tisfc" is not a thinker. Her mental.con- fusion is seen in the claiming, and, again, disclaiming personality in God. And, again, calling Him Spirit, which involves personality,, as sugar .involves sweetness. And, yet again, naming Him "Principle" which is impersonal, and one of the very trade marks of Pan- theism. And more, again, calling God " M i n d , " which involves personality, and, in the next breath " Imp e r s o n a l ," which contradicts it. In fact "Chris- tian Science" is "the tohu vavohu," the chaos of thought. God cannot, at once, be personal and impersonal; per- sonal and yet All; " P r i n c i p l e ," which is impersonal, and, also, " M i n d " or " S p i r i t , " which are synonyms of per- sonality. To say with the " S c i e n t i s t" that " God is A l l ," " i s Principle," is I' Impersonal,''. is to say, with the Pan- theist, that He can know, hear, help, love no one; nor be, or do, anything morally, either good or evil; since He is bound by the very necessity of His being, without volition, to the eternal round of aimless evolving and involv- ing. In this same article Mrs. Eddy's mouthpiece says, that, she ' ' does not deny moral responsibility!" But there could be no responsibility to an imper- sonal IT. If we are accountable—to What? There is no Personal Judge; if we are accountable—for What? There is no real wrong; if we are account- able—then What? There is no suffer- ing. If we are accountable! just so— we are as much A!(iL as everything else. WE ARE GOD. If " A l l is God and God is A l l " we are Some of the All- God. And that, too', is "Scientific" and Pantheistic. "Mo r al responsibil- i t y " (!), nonsense.
ally neither. Deductive reasoning is to reason from facts to conclusion. In- ductive argument is to argue from as- sumption to conclusion. Science is im- possible by this latter process; but this is the process of Eddyism; which argues 1. Major premise,. " A l l is Go d "; 2. Minor premise, " God is g o o d "; 3. Therefore, " A ll is good." . Here the first proposition is pure as- sumption, and manifest falsehood. We know that all is not God, that we our- selves are not God, but are free moral agents; individual, dependent personal- ities. The second proposition is true, beyond reasonable doubt. The third proposition is false, as it is based on a falsehood. We know that all is not good, that we are conscious of guilt, and are causes of evil, moral and phy- sical. The Pantheist is truer to facts, but still an inductive arguer. He argues: 1. " A l l is Go d "; 2. " A l l is not g o o d "; therefore, 3. " God is not good." He starts with the same false assump- tion. He proceeds with a truth, the facts as he, and we all find them, viz: that the All is a duality of good and evil, and, therefore, not God. He con- cludes with a lie. The evil is to be ac- counted for by the presence of free moral agents, human and other, and need not be, nor should it be charged to God. The Christian is "logical, de- ductive, AND SCIENTIFIC," He rea- sons: 1st. " God is good," " S i n entered into the world, and death by s i n ." Bom. 5:12. " A n enemy hath done t h i s ," Mat. 13:27, 28. Eddyistic Eddyism quotes Scripture Exigesis. to justify its positions. Scripture can be quoted fairly only when it is applied truly. 2nd. " A l l is not good," 3rd. " God is not A l l ." -
Eddyistic
Our Eddyite claims that
IiOgic. "Christian Science' 'is "log- ical, deductive, and scien- tific." It is neither. It is emphatic-
Made with FlippingBook HTML5