Jesus and the apostles were living 2000 years ago, not 2500. Is this deviance from generally accepted truth just a typo or do you hold a different view?

It's certainly true that Christians today accept as "gospel" many things the Bible doesn't say. I belong to a temperance church, but nowhere does the Bible say that drinking alcohol is bad, much less forbidden. Some Christians believe that American is God's chosen country, when that's nowhere in the Bible; some go so far as to include the Pledge of Allegiance in worship when our allegiance must be to God alone. Some insist that the Bible itself is the Word of God when John Chapter 1 clearly states that Jesus is the Word.






EMAILING FOR THE GREATER GOOD
Join me

This born-again, theologically conservative believer encourages all Christians to avoid having anything to do with the "theological" rantings of Glenn Beck. It's one thing to support a political party or a political pundit, but quite another to contort the Gospel of Jesus to the point that it fits our political stance. It seems that the Jesus promoted by Beck and his followers is not the same Prince of Peace to whom I dedicated my life as a child over 30 years ago. Pray for Peace!

This born-again, theologically conservative Christian is urging all in the Christian community to avoid having anything to do with the "theological" rantings of Glenn Beck. So many have forsaken the Gospel of Jesus for a political stance, practically making that political stance their god. Supporting a political party or a political pundit is one thing---screwing with the Gospel and cntorting it to fit one's political standing is another. Pray for Peace!

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you.
The term "social Gospel" is not very old. Walter Rauschenbusch, the great Baptist pastor and theologian, was one of the first to use it in an attempt to redress the purely pietistic, individualistic Christianity that looked away from the suffering of the poor as long as they were safe and warm and well-fed and wealthy. The church (at its best) for 2000 years has always invested itself in the well-being of "the least of these," in obedience to Jesus' command and imitation of his life and ministry.
Distinguishing social gospel from secular humanism is easy: social gospel is done in the name of Christ and for the spread of God's realm throughout earth as in heaven.
Finally, do you know why they call it "secular humanism"? Because humanism is a school of thought that arose within the Christian church. When modern thinkers wanted to divorce it from the faith that gave it birth, they had to denote it as secular.
Blessings.

I stand by my statement.

Best Wishes,John

I hope you think about how he used the media, and how angry he sounded. The angry pitch of the right draws closer to this it seems, but hope I am wrong and they change the tone. We can all disagree, but need to be somewhat open to more than the one side they seem to present.

I agree. I'm trying to find out if it is in the context of the government.

I only referenced him

I detract somewhat what I said. Does someone know the context for Israel providing for the poor? Did they do it individually, or as a nation?

The reason the female American public was aghast was because of the distorted, special-interest-serving, misinformation-mongering nature of the reporting of the issue.

Here's what happened -

A series of studies here in the US and around the world demonstrated that there is no statistical difference in the occurance, treatment, or outcome of breast cancer among general population women (as opposed to women with known risk factors - a category this recommendation did not apply to) in the US who begin receiving mammograms early, and women in other nations who begin the same regimen at the age of 50.

In addition to there not being any real benefit for women receiving earlier and more frequent mammograms, there was a significant occurance of false positive results, and a significant number of women with false positive results received unnecessary follow-on tests and treatment.

Based on their findings, the group doing the study determined that the current recommendation for beginning regular mammograms at age 40 for the general population provided no medical benefit compared to general population women who began receiving mammograms at age 50, that it additionally carried certain risks associated with the treatment administered unnecessarily, and so beginning mammograms at age 40 was not medically warranted.

The studies also found that, when measured statistically, there is no significant evidence that women who do regular breast self-exams discover breast cancer any sooner or have any better outcomes than those who do not. Self-exams don't hurt, but they don't help, either.

It was actually pretty cut and dried.

However, there is an entire segment of the medical industry whose profits are reliant upon all those mammograms and all that treatment. And those interests are quite powerful. And so they distorted the recommendations of the report in an attempt to whip women into hysteria and the false assumption that following the new recommendations would result in an explosion of new, advanced, untreatable breast cancer. And they were successful.

So, to answer your question - the recommendation that for the general population mammograms begin at 50 instead of 40? I've looked at the study and the statistics and methodology that informed that recommendation, and I'm ok with it. It's based on evidence, it makes sense health-wise, it makes sense economy-wise - it just simply makes sense.

Yep, and I'm just as disgusted when I hear of elderly people eating cat food or going without medications in order to eat, or freezing to death in their own homes because their utilities were turned off. When I hear the pro-life people stand up in arms about all those issues I'll believe they care about life.

I've always been a pro-life voter. I saw exactly what that did to our country. The shrinking middle class, the rise of homeless working families living in their cars. Stop being a hypocrite and step up to acting like you truly care about the unborn both before and after they arrive.

I understand you would like to use women's health as an issue in support of what is to come? Would you consider for a moment that the female American public was aghast to hear a report that recommended that women should not be seeking a mammogram until they are 50? Rachel Maddow is limited in her wisdom as is all men. Hence the need for the constitution that we so richly were blessed with.

It seems that the terms "social justice", "social activism", "humanism", "social democracy", "government" ... are scary concepts for many in the inwardly looking evangelical circles. Due to the imposing propaganda by the political and religious right they are immediately confused for socialism, communism, Bolshevism, even fascism. How come Glenn and alike, as they describe the current health reform debate, never make comparisons with use well functioning democracies based on the principles of social democracy, such as the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Australia. There the poorest are taken care of in an expletory way, and yet none of those countires have become a pray of communist or any form of fascist ideology. And yet in each one of them the government plays more significant role that in the US. On the other hand, it is surprising that many of our Christian brethren in the US know very well that a born again Christian is called to love his/her neighbor as oneself. And that this invitation is not just a cosmetic and soft invitation to be kind to only those who are like us, but that in it there is a radical call to love practically and caringly those across all ethnic, national, racial, class group, social class, immigration groups, religious etc lines. And loving all of those does not mean giving them the leftover scraps from our tables, but much more. Call to social justice is nothing more that a call to apply Jesus' command to "love our neighbors" at a societal level, and it represents just as legitimate charge of the Gospel as the calls to human rights, religious freedom, protection of human life represent. Do not worry friends, America is far away form ever becoming a communist country.

Well, my congregation is a "social justice" church but VERY effective -- we do a lot of work in the poor neighborhood where it's located, and my pastor has preached about the necessity of government programs to help the poor temporarily. That said, however, it's in a very conservative, evangelical denomination, and folks come to our church to see how we do it.

What happened was that folks with means left the cities for greener pastures. You take your money, your jobs and your organizations from the cities and of course that would happen.

Glenn Beck is a Mormon who rejects basic theological truths of the historic Christian faith. He has no right to say such things.

He may have -- he's been ministering in the D.C. slums since 1974.

What many on the right want is the ability for you to say these things without being arrested. Have you considered that God allows people in other countries to be arrested for speaking their opinions while here in the U.S. we still have that right? Do you think it has anything to do with being grateful to God and exercising that right?

Based on his pronouncements, Beck would probably have Wallis arrested if he could because he really does see him as a threat -- and ironically, Wallis does have a police record. I also think of the Apostle Paul, who spent time and time again in prison for preaching the Gospel. So maybe staying out of jail for the sake of the Gospel isn't as big a deal as you might think.

Jesus made some definite and strong statements. His disciples didn't agree with many of them.

Jesus produced some troubling stuff