Talk:Christian Science/Archive 1

Comment
Is there any good reason why this page has not been replaced to with a redirect to the more substantial and better written article at Church of Christ, Scientist? --Isotope23 19:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The article has been rewritten now (Jan 21, 2006). The reason that I feel that it should NOT be merged is because this is an article about Christian Science, which is a method of healing, whereas the other article is about an organised church. The proposition to merge them would be like a proposition to merge an article on 'law' with the article on Harvard University. Also, the article here (as of the moment) is one of many in the Category of Christian Science, which contains articles about the discoverer Mrs Eddy, and other things. The initial reason for making this distinct article was because there were complaints in the discussion page of the Church article about "What actually is Christian Science?" which I interpreted to mean that the person didn't understand what the method of healing is, and therefore didn't know why there was even a Church based on it. Hopefully, people can see the distinction between the two. Another reason is, that the Church article is "too long" according to the Wikipedia Editing page. Shanem-vic-au 05:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is insufficiently balanced in regards to the status of Christian Science as an effective method of healing. I will try to provide some balance to it. Dietwald 13:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article not well balanced, in fact it's one of the most one sided pages I have read on wikipedia. It reads as if written by a Christian Scientist, while there is nothing wrong with that I believe that objectivity should be formost and the individuals beliefs in this case should be sacrificed for impartiality.

I think the artivel should be preserved extra.--Trollala 15:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Clearly, the first argument possesses no relevance to making any sense. It states that Christian Science is a method of healing and not an organized church. To filter this statement into something that has any truth, I say the following: the Christian Science religion is CLEARLY an organized religion and church, hence its NAME: The Church of Christ, Scientist. Furthurmore, the argument saying that the article is "too long" is completely absurd. I'm sorry that you're not able to read that quantity of information, however, for the rest of the intellectual world, we would enjoy any information possible.

_______

This article should not be deleted, but expanded. There is a fundamental difference between a religion, and an organisation which practices it. If anything, the article on the Church of Christ, Scientist should be pared down so that it deals only with the organisation itself, and the bits about the religion of Christian Science should be brought into this article. This article is missing the history, such as the influence of Phinaeus Quimby on Ms Eddy. That stuff belongs here more than it does in the article on the church.

The Oracle of Podunk 03:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

_______

Scientific Statement of Being
I absolutely think the Scientific Statement of Being should be added to the article on CS, since it is the encapsulation of CS beliefs.

I also think that under the "Criticism" section, reference should be made to the book, "God's Perfect Child," written by a woman who was raised as a Christian Scientist. It describes the religion in real-world terms and recounts the shocking instances where CS parents have allowed their children to die of curable diseases rather than obtain medical help for them. This has been a very visible issue about CS, and there have been legal cases of abuse brought against CS parents. It needs to be covered.

Yes, some children have died when under CS care, but also mention all of the patients that die when under medical care. Christian Scientists do love and care for their children. We just prefer to use different means of healing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.66.239 (talk) 14:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lizard6849 04:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

On the Scientific Statement of Being, I suggest "don't add" because the article is already lengthy and very wordy. Mrs. Eddy wrote a great deal, and not all her writings belong here. The book "God's Perfect Child" would be welcomed by everyone, provided you also include the approximately 4,000 cases of healing which The First Church of Christ, Scientist has documented and published. (It's not necessary to reference the 4,000 cases individually; just mention and cite them.) Marc W. Abel 20:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I would merge the documents. I've just read the page on Christian Science it seems to be fair, although brief. The one point which seems to be a club with this religion is the fact that society convinently persecutes them when someone dies while using it. And at the same time, fails to recoginze that we could easily document that the medical community loses an exponentially greater number and they ignore this fact as if it's completely normal.

Is anyone interested in the following article nominated for deletion?
Looking for participants in the the discussion of List of religions once classed as cults cairoi 14:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science and healing
I think there should be a paragraph added of the Scientific Statement of Being or a link to the textbook for reference, as well as a link to www.spirituality.com. There are chats, articles etc. on that page about Christian Science. The comment about people letting their children die is somewhat out of balance. Christian Scientists are not punished for seeking medical treatment; however, the comment below that children are allowed to die under Christian Science treatment, is somewhat like saying parents whose children die under medical care for "curable diseases" are also allowing their children also to die. Medical help, any assistance, isn't infallible, and may depend on many variables. Let's examine individual cases and all sides of the argument, on their own merit and as a logical thinker, rather than making sweeping generalizatons to the whole coming from a small percentage of tragic events.

Ridiculous. Why not link to www.christianway.org where there are chats etc about christian science written by former christian scientists? I've heard the "Medical help isn't fallible" argument over and over and it is just plain silly. No other way to put it I'm afraid. 165.165.169.178 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Scientific Statement of Being?
There is nothing remotely scientific about this post so it is at best mislabeled. It is of course perfectly obvious that it belongs under "Christian Science". So why has this not already been corrected? user who???

I disagree. Own lemma--Trollala 15:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote?
"The The Bible does not explicitly state the exact method Jesus used (though there is a strong hint in Mark 11: 23)"

I Will edit out the extra "the," but the reason I ask about this is the statement at the end. I cannot find anything in the King Jame's Version on Wikisource... Russia Moore 03:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote is as follows: "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." Mark 11: 23 (KJV). Leaving aside the usual Oriental hyperbole regarding mountains, camels, etc., and assuming that what you wish for is something good, it seems clear that Jesus is saying that if you have 100 percent faith in God's power to grant what you're asking for, you will receive it. To have 100 percent faith in God's power is to have 0 per cent faith in any other power--which is what Christian Science teaches.
 * Oooooh. Thanks! Russia Moore 21:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Balance
The addition of a link to an external web site maintained by former Christian Scientists would seem to add some balance to this article. The link, however, has been repeatedly deleted. Perhaps the Wikipedians who chose to delete the link would like to share their objections. Do go be man 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A link that was relevant to Christian Science (albeit negative) within the context of this article was deleted before being allowed to remain. Several external links, however, have since been added which appear to have no specific relevancy to this article. Do go be man 22:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to here
The Philosophy of mind artical refers to CS as follows:


 * The theology of Christian Science is explicitly idealist: it teaches that all that exists is God and God's ideas (which include man); that the world as it appears to the physical senses is a counterfeit of the underlying spiritual reality.

Anyone want to take a crack at improving this one sentence blurb? I tweaked it a little, but it could stand more. WilliamKF 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, here goes: "The theology of Christian Science is explicily idealist: it teaches that all that exists is God and God's ideas (ideas which underlie the everyday appearance of material objects and living beings). The world as it appears to the physical senses is regarded as a distortion of the underlying spiritual reality. However, Christian Science differs from other forms of idealism in its belief that this distortion can be healed by prayer, i.e. through an understanding of the reality of the spiritual and the unreality of the material."

Hope that works for a starter. NB care is needed in using the term "man". In contemporary discourse it has sexist connotations!


 * Understood, but in balance, MBE used the term in its generic sense and as she represented God as Father/Mother, she does not seem to be sexist. WilliamKF 01:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not pseudoscience
I have reverted the addition to the pseudoscience category since the article does not state that Christian Science is pseudoscience. In fact it is clearly contradicted in the article itself. AvB &divide; talk  10:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Prominent Christian Scientists include some not so sucessfull folks too
Added Joan Crawford and Nixon's aides John Ehrlichman and H.R. Haldeman SimonATL 01:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Not so sure this section should be labeled "Promient Christian Scientists". Perhaps something like "Prominent People Associated with Christian Science" would be more appropriate. Many people listed in this section are merely alleged to be Christian Scientists, were raised by Christian Science parents or other relatives, are or were Christian Scientists in name only, or have subsequently left Christian Science.

BTW, Adherents.com maintains a fairly extensive list at http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_chrsci.html.

--Do go be man 16:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know I did create List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) for this issue.--T. Anthony 15:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fougasse
I'd never heard of Fougasse but there are a lot of Google references to this cartoonist. However, nothing links him to Christian Science. I'm deleting this unless a reference can be provided.81.108.35.99 08:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I realized that might be a problem! However, he was one of my teachers at the Sloane Square Christian Science Sunday School in the early '50s, so I thought I would try adding him... I'll leave it up to you. Jpaulm 14:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Links
As these refer to issues mentioned in the article, I've restored them.81.108.35.99 08:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone commented (I can't find it at the moment) on the relevance of some links. They are relevant to Mary Baker Eddy's non-literalist interpretation of the Bible. The links are not here as an attack on the Bible or on Christian Science. The organisation "Americans United for the Separation of Church and State" is supported by many Christian Scientists and its mention is relevant to the article. Consequently these links should not be deleted.81.108.30.88 20:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sir, how can you say these links are not an attack on the bible (which they clearly are) and an attack on religion in public life (which AUSCS clearly is). What do they have to do with Christian Science. Where are you coming from? --JeffLB 14:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Christian Scientist and never have been one but find them an interesting group. I simply want this article to remain accurate and unbiased.--JeffLB 14:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello :-) you got my gender right, anyway! The links are not an attack on the Bible but on the doctrines of biblical literalism and inerrancy. Christian Scientists are not biblical literalists or inerrantists and neither was Mary Baker Eddy, as outlined in the article. The material the links refer to is in fact supportive of the Christian Science position on the Bible(though that may not have been the original intention of the authors). AUSCS supports the separation of church and state--so do most Christian Scientists. The Christian Science Church, as far as I know, supports AUSCS (or did so in the past, at any rate). Compare the health of Christianity in the US which has such a separation between church and state, with the dire situation in the UK which has an established church. I appreciate your desire to keep the article accurate and unbiased, but please don't jump to conclusions :-) I have been a Christian Scientist for many years. BTW, if you keep reverting the article, you are causing a mistake to reappear in the Tenets of Christian Science (omission of the first one). I will get a Wikipedia ID as soon as I can get around to it. Regards 81.108.30.88 20:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a Christian Scientist. Who would have thought. OK. I'll stop reverting your changes. I had an image of some hostile atheist trying to trash CS. What do I know. I really don't like AUSCS - their agenda seems to be more secularising our society and making it safe for the(violence and hedonistic sex oriented) entertainment industry then separation of church and state. --JeffLB 22:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science and Medicine
This section is useless:

"In contrast to conventional medicine, Christian Science healing is not reliant on animal testing, nor does it involve massive state expenditure on health care, or the risk of "iatrogenic" (physician- or hospital-induced) ailments."

None of these are legitimate reasons why people turn to Christian Science healing, even though they may be true. The only possible reason for a statement like this is to make Christian Science sound less harmful than it is.

There is no obvious reason why material in this section should be confined to "reasons why people turn to Christian Science healing". Your statement about making Christian Science sound less harmful than it is, is clearly POV. When the medical people find a cure for the common cold, then perhaps they can start to tell others what they are doing wrong.81.108.30.88 20:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 81.108.30.88 - I believe the criticism is POV and I'd prefer to leave the section as it is. --JeffLB 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll disagree with the two above. The primary problem with the section is that it's informationally irrelevant to Christian Science: Christian Science doesn't speak to these issues and nothing (I know of) in the iatrogenic literature speaks to Christian Science. This page is already developing a certain level of wiki-wack as it is. There are an infinite number of POVs on everything, not only Christian Science. Though they may be legitimate POVs, including them all decreases the signal-to-noise ratio and thus making the page less directly informative. To paraphrase a Christian Science mantra, it's good to "stand porter at your gate of thought" on issues like this. Digitalican 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about Christian Science and Medicine
There is great danger in characterizing Christian Science as an alternative medical system. Mary Baker Eddy's intent was to "reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing" but by that she meant reflecting the love that Christ intended for us to reflect toward God and one another. Go to a testimonial meeting at a local Christian Science Church any Wednesday night (public is welcome and anyone can give a testimony) and you will find that Christan Science is a way of life. People will talk about financial problems, relationship problems, protection from injury, etc. all healed by applying the principles of Christian Science -- not just how the latest episode of how the flu was overcome. The public today is so infused with the "medical mind set" and with books and articles written in the "medical model" that people can have a very difficult time understanding that they are not putting Christian Science onto an illness or injury to heal it as a doctor would using a drug or surgery. Instead, they are praying to recognize that, as God's perfect idea, they were never touched by the disease or injury in the first place. A Christian Scientist is expressing dominion, not human dominion, but the dominion that comes with understanding that man is God's image and likeness.

The discussion that follows concerning naturopathic and homeopathic treatments falls into the same error of overshadowing Christian Science with a discussion of healing through material remedies. In short, taking vitamin supplements, for example, is only a problem in that it hides the bigger and freeing truth that health and life are spiritual, not material. And because man is spiritual, we do not have to achieve health through some combination of additives. It is ours as our right, our gift, our heritage. User: Rtradew 06:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The article seems to do a pretty good job with regard to describing the positions of Christian Science with regards to "conventional medicine", but only, apparently, when that medicine involves surgery or drugs.

I'm wondering about the position of Christian Science regarding non-surgical and non-drug related forms of non-religious healing, be it allopathic or naturopathic.

In particular, I'd be grately interested on the position of Christian Science toward non-surgical and non-drug related practices such as: psychotherapy, physiotherapy, the simple old "eat right and excercise" mantra of dieticians, nutritionists, and general MDs, naturopathic healing through a basically similar approach (eat right and excercise), naturopathic vitamin supplements and the like, simple (non-religious) meditation and (non-religious) Yoga or Tai-Chi type practices etc.

As a real life example, if I were a Christian Scientist and suffered from depression, it seems clear that anti-depressant medication would be counter to CS beliefs. However, would working out my problems through talk-therapy with a psychiatrist also be objectionable? As another example, would it be contrary to Christian Science to have an MD give me a routine physical examination? Assuming it would not be permissable to actually have blood drawn to test my cholestorol, would it still be ok, if based on a simple determination of my blood pressure (which requires no surgery nor drugs, only a stethoscope and another non-intrusive piece of equipment the name of which I'm not sure of), my MD determines that I have high-blood pressure and should avoid certain foods such as those containing a rather high amount of salt, as well as taking a couple of vitamins each day and beginning a healthy excercize regimen, would that be objectionable? What if I'm simply morbidly overweight and my MD tells me very simply that I should cut out ALL unhealthy foods entirely from my diet? What about calcium supplements to avoid osteoperosis or fluoride to prevent cavities in my teeth?

These questions may seem silly, but I'm asking because it seems to me that Christian Science, in objecting to drugs and surgery, does not seem to be objecting to those particular practices per se, but rather any practice that seems to be attempting to cure or even prevent disease through non-religious means, which describes pretty much everything I've presented above. Drugs and surgery appear to be the most objectionable, because, admittedly, they are the most severe forms of traditional medicine. Yet so much of "traditional" and pretty much ALL of "naturopathic" medicine involves no drugs, nor any surgery.

I'd be grateful for any information on this, as I'm genuinely curious about this interesting faith. Loomis 20:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The position of Christian Science regarding non-surgical and non-drug related forms of non-religious healing would be the same as with surgery or drugs. A Christian Scientist would use reliance on God in either situation.

To answer your questions, for any situation a Christian Scientist might encounter, they would most likely use prayer. Any Christian Scientist is free to go to a doctor if they chose but the majority would not simply because they find prayer to be an effective alternative. A Christian Scientist has no reason to visit a doctor for a routine physical because they do not rely on doctors for their health care. Of course Christian Scientists have great respect for the medical profession but find prayer and reliance on God the most effective health care system available for their well being.

Hi--I understand your questions, but I think you're sharing in a common misconception, represented by your word "permissible". Christian Scientists tend to avoid "material" means not because the CS church tells them to (it doesn't) or because they think God will punish them (S/he won't) but because they think it would interfere with spiritual healing. Christian Science is not an authoritarian religion and people are free to use what methods they wish, but mixing spiritual and material means is not fair to either. For what it's worth, I'm a Christian Scientist and I take regular exercise, I'm a vegetarian, I try to eat a balanced natural diet, orgnanic where possible (that includes not binging on salt and sugar). I drink tea and coffee, but other Christian Scientists don't indulge in these. (I'm not there yet...) I personally wouldn't take vitamin supplements as it seems to go against "take no thought for your body". I read books about psychology, e.g. Freud and Jung. I'm interested in dream analysis (like Joseph in the Bible!) and I would visit a psychotherapist sooner than an MD. As I haven't had occasion to employ a physician in thirty years, the question of diagnosis etc. has been irrelevant. My criterion for being overweight or not is, "do I like what I see in the mirror?" If I don't, I do something about it. I did yoga in the past and still do some physical exercises each day. I also did martial arts at one time and greatly enjoyed them (not Tai Chi)--sometimes wish I'd kept them up. When travelling in developing countries I'm careful about things like food and water. (Other Christian Scientists are able to demonstrate spiritual immunity to these things better than I can.) The common sense view which was put forward by Mary Baker Eddy and is--or should be--endorsed by Christian Scientists could be summed up thus: if you can't heal something bad through Christian Science, use some other means in the case. There is a widespread view that Christian Science is all about "thou shalt nots"--it's not. CS stands for "common sense" as well as Christian Science! Hope this is of help.89.100.141.143 12:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As someone who took up the study of Christian Science as an adult after a remarkable healing, brought about by the silent prayer of a co-worker who was a lifelong Christian Scientist, I can sympathize with those having difficulty understanding the Spiritual vs. Material basis of this knowledge. I would recommend Spiritual Healing in A Scientific Age by Peel. It is available on Amazon used books. For a quick take, read page 16 to the end of the chapter, and then read pages 54 thru 63. This is the best book ABOUT Christian Science that I have seen. If you have a problem and need help, go to a Reading Room and select a Practitioner from the list in the back of the monthly Christian Science Journal. Let the practitioner work with you to deal with the problem, and then let the practitioner guide you in your study. See: http://www.csvincennes.org/index_files/Page498.htm for more on practitioners. Practitioners charge a small daily fee and you should discuss this when you contact them. As an electronic designer, and a very hard science type, I never gave this sort of thing any thought until I was faced with an incredibly painful and potentially life changing problem. The problem vanished overnight and no trace of it can now be found. The elevation of thought associated with the healing was something I had never encountered before. It led me to a study of spiritual things that I had never expected to have any interest in. Christian Science is truly the best kept secret of the age. It really works. micrdick Aug 5, 2006

Balance?
OK, let it stand, although if a person wants to add "balance" there's nothing to stop them editing the entry like anyone else. If someone wants to believe the theological material that this links to (e.g. "People who are not followers of Jesus Christ will spend eternity in hell") I guess it's a free country (or world in the case of Wikipedia).

Whatever one may believe about Christian Science, at least it avoids the theological absurdities of fundamentalist Christianity. These, as far as I can make out, go somewhat as follows: God will allow us to be tortured eternally as a recompense for the sin of a distant ancestor (i.e. stealing a piece of fruit). That is, unless we accept the sacrifice of His Son, Whom God allowed to be tortured to death in our place. However, the hell-bound include those who--for one reason or another--did not get a chance to hear of said sacrifice, as well as (in some cases) the close family and friends of the "saved".

Now, any human being who behaved like such a God would probably be locked away for their own safety, if not that of others. Allowing people to be tortured, and holding them responsible for the crimes of others, are universally condemned in the civilised world. A God who would behave in such a way would be considerably worse than the people He created.

The link to the Americans for Separation of Church and State is not appropriate - I'm deleting it. -JeffLB There is an anonymous person that again put in some anti Bible, anti Christian external inks, which I'm deleting again. --JeffLB 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Again I've been undoing work of anonymous person hostile to Christian Science. I am not a Christian Scientist, nor its partisan. I do have a respect for some Christian Scientists I've met and talked to.--JeffLB 20:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Balance is different than, and possibly opposed to, NPOV. NPOV means that the article is written from a neutral point of view. Balance suggests (and seems to play out to be) an equal number of critical and supportive statements about a particular point of view. Maybe I'm missing something but wouldn't applying a criteria of "balance" essentially turn any article into a chat board? Digitalican 19:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A strict NPOV approach would suck the life out of a topic such as this. A point of view is an essential part of defining some topics. An interactive discussion such as this Talk area could easily be a chat board. The article itself, however, needs to appropriately represent the various aspects of the topic. --Do go be man 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't think it was our objective to be lively, but rather to provide information in a factual and documented way. This is, after all, an attempt at an encyclopedia.  I agree that the Talk area is the correct place for POV discussion, provide 'balance,' or to grind whatever particular axe you happen to be holding at the moment.  The subject page is not.  The page on Franklin, Kentucky for example offers no opinions on whether it is a good place to live, on the quality of city government or on local restaurants.  It simply tells people what it is and any relevant facts about it.

Criticism
I added the Weasel Words headnig to the Criticism Section because of the following sentence:

"Defenders counter that this is very misleading because many people turn to Christian science after medical techniques have failed."

Who are these "defenders?" Where is the evidence that this is true? "Very misleading?" Even though there is not a strict prohibition against practicing Christian Scientists seeking medical treatment, it seems as though, if anything, the opposite would be true. They would seek medical treatment only after Christian Science "healing" failed.

Yes, they are weasel words. However, what I wonder is whether a study by the AMA that shows that this bunch of people who do not use doctors at all die earlier and have more cancer is a weasel study. Would the AMA have published the study if it showed some people who completely opted out of the system of doctors represented by the AMA were as healthy as other people? The AMA has a long history of biased arguments and attempts at suppression directed against competitors including midwives, optometrists, Chiropractors, doctors of osteopathy, naturapaths, nurse practitioners and others. Quoting this one AMA study just seems like a cheap shot to me. I would prefer to delete the reference to the study completely.

It would not be difficult to contruct the study with subtle bias against Christian Science and the AMA has a poor record when their prestige and financial interest is at stake. --JeffLB 21:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You might add to the section on "Criticism" these points: -> Fundamentalist Christians generally do not consider Christian Science to be a Christian denomination. It is often grouped with Mormonism and Jehova's Witnesses (in a derogatory way) in Fundamentalist literature. There are evangelical missions aimed at converting Christian Scientists to "real" Christianity.

-> Christian Science is often assumed to be a destructive cult of some kind. This is probably due to the unorthodox theology, the prominence of Mary Baker Eddy in the religion, the reliance on prayer for healing, and court cases in the media that spotlight children who have died while receiving Christian Science treatment. Also, Christian Science is confused with Scientology because of the similarity of their names.

-> Christian Science is also often criticized as being "faith healing" (ala Benny Hinn), although Christian Scientists contend that they practice genuine Christian healing which operates differently than "faith healing" (spiritual understanding versus blind belief).

Thanks! -PM

Here are some quotes from Science and Health: With Key to the Sciptures that seem controversial and distict:

"A mortal man possesses this body, and he makes it harmonious or discordant according to the images of thought impressed upon it." (pg. 208 vs. 27-28) The sick person is to blame for their illness.

"The belief that God lives in matter is pantheistic." (pg 203 vs. 30) CS does not believe Jesus was the "Logos" second person of the trinity.

"The error which says Soul is in a body...must unsay it and cease from such utterances; else God will continue to be hidden from humanity...-all because of their blindness, their false sense concerning man." (pg 204 vs. 30 -pg 205 vs. 3) CS does not believe man has a soul or spirit of his own.

"...Christian Science says: I am determined not to know anything amoung you, save Jesus Christ and him glorified." While St. Paul focued on the crucifixion for atonement, CS focuses on immortality.(S&H pg 200 vs 28-27)

"The reappearing of Jesus was not the return of a spirit. He represented the same body, and so glorified the supremacy of Mind over matter." (pg 45 vs. 28-30) MBE says, "Jesus unchanged physical condition after what seemed to be death was followed  by his exaltation above all material conditions; and this exaltation explained his ascension... a probationary and progressive state beyond the grave." (pg. 46 vs 20-24)

I think informations like this is very useful -there should be more quotes from S&H. DM

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.60.167 (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dispute over MBE healing herself?
Is there really any serious dispute as to whether MBE was healed? I thought this was witnessed by many people. Let's have some scholarly references on this topic. From the current version:


 * Mary Baker Eddy claims to have discovered this method of healing when she said she was healed of an injury ...

WilliamKF 16:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is dispute regarding the healing cited. Mary Baker slipped on the ice in Lynn, MA suffering an injury from which she is said to have been dying. She read of Jesus' healings in the Bible and claimed to have been healed and thus discovered the scientific basis of Jesus' healing. Several months later, according to a church-approved biographer and court records, she sued the town of Lynn for damages due to sustained pain and injury resulting from the incident. Should anybody be interested, I can probably dig up the name of the book and page on which Robert Peel mentioned this.

--Do go be man 17:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, Peel is an excellent source, very scholarly in his approach. I would think that the Peel bio talks of the witnesses in the adjacent room that were amazed by her sudden recovery with his own references to back it up. WilliamKF 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I still believe that Peel also mentioned it, but here is the reference I found - Richard A. Nenneman, Persistent Pilgrim: The Life of Mary Baker Eddy (NH: Nebbadoon Press, 1997), 88

--Do go be man 20:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency
(I am not an expert, just someone who was raised in Christian Science. I think this article is outstanding. But the section titled "Inconsistency" contains some information that rings wrong to me:)

"These include the question whether or not Jesus actually died (though since Christian Science teaches that death is an illusion, this may go some way towards explaining apparently contradictory statements on the question in Mary Baker Eddy's writings). There has also been considerable internal controversy in the Christian Science movement regarding the status of Mary Baker Eddy, with some Christian Scientists claiming (and others denying) that her appearance on the world stage was specifically prophesied in the Bible."

On the first point, the wording makes it sound like CS is unclear about whether Jesus experienced death in the same way that other humans experience death. In my own education in CS (through Sunday School, reading S&H, etc), there was never a question about whether Jesus actually died. The fact that Jesus died is important in CS, because the resurrection was the ultimate demonstration of Divine Science. Jesus died and then rose from the dead to prove to us that life is eternal and that matter is unreal.

On the second point, while there are some who say that MBE was prophesied in the Bible (there's a line in Revelations about a woman with a book), from my POV it isn't accurate to say there is "considerable internal controversy". The acceptable position is that MBE was more or less a normal person, *not* the Second Coming, and it's basically taboo to deify MBE. In general there is no controversy about this, and those who deify MBE keep it on the down low. (Once at Principia I ran into a faculty member who believed MBE was the woman from Revelations, and he only spoke very cautiously and quietly about it. He knew that if other Christian Scientists found out his views, they would think he was nuts.)

This section starts with this line:

"There is some lack of clarity within the teachings of Christian Science on a number of issues."

This seems a bit like "weasel words" to me. Is this "lack of clarity" universally agreed upon, or is it one person's opinion? If it is one person's opinion it should be sourced, and only included if that person's opinion is significant for some reason.

--Thanks! PM

As someone who isn't a Christian Scientist, I agree that "lack of clarity" should at least be balanced with the supposition that these issues are up to the individual follower. If some kind of authority has in deed answer questions of "clarification" with the answer that it's either unimportant, irrelevant or a matter of personal choice, a citation of this would be appreciated. -- spider, 11:16am AEST, 28/9/2006

Not being a Christian Scientist I'm really not officially qualified to say, but it seems to me there's only a lack of clarity from a non-Christian Scientist's point of view. From the Christian Scientist's point of view Death is a falsehood, an illusion, thus "actually die" is an oxymoron. Jesus' resurrection is proof of that illusion. Did Jesus appear to die to those around him? Yes. Did he actually die? No. (this gleaned from pp. 44-45 of Science and Health.) Digitalican 04:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Connection to Movies and Sci-fi?
I don't think that the theme of "the illusory nature of the human experience" warrants a connection to the films and books which are listed, unless there is evidence that the creators of those works explicitly drew upon Christian Science teachings in creating them. Christian Science certainly is neither the first, last, nor the most popular organization or religion to incorporate such an idea. 24.175.10.61 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I came to say basically the same thing. The Wachowski bros. haven't been shy about whose works they borrowed (or stole) from to create the Matrix.  Others have gone to great lengths to illustrate the works that influenced Dark City and eXistenZ.  In none of these analytical surveys has the words "christian" and "scientist" been used in the same sentence.  Philip K. Dick?  That's pretty silly.  Quite honestly, this little section sounds like something a christian scientist put up to try and make it look "cool" and relevant.  Worlock93 09:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted it, but let's be kind about the motives of editors please. And I doubt if you have read all of the "analytical surveys" about the works in question, to be able to justify such a statement.Be-nice:-) 23:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Estoppel Clauses
I don't think the point about a revised Manual having been issued minus the Estoppel clauses is factually correct. Consequently I'm going to delete it unless relevant citations can be provided. The "Estoppel" clauses are still in the (current) Manual, thought how one interprets them is another matter.Be-nice:-) 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Christian Science editors
Christian Scientists editing here should note that while they may be used to using terms like "man" and "Mrs Eddy", to many contemporary readers these terms sound sexist and quaint respectively!89.100.141.143 21:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The is nothin wrong with saying "Man" or "Mrs. Eddy". The term "Man" refers to men and women alike. "Mrs. Eddy" is used because it is more respectful and "Mary" is too comman of a name.Codyhendrix4207 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)codyhendrix4207

Title Ambiguity: Christian Science & Church of Christ, Scientist
I was reading an article on Leopold and Loeb, the serial killers. In it it touches on the ethnicity and religion of them both, which states (excerpt in full to retain context): -


 * The point of the ethnicity and religion of killers and victim is something that requires further explication. It is often written about this case that "both the killers and their victim were Jewish." However, it might be more accurate to say that both were perceived as Jewish by the larger, gentile world. Richard Loeb was not Jewish by birth according to ancient Hebrew tradition since he had a non-Jewish mother (she was a German Catholic) but his last name meant that people thought of him as Jewish and he had been raised in that faith. The Franks family was Jewish by ethnicity but had converted to Christian Science. Nathan Leopold was Jewish on both sides of his family. However, he did not practice that religion, or any other, having been an atheist since he was about 11 years old.

Now the date of this murder was in 1924, how common would it have been for Christian Science as a religion in Chicago at that time? Furthermore, what would be the rates of Jewish conversion to a 'Christian cult' as it was percieved at that stage? Also, this article states in it's opening paragraph that Christian Science is a teaching derived from a book published in 1934.

Where does one's mind go? The author is lying or inaccurate? Surely a highly known crime reporter wouldn't dare .. or more often than not, Wikipedia is wrong or inaccurate. In this instance the ambiguity is rife. To someone who does not know anything about 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' they would be coming to this article. Gramatically, such a title for a church is very, very odd indeed, I cannot think of any organisation named similarly. I may be not understanding the nomenclature in context again, but at the end of the day, that's even more ambiguity in these articles as I am an outsider trying to learn more (ie: the use of an encyclopedia).

The 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' church page states, "The Church of Christ, Scientist, often known as the Christian Science church" .. if it is often known by the other nomenclature, shouldn't a disambiguation page exist? I would not put a book over a church as far as notability goes, personally I would say this should be a redirect to 'The Church of Christ, Scientist' church page with a disambiguation line atop that page for 'other uses' then citing the book.

Just some feedback as to how this article is going I suppose, it had me -very- confused for a while there. I will syndicate this between both articles talk pages in hopes that perhaps some of the editors can get together and figure out how to make it way less ambiguous. Jachin 23:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The 1934 in this article must refer to a re-edition as the first edition of Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures came out in 1875 and Mary Baker Eddy died in 1910. The British, Roman Catholic born/baptized, aristocrat Lord Lothian became a Christian Scientist before World War I so a Jewish Chicagoan being of the faith does not seem impossible. I don't know the truth of the matter though.--T. Anthony 11:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

A few points in reply (in haste). Jewish converts to Christian Science would not have been uncommon in the 1920s. CS was growing very rapidly then. I don't know whether Franks was CS or not (presume he was the victim in the L/L case?) The title of the CS Church was, I believe, a second choice by MBE (the original choice "Church of Christ" was "taken" by another Christian group and consequently could not be used! Wikipedia is a useful source of background reading but it should be taken with a grain of salt since in principle anyone can edit it. (I'm not sure if a disambiguation page is needed for the nomenclature of the CS church as it is the opposite of ambiguous: a thing with two names rather than a name for two things!!) In regard to the point about putting a book over a church: the book was prior to the church, the church would not exist without the book, there is no mention of the Christian Science church in the book, and Mary Baker Eddy was somewhat ambivalent in her feelings about starting a church in the first place. The relationship between Christian Science and the CS church is somewhat like the connection between philosophy and Harvard University--separate but related. It would make no sense to define one in terms of another. Hope this helps to clarify things.89.100.141.143 20:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the current division of information between articles is ambiguous and confusing. Stepping back from it, much of the material in the article Christian Science might better be put in an article entitled "Christian Science Healing" which is (almost) the entire focus of this article. (Though Christian Science healing is an important feature of Christian Science, and the aspect most apparent to those outside the church, it is not necessarily its most salient feature.) The current article on "Church of Christ, Scientist" (with appropriate refers) might well be altered to reflect the more general history, facts, belief and dogma of the Christian Science Church (similar to other articles on religions or sects.)

...and yes, there were plenty of active Christian Scientists and Christian Science churches in the Chicago area in the 1920s. As a 4th generation Christian Scientist with two grandparents who were practitioners (one also a CS lecturer) raised on the Chicago North Shore, I'll attest to that (though in truth I left the church years ago.) Anecdotally there seems to have been a high rate of Jewish conversion, though that may just be my personal experience. Digitalican 14:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If Christian Science healing is, as you state, not necessarily the most salient feature of the CS church, what on earth is?89.100.141.143 20:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't speak for Christian Scientists and certainly don't speak for the Christian Science church. In my experience, however, Christian Science has the same reason as any other religion:  to explain or clarify man's relationship to the divine.  It's set out very well in the Scientific Statement of Being.


 * Christian science certainly speaks to healing and (to my mind) a disproportionate amount of time and energy is spent both critiquing and defending that aspect of the faith. Christian Science also speaks to ethics, to morality, to finding one's place in the world and one's relationship to God.  It speaks to clarity and calmness of thought, to the evils and benefits of worldly success and to dealing with troubles (other than physical illness) in one's day-to-day life.  These are things that most of us spend much more time wrestling with than curing our physical or mental ailments.  These are also aspects of personal life that most other religions speak to in one way or another.


 * As a child, when schoolmates would find out I was a Christian Scientist the standard question was "What happens if you get sick?" My schooled response was "Christian Scientists don't get sick."  Whether or not that is true, if Christian Science as a world-view works, then the Christian Scientist would spend a very small amount of time on physical healing.


 * There's much that's very good about Christian Science. There's also much that's very distorted both in its theory and as it plays out in actual practice.  Most of its advantages and deficiencies have little to do with Christian Science Healing practice.  In that sense I was deeply disappointed in "God's Perfect Child."  From the title, I had hoped that the author understood, and would discuss,  some of the deeper problems in the Faith.  I was saddened to see mostly the same old discussions of the pros and cons of Christian Science healing.  Digitalican 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I assumed you were using the term "healing" in the way it is usually used in Christian Science, i.e. the healing of sin, disease and death (not just physical healing). That covers pretty much everything, imho.89.100.141.143 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what "healing" is supposed to mean in Christian Science, but what it means in Christian Science and how people not versed in Christian Science might interpret it are definitely two different things. These articles aren't about being technically right, but also about being precise and unambiguous to outsiders.  Even then, it's a stretch moving from questions of ethics to "sin, disease and death."


 * Like most subcultures, Christian Scientists have their own usage and jargon which they may be unaware of, and which may not always be clear to outsiders. Part of the NPOV edit, it seems to me, is to clarify and explicate the language. This is, after all, supposed to be an encyclopedia and not a chat board or usenet news group.  Digitalican 19:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Supernatural Healing?
I'm not convinced that Christian Science healing falls into the category of "supernatural healing." No agency beyond the subject (possibly with the aid and encouragement of a Christian Science Practitioner) is involved or invoked in the healing process.

Certainly, Christian Science healing may not work in the way or for the reasons Christian Scientists believe it works, but that's not the issue. "The Placebo Effect" is another case where healing may take place purely through the subject's own resources and belief. I don't think it can be called "Supernatural Healing."

I'm not removing the classification because I'm a newbie here and because I'd like to see some discussion. Digitalican 06:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I thought that they prefered to use Faith Healing instead of actual medicine? That would... make the category under supernatural healing valid wouldn't it? If someone created a category called faith healing, then that would be even better. --Havermayer 06:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not faith healing in the same sense as Benny Hinn. What supernatural power or entity is involved? I've not ever heard Christian Scientists use the term "faith healing" to refer to their process. Digitalican 06:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Supernatural" is an incorrect term. Christian Scientists believe Christian Science healing to be entirely natural, since nature (in its underlying spiritual sense) is under divine control. (What are "unnatural" for Christian Scientists are sin, disease and death!) Spiritual healing, divine healing and Christian healing are all terms that are used by Christian Scientists89.100.141.143 10:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to Criticism
I'm having real problems with this section. It seems to me to be a mix of Christian Scientists' defense of Christian science, ad hominem defense and personal opinions, to wit:

''(and indeed there may be people who have passed on under detrimental or ineffective medical care, who would have lived had they chosen Christian Science treatment). (This may lack specific facts and thus be unverifiable.)''

This seems purely speculative even by its own admission ('may be people...who would have lived') and certainly unverifiable.

Christian Science healing is not reliant on the controversial practice of animal testing,

This would seem true on the face of it (though Christian Scientists non-use of drugs probably does not reduce the amount of animal testing, which is directly related to the number of drugs being developed, not the number of people who use them.) It doesn't, however, seem to be a factual defense in the sense that the Christian Science Church or any verifiable pundit has offered it as a defense.

nor does it involve massive state expenditure on health care,

Again, on the face of it probably true but not really a known reason to use Christian Science Healing. The argument is the equivalent of saying the Christian Science Practitioners are bad because most health insurers won't cover them. (I have no opinion on whether these are good or bad specifics, just that they're not appropriate for an article that deals in facts or at least documentable events and opinions.)

or the risk of "iatrogenic" (physician- or hospital-induced) ailments.

Again, probably true but not a documented defense of Christian Science healing. Bad things happen in hospitals. This is a 'good' reason to stay out of hospitals but that does not imply a defense of Christian Science healing.

Christian Scientists argue that a study of the life of Mary Baker Eddy, taken as a whole, would reveal a sincere and selfless individual--the kind of person whom it would be difficult to imagine falsifying the origin of her teachings.

..and this is an ad hominem defense. (Mary Baker Eddy was, on the whole, good therefore everything that she did was good.)

My argument here is not with Christian Science at all but with the propriety of including this points which seem more like opinion than fact in an article supposed to be factual.

There's more, but these seem to be a point of contention at the moment.

Digitalican 23:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"(Mary Baker Eddy was, on the whole, good therefore everything that she did was good.)" This is a distortion of the argument. No-one is saying everything she did was good.

The point about non-use of animal testing is an indisputable *fact* about Christian Science. It does not need sourcing any more than the statement that the earth revolves around the sun needs to reference Galileo or Copernicus. Similarly, the point aboout iatrogenic medicine. None of these statements constitute original research. They are common knowledge.

BTW, your recent editing of the earlier part of the article itself introduces some new grammatical mistakes. I'll have a go at them when I get some time.Be-nice:-) 15:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My comment is possibly a distortion of the argument, but the basic point still holds. One cannot defend any particular poing by referring to her character as a whole.

I think you're missing the point about animal testing. While I agree it is indisputable that Christian Science healing is not dependent on animal testing, it does not follow that use of Christian Science healing reduces the amount of animal testing. Use of the non-sequiter makes the argument look silly as if you are grabbing at straws.

I won't claim any perfection of grammar. This round of edit was an effort to break up some of the run-on sentences, reduce pronoun ambiguity, and (at least to my mind) provide some clarity. IMHO there needs to be a major rewrite. There's a great deal of redundant information and suffering from "wick-a-wack," the dilution of substance due to the large number of micro-edits on the page. So...Have at it! :) Digitalican 15:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This section appears more like the speech of a newbie debater who has tried to include both the positive and negative aspects of the same thing in a debate. I feel that this section must sound more supportive, while all the non supportive part can be transfered to the criticism.

Nine months down the pike this section still seems full of ad-hoc defense and non-sequiters. Unless there's strong objection I'm going to delete it and/or distribute its points out where they belong. I'm still of the strong opinion that articles here are to be sources of fact, not argumentation. Digitalican 18:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words
I think its almost impossible to avoid the use of weasel words in the sections "Criticism" and "Response to Criticism", as without them these sections will lack proper foundations, due to the fact that they are sections meant to be used with weasel words. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.92.172.127 (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Church's Views on Homosexuality
"Homophobic attitudes which may once have existed in the Christian Science movement have largely disappeared, at least at the level of the main (Boston) organization."

I removed this sentence from the article because it presents a statement that attempts to address the viewpoints of such a wide range of individuals that it's basically useless without some kind of reference.

Some are listed, but not organized or vetted, below:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chsc.htm

"Evil"
A lot of this article currently seems to be about how Christian Science views evil as non-existent, and expresses considerable confusion on this point. I am not a CS practitioner but this theological issue has been explored in every branch of Christian thought and is explained thus: Evil is merely the relative lack of love, as darkness is merely the relative lack of light. There is no such thing as dark or cold, they are just the negation of their opposites. Absolute zero is the complete absence of heat. So it is with evil.

(The above paragraph is an unsigned post by someone other than me.)

As a former Christian Scientist, I agree that the above is an accurate characterization of CS' view of evil. It should be added to the article with proper references. I also think the following (from the article) is not consistent with CS:

''To answer the question of whether God punishes evildoers, Christian Scientists would say that the illusion of evil punishes itself. As long as a person continues to act evilly, desires to do so, or does not forgive him/herself or others, suffering will be the result.''

Since evil, including evil behavior, is theologically impossible in Christian Science, I would propose the following instead:

''To answer the question of whether God punishes evildoers, Christian Scientists would say that it is not possible to do evil, or want to do it. Since everyone is made in the image of God and thus perfect, all such motives and acts are in fact illusory. Therefore evildoers are not punished because they do not exist.''

Then again, is it right to say that "Christian Scientists would say" anything? It may be more encyclopædic to say "Christian Science theology responds" or something like that. Crasshopper 03:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 64.186.34.244
Further vandalism by 64.186.34.244 will be reported to Grand Rapids Baptist Schools (Grand Rapids, Michigan) as indicated by the ownership of the IP address (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.186.34.244). Misguided attempts to work in this manner against organizations you define as cults are not helpful. They reflect poorly upon your character and Christians in general. --Do go be man 19:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

"Christ"
I'm about to add a section on The Christ and the Trinity as viewed in Christian Science. Just thought I'd field any questions before moving forward. Simplywater 18:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Dissension
I dispute the following from Dissension subsection:

"Such dissenters often point to certain 'estoppel' clauses of the last Church Manual issued by Mary Baker Eddy before her death which, had they been interpreted literally, would have led to a radical decentralization of the Christian Science Church. The issue has involved the Church in repeated litigation brought by dissenters, most prominently between 1919-22, when a group of Trustees of the Christian Science Publishing Society filed a suit against the Christian Science Board of Directors.[8]"

Is that suit the most prominent? There was a big controversy in '89 over the Knapp book and its advice for church management, and the Monitor's venture into television was a big deal as well, with more dollar signs attached to it.

I don't think the Researched Bible Lesson crowd in Florida is officially recognized either.

Someone who went to Principia and took the History of Christian Science course should contribute to selecting the most important dissent. Crasshopper 03:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate (ineffective) Edits
From time to time, editors add comments of an inappropriate nature to this and other articles related to Christian Science. While the spirit of some of those comments may often be accurate, they do not belong in a Wikipedia article that should be encyclopedic in nature.

Additionally, many of those comments are ineffective in raising awareness of the problem which such editors appear to be attempting to address. As one of the most vocal critics of CS on the Internet, I well understand their desire to express their beliefs regarding Christian Science. I invite them to visit the Christian Way web site and forums - [www.christianway.org]. --Do go be man 14:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

should we remove this paragraph...
i have no idea what this author was trying to intent with this paragraph

""(Asking the question, for Christian Scientists, is like a mathematician spending his/her time trying to work out where the illusion that 2+2=5 came from – a waste of time that gets one nowhere and indeed postpones the solution of the problem.) ""

i sounds like vanalism to me —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Law & Order Episodes
Some episodes of this show depict this religion in a negative format. This should be added. 65.163.112.104 (talk) 22:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In one episode, the parents of a ill girl(the girl later died)ended up in JAIL for practicing their faith. 65.163.112.104 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why is Template: Wikipedia Rational Skepticism at the top of this page?
This article is about a religion. I don't find this template on other religious, such as Mormonism, Catholicism, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity Church, New Thought, Religious Science, etc. This template should be removed. I see that many of the religions cited have Wikiprojects of their own and/or are part of the Wikiproject on Christianity. Why not a Wikiproject on the Christian Science religion? clariosophic 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good point, particularly considering the comments about pseudoscience above. It's gone. Let's see what happens. Digitalican 20:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Christian Science tenets, prayers, and statements
I have created the article: List of Christian Science tenets, prayers, and statements and propose to delete the material covered in it from this article with a see also link. According to Wikipedia this article is getting too long and needs to be trimmed. This is one way to do it. I have also split out the three quotes in this article into their own section. Before I delete anything, I would like some feedback. Thank you. clariosophic 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The 3 quotations have been deleted but people keep deleting the transfer notice I have put in. The first deletion appears to have been vandalism because the user replaced the section with "jack was here." Here is the subsection in question:

Christian Science tenets, prayers, and statements
This section has been tranferred to List of Christian Science tenets, prayers, and statements clariosophic 21:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get more feed back, but I feel it was a great idea to create a separate page for the list of CS tenets, prayers and statements.

Citations?
Where the heck are the citations for this? I read, like, less than one paragraph, and half of it was unbiblical and unscientific. So where the heck is this junk coming from? And what is the definition of Christian 'scientist'? What makes them different than a pastoral figure?

merge from Christian Science practitioner
The article Christian Science practitioner has some discussion of Christian Science - I can't see why it's a separate article. I think it should be merged in here. Comments, anyone? --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 10:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Merged as a section, perhaps, but with a reference for those searching "CS Practitioner" that points to this main article.
 * Agree. --Duncan 22:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. --SimonATL 03:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A Christian Science practitioner is someone who is in the full-time healing ministry of praying for individuals as taught in the theology of Christian Science. The practice or application of the metaphysics of Christian Science and those that practice it is but a distince subset of the much larger subject of Christian Science, itself.  Merging the topic Christian Science practitioner and what the practitioner does or practices makes no more sense than merging medical doctor with what it is that the doctor practices or does, medicine. Based on my point, that the idea of a merger of the articles, Christian Science and Christian Science Practitioner is patently absurd on it's face, this editor is removing the suggestion. SimonATL 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I agree with the points SimonATL made above.  I think it's pretty clear-cut and I don't see any good justification for the argument to merge them. Cazort 21:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I vote no to merging. This article is pretty factual in its presentation. It would be lost in the main article which seems to me to be a hodge-podge of opinions and arguments. The main article could be improved by more cutouts such as this article that deal with specifics. My parents were both CS practitioners, one listed in the Journal and one not. They both went through class with teachers who had been taught directly by Mary Baker Eddy. I was a member of both the Mother Church and a branch church, but I am now an Episcopalian. I am not a defender of the Christian Science religion, but I cringe at the lack of a NPOV by some opponents as well as by some proponents. clariosophic 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the merger notice from November 2006 in the CSP article, since it is 3 to 1 against merging. clariosophic 21:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)