I was raised in a Christian Science family. Fortunately, I survived.

I still struggle with this religion because my mother continues to be a devout adherent despite the fact that she has been unable to speak for almost two and a half years due to some un-diagnosed ailment.

I cannot in good conscience characterize Christian Science as a cult -- in my experience it lacks the 'encouraged' isolation and intense in-group only socialization that characterizes cults. Christian Science specifically discourges socialization within the church context -- there are no ceremonies of baptism, though formally joining the Church in Boston is greeted with strong subdued approval if you make it known you've done so.

So, cult, no.

Destructive? Yes. No doubt. Without question.

I have to wonder about any faith that requires such an intense degree of denial in order to live with in it. And demands the martyrdom of self and family (particularly children) if one wishes to remain a 'true follower'.

I do think that part of what happens with Christian Science, though, is that the core of the theology plays easily into the psychology of people who are by nature inclined to extremism, and allows them to easily wander down the garden path into fanaticism. Certainly, the primary focus of their religious practice, as I saw and continue to see it being implemented, is intense solitary study.

That is perhaps the most archtypal image I have of my mother, and of the other Christian Science people I have visited --- a figure sitting in the total quiet of the early morning or late evening, with their bible and science and health, and weekly reader in hand.

In a way, Christian Science people are uniquely isolated even within their congregations -- any appeal for solace or aid or comfort will be met with an admonition to read certain passages in the science and health, and to concentrate on the "Truth". In dire situations, one might turn to a practitioner, who will read on ones behalf, and concentrate on the "Truth", and perhaps spend a half an hour or so on the phone explaining to one what the "Truth" of a situation is, and which passages should be read in order for one to truly understand it.

I experienced it as a lonely, desolate faith, predicated on the complete denial of physical reality and human experience, and couched in a jargon of superiority.

Penny

Hi Penny
I grew up raised in the Christian Science faith. I never really understood it, and I felt as though I was brainwashed sort of. I even ended up going to the college for Christian Scientists. Right now I am a non-practicing CS. Here is an email I sent a friend who is a CS working at the church struggling with an on/off relationship with an ex-CS who has gotten himself involved with drugs. My friend is struggling with compromises - the clash of upholding CS practices and the reality of life in a relationship with someone she thinks she loves.

I believe you can still maintain your practice of Christian Science while being with someone who does not follow it as much as you do. I seem to have a very different perspective regarding the principles of Christian Science. In a way, I act christianly everyday towards others, and in that way I express the religion I was raised in. I have a respect for doctors, and other medical related professionals, because in their own way they are caring for millions around the world that need attention physically, emotionally or even mentally. I have always struggled with understanding Christian Science, and find myself questioning it's practices. There is a difference between it's theology and it's practices. I admire it's theology, find it very inspirational, but I'm not 100% sold on it's practices. For instance, the pre-marital sex, no doctors, having an occasional drink. First of all, like you said, once you have started (sleeping with him) it is hard to go back to not sleeping with him. My perspective on this is that this is one of the pre-requisites to see if you're right for each other. I mean it need's to be a complete package, and you need to trust your partner on that too. This is why I dis-agree with my mom so much when she knew we were sleeping together before we were technically engaged. Look if you really want to get to know your partner, may as well know all about him. So far as the no doctors, or no medical attention, I have witnessed first hand the aid they provide. Sure prayer and healing helps in speeding up the progress, however, the reality of it all is that our bodies are chemical reactors continually working to keep us healthy. So far as no alcohol, look - both you and I have had a few drinks. I don't feel guilty about it either. I admit it. I have maybe one or two drinks a month. They are good, and it is relaxing after an extremely stressful day at work dealing with deadlines. So long as you are a very loving, caring individual, who works hard, my attitude is that you're doing well. OK that is enough lecture for me. In life I have found two basic things.... Everything that happens - happens for a reason and in order to live and let live, you need to make compromises in a relationship

To me I feel that there is reality then there is the "Christian Science Bubble"[/b]

I once asked a Christian Scientist, if the body is not real, then what does it matter what I put into it?

I admire much of the work that Mrs. Eddy did. Some of my favorite quotes are from Mary Baker Eddy. ("When you have eliminated all fear, teh patient is healed.") One of my big problems with her and with CS, however, is her insistence that hers is the final revelation.

Note to Mary: There is no final revelation.

Thre was a woman named Emma Curtis Hopkins who was Mrs. Eddy's pick to be editor of the Christian Science magazine. However, Emma started putting articles in the magazine that went beyond where Mrs. Eddy wanted to go. So she fired Hopkins, who then went out on her own. To her dying day, Emma Curtis Hopkins called herself a Christian Scientist, but she essentially moved beyond CS. She became the teacher of several people who started their own metaphysical movements, such as Ernest Holmes, founder of Religious Science; Charles and Myrtle Fillmore, founders of Unity; and the Brooks sisters, co-founders (with Malinda Cramer) of Divine Science. (Reportedly, Bill Wilson, founder of AA may have studied with Emma also, but I have been unable to find confirmation of that.)

These groups are loosely bunched as the New Thought movement. Hopkins is referred to as the "mother of New Thought."

New Thought shares much with Christian Science, but believes that the body is real, not the ultimate Truth, but quite real. You cna drink and go to doctors, and Religious Science Practitioners, unlike Christian Science Practitioners, do not claim credit for the healings they facilitate. ("Of myself I do nothing; it is the Father within who doeth the work.") New Thought is much more open to new revelation and continually updating. it is less hierarchical, more individual. It has very little, if any, doctrine, except the power of our thoughts to bring about actual changes in our lives. "Change your thinking, change your life" is the fundamental principle.

Christian Science is one of its roots, but not the only one.

Its not so much about the specific Beliefs of each sect, but how the organizations are set up.
Christian (anti)Science is really a very authoritarian group, and this all comes from good old Mary, who ruled with a Rod Of Iron.

I think the beliefs of Christian Antiscience are dangerous, especially in terms of health care.

But people can hold all sorts of New Thought ideas, and not be involved in a cultish group.

But the New Thought type ideas are PERFECT for a cultish group.
Why?
Because part of the BS (Belief System) is that YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE 100% FOR IT TO WORK.
So if you DOUBT it won't work.

So that's the trick right there. It gets rid of doubt and analysis.

You have to believe 100% with NO DOUBT in order to get the Demonstration.

That is the cultic thinking right there. Its a Catch-22, which is a perfect mechanism to entrap people.

Christian "Science" is not science in the least. It is Antiscience.
I will leave it to theologians to determine if it is Christian. Some would call it blasphemy.

But it is NOT science, or scientific.
She just picked that word "science" as it has a certain power.
Science refutes the claims made by CS.
Where are the hundreds of objective, controlled scientific studies validating the claims of CS? There should be hundreds after all these years.
I do not know of ANY. ZERO.
I mean proper, controlled, double-blind tests made at universities, etc.

Think of the irony.
CS says don't see doctors!
Well, doh!
Modern Medicine has evolved using the scientific method, and the methods of science. Its called Medical Science as it is based on real science and evidence.

Doh!!!!!

that is why it is Christian Antiscience, and i am not sure about the Christian part...

Christian Science had a great flare back in the 1890. Think about it. Unlike today where there as been a surge for science and technological advances, back then the medical field was just starting, and the medicines did not hold much promise. Then all of a sudden, a woman starts a religion that held promise of permanent healing. Combining the two words Christian and Science was her ingenious marketing scheme. Christian because thats what everyone wanted to be and Science made it seem it had validation, proof, the TRUTH. It was postive thinking that drew the people in, it was the promise that no matter what your problem was, Christian Science was the answer to your permanent cure, and you can avoid taking drugs and medicine.

Christian Science, unless you plan to follow it to the tee, and be a Mary Baker Eddy wanna-be, is not for you. After all she even states in her books that if you do not follow the Christian Science practices exactly, it will never be practiced correctly.

I am at the beginning of my departing Christian Science...It is difficult and challenging...For there will always be many concepts about it that will always remain with me.

Quote
Cosmophilospher
But the New Thought type ideas are PERFECT for a cultish group.
Why?
Because part of the BS (Belief System) is that YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE 100% FOR IT TO WORK.
So if you DOUBT it won't work.

Actually, that's inaccurate. The principle is that it works exactly as you belive it to work.

No New Thought organization demands that you believe any particular thing. The only real principle is "God is all there is." Form that, all else follows.

Quote
frogs25
Christian Science had a great flare back in the 1890. Think about it. Unlike today where there as been a surge for science and technological advances, back then the medical field was just starting, and the medicines did not hold much promise. Then all of a sudden, a woman starts a religion that held promise of permanent healing. Combining the two words Christian and Science was her ingenious marketing scheme. Christian because thats what everyone wanted to be and Science made it seem it had validation, proof, the TRUTH. It was postive thinking that drew the people in, it was the promise that no matter what your problem was, Christian Science was the answer to your permanent cure, and you can avoid taking drugs and medicine.

Christian Science, unless you plan to follow it to the tee, and be a Mary Baker Eddy wanna-be, is not for you. After all she even states in her books that if you do not follow the Christian Science practices exactly, it will never be practiced correctly.

I am at the beginning of my departing Christian Science...It is difficult and challenging...For there will always be many concepts about it that will always remain with me.

This is exactly my problem with Christian Science. It's not allowed to evolve beyond the ideas of Mrs. Eddy, whereas New Thought, which evolved partly from CS and resembles it in many of its better aspects, remains open at the top, willing to take in new insights and new ideas to work with its principles. It is not a fixed doctrine.

If you are evolving out of Christian Science, a New Thought organization such as Religious Science/Science of Mind, Unity, Divine Science, the Universal Foundation for Better Living, or any of the other New Thought organizations, might be of interest to you. There would be a certain degree of comfort for a Christian Scientist, but most of the "stuff" is gone.

That was Emma's influence.

There is lots of info about "Emma Curtis Hopkins" on the net. Do a google search of that term.

[www.google.com]

By 1886 she was a practitioner in Chicago, but excommunicated by Mrs. Eddy in 1887 & again in 1888 along with Julius Dresser.
". . . for being Mind-quacks who were spreading abroad patchwork books, false compendiums of my system crediting some ignoramus or infidel with teaching they have stolen from me. The unweaned suckling whines while spitting out the breast-milk which sustained him . . . "

How sweet.

The founders of AA also appear to have been familiar with this belief system, as they are linked with Emmet Fox, another New Thought promoter.
[www.aabibliography.com]

It all really boils down to the same thing.
That you can "create reality" with your "thoughts", or by unifying your thoughts with "God".

To me this is just a mental trap.
As the only way to get it to work, they say, is to believe 100% and have no doubt.
If its not working, and you are sick, etc, then it is YOUR FAULT for not believing hard enough. If you believed better, you would be better.
So you cannot entertain doubt, and must believe 100% no matter what is happening.

So to get it to work, then you must believe 100% for as long as it takes.

This is madness.
There is no proof that it works in the way it claims.
Where is the evidence after 100 years?
Not stories, not anecdotes, not lies.
Where is the PROOF?

I don't know of any, other than perhaps some things that are accounted for in hypnosis and self-suggestion.

Do you see the mental trap of all these New Thought systems?
You have to believe 100% to get it to work, if you doubt or question, then you will fail, and stay sick and die, etc.

Well this is the PERFECT system to start a cult.
It gets rid of all doubt and questioning.

Now we all know that critical thinking and questioning are the healthiest things on earth.

So what they are advising is pretty much the unhealthiest way of thinking that i can think of. They are encouraging Delusional Thinking, and denying reality.

Healthy thinking is the exact opposite. Its balanced, flexible, REALISTIC, and reality-tested. You get psychologically healthy when your thinking is attuned to reality, not to some metaphysical delusion.

Eddy had it right.
MIND-QUACKS.
And that includes her and the rest of them.
Mind-Quacks.
Thx Mary for the great term!

Mind-Quacks spinning a Catch-22 mental trap.

Coz

Here is a fun chart, i have no idea if it is accurate.

New Thought History Chart
[websyte.com]

By the way, i spent many years lost in this maze of New Thought, and stepped out of it over 10 years ago, thanks to having the courgage to engage in some critical thinking and skepticism.

The bottom line is this.
There was this dude named Quimby, who basically did what we now call "hypnosis" on people, and got some results.
(relaxation, concentration, suggestion, repetition)
He taught this to Mary Baker Eddy, and then she went with it, of course denying it was hypnosis, and projecting her own religion onto it.

The bottom line is that whatever "hypnosis" is, it does appear to produce certain results, and healing in certain people.
There is a huge literature on this, and Milton Erickson for example was a famous hypnotherapist.

So instead of going on for 10,000 pages, in my view the bottom line is that people give themselves AUTOSUGGESTION, and in certain cases it WORKS, within biological limits. (very important point).
This is the same thing behind Christian Science, New Thought, Unity, Science of Mind, and all the rest of them.

Now there appears to be some fancy mumbo-jumbo being sold called Process New Thought, where they are trying to bamboozle you with some "Quantum Physics". Watch out for that, they are trying to confuse you (and themselves) with fancy scientific sounding words!! Sound familiar?
;-)

To me it comes down to this.
YES, we can influence our lives, and even our health, to a degree, by the quality of our Thinking. That is what Cognitive Therapy is all about.
And Hypnosis has shown that our unconscious mind can do some pretty amazing things.
But that is basically as far as it goes.
Olympic athletes use visualization and hypnosis, but as you will notice, their gains are quite small at that level. This is why many of them use drugs.

It all boils down to what is the nature of the human mind.
In my view, all of these beliefs systems have made the error of taking some effects from AUTOSUGGESTION, and then jumping to the conclusion that they could have the Powers of the Christ!

In my view, WHY people do this is explained by Joseph Campbell and the power of myth, and his book Hero With A Thousand Faces. Its really a similar idea to that of Atman, in Hindu philosophy.

So its a confluence of errors, and it can be very tricky to get yourself out of it.

So you don't have to give up ALL of it.
Just the nutty supernatural parts.

And if you want to believe that you can have Superpowers one day, and Live Forever, well then turn to some of the new scientific breakthroughs that are beginning to happen.
Technology expands our powers.
Computers expand our mental powers.
Medical Science is extending our lives.

Maybe one day in the future science will figure out how to slow aging, and engage in genetic engineering, etc.

But in my view, in a very oversimplified way, all of these New Thought systems have made the same error.
They have taken the effects of Autosuggestion, and then have jumped to the conclusion that ALL Things Are Possible.
Nothing wrong with some Autosuggestion and Visualization, and even some Faith and hypnosis.
But REALITY TEST it, or you are going to get caught up in a mental prison, and the next thing you know you stop seeing your doctor, etc. That is just DUMB. Medical science can be VERY effective. This ain't 1890 anymore.
So use science first, and also use some autosuggestion and visualization, and all that fun stuff.
But keep it real, or its very easy to slip off into La La Land, and think if you only "believed enough", then your cancer would vanish, the blind would see again, the lame walk, and what the hell, even the dead will be raised!
What is ironic, is that the blind and lame are being healed, but by MEDICAL SCIENCE, not by mind quacks.
Hey, medical science even has brought many people back from after their heart stopped, or were frozen.
So The Prophecies are true, just that the scientists are the ones doing the work. Not the Mind Quacks.

Of course there is 10,000x more to it than that.
I could write a book on this subject.
Too bad i didn't have more Cosmic Mind Power, then the book could write itself.

Coz

PS, this is also basically the same stuff behind the New Age Kabballah, and even other cults who claim that one day their followers will Create Reality, and have supernatural powers.
Same stuff, different metaphors, same errors.