TubeNet

Google ed and see what comes up.

Guess what? Nobody cares who you are. You will be judged by what you say, not by who you are, especially if you insist on anonymity.

Rick "suggesting you take your meds like the doctor says" Denney

Silly me. And I thought Ed was a horse is a horse, of course, of course!



Then again, maybe the picture is of the wrong end.

ed wrote: pls eveyone stop trying to guess me name cuz you never will so drop it, ok?

Schlep must really enjoy this. As a Mod, he can see your I.P.


He's one of the few that knows positively your real identity, if he wants to. I've gathered you are a poster on another account, and he knows exactly which one.


Lucky bastard.

bloke wrote: In 1977, the second largest Baptist Church in Memphis paid me $4 for playing two services...on TV. Even then, that was a bit "low".

You think?

bloke wrote:bloke "water w-a-y under the bridge"

Oh, I get it; water - Baptists

(who thought Baptists were the only ones who would pick each other apart like this)

You missed the lively ... uh ... "discussions" between Presbyterians about the relevance of sexual orientation.

(Anglicans? Did somebody say Anglicans?)

And nobody has mentioned Ed from The Lion King. I'm too lazy right now to go find a picture.

windshieldbug wrote:

bloke wrote:bloke "water w-a-y under the bridge"

Oh, I get it; water - Baptists

Wade...in the wa-ter
Wade...in the water chil'en....

SplatterTone wrote:

Now THAT is an avatar suiting of the anonymous, nonsense-spewing starter of this thread!

Ralph

SplatterTone wrote:(Anglicans? Did somebody say Anglicans?)

You did.

It should be pointed out that the approval of the gay bishop is NOT the cause for the departure of many churches from the Episcopal Church of the USA (ECUSA). It was just one of a series of incidents going back at least 30 years, including the current leader of that denomination describing Jesus as a myth and God as a mystical "mother spirit". If people want to believe that, that's okay with me, but why call themselves Christians? It seems to me the one fundamental meaning of being a Christian is to believe in Christ.

But it wasn't those churches that left the Anglican Communion. It was the Anglican Communion that is leaving the ECUSA. In the last several international convocations, Anglican bishops have asked the American episcopal church to stop undermining their fundamental beliefs. The ECUSA, as the affiliated denomination with the Anglican church in the U.S., has rebuffed those requests. Thus, it became apparent that the Anglican Communion would eventually have a parting of the ways with the ECUSA.

Not all episcopals agree with the ECUSA on this matter, and many would rather stay in the Anglican Communion than the ECUSA. Thus, they were invited to joint other Anglican dioceses and each voted to do so. The church I attend is now a member of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and we are now a part of the missionary diocese of the Anglican Church of Nigeria. The vote in our church was 124 to 4.

It is unfortunate that the ECUSA has taken this to court, mostly because they want our real estate. It's also about taking the retirements away from the Episcopal priests (now Anglican priests), by de-ordaining them, even though they no longer had ecclesiastical authority over them.

Most of the churches who have moved to other Anglican dioceses were organized outside the Episcopal Church (and some of them before the Episcopal Church existed). They joined the ECUSA later. Virginia law gives them the right to leave it. No dollar from the ECUSA has ever flowed into our church, but lots of them have flowed from our church to the ECUSA.

Rick "who has thought for a while that African churches needed to send missionaries to the U.S." Denney

It is interesting to see how American churches get to bickering.

In Central America, people without a penny to their name walk (often barefoot) for miles to go to church services. No Hummers in their parking lot.
And, in the Middle East, Christian church services are held in fortified compounds while local police armed with automatic weapons stand out front to protect the congregation. Ushers with radios and earpieces constantly patrol every hall inside and search every corner throughout the service.
And, in inner city America (the other America) hundreds of homeless men will sing their hearts out on a Friday night service and be grateful for just for a mattress on the floor.

Marty "who has been to all of those and did not notice any denominational bickering"

MartyNeilan wrote:Marty "who has been to all of those and did not notice any denominational bickering"

There is a boundary between denominational bickering and undermining the fundamental tenets of the religion. We aren't talking about water baptism versus spiritual baptism, or predestination, or premillennialism, or praise worship versus traditional hymns, or other issues of doctrinal interpretation or worship style. We are talking about whether people who call themselves Christians actually believe in Christ. They all believe in the church, and its traditions. That is not at the root of the argument, though it is often characterized that way.

This isn't a denominational squabble.

The reason you don't get that sort of thing in places you mentioned is that people are there to worship Christ, not to undermine the worship of Christ. Why would anyone attend a church where it is risky to do so if the people in that church believe only in church tradition? They go because they believe in Christ and want to worship with others who do. It really is that simple.

Rick "who has also attended church in those places" Denney

Bob1062 wrote:

Rick Denney wrote:It was just one of a series of incidents going back at least 30 years, including the current leader of that denomination describing Jesus as a myth and God as a mystical "mother spirit".

God bless them!

Funny how with institutionalized religion it so often comes down to money. At least in the US.

Capitalism does not belong in religion or health care. I heard on the radio in the last couple of days that some high court said that it was ok for hospitals to give deals to insurance companies who in turn sent business to the hospital. So what that means is, if you can afford insurance you get a better price at the hospital (by quite a bit, something like 3X) than the person who cannot afford insurance.

MA

MaryAnn wrote:Funny how with institutionalized religion it so often comes down to money. At least in the US.

Capitalism does not belong in religion or health care. I heard on the radio in the last couple of days that some high court said that it was ok for hospitals to give deals to insurance companies who in turn sent business to the hospital. So what that means is, if you can afford insurance you get a better price at the hospital (by quite a bit, something like 3X) than the person who cannot afford insurance.

MA

/Rant ON and going seriously off topic here in 'Off Topic':
I can make the same argument with regard to legal advice and services. Why should the rich be the ones to hire the best lawyers? Lawyers should work free for anybody who asks but can't afford their services. Or at the very least the government should pay for my legal services whenever I think I need them. (Extend the socialist argument to include all valuable goods and services, and people can see the inherent fallacy of socialist/communist/collectivist thinking. Then why work, pray tell?) Health care isn't a right, it's a privilege. Making it a 'right' is the first step toward enslaving caregivers to do your bidding simply because they're caregivers, and not because you're rewarding them for doing so. Capitalism works to create and efficiently distribute goods and services. Socialism doesn't because decisions aren't rational; they are made arbitrarily by a self-interested, self-serving, and self-perpetuating bureaucracy whose very existence siphons off valuable resources from the consumers of the goods and services they ration out (Note the word 'ration' here.) Rationing goods and services primarily by ability to pay is to me far preferable to rationing by faceless bureaucrats whose collective values are then irrationally substituted for rational distribution based on the relative value scale that currency provides.

To more directly address the problem you pointed out, this discrepancy is a direct result of the interference of insurance companies and government bureaucrats in traditional fee for service transactions, not because the caregivers asked for such a system. Point the finger at the source of the problem, not the symptom.

Our student health insurance policy will provide $500 pharmacy benefit this year for the first time. This was agitated for by well students who during an acute illness may occasionally have to purchase a medication that might cost them up to a couple of hundred dollars. Totally lost in this shuffle are the significant but small minority of students with chronic illnesses who qualify financially for patient assistance pharmaceutical programs which provide their otherwise prohibitively expensive medications free of charge. Because of this 'prescription coverage' this minority group may no longer qualify for their patient assistance. Their health may even be adversely affected; i.e they might stop their medication or take a far cheaper but less effective alternative, or they could be forced to carry no insurance. This policy costs a little over a thousand dollars a year, so it's a very affordable safety net except for those who need it most.
/Rant OFF

bloke wrote: bloke "who has discovered a way to reduce my mandetory tithe to the false gods (ML&S), by simply reducing my income. "

This certainly seems to be an extreme method to reduce the amount you "contribute" to the good of the country.