Absolute vs Relative and the readers of these posts

[Laurie]

Mrs Eddy wrote at various levels. For example, the spiritual interpretation of the Lord's Prayer is really Absolute Christian Science. But other things she wrote applied a more human-existence. For example, the Rule for Motives and Acts which is read once a month in church is more aimed at providing us guidelines for living WHILE we are on our "walk to Damascus."

And, although it is true, that you can always heal a problem using Absolute Truth, I think some of the questions posed in this forum are looking for less "absolute" answers and more "relative" answers (for lack of a better word).

Remember, this is an open forum. Not everybody who visits this forum has attended Christian Science church services.:o

[adyer]

I've thought about this issue for a long time. I finally decided that "absolute" and "relative" are the wrong words when trying to decide which gear to drive in.

My first encounter with CS was more of a clash. The problem was not the language but my unwillingness to consider such a radical point of view. I will be eternally grateful that my friend never dumbed it down for me. I had to go up to it.

I think people are looking for Truth. I think people don't want to be treated with kid gloves. Our challenge is to speak from our rebirth. My willingness came from seeing the mental freedom that CS brought to my friends and realizing that was what I wanted.

If matter is unreal, we should say so. Don't you think? I don't think people are unready for this. People take all kinds of drugs they know nothing about. Why? Because they are convinced it's worth taking.

Why shouldn't someone be willing to consider the unreality of matter if they are convinced it's worth something?

That brings the question not to what language we use but that thing in another thread: our "fidelity to Truth and Love." Are we thoroughly convinced of it? Are we genuine apostles of the Science of being?

[royan]

we are on our "walk to Damascus."

The wise men from the east made a journey to pay homage to the new born king.
While doing so, they asked for directions then continued the journey.
They found the child, they knelt down and paid him homage.

[Aslan]

Christian Science awakens the sinner, reclaims the infidel, and raises from the couch of pain the helpless invalid. (S&H 342:21)

Why on earth would Mrs. Eddy say such a thing? She teaches that we're all perfect children of God, ideas in the one Infinite Mind. She's contradicting herself. There's no such thing as a sinner, an infidel, or a helpless invalid.

What would you say if you were asked this question?

The argument against using the terms "relative" and "absolute" is that they portray Christian Science as a dualistic system. I think when used properly they aid in unmasking the dualism of the human experience rather than impart it to absolute Christian Science.

Entirely separate from the belief and dream of material living, is the Life divine... (S&H 14:25)

If you have never been faced with a serious physical challenge in this belief and dream of material living, you probably cannot appreciate how tiresome it gets when all Christian Scientists can say to you is, "You're a perfect child of God" or "We're all Spiritual ideas".

Regards,
Aslan

[Caron]

If you have never been faced with a serious physical challenge in this belief and dream of material living, you probably cannot appreciate how tiresome it gets when all Christian Scientists can say to you is, "You're a perfect child of God" or "We're all Spiritual ideas".

Aslan, I just want to say -- I hear you. You want an arm around your shoulder, a friend to say, "Let's get together for lunch tomorrow," or at least, "I hope you're feeling better soon."

What comfort is it to hear a spiritual idea unless you're really ready for it? I think that was what Paul was getting at in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 13).

Mary Baker Eddy definitely got that (see S&H 460:18 and 366:3). She advised Christian Scientists not to treat people that way. It's not Christian Science itself that is to blame; it might be a lack of communication skill.

As far as using the terms "absolute" and "relative," I think they're useful in describing levels of consciousness. One of the things I love about the Christian Science textbook is the way ALL levels of human thought are addressed throughout the book. There's not a chapter for beginners and a later one for advanced students. No, there's something for everyone on every page.

Even in one sentence, both the relative and absolute are sometimes expressed: "A spiritual idea has not a single element of error, and this truth removes properly whatever is offensive (S&H 463:12-13)."

Aslan, I have been appreciating your participation in these forums, and I truly do hope you're feeling better soon!

[cybercrone]

Christian Science awakens the sinner, reclaims the infidel, and raises from the couch of pain the helpless invalid. (S&H 342:21)

Why on earth would Mrs. Eddy say such a thing? She teaches that we're all perfect children of God, ideas in the one Infinite Mind. She's contradicting herself. [/I]

That was a question of mine for a long time. I think what I've come to see is that - hm-m-m-m, now I'm trying to think how to put it. :rolleyes:
I guess that you have to have language to discuss the human condition. While we have to hold very strongly to the understanding that the material "reality" is not the truth about us or about existence and life, we still have to talk about it sometimes.
How else could you answer if someone who was totally unfamiliar with CS asked what/who it was good for and only would listen for 30 seconds?
Just as we have to make some concessions to the material condition, such as eating and wearing clothes to the office, heating our homes and brushing our teeth - at least until we can demonstrate a much higher degree of our true spiritual nature - likewise we have to make some concessions with language until we can all understand what is being said when we speak from a p.o.v. of our natural perfection.
Especially, I think, we have to remember that MBE was writing a book for those who had never heard of her ideas. No-one had heard of these ideas before. So somehow the concepts had to be made comprehensible to utter newbies. And their usefulness had to be shown to them (and us) so it could be understood from where they (and we) were standing at the time.
I hope this has made some sense to you, and helped with the apparent contradictions.

And yes, I'll second that folks who spout off platitudes to someone trying to handle a difficult situation can be worse than annoying, but I try to remember that they're doing it out of love and concern. And that they too are reflections of Divine Mind and cannot say anything that is not helpful and true. Some days, that's more helpful than other days . . . <(^o^)>

[Aslan]

What comfort is it to hear a spiritual idea unless you're really ready for it? I think that was what Paul was getting at in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor 13).


1 Cor. 13... one of my all time favorite texts. Too long to copy/paste in the thread, so if you're not familiar with it get out your Bible. And just in case anyone isn't aware of it, nearly every English translation except the King James uses the word "love" in that chapter instead of "charity". For example, here's the NIV translation (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=13&version=31).

Scottish theologian Henry Drummond, in 1880 published his excellent sermon on the subject of this "love chapter" of 1 Cor., as it is sometimes referred to. Mr. Drummond's sermon is entitled The Greatest Thing in the World (http://henrydrummond.wwwhubs.com/greatest.htm). Although he was not a Christian Scientist, this is a popular Christian work read and admired by many Christian Scientists that I know.

Composer Peter Allen, a Christian Scientist, has written a musical suite of the same title, based on this sermon by Henry Drummond. The recording (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Thing-World-Peter-Allen/dp/B000CAJYXW) features vocalist Julia Wade, who is the soloist at the Mother Church. (Sorry I couldn't find a more informative link than the Amazon page).

Regards,
Aslan

[Norbu]

The trouble is that while you seek to qualify what is loving and liberating by the test of physical conditions of health you pinion the wings of what is loving. Pure selfless acceptance free of judgement is the the means by which the knots of bondage can be loosened.

So many student of CS have demonstrated their misunderstanding of this principle by hardened adherence to dualistic ideal based dogma of absolute vs relative. Surely, absolute and relative must coincide? Isn't the arbiter of this coincidence what is loving, liberating, healing even?

Without "charity" the mysteries of the universe are merely janglings of self entrenchment.

Norbu

[Aslan]

So many student of CS have demonstrated their misunderstanding of this principle by hardened adherence to dualistic ideal based dogma of absolute vs relative. Surely, absolute and relative must coincide? Isn't the arbiter of this coincidence what is loving, liberating, healing even?


To me the terms "absolute" and "relative" are simply used to assist those new to Christian Science in resolving statements from Science and Health like:

(relative) "If a child is exposed to contagion or infection..." (154:16)

(absolute) "God is Mind: all that Mind, God, is, or hath made, is good, and He made all. Hence evil is not made and is not real." (311:4-5)

A student new to Christian Science may ask, if as Mrs. Eddy asserts that evil is not made and is not real, but speaks of a child being exposed to contagion or infection, then aren't contagion and infection real, and therefore not evil?

If the terms "relative" and "absolute" are employed in such a way that it is empahsized that the relative recognizes the illusion or lie to be overcome by Truth... that the contagion or infection are illusion or error... then the use is not dualistic.

The use of the terms "absolute" and "relative" are properly employed to uplift human perception to a higher point of view, not to argue for two separate realities.

John saw the human and divine coincidence, shown in the man Jesus, as divinity embracing humanity in Life and its demonstration,--reducing to human perception and understanding the Life which is God. In divine revelation, material and corporeal selfhood disappear, and the spiritual idea is understood. (S&H 561:16)

Regards,
Aslan

[adyer]

Beautifully put, Aslan. For a second I found myself back at my Association meeting!

I would only revise one thing you said:

To me the terms "absolute" and "relative" are simply used to assist those new to Christian Science and everyone else in Christian Science, for that matter...