Christian Science Part 1
My first problem with this religion is one of semantics. This is not in any way proof of anything, just something suggestive.
According to Christian Science, illness is a delusion, as is all reality. They define reality as the divine mind and our perceptions of the real world as delusions of the divine mind. So in other words we're the psychotic dreams of god. (that is just my own bias there, btw)
Most people define reality as that which can be understood through the senses of the body. There might be "higher rhealms" or indeed the world could be just a construct of the mind of God, but the world we see is defined as real, but Christian Scientists feel the need to change this definition.
Again this proves nothing, it just bothers me.
My first real argument comes from their very conception of the non-reality of the world. Nowhere in the bible, which they do hold to as any Christian group does, is such an idea supported. Quite the contrary the early books make it clear that while there is earth and sheol, there is no real after life for humans, no heaven or hell, no spiritual rhealm of reality wherein earth is an illusion.
Christian Science holds prayer above medicine, and it's adherents generally forgo medical treatment to be healed entirely by faith, while they do however acknowledge and respect those in the medical profession.
According to one study at least, prayer proved entirely useless. People who recieved prayer had no noticable improvement over those who did not. In fact those who knew they were being prayed for had the most post-op complications, over those who were not prayed for and those that were but didn't know it. There was no difference at all in recovery rates or times for any of the groups in the study. So apparently their method of healing of choice doesn't work, and they're denying, rather then understanding, reality, thus violating law 1: it must be true.
Many accounts indeed have been published of faith healings and the like, however many practitioners have been found to be frauds, out for peoples money, or capable of only providing recounts of case studies, that is individual examples, which alone are considered scientifically unsound.
According to Christian Science, illness is a delusion, as is all reality. They define reality as the divine mind and our perceptions of the real world as delusions of the divine mind. So in other words we're the psychotic dreams of god. (that is just my own bias there, btw)
Most people define reality as that which can be understood through the senses of the body. There might be "higher rhealms" or indeed the world could be just a construct of the mind of God, but the world we see is defined as real, but Christian Scientists feel the need to change this definition.
Again this proves nothing, it just bothers me.
My first real argument comes from their very conception of the non-reality of the world. Nowhere in the bible, which they do hold to as any Christian group does, is such an idea supported. Quite the contrary the early books make it clear that while there is earth and sheol, there is no real after life for humans, no heaven or hell, no spiritual rhealm of reality wherein earth is an illusion.
Christian Science holds prayer above medicine, and it's adherents generally forgo medical treatment to be healed entirely by faith, while they do however acknowledge and respect those in the medical profession.
According to one study at least, prayer proved entirely useless. People who recieved prayer had no noticable improvement over those who did not. In fact those who knew they were being prayed for had the most post-op complications, over those who were not prayed for and those that were but didn't know it. There was no difference at all in recovery rates or times for any of the groups in the study. So apparently their method of healing of choice doesn't work, and they're denying, rather then understanding, reality, thus violating law 1: it must be true.
Many accounts indeed have been published of faith healings and the like, however many practitioners have been found to be frauds, out for peoples money, or capable of only providing recounts of case studies, that is individual examples, which alone are considered scientifically unsound.
posted by cyber-mountain guru at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home