Christian Scientists, if I understand them correctly, believe that most deaths are caused by Malicious Animal Magnetism. That's why Mary Baker Eddy, when she got a severe case of pneumonia in 1911 (which she ended up dying from), blamed that pneumonia not on a germ, but on Malicious Animal Magnetism done by people who are against her. That's also why, when her husband died, and doctors said he had a heart attack, she insisted he died of arsenic poisoning mentally delivered. However, quite a few deaths in the real world appear to be caused by other people, but not necessarily against the people who know you. Deaths in a battle, for example. The German soldier who killed William McBride in 1916 was presumably shooting around with a gun randomly, not targetting William McBride specifically. Or terrorist attacks, for example. So, do Christian Scientists believe that it is possible to attack a group of people with Malicious Animal Magnetism, without necessarily knowing anybody from that group of people?

Governments around the world are heavily regulating the use of antibiotics in agriculture in an attempt to curb superbacteria. But Christian Scientists believe, as far as I understand it, that antibiotics do not really help because all diseases are psychosomatic. So, are they against such regulation? Do they believe that the egg industry should be allowed to use as much antibiotics as it wants to?

Christian Scientists claim that disease is not caused by physical abnormality, but by a mental error. Skeptics sometimes use this argument against that: "Suppose somebody drinks a glass of water that contains a poison, but nobody knows that it is poisonous. If Christian Science is right, then that poison could not kill that person. If medical science is right, then it can kill that person. And it is obvious which is true.". How do Christian Scientists respond to that argument? Such things, although very rare, do happen in reality. Maria Curie died because of radiation which nobody back then knew was harmful. So did the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang die because of mercury poisoning which nobody back then knew was harmful.

Christian Scientists believe that illness is caused by a mental error, rather than a physical abnormality. In other words, that all diseases are psychosomatic. Critics say that, if that were true, animals without a brain (and thus without a mind) could never get ill. But jellyfish, animals without a brain, can and do get diseases such as cancer. How do Christian Scientists respond to that argument?

[Christian Scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science) deny the Germ Theory, right? If so, how do they explain COVID-19?

Christian Scientists say that illnesses are an illusion and, as far as I understand it, what they mean by that is that all illnesses are psychosomatic. But they also say that death is an illusion. What does that mean?

My beloved (somewhat conservative) presbyterian-pentecostal mother spends hours every week on dubious, supposedly Christian websites and then regurgitates their dubious prophesies and conspiracy theories. I rarely get to have a normal conversation with her anymore without her bringing up the World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab in ways which completely overestimate their significance and/or nefarious nature. The issue is that she believes we are in the end times and her need to inform herself about anything and everything which could herald the end times has become insatiable. To the extent that she has completely lost her grasp of what constitutes a reliable source of information and will accept anything the internet feeds her. So I want to help my mother by occasionally referencing reliable Christian-oriented sources which will allow her to keep up to date about real global issues which she can pray about. Can I use Christian Science Monitor, or would me pushing this likely be seen negatively in her very conservative Christian church? I do not want her friends to advise her that my reading Christian Science Monitor only shows that I have become wayward in my faith (because CSMonitor has origins in Christian Science, which other members of my mother's congregation would almost certainly consider to be a non-Christian grouping), which would be very counter-productive. In wider society it has a stellar reputation and I am under the impression that it does not push Christian Science per se, but what is its reputation among very conservative Christians who are very sincere about their faith? My mother is a member of the linked denomination, but I appreciate insight on how Christian Science Monitor is viewed more widely. See: [Apostolic Church](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Church_(1916_denomination))

I understand that Christian Science believes that a person with a physical disease should not seek out medical treatment, but instead rely on prayer. Wikipedia says that adherents believe > …that disease is a mental error rather than physical disorder, and that the sick should be treated not by medicine, but by a form of prayer that seeks to correct the beliefs responsible for the illusion of ill health. > > The church does not require that Christian Scientists avoid all medical care – adherents use dentists, optometrists, obstetricians, physicians for broken bones, and vaccination when required by law – but maintains that Christian Science prayer is most effective when not combined with medicine. I'm curious to know what Christian Science teaches about mental illnesses (e.g. depression, schizophrenia, PTSD, and other mental illnesses recognized by the DSM-5 ). In particular, I'm wondering if mental illnesses are also described as mental errors or if they are something else. Also, what sort of treatment would be permitted? I presume that taking SSRIs and other medication would be strongly discouraged, but is seeking out a counselor permitted?

Regarding the existence of the evil side in every individual, Judaism and Christian Science teach two conflicting doctrines. Judaism teaches that the evil side (Heb. *yetzer hara*) is an essential and non-negotiable part of human makeup: > Rabbi Nahman bar Samuel bar Nachman said in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Nachman: ... "And behold it was very good" (Genesis 1:31) - this refers to the *yetzer hara*. But is the *yetzer hara* indeed very good?! - Were it not for the *yetzer hara*, a man would not build a home, or marry a woman, or have children, or engage in business. Mary Baker Eddy, in *Science and Health with Key to the Scripture*, says that human nature is a logical system, and the presence of any sort of evil side in a human being will eventually lead to the entire human being becoming evil (*ex falso quodlibet*) Quote: > If man is constituted both good and evil, he will end in evil. An error in the premises must appear in the conclusion. To avail yourself of the power of the Spirit, you must depend on no human reliance. Which one is closer to traditional Christian doctrine?

Why is Christian Science considered unorthodox? 1. How is Mary Baker Eddy's neo-platonism different from Augustine's, Aquinas', Calvin's, Jonathan Edwards', *et. al.*? 1. How is her understanding of the Incarnation different from Scheiermacher's, Tillich's, Marcus Borg, *et al*? 2. How is her view of the sacraments different from the Quakers? From what I can see, Mrs. Eddy puts together perfectly orthodox views on evil as privation, matter as shadows, and Jesus as Wayshower--just like Meister Eckhardt--and then applies these doctrines to Christian healing. If evil is a privation of good and has no real existence, isn't the best way to approach healing to see disease as a privation and not real? Maybe Jesus healed by removing the shadows which distort our vision of our true nature as God's children. If God is Spirit, and we are in His Image and Likeness, then doesn't it follow that we are spirit, and not matter? I'm not sure why Christian Science is a heretical cult since it is rooted in many purely orthodox strands of Christianity, albeit put together in an original, insightful way. Why, then, is Christian Science considered unorthodox if it has orthodox views?