"Don't put a handle on Animal Magnetism"


Q: Are children defiled by asking for drinks they may not know are alcoholic - parents in restaurants often chortle over the little child's misunderstanding.

A: REV Mrs. Eddy indicates that the Christian Science movement needs us as dear children of God, more than as men and women - but the children of God are not merely children of men redesignated: the child readily accepts parental wisdom, but repeating that wisdom is not of itself the (adult) grown-up's wisdom: Christian Science demands of us perfection - and that [perfection] is true adult wisdom - parents have their own experience to work-out, too. Not as much as the adult asking for alcoholic drink, is the child-mind defiled: the child may be asking honestly for a good drink, expecting it, and it is the adults' subterfuge which substitutes the alcoholic spoilage - oft accusing the child falsely of the adults' own falsity - then the child asks again, thinking there was something wrong with that little portion, an unclean glass, a smudge of taint, an untasty speck of dirt ... the child-mind continually improves its estimate of poor humanity.

Q: In this week's Lesson, Mrs. Eddy writes of the prophet of today beholding in the mental horizon the signs of these times (S&H98:4) - she uses the word, in, while elsewhere she says the word, in, is obsolete in Christian Science ... why? Why not, on, the horizon - that is, on the circle of the Earth, too thin to contain aught in itself?

A: REV Mrs. Eddy redirects the reader (mentality) to think: about what a horizon is, about what a sign is, about where prophets looked for their insights - not to the obvious objects, nor material sense: that is, not to the temporal things which sometimes appear, above, sometimes do not, below, but to the continual constant eternal present (things) and (their) effectual understanding, the manifestation of a true spirituality applied to the human - the efficacious Christ - with the exactness of the spiritual sense: that line of demarcation between the real and the unreal (MBE). Although to human sense it is but a line, it is more a delineation upon human sense: That, to which human consentaneous belief yields itself, masters [that belief]. Jesus pointed to the center of the eye as being surrounded by the body, full of light. If you see the point, then the whole mental vision-span is filled with the image. Mrs. Eddy pointed to the line, similarly - to thoughts sublimely ascending and descending. It is not commonly historical whether she knew of the defraction of photons over a horizon - sun-light also refracts through the early morning and late evening atmosphere - but this [defraction] was interesting science in her day.

Q: In this week's Lesson-Sermon, Jesus said of Peter: Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. As gates mean some opening or closing, Jesus must have meant his church was [is] going to enter Hell - forceably: presumably to recover the sick and dying. This sort of church seems more a movement and operation, than an establishment: How?!

A: Quite - and the word, church, is linguistically close to the French, cherche, to search, and with the persevering emphasis of the linguistic, ur, we find in, pure, cure, sure, even fury, beyond merely thorough looking-for, more than a search for unaccounted dimes (parabolically) hidden under cushions, Jesus intended a very masculine assault even against the self-consuming heat [of said sun-hot Hell] - and we can read-out a lot of that furious dust of history, now settled, sedimented in the calmer understanding we have in Christian Science. Mankind had to get beyond mere belief in Truth - which was illusory and hotly torturous to human desires wanting of reality - to the very Science of Truth. REV Eddy perceived Church as the structure of Truth and Love - these are not dead-end materialisms, but the divine Principal, Life.

Q: In this week's Lesson-Sermon is Jesus' remark about the Pharisees giving to the treasury of their abundance while the widow gave all [two pence] she had. Did this really happen? Didn't the pot-keeper in those days step forward and donate for a widow?

A: Maybe the Roman cultus prompted a temple pot-keeper to donate on behalf a poor widow - a very feely-showy act - but the Jews kept better care of widows. Most likely the Pharisees (possibly through interns or assistants) had already supplied the widow much more than [said] two pence - (recall another complaint that a certain bottle of perfume could have been sold and the profits given to the poor) - thus Jesus' remark stung: Those two pence contributed by the widow might have come from what she'd received of some Pharisee(s), and none of them would then stop her from donating as a good Jew of their community - though some of them self-satisfiedly knew whence that donation originated: Jesus' words seemed suddenly extraneously. But reading deeper, we see Jesus pointing to the Pharisaic-traditioned practice of publicly tithing, knowing that, had contributions been given privately, not publicly viewed, those same Pharisees would have struggled among themselves to make-up the difference of a widow's two-pence: it was easier to appear in public donating according to their traditionally establish rules, than to argue privately over the necessary apportionments ensuring the revenues of themselves. And, Jesus often exposed the mortal's struggling with one's self - even to not letting another [one or more] do it vicariously: That widow was as much before Jesus' condemnation of frivolous money mongering, as [any] Pharisees - Jesus condemned no man, but judged righteously all manner of wickedness. This was not lost on REV Mrs. Eddy: Her early church was supported by her students' private contributions (not public Sunday collections), and often at her request: She, was, their Leader. But the mentalized in-fighting must have changed her opinion on revenues, because her Church has since then taken Sunday collections from the entire collective congregation: The Board continues to ask for donations, from all members, extending the yearly Per Capita Tax, on that basis of her Leadership and urgence for all members to practice - this is a pronounced quality of leaders, to ask for support from their followers - and, it may be the way her Successor will become public: to ask for contributions from Practitioners and Teachers - as some one of the Directors may have pretenced in their long-reluctant publication of several books about Mrs. Eddy and her Church, including especially one by a former (passed) teacher, for the stipulated $100 million estate legacy.

Q: Please address Mrs. Eddy's purported one-instance drug-use, especially in relation to today when drug-abuse seems so rife: Do individuals have the right to determine good and evil for themselves?!

A: Certainly not in the Jehovistic sense, tended by the Christian [Science] Church: Members cannot be allowed to try the world's evils: cannot [be allowed to] fail to receive the divine aid - exceptions proving that "an enemy hath done this" upon those members who fail, and need recovery more than forgiveness. REV Mrs. Eddy realized, in that one instance she describes as after she'd learned and practiced Christian Science many years she tried a strong dose of a drug she'd been given as a child by a doctor of the materia medica, with tearful thanks (she declared), it had no effect on her: meaning it did not give her the expected excitation of the bodily-apportioned senses associated with that particular drug, and left no addiction to attend such morbid expectation. Those tearful thanks resound with contrition for a single wrong-doing believably forgiven: She realized how wrong that old deadly faulty notion of drugs-for-health-recovery had been: She'd "never do that again, your honor" (her thought of the God she now knew she honored). And we note that in that same era most of those harsh abuse-tempting drugs became contrabanded - that bane taken away from tempting those who would become Christian Scientists within that next century - outlawed by the fifth generation in the United States of America, thus foreshadowing the uncrowned seven-headed beast overtaking the babylonish woman in the wilderness, and consistent with her keeping one step ahead of error. She (Mrs. Eddy) then better understood, recognized, the coincidence of transgression and punishment (pain) - and that the actions of Christian Scientists made morals for mankind! (MBE) Yet, how little else has been accomplished since: Christ Jesus had finally given-up wine-bibbery, yet Paul restored it among his followers. We have yet to see mankind give-up cheese, vinegar, yeasts: for the measure of the penalty of pain has not been fully paid by humankind.

Q: What does 'lambhorn' say actually happened when Christ Jesus returned to Cleopas and Simon Peter, as they walked to Emmaus, who then returned promptly to Jerusalem, and he appeared there, too: flesh and blood? [This week's Lesson]

A: Human belief of existence has been millennia putting-off hallucinatory opinions of life and man - only recently, mere decades, has this supposed coincidence of life and soul with matter been thoroughly and finally challenged: that matter is no-thing, is now Scientific: and therefor materia medica, bio-chemically systematized only recently, was long-ago obsoleted. Moses' rod-snake, Elija's rise in the firey whirlwind, DANIEL's three Hebrew boys unsinged in the brilliant firey furnace, Jesus' (re)appearance after the crucifixion - yet then he rose to heaven: Why? Ideas do not come from heaven [atmosphere] save metaphorically, as sublime - but image-thoughts fixed in the second-sight where down-cast eyes intend, do rise as the eyes rise - so their Jesus-image rose. Historic, or, prophetic: eitherwise, growth Spiritward. But how much does that old claim of sin hold of us?! (MBE) Can cheese-eaters put-off their cheese-consenting hallucinations, though more real to their thoughts than those of winos. Jesus showed it was Scientifically possible, enough to heal the sick - but for those schooled, that yearned not healing, he seeming rose. His disciples after three years of instruction yet held a very personal sense of their teacher: eating fish and honeycomb, breaking and blessing bread. Can thoroughly depressed men, yea, who no longer trust in any illusory supposed image-reality of sickness and death, testify consistently to their risen teacher? Would they not have tried to recover (uplift) their own thought of him: imitating every meme and wont?! And suddenly they each saw him whenever two or more were gathered in his name (mental power), momentarily one acting, being, another seeing, knowing (he is there) - what was real in their thought of him had grown, lived there. Their returned Jesus did not resume healing, preaching to multitudes, but (re)encouraging, (re)instructing, them only - in the way they had better known him daily. More likely Peter spoke, Christly, and Cleopas saw, recognized, their Scripture-talking Jesus; then Cleopas in turn, until each had common demonstrated, each had common testimony of the risen Lord - then satisfied, that eye-fixed second-sight loosed from rigid Earthy mortal-literalism, rose with their eyes to their prophetic expectancy freed of fear - and they then knew where they'd seen him: in heaven. [Paul later referred to the division of speaking, acting, emoting, mannering, blessing, as, gifts of the Spirit!]

And the identity of the two men in glistering white at the tomb; And what and where did they do with the body? There were wisemen from the east at the birth of Jesus, who followed the celestial clock: they or their successors would have observed the lunar eclipse on April 3, 33, from the east (where it was visible), and come post-haste in two days journey, a hundred miles. [Which might thusly confirm that specific date for crucifixion: April 3, 33 - the oriental, including Jewish, monthly calendar was synchronized to the new moon at sundown, and that eclipse of a full moon at sundown was thus a celestial demurrer]

Q: I read a natural-foods' claim that it was "in Boston in 1773, where the Boston Tea Party makes the drinking of coffee a patriotic duty in the colonies".

A: Yes - again, historically preparations of foods were according to their belief in personal history, which belief as all belief is handled astutely in Christian Science as the oneness of the believer and (his) belief: both mortal, both precluded of need in Science by Spirit's all-knowing. But your question really is a shocker: Are coffee, tea, tobacco, alcohol, opium, excluded from consistency with Christian Science, for their nationalism? which REV Mrs. Eddy has noted was the shortcoming of Judaism, having a too nationalistic God! Most certainly this appears coincident with the inferential analyses of 'lambhorn' - though she did not mention cheese, vinegar, yeasted bread, mentioning only these nationalistic peerages, her effect was to ensure that there was a minimum effort to handling sin, that should not be failed by her Church members, who, while themselves growing as separate from denomination, were deigned to typify generic man and reveal her Successor - leaving her Successor to forward the complete Scientific understanding of man's immanently here-possible purification from sin and error, a type of present im-mortality.

The reader is presently directed to re-read the errata - especially the newly included addendum regarding the need for all Christian Scientists at this epoch to recognize Mrs. Eddy's place as inviolate under the onslaught of gain-sayers malingering within the Movement, and abusing 'lambhorn' and other profitable works on Christian Science, as their excuse for accusing men about 'gay's and 'prostitute's - topics which writers on Christian Science have not engendered, but exposed for their detriment to its Cause, Place, and Power. Such accusers, false to themselves, have tried to gradually attain authority for the Church, principally through methodically subterfuged falsity (pro and con) toward established scientist-authors: taking the course REV Eddy ascribed to the worldlings' acceptance of Truth, denying it, misattributing it, preposterizing it (claiming they always knew).
Q: Was Jesus acting consistently with Moses' injunction to obey the Ten Commandments formidably? as Moses exampled: with such force that killing an attempting adulterer was preferrable to complicity in adultery! What should Jesus have done preferrably to complicity with being murdered? Kill first? Steal the weapons? Why did Jesus, before the trial, direct his disciples to be counted among the rebels? to take two swords!

A: In Jesus' era there were numerous rebels, but his own disciples did not recognize Jesus as one among them: Peter doubted Jesus foretelling his impending doom: Jesus referred him to remove Satan in the way. In the absence of legal record - having but historical record - Peter obediently taking two swords, woke the disciples to face squarely the claim against their lessons: they barely started to see the necessity of forcible compliance with The Ten Commandments - their upbringing in submission to the Roman incursion, had left them with belittled belief: What should have been their daily Law, had been relegated to the then-Jewish equivalent of being realistic - renegades had made little success, and their Jewish human thought had acquiesced to idly listening for God's ever-pronounced guidance - today we still find this reluctance to confront error besets Christian Scientists, too, especially children: it's called, the "Polyanna" syndrome. The quaint difference (in Zionist perspective) is that Christian Science demands the Practitioner handle the claim of sickness and sin, but too often is forsaken by Church leaders in handling sin completely, because, while sickness is quickly forgotten when mostly gone, sin persists till it is completely destroyed - and Practitioners find the detente easier. Peter barely nicked the ear of the high priests' servant, which then Jesus cleaned-up, raising the interesting question whether Jesus would have raised a dead servant, had Peter pierced him in the heart.

[Whence also a possible armageddon when not nations but Christian Scientists enter forcibly nuclear warfare - note that at present era, Christian Scientists have entered only the outer control layer of nuclear warfare: that of TEMPEST engineering which ensures jamproof communications-control of digital-uploaded flight-path data to ICBM's - even the nuclear winter scenario pales to what absolute accuracy will do to nuclear targets - the original nukes were inaccurate, but the detonation so large the 10 mile inaccuracy meant no significant miss of large targets: With jamproof digital directional controls, small nukes can round the Earth and strike a city as accurately as a cruise missile (another way, or even as itself, the ICCM - the inter-continental cruise missile)]

[under construction]

[We must note here in closing that the plausible actual would become speculative if we merely imagine what persons may have done, said, and meant - the importance is in the demonstration of the Christ Science: not to rediscover but discern and live it]
The teachings herein are not secularized nor classified: Sunday School pupils, Primary Class students, Normal Class graduates, scholars, researchers, astronomers, scientists, and governments, will find this coursework timely, modern, global, historical, and democratic. The syllabus is the ALMS Program: astronomics, linguistics, mathematics, systematics ... scientific inferentiation on the Holy Biblical Scripture: 'what actually happened'.

FUNDAMENTAL CONTROVERSES: Christian Science Class Instruction * RKPetry

The Son Dey School of Christ Science

The theory of measurement propounded in this work is not to be cited (as) considering contraband or corpses; Nor are the intellectual appurtenances herein to be used for or in the commission of crimes against persons, peoples, properties, or powers (states). May your tabernacle measure true.


© 1996-2001 Mr. Raymond Kenneth Petry

You are looking at a nonprofit organization client page on!