Slashdot Mirror
Internet Use Becomes More Purposeful
tacocat writes "An article in the The Christian Science Monitor talks about the changing use of the Internet. They cite a report from The Pew Internet and American Life Project that talks about people Getting Serious Online. The study is continuation of people they have been following already and found that people are using the Internet more often for serious matters and issue of utility, rather then just for fun."
Some people are using the Internet for very serious things--like marriage proposals. Good luck, Mr. & Mrs. Taco!!!
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Internet Use Becomes More Purposeful. That's more like it
So the novelty has worn off to an extent. Now people are looking at what one can actually do with the Net. Art is becoming science, and science is becoming practice. Sounds like a good indicator to me. Of course, we all knew this was going to happen.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
It's about time Mr. and Ms. Anybody find out that the Net is more than just mp3s and pr0n. Students can use it as research, scientists and other technical jobs can use it as reference... it's a whole well of information out there, so why shouldn't anybody use it?
Spell checker becomes more purposful.
--
If you moderate this, then your children will be next.
It has one religious article, that you are free to ignore. THe rest of the reporting is superb - they have their own reporters, so it is refreshingly free from Reuters / AP Newswire rehashes. Often as not, I read the news months before the mainstream press finds it newsworthy. It is great for International issues.
Cheers, Andy!
Andy Rabagliati
Lots of free sites that used to be fun are now making themselves "useful" by charging for subscriptions. :-)
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
They still visit crappy sites like ours.
tcd004
I want to drop her a quick message... but no e-mail to reach her.
Let her know how to get a quick bit of info on something... but no Web.
I have to rack up long distance charges to talk to her: no IM.
Email, the Web, and IM ALONE justify the purchase of a new computer (or even better, a $50 old one) and $20/mo dialup service. I can honestly say that life would be a real pain in the ass without the Net.
dinner: it's what's for beer
Ever since the Dot-Bomb, people are beginning to realize that the internet is not for 'play time'. Sure, you can find more Porn and weblogs here than anywhere else. But increasingly there has been a need for remote access into your companies machines. EMail, E-Signatures, and other electronic anomolies have become legally binding.
But that is not all....
What else could you expect, the internet has grown-down to a commodity internet from an educational network, then grown-sideways to a monopolistic, control-your-lives, all-your-minds-are-belong-to-media internet.
So you see, its all about Theft, Porn, and Work. Welcome to the USA.
This page left intentionally blank.
Now I guess I've got to decide whether Slashdot is "useful" or "fun"...
The internet, orignally used by scientists to exchange information, was a wholly serious use. Then the home connection was made popular in the mid-to-late 90's, and a whole generation of AOL-using, chatroom-haunting, warez and MP3 downloading Internet user was born. Now the internet is popular at work, at my company, we distribute electronic compnents and most of the hard-to-find items we find at various electronic component search engines on the Internet.
There will always be the frivolous uses (like slacking @ work), but the novelty has worn off and now people ask: How can we really use this thing?
The people originally putting it together in the pre-web days certainly thought it was all about function and not recreation.
Cheers,
Ian
I take my porn very seriously.
The Red Pill
For some reason I was drawn to this. The report has a section on "What people find annoying." Without much suprise, many are stating that Spam is becoming highly problematic. The most annoying of the spam being considered sales solititation. They also have this to say about 'adult' spamming:
We also probed into a particular type of spam that is often cited as an annoyance to Internet users-messages with adult content or from adult Web sites. More than half-56%-of U.S. email users have at one time or another received an email from an adult Web site or that contained adult content. Twenty percent report that this occurs often, with Internet veterans twice as likely as novices to receive such messages (24% for veterans versus 12% for novices). The greater incidence for veterans is likely to be nothing more than a reflection of the number of years they have been online. Their more extensive surfing habits increases the chances that traces of information identifying their email addresses have been picked up by these sites.
One has to wonder if the veteran Internet users are just more likely to look for porn. After all, everyone I met during High School who went on the Internet always followed it up by "You can get free pictures of naked women there!" Well, not everyone, but all of the non-computer geeks at least. Food for thought.
The Section.
I met my wife online a little over 4 years ago. How much more serious than that can you get? What, you're going to die online? Perhaps finding out you got cancer, or that your home town got nuked, or something. I guess that's serious. I dont know about you, but I've been doing serious stuff online for years.
That may be. But they are a false religion by True Christian standards.
First, why do we need studies for this kind of crap? I mean, who can't realize that. Many ppl have already begun paying bills online. Even ppl that don't pay bills online can do their taxes online or even access bank account online.
... I doubt it.
And, this now means that the old analogy of the internet and television don't hold quite as true anymore. More like the automobile. You might enjoy your television, but it does not provide utility.
The last question is, does this then mean that we will now see ISPs regulated as utilities (like water and electric)
Why don't you just start using a browser that isn't MSIE?
Like mozilla. No page widening under that...
That's right. For instance, now they have spellcheckers online. Unfortunately, some people are still in the dark ages.
<blockquote><blockquote>some shit</blockquote>
and slapdash will accept it... and add a tab to the page. do this in extreme, and ka-boom, a really fucking wide page.
it's spelled "purposeful". maybe you should use one of your "internet spell checkers".
That is exactly my perception, people like my teenage sister are bored of the internet or have grown up and matured enough and are realizing that the internet is either too boring or really useful when doing papers and such. I am glad to see this change of use for it. The internet is a great tool for all and eventually will be more of a necessity than a toy.
How many people out there still have those musty smelling bound dead-tree editions of the encyclopedia sitting on their shelves? Ok...how many would buy a new set?
For most, the internet is their encyclopedia. When I want to know about something, I turn to the internet first (granted not all of the information is good...or decent for that matter).
The point is, the internet will always be both serious and fun. It's a place where we get information about the world , our hobbies, our health and our games.
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
http://www.csmonitor.com/aboutus/about_the_monito
This basically explains that the paper is secular, with the goal of unbiased reporting. It was started by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of the Church of Christ, Scientist, in 1908. This was done more or less as a response to the "yellow journalism" of the day (much more about that in the above link). So far it has won six Pulitzer prizes for journalism.
- Topher Cawlfield
That's right. They actually employ women there and they allow their wives and daughters to wear blue jeans and braid/curl their hair. Very un-christian.
Well you see, at first looking at a bit of porn was fun now and then.
But now... I can't live without it.
"Why don't you just start using a browser that isn't MSIE?
Like mozilla. No page widening under that..."
Thanks, I was wondering what he was talking about. Yes, use mozilla. Remember, if it isn't open source, it's crap.
The internet is getting more serious, I hope people realize how serious the trolls here are. How serious I am about this.
/. title was misleading.
Now really, I don't know how someone could get this idea. It came from a military background then it flourished as a free media for academics, then business get on-line.
I wonder if they were analizing the Internet or the people. Yes, the people. Maybe
But people are not being more serious on the web, no way. It's just that the web has itself (on the most part) a level of compromise that it doesn't require you to be, or say, 100% of the times, what you really think.
I don't believ that such serious issue could be treated like it was a playground. Folks are getting on-line, they hear friends say "Hey it's cool!" and they buy a computer and hear screaming noises from the case. Then they get on-line and pay AOL to get mocked by other people.
It's all insanity this research. If they had asked me what I think about I would have lied. Because there's no way of me telling you anything more precisely then the way I am currently doing.
If you don't believe me you are taking life too seriuosly. Perhaps it's time to turn off the computer to have some fun.
Buy a Nintendo DS Lite
We find that .com's are going out of business while Game companies are Thriving like never before. Perhaps people are starting a trend toward "getting serious", but it doesn't seem like it's showing in the business sector yet.
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I met my wife online a little over 4 years ago.
:o)
Cool - me too..
We met on the internet in May of 1997, and were married in April of 98..
Ain't usenet grand?
Where were you *before" 1996 ?
Internet is a library, an useful one, it helped me to build an Acorn user community by providing news and progs to the others.
It also helped me as a teacher to prepair my computing classes.
Then in 1995 came win95 which brought the internet to the masses, turning it into a supermarket.
Then came everybody else...
And now, you think it "becomes" useful ?
Actually, for who knows what to expect from such a tool it has always been and will always be useful as it is.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Does that mean NOT pissing away hours each day on Slashdot???
Aww, shucks!
You're using her as bait, Master!
You bet your arse! I found my wife on it roundabouts '91 whilst visiting the occasional Muck. I was using Archie to find progies for my Atari 520ST. Using Gopher to do general information searching and just plain goof off. Mud/Muck/Moo/Mush, where I learned to program based on a stack. (later helped me w/my HP48 calculator)
The internet WAS useful and is getting more-so all the time.
it so happens that moz is crap, bloated, unintuitive... you name it.
use OmniWeb or iCab...
but, to use those you'd have to be very purposeful and use the best possible OS... OS X.
and in conclusion, MS not only sucks, it blows.
huge chunks.
thanks.
an article about something i've known about from first, second and third hand experience for about 8 years now. that's stretching refreshing!
;)
ZDNetMail had a spell checker for their web-based mail prior to their partnering with Onebox a while back. They marked questionable words by making a dropdown box with suggested replacements. You pick which spelling you prefer and continue. I wouldn't think it'd be that difficult. I'm not sure about how much overhead it would cause though. They've got money to burn on new servers though, don't they?
Here's the link to save you having to scroll all the way down the page and type in Kathleen Fend Read This Story (c=
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
that they are silently manipulating your world view with every article, but that's what newspapers are for right?
How we know is more important than what we know.
NOPE! they are a TRUE religion by FALSE Christian standards!
fuck religion... god is not only dead, he/she/it was never more than jiveass mythology like all deity-based belief systems that came before...
oh, and never forget that the earth is FLAT, dammit.
I have been online since before there was an online. (do gopher and ftp count?) The Net has always been useful AND fun. Why does there have to be a distinction? I think some of what we used to call fun has for some reason become legitimate
- It used to be cool to be able to see weather radar images, now it is useful
- It used to be cool to go to IMDB and look up your favorite movies - now it is useful
- It used to be fun to chat with people, now it can be essential.
I don't think much has changed, it has just grown. There are more useful things, and there are more fun things. There are more boring things. There is just more.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
what the Christian Science Monitor says. The Internet is just a another way to get quality porn.
First, why do we need studies for this kind of crap? I mean, who can't realize that.
Many people don't realize that the Internet is useful. Many people who are learned are older and subscribe to the print issue of the Christian Science Monitor, and probably don't realize that there is an online version.
My parents are older and have subscribed to the paper for decades--they also happen to be Christian Scientists. They are just starting to get online...they'll most likely read this article but won't say "wow, a study said so," but it'll continue to nudge them into thinking that the Net's useful. I'm sure that many others (including a lot of non Christian Scientists) will be nudged toward believing this, too. The more non-online sources of news saying "it's not just for fun anymore", the more it'll sink in to those not yet online.
Hopefully it'll keep lessening the tech gap, and hopefully it'll bring people like my parents into a better appreciation and understanding of what the heck it is that we all do "out there".
Even if there is not so many articles specificaly about religon , surly the reality escaping and generely twisted world veiw shared by all religuos people must polute even the articles not directly about religon .
However it is nice to here that some newspapers still get thier own stories instead off copying off the the mayor newsorganisations ( and so creating a homogenus newsflow whithaot anyone thinking difrent or being critical )
...even if it is just to let out their backwards , conservative , deluted and religous ( prety much the same thing realy ) reporters from the christian rock under whith they normaly lurk .
You might enjoy your television, but it does not provide utility
I'll have to disagree. The TV can provide weather reports, breaking news, traffic conditions, stock reports, documentaries, and those very informative infomercials. The TV isn't as interactive as the web, but it certainly provides utility.
It's purposEful.
Do you have to work hard to spell that poorly, or does it come naturally? I mean, come on! I know you're a troll, but try to at least make it a respectable troll, all right?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
one of those paradox things that contradicts itself by simply existing?
sic transit gloria mundi
A secular newspaper caled "CRISTIAN science monitor "
... you are joking right.
I must add that i am chocked to hear about a newspaper caling itself unbiased !
this is totaly unpresedent in the history of journalism !
As all other newspapers have always caled themself biased dissimformative and corupt!
Stop the presses this one is for the history books!!!
...come on
I met my wife to be on a porno site, now I just need to
get her name and number to finish the deal.
dork, i wear shorts to church, and i am a leader.
also, God is more concerned about the heart then clothing.
secular my buttocks.
just like New York times is not liberal.
The early '90s were, IMHO, the best years of the internet. Everything was still new and uncharted... Domains could still be sold back to corporations who lacked vision... hackers were feared and thought to be bent on destroying the free world (except by those of us who knew them as explorers)... and Mosaic set the standard for web browsing.
Today the commercialism of the internet has destroyed it's lure for me. My purpose for the "net" has definately changed: I was once interested in what it was, how it worked, and what was next. Now I want only to check my email, delete 95% of the contents of my inbox (the remainder of the crap that did not get caught by the junk mail filter), and occasionally use google (my start up page) to search for an interesting tidbit of information or file.
The internet, today, sucks.
I don't even use instant messaging anymore due to the amount of pornography that I was receiving in the way of spam. Even emails that I get from friends are junk. What happened to the personal letters that we used to write to each other! Pop-up ads dominate anysite of interest (except Slashdot... at least they stick to the good old banner). My firewall has a huge "restricted sites list" that includes akamai and double click... my "host." file for Windows is LONG! The porn was cool when it was new and few, but now I find it iritating (maybe I'm just getting old... my first modem was 300 baud) when it enters my inbox or search results uninvited.
The song say's "video killed the radio star," but ".com" is killing the net! The internet began as a free society that policed itself, now we have legislators peering and poking into the "content" being provided and into the "fairness" of enterprise being able to control a domain name. If Joe Geek was insightful enough to recognize that Madonna.Com might have value to a certain bleached blond, then said blond should have to pay his price or be willing to let Joe Geek do what he will with the domain.
In the near future, all of the internet sites that were created out of love and desire to make a decent living doing something you enjoy will merge into supersites/portals that will charge "nominal fees" for the things we are used to getting for free. The small independent business people / site administrators wont be able to compete or make enough profit to maintain their sites. Buyouts will allow them to show a return for their efforts (which they deserve) and some may be able to stay on and do what they do best by maintaining what they've created (ie SlashDot). But the rest of the world will end up paying big for high-speed access and the freedom to access the information we all enjoy now through google.
Perhaps this will give rise to a new "net." Maybe an UnderNet that operates outside of the Internet (which will have become a brand name like Xerox), piggy backing where it can, stealing resources when able, but only allowing those who are willing to agree to NOT make any money from it's existance through ads and spam or fees for information.
Then! THEN! We can get back to what's REALLY important! Flaming the lamers.... guess we'll have to let some of them in to make this work.
Cheers
cfeagans
I agree to a point, but there are other ways of getting weather, news, traffic, etc (Radio, Newspaper, Public Alert Systems) ...and while those documentaries might be nice to watch, I don't know where I could use some of the knowledge gained from them (Mummies, Salvaging Shipwrecks, etc)
But in the case of your TV, there is no way to pay your bills over the TV. All the knowledge gained from your TV has to be used in some other way...
However, I will agree that utility is really an opinion...Who am I to say that your television doesn't provide utility...
As for me most of those uses you mentioned, I find online...
Tell that to most Christians I know. :(
-jason m
I am not a troll , however i am not from an english speaking country and do not have time to check my spelling all the time espesialy as you understand what i mean anyway. And you must admitt that Cristian people doesnt exactly stand in the forefront of change . Just look at that technofobic , anti abortion , and extreamly militaristic (even before 9 11 ) neandertal : president Buch . Cristianity has coused more missery than any other religion or ideology ever , and i cant stand someone calling it unbiased . So please remark on my arguments and not my spelling .
PS : what the fuck is a "troll" ?
My post wasn't moderated until after you posted your commentary. Now I'm at the prana cap again. Thanks, pal!
--ZM, breathing Ujayii to preserve my precious prana
We were grad students in a university CS department, and relied quite a bit on good ol' Unix talk. One such exchange went something like this:
Her: Hey, how's it going?
Me: Not bad; I'm tru^Hying to get tj^Hhis packet sniffer worl^Hking on this DOF^HS box.
But the bav^Hckspacr^He key on this tern^Hmim^Hnal is messed up..
Her: asdf[four correct backspaces]asdf[four correct backspaces, pattern repeats for a bit...]
Me: WELL, FIM^HNE! RUB IT IM^HN WHY DON"^H'T YOU!
Neither of us has used Internet messaging; I guess we're secretly pining for good ol' talk.
".sig,
Maybe, but is that really necessary? If you think about it, throughout history, the older members of society have resisted technological change. But, with all dure respect, it doesn't really matter what they do, as long as the youth are accepting the technology.
Don't get me wrong, they would probably find it useful, and they still matter to society, but they do not matter as far as long-term technological acceptance is concerned.
Look at the Amish...they prove that you can still live without modern technology, it's just not as "easy"...
Kinda hate to do this, but I feel you should get the other side of the coin.
:P
m w C: www.watchman.org/profile/Cs tian+science&hl=en&ie=ISO-88 59-1Q vbu0C: www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~shar istian+science&hl=en&ie=ISO- 8859-1w OcQ1q4C: www.atheists.org/church/xtt ian+science&hl=en&ie=ISO-885 9-1
These are snippets from web sites discussing Christian Science.
In short, there are numerous problems with Christian Science and the Bible.
MBE herself plaigarized much of Science and Health, Christian Scientists
have been shown to have a much higher death rate over control groups
practicing standard medicine, CS denies the perfection of Jesus as a man,
Science and Health makes tons of absurd claims and has many logic problems,
Science and Health promotes ignorance of Health in general, and MBE claims
that only "Divine Science," not medicine, has the power to heal at all.
MBE herself was a drug addict and liar, tended to by medical doctors, wore
glasses, and was married several times.
Read the first excerpt carefully to see the truth about the origins of this
money-making, for-profit, theft.
My personal problem isn't that so many people believe this flawed system. I
think all Christian religions are flawed and contradictory, and I'm not
preaching about them. The problem is that Christian Science passively
promotes the transmission of infectious disease and creates a public health
problem, leading to the premature deaths of many Christian Scientists as
well as those who are not. It's an absolute travesty to see a child die of
an infectious disease because a Christian Scientist mother refuses
antibiotic treatment for a common disease. And if the mother does not deny
treatment, how can she justify being a Christian Scientist?
Read on, please.
~~~~~~~~~
The system was actually invented by a man named Phineas Parkhurst Quimby
[Fig. 2] who, after "healing" Mrs. Eddy (then Mary Patterson) of a variety
of hysteric symptoms, taught his system of mind-healing to her. His system,
which he himself often referred to as "Christian Science," contained all the
essential elements of Christian Science as it is practiced by the Eddyites -
including the idea that disease is just incorrect thinking (the result of
"mortal mind"), the idea that "absent treatment" is possible, etc. After
Quimby died in January of 1866, Mrs. Eddy reworked his notebooks, gradually
removing references to Quimby, and finally claimed the system as having been
her own divine discovery. The system became more and more "Eddyifying" the
longer Mrs. Mary Baker Glover Patterson Eddy worked it over. As a
pseudoscience guided by the modest personality of Quimby, Christian Science
gained only passing attention in New England. Transformed into a religion by
Mrs. Eddy, the system rapidly became a world-wide, multimillion-dollar
enterprise.
Scarcely two weeks before her fall, Phineas P. Quimby had died. Mrs. Eddy
mourned the loss of her guru in a poem published in a January issue of The
Lynn Advertiser. The poem was titled "On the Death of P. P. Quimby, Who
Healed with the Truth that Christ Taught." In later years, Mrs. Eddy was to
discount Quimby as having been a "mesmerist" and "illiterate." She also
later denied ever having been his student.
(this one is from the New York Times)
If, therefore, this religion is not of divine origin, is not the discovery
of Mrs. Eddy, but is merely a slight elaboration of the humanly invented
theories of a Maine Yankee, it is of the utmost importance that the fact
should be known, not only that "Christian Science" may be put in its true
light, but that parents who may be tempted to join this church and endanger
the lives of their children may have full knowledge beforehand of the exact
extent to which God is responsible for its origin
The notion of M.A.M. (malicious animal magnetism, aka mental malpractice)
was needed to explain how it could be that Mrs. Eddy, despite her alleged
ability to heal disease in others, and despite the "unreality" of disease,
could persistently be victimized by the "illusion" of kidney stones, etc.
Enemies were maliciously beaming these delusions at her telepathically! If
there be no such thing as disease, why do we always have the illusion of
disease? What is the cause of illusion? Mental malpractice, of course!
M.A.M. from our enemies is what does it.
MBE claims, in Science and Health, that she suffered a fall on ice that was
pronounced "fatal" by physicians. She goes on to explain:
"On the third day thereafter, I called for my Bible, and opened it at
Matthew ix. 2. As I read, the healing Truth dawned upon my sense; and the
result was that I rose, dressed myself, and ever after was in better health
than I had before enjoyed."
The Times located the doctor, who, in a sworn affidavit, claimed that the
fall was not serious and he successfully treated her for 10 days with a
chemical remedy, for which she thanked him:
"I did not at any time declare, or believe, that there was no hope of Mrs.
Patterson's recovery, or that she was in a critical condition, and did not
at any time say, or believe that she had but three or any other limited
number of days to live; and Mrs. Patterson did not suggest, or say, or
pretend, or in any way whatever intimate, that on the third day or any other
day, of her said illness, she had miraculously recovered or been healed, or
that discovering or perceiving the truth or the power employed by Christ to
heal the sick, she had, by it, been restored to health.
As I have stated, on the third, and subsequent days of her said illness...I
attended Mrs. Patterson and gave her medicine; and on the 10th day of the
following August, I was again called to see her...I found Mrs. Patterson
suffering from a bad cough and prescribed for her. I made three more
professional calls upon Mrs. Patterson and treated her for this cough in the
said month of August, and with that ended my professional relations with
her. (Bates & Dittemore, Mary Baker Eddy, pp. 111-113)"
There is a letter from MBE (after she married her second husband) to P P
Quimby explaining that she has been teaching his system, and Mrs. Patterson
tells Quimby she has been lecturing on his system of healing and asks him to
give her (absent) treatment for dyspepsia and constipation. Quoth Mrs
Patterson: "Please attend to my case when you get this; dyspepsia and
constipation; two bugbears that Miss Jarvis has just got rid of and saddled
on to me."
Of all the biblically based cults in America today, Christian Science is one
of the most interesting. Not only does it deny the essential doctrines of
Christianity, but it has completely reinterpreted the Bible. It drastically
redefines the Bible's culture and terminology and rips thousands of
scriptures out of their historical and biblical contexts. The result is a
non-Christian mixture of metaphysical and philosophical thoughts. Christian
Science is so foreign to the Bible that, if it didn't use words like Jesus,
Trinity, Love, Grace, Sin, etc., you'd never suspect it had anything to do
with the Bible at all.
On the one hand, the Christian Science church avidly collects testimonials
about alleged incidents of healings through Christian Science. Science and
Health, With Key to the Scriptures gives many examples of such anecdotes, as
do sympathetic accounts such as those of Robert Peel [Peel]. Personal
testimony of healings play a large part in organized Christian Science
gatherings. On the other hand, the Church ardently resists any attempt to
test Christian Science in a scientific manner, involving blind studies and
controls.
Whereas the Christian Science approach to healing may help psychosomatic
illnesses, it has been scientifically demonstrated that it is not effective
with real illness. Studies comparing the cumulative death rates of
practicing Christian Scientists with control groups have shown significantly
higher death rates among the Christian Scientists (Journal of the American
Medical Association, September 22/29, 1989, pp. 1657-58, and Morbidity
Weekly Report, August 23, 1991, pp. 579-582).
Christian Scientists believe that Mary Baker Eddy received the Truth through
divine revelation (Science and Health, p. 110). The fact is that she
plagiarized much of what she wrote from metaphysician George Hegel, P.P.
Quimby, Francis Lieber and others (Walter Martin, Christian Science, pp.
7-13; Martin Gardner, The Healing Revelation of Mary Baker Eddy, pp.
145-158).
Christian Science denies the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity
dwelling in human flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and
attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of
Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593;
Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201).
However, the Bible claims Jesus Christ is not the divine idea of God but was
God uniquely manifested in the flesh, truly God and truly man, one divine
Person with two indivisible natures, who is the only Savior and the only
truth and Lord (John 1:1-3,14; Colossians 2:9; Philippians 2:6-7; John
14:6).
Even though Mrs. Eddy claimed that "the Bible has been my only authority"
(Science and Health, p. 126), in actual practice Christian Scientists accept
the Bible only as interpreted by Mary Baker Eddy in her writings. In fact,
she taught that the Bible has been corrupted, but Science and Health is the
"first book" which has been "uncontaminated by human hypotheses" (The First
Church of Christ, Scientist and Miscellany, p. 115; Science and Health, pp.
99, 139, 456-57).
No true Christian Science member should ever go to a doctor, hospital, or
take any kind of medicine, for to do so is to deny "Divine Science"
(Christian Science Sentinel, May 9, 1942, p. 469). Indeed in the church's
official "The Christian Science Standard of Healing," Mary Eddy Baker is
quoted as saying, "It is impossible to gain control over the body in any
other way [divine Mind-Prayer]. On this fundamental point, timid
conservatism is absolutely inadmissible. Only through radical reliance on
Truth can scientific healing power be realized" (Science and Health, p. 167;
Radical Reliance In Healing, 1958, p. 1).
Christian Science denies the incarnation of Christ was the fullness of deity
dwelling in human flesh, denies the perfection of the man Jesus, and
attempts to explain away the historical death and bodily resurrection of
Jesus Christ (Science and Health, pp. 336, 29, 332, 53, 398, 313, 593;
Miscellaneous Writings, p. 201).
However, a careful examination of the record shows that Mrs. Eddy often
acted in direct contradiction to the tenets of her own religion. For
example, a diary kept by Calvin Frye, a household servant of Mrs. Eddy,
reveals that she was addicted to morphine, and in fact had a lifelong
dependence on morphine pills and shots [Gar].
In Science and Health, p. 245, she wrote of an English woman who,
"disappointed in love in her early years, she became insane and lost all
account of time. Believing that she was still living in the same hour which
parted her from her lover, taking no note of years, she stood daily before
the windo watching for her lover's coming. In this mental state she remained
young. Having no consciousness of time, she literally grew no older. Some
American travellers saw her when she was seventy-four, and supposed her to
be a young woman. She had no care-lined face, no wrinkles nor gray hair, but
youth sat gently on cheek and brow. Asked to guess her age, those
unacquainted with her history conjectured that she must be under twenty."
Mrs. Eddy cited as her source an article in the Lancet, but without volume
and page numbers it is impossible to verify the source.
Also in Science and Health, pp. 556-557, she wrote: "It is related that a
father plunged his infant babe, only a few hours old, into the water for
several minutes, and repeated this operation daily, until the child could
remain under water twenty minutes, moving and playing without harm, like a
fish." Again, she provided no documentation.
How about people who take poison by mistake? Don't they die even though they
have a belief that what they swallowed wasn't poison?
If disease is a consequence of incorrect belief, why do babies get sick?
After all, their understanding of disease must be small if not nonexistent,
yet they often get sick. Furthermore, some diseases in small infants (e.g.,
bacterial infections) are cured by antibiotics. Are we to believe that
babies had incorrect beliefs and these beliefs somehow changed after the
administration of antibiotics?
Similarly, if disease is a consequence of incorrect belief, why do animals
get sick?
Gale Wilson was an autopsy surgeon for the coroner in King County,
Washington, USA who studied death records in that county from 1935-1955. He
(or she) found that Christian Scientists tended to die at a slightly earlier
age than non-Christian scientists; that the cancer death rate for Christian
Scientists was twice the national average, and that at least 6% of Christian
Science deaths were medically preventable [Wil].
Yet another piece of evidence against Christian Science is its failure to
protect students at Christian Science schools from disease outbreaks. For
example, in 1985 a measles outbreak hit several US colleges. "Worst hit of
all was Principia College of Elsah, Ill., a tiny Christian
Science-affiliated school where at least 96 students have been infected and
two have died, apparently from complications. (Rubeola, which tends to be
more serious in adults than in children, can lead to pneumonia and
encephalitis.)" [Time] Later a third student died [Shi2]. In summer 1989, 55
children came down with measles while attending a Christian Scientist summer
camp. In fall 1989, 88 students at Principia Academy and 12 students at
Principia College got measles [Shi2]. It happened again in 1994. This time,
an infected Christian Scientist helped spread the disease to 176 people in
six states [Shi]. The local medical officer was quoted as saying, "Every
four or five years we have an outbreak, and everyone at Principia gets it
who hasn't had it before and isn't inoculated." Based on this evidence,
there is currently no reason to believe that Christian Science treatment is
effective, and reasonable evidence to believe it may actually be harmful.
A propaganda sheet once sent to Ohio legislators by the Ohio Christian
Science lobbyist bragged that the Christian Science method of "spiritual
treatment" had recently been able to cure even diphtheria - ignoring the
fact that diphtheria is not always fatal [my mother recovered from it in
1920, long before antibiotics] and avoiding the embarrassing point that in
modern times the only Americans seriously in danger of getting diphtheria
are unimmunized persons such as Christian Scientists!)
In many places, the children of Christian Scientists are excused from taking
health or biology courses, lest in learning about diseases they become sick!
After all, the High Priestess of Christian Science herself, Mary Baker Eddy
states in the "Christian Science Textbook," (Science and Health, p. 389)
"The less we know or think about hygiene, the less we are predisposed to
sickness."
Although only a few Christian Science children are known to have died in
Ohio in recent years, by putting the present unconstitutional religious
exemption into Ohio's laws in 1977, the Christian Science Church has made it
possible for other cultists legally to kill their children by faith
non-healing or prayer over-dose. In the "Faith Assembly," a cult centered in
Warsaw, Indiana, and having quite a few adherents in Western Ohio, nearly
100 children died between the mid-70s and the mid-80s. One Faith
Assembly-related death in Ohio was that of 23-month-old Kimberly Miller, who
died of pneumonia on April 3, 1986, after State Representative Francine
Panehal - apparently yielding to Christian Science pressure - killed a
reform bill, H.B.-67, which sought to remove the religious exemption from
Ohio's child-abuse statutes. Because the Faith Assembly cultists do not get
involved in lobbying, the only group to oppose H.B.-67 was the Christian
Science Church. Not only did a cadaverous Bill Evans - the CS "Committee on
Publication" - testify to the efficacy of prayer for healing, Christian
Scientists from all over Ohio jammed the hearing room to pressurize the
proceedings.
This has gotten long enough, if you're interested, visit these three web
sites (particularly the last), which go into great detail. I would love to
talk to your parents about this stuff, but I don't want to offend them
http://www.carm.org/christian_science/cscult.ht
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:VIjWxwmAe7
hrSciProfile.htm+chri
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:TlSxAJ
llit/Talks/cs.html+ch
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:h70K
ianScience.html+chris
Yup. This Internet thingy even has spell checkers to help make it more purposeful. :)
jaosn
jason
Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
Faithcraft confirmed: the Christian faith is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the beleaguered Christian community when recently ABC confirmed that Christians accounts for less than a fraction of 1 percent of all religions. Coming on the heels of the latest Faithcraft survey which plainly states that Christians have lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Christian faith is collapsing in complete disarray, as further exemplified by gaining first place in the recent comprehensive ignorant religion tests.
You don't need to be the Pope to predict the Christian future. The hand writing is on the wall: Christians face a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Christians because it is dying. Things are looking very bad for Christians. As many of us are already aware, Christians continue to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood. The Pope is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of his supporters.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
ThePope leader Kurt states that there are 7000 users of Hindu. Let's see. The number of Hindu versus Christianity posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Christian users. Christ posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of Hindu posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of Christ A recent article put pedophile priests at about 80 percent of the Christianity market. Therefore there are 300+10 = 310 Christian users. This is consistent with the number of all Christian Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Heaven, abysmal sales and so on, Christianity went out of business and were taken over by Sihks who sell another troubled religion. Now Sihk is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that Christians have steadily declined in market share. Christianity is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If it is to survive at all it will be among religious hobbyist dabblers. Christianity continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Christianity is dead.
Christianity is dying
For most, the internet is their encyclopedia. When I want to know about something, I turn to the internet first (granted not all of the information is good...or decent for that matter).
The thing that gets me is that I find myself doing things on the Internet, that I can't imagine what I would have done before it. And not new and weird things, but disgustingly ordinary things
Case in point: A few months ago I overloaded a wheelbarrow and popped the tire off the rim. Now, I have an air compressor, so I had the means to inflate it. I knew, vaguely, that on tires with no inner tube, you basically just blow it up so that the tire itself seals against the rim. I had no idea how.
I spent 20 minutes trying different methods of inflating, holding the tire, spinning the tire, etc. etc... to no avail. I went to Google, spent <2 minutes searching, and found the solution: wrap a rope or strap around the middle of the tire, squeezing it outward on both sides, THEN pump air. Worked on the first try.
What would I have done 20 years ago? Asked around among my neighbors, probably. Not succeeded. Maybe called some buddies. Probably would have had to drive out to the nearest service station and pay $5 for someone to laugh at me.
So, it isn't neccessarily the Encyclopedic knowledge that amazes me... it is the trivial-yet-useful knowledge that you can find.
No, seriously. The Christian Science Monitor has a very good reputation. The name is not indicitave of the content.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Lets start with these two ...
"The early '90s were, IMHO, the best years of the internet. Everything was still new and uncharted... Domains could still be sold back to corporations who lacked vision... hackers were feared and thought to be bent on destroying the free world (except by those of us who knew them as explorers)... and Mosaic set the standard for web browsing."
and
"The song say's "video killed the radio star," but ".com" is killing the net! The internet began as a free society that policed itself, now we have legislators peering and poking into the "content" being provided and into the "fairness" of enterprise being able to control a domain name. If Joe Geek was insightful enough to recognize that Madonna.Com [duanemorris.com] might have value to a certain bleached blond, then said blond should have to pay his price or be willing to let Joe Geek do what he will with the domain."
What makes you think you are entitled to those domain names? Just because you got there first? Is it really as simple as first come first serve to you? There's something called "trademark". People can trademark their names. Companies can do it and so can individuals. Just because a new medium comes along such as the internet, that is no reason to believe that all of a sudden the old rules and laws are now null and void and you can just run over people's trademarks and squat on them as you see fit. This entire mentality is so 1999 and dot.com like. The internet didn't change anything. It didn't change any rules or laws, it just made business and communication more efficient thats all. But you will always have a small tiny segment of the population who wants something for free. They simply cannot understand that the internet is NOT being ruined just because they aren't able to extort millions of dollars from trademark owners just so they can get their domains back.
Unless your name is Madonna you don't deserve that domain name. And since it isn't, the real Madonna should not have to hand over blackmail money to get usage of her trademark handed back over to her. Its ridiculous. Its like registering ford.com and then blaiming the company for not having the "vision" to register themself before you did. No. They don't need vision. They already own the trademark to the name Ford. You don't have a right to squat on their trademark. Legislating and regulating this does not lessen the value of the internet. It does not ruin its spirit. It simply makes it simple to conduct business online without having to deal with nickle and dimeing hoodlums who would hold you up at every point just so they can be "free".
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
the old and the hard way is better than the cold techno-alternative:
your tire's popped. walk to your neighbor to borrow their manual pump. spend 2xx calories on pumping. when you return the pump, the neighbor offers to give you a hand with the finishing of the task. you finish your work while chatting with your buddy and when it's over, you invite his family over for diner.
1 point for getting the job done
5 points for screwing the male in you and ask for help
10 points for spending calories on manual pumping
and 25 points for the social aspect of the whole thing
technology is good, but having good friends is better (tm)
Y?[
? internet is amazingly useful as a research tool, source for patches, drivers, updates... endless amounts of data.
The fact that a site with content fueled by synopsises of and links to the sites that actually contains this points it out is amusing. The fact that the "report" is from the Christian Science Monitor (Christian Science being an oxymoron on a parallel with Military Intelligence)... is fucking hilarious.
Yes, the internet is useful. So are pants. Way to live in the now, scooter.
People use the internet for more than finding porn. Film at 11.
I'm sorry but after hearing of christian scientist parents allowing their children to die without needed healthcare I could care less about their supposed objective worldview. They are whackjobs the whole lot of them.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
..can get hold of course works and results from the degree web site. Timetables, locations, last minute changes for lectures are all available on line. Each area of the degree has a forum for students and lecturers to discuss issues, ask questions etc. All of this means she can hit the ground running, i.e. no need to wander around trying to find where something is being held. It's even more important to her because she has a social anxiety disorder.
I remember the frustration of trying to locate where and when events were being held, or turning up to something cancelled. It's early days but it's hard to believe that the internet(web, IM, email,??) will become increasingly interwoven with the fabric or everyday life, in way that makes it indispensable. IMHO it's fundamental importance will be closer to that of electricity than broadcast TV.
I, for one, am thrilled to hear that more of these over looked, under appreciated mammals are finally breaking the Technological Divide. Imagine all that these creatures have to offer the net....
Oh, wait, that was "purposeful". I thought it said "porpoiseful". Oh well, nevermind.
- Do not paint -
Idiot moderators.
(Posting anonymously to protect karma because my post IS offtopic)
In the text of the article, it ends:
rather then just for fun
I believe the proper word is "than". As in "Greater than" or "fewer than". Not "then" as in "now and then."
I also believe that the odds of getting geeks to get grammar, even with their (not "they're" or "there") big brains is next to hopeless... but still I cringe each time I read things like this.
A lot of people tend to justify their use of the internet but just like coffee, cake, 'one-handed' pr0n surfing, video games and some fine cannabis sativa smoke, you have to moderate your use.
Sounds like it was just posted so people could bash it because it has the word Christian in it. I don't know anything about em, but troll on.
It's so damned useful I have trouble finding uses for it. It used to be a vast realm of quality information and entertainment, now it's just a vast realm of banner ads and spam. I don't care whether the Fortune 500 members consider it 'useful', they weren't the target audience to begin with.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
These guys keep cropping up with alarming regularity. Take nothing at face, not even the 6 Pullitzers.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
No, seriously. The Christian Science Monitor has a very good reputation. The name is not indicitave of the content.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken.
Regardless of their coverage of world events, the prizes they've won, and their "honest, it's a secular paper!" page, they are still a religious-oriented publication.
Would you trust a news publication called the Santa Clause Science Monitor (SCSM) that is published by people who, though they are so sure Santa is real they named their paper after him, swear the paper has only only column about the jolly old man? I don't think so. You'd think they were insane. Well, these people are so sure Christ did all the silly stuff the bible says that they fit the word christ into the title of their publication. I'm sorry, but that is not a secular paper. And I have no more respect for it than I do for The Washington Times (run by moonies) or the hypothetical SCSM.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Ive been on the net since 96, it stopped being fun in about 99.
Basically, when the big internet expansion happened, and it went from being a community of computer genius types, into a commercial business.
The whole fun of the internet was ruined, the same people i used the net to escape from, were now on the net with me.
Now the net is just a tool, like a calculator or telephone.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The net was only fun, when i was new to it. Actually, It was fun until about 1999. It was the net going commercial that ruined the net.
There was an actual culture or cultures to the net, you had chat culture, you had the hacking scene, you had the cracking scene, the gaming scene, and these wernet ordinary people, these were people who were obessessed with this stuff.
Now however, everythings about making money, sure you still have gamers but now its grandma playing quake, or your annoying boss from work, its just not the same anymore.
You still have hacking, but all of the sites are gone, or on places like freenet due to the DMCA.
You still have places like slashdot, but slashdot is one of the last places you can go, to find an intelligent conversation, without slashdot, i wouldnt talk on the net much at all.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
If you will notice... it has changed! Somebody must be reading our little thread.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Alot of people, didnt get involved with thhe net over 5 years ago like us, alot of people are new to it.
People new to the internet, they are just exploring it, alot of them arent as intelligent as we were, the net is easier to use now.
When we first were introduced to the net, the net was diffrent, sites were made by people like us, usually smart people who werent tryinng to sell us stuff, every other link did not link to a porn site.
There were porn sites and always will be but back then there werent alot of advertisements.
Back then Email was actually useful, before instant messaging, I remember NEEDING email.
Also everyone on the net seemed closer, it was as if there was a community, similar to the Open Source Community
Now look at the net, everythingn is tryingn to sell you something, ads everywhere, theres no more web based chatrooms so theres no real way to meet people, all the sites are about making money so theres no community.
The net was fun for a while, now its just a tool.
I hope freenet is successful, maybe we will have our own internet again
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
The internet however was fun back in 1996, each year after 96 it became more and more commercial.
Now its junk.
I mean all these ads, and everythings about money, even slashdot.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
You know I tried to get one of those Christian Science Monitors to go to 1024x768...
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
I seem to recall a saying about judging books and covers. Applies to newspapers and titles too.
Their religious beliefs don't influence their secular articles.
Considering that I happen to be a citizen of a country whose "founding fathers" talked about the natural rights of mankind and then went home and had their slaves cook dinner I try not to judge the present state of institutions by their founders.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
...er, regarding the wheelbarrow tire. Here's another one:
Imagine that the tire that is "off-the-rim" is the large rear tire of a backhoe - how do you inflate that?
Backyard psycho-mechanic trick:
1. Get some grease and smear it around the bead (will ensure the seal for the next part - it is possible to do it without the grease, but not always successful).
2. Have "attendant" (next door neighbor?) in hand with quick attach tire inflator (attached to large tank shop-style air-compressor) stand by, about 15-20 feet away (or, you could trade spots and have him do the next part). Show him where the tire valve stem is, he will have to be quick...
3. Now, get a can of ether, and spray it into the cavity between the tire and rim (a lil' dab'll do ya!), stand 6 feet away, throw the can off to the side, light a match, and toss it in...
4. If you have done everything right, the ether will combust violently, and "air up" the tire right on the rim instantly - "attendant" holding the inflator then needs to immediately come in and start the inflation with the compressor until the tire is fully inflated.
Is this dangerous? HELL YES. Problems include:
1. Too much ether - tire explodes, sending burning rubber shrapnel everywhere.
2. You miss with the match, and you don't know whether to add more ether (see #1 above) to offset the evaporation, or try again with another match, or both, or wait, or...
3. You get it with the match, tire is aired up - but is it still burning inside the tire when you start inflating (thereby adding more oxygen)... BOOM?
Oh, and for that extra special treat, do the trick at night for a "cool" light show!
BTW - DO NOT TRY THIS TRICK ON AUTOMOBILE TIRES AND RIMS. You WILL probably add too much ether, or the rim won't be able to take the pressure, etc - hell, I am not even sure I should be mentioning any of this, even for tractor tires/rims...
DISCLAIMER: The above is for educational purposes only - use information at your own risk!!!
;)
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Considering that I happen to be a citizen of a country whose "founding fathers" talked about the natural rights of mankind and then went home and had their slaves cook dinner I try not to judge the present state of institutions by their founders
So, you're saying they used to publish articles with a christian slant? From what I read on their site, I don't think they claim to have changed greatly, or lessened any one-time christian influence.
But your comparison is an interesting one. Suppose our country was so racist at the time of it's founding that the founding fathers had decided to throw some racial reference into the very name of the country; would you still stand by that now? Most likely, people would have realized at some point how backwards the name was and changed it.
If the CSM was once a backwards religion-influenced paper, but has now changed (which I don't believe is the case at all), they should change their name.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
...we all once used the 'net for useful things.
Then a bunch of jesus freaks found out that you could trade pr0n and not make it community business.
Boom, bang... millions of lusers... RealPlayer... mp3... dotCOM explosion...
... the gov't made the Internet purposeful.
The headline should read "Users Become Adults"
Get your Unix fortune now!
I agree. I also agree that Bill Clinton was right in apologizing to black ppl for what our forefathers did hundreds of years ago... even though our country has changed greatly since then.
You are an idiot.
My karma is -1 because I don't use AC posting. LOL.
You know, us foreigners are supposed to be able to spell better than natives because we learned the language with constant reference to its written form, most likely concentrating in reading and writing to the point of being ill-prepared to properly speak in it. As a rule, foreigners make most of their mistakes by missing on the details of grammatical constructions, applying constructs of their native language, and using words with the wrong connotations. Thus, I am afraid I must conclude that you are a natively English-speaking dyslexic, and at the very least a liar, if not a troll.
Okay, so show me their supposedly secular article that has a 'christian slant' that's so irrational and I'll change my mind. I don't know what the CSM was like originally. I only know what it's like now and that's how I base my judgement.
And unless the CSM is trying to discuss some type of technical issue that they believe conflicts with their beliefs, or they start evangelizing, I really don't see the danger. Think of it as analogous to a judge who refuses to preside over a case because he knows the defendant, but is compentent to preside over other cases. Some people are only irrational or biased on particular issues, but clearheaded on others. In fact, I've found this to be true with most people.
But to answer your question, I wouldn't stand by any racism posited by the 'founding fathers' because racism is (or can be) a threat to people's well being.
An obviously extreme analogy here would be a mental institution that intends to determine whether a person is 'a threat to themselves or others', not whether their view of the world matches those around them.
In relation to the CSM, the question is whether whatever biases the reporters might have is a threat to the integrity of their secular articles. And I've been impressed enough with their reporting that I'll keep believing this until I'm shown reasonable evidence to the contrary.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Think you'll find them reporting stories like this one? I doubt it.
And even when they're reporting about things unrelated to christian science, I don't need to hear what they have to say! Read this and come back here. Do you want to read news written by people deny that medicines can have any effect on their own, but instead work entirely through placebo? ("[A] drug has no efficacy of its own, but borrows its power from human faith and belief. The drug does nothing, because it has no intelligence." (Science and Health, p. 12)).
If you want to read the news as it's seen through the eyes of christian science wackos, go for it. But you're not going to convince me that CSM is a respectable newspaper.
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
I don't know what my two cents will by here, but here goes... As someone who has worked at the Christian Science Monitor I can tell you that they are anything but "wacos." Just about every Christian Scientist I worked with was intelligent, kind, and perhaps more mentally balanced than average. The paper is genuine, and so are their motives for publishing it. The articles you sited are unfair portrayals of Christian Scientists and how they practice their religion. I've read Science and Health and there are many quite profound ideas there that make more sense to me than many other religious teachings. What sets Christian Scientists apart is that they take spiritual healing very seriously. It's all over the Bible - Old and New Testaments. And I believe that they practice it with considerable success in their own lives, and families. True they are not flawless, but they are not irrational either. There is demonstrated validity to spiritual healing. Yet, when a death occurs of someone who did not seek traditional medicine, it is much more reported, interpreted, and maligned than the thousands of needless medical deaths that happen yearly. I don't think Christian Scientists are dogmatic in avoiding medical treatment. And, I don't think they're irrational in using prayer as a treatment of first resort. I've seen it work. I think they have something to be looked at rationally, not dismissed as wacky. Final point: Don't we all read writing by journalists and others whose religion or politics we don't agree with? I don't discount the ideas of someone who's an athiest. How about a little tolerance here? I agree we should judge the media with healthy skepticism, especially 7 year-old articles with an obvious negative bias.
I don't know what my two cents will by here, but here goes...
As someone who has worked at the Christian Science Monitor I can tell you that they are anything but "wacos." Just about every Christian Scientist I worked with was intelligent, kind, and perhaps more mentally balanced than average. The paper is genuine, and so are their motives for publishing it.
The Internet content sited represents unfair portrayals of Christian Scientists and how they practice their religion. I've read Science and Health and there are many quite profound ideas there that make more sense to me than many other religious teachings.
What sets Christian Scientists apart is that they as an important element of Christianity. It's all over the Bible - Old and New Testaments. And I believe that they practice it with considerable success in their own lives, and families. True they are not flawless, but they are not irrational either. There is demonstrated validity to spiritual healing. Yet, when a death occurs of someone who did not seek traditional medicine, it is much more reported, interpreted, and maligned than the thousands of needless medical deaths that happen yearly.
I don't think Christian Scientists are dogmatic in avoiding medical treatment. And, I don't think they're irrational in using prayer as a treatment of first resort. I've seen it work. I think they have something to be looked at rationally, not dismissed as wacky.
Final point: Don't we all read writing by journalists and others whose religion or politics we don't agree with? I don't discount the ideas of someone who's an athiest. How about a little tolerance here? I agree we should judge the media with healthy skepticism, especially 7 year-old articles with an obvious negative bias.
Ha-ha.
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin