Christian Scientists

El Gran Steep

I found the brief bit on Christian Scientists a few shows back interesting. I was hoping you would get into the origins of the religion on the show, because once you understand that you understand why they don't believe in medicine (even if it still doesn't make much sense from a logical perspective).

The Christian Scientist religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy. Eddy lay upon her deathbed; science and medicine had failed her. In desperation, she picked up a bible and read a passage about a divine healing. According to her description, Eddy was miraculously healed. However, Eddy still had a problem, indeed the whole religious world since the dawn of time had this same problem: the problem of evil. If God is omnipotent and perfectly good, why does evil and disease exist in the world? Various religions and philosophers have attempted to tackle this issue with varied success. Eddy decided to take a page from the book of Augustine and concluded that evil, in fact, didn't exist. All the ills and evils of this world are mere illusions. By using medicine to cure a disease, you are giving force to that illusion. Since the bible presented us with the means to be healed, via prayer and miraculous intervention, that is the method that Eddy believed we should use.

Speaking of religion, in your podcast where you spoke about creationism and perjury, you mentioned something to the effect that a Mormon needn't swear on the bible if testifying in court. There is nothing in Mormon theology that prevents a Mormon from swearing on a bible in particular or taking an oath in general. It could be that you confused Mormons with Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are discouraged from any participation in government that could be seen as idolatrous.

Nazhuret

Is it just me or was anyone else confused as a child (or even into later years) as to the difference between "christian scientists" and "scientology"?

For the longest time (ie: before the intewebs) I thought the two were one and the same....

Just thought I'd ask... Not meaning to sidetrack the conversation before it starts.

edit: please dont' think i'm a dumbass because of this... or... go ahead i guess...

El Gran Steep

I think that's perfectly understandable. They're both religions based on questionable science that use the word "science" in their name.

spiritfiend

Speaking of religion, in your podcast where you spoke about creationism and perjury, you mentioned something to the effect that a Mormon needn't swear on the bible if testifying in court. There is nothing in Mormon theology that prevents a Mormon from swearing on a bible in particular or taking an oath in general. It could be that you confused Mormons with Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are discouraged from any participation in government that could be seen as idolatrous.

From the Bible, Book of Matthew (KJV):

5:33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths:
5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:
5:35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.
5:36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black.
5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I'm not a Christian, but from what I understand this applies to not only Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but all Protestant faiths (Catholic's adhere to the Church's rules over any scripture, which is why Protestantism exists in the first place).

Telling his followers not to take oaths was part of Jesus's "Sermon on the Mount" where Jesus tells his followers how to live their lives. Does this include swearing on the Bible in court? Does this include swearing to uphold our constitution (as do all public officials including President)? Does this also include vowing to remain faithful to your wife/husband in your wedding in a church? Probably so, in every case.

Sorry to sidetrack this discussion on Christian scientists, but one need only read Matthew 5 to realize that most people that claim to be Christians are full of shit.

El Gran Steep

Meh. The thing about the Bible is it can say whatever you want it say. That's why there are so many different Chrisitan religions: Christ said a bunch of stuff, but there's disagreement as to what that stuff means. In my mind, when interpreting the Bible, one has to walk a pretty fine line between the literal and figurative. After all, if we were to read that passage literally, Christians would only be able to say "yes" and "no." I'm fairly certain that's not what Christ was meaning by that passage (although I could be wrong).

spiritfiend

Meh. The thing about the Bible is it can say whatever you want it say.... After all, if we were to read that passage literally, Christians would only be able to say "yes" and "no." I'm fairly certain that's not what Christ was meaning by that passage (although I could be wrong).

I don't understand how you could doubt your literal interpretation of passage. This is exactly what Jesus was saying. Different interpretations could be applied to Jesus's parables (stories used to prove some point), though the section that I cited is perhaps the only part of the Bible, where Jesus gives clear cut directions to his followers on how to live their lives.

I really think it is important to know what is in the Bible. Even if you don't believe any of it to be true.

Why do I say this? At the very least, because this storybook is being used to create national policies that affect everyone. You should at least know why.

RadioElectric

Hi, I'm back from the wilds of the internet just to add something here...

A while back I had a discussion with a Biologist (geneticist mainly) where I was putting forward the idea that the bible is written so as to be a focus point for the thoughts of the reader and that rather than introducing new ideas into your head it aims to clarify those you already have.

Phantasos

Just saw this article on digg. Very much worth a read.

It's a bit long but worth the time. It focuses on cases of rape, incest and child abuse in Amish communities and the difficulty local authorities have had in prosecuting to the full extent of the law when they come up. Appropriate in the context of strict religion getting in the way of reality.
On a related note I am good friends with a convicted sex offender. He's a gay man who was dating another guy in high school until this other guy's parents found out. Because of the 2 year age difference (my friend being the older) and the fact that the boyfriend was just shy of his 18th birthday the parents decided to press charges for statuatory rape. Due to stricter and stricter sex criminal laws being passed my friend, now in his 30s and having never had another run in with the law, cannot vote in elections and has his name printed in the local paper yearly warning his neighbors that he's a convicted sex offender. He drives over an hour to work every day just to avoid living in the same city that he works in an attempt to avoid his coworkers finding out. Now I understand wanting to protect children but why is it that my good, honest, loyal friend lives his life in shame while judges and prosecutors refuse to doll out appropriate sentences to the people in this story. That right there is the true tragedy.

Apreche

On a related note I am good friends with a convicted sex offender. He's a gay man who was dating another guy in high school until this other guy's parents found out. Because of the 2 year age difference (my friend being the older) and the fact that the boyfriend was just shy of his 18th birthday the parents decided to press charges for statuatory rape. Due to stricter and stricter sex criminal laws being passed my friend, now in his 30s and having never had another run in with the law, cannot vote in elections and has his name printed in the local paper yearly warning his neighbors that he's a convicted sex offender.

I also see stories like this, and they are a great injustice. However, when I actually looked at the map of sex offenders in my area there was not even one who I would not agree is a "real" sex offender. I think I might have less of a problem with making sex offenders known if they also had to list what exactly you did. If the specific circumstances of your friend's situation were written next to his name, then it probably wouldn't matter if co-workers found out. Unless of course he's in the closet, but that's another issue entirely.

Also, I have a hypothetical question. What if I commit a crime today, and the law changes tomorrow? If I had commited the act a day later, it wouldn't have been a crime. Do I get off the hook? If we make pot legal, do all the stoners get freed? If we make gay sex with a 17 year old legal, can your friend vote again? I knew the answer at one point, but not now.

Kilarney

If the specific circumstances of your friend's situation were written next to his name, then it probably wouldn't matter if co-workers found out. Unless of course he's in the closet, but that's another issue entirely.

It wouldn't have to be gender specific. It could just state that the victim was a teenager.
In Vermont, they just loosened the rules for consenual teenage sex. But then again, they just tightened the rules for all other sex offenses.

Also, I have a hypothetical question. What if I commit a crime today, and the law changes tomorrow? If I had commited the act a day later, it wouldn't have been a crime. Do I get off the hook? If we make pot legal, do all the stoners get freed? If we make gay sex with a 17 year old legal, can your friend vote again? I knew the answer at one point, but not now.

This is a very complicated area of law.
As a general proposition:
If you commit a crime today and the law changes so that it is no longer against the law... If your case is still pending you are in all likelihood able to take advantage of the change in the law. (this is a corrolary of the "Rule of Leniency") If your case is not pending, and you have been convicted... the conviction remains.
Keep in mind that this is by necessity oversimplified.

Phantasos

I bring up the fact that he is gay because that is the only reason that the parents decided to press charges. The parents didn't have a problem with their son having sex in high school, they had a problem with their son being gay. I guess they thought if they brought charges against my friend then they'd have to stop dating and that'd make their son straight.

Kilarney

They probably didn't want to come to terms with the fact that their son was gay. Instead, it was much easier to believe that he was straight and had just been "preyed upon" by someone who is older.
In any event... I suspect you've only heard one side of the story.

Phantasos

That is true, I've never met this kid. For all I know the parents were right and their son really was being preyed upon. Judging by the man I know now, however, I can't entertain such a notion with any air of seriousness. And that doesn't change the fact that while this story may or may not have come to pass the way I told it, there's nothing keeping a story like this from coming to pass and that is the travesty.