This testifier uses the phrase outspoken infidel to describe himself. Today, I would call this one of the following (as lifted from wikipedia):
Deist, Atheist, Skeptic, or Agnostic
I’m not offended when people believe something else, or not believe anything at all. They should follow their heart, wherever it takes them. However, when someone is outspoken (even me), it means they can’t listen to anyone else, including God.
I know that things which I did and thought last year I would not do or think this year, and am satisfied.
The first testimony today includes the thought that the writer lost all bad habits as a result of reading Science and Health. I can’t say the same but I can say I’m becoming more aware of what they are.
For right reasoning, there should be but one fact before the thought, namely, spiritual existence. [492:3-4]The writer says this is a quote from the book but I can’t find it. Am I missing it? If you know where this quote is in Mrs. Eddy’s writings, please let a comment.
The testimony in today’s reading described the person's healing then the refusal of friends to acknowledge it. This reminded me that our spiritual journey, each of us individually, is a private journey. While we travel along the same road at times, where we start and where we end up is for each person to know.
All pain left me, I had a glimpse of the new heavens and the new earth, and was beginning to be fed by Love divine.
When I awoke I was a different person, all pains and aches had gone, and I was free. I was so happy I could hardly contain myself, to material sense if was wonderful. As I walked I kept saying, “Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful,” and tried to understand “the scientific statement of being” by repeating portions at a time, then pondering over them. I read the book four times in succession, and every time I found more and more to aid in the understanding.
far more grateful am I for the spiritual teaching to love, to forgive, to curb my tongue, and cease my criticism
I never thought of such a thing as being healed by the reading of the book, but my thought was so changed that I was healed
Today’s testimony has a way with words. The first idea is:
I have been able to overcome many errors.
Other testimonies mention health or physical healings but this testimony is more accurate. Then the person had to move away from the East Coast for a change in climate. While he might have been thinking about moisture or cold, in truth, it was a new mental climate he was looking for. Then he read Mary Baker Eddy’s quote regarding food:
neither food nor the stomach, without the consent of mortal mind, can make one suffer
The consent of mortal mind is us, me. We have to consent to error in order for error to be effective. I’ve been watching my thinking very closely to see where it runs away from spirituality. Not pulling it back in is another form of consent.
Well, not too many days left in this year. Good holiday to all of you. The last testimony today reminded me that I have had a healing this year. He states:
I have lost nothing, I have sacrificed nothing; but I have gained everything
One of the healings the testimony states is “the drink habit.” Alcohol. I’ve been drinking since I was a kid. I’m not bragging, just saying it was a regular habit – steadily and at times too much. I wanted to be healed of it which is different than just stopping. I’ve been praying about it. It isn’t the reason I started this project but it is one of the issues I wanted healed. Some time in the spring, I just lost interest. Now, so many months later, I realize the appetite for it is gone. As well as the interest in its affects. And I lost nothing, sacrificed nothing.
The second testimony is, in many ways, timeless. A man leaves the small-town environment, used to leaning on God via prayer for guidance. Heads to the big CITY. Is determined to continue with God and prayer. Somehow gets off track. Regrets. Comes back to God through prayer.
Every story like this has two points to not be forgotten. God never left you so at any moment you can return. You never lost the ability to pray. It isn’t a calculus formula to remember. It’s yours forever.
The testimony in this reading gave me an idea about time, which I’ve been praying about this year. The story is from a seventy-one year old man, and is about an injury that happened while outside cutting wood on his table saw in the winter. He uses the phrase,
I never lost an hour from the hurt.
When I think of time regarding a healing, I usually want the healing to be quick and take little time (don’t we all). So there is the first kind of time: spent working toward a healing in prayer. But he mentions a second time: lost from regular activities while praying. Of course, this quote came to mind:
No loss can occur from trusting God with our desires…[1:11]
I didn’t really connect these two ideas until this testimony. What a wonderful reading.
This testimony is wonderful. At the end, the person is not talking about physicality but what mental changes have happened. The person starts with the actual change:
All that I had to give up were the false beliefs of mortal mind.
And then the list of benefits is set out:
The two ideas of influence and offence are my own little (or not so little) tests I have been working on. Yesterday had made a little headway with each but I’m grateful for this testimony as a reminder to stay with the work.
The title of this post is part of the first testimony of the section. When I read that phrase I could understand what the person meant. Many people would ask why does that need to be healed. I’m going to assume the person testifying was an itinerant personality who had no sense of permanent home or purpose. I don’t mean a physical home and job. There are plenty of life hackers out there who don’t need that and do not have a restless sense of existence. I mean the person that isn’t satisfied, happy, fulfilled regardless of how much or how little they have.
Here’s the problem. The restless sense is a symptom of lack of trust in God that your life and purpose will unfold as it should. This can manifest in many ways: lack of confidence in yourself, lack of love for others, aimless search for fulfillment.
There is a peace to be found in listening and reflecting God.
This testimony is wonderful. It does a couple of things. First it says the healing took place without understanding, more of a belief. Then sometime later, after her life changed for the better, she wanted to understand it. So she read again.
What I like about this is that she didn’t say belief was enough, she didn’t give up, and she didn’t expect to return to the old ways. Sometimes walking the road doesn’t seem like enough but as long was we don’t stop and we don’t turn back, we will discover where we were headed all along.
One of the testimonies mentions daily study as part of Christian Science. I feel confident that this one point among just a very few others is a sticking point for some. I know it is for me. The lesson takes about 20 minutes to read. That’s all. How is it always hard to find 20 minutes to sit down and do that?
In the beginning of someone’s learning and practice the 20 minutes are a joy but like all repetition, at some point we slack. I think I don’t need it. I can skip one day. In truth, the idea isn’t that you need to have some daily religious repetition but that we need to constantly remember that God is our parent and we are the perfect reflection -- that there is only one God. Daily existence has a way of throwing up distractions to the point that a daily dose of spiritual uplift is necessary. The very moment we begin to think we can’t love or are unloved, we need to turn back to the books and look again.
I grateful for all the outlets we have to study the lesson at our leisure and in a format that is easiest for ourselves.
I’m so grateful for Christian Science and these testimonies. When I was younger, I didn’t enjoy the testimony section of the Sentinel. Now, it is the first place I start.
Two things I will keep in mind today:
a few minutes every day for about a week (total reading time before healing)
I am quite free from all those material laws
The testimony includes a description of the person’s state of mind:
I had a lot of worry, one disappointment after another, and I often thought that life was not worth living.
And then ends with:
My one aim now is to live Christian Science, not in words only, but in deeds, loving God more and my neighbor as myself, and following meekly and obediently all our Leader’s teachings. Words cannot express my gratitude to Mrs. Eddy for Christian Science.
Many times in our modern western society, people assume that medicating depression is the only solution. One person explained it to me as fixing the internal plumbing. I am so glad that a testimony directly addressed it.
Many testimonies in Fruitage recount how eye sight or eye difficulties were healed. I have my own troubles with my eyes and this is one of the areas I have be working on all year. My prayer was in the nature of to see every perfect as God see’s them and to love them. But I was taken with the first testimony’s wording as a line toward healing:
I can truthfully say that “whereas I was blind, now I see” – through an understanding of Truth I have found my sight perfect as God gave it.
Christian Science has proved to be an ever-present help, not only in overcoming physical ailments but in business and daily life. The Bible, which I regarded with suspicion, has become my guide, and Christianity has become a sweet reality, because the Christian Science textbook has indeed been a “Key to the Scriptures” and has breathed through the Gospel pages a sweet sense of harmony.
The testimony today is a story about someone suffering, finding the book, then being healed. Whenever I give a testimony, you can be sure it isn’t as eloquent or well-crafted. Standing up at church, everyone turning to look while I speak, is scary. These testimonies are amazing for the literary quality as well as the detail, spiritual resolution, and healing. Without the craft of the story, the importance of it would diminish. I wonder if people were just better storytellers back then. Anyway, I’ve very grateful for the quality and the meaning of the testimonies.
After reading so many testimonies, probably written in the last 1800s or early 1900s, I’m taken with how difficult it was to obtain this book to read. Most people had to send away for it or borrow it from someone with the strict rule that it be returned when done. This must have made Christian Science appear mysterious.
Now days, you can find out information on just about anything and source material is right there along with third party objective information and opinion pieces.
I’ve updated the About page to contain good links to the book in several places and formats. Some are free. I’m grateful to Mrs. Eddy for writing the book and The Mother Church for making sure it is widely available to all.
As I read these two testimonies, it hit me that the testifiers were writing things that I felt as well. Here are a few:
I am convinced that we cannot do much credit to the cause we profess to love until we place ourselves in a position to prove God as He really is to us individually, and our relation to Him, by scientific work.
I’ve always thought it would be easier to grow spiritually if I went off by myself without the outside world. However, that isn’t really the point and the spirituality gained in private would be easily lost in a challenging public. So I don’t run off but place myself in daily life to work. I’m not saying I work well but I’m not running away from the path in front of me.
And:
After I had once looked into it I wanted to read all the time. I was so absorbed in the study of the “little book” that I hardly realized when the healing came.
I do seem to sit down with the book to catch a few minutes here and there, especially as my day gets harder. Its the first place I turn my thought to. I used to just do more – busy work but that doesn’t satisfy me.
Finally:
I would never part with the book if I could not get another.
I have this book in a paperback, audio CD, mp3, and digital text files. I bought I new phone so that I could keep the digital files (or the Project Gutenberg web page).
This is the first testimony about how reading the book and gaining a more spiritual attitude helped the person in business:
I became more friendly, more honest, more loving to my fellow man, and I also acquired better judgment and was able to do the right thing at the right time.
My faith in good is increased and I know I am losing my belief in evil as a power equal to good. The pathway is not wearisome, because each victory over self gives stronger faith and a more earnest desire to press on.
My life seems to be, at any moment, about to change drastically. I’m on the edge of it and the not-knowing what will happen is griping me. I recognize it as fear and I’m angry with myself for being afraid. I’ve been praying about it because it’s a silly thing to be afraid of change. I know God is taking care of me and my family regardless of what change comes. I’m grateful for one of the testimonies pointing out the action to take and not the reaction to plan for:
We are humbly trying to live the lives that will prove our gratitude to God, and our beloved Leader, Mrs. Eddy.
A gentleman told of an unhappy woman who was about to separate from her husband. This gentleman had asked her if she did not love her husband. She replied, “No; when I married him I did, but not now.” He told her God made man in His image and likeness, and that He is perfect. He said to her, “Go home and see only God’s perfect man; you don’t need to love a sinful mortal such as you have been looking upon.”
Most of the testimonies give as fact the only reason the person read the book is because the medical community said a case was incurable. The person had nothing to lose by reading the book. Once they started reading, some a few pages in, some a chapter or two in, felt that the truth in this book resonated with them. It felt natural and right and they agreed with it because it was what they had felt the truth was before they picked the book up and read it.
I don’t know if other people in other religions feel that way, that the theology so closely matches what they already believed. I supposed it would make sense if they did.
However, in an effort to get even closer to the Truth, I’ve looked at other religions and spiritual practices for myself. I keep coming back to Christian Science because it does reflect what I internally feel the Truth is.
I enjoyed this testimony so much because that is what the called the book: Truth Book.
What I love about these testimonies, apart from the historical details, is the degree of difficulty and the swing toward healing are the same then as they are now. The negative attitudes are even the same:
As the son of a physician, a graduate in pharmacy, and an ex-druggist, I had a perfect contempt for what I thought Christian Science to be.
Of course, once the person is healed, the attitude changes:
It was then I realized that “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.” The “little book” was handed me at this hour of great need. I read it, not thinking it would heal me, but, like a drowning man, I grasped at it. I read it, read it again, and soon found myself growing stronger; then I kept on reading and was perfectly healed of all the supposedly incurable diseases.
Or this one:
I was completely healed, and regained health, strength, and flesh through the spiritual understanding of Christian Science, the result of about six weeks’ study.
Then, added:
While most grateful for the physical healing, my gratitude for the mental and spiritual regeneration is beyond expression.
These two testimonies have something in common. Both testifiers read but a few pages of the book and experienced immediate healings. Both recognized the contents of the book as what they were looking for and that it explained Spiritual Truth.
My focus for today: time, or no time.
A side note: I appreciate the way Fruitage (and the book as a whole) is broken into bits so that I can find a bit of extra or combined meaning. I imagine that wasn’t an easy task but the people involved probably gained great insight into the book.
This has to be the best testimony yet. It is so passionately and clearly stated.
Two of the thoughts in this testimony has that rang true were:
The healing was brought about by the earnest, conscientious seeking for the truth, as contained in the Bible and interpreted by our Leaded in our textbook, Science and Health.
And:
I have also learned that in living and loving is healing realized, and in reflecting divine Love I have the “signs following.”
These three testimonies have such a unique voice and a definite understanding of what they had to overcome to be healed that I had to take note.
In the first testimony:
I was very much prejudiced against the Bible, and my first demonstration over self was to consent to read the four Gospels.
What I love about this is the universal statement if I just blank out some words:
I was very much prejudiced against _______, and my first demonstration over self was to consent to _______.
I understand how self is a barrier.
In the second testimony, the person realized “God was no respecter of persons,” meaning everyone would be treated the same. Then the acceptance of her place:
God has as much for me, if I will accept it.
This statement has two different meanings to me. Either you have to love and forgive yourself enough to accept the healing because you are God’s loved or you have to love God enough to realize he will heal you.
The final testimony concisely noted the healing:
It was a clear case of transformation of the body by the renewal of the mind. I am perfectly well…
Wonderful.
This testimony is wonderful. First of, it is a student or youth and its told in his or her own voice. The initial impression of the book is just how I feel when I read it:
It seemed to me from the first that it was something I had always believed, but did not know how to express – it seemed such a natural thing.
The first testimony mentions how, after being healed in Christian Science, a relative expressed loving gratitude reflected in every word and deed. That was in my thought as I read the second testimony from a husband of the afflicted woman. The gratitude expresses in these testimonies is sincere and comes through easily. I want to make sure I express gratitude for what I have received.
What inspiring testimonies. One says:
Many times I have been enabled to turn to God, to know it was His will to help in trouble, and obtained the needed benefit.
And ends with:
Thus in my experience in Christian Science, I have seen the transformation begun, and Truth is able to perfect that which is begun in me so gloriously.
The second testimony in this section discusses fear and the testifier’s new understanding of fear in terms of Christian Science:
I think I never realized what fear meant until I began to try to put into practice my understanding of Christian Science for our children. I have proved, however, many times, that fear can neither help nor hinder in our demonstration of truth.
She goes on to relate the actual steps she took of going into another room, opening the book and reading aloud to benefit both her child and herself, then singing a hymn.
There are so many times that coming back to the book or some thought from it just sets the course right, quickly.
One thing I noticed about the testimonies is that how many of them are from people who have suffered long and basically given up on being healed. Some have given up on living altogether. But the first testimony, about back pain, started a sentence this way:
One day, however, while out walking…
The thing about these testimonies is that they say they have given up but they hadn’t. After all the doctors, and all the medicine, and all the pain, each person picked up the book and read it.
Each of us in our daily lives need to not give up either – on the big things or the little things. Nothing is too big or small for God.
The testimony had one other thought that I need to lean on each day. The idea is:
…rejoice exceedingly in Christian Science…
Wow. I want and need to do that. Rejoice.
The two testimonies in today’s reading have a couple of pearls in them. In the first testimony, it is stated that the person healed:
applied its [Christian Science] teachings as best I could.
That’s a comfort to know we each grow at our own pace and that is enough.
The second testifier stated the revelation that helped:
God as revealed by Christ Jesus can do everything, that He made everything that was made, that He can and does heal the afflicted.
Words to remember.
The testimony in this reading is about a mother looking for a cure for her son. She began reading the book and soon her son was healed. But not just her son. She was healed as well of issues she hadn’t been praying about.
She wanted to have a better spiritual understanding of her son. But that spiritual understanding applied to her as well. She must have understood this, even if she wasn’t consciously aware of it .
The two testimonies today speak about serious health issues healed just from reading the book. One of the testimonies says:
I have had many good demonstrations during this time, have passed through many a "fiery trial," but this blessed truth has caused me to stand, at times seemingly alone, and God was with me.
“Seemingly alone, and God was with me” stood out. Right now I have a business relationship that is confusing and upsetting. I find it hard to not be angry. I can’t get past that part and feel very much alone.
Going to bed last night and waking up this morning, all I could think about was how to turn my thought around and step past personality. I’ve been thinking if I end the journal before the end of the year by a week or two, what would I work on? Probably the trial. Go back and read it again. I want to realize God is with me, directing me in this challenging relationship.
This reading has something special to offer. At the end of the second testimony, the person writes:
so it is absolutely certain that the healing was entirely impersonal, as was also the teaching, which enabled me to begin at once demonstrating the power of Truth to destroy all forms of error.
The person healed was going to read the book but wait to be healed by a Christian Scientist, meaning someone better informed. But after reading the book, that wasn’t necessary. Nor was it necessary to be class-taught.
The thing about this is, there are many times where I plan how things will happen in my life, whether it’s a healing or a family event or employment, then I will do anything and everything to obstinately see that is what happens. Blinded by my own concept. But here is a person who could put that all aside. And just do it.
Mary Baker Eddy was aware of this type of stubbornness. The opposite of obstinate is here. And here is a post from this blog about Human Will. Things I need to work on.
Today’s testimony is from 1902 when an adult was thrown from a bike and broke an arm. The description of the process the adult used is enough to give me the idea anyone can experience this. From 402:1-7, Mary Baker Eddy says Christian Science is the most skilled surgeon:
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.
As an aside, as I look things up via the concordance, and would change it or add to it, it would be a fun project to take the text of S&H from Gutenberg and feed it into a modern indexing/full-text search program and make that available. Something where readers could add to it and words could be found based on synonyms or antonyms.
The first testimony reminded me that first my mental understanding must change, then, and only then will the physical picture change:
This awakened sense never left me, and one day when walking alone it came to me very suddenly that I was healed, and I walked the faster declaring every step that I was healed.
The tumor began to disappear at once
The second testimony was worded in such a way that I found a new thought, and I am going to put it to use immediately because I have been dealing with this challenge:
As time went on I learned the nothingness of discouragement, and understood in a measure that God is my Life and that all action is in divine Mind.
Discouragement is so sneaky that it’s hard to remember, when I’m in the thick of it, that it isn’t real. I grateful the testimony mentioned this point specifically.
Both testimonies in this section are wonderful.
The first asks:
Am I truly thankful for all the good that has come to me and mine? I try to let my works testify of that;
The second writer gives us a first-hand account of the problem then the healing:
it went entirely out of my thought, for I had a glimpse of all God’s creation as spiritual, and for the time being lost sight of my material selfhood.
It was healed while I was “absent from the body” and “present with the Lord.” This experience was worth a great deal to me, for it showed me how the healing is done.
Fruitage is always such a wonderful read.
In this healing, the testifier is relating a healing of rheumatism. The person mentioned that he or she understood a mental condition needed to be corrected. When I looked up ossification, one of the definitions agreed: “the process of becoming rigidly fixed in a conventional pattern of thought or behavior.”
Vocab:
The terms in this reading forced me to consider my own rites and ceremonies. What veil do I wear and what superstructure of Truth do I expect to find while wearing it?
I wonder how Mary Baker Eddy expected people to use this Glossary. Were the newbies supposed to flip to it while reading the book, in order to understand her text? Or was it meant as an explanation of sorts of Christian Science, a cheat-sheet? I ask that because I didn’t know what Thummim and Urim (MBE definitions) are or how they apply to the book or Christian Science. They seem sort of plopped in here without context or explanation.
How fitting that today I’m studying the serpent. A lie has crept into my life and squirmed into my thought. It was subtly proposed by someone else. Now I’m considering it, sort of. Only because I love this someone.
The serpent is:
This reading has the major definitions in Christian Science: Man, Matter, Mind, Miracle, and Mortal Mind on page 591.
In the definition of Mind, Mary Baker Eddy uses substance but with a lower-case s. Is this a typo? Substance is one of the synonyms for God and is usually upper-cased. My book is ISBN 0-87952-259-3 and is last released in 2000.
I’m thinking of creating another page for this site that would link up the words in the Glossary to their location over on Spirituality.com. The link to the page would show up in the right-hand upper side, along with the links for Home, About, etc. Thoughts?
There are so many names in this reading. Places, people, God. It made me think how sometimes, after something bad has happened to a certain person or at a certain place, that the name is tainted in our thought. Any time we hear the name, even unrelated, we thing of that awful, sad event.
The thing I like about the dual definitions is that a person or place can be redeemed in our thought. That the negative connotation can be removed by looking toward the spiritual and away from the past.
I need a good online source for Bible Characters that is non-denominational. Do you use one you would recommend?
There seem to be a lot of definitions for God and error in the glossary – different shades, different meanings – but the same overall concept. I didn’t expect that. This reading includes Heaven and Hell below:
HEAVEN. Harmony; the reign of Spirit; government by divine Principle; spirituality; bliss; the atmosphere of Soul.
HELL. Mortal belief; error; lust; remorse; hatred; revenge; sin; sickness; death; suffering and self-destruction; self-imposed agony; effects of sin; that which "worketh abomination or maketh a lie."
But why did Mary Baker Eddy include the word in?
IN. A term obsolete in Science if used with reference to Spirit, or Deity.
Was she referring to God in Man, soul in body? Then the definition from a Christian Science perspective, makes sense. But, wow, the concept had to have been, maybe it still is, so fundamental to other religions that she felt the need to include “in” and then say it was obsolete.
Yesterday, I marked two definitions, Creator and Devil. Today, two more which seem the same words as yesterday’s words but are defined differently. First is:
GOD. The great I AM; the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-acting, all-wise, all-loving, and eternal; Principle; Mind; Soul; Spirit; Life; Truth; Love; all substance; intelligence.
The second is error. This has, in Christian Science, always been my definition of the opposite of God:
See chapter on Recapitulation, page 472.
A side note, I wish I had this book as an editable and mark-able e-book. I would completely change the index, cross-reference the glossary, and note in-text definitions. Each complete read through, though, I would mark clean otherwise since I’m at a different place each time. If this is already available, please leave a comment below so I can link it up and buy it.
And the text from Recapitulation:
Question.--What is error?
Answer.--Error is a supposition that pleasure and pain, that intelligence, substance, life, are existent in matter. Error is neither Mind nor one of Mind's faculties. Error is the contradiction of Truth. Error is a belief without understanding. Error is unreal because untrue. It is that which seemeth to be and is not. If error were true, its truth would be error, and we should have a self-evident absurdity--namely, erroneous truth. Thus we should continue to lose the standard of Truth.
These two terms, defined, are a great way to look at Christian Science and my own spiritual growth:
CREATOR. Spirit; Mind; intelligence; the animating divine Principle of all that is real and good; self-existent Life, Truth, and Love; that which is perfect and eternal; the opposite of matter and evil, which have no Principle; God, who made all that was made and could not create an atom or an element the opposite of Himself.
DEVIL. Evil; a lie; error; neither corporeality nor mind; the opposite of Truth; a belief in sin, sickness, and death; animal magnetism or hypnotism; the lust of the flesh, which saith: "I am life and intelligence in matter. There is more than one mind, for I am mind,-- a wicked mind, self-made or created by a tribal god and put into the opposite of mind, termed matter, thence to reproduce a mortal universe, including man, not after the image and likeness of Spirit, but after its own image."
I’ve read the Glossary before but, honestly, by this point in the book, on a marathon read, my attention and understanding just weren’t there. But that was before. This is a new, fresh, slower read.
I didn’t realize that some of the terms had two-fold meanings: one spiritual, one material. Of course, it makes sense but when I read the definition of Benjamin (Jacob’s son), I had to read it twice. Then I really slowed down. I didn’t want to miss any tiny nugget that was hiding in a two-part definition.
I thought the definition of believing was wonderful. I added “page 582” to the index for belief. I know Mary Baker Eddy spends some time working through belief, faith, and understanding in the book but the last two aren’t in the glossary so that just means belief, to me, is really the key.
I’ve been thinking about marriage a lot lately so I noted the Bride and Bridegroom spiritual nuggets: spiritual bliss and spiritual understanding.
And, mom-that-I-am, I marked the spiritual meaning of children:
The spiritual thoughts and representatives of Life, Truth, and Love.
I was a little worried about this chapter, The Glossary. It’s just a dictionary. What insight could it really have? But even on the first few pages, I marked a couple of things.
As I read this section, I thought about the classes I took yesterday (unrelated to C.S.). They were about being keenly aware of place and time -- how to put a reader into story place and time. One of the speaker’s advised the audience to be “ruthless in self-examination.” I thought how funny – that’s what I’m studying in Christian Science.
These pages are about getting beyond or without place and time. Holy habitation.
The discussion yesterday was about how the reader must perceive an opinion about place and time from the writer. This grounds the reader in the material story world. In order to drop the materiality in my own life, to reach higher, I need to drop the concept of place and time (and my opinion of it). Of course, the first place and time is home.
I need to work on home:
Think of this, dear reader, for it will lift the sackcloth from your eyes, and you will behold the soft-winged dove descending upon you. The very circumstance, which your suffering sense deems wrathful and afflictive, Love can make an angel entertained unawares.
In this reading Mary Baker Eddy discusses the idea that your consciousness opens, loving and looking toward the spiritual. That this change in direction and movement away from material, reveals the new heaven and new earth.
These are not new ideas but are brought up over again and again in the book.
I thought how a state or stage has a duration. I may be here for a while. It’s funny how much I ask my children to listen to me repeatedly but I don’t ask myself to listen to God nearly enough.
The image of the dragon sending water to wash the woman away is an interesting image. Mary Baker Eddy spends this reading discussing reporting evil as well as good:
Many are willing to open the eyes of the people to the power of good resident in divine Mind, but they are not so willing to point out the evil in human thought, and expose evil’s hidden mental ways of accomplishing iniquity.
Then she advises:
Escape from evil, and designate those as unfaithful stewards who have seen the danger and yet have given no warning.
The book of Revelation is almost completely unfamiliar to me. In reading this chapter, The Apocalypse, I don’t know what is going to happen next in the biblical text. This is the first chapter where I have had to read and re-read to figure out what is going on biblically and from Mary Baker Eddy’s explanation.
The point she makes that I was most unaware of, so far, is that Genesis and Revelation both start with true stories and then proceed with false stories. So just for clarification, where does the true Revelation story start and end? If you know, please comment below.
She comes back to two points that are interesting but have been a while since she mentioned:
What does she mean by touches the hem of Christ’s robe? Is the figurative interpretation that someone reaches out for Christ?
Mary Baker Eddy makes an interesting point at the end of this reading:
Against Love, the dragon warreth not long, for he is killed by the divine Principle. Truth and Love prevail against the dragon because the dragon cannot war with them.
The dragon is at war with Love but he is killed by divine Principle. Materiality cannot destroy an idea. There have certainly been, and still are plenty of dictators, tyrants, and politicians willing to disprove this.
The idea remains.
The great red dragon in the Apocalypse and the talking snake in Genesis are compared in this reading. The great red dragon is scary and standing there waiting to be noticed in his massiveness while the talking snake is just a lowly, snake – almost avoidable.
Mary Bakery Eddy uses the word harmony twice in this reading. I can see how both the snake and the dragon are totally about disrupting harmony. If you get by the snake, there’s always the dragon. You won’t ever make it by him – so he wants you to think.
I marked the questions MBE poses at the top of 563 because when she writes out the issues like that, they seem silly, and I remember they’re silly. Which helps – when I see the dragon.
In this reading, Mary Baker Eddy noted a few points that I wanted to remember:
Today is the first day of the chapter, The Apocalypse. Not my favorite chapter. Mary Baker Eddy makes a point in this reading that when reading this book, at first it will taste sweet when it heals but the Truth, afterward, may be bitter.
I’m either not there yet or past that point. It seems like as I read the book now, I understand it differently every time and I’m having different challenges in my life to apply it to. The whole experience has mellowed into wanting to understand, then understanding.
Although, the farther into the book I get, I’m getting excited -- only because new ideas are jumping out of the text.
Are you in a sweet or bitter moment?
I’ve been working on harmony this year. Several personal situations seem to keep cropping up that show me I have much more work to do. Mary Baker Eddy says harmony is increasing as we rise spiritually:
Christian Science reveals harmony as proportionately increasing as the line of creation rises towards spiritual man, – towards enlarged understanding and intelligence; but in the line of the corporeal senses, the less a mortal knows of sin, disease, and mortality, the better for him, – the less pain and sorrow are his.
She makes in interesting point her. I’ve always thought of ignoring materiality but Mary Baker Eddy pointedly says to know less, instead of ignore. That implies, to me, an active state of refusing to be educated in such areas.
That’s in interesting idea. I’m going to pray on that today.
I’ve been working on two ideas lately: 1) Harmony is all, & 2) Health is all. Harmony and health are, spiritually speaking, the same thing and can easily be synonyms for God. It is easy to confuse material health with spiritual health so an idea from the reading helped to clarify this difference for me [rearranged for meaning]:
Mortal: who made me?
Error: God made you.
The first effort of error has been and is to impute to God the creation of whatever is sinful and mortal; but infinite Mind sets at naught such a mistaken belief.
I need to keep my prayers focused on spiritual health because that is the only kind there is.
Another statement in the reading:
An inquirer once said to the discoverer of Christian Science: “I like your explanations of truth, but I do not comprehend what you say about error.”
This chapter is about the two stories in Genesis. It seems to me if someone picks up this book for spiritual growth, they will understand the significant difference between the two stories. If they are reading this book for a quick and thoughtless healing, they might as well go to a doctor because they aren’t getting the point. But since Mary Baker Eddy does spend so much time on the science of the story, I assume she thinks there might be a third kind of audience reading the book – someone who cares very much about the science of materiality. You can get loads of inspiration or insight if material science if taken figuratively but the true meeting of material science and spirituality is usually a disaster.
From a material source flows no remedy for sorrow, sin, and death, for the redeeming power, from the ills they occasion, is not in egg or in dust.
In the book, Mary Baker Eddy provides several tests with two choices where only one can be correct. These tests are summarized in the two stories: either there is a God and he is all (Gen. 1), or there is only materiality (Gen. 2).
These tests work for me because I know there is a God and I know materiality isn’t all.
She provides another test of this kind in this reading:
Either Mind produces, or it is produced. If Mind is first, it cannot produce its opposite in quality and quantity, called matter. If matter is first, it cannot produce Mind. Like produces like.
In this reading Mary Baker Eddy goes through the idea of generation for an egg or from self-division. She is discussing material creation as well as material, scientific discovery. There are two tones that eek out of the reading. The first is that if you start with birth, you end in death, which is the second story of Genesis. The second is that focusing on material discovery means you miss the spiritual discovery.
At this point, however, even this great observer [Agissiz] mistakes nature, forsakes Spirit as the divine origin of creative Truth, and allows matter and material law to usurp the prerogatives of omnipotence.
I’m going to work with observation and prerogatives today.
I’ve been praying about harmony this year, mostly about my son but there have been other issues. So anytime Mary Bakery Eddy uses that word, I take notice.
We see that man has never lost his spiritual estate and his eternal harmony.
Funny that she uses estate. The thought of both home and substance have been on my mind. I’ll come up with other ideas for estate as I work with this today.
And my sentence with blanks, just to extend the thought:
We see that man has never lost his spiritual _______ and his eternal _______.
What would you put in the spaces?
In this reading Mary Baker Eddy makes a few points about the two stories that I would like to note them:
She makes a point at the end of the reading that Genesis and Revelation
seem more obscure than other portions of the Scripture, because they cannot possibly be interpreted from a material standpoint. To the author, they are transparent, for they contain the deep divinity of the Bible.
I didn’t think much about Christian Science Treatments or know the details until I took class instruction. That isn’t to say the information was secret; I just wasn’t interested in pursuing it. But now that I’m a few days back from annual association of class instruction, and it ended with example treatments, they are on my mind.
These two stories are so clearly different in every possible way. I’m sure there is a scholarly reason for including both, just as the four gospels recount the same stories of Jesus (sort of). But from a figurative perspective, a spiritual perspective, they appear to be parts of an original treatment.
There are two quotes in this reading that hit home for me.
…a material creation which followed the spiritual, – a creation so wholly apart from God’s, that Spirit had no participation in it.
And,
man exists because God exists
I never did like the story of Cain and Abel. It is a childhood disagreement taken to an extreme. We want to teach our children (and people in general) to love then we, as Christians, start with these awful stories from the Bible.
Mary Baker Eddy points out two jobs of Truth:
Then she lists what happens if error is shirked:
The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to [1]perpetuate sin, [2]invoke crime, [3]jeopardize self-control, and [4]mock divine mercy.
This list makes me think MBE probably observed a lot of children because this is exactly what a child does.
I think it is an interesting point that this section becomes a comparison of Cain to Jesus. Mary Baker Eddy doesn’t do it out right, she just ignores Cain, now born, altogether. And only discusses Jesus. That’s really her whole point is to not give the material one second of thought, but only the spiritual.
Point #1
In moral chemicalization, when the symptoms of evil, illusion, are aggravated, we may think in our ignorance that the Lord hath wrought an evil, but we ought to know that God’s law uncovers so-called sin and its effects, only that Truth may annihilate all sense of evil and all power to sin.
This is a good point to remember in Christian Science because while I am in the chemicalization, I may not know what sin is being uncovered. I need to remember I am passing through a chemicalization when the worst of it is upon me and not in an endless mortal situation.
Point #2
The purpose of the Hebrew allegory, representing error as assuming a divine character, is to teach mortals never to believe a lie.
I think, for me, the issue is to remember what the lie is. The little lies are easy to see through. But the one big lie is not.
In this section, Mary Baker Eddy makes several points about this second story that I want to remember.
Well, now. Adam and Eve get a talking to – don’t they. The 2nd Story God lays down the punishment.
The woman will multiply her sorrow, her only desire to serve her husband, and he (her husband) shall rule over her. God just made man the god of woman. So now there are many gods.
Mary Baker Eddy’s response is right on:
Divine Science deals its chief blow at the supposed material foundations of life and intelligence.
The material foundation are not only how man is created but how man and woman are to live, which in Science is in harmony, with only one god – God.
Then God turns to man and says he can’t eat of that tree anymore, man can eat herb of the field, bread. Ok. so why isn’t this passage (Genesis 3:17-19) taken literally if so many religions want to take Genesis 3:16 literally? Just bread for man.
Then Mary Baker Eddy sums up what this 2nd Story God did:
The illusion of sin is without hope or God.
When I read Genesis 3:15 in this section, I couldn’t believe it. I don’t read the second story much accept as it is used in the weekly bible lesson, so I didn’t remember the actual wording. Wow. Those are some powerful and hateful words to attribute to God. No wonder a God of Love isn’t universally accepted.
To me, this just clarifies that it is an erroneous story and the two stories combine to be the first treatment of man.
The Adam dream (the second story) has an interesting figurative twist. Adam believed he would die if he ate the apple and so he hadn’t until woman offered it to him. The death wasn’t material but spiritual. So this story has two lies to tell us. First that we are material, and second we will stay that way.
This reading covers a point I’ve been brooding over, namely what is a sentient being. It was an episode of Star Trek, Next Generation that stuck with me. The gist of that show was, did the machine/person known as Data, have rights as any other person. And the test was: is the being sentient? Of course, the television show had very specific legal wording for the test but the idea was compelling.
I’ve wondered what Mrs. Eddy would say along these lines as I read the book but I now see it’s a false argument, right along with the second story. She summarizes it in this reading with this question:
Was it requisite for the formation of man that dust should become sentient…
The idea of sentient being, in Star Trek (and current culture) assumes materiality as a starting point, and classifies it as sentient or not. In Christian Science, it is assumed no materiality as a starting point for all sentient beings (God’s ideas). Notice I said starting point. That’s what I’m beginning to realize is that this book is the mind shift to the beginning.
I’m beginning to see that only radical science moves me beyond the beginning.
This reading pits the Tree of Life (first story) against the Tree of Knowledge (second story). It might be more clear if the tree were called Material Belief or even False Belief. The idea is that the knowledge that the tree has and imparts is not of God but of false belief. A lie.
I last sentence of the reading is:
Man is God’s reflection, needing no cultivation, but ever beautiful and complete.
Cultivation could be interpreted to mean education (academic, such as college). I have someone in my life who never extends beyond the basics of life and looks down on anyone that does – like me. If given an opportunity, I would be a professional student, always in school learning.
So I wonder if Mary Baker Eddy was worried about the influence cultivation (education) would have on a student of Christian Science. When we open ourselves (and our minds) to an education, we are asking to be influenced with knowledge.
In my opinion, while I don’t think an education is requisite for spiritual growth, education is no different than any danger that we must guard against anywhere. We must listen to God for the right ideas and hold to our own highest sense of right and let that sense of right grow.
In this reading, Mary Baker Eddy uses the term “tribal god.” The idea is that a small group of people could devise a deity to serve some purpose is interesting because in a non-religious way, people do that all the time. We construct beliefs to serve our purpose and explain our circumstance. Kids are great at this because they are so fluid in their determination. One day they like hotdogs, the next they don’t. One day the rainbow is made with crayons in the sky by a giant, the next is a fairy with watercolors. I’m going to start looking for tribal gods in my home and thought and show them the door.
Mary Baker Eddy also asks the questions “Is this addition [material man] to His creation real or unreal?” and “Does Spirit enter dust, and lose therein the divine nature and omnipotence?”
I’ve been thinking about about real and not real, dream and not dream. The idea that my spiritual journey right now it looking for the infinite path, as opposed to taking my first steps on the path is very interesting. I came to this thought from the last few days of mulling over
Even eternity can’t reveal the whole of God.
You might think it doesn’t make a different if I’m looking for the path or on the path but it does to me. I need to know that spiritual progress is an obtainable goal. And while I feel, this year, I’ve made progress – baby steps at the most. I’m not saying I’m discouraged, just that the work to be done is so much more than I expected.
I’ve felt that way about a lot of things this year. I should have started sooner.
There are 2 stories and they are very different. The first is abstract, vague, and wonderful. The second is specific, concrete, and error. Oddly, the second story is considered the story. I bet it’s the specificity and concreteness that people like, but the story is not happy in the end and people, loads of people, still subject women as an entire gender to crap based on what is written in that second story.
So I’m a first story person, obviously.
But I had a thought. Most of us create something in our lives and we want that creation (children, house, business, etc) to endure beyond us. We aren’t building temporary creations. But the second story is. The earth gets to stick around forever in the story but the people are disposable. I can’t imagine any being of love creating that.
Today’s readings continue the idea of a currently unknowable infinity:
Human language can repeat only an infinitesimal part of what exists.
The numerals of infinity, called seven days, can never be reckoned according to the calendar of time. These days will appear as mortality disappears, and they will reveal eternity, newness of Life, in which all sense of error forever disappears and thought accepts the divine infinite calculus.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea that there is so much to God and spirituality, that I won’t grasp it all. In so many ways, that’s not what organized religion is about: explaining Life. To tell the reader there is just too much for you to get at this time (that’s what I fell Mary Baker Eddy is saying), is realistic and pragmatic. It also puts the wonder back in the moment of reading Genesis.
Yesterday, the idea of the forever Universe was brought up – eternity can never reveal the whole of God. In today’s reading, Mary Baker Eddy says
Thus the ideas of God in universal being are complete and forever expressed, for Science reveals infinity and the fatherhood and motherhood of Love.
Since I am an idea of God, I am complete and forever expressed. My question is, is an idea of God (me) interchangeable for yesterday’s idea? Is the following correct?
Even eternity can never reveal the whole of [Me, God’s idea/reflection], since there is no limit to infinitude or its reflections.
If that is correct, what does that mean? That I (spiritual idea) continue to grow (spiritually) forever? I think my difficulty is complete but still unrevealed. I could make some huge metaphysical leaps here but I don’t want to run off in the wrong direction. If any reader has ideas, please comment below.
Mary Baker Eddy spends the entire reading going over reflection and identity within God’s Infinity. That’s quite a bit to handle in two pages. The last sentence is:
Even eternity can never reveal the whole of God, since there is no limit to infinitude or to its reflections.
Several ideas came to me with that last sentence. If eternity can’t reveal all of God, there is something unknown, unexperienced. This current existence, even spiritually, isn’t all. I could go in a million different directions with that thought but I’ll leave it because I’m not sure if I would be going down the right path.
Mary Baker Eddy discusses moral courage in this section. It’s one of the few bits of theology that she might have in common with other religions. By that, I mean there should be agreement over what moral courage is but instead in the last decade, I felt a rift. There is a group of people nationally (U.S.), that believe moral courage is the ability to do respond with force in the name of God. I think of this as first testament moral courage – live by the sword, then you shall die by the sword mentality. I don’t agree with this and have termed what MBE describes as second testament moral courage. She first describes it as an animal, then notes three qualities about it, then says it is tenderness. That word alone will be my mark for moral courage from here on. It’s a high bar.
Moral courage is "the lion of the tribe of Juda," the king of the mental realm. Free and fearless it roams in the forest. Undisturbed it lies in the open field, or rests in "green pastures, . . . beside the still waters." In the figurative transmission from the divine thought to the human, [1]diligence, [2]promptness, and [3]perseverance are likened to "the cattle upon a thousand hills." They carry the baggage of stern resolve, and keep pace with highest purpose. Tenderness accompanies all the might imparted by Spirit. The individuality created by God is not carnivorous…
A side note: If you are new to the tags at the end of this post, imagine a living, breathing index. Have you looked at the index of S&H lately? Imagine the whole world of CSers creating an index so that if you are working on an idea or challenge, you can look through what others have marked and get new ideas.
That’s how I plan to use my tags for these posts.
Yesterday was my son’s first day of school in the new building. He didn’t want to get dressed, put his shoes on, leave the house, get in the car. Once we were in the car, he was sure we were going the wrong way. So yesterday was a bit of a wash for me, hence no post.
Based on the reading, I was struck by how much discussion there is about animals, both literally and figuratively. I liked the idea that animals are ideas that reproduce their own and it made me think about ideas in a herd or sticking together. It made me think of my husband an children and how were are like ideas forming a family.
I had to look up rarefaction, first word I’ve looked up in a while for this journal. I wonder is it was in common use in Mary Baker Eddy’s day or just one of her words.
I found this interesting:
The periods of spiritual ascension are the days and seasons of Mind's creation, in which beauty, sublimity, purity, and holiness --yea, the divine nature--appear in man and the universe never to disappear.
I wondered if MBE was saying that our spiritual progress is found in days, seasons, – in our actual experience. She’s said something like this in different ways but the above quote was almost too beautiful and vague for me.
There are three distinct ideas in this reading that stood out to me. The first was the section about Mind as intelligence of a flower or see. The way it is worded gave me the idea to craft my own fill-in the blank phrase:
The only intelligence of ______________ is God.
I’m going to use this idea and put my son’s name in today.
The second idea is that gender is mental and:
Gender means simply kind or sort, and does not necessarily refer either to masculinity or femininity.
This idea of gender if widely held and understood would the the world so much good.
The third idea is about spiritually ascending into understanding as Jesus did on the third day. I thought the way Mary Baker Eddy phrased it, “letting in the light of spiritual understanding,” was great. That the light is already there and we only have to let it in instead of keep it out.
Here are the two idea areas I found in the reading.
Spiritual Parenting
The divine Mine, not matter, creates all identities, and they are forms of Mind, the ideas of Spirit apparent only as Mind, never as mindless matter nor the so-called material senses.
Spirit duly feeds and clothes every object, as it appears in the line of spiritual creation, thus tenderly expressing the fatherhood and motherhood of God.
Spiritual Understanding
Spiritual understanding [1] unfolds Mind…—and [2] demonstrates the divine sense.
God unites understanding and eternal harmony.
The thought came to me today that while reading this chapter, I need to remember the first tenet, the inspired word. It is all to easy to get very literal and what-if the text when that isn’t what I’m reading it for.
Mary Baker Eddy writes the same thing several different ways in this reading but I underlined them all:
No supposition of error enters there.
God creates neither [1] erring thought, [2] mortal life, [3] mutable truth, nor [4] variable love.
Immortal Mind makes its own record, but [1] mortal mind, [2] sleep, [3] dreams, [4] sin, [5] disease, and [5] death have no record in the first chapter of Genesis.
This is a great support for the beginning/only idea of yesterday.
Just as a side note, I wonder why the chapter of Creation and the chapter of Genesis or so far apart in this book. It seems they would either be intertwined or consecutive.
I read an article in the Sentinel a while back where the author said he always went back to the idea of creation, Genesis, for his spiritual authority in Christian Science. He did a great job of explaining it – so much so that I agreed and remember it to this day. So this is what I expect I will get out of this chapter, but in my own way.
Today’s section includes just:
Genesis i. 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
I’ve thought about the beginning/only relationship explained for this passage before. The key phrase that caught me in today’s reading is:
The creative Principle … is God.
This phrase as two meanings to me. One, the obviously intended Principle is God. But the second one focuses more on the word creative. So many times (like right now!), I’m facing a situation that seems hopeless, and impossible to change, and I’m sitting on the sidelines, not even sure what to do. This phrase reminded me that not only is there one solution (G0d), but that solution is creative – my limited scope of possible solutions doesn’t count. God is creative Principle. The right solution will be found. Definitely a Go Team! moment for me.
Two questions are in this reading and I’ll handle both of them. The first is the one I have been racing after this year: How can I progress most rapidly in the understanding of Christian Science?
The one element of her answer, and there is a lot to it, that was new to me was:
error cannot destroy error
That seems obvious and straightforward. I shouldn’t even have to try to remember this – it is such an obvious point. However, – and this is a big however, the thought came to me as I read this that a snarky retort to someone’s less-than-loving comment was the error that doesn’t destroy error. Then my mind raced around to all the aggressive or meanly defensive things I tend to do. Oh, you probably wouldn’t think me a mean person but I’m not always kind either. So the idea of error, even in its more commonly accepted form, should be replaced.
My Answer: I would like to add my own answer to the above question. I was raised in Christian Science, although I would call that a spotty job done. I went to Prin and I took class instruction from a previous CS Church Board Member. Outwardly, I took the appropriate steps. Inwardly, I trudged along. I’ve read the book front to back maybe six times. But until this journal, where I knew I only had 5 minutes worth of reading but wanted to get enough out of it to 1) progress and 2) write about it – I focused. Not well all the time, but generally I focused. I focused through a bit of marital turbulence, and a bit of static with my son. And now I want to do it again next year. I have gotten SO MUCH out of this journal that I don’t understand why more people don’t do it. Or talk about it. I think every person who wants to take class instruction should take it only after reading this journal. Or, and this won’t happen but it’s nice to think about, do away with a two-week class, and make the whole thing based on this journal. Make each student work for a year processing Recapitulation by reading the entire book.
The second question asks about a creed. I wanted to boil these tenets down to very short thoughts for myself:
Funny thing about reading this chapter before this year journal – I always hated it. Now its another chapter I can’t wait to reread.
Something else I missed in the first read and need to go back and get the full text on: Will you explain sickness and show how it is to be healed?
A full answer to the above question involves teaching, which enables the healer to demonstrate and prove for himself the Principle and rule of Christian Science or metaphysical healing.
I didn’t realize teaching was a component of healing.
I would like to replace the word fear in the following quote with anger. While to me, they are the same thing, I don’t always remember it when reading a passage like this.
Disease is an experience of so-called mortal mind. It is fear made manifest on the body. Christian Science takes away this physical sense of discord, just as it removes any other sense of moral or mental inharmony.
There are some spots in the books where I think Mary Baker Eddy is particularly eloquent -- this question/answer is one example.
This reading is so far down the line that I had to go back to page 488 to see that the question was: Do the five corporeal senses constitute man? The very first idea of the reading was Mary Baker Eddy saying it as plain as day:
The belief that matter and mind are one, – that matter is awake at one time and asleep at another, sometimes presenting no appearance of mind, – this belief culminates in another belief, that man dies. Science reveals material man as never the real being. The dream or belief goes on, whether our eyes are closes or open.
Then another formula:
God is Mind, and God is infinite; hence all is Mind.
Or:
[God is Mind] + [God is infinite] = [all is Mind]
And who are we:
Being is [1] holiness, [2] harmony, [3] immortality.
A few of things I would like to note about this reading. First, I think there might be several points that are new in recapitulation, to me anyway. I know this is probably error on my part. So the second thing is that I’m considering reading this journal again next year instead of moving on to misc writings. If I missed some key points and didn’t figure it out until around page 500, I wonder what else I missed. Third, if other people were blogging about their experience reading the book, and I could find/read those blogs, perhaps I wouldn’t have missed what I now consider very important points. Drat! Double Drat!
[Just spent 20 minutes trying to find an online link to the Journal for Misc Writings. Argh! I’ll post here and on the About Me page when I find it. Anyone know if it is officially out of print?]
First point:
The corporeal senses are the only source of evil or error. Christian Science shows them to be false, because matter has no sensation, and no organic construction can give it hearing and sight nor make it the medium of Mind. Outside the material sense of things, all is harmony.
This is the best definition of evil/error so far in the book – the first one that was applicable to my life and experience.
Will-power is but a product of belief, and this belief commits depredations on harmony. Human will is an animal propensity, not a faculty of Soul.
Will--blind, stubborn, and headlong--cooperates with appetite and passion. From this cooperation arises its evil. From this also comes its powerlessness, since all power belongs to God, good.
This is the first connection I’ve seen between human will and belief (or was it there in the trial somewhere?). Also another good tie into to evil.
Human belief--or knowledge gained from the so-called material senses--would, by fair logic, annihilate man along with the dissolving elements of clay.
Now a tie between belief and the material senses. The following formula isn’t exactly write but close to what I’m getting from this reading:
Material Senses = Belief = Will = Error/Evil
Thoughts?
And then the last little bit about sleep which I thought was a great example of what Mary Baker Eddy is trying to say:
Sleep and mesmerism explain the mythical nature of material sense. Sleep shows material sense as either oblivion, nothingness, or an illusion or dream. Under the mesmeric illusion of belief, a man will think that he is freezing when he is warm, and that he is swimming when he is on dry land. Needle-thrusts will not hurt him. A delicious perfume will seem intolerable. Animal magnetism thus uncovers material sense, and shows it to be a belief without actual foundation or validity. Change the belief, and the sensation changes. Destroy the belief, and the sensation disappears.
This reading had two questions, the first dealing with belief, the second dealing with the material senses. I wish the ordering would have been different so that yesterday’s last question was followed by the sense question of today. I’m not sure that the belief question really needs to be in between. It is a minor point anyway.
So the question of belief brought me back to the trial again where false belief is the attorney for the plaintiff, personal sense. A couple of ideas from today’s reading were very clear:
The believer and belief are one and are mortal.
the Scriptures often appear in our common version to approve and endorse belief, when they mean to enforce the necessity of understanding.
I’m not sure if the common version is King James, but I suppose any version back then, and there were probably far fewer than now, would have the same issue.
The second question, about material senses, uses the term real senses of man:
mental endowments are not at the mercy of organization and decomposition, – otherwise the very worms could unfashion man. If it were possible for the real senses of man to be injured, Soul could reproduce them in all their perfection; but they cannot be disturbed nor destroyed, since they exist in immortal Mind, not in matter.
And then:
Corporeal sense defrauds and lies
Today’s question, aside from some fancy word use, is asking about spiritual sense versus material sense. Material senses are so hypnotic, we depend on them more than is even necessary – we enjoy them. I wonder if I would even know the spiritual equivalent.
Today, the questions in Recapitulation are about healing and what is or isn’t involved. I was looking for a new idea or fresh insight when I found these two gems that seem to have nothing to do with healing at first glance:
One must fulfil one's mission without timidity or dissimulation, for to be well done, the work must be done unselfishly.
The physical universe expresses the conscious and unconscious thoughts of mortals.
I must admit there was a lot I marked in this reading. Mary Baker Eddy came back to the discussion of Soul, evil, and material belief. But I want to focus on harmony write now. It seems to ebb and flow in our house which isn’t the truth I want:
Harmonious action proceeds from Spirit, God. Inharmony has no Principle; its action is erroneous and presupposes man to be in matter. Inharmony would make matter the cause as well as the effect of intelligence, or Soul, thus attempting to separate Mind from God.
After today’s reading, I’m considering the chapter nickname of belief.
Mary Baker Eddy starts of the answer to What is body and Soul? with the concept of identity. Plenty of people would identity as either the body or Soul in body, so I understand why she starts there.
This is one of those question/answers that, regardless of Christian Science, I totally get. That’s to say that outside of the nature/nurture argument, I know my body is not me and that there is no other identity (such as Soul) in my body. There are some things that you have to know for yourself, spiritually speaking. This is one I know.
So when I got to this line:
What basis is there for the theory of indwelling spirit, except the claim of mortal belief?
I broadened it so I could apply it to other issues:
What basis is there for the theory of [insert challenge here], except the claim of mortal belief?
Still praying about son.
The question is What is Man? I’m grappling with more issues with my son again. Ugh. This has got to stop. So I appreciated this question because I remember how someone told me to use this answer by replacing the word man with the name of the person who I need to see as God’s idea. Today, that would be my son. So I used the name Bill and changed up the sentences I’m praying with today:
Bill as no separate mind from God.
Bill has not a single quality underived from Deity.
Bill is incapable of sin, sickness, and death. The real Bill cannot depart from holiness, nor can God, by whom Bill is evolved, engender the capacity or freedom to sin.
Earnestly see the spiritual status of Bill, which is outside of all material selfhood.
