Last Tuesday morning I woke up with a sore throat. I got a spoonful of honey and let it dissolve in my mouth and throat. Within a short time the soreness went away, and it didn't come back until evening – when I took another spoonful.
Then I took my standard meds – spironolactone to shut down the testosterone factories, estrogen to become visible, and aspirin to thin out my blood after estrogen side-effects.
That was the last day of the trial where I was serving on the jury, and I had a cough to go with the sore throat, so I headed off to the courthouse with a bottle of homeopathic cough syrup in my pocket. I had very little problem with the cough during the day.
The last two days of the trial I left the courthouse feeling rather sick from all the toxic energy in that room. I know, woo woo. Doesn't matter, it affected me. This time I used Christian Science treatment to shield myself from that toxic energy, and left the courthouse feeling fine...
… Except that I had a sore back. So I headed off to my acupuncture appointment, where I laid down on my stomach and got a nice collection of needles stuck into my back and neck. I also had some needles in my feet for migraine prevention. After an hour and a nice nap, I got up with my back hugely improved, and a much wider range of motion.
So in one day, I used five different modalities of treatment – herbal/naturopathic, allopathic, homeopathic, Christian Science, and acupuncture – for five different issues. Not earth-shattering or anything, but I found it interesting, which is why I'm posting here. I found it interesting that every one of these modalities worked, even though some are incompatible with each other, and some don't have any scientific reason for being.
I have heard people criticize Christian Scientists because they don't mix "tried and true" allopathic treatment with Christian Science treatment, and I've seen them dismiss Christian Science treatment as "faith healing." I've seen Christian Scientists refuse to use allopathic treatment even when their first choice wasn't working. I believe in using what works; the proof is in the pudding. Christian Science treatment is not faith healing; it is a teachable, replicable system of metaphysical healing, what I would consider a level above homeopathy and acupuncture on that continuum. It is covered by many health insurance companies and plans, including, partially, my own. I consider it to be an important part of my health care repertoire, and I've used it successfully in recent weeks to cure a migraine and for other healings. It's worth noting, however, that it is incompatible with other systems; if you want to use Christian Science, you'd better not use something else at that same time, or you might cancel each system's effects and end up worse off.*
I'm not a Christian Scientist because I have some issues with the church, because I don't like the pressure to rely on one system, and because I like beer and Scotch whiskey. But so what? I think it's silly that Christian Science is widely viewed as something just for Christian Scientists – you never see anyone who specializes in a different modality suggest it. You don't have to know anything about it to get results, and if you don't get results, you can try something else. Every system has shortcomings, things it can't cure, and times and places when, for whatever reason, it doesn't work. One thing I like about Christian Science is that there actually isn't anything it can't cure.
Like I said before, I believe in what works. And I like having the choice of multiple modalities of treatment for my health care needs. Every plan should provide for it.
*Note: I am not a Christian Scientist, and the folks from the church might disagree with some of my statements about it. My statements here are only my own opinion and perception of it.
3 comments:
Bravo, girl!
If something is good, it usually has some basis in reality and truth. Many, many religions and philosophies may be very good, but not be good institutions. Mary Baker Eddy is someone to respect and admire. The church may not be all it could be.
Keep posting! Love reading your stuff!
ps-I finally wrote about politics and a controversial post about mothering.
hugs and hugs!
me
Seda, I lurk here often, but have only posted to your blog a couple of times.
I admire your candor, and have always appreciated your point of view.
You wrote:
"The last two days of the trial I left the courthouse feeling rather sick from all the toxic energy in that room. I know, woo woo."
Not "woo woo" for me. Negative energy can envelope a room just as smoke can, and can be felt as a chill is felt, if there's a draft from an open window on a wintry day.
This energy hovers over large population centers as well, which explains why people feel closer to God in remote settings (away from urban areas, or high concentrations of people), and why some astronauts have encountered a sort of spiritual awakening or enlightenment in outer space.
Many attribute this awakening to the astronauts' unique perspective, but these astronauts escaped more than gravity when they left the earth.
"I found it interesting that every one of these modalities worked, even though some are incompatible with each other, and some don't have any scientific reason for being."
I agree. Many do work. And some work where others fail. Christian Science would chalk this up to the ubiquitous presence of "universal belief," that some modalities have an efficacy not found in the others.
I accept this Christian Science explanation, as well as another found in "Conversations with God: an uncommon dialogue" (Book I), where it is written:
"Illness and disease are opposites of health and wellness, and are made manifest in your reality at your behest. You cannot be ill without at some level causing yourself to be, and you can be well in a moment by simply deciding to be."
I have reached that moment of clarity only once. But I was healed.
I have used Christian Science and have been healed.
I have had a conversation with God and was healed.
I have cheated many a cold, and have spoiled the onset of many aches and pains.
But I'd be lying if I said all my help have come by way of prayer and treatment alone. Although, much have.
"Christian Science treatment is not faith healing; it is a teachable, replicable system of metaphysical healing...."
Correct. It is not faith healing. It's based on certain principles ("The Scientific Statement of Being" in particular), and on the necessity of achieving an understanding of God, and your relationship to, or your "identity" within Him.
But good luck with trying to convince others of that.
"One thing I like about Christian Science is that there actually isn't anything it can't cure."
I agree, again. A spiritual or metaphysical healing is clean. Here's what I mean. No medicine is required. No manipulation of the physical body is required. No surgery is required. Nothing.
One minute you may be in pain, and the next you're totally free.
I have always liked that part.
"Like I said before, I believe in what works. And I like having the choice of multiple modalities of treatment for my health care needs. Every plan should provide for it."
Indeed they should. But the likelihood of that, at this point, is remote. In time, maybe. Materia Medica doesn't have all the answers and, as this spiritual age advances, a spiritual modality may enjoy as much prestige, if not more so, as modern medicine.
Thanks for your insights, Domino. I'm not too optimistic about our health care system, either. Why do we try so hard to make something that is basically pretty simple ridiculously complicated?
Hey, Anne, controversial stuff over there! Looking forward to the next time... ;-)
Post a Comment