some cases to seek prosecution. Those times the courts have chosen to prosecute, have been in cases where the deceased, whether due to being under the age of majority and thus, still under the care of their parents, or incapacitated in some other way, have died due to the decisions of their parents or guardians."

"and generally regarded as a less empirical field than conventional medicine,"

The definition of the word "empirical" makes this statement absurd. It's a fact that spiritual healing is not as well documented and understood as modern medicine, hence, it is less empirical.

The fact that it is -- as I hold it to be -- validly documentable far beyond dismissal as anecdocality at all makes the quantity dimension effectively less relevant. If I could credibly establish a proton decay in a bubble chamber, most scientists mght well accept that even if, on account of statistical infrequency, I might not be able to repeat it. My point is that "generally regarded" allows the article to acceptably walk the line between both the CS and non-CS perspectives. This is sometimes simply a necessity of NPOV: a CS will read it and say, well that's at least technically true, and you will read it and add in your own mind, yes it's true though of course for good reason.

You missed the point. We aren't talking about validity, we're talking about evidence. You may very well have evidence that spiritual healing works, but there simply hasn't been as much time spent verifying spiritual healing as there has been spent verifying traditional medicine. As I said, the very definition of the word "empirical" holds this true.

"no easy definition of what constitutes negligence with regards to spiritual healing has been reached in law."

This seems wrong. By their very nature, laws are specific and exact.

I'm trying not to smile here; law is nowhere nearly so black and white. By that argument, courts might never reverse prior precedents, lawyers would not have to argue pro versus con, legal definitions would never be repeatedly rewritten, no verdicts would ever be reversed or progress on appeal, and OJ Simpson's trial might never have drawn out. Law is however a constantly evolving process instead, not a simple objectivity. With respect to the trials of adherents of CS, the fact is simply that courts have gone back and forth rather more than once. It might be better to substitute "conclusive" or "final" for easy, but the point is, the precedent they work from is not 100% consistent.

The OJ Simpson trial was not held up by interpretation of laws, it was held up trying to decide whether certain laws applied to the case. Laws are very exact and specific. One of the reasons lawyers argue in cases is to try to convince a judge or jury that certain laws do or do not apply to a particular case.

Are you people totally lost? Appeals courts routinely strike down laws deemed too general and not specific enough. i.e. Pornography laws!

"Christian Scientists answer that decease alone..."

This is unclear to me. I suggest that you rewrite it or reword it slighly.

Can try. In the medical realm, a patient's decease may result from negligence or it may not. This certainly raises the difficult question of how to ascertain negligence in this sphere, but it's really not that much easier in medicine either. The courts have simply tried to make their best assessments on a case by case basis. My CS-based contention is that properly applied, there is effectively no real question (here we anticipate the efficacy points below) that CS works, and therefore resort to it alone is not grounds to claim negligence. One prosecution revolved around the same "curable" disorder a famed child actor also had, under the best medical care, yet that did not prevent her from dying either, with no prosecution following.

Before I can respond to this I need to know if you really mean "decease", as in death, or if it's a typo and you mean "disease", as in sickness.

"and that spiritual healing has also cured numerous well-documented cases deemed incurable by the medical faculty."

You should find some links confirming this and include them in the article.

Darrien 09:14, 2004 Apr 10 (UTC)

Think I know one or two, can try to rustle up. The books/ISBN's may however prove apter, as they're just more rigorous and scholarly. Tx for the comments, and incidentally feel free, if you care, to comment or suggest a link regarding comment tags, as I didn't manage to locate them on the How To. Chris Rodgers 08:59, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Darrien 17:05, 2004 Apr 11 (UTC)

Still coming back for other tweaks, but recent "statement is incorrect" edit by 161.225.1.12 is itself incorrect. While Eddy regarded absolute reality as purely spiritual, she described human experience itself as a blend of tares and wheat, of good and evil, of spiritual manifestation and material finity, of reality through a glass, darkly; the beauty of a blade of grass, and yet its mortal transience. Would be happy to provide citations on request. Chris Rodgers 08:44, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have beef with the idea that Mrs. Eddy would ever say that matter and spirit could ever mix in any way. The two are mutually exclusive in Christian Science teaching. I'd love to see those citations. I still believe that the statement, even in its reworked form, is incorrect.

It's not that she said they can, which she doesn't, it's that she candidly allows (tares and wheat again) that they seem to. See Mis 86:9, Rud. 6:3, S&H 300:18, 81:18, 190:14, 308:7, 263:32, and many more like them Chris Rodgers 19:51, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. But don't you think it's a little misleading to state that in a def. of CS? Assuming that the people that read this know little to nothing of the religion, I think that the sentence can give the wrong impression.

Just the reverse is true. She stated more than once, and maybe I'll remember where later, could have been the We Knew MBE series or something similar, that it's speaking in the absolute that confuses non-adherents, and she certainly employed the word seem many times herself in order not to confuse people. If you say for example that a club foot is not real, people might have every reason to think you a good candidate for a straitjacket. If you say it seems to be the real condition but that that is an appearance rather than the reality, they at least understand that you don't need glasses. They might think it a pleasant metaphysical speculation of no practical use, but they will not be take misimpression. Chris Rodgers 02:47, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Is it too POV to state that whereas Mary B-E forbade conventional treatments for diseases, and instructed her followers that disease was a spiritual thing with a spiritual cure she wore spectacles? May be, or perhaps someone could explain this to me --(talk)BozMo 16:00, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

She never forbade conventional medicine, she just taught you couldn't combine it with CS treatment and expect the latter to work. The basic idea was that human experience being a subjective mental phenomenon, disease was also, therefore it was less preferable to treat symptom/belief with more belief rather than dealing directly with the underlying cause. Medicine was tolerable as a temporary course if a person was not equal to healing, but to combine prayer with medicine was to approach illness from two antithetical standpoints (the underlying reality or unreality of matter), pitting the one against the other. Am not familiar with the glasses account, you might want to get documentation. I know she did permit painkillers (to illustrate the preceding point) in extreme cases, including on a few occasions her own, in order to gain enough mental undistraction to then treat oneself mentally, but this she regarded as a temporal expedient only. She also provided for compliance with normal provisions of law in cases of diseases classified as communicable. (Incidentally, the name is not hyphenated; she adopted the name Eddy with her last marriage and went by it for the rest of her life.) Chris Rodgers 04:44, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a photo of her wearing reading glasses in the collection here: [[2]]. I have also seen a photo of her with reading glasses on the back of an edition of her book. No big deal maybe but ref pain killers and her ?liver trouble I read her explanation about the pain killers helping with the pain enough to allow prayer/faith: with reading glasses I never understood how she explained her inability to overcome this painless imperfection.:o) --BozMo 14:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, the basic theory would be employment of a temporal step to facilitate the demonstration of power over that same temporality, or in the jargon, a "suffer it to be so now", which if a healing of the original issue followed, would be from the vantage of Christianity, consistent. If Apollo 13 returned unsuccessfully from the moon, that didn't disestablish the success of other missions besides it. Seems to just work that way in practice; one CS practitioner I've known of effected a remarkable healing while herself wracked at the time with the imposition of a malady. You'd think it would be otherwise, it just seems not to be always in practice. Based on the body of evidence still in place, I for my part have less problem with it. Chris Rodgers 04:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

As a relatively new CS, I feel there are "old school" and "new school" Christian Scientists. The old school CS's tend to do things "because that's the way we've always done it." The new school CS's are going back to Mrs. Eddy's writings to try and understand her original intent. I have never felt pressured by my fellow church members to not use medicine. Instead, I find that it is just usually not discussed. I don't have a personal interest as to whether they find the need to use medicine and I hope they are like-minded. We are each on our own spiritual journey. My practioner has never faulted me for giving medicine to my children and she has continued to pray for them when I have asked for her prayers. When I have questioned her on this point she has said that there are some people who feel that you cannot combine the two, but that she does not believe that is the case. She also cites the case where Mrs. Eddy took pain killers in order to be able to pray. You might note that the application for the Mother Church has never asked whether the individual is taking medication. However, it is not uncommon for branch churches to do this. I believe that there is a current trend to change this, but since the branch churches have a lot of autonomy, the Mother Church can not dictate what they put in their branch church applications. As with most groups, change comes slowly.

Church controversies/politics

What about recent internal fiascos, like the cable Monitor Channel, or the Mary Baker Eddy library that so many church members are opposed to for its arrogance and waste of millions?

What about the church's authoritarian response to any sort of dissent, sometimes using excommunication to punish mouthy malcontents?

What about the church's (presumably) declining membership? They still have their big churches, but very few people actually attend services.

These are just a few of the controversies I can think of. I'm not a church member, but I grew up in the church, and my mother is still a hardcore, yet disaffected, member, so I do have some idea what I'm talking about, but not enough to really write about it.

Dablaze 21:28, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

These are all serious issues; I've alluded to some of this in related articles but could give it some attention here in the near future, it's certainly relevant. Chris Rodgers 07:18, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Choice btwn medical & spiritual treatment

Every Christian Scientist will say that they are not forced to rely on prayer, but may freely choose between material and spiritual means any time they like.

Ignoring the social pressures inherent in this choice for a moment, there is also no clear doctrinal statement guaranteeing this choice. The only statement in the Manual says something like, "It shall be the privilege of every member of this church to consult with a medical doctor on ontology or the science of being."

Far from clear, IMHO, but the concept of freedom of choice is a big deal in the church, even if in practice church members who resort to medical treatment are seen, fairly or not, acknowledged or not, as having "fallen from grace," thus effectively tipping the scales in favor of choosing spiritual treatment.

Dablaze 21:36, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's a little related stuff in Science and Health, plus the absence of provision for censure too. It might be more describable as a fall from opportunity than grace, and the social pressure question is arguably external to the teaching itself. Was your thought that the topic needed expansion in the article? I could do so, although somebody once took issue with my merely treating the aspect, go figure. Chris Rodgers 07:23, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You know, it might be beneficial to have an overall "Criticisms" or "Controversies" section that combine the issues in this and the above heading: Administrative/political (including finances) and theological. I'm not a big fan of dirty laundry, but these issues exist and are the subject of widespread debate and disagreement among church members.

As for the "fall from grace" and social pressure, well, what can I say? Even though social pressure to choose spiritual healing isn't part of the teachings, it's still very much a part of being a real-life Christian Scientist. Also, I don't think that how church members think of it ("a fall from opportunity") is relevant here; I'm thinking more about the net effect. –Dablaze 03:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

POV on medical choices?

Steve Frederick 02:22, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)I apologize for the inadvertant vandalization of your copy. I'm just learning the Wiki rules, which appear at first glance to warn would-be authors in its disclaimer statement not to submit copy they don't want "edited mercilessly." My mistake, no offence intended. My POV vandalism follows:

No harm done. I didn't realize you were a newbie, so that's why I assumed it was vandalism. Comments, clarifications, and POV give-and-take, as you've figured out, go on the talk pages, not the entries themselves, so I was a little taken aback when I saw commentary in the article! But in the future, please try to make edits under your user name instead of the anonymous IP address you used (probably because you didn't log in). That also made me assume vandalism.

Under your Spiritual Healing in the Material World heading, the assertion that one's separation from the Christian Science church organization implies a corresponding separation from God, and that the fear of such separation incents Scientists to remain under Christian Science treatment may be true in the minds of some individuals; but this opinion seems rather speculative. It's definitely not church doctrine. A fundamental teaching of Christian Science is the inseparability of man from his Maker. If God is Life itself, as Christian Science teaches (Science & Health p. 51 line 11), then, by this assumption, would not separation from God bring death? Clearly, separation from the church does not produce such a result.

That's theology. I was talking about "real life," for lack of a better term. I don't know how much experience you have in Science, but I was immersed in it until I went to college, and I still have very devout CS parents. I've dealt with numerous practitioners in numerous situations, attended church and Sunday school in various areas of the country as my family moved around -- in short, I think I have a pretty good handle on general CS practices and attitudes. Of course every congregation is different, but there's still a common culture.

But the upshot is, medicine is anathema to the average Christian Scientist, "officially" or not. You quote Science and Health -- turn it to almost any page and you will see a denunciation and ridicule of medical science, and Mrs. Eddy's constant equating of it with "error," "mortal mind," and so on. There is an extremely strong taboo in Science against medicine, regardless of what one's official "choice" is. Just because you're probably not inclined to make that choice, can you really deny that this is true?

I suggest that you also clarify your statement regarding Christian Science practitioners whom you say "will no longer pray for [persons]" who resort to medical treatment. The attempt to present a "neutral POV" falls a bit short here, and would be strengthened if it better explained the ethics behind the idea, even if they're not always practiced properly. That it is "blasphemous" (see my response above) sounds a bit over-the-top and leaves the reader with the misimpression that such patients are dumped (and maybe some were! Not all practitioners are as kind as they could be). But, what would be thought of a physician whose treatment of a patient interfered with, or even worked to neutralize completely, that of another physician? Bad practice and bad ethics, not to mention the harm such practice might cause a patient. Thus, it is out of respect for ethical medical practice and loving concern for the patient that a Christian Science practitioner will cease treating a patient who decides to turn to medical treatment. Ethical practitioners of Christian Science respect a patient's decision to choose the form of treatment the patient believes most effective. This rationale is sometimes lost on patients who do not understand why they cannot apply two opposite forms of treatment -- medicine and Christian Science. Under such circumstances, a practitioner can be instrumental in helping a patient pray for and treat himself, and thus see to it that patients who turn to medical treatment are not left feeling abandoned.

I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. I don't know whether this is your experience, or whether you're one of the new converts that the church is trying to take a less uncompromising approach with, but rest assured, mixing of Christian Science treatment and medical treatment is absolutely forbidden. In fact, if I really wanted to spend the time on it I could find the specific citation(s) in Science and Health, and probably the Manual too. And if the "patient" wanted to pray for him or herself while undergoing medical care, I don't see how that would be forbidden, but it would certainly be an oxymoron, or even hypocrisy according to CS doctrine.

You either rely on material means or spiritual means -- man or God -- and there's no mixing. Church policy. Ask any practitioner if they would provide spiritual treatment for a patient actively being treated medically. They'll tell you they can't or won't do it, though a few will quietly defy the church on this.

My experience of CS and CS culture is vastly different than that of what you describe. When I was CS I simply didn't experience such social pressure and I've seen no evidence that is official church policy. In fact, I know that different branch churches deal with it quite differently even for those in official positions. To quote MBE herself from the textbook of CS - Science and Health - Page 401, Line 27. 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. Artbrock

Your POV appears to imply that it is a cultural practice, if not a doctrinal platform, of Christian Scientists to fear or hate medical practioners and to punish church members who resort to medicine.

Yes! It is precisely a cultural practice, even though it's not an official one. Also, it's not POV. It's true, and I'm sorry if you find it disagreeable, but a disagreeable fact is not in itself POV. I certainly wouldn't have written it if I thought it was only my own personal opinion. Again, I was raised in, and still regularly deal with, CS culture, and these unofficial mores stem directly from the official teachings. I'm sorry, but I'm writing for a general audience who knows nothing of CS, and most likely wants to know more than a Sunday school lesson. As I said in my comment below, people want to know about the real life of a Scientist, as I've discovered from the questionings of non-Scientists, and that's what I'm trying to provide in the section in question.

There may be individual church members who feel this way, or who have been mistreated this way, but your statements over-generalize. My own experience has been that church members who resort to materia medica -- which is merely a Latin phrase meaning "the branch of medical science that deals with the origin, preparation, dosage, and administration of drugs," and is not meant as a "pejorative" term against medical care -- usually step down voluntarily from any office they may hold (sometimes even against the pleas of their fellow church members) until their medical treatment has been ended and they feel better enough to resume their duties. How such decisions are made depends on the collective character of each congregation, not official church policy. The full text of the Manual bylaw quoted in part is, "If a member of this Church has a patient whom he does not heal, and whose case he cannot fully diagnose, he may consult with an M.D. on the anatomy involved. And it shall be the privilege of a Christian Scientist to confer with an M.D. on Ontology, or the Science of being." The purpose of this bylaw is not to grant or to restrict any "rights" of Christian Scientists to seek medical care. It is, instead, recognition of the privilege Christian Science practitioners already have to seek the opinions of medical doctors regarding the physical nature of a disease so that the Christian Scientist might understand better how to treat the patient through prayer. Such consultations are done in a spirit of mutual respect and cooperation.

I agree, from my experience, they choose to step down voluntarily (against the pleas of others.) As a CSst I've taken medical care for a Vasectomy and don't feel conflicted over that choice.

I've always found it strange that the Manual gives the practitioner this privilege, but not the patient. In any case, that's the only explicit reference to the right or privilege(!) to seek medical care (the 2nd sentence, not the 1st, which seems to apply only to practitioners). Again, I did not say in my copy that this by-law conferred any right; just the opposite, I said it was "unclear" on the matter.

As to being stripped of office vs. stepping down, I'm sure you're right. I'd only heard of people being removed from office, but I can change that to reflect your language. I can see how a Scientist might preemptively step down if he/she sought medical care.

However, this brings up the whole point of the unofficial medical taboo in CS. If seeking medical care is just another choice, then why would an officeholder in a branch church have to step down, unless their choice of medical treatment had some sort of negative connotation? My experiences and the experiences of many other people raised in CS say that there is a negative connotation, and the fact that choosing medical care jeopardizes one's leadership position in the church reflects that. So I believe I have good reason for describing a CS culture that isn't officially spelled out in church policy or literature. (What religious culture is?!)

You don't need to "give" rights to somebody that they already have. They are not acting in an official capacity in the same way that a practitioner is. Also, people are allowed (rather encouraged) to treat themselves, they automatically acquire any such privilege or choice granted to a practitioner. Regarding leaders... medical treatment "jeapordizes" one's position in the same way that hypocrisy always undermines leadership. Not "walking your talk" is never good for a leader. Artbrock 03:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the so-called "notable exceptions" in which church members resort to medical expertise are merely decisions made on an individual basis, not official church policy or official doctrine. A truer exception, which you mention in the Discussion section, is clearly stated in the Christian Science textbook, Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures, by Mary Baker Eddy: "If from an injury or from any cause, a Christian Scientist were seized with pain so violent that he could not treat himself mentally, — and the Scientists had failed to relieve him, — the sufferer could call a surgeon, who would give him a hypodermic injection, then, when the belief of pain was lulled, he could handle his own case mentally. Thus it is that we 'prove all things; [and] hold fast that which is good'" (p. 464). The idea being that no patient is expected to suffer violent pain while undergoing Christian Science treatment.

Yes, the hypodermic. Although looking at this language, it would seem that a Scientist going to a dentist would have to wait until he started drilling (thus causing pain) before asking for Novacaine!

I wonder if you might also provide the specific reference for your assertion that "the church's official biography of Eddy by the scholar and Christian Scientist Robert Peel reveals that two weeks after her fall, Eddy wrote to one of the late Dr. Quimby's students for treatment, which was refused." I can't find this in Peel anywhere.

See Peel, "Years of Discovery," p. 198

--Dablaze 20:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Steve Frederick, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC) Thanks for responding so quickly, and, yes, I remember that passage in Peel now. I've been a student of Christian Science for 42 years and a member of The Mother Church for 35. I worked for The Christian Science Monitor for 8 years in Boston (knew almost everyone in the newsroom) before, during and after the advent and collapse of Monitor TV, the Monthly Monitor Magazine, the Advertising Syndicate, etc. I've been a member of five branch churches on the U.S. east and west coasts, and still am a member, and I wouldn't classify myself as a neophyte, nor as one who mixes medicine with Christian Science treatment. Good corresponding with you -- have fun with your page. P.S. Don't knock Sunday School! :)

Corroboration

I removed some sentence saying that Christian Science published "quite compelling" reports of faith healing. To me, it appears that all we can say without more information to back ourselves with is "which Christian Science claims to be compelling" – but it would sound a bit stupid to say it this way (hey, if they publish such information, it's surely because they think it somewhat compelling). If Wikipedia is to endorse the appreciation that these publications were "quite compelling", then we'd have to have the appreciation of doctors, balance it with criticism from other sources, discuss whether those faith healing cures appeared more frequently than natural remissions, compare with conventional medical treatment, etc. David.Monniaux 07:21, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please see "Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age" by Peel for compelling reports of healing. Note a CSst would not consider it "faith healing", but instead "spiritual healing".

I have the impression David doesn't know his subject.--Frueh 23:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

no cult

This discussion about cult etc. from David is very French. Unthinkable also in Germany. There Christian Science is a recognised Church with the rights as Roman-Catholics or Lutherans. These rights are refused to Jehova's Witnesses because they are seen as cult.--Frueh 23:59, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which rights? I note you haven't answered. Which rights are branches of the First Church of Christ, Scientist been refused? David.Monniaux 19:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust

I didn't know where else to metion this, but I just saw an article about Jehovah's Witnesses and the Holocaust, and I remmebered, weren't the Christian Sceintists persecuted during this terrible purge as well? I clicked on the link that was to a site dedicated to non-Jewish victims, and no refrence to CS. The lack of any reffrence to CS persecution by Nazi Germany in any history sources is disgusting to a follower of CS such as myself, it seems to have been purged from history. Can anyone at least make a stub article for this?

CS was definitely on the wrong side of the Nazi's and became prohibited, though still not on the scale of what the JW's suffered. I've personally heard the story of at least one individual they did in, though I'm not sure it deserves a separate article unto itself. I think at least one von Moltke figured into an attempt on Hitler, though whether assassination is consistent with CS even there is another question. Was the location you were looking at a wiki page, was it perhaps a better location for the subject? Chris Rodgers 06:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is my understanding too, that at least some CSers were targeted by the Nazis.

Major expansions and some suggestions

CS and the Holocaust. 

There is at least one official book that deals with this subject. Published in 1947-48 I think. Perhaps an interested person could contact the mother church to find out more info about this.

CS was persecuted in Nazi Germany. Nazi theory is 100% incompatible with CS.

Mind you CS isn't 100% compatible with Christianity either. Quadra23 06:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Initial impressions

First, my apologies if I'm violating Wikipedia practice in some way.

I have to say that while I appreciate an evident effort on the part of the authors to be objective, I believe it widely misses the mark.

For example take the sentence: "The Christian Science church and independent historians differ about the origins of Christian Science." To me, this suggestst that "independent" (and therefore, presumably accurate, unbiased, trustworthy) historians are on one side of the question and other (presumably Church-controlled puppets) take the other side. If that's the intent of the sentence, it's not accurate--of course, I may be reading too much into it. What is true from my reading, is that hostile biographies of Mrs Eddy almost always take the view that Christian Science is derived from Quimby. Other biographers take a more nuanced view.

If you look at all the biographies of Mrs Eddy there are some that are clearly hatchet jobs, some that are clearly friendly to a fault and some that make honest attempts at objectivity. Some of the biographers who attempted objectivity have been Chrisitan Scientists, some have not. For example, see Gillian Gill's work as an example of an honest, respected, and (I believe) generally successful, attempt at balance from a non-Christian Scientist. If you eliminate both the hatchet jobs and the overly friendly biographies, you'll find a range of opinion as to the degree and significance of Quimby's influence on Mrs Eddy. But I don't believe you'll find unbiased evidence to suggest that Quimby's influence was sufficiently important to conclude Christian Science grew out of Quimby's teaching. Robert Peel's discussion of this issue seems pretty reasonable (and well documented) to me or see Gill pp 119-120.

IMHO the rest of the article leans heavily towards the view of detractors of Christian Science, in similar ways... --chris michael 17:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Quimby's influence is overstated and the article in general leans towards the detractors in my opinion.

two articles

I Propose two articles:

Christian Science Metaphysics, Healing System, Theology

Church of Christ, Scientist Organisation, Church History, Manual, Buildings of the Mother Church

--Frueh 23:46, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jan. 13, 2005 revert

Do I really need to explain myself? I don't think so, but I'll try:

1. This, like all other Wikipedia articles, is for a general audience, so I am including various facts about the Christian Science religion that most people probably don't know and are probably curious about. In Christian Science terms, I am including information from a "human" standpoint, not a "spiritual" one.
2. I am not writing a press release, as the edits preceding mine seemed to do. There was some good info in there, but it should not supplant previous article text.
3. I am not bending over backwards to explain the intricacies of the theology, since it's not that intricate. If others want to include it, then I don't have a problem with that, but please add the information, don't replace existing information with it.

Also, if anyone's interested in expanding the article with info about Christian Science and the women's movement, I think that would be great. Eddy was the only woman to have ever founded a popular religion, as far as I know, and most of her students were women (as are most church members today). There was a kind of proto-feminist vibe going on with the theology ("Father-Mother God", "Mother Church", Eddy's title "Mother", etc.), and it seemed to be a very empowering thing 100 years ago. Unfortunately, I don't know too much about it.

--dablaze 22:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Tenrikyo is, I believe, the largest religion ever founded by a woman. I'm discounting "movements" or schools within Hinduism or Buddhism or Taoism that aren't religions of themselves.--T. Anthony 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed "Other Links"

I removed the "Other Links" from the article - the first one was just a short news item regarding the fountain in the church plaza. The second link had nothing to do with Christian Science but was about scientists that are Christian. The third link was to a highly biased and misleading propaganda website by All About GOD Ministries, Inc. If anyone feels that these three links added anything of real worth to the article, then please feel free to add them back. I, for one, don't think any of them have any place here. I mean, you don't see any anti-Catholic links on the pages for Catholicism. There isn't a link to Michael Moore's website in the George W. Bush article. I don't see why the Christian Science article has to have this kind of stuff.

--Brooks 06:51, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purported cult

This material is from the article List of purported cults, which we are paring down to a pure list. Editors here can best evaluate its statements and decide how to integrate it into this article. Thanks, -Willmcw 11:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Christian Science

Christian Science advocates relying on faith healing in lieu of seeking medical treatment, including for minor children (though such requirements are now apparently lessened). For this reason, it is sometimes listed as having cult-like behavior.

At a Glance • Christian Science is fully explained in Eddy’s primary text on spirituality and healing, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. • Practiced by people of many different denominations and faith traditions, as well as those with no faith tradition. Membership in The First Church of Christ, Scientist, is not a prerequisite for the practice of Christian Science. • A means of spiritual care through which individuals have found better emotional and physical health, answers to life’s deepest issues and progress on their spiritual journeys. Healthcare decisions are always a matter of individual choice. • Basic ideas include: • God is divine Love, Father-Mother, supreme. • The true nature of each individual as a child of God is spiritual. • God’s infinite goodness, realized in prayer, heals.

NPOV, removing reference to cult status from first paragraph

I am removing the suggestion that Christian Science is a cult because of differences from mainstream Christianity from the first paragraph. This is too inflammatory for an opening paragraph and could be seen as biased. (This topic is mentioned in the section on Public Controversy.)

Also importantly, theological differences between Christian Science and more mainstream Christianity are NOT the main reason that most people have when they aliken Christian Science to a cult. Just because a group's beliefs differ from mainstream Christianity doesn't make it a cult; by that definition, all non-Christian religions and would be cults, which is clearly absurd (although I suppose some fundamentalists, evangelicals, and other conservative Christians might subscribe to this definition anyway).

More relevant is Christian Science's traditionally authoritarian leadership and practices, possible mind control, and their encouragement of the rejection modern medicine, which can put members at grave and unnecessary risk for obvious reasons. -- Ithacagorges 02:19 12 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your definition of cult. I prefer the phrase Christian cult to which Christian Science applies itself due to its own contradictions many of the core (note the emphasis) beliefs of Christianity. Perhaps you are not aware of the doctrine differences between Christianity and Christian Science? If so, I would suggest you research before you immediately say they are the same. Examples of these contradications are in Christian Science's beliefs concerning the basis of sin (as taught in Genesis 3 and throughout the Bible), the Christian Trinity and what salvation means. If you don't define these as core doctrines of Christianity then I suggest you learn what Christianity really is before making such claims. Quadra23 06:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Remaining issues?

This discussion has been quiet for a few months, while the POV check header has remained. But in my opinion, the article currently conforms to an adequate encyclopedic standard of neutrality. If there are any issues that anyone feels still prevent this article from meeting the necessary standards for NPOV, please post them here. --LostLeviathan 12:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the POV check was removed for a while, but was added again fairly recently. Presumably this was in response to a sentence added to the first section (which I deleted), and perhaps the relatively new section on public controversy (which I feel is fair and necessary for adequate coverage of Christian Science.) I agree that the current article conforms to the NPOV standards, and believe the POV check header should be removed unless compelling arguments otherwise are presented soon. --Ithacagorges 17:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clarifying that for me. Since User:-Ril- added the POV check without posting here or expressing any reason in his edit summary, I've gone ahead and removed it. People have posted to his Talk page about allegedly inappropriate use of POV checks before, and I've posted about this one as well. I hope that he'll post here about any specific complaints he may have. --LostLeviathan 06:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

It appears the tag has been put back (by the same person), again with no specific objections, just that they want the article "checked". However, there has already been substaintial discussion and revision about this article, which as you pointed out seems to have settled down. As I mentioned, the article had the same tag earlier, but it was later removed with (at the time) no objections. I don't see the point of keeping the tag up, particularly if no speicfic objections can be offered, and also as you noted because the user who posted the tag has been previously accused of abusing tags and going into revert wars in the past. --Ithacagorges 08:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As a non-CS, I still perceive significant anti-CS bias in the article. I've tried to perform some minor neutralization, but it still needs some work. Maybe I'll take another look when I have more time. --EW

I believe the revised article now clearly has a strong pro-CS balance. --Ithacagorges 01:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC) Note: upon re-reading the article, the changes aren't as drastic or slanted as I first thought. However, I still think they made things worse, not better. --Ithacagorges 08:06, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

EW, I think your edit made the article worse in some places. I've changed the wording of the first paragraph and essentially reverted the second paragraph. The sentence "Controversy surrounds its categorization as a Christian denomination" doesn't seem sensible to me; perhaps you meant "as a Protestant Christian denomination"? (This does seem superfluous to put in the early part of the article; nowhere on the Church's website does it claim to be Protestant.) Regardless, it is controversial for the other things listed in the second paragraph as well. --LostLeviathan 07:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this article satisfies the NPOV criterion. It recounts the theological history of the Church somewhat too "factually" for my liking: when speaking of mystical interpretations that others may not agree with, it is appropriate to use auxillary verbs like, "CS adherents believe..." or "she felt that..." --GenkiNeko 07:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. However, I believe the person who put up the NPOV check flag actually did so for the opposite reason, feeling the article was too negative towards Christian Science; and historically that's what most of the protests have been about. This will be a hard article to come to consensus on (although there were some indications that we were coming closer), as no matter how it is written there will likely be some people who feel it portrays the religion too negatively, and others that feel it is too soft on them. --Ithacagorges 08:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a couple comments...

"Ultimately, modern medical practice is far less important to orthodox Christian Scientists than believed by most outsiders looking in at the Church." Is this an accurate statement? I think most outsiders believe that modern medical practice is not at all important to the Church, which is why they eschew it. Maybe the author meant Church opposition to modern medicine is not as strong as outsiders believe? Perhaps I'm just misundertanding what was meant here, but to me this is a either untrue, or a poorly worded statement.

I don't quite know what happened... I'm still trying to get better at reading the diffs/histories. But as of today (9/19/05) that line now reads "Ultimately, modern medical practice is more important to Christian Scientists than is believed by many outsiders looking in at the Church." which is simply preposterous. Based on what this said before, I think the original intent was not about "importance of medicine" but about "centrality of the issue of medicine". What I mean is that people outside the CS church react quite strongly to this issue of medical treatment. But to people practicing CS it is just not as central a factor in daily living as it is perceived. Medical treatment is simply not ACTIVELY avoided, protested, resisted or fought. It is viewed as an issue of individual choice when circumstances require choosing. There are no anti-medical CS activists bombing clinics. In daily life, a CS person is about as concerned about medical treatment as an M.D. is concerned about voodoo dolls. They are disconnected belief systems.

In the 20-ish years I practiced CS, I had to confront making this choice about 3 times (and once chose medical treatment), yet discussions with people about CS almost always revolved around this issue because of their strong reactions to it. It would be virtually impossible for it to be MORE important than believed by outsiders. Perhaps the sentence should read: "Ultimately, the issue of receiving modern medical treatment is less central to Christian Science practice than is perceived by many outsiders looking in at the Church." Artbrock 08:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"From its foundation, the Church of Christ, Scientist has been accused of being highly authoritarian, even to the extent of of mind control..." Who has levied charges of Mind Control against the Church of Christ, Scientist? I'm not CS, nor do I claim to be an expert on the religion, but I've never come across any charges of mind control. The rest of the statements about excommunication and authoritarian doctrine I've seen though.

Overall, this article is moving in the right direction. You'll never make everyone happy, but it's getting pretty close to being a neutral article that represents both sides. Isotope23 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I've removed the reference to mind control, since no one has cited a source for that, and a Google search for Church of Christ Scientist "mind control" yields a number of conspiracy theory websites, an exaggerated rant against the Church in #1, and the Wikipedia article in #2. I've also changed (and watered down) the bit about how important modern medicine is to Christian Scientists, since I strongly suspect that you're right. --LostLeviathan 08:51, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I made some minor changes, most were cosmetic and hopefully the others will be acceptable. As for the "mind control" bit, such accusations can be found in several books and so called "cult watch" articles; but, since most of these sources may have an axe to grind, I don't strongly object to its removal. Two qualms:

• "Christian Science's focus on the idea of spiritual healing led to some measure of stir in the theological realm at first. Under the eye of the scientific revolutions of the 19th century, many mainstream denominations had relegated spiritual healing to the realm of a one-time dispensation rather than a modern practice. During Christian Science's early days of rapid growth, claims of healing under its influence became a subject of heated debate at Christian conventions, but for the same reason it also became a subject of reawakened interest in the 1960s and 70s." Two objections to this paragraph: I feel it makes the controversy over spiritual healing sound more minor and more of a thing of the past than it actually is, and I'm not sure Christian Science can accurately be described as having renewed interest in the 1960's and 1970's as most indications suggest affiliation has been steadily declining since the 1930's.
• Is it appropriate to call Christian Science a "Christian denomination" with no qualification in the first paragraph when a large number of orthodox Christian theologians (and laymen) disagree with such categorization? Encyclopedia Britanncia (2002 version) introduces Christian Science as a "religious denomination" (which I feel would be better), while it typically introduces more mainstream Christian denominations as "Christian" or "Protestant Christian". --Ithacagorges 10:57, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph you cite is poorly worded, and I hope someone who knows more than I do about the perception of the Church over time will rewrite it. However, the term "Christian denomination" appears to be defined broadly on Wikipedia as any Christian religious organization. Also, Church of Christ, Scientist has long been listed at List of Christian Denominations, along with over a dozen other Nontrinitarian groups. Unless someone introduces a more stringent definition of "Christian Denomination" to Wikipedia, I can see no reason to exclude Christian Science. Christian Scientists themselves, for that matter, do appear to refer to their organization as a Christian Denomination. [3] [4] So do a number of objective sources. All of the first 10 hits for a Google search for Church Christ Scientist denomination are positive, which leads me to believe that those who would argue for its nonclassification as a Christian denomination are in a small minority, and are using a nonstandard definition of the phrase "Christian denomination." I don't think we should have to include a disclaimer about its status as a Christian denomination being controversial unless you can cite a source that argues that it is not a Christian denomination without making a more general attack (e.g. claiming that it cannot be truly Christian because it is a cult). --LostLeviathan 11:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I could prolong the issue, but especially given Wikipedia's standards relating to the issue, how about we try "nontrinitarian Christian denomination", which is more accurate and precise than "protestant". Two other things that might be worth mentioning: Christian Science's influence on "New Thought" religions (although distinct, Eddy's writings strongly influenced several of the groups, and former Christian Scientists were very important early teachers and leaders); and perhaps here or in the article on Eddy a mention of animal magnetism. --Ithacagorges 17:01, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Use of the word "cult"

Cunado19 recently removed this sentence from the "Public controversy" section: "Because of this [reprisal against dissenters], and because it encourages the rejection of medicine, many consider it to have at least some elements in common with cults." I assume that he removed it because it's the last remaining use of the word "cult" on the page. However, the sentence sounds like a mild truism to me; frankly, the Church has been accused by many of being a cult. Omitting any reference to such accusations strikes me as highly POV. The edit also renamed "Public controversy" to "Opposition to the Church," which strikes me as less accurate. One can make criticisms of the Church which make it controversial without being opposed to the Church as a whole, which is a much more extreme position and not really what the section is talking about. I've undone the section renaming, but I'd like to hear from others about the sentence that was removed. Any suggestions for rephrasing it? --LostLeviathan 08:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that "Public controversy" is a much better title to the section than "Opposition to the church", for the reasons you give. As for the "cult" sentence, I believe the original sentence should be replaced exactly as it was, with no changes. The statement didn't say definitively that Christian Science was a cult, which would be POV. It says that because of [its authoritarianism and rejction of medicine], many believe it has at a minimum some elements in comments with cults. This is not POV, this is a true factual statement, and is worded relatively mildly. (Note also Christian Science is listed high on Wikipedia's List of cults.) As you suggest, eliminiating (not keeping) this statement would be POV. -- Ithacagorges 22:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The definition of mythology...

...can be said to simply be those religions that are not in vogue amongst those in power at that particular moment in history.

The Egyptians fervently believed in their religion. The Greeks, likewise. Currently, bookstores feature a section on "Mythology" covering such religions, and "Religion" covering those that happen to be in fashion in this age.

In another thousand years, perhaps christianity will also be in the "Mythology" archives, and something entirely different will be in its place.

Those who believe a religion can never be objective as to the fact that it's just one more set of stories and beliefs in a long historical line of them.

Seeing as such, isn't it a bit presumptuous for anyone to declare anything a cult and anything a religion when none of them can be proven to be correct OR incorrect by any scientific means?

• The issue isn't whether Christian Science is "in vogue", the shady difference between mythology and religions, or whether or not any religion can be proven true or false (almost by definition, none can.) By the most common modern definition of a cult, there are more specific, and potentially dangerous, characteristics that religions or sect regarded as cults have. Christian Science's authoritarian leadership from the very beginning, and the discouragement of the use of traditional medicine, which for obvious reasons (except to believers) poses a grave danger at least in some cases, raise eyebrows among "cult-watchers". And I repeat myself... the statement in the article did not declare that Christian Science was a cult. It mentioned that some believe it is, or think it has some things in common with cults. It is listed on the Wikipedia list of cults under "highest consensus." These are true statements, not opinion or pov. --Ithacagorges 09:27, July 31 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let's not damage the language any further here. A mythology is simply a written or oral tradition of story-telling. As such, C.S. subscribes, for the most part, to the mythology of Christianity, with a few additions and modifications of its own. Every religion that I know of is based on a mythology. This is not a pejorative term.

As for the word cult... It is poorly defined at best as a marginal religion. As such, yes, C.S. is a cult. Nothing wrong with that, so are most of the world's religions (since there are a select few majority religions and an uncountable array of minorities).

However, it is probably best for the NPOV nature of WP to avoid both terms which have negative connotations in their current popular culture usage. Being more precise is called for. Thus, I suggest using the terms "Christian doctrine" and "minority religion". -Harmil 13:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Christian Science & Modern Scientific theories

I had added:

Although, an understanding of quantum mechanics shows that you can not separate the observer from the thing being observed, so healing on the basis of changing one's mind-basis to a more spiritual one can be seen as scientific.

But another editor deletes and comments:

Spiritual healing has absolutely nothing to do with quantum mechanics so removed that anaology.

What do others think?

I think they do relate. Quantum Mechanics demonstrates that the material world can not be observed without changing it. I argue that the perception of discordant things (i.e. sin, disease, & death) is a false belief of a self-creative force other than god existing, it only seems to exist because we are observing it in our thought. This so-called force, MBE calls mortal-mind. In CS, as we spiritualize our thought, we detach thought from the false belief of mortal mind and join with the one Mind. As our thought is spiritualized, we experience healing. One consequence of this healing is that the shared human concept of the material world in the sphere of our own thought (especially our own 'body') comes into harmony with our thought, and the illusiory material discord disappears into its native nothingness. We don't change matter, we change our thought, and matter seems to follow, hence matter == thing being observed, mortal-mind == observer.

It sounds to me like an attempt to use a poor analogy with something scientific in order to make a spiritual idea sound more scientific. --Fastfission 00:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Taking a religious, spiritual, or philosphical idea and making some vague analogy to some scientific concept (even if such an analogy accurately describes the scientific idea, which they usually don't) does not in any sense make that idea scientific. --Ithacagorges 06:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• • The group that believes that spiritual healing is related to quantum mechanics is very small. It does include some people with expertise in science, as seen in the documentary What the Bleep Do We Know!?, but these are a minority in the scientific community. It would, therefore, be biased to imply a connection between quantum mechanics and faith healing in this article, though that might be a theory worth adding to the faith healing article. --LostLeviathan 01:23, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Einstein

The whole Einstein thing was posted from a somewhat dubious webpage: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html#Einstein

If better sources can't be found for the information, I wouldn't include it. The supposed quotes don't sound anything like something Einstein would say. I'm also not sure how relevant it is to Christian Science as a whole. Einstein's religious views are certainly quite different than the CS church (he wasn't a Christian at all, for one thing!). --Fastfission 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have deleted the passage claiming a connection between Einstein and Christian Science. Many Christian Science leaders and members have long claimed that Albert Einstein was a CS sympathizer to one degree or another. It is possible that Einstein attended a very small number of Christian Science services or visited a Christian Science reading room, however basically no biographers outside of the Christian Science church indicate a strong connection (or a connection at all for that matter) between Christian Science and Einstein's spirituality, and none identify Einstein as a Christian Scientist per se. --Ithacagorges 05:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Remaining issues?

Please discuss any remaining NPOV issues that warrant the tag at the top of the article.

Disclaimer: I'm a newbie to editing on WikiPedia. I've read the policies to make sure I'm on the right track. I've posted some responses to this talk page. Based on my perusal of the history of this article, it seems that it has been improving over time. I bring both insider and outsider perspective on CS. I don't know why somebody originally threw the POV flag, but it seems to me that there are a few remaining issues regarding POV/NPOV and some important missing items which I hope to add a new section for below and keep that discussion distinct from this NPOV one. artbrock 11:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Remaining POV issues that I see...

Origins

• nothing I noticed here.

Possible Influences

• Quimby: The section on Possible Influences isn’t. It asserts a single influence, not multiples and asserts it not as possible but factual. Since this is not a generally understood or agreed upon aspect of CS, reference links would be useful. Specifically: Where was the first use of the phrase “Christian Science?” What are the similarities between S&H and which of Quimby’s works? What does MBE’s supposed claim she influenced Quimby’s thoughts have to do with CS? (I believe this statement being included simply serves to undermine the credibility of MBE.)

• On the theme of possible influences, what about including her study of “primitive Christianity” and the widespread practice of healing in the first couple hundred years of the Christian church? At least that is the primary influence that MBE credits. Or perhaps her strict Calvinist upbringing influencing her rule-heavy/authoritarian orientation toward organizing the church? Just some thoughts about rounding out this section if it is going to be called “Possible Influences.”

Spiritual Healing

• The title “Spiritual Healing in a material world” is a very strange title to be found in a document describing CS. Especially since the Theology section rightfully acknowledges in its first paragraph that CS “conclude[s] that the material world is an illusion.” Is there a reason not to simply call this section “Spiritual Healing?”

• "Mixing of methods is discouraged among orthodox Christian Scientists…” this implies that there are various types or schools of CSers, the orthodox being one of them. I don’t think that is the case, as CS practice is far more individualized than compartmentalized. The word orthodox here should just be replaced by the word “many.”

• “Christian Science teaches that spiritual healing is a natural result of following Jesus' teachings.” Not really. Plenty of people follow Jesus’ teachings and don’t start healing. This is where the “scientific” part of CS comes to bear. This paragraph could read “Christian Science teaches that there is a demonstrable “scientific” process for producing the same kinds of healings that Jesus performed. Healing was a major part of Jesus' ministry and the early centuries of the Christian Church, and Christian Scientists see no basis for excluding it from the practice of modern day Christians. They believe that Jesus proved his teachings by his healings.”

• “Ultimately, modern medical practice is more important to Christian Scientists than is believed by many outsiders looking in at the Church.” This is way off-base. See my post above in the previous section titled [#Remaining_issues.3F Remaining Issues?]. This could read something like “Ultimately, the issue of receiving modern medical treatment is less central to Christian Science practice than is perceived by many outsiders looking in at the Church."

Organization

• ”To be the First Reader in one's branch church is one of the highest and most prestigious positions the lay Christian Scientist can aspire to.” This creates the impression that there are some people other than “lay” people and that there is some sort of permanent ascendancy of significance involved (like becoming a bishop or cardinal) rather than people from the general membership are elected to serve 2-3 year terms and the duty gets passed around to most who are able to perform it. More accurate would be “First Reader is the most prestigious and visible position of leadership in a branch church. Both Readers are elected from the general membership of each church to serve 2-3 year terms.”

Recent History

• One thing worthy of note in this section or the page about the Manual of the church is that there is no provision for amending the Manual of the church after MBE’s death. So people are able to hold the Board to the precise way it was written many years ago. For people who acknowledge the inevitability of change, the inability of the CS Church to modify its operations and bylaws is a crippling characteristic.

• “Though the Church is prohibited by the Manual from publishing membership figures.” Technically, they’re prohibited from “enumerating the membership.” So it’s not an issue of hiding the figures from the public, but of a deeper ignorance of them. Of course this gets trickier in this day and age of databases. It can be hard not to know how many records you’ve got!

• In general, this section seems to place its emphasis on finances as the central theme. I think little of the controversy among the membership was about finances as much as it was about strategy, approach and the future direction of the Church.

• Public Controversy: In addition to Gnosticism and mystic traditions, this section should certainly note the similarities to monism, Advaita Vedanta Hinduism, Philosophical Idealism, and A Course in Miracles

• “From its foundation, the Church of Christ, Scientist has been accused of being highly authoritarian, with dissenters quickly silenced and sometimes excommunicated.” CS authoritarianism tends to manifest more as anal retentive observation of written rules than as dominance and control. From CS churches, schools, camps, travels and such, I know more CSers than any other single religion. But I know nobody who has actually been excommunicated or even threatened with it. I’m not saying it’s never happened, yet I know multiple Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics who have been. I don’t think excommunication holds much of a noteworthy place in CS. I probably would have found out the hard way if it did.  :)

• “Because of these criticisms, some have quipped that 'Christian Science is neither Christian nor science.' 1” Are we really citing a guy as an authority for what is “Science” or “Christian” who is posting scripture demonstrating Barney_&_Friends is the Anti-Christ?

So... How long is it proper to wait for responses or discussion on these NPOV topics when there's a flag on the page? It seems the flag has been thrown a couple of times with no explanation whatsoever, and has remained for many months. I'll wait another week or so (to make it a month since I've posted the above comments in this section), then I'll go ahead an make my recommended changes if there have been no objections. artbrock 08:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this section is on the right track, I recommend that artbrock proceed with his ideas, they seem balanced. WilliamKF 03:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

A balancing statistic for the Public controversy section

At one time everyone "knew" the world was flat. Today everyone "knows" that modern medicine is correct. When people die without the assistance of the medical community, eyebrows are raised (or worse). However, it should be clear from the articles below that, while modern medicine does a great deal of good, there is still a degree of randomness in its outcomes that should lead us to question blanket assertions that medicine would have succeeded where Christian Science treatment failed. Should Christian Science practice be held to a higher standard than the medical practice?

http://www.iatrogenic.org/

"In 2000, a presidential task force labelled medical errors a "national problem of epidemic proportions." Members estimated that the "cost associated with these errors in lost income, disability, and health care costs is as much as $29 billion annually." That same year the Institute of Medicine released an historic report, "To err is human: building a safer health system." The report's authors concluded that 44,000 to 98,000 people die each year as a result of errors during hospitalization. They noted that "even when using the lower estimate, deaths due to medical errors exceed the number attributable to the 8th-leading cause of death." The addition of non-hospital errors may drive the numbers of errors and deaths much higher. As the authors note, the hospital data "offer only a very modest estimate of the magnitude of the problem since hospital patients represent only a small proportion of the total population at risk, and direct hospital costs are only a fraction of total costs.""

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/iatrogenic/message/1451

HealthGrades (press release) In-Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year, HealthGrades' Study Finds

Little Progress Seen Since 1999 IOM Report on Medical Errors 

HealthGrades Honors 88 Hospitals Nationwide with Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient SafetyTM

Patient Safety Incidents In Hospitals Account for $6 Billion per Year in Extra Costs

Lakewood, Colo. (July 27, 2004) – An average of 195,000 people in the U.S. died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.

• • I don't think the fact that some people are harmed by medical errors (while a vastly greater number, any of your sources would acknowledge, benefit from treatment) is relevant to the article, unless you can find a Christian Science-affiliated source that makes such an argument. --LostLeviathan 07:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm affiliated with Christian Science, I would make such an argument. Why should Christian Science treatment be expected to always succeed whereas medical treatment is not so expected, yet it is argued medical treatment should have been used when Christian Science treatment fails. Conversely, one could say that Christian Science treatment should have been used when medical care fails. WilliamKF

• It's not a matter of "holding Christian Science to a higher standard." There is little to no scientific evidence that Christian Science practice (or any form of spiritual/faith healing for that matter) has any benefit in the treatment or prevention of disease. On the other hand, there is enormous scientific (and demographic) evidence supporting the effectiveness of modern medicine. While there are an alarming number of medical errors which remain a problem, I agree with LostLeviathan that the benefits of modern medicine are orders of magnitude better than the problems and that Christian Science practice (or more generally faith healing) does not produce anywhere near a comparable level of results. Modern medicine is generally regarded as the most important contribution to the increase in life expectancy in western civilization from 35-40 in the middle ages to 75-80 now. Somehow I doubt that would have been achieved if the world had chosen to rely on Christian Science or other faith healing techniques. The paragraph does not need qualification or "balancing." --Ithacagorges 01:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow! It is a strange claim that "there is little to no evidence that...any form of faith healing...has any benefit in the treatment or prevention of disease." Maybe you aren't familiar with the phenonomenen of the diminutively-named "Placebo Effect." In fact, the effect of people's faith/belief on their disease is so powerful that it has been incorporated into the scientific methods of demonstrating effectiveness of treatments.

It is not uncommon that the difference in results between people receiving no treatment and those receiving a placebo is MUCH GREATER than the difference in the results between people receiving placebos vs. the drug in question. Yet this is the basis for modern medicine? There is certainly controversy about the placebo effect but some studies point to as much as 75% of the effectiveness of drugs being due to it. I am not CS, but having been raised in that church I experienced on many first-hand occasions the "order of magnitude" of its effectiveness (healing a broken leg within minutes, nail punctures in one side of my hand and out the other within hours, etc.) There is an awful lot of documentation corroberated by medical testimony that has been collected about the effectiveness of CS (see references like Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age). It seems that NPOV allows us to acknowledge the not so bright side of medical treatment as part of the CS dialogue. Artbrock 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the large amount of anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of CS deserves mention.Klonimus 05:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed "See Also"

I removed the "See Also" section and links. Neither of those links adds anything to the discussion of Christian Science and both have only a minor connection to the topic. See the section above where links were removed from this article before (different links though). Unless a link (outside or interwiki) gives a greater understanding of the topic at hand, there is no reason to link to another article or site.--Isotope23 15:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Complimentary Writings on Metaphysics

• Closer than Breathing: Healing Your Life Through Metaphysical Prayer and Understanding by Christopher Robert Grove less religious terminology (link to book site)on same basis. KAJ 08:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

ALSO

I removed critisisim pages.......it just establises a negative veiwpoint, this is an encyclopedia, not a journal

Funny, I see a lot of articles on Wikipedia that have a criticism section (Such as PHP, MySQL or specifically on religions RC Criticisms). How is Christian Science some how exempt when even Roman Catholicism is not (implies Christian Science is better than Roman Catholic because it has no criticisms)? Is this encyclopedia meant to biased on basis of Christian Science being perfect? Mind you, I don't believe every criticism site should be referenced -- only those that are there to tell the facts without being biased on either side of the spectrum. To remove all criticism is to choose a selective history just like many history books end up being. Your comment actually solidifies the comments of individuals that say this article lacks NPOV. Can you also please type out your name next time you make a comment? Thanks. Quadra23 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

We should restore the criticism pages. The article certainly should not have a "This portion removed" notice in it. This article certainly would lack NPOV if we remove references to critics of CS. -Volfy 00:16, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Remaining Issues?

I am no longer a Christian Scientist, though that is the religion that I was raised in, and remains the religion of my family. I've read many of the comments made above, and the article in question, and believe that I might be of some help in the editing of the article, should the author wish to consider my input. Is Christian Science a cult? No Christian Scientist would say that it is, however, not only does CS conform to the first two definitions of a cult in Webster's Dictionary, but so does Catholicism, as well as Islam. In the end, the word is rather explosive, and although CS probably fits all five definitions of the word, you are probably right to remove it, as it is such a verbal bomb. On the issue of the stigma surrounding medical treatment within the community: While there is a quote (please forgive me that I can neither quote it word for word, nor do I remember which book it is from) that says if the patient is suffering from so much pain that they are unable to pray for themselves that they should seek a surgeon, there is still a stigma about using medicine. I believe that this stigma increases and decreases regionally. I have no experience with CS outside of the United States, however having lived on both coasts and in the Midwest, I think that I can say with some certainty that in the more politically conservative areas of this country, the ostracism when a Christian Scientist uses medical treatment increases. This is also true in large communities of Christian Scientists such as in Boston and St. Louis. It is true that it is unfair to say that all Christian Scientists that seek medical treatment are ostracized; however, it is also true to say that this practice is not uncommon. The comment about CS being religious right I believe to be incorrect. The followers in general I believe are politically conservative, however the religion in practice is actually quite liberal and unusual, which I think no one will disagree with that is of course why this discussion is being had. However, that same entry did say that gays and lesbians are not welcome and this I know to be true; but I wonder as I get farther and farther from the religion how much of that is the people and how much of that is the book. In the end, however, I believe that the way to fix this neutrality issue is to create separate pages for the church and its followers and the idea of Christian Science. It is a fact that Mrs. Eddy had no intention of starting a church when first she published Science and Health. She believed that her book would be accepted in all Christian Churches, quite clearly she was wrong; however, I believe there is a magnitude of difference between what she wrote and the church she was able to build. The Catholic Church was not built in one life time by one person, it was built over centuries by millions and it has changed and been remoulded many times over, but the core writings of their faith have remained the same. Why should Mrs. Eddy have been able to build a church that would last the test of time? She could not, but her book will be published long after her church is gone. I believe that to maintain the neutrality of this article it is essential to separate Christian Science from the Church of Christ, Scientist and its members. Greenmistress 15:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It cannot be neutral

Not a cult.

Christian Science is not a cult. I've been in the religion since I was born, and this has been asked many times. I do not understand why people would say this? The way I can explain Christian Science is that we rely on prayer first and foremost for every situation. Prayer is very powerful, and it has helped me in many situations and I've had a number of healings. I do not understand why people would say Christian Science is a cult though? We have no affiliation with a cult whatsoever.

But...It is impossible for anyone to be neutral with this topic because the belief itself undermines people’s health. Whether you believe in it or not, the article must not support the religion totally, for it could influence a reader into not taking traditional medical treatments, and no article should pontificate a religion’s greatness; Therefore, the only way to avoid being dangerously supportive of a religion is to critique in a responsible manner by showing all sides of the religion...even its critics.

[This message was left from an anonymous IP at the top of the discussion page with no signature or heading. I've moved it accordingly. --LostLeviathan 02:42, 2 November 2005 (UTC)]

I don't consider it a cult. I don't feel I share many of its values, but I even consider it another Christian denomination. It's a bit out of the mainstream for Christianity, but I don't like this "XYZ aren't Christians" stuff. Because in principle a part of me thinks that any denomination that doesn't follow the first seven Ecumenical Councils isn't Christian. Therefore virtually all Protestantism isn't Christian. However that's uncharitable and unhelpful. I mostly just said it to indicate the whole "they aren't Christians" stuff is way too contentious to open up.--T. Anthony 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry,

I was the one who deleted the critisisims Basejumper123 i am looking at the critisims of the other major world religions, and trying to establish a neutral viewpoint for every article of this type. Its ok to have critisism as long as there is a fair and equal testimonial section. Im not a christian scientist, but the sites that where linked here where not even perticularly helpful, they just dumped all over the religion, and the purpose of the article is to tell about the religion, not how people feel about it

That sounds more reasonable. Here are links if anyone wants to see what they were. It seems like a shame to me to remove the link to Twain's work, because it has historical significance, but I don't see a way of integrating it into the remaining article.

• Christian Science by Mark Twain a 1907 work mocking Mary Baker Eddy's writings and the Church's financial arrangements
• God's Perfect Child: Living and Dying in the Christian Science Church by Caroline Fraser history and criticism about Christian Science (link to book site)
• Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty (CHILD, Inc.) is a non-profit national membership organization established in 1983 to protect children from abusive religious and cultural practices, especially religion-based medical neglect. A great deal of the cases they list happened in the context of Christian Scientist homes

As a tip, a typical way of signing your edits is a dash with four tildes, which will insert both your username and time. -Volfy 01:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, goodness, it's just bonkers not to include a reference to Mark Twain's book. It's probably the most famous thing ever written about Christian Science by a non-Scientist. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Fonda

I'm removing

• Henry Fonda, actor

from the list of Christian Scientists, because our article on him says only that his parents were Christian Scientists: "He was born in Grand Island, Nebraska to William Brace Fonda and Herberta Krueger Jaynes, observant Christian Scientists." I don't think he should be reinserted in the list until someone can accompany his name with a verifiable source citation showing that Henry Fonda himself was also an observant Christian Scientist in adult life.

I'm not saying he wasn't, I'm saying we should be fact-checking and citing sources for material we put in articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

On the List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) I created I had him as "Christian Science background" for a time. When it got put on VfD I just took that section out as being too iffy. Anyway good idea to take him off here as most things I'd found just listed him as of that in background so I never put him in the main list at any point. Should names from that list be transferred over here? The list is so heavily annotated now I'd rather not merge it with the Notable section here, but I suppose I could add a few names from it. I think what I'll do instead, for now, is add some names that I took off of from that one because they weren't fitting the purpose of that list. Like the athletes, inventor, etc. Or just people who are CSer, but not significantly enough of it to fit the purpose of that list.--T. Anthony 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't have List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) on my watchlist. Very nice! I agree that List of Christian Scientists is now probably "too much" to merge. I'd say cut out the actual list here and just say "See List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination)." And copy any names on the list here that are not in List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) to the Talk page of that list, pending source citations being found. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Originally that list was called List of Church of Christ Scientists or something. I changed the name on it surviving AfD.--T. Anthony 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)