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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.