╌>

Judgment Is Executed on COVID-19

  
Via:  TᵢG  •  10 months ago  •  235 comments

By:   Kenneth Copeland

Judgment Is Executed on COVID-19
In the Name of Jesus, standing in the office of the prophet of God, I execute judgment on you COVID-19.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

Good grief.   This just kills me.   This is the richest pastor in the world (net worth $750 million).

It strikes me that those (many) who believe this slimy exploiter serve to illustrate why so many human beings can actually believe what Trump says and be so mesmerized as to actually vote for him to be PotUS.

The human capacity to believe what one wishes in direct contradiction of facts and basic logic is remarkably strong.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Kenneth Copeland stands in the office of a prophet of God, and on Sunday, March 29, 2020, he declared that judgment be executed on COVID-19:

"In the Name of Jesus, standing in the office of the prophet of God, I execute judgment on you COVID-19. I execute judgment on you, satan, you destroyer, you killer. You get out. I break your power. You get off this nation. I demand judgment on you. I demand. I demand. "I demand a vaccination to come immediately. I call you done. I call you gone. You come down from your place of authority, destroyer. You come down and you crawl on your belly like God commanded you when He put His foot on your head in the Garden of Eden. You will destroy through COVID-19 no more. 'It is finished! It is over! And the United States of America is healed and well again,' saith the mighty Spirit called Peace, who is also the Prince of War, the Lord Jesus Christ." We must choose to exercise our authority and dominion over COVID-19 with our words. Get into agreement with the prophet, and declare God's judgment on COVID-19. It is defeated in the Name of Jesus!


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  seeder  TᵢG    10 months ago

I will likely never understand how so many people can be so deluded.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1    10 months ago

What a freakshow!   Seems only deluded morons would follow freakshows like this and vote for a freakshow like the former 'president' - a hateful and evil freakshow which is what Copeland and scum like this are (including the former 'president')

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
2  Kavika     10 months ago

Well, the governor of Florida is telling people under 65 not to get the COVID vaccine and is also searching for a ''faith advisor''..

That says it all.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1  devangelical  replied to  Kavika @2    10 months ago

I really like how maga thumpers are being prepped not to get the next booster.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @2.1    10 months ago

But the freakshow said something about "I demand a vaccination to come immediately"

It bothers me not one bit if these freakshow followers decide not to get boosters except the harm they might cause to others.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @2.1    10 months ago

This science believer just got my 6th jab last week.

No side effects whatsoever. Get thee behind me covid!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @2.1.2    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.4  CB  replied to  cjcold @2.1.2    10 months ago

Ah, it seems you may have gotten 5 & 6 jabs close together (the new variant shot arriving this very month)?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.5  cjcold  replied to  CB @2.1.4    10 months ago

Got the new one. My last was 10/22. I was due.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.6  CB  replied to  cjcold @2.1.5    10 months ago

Going from memory I have five total vaccinations for Covid-19 over the years. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
2.1.7  cjcold  replied to  CB @2.1.6    10 months ago

I keep the card updated. Need a new one.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Kavika @2    10 months ago
is also searching for a ''faith advisor''..

Paula White, Trump's previous spiritual adviser,  might be available

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    10 months ago

Those two minutes seemed like 2 hours. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    10 months ago

unfucking-believable-patch-antsiuvas-091353.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    10 months ago

I forgot all about that freakshow scam artist.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    10 months ago

She did a great job of making God and all those angels from Africa and South America look really weak.  I'm sure they appreciate it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.5  CB  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2    10 months ago

Yes, this is fundamentalism taken to its 'highest' level, where some believe they are imbued with Spirit. And thus, they speak as though they are human voices of God. (They are not, nevertheless.)  What I heard just now through Paula White so reminded me of the radio broadcasting of sermons from the movie: Children of the Corn.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Kavika @2    10 months ago

That guy is a menace

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3  Nerm_L    10 months ago

So, what's the problem?  Why is Copeland's preaching controversial?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @3    10 months ago

Nothing, unless of course you are an Atheist and/or practice “selective” free speech.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    10 months ago

Kenneth Copeland is a major league scam artist using 'Prosperity Gospel' as his method.  

Do you believe this guy has the power to cast out the demon 'COVID'?   His supporters believe he can control the weather and solve their financial and health problems through his 'special' relationship with God as one of his prophets (in response to a donation).

Criticizing someone who uses their words to exploit others is in your mind an affront on free speech?

Next time you criticize a politician's speech, consider the position you just presented.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    10 months ago

Just about every religious belief has its scammers and exploiters. That would include Christians including Catholics, Jews and Muslims. That equates to millions of believers.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    10 months ago

Add in Environmentalists, racialists  etc.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.1.3    10 months ago

And progressives, politicians, tyrants, etc ….

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    10 months ago

Lol …. Lectures on free speech from one who practices “selective” free speech.

Hilarious.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    10 months ago
Just about every religious belief has its scammers and exploiters. That would include Christians including Catholics, Jews and Muslims. That equates to millions of believers.

Indeed.   And that is a problem, right?    Now take that thought and apply it to my comment.

In other words, answer this question:

What is it about our species that enables so many to be deluded by con-artists and demagogues?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.1.5    10 months ago

One warning.   Do not make things personal.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    10 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.1    10 months ago
Kenneth Copeland

Never heard of him.


Do you believe this guy has the power to cast out the demon 'COVID'?

No. Then again, we were once told that masks could protect us from covid.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.10  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.9    10 months ago

Since you have (entirely) missed the point, here is a question to bring you on track:

Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    10 months ago
Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

Are you advocating for censorship?

My point is simple: People have the right to think for themselves and arrive at their own conclusions. When you talk about a deadly virus like Covid, I look to the so-called health professionals as do most people. They knew little about covid and mandates were enacted based on what they said. Now we have recently learned they didn't know what to do so they just put some BS out there. That is what we should be concerned about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    10 months ago

I have never suggested that people do not have the right to be naive, gullible, or stupid.

I have posited that delusional following of con-artists and demagogues is unhealthy for a society.

Do you disagree with this posit?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.13  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    10 months ago
Since you have (entirely) missed the point, here is a question to bring you on track:

I suspect you've missed his.

Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

It's far, far, less unhealthy than a host of other standard American behaviors.  If our concern is really for the "health" of our fellow man, we certainly need to focus our efforts elsewhere.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.13    10 months ago

There is an active, successful demagogue right now exploiting his followers and keeping the GOP in dysfunction.   Do you recognize how unhealthy this is for our society?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.15  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.10    10 months ago

What do you expect?  He follows a demagogue/is being exploited by a scam artist.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.16  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.14    10 months ago
There is an active, successful demagogue right now exploiting his followers and keeping the GOP in dysfunction.   Do you recognize how unhealthy this is for our society?

The seed is about Copeland.  I'm not sure how it became about Trump. 

Oh wait... I can guess.

That said, I'm not exactly sure how many times it must be explained that Trump is the symptom, not the disease. 

He is not keeping anything in dysfunction. His sustained popularity is merely proof that our government is still dysfunctional and our elected representatives still refuse to enact even the most basic, common sense policies while holding steadfast in their condescending denigration of average working-class American citizens.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.16    10 months ago
I'm not sure how it became about Trump. 

Trump is an example of a demagogue.  He is the most obvious example today.   Using an example does not change the subject.   I first used Jim Jones as an example.   That did not change the subject to Jim Jones.

That said, I'm not exactly sure how many times it must be explained that Trump is the symptom, not the disease. 

This seed is indeed not about Trump (or even Copeland in actuality — he is just a good exemplar for the agent) but rather a comment on how many people can follow con-men and demagogues.   You are now opening a tangential debate on why Trump is bad for the nation.   Follow your own observation and do that in another article.

It would be very appropriate for this article, however, for you to explain what causes people to blindly follow demagogues and con-men.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.1.18  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    10 months ago
This seed is indeed not about Trump (or even Copeland in actuality — he is just a good exemplar for the agent) but rather a comment on how many people can follow con-men and demagogues .

It is in human nature to be gullible and trust other people.  We are born helpless.  Our survival depends on trusting other people to meet our needs and then to teach us how to meet our own needs.   

Unfortunately, when governments were enacted, the men, who sought power, often got it by brute force instead of diplomacy, compassion or leadership abilities.  Occasionally, the masses rebelled and the leader was overthrown and/or "reforms" were enacted.  

Our "elected" government is filled with con-men and demagogues - some worse than others.  If we got rid of all of the con-men and demagogues in government in the US, which reps would be left in office today?

This is why "did not vote" will continue to win elections.  What is the point of supporting one con-man over another?

The Art of the Con and Why People Fall for It | Psychology Today

By definition, a con artist is a manipulator who cheats, or tricks, others through persuading them to believe something that is not true. Through   deception , they fool people into believing they can make easy money when, in fact, it is the con artist who ends up taking the victim’s money. The criminal and legal consequences of such indiscretions can be insignificant or great, depending on the circumstances and the laws of the land. In the course of co-authoring   The Crime Book , which covered more than 100 crimes, I researched and wrote a chapter about con artists. Their crimes are varied, as are their behaviors. But the one thing they each have in common is the power of   persuasion   to take advantage of unsuspecting people.

Name of the Game

The   confidence   game, as scam artistry is called, is one of the oldest tricks in the trade. It exploits people’s trust. Human nature is on the side of these masters of fraud when it comes to defrauding their marks, or victims, and contributes to the con’s enduring success. Perpetrators have been referred to everything from flimflam operators, hustlers, grifters, and tricksters. The victims have been called marks, suckers, and gulls. And while media publicity has further romanticized cons and put their crimes in the public eye, their actions are anything but glamorous.

Even further, the cost of the capers to victims may run anywhere from a couple hundred to a few million dollars, with some victims learning the hard way, using their own   free will , that when an offer seems too good to be true, it probably is. In fact, the   Federal Trade Commission   reported that people lost $1.48 billion to fraud in 2018, an increase of 38 percent in 2017.

Psychology of the Con

Each of these con artists have one thing in common: the power of   persuasion   to swindle their victims. The successful ones exhibit three similar characteristics— psychopathy ,   narcissism   and   Machiavellianism —which have been referred to by psychologists as “dark”   personality   traits.

Those characteristics allow con artists to swindle people out of their money without feeling any remorse or   guilt . Another thing most chiselers have in common are their egos. These extortion sales people boost the psyche of the perpetrators and make them feel even more confident, thus the description of the con has been termed as a confidence game.

That happenstance leads to a message for everyday people: Buyer beware.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.19  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @3.1.18    10 months ago

I can always count on you to give a thoughtful comment.

What is sadly interesting to me is the sheer volume of people who are so easily manipulated.    

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.1.20  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    10 months ago
I can always count on you to give a thoughtful comment.

Because I am a research nerd and prefer logical over emotional reasoning.  I really care about how people care, but I don't see it worthwhile when it comes to legislation.

What is sadly interesting to me is the sheer volume of people who are so easily manipulated.    

No one is immune to being manipulated unless they do not possess a conscience.   

Children learn from birth how to manipulate their mother (& possibly father) into fulfilling their needs.

Guilt/shame are manipulation tactics.

Children are guilted/shamed to make them obey rules and conform to their society.  This guilt/shame pattern is repeated throughout our lives whenever we do not follow the leader appropriately - and sometimes when we do if we don't follow the "right" leader.   Example:  In Iran, a person can be killed for not following the right leader.  I shudder to think that the US could ever truly become a "Christian" country controlled by a religious leader.

Life is full of contradictions because life is full of people with diverse needs because of our individual breeding/DNA - whatever it is that makes us individuals.

In a country with over 350 million people and rising poverty due to the corruption and ineptness of lifelong politicians, a large number of people are just looking for someone who is not a political insider.   The next con-man/demagogue that gains enormous political power in the US could be a religious charismatic claiming the US presidency in the name of Jesus.   I used to be optimistic this could not happen in the US due to education and a strong middle class.  Education is declining and poverty is rising.  This could lead to a resurgence in religious belief because people who don't have government that cares about their needs can easily turn to a belief in a supernatural being that does.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.21  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.6    10 months ago
What is it about our species that enables so many to be deluded by con-artists and demagogues?

From my perspective, the answer is; because we are born that way. All of us. And we remain that way without God. 

Copeland is successful because he understands, on some level, that every single human heart is looking for something. Meaning. Fulfillment. Purpose. Heart's desire. Whatever. The same goes for every other demagogue, purveyor of an ideology, ideal, politician, celebrity or whatever else you want to name. People naturally try to follow who or what they think will give them what they think they want. The whole world is based on this. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
Professor Quiet
3.1.22  Jack_TX  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.17    10 months ago

demagogue:  (noun)  a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices  of ordinary people rather than by using  rational  argument.

How, exactly, is Copeland a political leader?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Jack_TX @3.1.22    10 months ago
How, exactly, is Copeland a political leader?  

I did not claim that he was.   He is the con-man example (con-men and demagogues: referring to a set of individuals who exploit gullibility and despair).   But since you asked, he does preach politics too and one probably could make the case for him being a mild demagogue (although that was not my intent).

Although I did not think I would need to explain this, I included demagogue because the condition I have described (blindly following a leader) applies to both con-men and demagogues.   

In short think of 'con-men and demagogues' as a set where Copeland is a fine example of a con-man and I would offer Trump as the best modern, local example of a demagogue.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.24  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.21    10 months ago

Your position seem to me, is that we are naturally gullible or wishful thinkers and that we seek to fulfill our desires and are susceptible to believing what we want to be true.

That is a reasonable hypothesis.   It takes work and discipline to think critically.   But I do not buy the idea that one needs a god to do this.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.1.25  bugsy  replied to  Greg Jones @3.1.2    10 months ago

Don't forget BLM and climate change cultists.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.1.26  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.24    10 months ago
Your position seem to me, is that we are naturally gullible or wishful thinkers and that we seek to fulfill our desires and are susceptible to believing what we want to be true.

It's a bit more nuanced than that. Remember the story of the Tree of Good and Evil? We were designed to work with God. Without God we are lost because we don't have the capacity to know what is good or evil on our own. That's why everyone thinks it's subjective when it really isn't. So, what we end up with is people like Copeland, Stalin, Biden, Trump and an endless list of names or ideologies, trying to fulfill the spot that is supposed to be God's. We think we can make the big determinations all by ourselves, yet the world is as bad as it has ever been, arguably worse, at least in scale. It is now easier than ever to do what is evil than it has ever been in history. 

All because everyone is looking for anything that will give a sense of purpose, meaning, fulfillment and the rest. Copeland is just more noticeable than most other pursuits that don't lead to God is all. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.27  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.1.26    10 months ago
Without God we are lost because we don't have the capacity to know what is good or evil on our own.

We do agree on this point.   I, and most every other human being with normal faculties, have the capacity to know that it is NOT good to be naive, stupid, narcissistic, dishonest, malicious, murderous, larcenous, gluttonous, sadistic, delusional, vengeful, etc., or gullible.

And to my point, we do not need a god to tell us that it is bad for society to have so many fall prey to con-men, demagogues, etc.

Now I suspect you will tell me that the Copeland followers think they are doing themselves good and that is no doubt true.   But objectively, it is clear that when a cancer victim sends most of her life-savings (over time) to Copeland, et. al. in hopes that he can work a deal with God to cure her, that is NOT good.   Whatever delusion drives them is bad even if they do not realize it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.1.28  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @3.1    10 months ago

Yep. I am an atheist and hate liars.

Every preacher ever is a liar

Everybody's god is simply mythology.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.12    10 months ago
Do you disagree with this posit?

I disagree with the point of your article.

The management of covid under Joe Biden was a national disgrace, loaded with mandates and lies from the health care professionals we should be able to rely on.

I have only one question for you:

With all of the restrictions placed on US citizens (based on non-science) why weren't any of the 3.8 million migrants that Joe Biden let into the country ever required to get the vaccine?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.30  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.29    10 months ago
I disagree with the point of your article.

I asked:

TiG@3.1.12 ☞ I have posited that delusional following of con-artists and demagogues is unhealthy for a society.  Do you disagree with this posit?

Don't deflect and then expect me to entertain tangential questions about Biden's handling of COVID.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.31  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.30    10 months ago

And you were told way back in Post 3.1.11 that people have a right to think for themselves.

You don't have a right to censor the BS you don't like and allow the BS you do like.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.1.32  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.31    10 months ago

Here again, you disregard the point of the article and pretend (strawman!) that I have argued that people do not have a right to make their own wrong decisions.

Flat out intellectual dishonesty!

Do you think it is good for society to have con-men and demagogues taking advantage of gullible and desperate people?

This is the point of the article.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3    10 months ago

Because it is the most successful 'prosperity gospel' on the planet.   He runs a scam operation which preys on gullible and desperate people.

My concern is the volume of people who can be deluded by scam artists and demagogues.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
3.2.1  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    10 months ago

"My concern is the volume of people who can be deluded by scam artists and demagogues."

You must be talking about the current crop of Democrats and the empty promises they make, to both citizens and immigrants alike.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @3.2.1    10 months ago

Honestly (if possible), do you NOT see the delusion of tens of millions of GOP members who follow Trump as a demagogue?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    10 months ago
My concern is the volume of people who can be deluded by scam artists and demagogues.

Why?    Do you have a problem with other peoples choices?    Do you really believe “you” could make better choices for them?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.4  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    10 months ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.3    10 months ago

Do you think it is healthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist?   

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    10 months ago

I think it’s none of my business.   None of yours either.   And once again, you’ve failed to answer questions.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    10 months ago
Because it is the most successful 'prosperity gospel' on the planet.   He runs a scam operation which preys on gullible and desperate people. My concern is the volume of people who can be deluded by scam artists and demagogues.

How is Copeland's ministry different than that of Arthur Price or Raphael Warnock or Al Sharpton?  How is Copeland's stage performance different than that of Jay-Z, Dr. Dre, Kayne West, or Eminem?

You do realize that 'prosperity gospel' came from African American theology and Black preachers.   You do understand that the current diversity, equity, and inclusion political narrative had its beginning in the pulpits of Black churches.  What is generically called 'woke' started as a religious movement in the Black community.  There really is a reason that many civil rights leaders in the Black community are ministers.  Civil rights for many Black people is not secular.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright could have delivered the same sermon/prayer as Kenneth Copeland and no one would have noticed.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.6    10 months ago

My scenario was not about a single person, it was a question on healthy practices in a society.

Let's take an extreme example and get more specific.    Do you think it was healthy for people to follow Jim Jones as their demagogue?   Or are you going to just say "none of my business"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.7    10 months ago

Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.10  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.8    10 months ago
My scenario was not about a single person, it was a question on healthy practices in a society.

You asked me what I thought and I told you what “I” thought.

So more questions with no answers?    This pattern is growing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.6    10 months ago
I think it’s none of my business.   None of yours either.

What candidates get the majority of votes is everybodys business. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.10    10 months ago

And I then got more specific. 

Do you think it was healthy for people to follow Jim Jones as their demagogue?   Or are you going to just say "none of my business"?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.7    10 months ago
Rev. Jeremiah Wright could have delivered the same sermon/prayer as Kenneth Copeland and no one would have noticed.

Your comments appear to be unacquainted with the writings or sermons of Rev. Wright.  His focus was black liberation theology, not prosperity theology. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.14  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.9    10 months ago
Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

Deliberately ignoring the role of faith in the human story, especially when confronted with copious examples and evidence, appears to require its own demagoguery.

As I pointed out, 'prosperity gospel' traces its roots to African American theology.  The generic conceptualization of 'woke' began as a religious movement based upon 'prosperity gospel'.  Does that mean 'woke' is a scam?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.15  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.14    10 months ago

You did not answer the question you quoted.

Let's try my more specific question based on an actual example:  

Do you think it was healthy for people to follow Jim Jones as their demagogue? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.14    10 months ago

You make no sense.  You work very hard on that.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.7    10 months ago

Those people you describe don't make a living out of scamming morons out of their money

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.7    10 months ago

How would you know these things?  You act like you're an expert on the subject when it's obvious you're just making shit up.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.19  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    10 months ago
Your comments appear to be unacquainted with the writings or sermons of Rev. Wright.  His focus was black liberation theology, not prosperity theology. 

Didn't you watch the video?  Kenneth Copeland's sermon/prayer in the video is not prosperity gospel.  Jeremiah Wright could have delivered the same sermon/prayer in the same manner; the preaching style of Wright and Copeland are fairly similar.  And Copeland's sermon/prayer message is similar to those of African American liberation theology.

The discussion of 'prosperity gospel' was introduced as a red herring (or 'look squirrel') distraction.  The 'prosperity gospel' of Creflo Dollar really did evolve from Black liberation theology.    

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.19    10 months ago

Not true.  You're clueless.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.21  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.15    10 months ago
You did not answer the question you quoted. Let's try my more specific question based on an actual example:  

You are comparing having faith to being scammed by demagogues.  That's trying to play both ends to the middle.  It's like arguing that people need to skeptically trust each other to unify society.

Do you think it was healthy for people to follow Jim Jones as their demagogue? 

Healthy?  Obviously not.  How about some other examples?

Was it healthy to follow Charles Davenport and his American eugenics movement?  Was it healthy for people to follow Lyndon Johnson into Vietnam?   Or are these two examples too secular to be considered relevant?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.22  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.19    10 months ago
Kenneth Copeland's sermon/prayer in the video is not prosperity gospel. 

Give us all a break Nerm.   This was a short excerpt showing the utter nonsense that con-men like Copeland spew so as to illustrate how far many people will go into delusion when following con-men and demagogues.   It was not an argument that this is prosperity gospel.

Copeland's method is prosperity gospel.  There is no denying this.   But this video is not meant as an example of core prosperity gospel.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.21    10 months ago
You are comparing having faith to being scammed by demagogues. 

No I am not; and I am confident you know damn well that is not what I did.  

I am including being scammed by con-men (in this case we have one conning people using the preacher scam) and demagogues as primary examples of people exploiting the gullibility of others.

Healthy?  Obviously not. 

Agreed.   That is my point.

Or are these two examples too secular to be considered relevant?

Feel free to include as many examples of blind, unhealthy following of others. 

I think we all have examples showing how it is bad for society to have masses of people blinding following con-men and demagogues.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.24  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.22    10 months ago
Give us all a break Nerm.   This was a short excerpt showing the utter nonsense that con-men like Copeland spew so as to illustrate how far many people will go into delusion when following con-men and demagogues.   It was not an argument that this is prosperity gospel.

The only rational response to that comment would be to suggest spending a little time on YouTube listening to Black preachers.  Comparison to Kenneth Copeland's preaching style and theology might be illuminating.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.24    10 months ago

You are bouncing around yet never seem to hit the topic question:

What causes so many to blindly follow demagogues and con-men?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.24    10 months ago

Why would you consider that a rational response?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.27  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.25    10 months ago

Sheer igorance?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.27    10 months ago

ignorance - I can't edit my comments

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.29  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.23    10 months ago
No I am not; and I am confident you know damn well that is not what I did.   I am including being scammed by con-men (in this case we have one conning people using the preacher scam) and demagogues as primary examples of people exploiting the gullibility of others.

Well, that's really a cop out.  It's easy to say we shouldn't be scammed by con-men.  But that completely ignores the problem of discerning between demagogues and prophets.  Do we bring back tests for witches?  Throw them into the pool of public opinion; if they sink out of sight they're innocent but if they float to the top they're guilty?

Should we assume everyone is a con-man until proven otherwise?  That would go a long ways toward eliminating a need for faith (and trust).  Waiting for the facts to prove who to believe would seem to always lead to a deadlock.  And if we assume everyone is a prophet until proven otherwise then we're much more likely to be scammed.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.30  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.29    10 months ago
Do we bring back tests for witches? 

Possibly, but today's public seems to have more fascination with vampires and zombies.  

According to many religious sects, there has been an impending apocalypse on the horizon every single minute of every day as their savior reappears and wreaks vengeance on the worthless, irredeemable sinners of the world.  We don't want to piss off the self-anointed reps of this savior and must give them money, recruit more members to the cause, and follow the self-anointed rep's directions so we don't incur their savior's wrath.

According to the politicians, some worthless, irredeemable tyrant is going to the wreak war and vengeance on other countries and it is our duty as inhabitants of the US to stop them with our money and our lives.

What is a person to do given those two options? 

Isn't the best advice "Buyer beware"?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.29    10 months ago
But that completely ignores the problem of discerning between demagogues and prophets.

Strawman; that is not the topic nor have I weighed in on that.

You continue to dance around questions so I am done catering to you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.32  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2.30    10 months ago
According to many religious sects, there has been an impending apocalypse on the horizon every single minute of every day as their savior reappears and wreaks vengeance on the worthless, irredeemable sinners of the world.  We don't want to piss off the self-anointed reps of this savior and must give them money, recruit more members to the cause, and follow the self-anointed rep's directions so we don't incur their savior's wrath.

Well, it's not only religious sects warning of apocalypse.  Climate change, asteroid impacts, solar flares, and mega-volcano eruptions are portrayed as apocalyptic events.  An asteroid killed the dinosaurs and the Yellowstone volcano changed the climate, after all.  Science and technology are being promoted as our saviors.

Con-men or prophets?  Everything depends upon what we believe, doesn't it?  And a lot of effort and resources are being invested in convincing us what to believe.

According to the politicians, some worthless, irredeemable tyrant is going to the wreak war and vengeance on other countries and it is our duty as inhabitants of the US to stop them with our money and our lives.

The odd thing is that to prevent irredeemable tyrants from wreaking war and vengeance on other countries is for us to do the wreaking and vengeancing first.  The arguments never seem to prevent war, destruction, or vengeance. 

What is a person to do given those two options? 

Activists and advocates tell us to believe what they want us to believe and act accordingly.  But how do we know who is demagogue and who is prophet?    

Waiting until facts and evidence reveals who is who means we can't believe and act until we have proof.  That's places us in the position of assuming everyone is a con man until proven otherwise with no way to obtain proof.  Breaking that impasse requires taking on some risk with belief and faith.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.33  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.31    10 months ago
Strawman; that is not the topic nor have I weighed in on that. You continue to dance around questions so I am done catering to you.

So, how do we know who is a con-man?  Because someone in authority tells us?  Because an activist convinces us to believe as they do?

The question you are dancing around is why evidence fails to overcome belief.  We can't discern who is con-man and who is prophet without evidence.  We have to risk belief and faith before we can obtain evidence.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.34  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.32    10 months ago
Con-men or prophets?  Everything depends upon what we believe, doesn't it?  And a lot of effort and resources are being invested in convincing us what to believe.

For whose benefit?  Ours or theirs?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.35  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.32    10 months ago
Activists and advocates tell us to believe what they want us to believe and act accordingly.  But how do we know who is demagogue and who is prophet?   

Who does it benefit?  Us or them?

What are the costs in money or freedom?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.36  mocowgirl  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.32    10 months ago
Waiting until facts and evidence reveals who is who means we can't believe and act until we have proof.  That's places us in the position of assuming everyone is a con man until proven otherwise with no way to obtain proof.  Breaking that impasse requires taking on some risk with belief and faith.

Even if it is only the individual risking their own assets and/or their own life, our society has made a few laws against some of the worst predatory practices used by banks and businesses.  I'm still pissed about the "legality" of payday loans, rent to own and various other businesses that take advantage of people who have less than average intelligence.

As far as belief and faith, that is and should always be limited to the individual to practice, not enforced by an army or a government like what happened to spread Christianity in Europe for centuries.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.37  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    10 months ago
Honestly (if possible), do you NOT see the delusion of tens of millions of GOP members who follow Trump as a demagogue?

I would not call this an accurate statement. Many of those 'followers' aren't actually following Trump. They probably dislike the guy, but simply see him as the least worst option. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.38  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.9    10 months ago
Do you find it healthy for people to follow a demagogue or be exploited by a scam artist?

Obviously, it is not healthy. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.39  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.37    10 months ago
Many of those 'followers' aren't actually following Trump.

I think there are tens of millions of people who are actually following Trump as a demagogue.    To your point, I think there are millions more who will vote for Trump because he is the likely nominee and will vote for him if he becomes the GOP nominee.

I can understand the partisan strategy part of it.   The strange part (the part that applies to this seed) are those who blindly follow Trump (e.g. those who believe the 2020 election was rigged, that Trump has done nothing wrong, etc.).   Those are not, IMO, rational thinking individuals but blind followers of a demagogue (just like the flock following con-men like Copeland).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.40  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.38    10 months ago
Obviously, it is not healthy. 

It is interesting how many times certain folks deny the obvious.   That is why I wind up asking questions like the one you answered.   Nobody should have to ask such a question.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.41  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.5    10 months ago
Do you think it is healthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist?   

Why are you so worried about it. If someone wants to send money to a scam artist, then that is your business. It is no difference than you sending money to a politician. They also are scam artists, but you may still do it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.42  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.41    10 months ago

Your comment indicates that you think it is healthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist.   

How is it healthy for people to blindly follow others?   For example —going to an extreme for illustration purposes— do you consider it healthy to blindly follow Jim Jones? 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.43  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.42    10 months ago
our comment indicates that you think it is healthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist.   

My post says no such thing so I refuse to go down your rabbit hole

Do you give money to politicians or any charitable cause, because not all charities are on the up and up?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.44  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @3.2.43    10 months ago
My post says no such thing so I refuse to go down your rabbit hole

Cease the witless games, bugsy.   You objected to my posit that it is unhealthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist. 

You either agree or disagree.

Do you agree with me (if so, why did you write your post)?   If you disagree with me then your current post contradicts your first.

Make up your mind.  Take a stand.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.45  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.44    10 months ago
Cease the witless games, bugsy. 

Don't tell me what to do

"You objected to my posit that it is unhealthy for people to follow a demagogue or send money to a scam artist."

I did no such thing. You only wish to argue something in which never happened, a common occurrence with you.

I said it was none of your business what people do. You have no right to judge them.

Get a clue. 

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
3.2.46  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.44    10 months ago

Do you give money to politicians or charitable entities?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.47  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.40    10 months ago
It is interesting how many times certain folks deny the obvious.   That is why I wind up asking questions like the one you answered.   Nobody should have to ask such a question.

Perhaps, but just as they are not addressing your question with a direct answer, you aren't addressing their counterpoint. I think they all think what Copeland does is a bad thing. But, as so many have said, what of it? The problem is, once identifying it as a bad thing, what now? Many here would state that what the Democratic party or the Republican party does is a bad, unhealthy thing. One can have an opinion about it but then what? I'm sure you aren't advocating for some sort of action based on that, are you? 

Because, if you are, where does it end? Copeland? Those who support Trump? Dems or Repubs? People who like Lima Beans? I think that is what they are getting at. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.48  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.47    10 months ago
I think they all think what Copeland does is a bad thing. But, as so many have said, what of it? The problem is, once identifying it as a bad thing, what now?

Where do you read people acknowledging that this is a bad for society and then asking what we should do about it?

I just read through the comments so I do not see where you are getting this.

What I see are people talking around the point, arguing that it is none of anyone's business, etc.

Show me where someone has acknowledge the problem and has thoughtfully sought to engage me in a discussion of the solution.

I'm sure you aren't advocating for some sort of action based on that, are you? 

Correct.   I am actually looking for ideas on what causes so many to be so gullible and so trusting of con-men and demagogues.   A solution, if any exists, starts with identifying the problem.   

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.49  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.39    10 months ago
I think there are tens of millions of people who are actually following Trump as a demagogue. 

Possible. 

However, a large portion, of his base, do not blindly follow Trump.  They will vote for him, but they will not blindly follow his directions.  It may be the tail wagging the dog.

The approved path to political office is politicians have to say whatever it takes to be elected and then they can do as they damned well please.  I don't see Trump being any different than any other political candidate in that regard.

How Donald Trump's Vaccine Support Is Splitting His Base | Time

“He’s out of touch on the vaccine,” one user wrote on a pro-Trump forum that was a staging ground for the Jan. 6 insurrection after Trump appeared on OAN. Another asked “Why lose half your base over a faulty vaccine actively being used to take away rights?” Someone else responded, “I love Trump but this shit is getting intolerable.” At a rally in Cullman, Alabama in August, Trump was booed when he told the crowd he recommended getting vaccinated.

As he angles for a possible run for the White House in 2024, Trump finds himself in a tight spot, caught between highlighting his Administration’s significant achievement of working with pharmaceutical companies to jumpstart vaccine development and production and an evermore outspoken anti-vax Republican base. If Trump runs for the White House in 2024, he’ll need to appeal to voters beyond the most enthusiastic fringes of his supporters.

For a politician who thrives on the energy of the crowd, the skepticism from a vocal part of his base has created a dilemma. “I believe totally in your freedom, I do,” Trump told his supporters at the August rally in Alabama. “But I recommend, take the vaccines. I did it. It’s good. Take the vaccines.” A wave of boos went through the crowd. Trump got a similar reaction in December when he was on a stage with Bill O’Reilly at the American Airlines Center in Dallas. O’Reilly said “both the president and I are vaxxed,” and O’Reilly asked Trump if he got the booster. When Trump said yes, a chorus of jeers erupted. “Don’t! Don’t! Don’t! Don’t! Don’t!” Trump told the audience, waving his hand at them.

It remains to be seen if Trump thinks the potential benefit of focusing on his record with vaccines outweighs the potential backlash from his most loyal followers. In mid-January, Trump seemed to be trying out a reelection stump speech during a rally in Florence, Arizona, a swing state where he lost narrowly to Joe Biden in 2020. This time, he didn’t talk at length about vaccines.

“Not hearing President Trump pushing the ‘vaccines’ was my favorite part of last night’s speech,” one user on a pro-Trump forum wrote. “He’s a tough guy, but not so tough that he could take 10,000 of his own people booing him…His team had to have made that assessment and he decided to tweak his message a little bit.”
 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.50  mocowgirl  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.48    10 months ago
I am actually looking for ideas on what causes so many to be so gullible and so trusting of con-men and demagogues. 

This is just a small list of possible causes.

DNA?

Survival instinct?

Societal indoctrination?

Lack of intelligence?

Poor parenting?

Drugs?

Alcoholism?

Conformity?

Non-conformity?

Assorted mental health issues?

Also, how does that jive with Sapolsky's concept that people do not have freewill or have "limited" freewill?  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.51  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.48    10 months ago
Show me where someone has acknowledge the problem and has thoughtfully sought to engage me in a discussion of the solution.

Other than me, I don't recall anyone acknowledging the problem and I didn't say that they did. I simply said I thought they would all agree, or most of them, that it is bad if they cared to answer. But I also think they don't answer it exactly because last five words of your sentence. "... a discussion of the solution". My guess is that is why you brought this up to begin with. They are bypassing your question and going straight for what can be done about it. Specifically, nothing, because it isn't anyone's business other than those who follow people like Copeland.

Essentially, who are you or who am I to tell these people they can't do what they are doing? Who made us their judge? What authority do we have to tell them what they can and cannot do in this situation? More importantly, they probably recognize what a terrible path that opens up in our society. Because if we can decide for these people what is best for them, regardless of their own beliefs, where does that end? Anyone who believes there is a God? Or what test are you going to put people to in order to allow them whatever beliefs you find acceptable, even though you yourself don't believe? 

And it doesn't even have to be religion. Just look at China and what they do to political dissenters. No freedom loving person wants to go down that road. 

Correct.   I am actually looking for ideas on what causes so many to be so gullible and so trusting of con-men and demagogues.   A solution, if any exists, starts with identifying the problem.

Well, from my perspective, just getting these people to read the entirety of what the Bible says would be the most obvious thing, rather than the cherry picked verses Copeland and his like always do. I have to wonder how many of his congregants actually read it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.52  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2.49    10 months ago
They will vote for him, but they will not blindly follow his directions. 

I do recognize at least two major factions:  those who follow Trump as a demagogue and those who will vote for him.   The former are the main reason Trump is leading in the polls.  The latter, due to their refusal to act against Trump, have enabled Trump to have such a lead.

 I don't see Trump being any different than any other political candidate in that regard.

Trump's difference is his character.   He panders like every other politician;  but he does so like a junkyard dog (that is a difference).   My concern with Trump however is (and has been) his character.   We know all too clearly that he cares about himself and is willing to even throw the nation under the bus to ease his bruised ego.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.53  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2.50    10 months ago
Also, how does that jive with Sapolsky's concept that people do not have freewill or have "limited" freewill?  

I suspect Sapolsky would say that our decisions are based on many factors stemming from our basic biology as homo sapiens, our particular genetics, our environmental factors (nurture), our diet, our experiences, our biochemistry at the time, etc.   He would suggest that some are predisposed to trusting in those they feel are superior in some way and the level of trust / gullibility is mostly out of our control.

In short, I suspect that Sapolsky would make a strong case that will power can indeed enable most people to think critically and defeat the aforementioned factors but would caution that such critical thinking requires effort and discipline and not everyone is up to it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.54  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.51    10 months ago
They are bypassing your question and going straight for what can be done about it.

I do not see anyone offering a solution.   I see very few even attempting to engage thoughtfully.   You are an exception.   What I see is the typical gotcha attempts and other poor behavior.

Essentially, who are you or who am I to tell these people they can't do what they are doing? 

Is it wrong to observe that getting oneself addicted to drugs is bad?    Are you and I unable to opine on this?    Who are we to tell people that drug addiction is bad for them and for society in general?   I think this and other examples would show that there are indeed objectively bad acts and that making people aware of this is certainly a reasonable and responsible action.   So, for example, exposing con-men and demagogues is, IMO, a good thing.

Don't do virtue signaling.   We all opine on what we see as damaging behavior / attributes.   We all have a right to do so.  If not, then we need to shut down all analysis that does not end with a conclusion of 'good'.

Because if we can decide for these people what is best for them ...

I do not know where this is coming from.   Has someone here suggested that 'we' (whoever that is) can decide what is best for them (with the implication that we can force our decisions on them)?

Well, from my perspective, just getting these people to read the entirety of what the Bible says would be the most obvious thing ...

I take this as you suggest they not simply accept what their trusted sources tell them (i.e. do not simply accept whatever Copeland says is true) and rather do their own research.   I agree with that.

I have to wonder how many of his congregants actually read it. 

A tiny percent IMO.   Otherwise they would not be congregants of a con-man.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.55  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.54    10 months ago
Is it wrong to observe that getting oneself addicted to drugs is bad?    Are you and I unable to opine on this?    Who are we to tell people that drug addiction is bad for them and for society in general?

Obviously it is not wrong in such a case. Nor is it wrong to force practical solutions to address the problem. However, this is not a good comparison of what Copeland does or how it affects society. What Copeland's followers do impacts Copeland's followers and their families but it doesn't directly affect society in the manner that drug abuse does. Since it doesn't, it remains a matter of personal choice and not public policy. One can have all the opinions about it they wish to have, but it would be wrong to treat it in the same manner we take the drug problem. 

I think this and other examples would show that there are indeed objectively bad acts and that making people aware of this is certainly a reasonable and responsible action.   So, for example, exposing con-men and demagogues is, IMO, a good thing.

Agreed. However, it isn't as if you are making people aware of something they previously were unaware of. Televangelists of Copeland's stripe have been a derogative meme for decades. Copeland is just one of many con-men in our society. It isn't hard to find someone or some company selling snake oil of some kind, from magnetic wrist bracelets, special mats that has some supposed curative effect, special nutrients, politicians promising one thing but never delivering on those promises and a medical system that is so egregiously unfair it staggers the imagination, just to name a few. 

Don't do virtue signaling.

Hard to see how what I've said about this could be classified as virtue signaling, but that's me. Most, i think, would agree that one should be free to do what they wish as long as it doesn't harm anyone else, relatively speaking. It's supposed to be a foundation of our society. 

I do not know where this is coming from.   Has someone here suggested that 'we' (whoever that is) can decide what is best for them (with the implication that we can  force our decisions  on them)?
Show me where someone has acknowledge the problem and has thoughtfully sought to engage me in a discussion of the solution. 3.2.48

While you're welcome to your opinion of course, it seems most in here think you want to discuss a solution to the problem, else why bring it up? There isn't really a solution beyond trying to convince these people that Copeland is using them for personal gain and nothing more. The only just solution for a society that believes in freedom. 

Perhaps more importantly, the most egregious part of the whole Copeland-as-con-man issue isn't the con itself but, rather, lack of personal accountability on behalf of his followers. I am a big fan of personal accountability. To my mind, his followers are, in some ways, just as guilty as Copeland because they do not take personal accountability concerning truth and how it informs what they believe. Instead, they allow someone like Copeland to do the job for them. 

I know it is a popular meme, often expressed in this place, that religion is just a means of controlling people. On one level, this is true, but not in the way the meme intends. The Bible is about God's plan to reconcile people to Himself in a manner that He actually is God of their lives. This, of course, implies putting God in control. 

That however is not what the meme is referring to. It refers to people like Copeland or, arguably, the RCC of the middle ages, for example. It carries the idea that there isn't a God, or at least, evidence of one so therefore religion is simply a man made tool used by individuals and governments to control the masses. And, indeed, Copeland gives some truth to this meme since he is a perfect example of what the meme is talking about. The god Copeland worships certainly isn't God. 

That's where personal accountability comes in and why I have a limited amount of sympathy for Copeland's victims. His followers are not homogenous, of course, but I would guess that most of them are his victims because what they desire isn't God Himself but, rather, what they think He can do for them in getting the life they want, not God or the life God has for them. I believe that is why they appear to be so ignorant (willfully or not) as to what the Bible actually says about God and how we approach Him. 

Lastly, while even atheists can identify Copeland as a fraud, Biblically, why would that limit any solution to Copeland to Copeland? That is, since many Atheists consider the Bible simply the imagination of a primitive and uneducated culture, what's to stop whatever solution that is applied to Copeland from being applied to all religions, since it is seen as a con as well? No more tithes, perhaps? Tax what the Church takes in? Not suggesting that this would be your stand, but you would not be the only one involved if there were an actual concerted effort to do something about Copeland and his like. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.56  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.55    10 months ago
What Copeland's followers do impacts Copeland's followers and their families but it doesn't directly affect society in the manner that drug abuse does.

Of course not.   Every situation has different consequences at different degrees.

Copeland is simply one example.   His is an example of a con-man who enriches himself at the expense of gullible people.   Odd that you do not recognize the societal problem of having so many gullible people being manipulated by a single individual.   Many (in particular elderly and desperate) give what approaches life savings to con-men which then impacts societal support systems as well as families and friends and local economies.   Con-men make their legitimate counterparts look bad (in the case of Copeland, he degrades religion and churches).   Successful con-men amass power that they then use as they see fit ... given their character ... their use of power is not likely to be beneficial to society.

Part of the solution, IMO, is to expose con-men so that people are better informed and more likely to not be exploited by them.

... it seems most in here think you want to discuss a solution to the problem, ...

Then I would expect comments which help identify the problem so that a solution can be discussed.  

I am a big fan of personal accountability.

Me too.   But societies recognize that people (as a whole) do not always act responsibly.   That is why we have consumer protection measures, investigative reporting, laws and ... ultimately ... safeguards to deal with (to some degree) people who have screwed up their lives due to bad decisions.

So it is not so easy, from a societal perspective, to just wash one's hands with the excuse of personal accountability.

Copeland gives some truth to this meme since he is a perfect example of what the meme is talking about. The god Copeland worships certainly isn't God. 

One of the societal problems I would expect you recognize.

... because what they desire isn't God Himself but, rather, what they think He can do for them in getting the life they want, not God or the life God has for them.

I suspect the vast majority are what you describe.   They bought the prosperity gospel con and that translates into greed.   Hard to feel sorry for people who lose due to greed so one can easily say that the individuals get what they deserve.   I am okay with that on an individual level.   At a societal level, people losing financial stability is never a good thing.   It is better for society that people be able to financially fend for themselves.   Con-men are agents that enable financial instability.

That is, since many Atheists consider the Bible simply the imagination of a primitive and uneducated culture, what's to stop whatever solution that is applied to Copeland from being applied to all religions, since it is seen as a con as well?

Yeah, I have seen this theme underlying your comments.   I expected this as the main notion underlying your argument.

Belief in the teaching of a religion is generally harmless (indeed, I would argue in some cases that it is net good — satisfying the psychological needs of some — giving comfort).   The harm comes from acts, not mere belief.   So one could be a practicing Catholic (for example) and live a life per its teachings.   This would result in giving ones time and money to help needy others (in moderation), being a good person, and supporting the church's continue operation.   For the most part, Catholics do not compromise their financial well-being by donating to the church because there is no quid pro quo expectation that the (empowered) priest(s) have a special channel to lobby God on their behalf.   They hold that aggregate goodness will eventually result in a good situation in life and after-life. 

The key problem I have with the Catholic church is that is amasses enormous wealth and influence.   This in itself is not desirable but the Catholic church in modern times is generally benign (ignoring, for this comment, the problems of pedophilia among a minority of priests).

So net that down to the exploitation by Catholicism and similar religions is moderate and is not a current societal problem.

Now let's consider 'religions' such as Young Earth Creationism.   In particular, the organization Answers in Genesis.   This is an activist organization that aggressively seeks to indoctrinate and reeducation people to trust a literal read of the Bible as 100% divine truth.   At each turn when their literal reads contradict science, they aggressively seek to discredit the science.    The key example of course is their truly absurd insistence that evolution is a worldwide conspiracy of atheist scientists.   Another is their attack on radiometric dating (and other forms) since these contradict their insistence that the planet (and the universe) are 6,000 years old.

About 10% of the USA actually believes this nonsense.   Anti-science activism like this is a societal problem.    While they have the right to their beliefs, their actions introduce doubt, ignorance, unwarranted mistrust in science and ultimately false 'truths'.    Unlike the Catholics whose beliefs generally do not contradict modern knowledge (e.g. evolution), YECs are agents working against modern knowledge.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.57  cjcold  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.55    10 months ago
Tax

Definitely!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2.58  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  cjcold @3.2.57    10 months ago
Tax the rich

Everywhere is freaks and hairies
Dykes and fairies, tell me, where is sanity?
Tax the rich, feed the poor
'Til there are no rich no more

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.59  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.56    10 months ago
Odd that you do not recognize the societal problem of having so many gullible people being manipulated by a single individual.

I do recognize it. Especially the impact people like Copeland have on non-believers in society and, to a lesser extent, the financial difficulties some experience due to his con. However, one can say similar things about the gambling industry. From what I've read, the dietary supplement industry is largely a con, as most do not benefit from them enough to justify the cost. (My brother used to work at the wastewater treatment plant for my city and tell of all the supplements people took that ended up floating around in the wastewater pools. We're talking thousands of them every day.) Most of the advertising we see on TV is pretty much a con, trying to sell a product that will supposedly make your life perfect if you just choose the right hair product, body spray, car, clothes and whatever else they can get you to buy. 

Of course, not all of these are on the same level of con but the point is if you go after one, where will it end? Give government an ounce of power, which is who would be enforcing any effort to stop the con of your choice and, eventually, it will get turned into a pound of power; then a ton. 

Yeah, I have seen this theme underlying your comments.   I expected this as the main notion underlying your argument.

Yes, but I don't apply it to religion only. To be a free society you have to let people get conned sometimes, especially when they have every reason to know better. I don't want to live in a nanny state and you shouldn't, either. I don't want to end up like the average Chinese citizen. 

The key problem I have with the Catholic church is that is amasses enormous wealth and influence.   This in itself is not desirable but the Catholic church in modern times is generally benign (ignoring, for this comment, the problems of pedophilia among a minority of priests).

I have my own issues with the RCC but I won't get into it except to say that I think they do more harm to believers than Copeland does or, rather, they affect more people than Copeland does.

Now let's consider 'religions' such as Young Earth Creationism.   In particular, the organization Answers in Genesis.   This is an activist organization that aggressively seeks to indoctrinate and reeducation people to trust a literal read of the Bible as 100% divine truth. 

I think it best if I stay away from this one. Too far off topic from my point of view. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.60  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.59    10 months ago

I can't let this go by. A Christian man relishes in keeping the "nanny state" in check, but approves of the Con. Even so, approves of the con while associating himself with people who detest honest, hard-working, earnestly trying people who don't con anybody over reproductive rights and sexualities! It's goes to show us that some people can justify anything when it suits their purposes!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.61  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.59    10 months ago
Of course, not all of these are on the same level of con but the point is if you go after one, where will it end?

That is your concern?   That if society works to mitigate clear wrongdoing by con-artists we will be unable to stop at legitimate wrongdoers?   Are you suggesting that we then do nothing for fear that we might overstep?   If so, I strongly disagree.

To be a free society you have to let people get conned sometimes, especially when they have every reason to know better.

That will happen no matter what we do as a society.   It would be impossible, realistically, for our society to eliminate all cons.   So no worries, no matter what we do, some people will get conned sometimes.

I think they [the Roman Catholic Church] do more harm to believers than Copeland does or, rather, they affect more people than Copeland does.

I agree that they affect more people than Copeland.  I disagree based on my decades of entrenched experience with contemporary Catholics that their religion/church is net harmful to them and to society.   (I intentionally disregard the problem I have with all religions, promoting belief without sound evidence as a good thing, etc.)

I think it best if I stay away from this one. 

It is a very good example of a con that affects millions of Americans.   It is quite on topic.   But if you do not wish to discuss it I will respect your wishes.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.62  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.12    10 months ago

Still waiting for your answer …. Still …..

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.63  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.11    10 months ago

How I vote, how anyone votes, is none of your business.

None at all …. So learn to deal with it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.64  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.62    10 months ago

Are you referring to this?:

Sparty @3.2.3 ☞ Why?    Do you have a problem with other peoples choices?    Do you really believe “you” could make better choices for them?

Yes, I see a societal problem when people are conned by con-men.   Just like I see a societal problem when people are ripped off by ransomware, identity theft, physical larceny, gang violence, fentanyl-laced drugs, etc.   Bad agents exploiting vulnerabilities to harm other people is a bad thing.

My point, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with me (and your quoted "you" should have been "we" if you are not talking about me).   It makes no indication that I would make decisions / choices for those who are conned by con-men and ensnared by demagogues.   My point is that con-men and demagogues effect societal damage and I opened this seed to discuss why so many can be fooled by what seems to be obvious cons.

Kenneth Copeland is a fine example of a contemporary con-man.   He uses the prosperity gospel scam to entice gullible, greedy, and desperate people to send him money with the belief that he will intercede with God on their behalf and solve their specific problems.   His operation has been exposed in the past where insiders report that mail operations extract the checks;  clerks then send canned replies to the victims and that is it.   Copeland never sees the contents of the letter so even if he had his widely proclaimed ability to talk directly to God, he never does.

Works great for Copeland who has amassed an estimated fortune of ¾ billion dollars.


Is that sufficient of an answer for you Sparty?    For future reference, if you ask questions that take a general topic and immediately make it personal, you will likely not see me comply but rather attempt to get you on track with the topic (as you can see by my reply comments to you).

The point of this seed is to discuss what in human beings allows so many to trust others without sufficient evidence?   Why (using Copeland as an example) do people believe that Kenneth Copeland actually talks directly to God and can intercede on their behalf?   Why do they continue with a 'ministry' that claims Kenneth Copeland has supernatural powers such as the ability to control the weather (e.g. stop a tornado and cause it to wither)?

It is easy to see the con here and this has been exposed.   Yet Kenneth Copeland remains extremely successful in his endeavors.   Why does this work so well?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.65  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.54    10 months ago

I think if more of these people actually read their bibles, there would be far more agnostics coming out of those church doors

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.66  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.65    10 months ago

Yes, if they read their Bibles objectively (apply critical thinking).  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.2.67  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.66    10 months ago

And this is why they get conned. Their critical thinking skills are severely lacking

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.68  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.67    10 months ago

Yes, at least when it applies to faith.   Funny how some people can be entirely rational and objective in their lives but when it comes to religion (and politics too, by the way) the objective mechanisms break down.

Weird.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.2.69  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.68    10 months ago

Part of that is fear.  They're taught early on that lack of faith, questioning what they're told, equals eternal torture.  Fear is a pretty good motivator.  Especially when it can be assuage by something so easily done as privately asking forgiveness from a god nobody can actually see or hear.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.70  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.64    10 months ago
Do you have a problem with other peoples choices?    Do you really believe “you” could make better choices for them?

Yes, my two questions noted above.   So your answers are yes and yes.

Correct?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.71  afrayedknot  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.69    10 months ago

“Fear is a pretty good motivator.”

And when cultivated to speak to those unwilling to accept basic science, principles, history, or facts you find ourselves in the dysfunctional, surreal, superficial world in which we live.

And all when we comparatively have it so very good. The whining has become more important than anything and it is so very pathetic. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.72  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.70    10 months ago

No, Sparty.   Good grief man, I went out of my way to give you a detailed answer and this is what you return with?

My answer for question one is yes.   Obviously, as evidenced by this seed.  

My answer for question two is no.   As I explained, this is not about me making a better choice for these people.   Your question is loaded and wrong.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.73  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.69    10 months ago

I agree.   Thanks, by the way, for setting an example of the kind of discussion I had hoped might ensue.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2.74  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.48    10 months ago
I am actually looking for ideas on what causes so many to be so gullible and so trusting of con-men and demagogues.   A solution, if any exists, starts with identifying the problem.   

I would say it's part laziness. It's easier to have someone do your thinking for you and tradition dictates holy men or politicians as social leaders. Generations have grown up and been trained to not question them. Those who question are made examples of.

It's also partly about not taking personal responsibility. If Aunt Jane dies of COVID it was 'god's plan' or some other logic twisted variation on the theme. Over a million people died of COVID during the pandemic and some people still don't think there was a problem. The overrun hospitals & burnt out hospital staff is just fake news. 

Lastly it's part FOMO... (that may be the wrong term) If millions of people follow Copland and swear by him how can the one that wants to believe be wrong? They reinforce each other with a group think mentality. We see that with the internet now. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.75  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.72    10 months ago
Your question is loaded and wrong.

No it wasn’t.    Both were simple yes or no questions.     That you didn’t like them, is entirely your problem.

Great googlie mooglies man …. can’t you make that connection?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2.76  evilone  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.2.69    10 months ago
They're taught early on that lack of faith, questioning what they're told, equals eternal torture. 

Good point.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.77  Nerm_L  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2.36    10 months ago
Even if it is only the individual risking their own assets and/or their own life, our society has made a few laws against some of the worst predatory practices used by banks and businesses.  I'm still pissed about the "legality" of payday loans, rent to own and various other businesses that take advantage of people who have less than average intelligence.

But that doesn't align with reality.  Our political system has legalized predatory practices.  You know, our laws really do force people to buy things like insurance and (private sector) retirement investments.  Any financial advisor entices people to risk their assets based upon quasi-canonical economic theories.  The Wall Street mentality has become the foundation of our economy.  The financial sector managing assets and risks (investment, banking, insurance, leasing, real estate, etc.) has become as large as the manufacturing sector.

As far as belief and faith, that is and should always be limited to the individual to practice, not enforced by an army or a government like what happened to spread Christianity in Europe for centuries.  

But that's wrong.  Your argument is based upon Roman Catholic history of Europe and completely ignores the protestant history of Europe.  The religious (and spiritual) history of the colonies that became the United States was shaped by protestants escaping Roman Catholic persecution.  The so-called Age of Enlightenment marks a break with Roman Catholic Orthodoxy.

The Roman Empire controlled Europe for well over a thousand years.  The Roman Catholic Church is the last vestige of the Roman Empire.  Christianity became the Roman Emperor's religion and that is what spread Christianity across Europe.  The Roman Catholic Church has only done what the Roman Empire had been doing for thousands of years to spread and maintain the empire.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.78  afrayedknot  replied to  Nerm_L @3.2.77    10 months ago

“…quasi-canonical economic theories …”

What? Unless you are talking about tithing…and then yes, an actual example of canonical self-serving. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.2.79  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.2.67    10 months ago
Their critical thinking skills are severely lacking

heh, what critical thinking skills?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.80  CB  replied to  evilone @3.2.74    10 months ago

I like this comment. 

Point of clarification: Were you formerly known as "Evilgenius"?

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.81  afrayedknot  replied to  devangelical @3.2.79    10 months ago

“…what critical thinking skills?”

Cognitive dissonance to be kind, willful ignorance to be more accurate, intentional societal chaos the result. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.82  cjcold  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.58    10 months ago

I'd Love to Change the World.

Met Alvin Lee once out in LA. 

Kind of a depressing dude.

Maybe caught him on a bad night.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.2.83  Nerm_L  replied to  afrayedknot @3.2.78    10 months ago
What? Unless you are talking about tithing…and then yes, an actual example of canonical self-serving. 

Supply-side liberalism.  We are being told that economic prosperity and spiritual salvation are only possible through the intercession of middlemen.    

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.2.84  evilone  replied to  CB @3.2.80    10 months ago
Were you formerly known as "Evilgenius"?

Yes.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.85  CB  replied to  evilone @3.2.84    10 months ago

Ah!

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.86  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @3.2.63    10 months ago
How I vote,

Pretty sure I know without asking.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.2.87  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.48    10 months ago
identifying the problem.

The original lie of all of those ancient gods?

Or just the new lie of a monotheistic god.

Seems the gullible thought it would be easier to worship just one.

 
 
 
afrayedknot
Junior Quiet
3.2.88  afrayedknot  replied to  cjcold @3.2.87    10 months ago

“The original lie of…”

…pick your poison…that is the original sin. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3.2.89  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @3.2.86    10 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.90  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.61    10 months ago
That is your concern?   That if society works to mitigate clear wrongdoing by con-artists we will be unable to stop at legitimate wrongdoers?   Are you suggesting that we then do nothing for fear that we might overstep?   If so, I strongly disagree.

That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion, of course. Yet I see it from a perspective I don't think you fully appreciate. I can't count the number of times I've read calls to tax all churches, for instance. The number of times I've seen the claim that pastors and clergy are in it to make money and control people. That raising one's children as Christians is child abuse. I can absolutely see it not stopping at the Copelands of the world. Not right away, perhaps, but a few years down the road? It's a very real threat, TiG. I am not ever going to be for handing the government power to regulate personal religious beliefs. Copeland is a con-man, but his followers are willing followers for the most part. 

I agree that they affect more people than Copeland.  I disagree based on my decades of entrenched experience with contemporary Catholics that their religion/church is net harmful to them and to society.

Unsurprising. You're looking at the impact of their engagement in society from a secular perspective. I see the RCC from a theological perspective, so we're not going to agree since we're not talking about the same thing.

Anyway, that's about it for me on this subject. We're not really progressing at this point. Thanks for the conversation, though.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.91  Drakkonis  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.90    10 months ago
I think if more of these people actually read their bibles, there would be far more agnostics coming out of those church doors 3.2.65     Trout Giggles

Yes, if they read their Bibles objectively (apply critical thinking). 3.2.66   TᵢG  

And this is why they get conned. Their critical thinking skills are severely lacking 3.2.67    Trout Giggles

Yes, at least when it applies to faith.   Funny how some people can be entirely rational and objective in their lives but when it comes to religion (and politics too, by the way) the objective mechanisms break down. Weird.   3.2.68 TᵢG  

LOL : )

It might surprise you guys to know how much we think the same thing about non-believers. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.92  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.91    10 months ago

And yet it is Christians who suffer the most from not being a group with ONE Spirit between us! Our beliefs span the Christian spectrum.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.93  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.90    10 months ago
It's a very real threat, TiG. I am not ever going to be for handing the government power to regulate personal religious beliefs. Copeland is a con-man, but his followers are willing followers for the most part. 

The problem with Copeland is not his religious teachings but rather his fraud and deceit.   You are stating that you will tolerate his fraud and deceit because he is doing so under the auspices of a church and once society starts holding churches accountable to some standard then we have a slippery slope that will adversely affect the legitimate churches.

That concern/fear is probably why the Copelands of the world are allowed to continue freely exploiting people and making tax-free fortunes through fraud and deceit.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.94  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.93    10 months ago

The sad truth is the Church as an institution does not police itself sufficient to the need. Thus, in this one regard alone, religious freedom is a double-edged sword that's dull on one side!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.95  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @3.2.94    10 months ago

I would think genuine religious folks hate having religion itself portrayed as slimy as fortune telling and cheap cons.   That real churches would organize in some way to discredit the most obvious con-artists like Copeland.   But they just let this crap continue without saying a word.

Also, people like Copeland who claim to be prophets with superhuman powers and can have conversations with God are not likely to be true believers (unless they are insane).   So all these people are being exploited (likely) by atheists.

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2.96  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.95    10 months ago
That real churches would organize in some way to discredit the most obvious con-artists like Copeland. But they just let this crap continue without saying a word.

You mean like Christian justice warriors as opposed to Social justice warriors?....

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.97  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.2.96    10 months ago

I did not label the behavior, I simply described it.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.98  CB  replied to  GregTx @3.2.96    10 months ago

What? Your question is not grounded so from the comment it is nearly impossible to know or discern what you mean by an attempt to connect these two forms of justice. Care to be open and elaborate?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.99  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.95    10 months ago
I would think genuine religious folks hate having religion itself portrayed as slimy as fortune telling and cheap cons. 

Christian people are highly mirror-focused on the Divine. That is, Christians try their. . . hardest to see God 'ever before their eyes' and not focus on the mundane world around them. 99.97 percent of Christians are fearful of losing their 'place' in Heaven if they speak out against a so-called man or woman of God, because in the old testament such individuals were said to express power and influence over those who criticized them.

That said, we can all see and feel the fraud that is fundamentalism/evangelism that accepts an aggrieved grace-less so-called, "leader" who fails at the ten commandments, ESPECIALLY commandments 9 and 10.

Indeed, that phony "leader" is for me, one who has EXPOSED fundamentalists preachers as the clouds without water that they are because they want "it" more than they want truth. I will not stand with them, in fact, I will speak out against them every chance I get!

I am disgusted by their political "leader" and the fundamentalist Church use of him!

 
 
 
GregTx
Professor Guide
3.2.100  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.97    10 months ago

You didn't need to. I simply asked if you would think them comparative?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.101  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @3.2.100    10 months ago

I will be clearer.   I am not going to use labels because labels bring forth stereotypes.    That is spurious information that simply confuses the point.

The point being that real churches do not seem to organize to discredit the most obvious con-artists like Copeland.   I find that odd since con-artists like Copeland make all religions look bad.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.102  CB  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.101    10 months ago

It's even worse. These people like Copeland shepherd through their wide-appeal television ministries and travel a "population" of believers. The conclusion at the end of the day being: CONFUSION resides in the body of Christ. Because no one is able or willing (obviously God cares not to do it either) to clear out the confusing voices that take money, land, stocks, buildings, and willed items from believers for their own indulgences and opportunities to live royally on the Earth.  Confusion is ripe throughout in the body of Christ, and its the Churches fault that is it!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.103  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.93    10 months ago
The problem with Copeland is not his religious teachings but rather his fraud and deceit.

That depends on perspective. Given your view of religion, you are naturally incensed by the fraud perpetrated on the gullible by a wolf in sheep's clothing. For me, his religious teachings are by far the greater concern. While the monetary loss suffered by his followers is regrettable, it doesn't begin to compare to the danger of losing their souls. And, considering that Copeland is presenting a false god, I am far, far more concerned with that. Better that these people to live in a cardboard box and know the real God than live in a palace and worship Copeland's god. 

You are stating that you will tolerate his fraud and deceit because he is doing so under the auspices of a church and once society starts holding churches accountable to some standard then we have a slippery slope that will adversely affect the legitimate churches.

Close, but misses the point in the end. While it's true that I do not want government, or society as you put it, to have any say over what a person can believe or how they act on it, it's applicable to everyone, not just the religious. For instance, if the government tried to institute a law stating that one must use another's preferred pronouns or face fines or prison, I would object on the same grounds as I oppose doing something about Copeland. 

While pronouns and Copeland may seem like different things, they are actually different sides of the same coin. In Copeland's case, you apparently want him to answer for what you consider his crimes and, by extension, impose on his followers what they are allowed to believe concerning their religion. In other words, by going after Copeland you are, in effect, telling his followers that what they believe is wrong, else why punish Copeland? Hence, you put yourself in the position of telling them what they cannot believe. In the case of pronouns, it is similar but, instead, it is forcing people to believe what they don't believe or at least acting as if they did. 

And as for 'tolerating', I believe something you do not. Even if what you wish never comes to pass, Copeland will not escape punishment for his crimes, which involve something worse than defrauding his followers. I actually get a little sick to my stomach contemplating his meeting with God. I honestly suspect Hitler would come out better. 

That concern/fear is probably why the Copelands of the world are allowed to continue freely exploiting people and making tax-free fortunes through fraud and deceit.

Speaking for myself, that's partially true, but it isn't simply concern for the Church. As I said, it's mostly the idea of the government dictating conscience. I don't want to live in China. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.104  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.95    10 months ago
That real churches would organize in some way to discredit the most obvious con-artists like Copeland.   But they just let this crap continue without saying a word.

This isn't true. You can easily find content that denounces false teachings. You just have to look for them. My guess is that you don't see such things because you don't live in my world. I've seen tons of denunciations of Copeland and his like. My guess, though, is that you mean speak a word that you think matters in the world you live in. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.105  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.103    10 months ago
Given your view of religion, you are naturally incensed by the fraud perpetrated on the gullible by a wolf in sheep's clothing. For me, his religious teachings are by far the greater concern.

You are correct, I care far more about his ability to openly con gullible/desperate people than his religious teachings.

For instance, if the government tried to institute a law stating that one must use another's preferred pronouns or face fines or prison, I would object on the same grounds as I oppose doing something about Copeland. 

An odd comparison.   You compare gratuitous/politically-correct law to measures which mitigate wrongdoing.   If you are going to make that type of a comparison, then you should be against every law of society because it all comes from government imposing on the people.   Ideally, laws exist to maintain a civil society.   Forcing people to use particular pronouns is an overreach of government ... authoritarian.   Laws to mitigate harm — especially when the perp can harm many people — would be like laws against mail fraud.   You would not argue against mail fraud laws would you?

In Copeland's case, you apparently want him to answer for what you consider his crimes and, by extension, impose on his followers what they are allowed to believe concerning their religion.

No, I have never made any indication of controlling the beliefs of the followers.   You are imagining and doing so wrongly.   I have consistently spoke of mitigating the wrongdoers ability to do wrong ... taking actions to stop con-men from executing their con.   In the case of Copeland, I would be in favor of actions such as investigative reporting, IRS audit, Texas AG bringing charges, etc.   In essence, a clear path to make public the wrongdoings of Copeland and to deal with them using fair legal adjudication.   Since it is clearly possible to investigate businesses for wrongdoing, we should operate similarly for businesses that claim to be churches yet are suspiciously operating beyond that definition.

Now, let's say that Copeland (again, he is just an example) is exposed and his followers now publicly know of his wrongdoing.   If they continue to send him money, that is on them.   Just like it is on Trump supporters who would vote for him regardless of what he has done.   People must be free to make stupid choices as a consequence of the freedom we cherish.

Copeland will not escape punishment for his crimes ...

That probably explains, in a way, why so many believers follow him.   I can see followers believing that God would never let Copeland be so successful if he was lying.   I think this way of thinking is a great way to get many things wrong.

As I said, it's mostly the idea of the government dictating conscience.   I don't want to live in China. 

Yeah, well I am against that too.   But it is up to you to not extrapolate positions for me since I cannot control your imagination.   So, just to be clear, I have never once suggested that the government tell people what they must believe.   My point is that it is obvious that many people can be gullible or desperate and be easy prey for charlatans.   It is the con-men, demagogues, etc. that I seek to act on, not their victims.

I've seen tons of denunciations of Copeland and his like.

Organized or simply individuals opining?   Have you seen anything with teeth such as an AG indictment?   Con-men like Jim Bakker have been indicted and tried for fraud so it is certainly possible.   Yet many others like Copeland continue operations unchallenged.

My guess, though, is that you mean speak a word that you think matters in the world you live in. 

Best to steer clear of trying to base your comments on what you think my positions might be or defining my world view for me.   Try to just focus on what I write.   You will have a better chance of accuracy and better avoid strawmen.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.106  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.104    10 months ago

Denunciations are not 'policing' the Faith! Our mutual faith is gone off its rails. We disagree amongst ourselves about what is true about our faith! How in the world are outsiders going to even 'consent' to such wide-ranging mainstream theological realities, and that is before you layer on Copeland for whom you are ODDLY giving all kinds of permissions to continue as he 'were.'

To an outsider, we look ridiculous. Especially fundamentalist Christians of which there are a lot of them, and they are 'paling' around with Trump a man who can't be trusted to not lie or covet what rightly belongs to someone else! 

All of this is a BIG PROBLEM for the institution of the Church. People (especially youth) are watching and falling away from being under the authority of men and women who defend foolishness over truth and who can not be reasoned with even by their own supposed standards of belief!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2.107  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.103    10 months ago
And as for 'tolerating', I believe something you do not. Even if what you wish never comes to pass, Copeland will not escape punishment for his crimes, which involve something worse than defrauding his followers. I actually get a little sick to my stomach contemplating his meeting with God.

This statement is totaling off the mark. Since you won't pass righteous judgement on Copeland whom you expect to suffer a defeat in the presence of God. . . why do you pass judgement on people who are not in the faith and make no pretense of knowing God?

"Physician heal thyself!"

The Church is continuing to fail itself! And should not be surprised when people call BS - BS.

To be fair, Copeland has a religious expression clause he can lay back on which gives him a right to peddle his brand of Name it and Claim it 'wares.' For fundamentalists Christian to be so lacking of judgment for what Copeland is doing everyday to the body of Christ, while attempting to direct and become authority figures in the lives of people who do not care or know God is abhorrent!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.108  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.105    10 months ago
My guess, though, is that you mean speak a word that you think matters in the world you live in. 
Best to steer clear of trying to base your comments on what you think my positions might be or defining my world view for me.   Try to just focus on what I write.   You will have a better chance of accuracy and better avoid strawmen.

Aside from the fact you literally confirmed my guess ...

Organized or simply individuals opining?   Have you seen anything with teeth such as an AG indictment?   Con-men like Jim Bakker have been indicted and tried for fraud so it is certainly possible.   Yet many others like Copeland continue operations unchallenged.

You are, again, turning this into somehow being about you. Let me know when you're ready to discuss the topic. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.109  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.108    10 months ago

No, Drakk, I was encouraging you to NOT bring me into the topic.   Odd how whenever I dissuade you from going personal you turn that around and pretend that I am making this about me.   Way to screw up a good conversation.

Clearly you are done talking about the topic.   A shame you chose to exit with a dishonest accusation.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.110  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.109    10 months ago
A shame you chose to exit with a dishonest accusation.

Really? You state this...

Best to steer clear of trying to base your comments on what you think my positions might be or defining my world view for me.   Try to just focus on what I write.   You will have a better chance of accuracy and better avoid strawmen.

... in response to a comment I made, which you yourself proved was accurate and have yet to deny. Further, you quote me out of context to make your complaint. 

In Copeland's case, you apparently want him to answer for what you consider his crimes and, by extension, impose on his followers what they are allowed to believe concerning their religion.
No, I have never made any indication of controlling the beliefs of the followers.   You are imagining and doing so wrongly.

The full quote of what I said:

While pronouns and Copeland may seem like different things, they are actually different sides of the same coin. In Copeland's case, you apparently want him to answer for what you consider his crimes and, by extension, impose on his followers what they are allowed to believe concerning their religion. In other words, by going after Copeland you are, in effect, telling his followers that what they believe is wrong, else why punish Copeland? Hence, you put yourself in the position of telling them what they cannot believe. In the case of pronouns, it is similar but, instead, it is forcing people to believe what they don't believe or at least acting as if they did.

This is a rhetorical device used to examine the unintended consequences of what you desire concerning Copeland, not an actual statement of your position. This is the purpose of paragraphs. To give context to what is said. You can't just take a sentence out of it and make a case without referring to the context. 

And again, with...

But it is up to you to not extrapolate positions for me since I cannot control your imagination.

I am not 'extrapolating' your position on anything. I'm speaking of what I see as potential consequences of your stated position. The reason you are making this about you, whether you realize it or not, is that you are insisting that I limit my comments to your own intents concerning the issue. I've said from the beginning that I am not concerned with your intent but, rather, what society may do given the power to regulate what is allowed, religiously. 

Essentially, who are you or who am I to tell these people they can't do what they are doing? Who made us their judge? What authority do we have to tell them what they can and cannot do in this situation? More importantly, they probably recognize what a terrible path that opens up in our society. Because if we can decide for these people what is best for them, regardless of their own beliefs, where does that end? Anyone who believes there is a God? Or what test are you going to put people to in order to allow them whatever beliefs you find acceptable, even though you yourself don't believe? 

Is it wrong to observe that getting oneself addicted to drugs is bad?    Are you and I unable to opine on this?    Who are we to tell people that drug addiction is bad for them and for society in general?
Obviously it is not wrong in such a case. Nor is it wrong to force practical solutions to address the problem. However, this is not a good comparison of what Copeland does or how it affects society. What Copeland's followers do impacts Copeland's followers and their families but it doesn't directly affect society in the manner that drug abuse does. Since it doesn't, it remains a matter of personal choice and not public policy. One can have all the opinions about it they wish to have, but it would be wrong to treat it in the same manner we take the drug problem. 

Lastly, while even atheists can identify Copeland as a fraud, Biblically, why would that limit any solution to Copeland to Copeland? That is, since many Atheists consider the Bible simply the imagination of a primitive and uneducated culture, what's to stop whatever solution that is applied to Copeland from being applied to all religions, since it is seen as a con as well? No more tithes, perhaps? Tax what the Church takes in? Not suggesting that this would be your stand, but you would not be the only one involved if there were an actual concerted effort to do something about Copeland and his like.

I do recognize it. Especially the impact people like Copeland have on non-believers in society and, to a lesser extent, the financial difficulties some experience due to his con. However, one can say similar things about the gambling industry. From what I've read, the dietary supplement industry is largely a con, as most do not benefit from them enough to justify the cost. (My brother used to work at the wastewater treatment plant for my city and tell of all the supplements people took that ended up floating around in the wastewater pools. We're talking thousands of them every day.) Most of the advertising we see on TV is pretty much a con, trying to sell a product that will supposedly make your life perfect if you just choose the right hair product, body spray, car, clothes and whatever else they can get you to buy.  Of course, not all of these are on the same level of con but the point is if you go after one, where will it end? Give government an ounce of power, which is who would be enforcing any effort to stop the con of your choice and, eventually, it will get turned into a pound of power; then a ton. 

These are a few examples of what I've concerned myself with in this conversation, not what you personally believe. I have repeatedly said you're allowed your opinion and I don't fault you for it. I've simply been speaking to what I see as a possible and, perhaps likely, result of what would happen if you got your way. 

Now, you can continue to make it seem as if what I see as consequences of your view as being the intended result of what you believe, but that's on you. Personally, I don't think those are your intended consequences but I'm also not here to talk about what you intend. I'm talking about what you don't or may not intend. I'm talking about the road paved with good intentions. As I said in a quote above...

Not suggesting that this would be your stand, but you would not be the only one involved if there were an actual concerted effort to do something about Copeland and his like.

The dishonest accusation is not mine. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.111  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.110    10 months ago
Really? You state this...

Suggesting that you not infuse me personally into the discussion.   As I stated.

This is a rhetorical device used to examine the unintended consequences of what you desire concerning Copeland, not an actual statement of your position.

You want to claim that your use of 'you' is rhetorical and was not a reference to me personally.   If you honestly think that then I suggest you give much more thought to how you express yourself.

I am not 'extrapolating' your position on anything. I'm speaking of what I see as potential consequences of your stated position. 

You extrapolated my position into one which would have a consequence of "government dictating conscience".   Not even remotely close to what I actually wrote.  That is not a potential consequence of my stated position because I have never stated or even implied that the government would step in and prevent the believers from making stupid choices.   In fact I explicitly stated that is NOT my position.   My position was of mitigating the ability of con-men like Copeland from taking advantage of naive / gullible / desperate people.   The target is the con-men, not the people who are conned.   I was crystal clear and repeated that position several times.

Stick with what I write and don't expand on it into potential consequences that do not follow.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.2.112  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.111    10 months ago
You extrapolated my position into one which would have a consequence of "government dictating conscience".   Not even remotely close to what I actually wrote.  That is not a potential consequence of my stated position because I have never stated or even implied that the government would step in and prevent the believers from making stupid choices.

So, for you, this is about you. I have no interest in that. Thanks for the conversation. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.113  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.2.112    10 months ago

No Drakk, it is the exact opposite.

I never want these discussions to be about me (or you).   I do not want you to intertwine what you think I believe and I do not want you to make things personal.

So, real simple, steer clear of trying to factor in what you think you know of me and instead just focus on what I write.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.3  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3    10 months ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @3    10 months ago
So, what's the problem?  Why is Copeland's preaching controversial?

Because what he is doing in that vid isn't Biblical. That is, Copeland is attempting to use a power Christian does not have. 

A true Christian does have power over Satan but that power isn't ours. Rather, it is the Spirit of God in us for the purpose of resisting Satan. It is the God given power to be obedient to Him rather than rebel. We don't have the power to control Satan himself. Only God does. 

In my opinion, Copeland, and those like him, is simply putting on a show for the purpose of getting more money from the lost sheep who follow him. If Christians did have that kind of power, this would be a very different world. One could just demand, in the name of God, that all atheists become believers, for instance. 

Another problem with what Copeland is doing is that he's usurping God's role. It's possible that Covid serves God's purpose in some way. Copeland is unilaterally claiming he has the authority to banish Covid (or Satan) without any appeal to God that I can see.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4    10 months ago
Because what he is doing in that vid isn't Biblical. That is, Copeland is attempting to use a power Christian does not have. 

How did you get that from the video?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.1    10 months ago

He explained it; in detail even.   In the video, Copeland was pretending that he had power over COVID-19 (basically, power over Satan, power over evil).   There is nothing in the Bible that suggests a human being would have such power.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.4.3  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.1    10 months ago
How did you get that from the video?

By comparing what Copeland does and says with what the Bible does and says. 

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.4.4  cjcold  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.3    10 months ago

Both are mythology and superstition.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.2    10 months ago
He explained it; in detail even.   In the video, Copeland was pretending that he had power over COVID-19 (basically, power over Satan, power over evil).   There is nothing in the Bible that suggests a human being would have such power.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.5    10 months ago

I am going to give this to Drakk for his exegesis since this conversation is ultimately between you and him.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.3    10 months ago

The response @3.4.5 should have been directed to you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.3    10 months ago
By comparing what Copeland does and says with what the Bible does and says. 

Well, that's simply not true.  The protestant apostolic tradition passes spiritual authority to those who have faith.  In the video, Copeland is practicing the apostolic authority over evil granted by Jesus.  

Copeland is not Roman Catholic or Orthodox which do interpret apostolic authority very differently.  In most (if not all) protestant sects, believers do have divine authority over evil or Satan.  If you notice, Copeland is exercising that apostolic authority as one of a pair.  That is in keeping with Jesus sending missionaries out into the world to preach the gospels, as described in the Book of Luke (chapters 9 & 10, IMO).   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.9  CB  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.8    10 months ago

Copeland is a faith 'Master.' What that equates to is other passages from the Bible—some being mentioned already and this

Matthew 21:
21 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. 22 And whatever you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive it all.”

Faith 'masters' push the envelope on faith to its extremes with their rhetoric and actions resulting in what we see today in their ministries. 

Let me be clear. Although, I have read in the bible about having "the faith of a mustard seed. . . . (Matthew 17:20)"  I have never bought into purchasing" faith through financial participation: For the gifts of God are free!

And, on a basic level the Gospel is free. No one should feel compelled to give money for it.  The gospel is simple. That is, it is not that complex: People make it thus.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.4.10  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.5    10 months ago

Yeah, let's value scripture that gets the occasional WV snakehandling preacher killed.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.11  devangelical  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.4.10    10 months ago

that practice needs to be mainstreamed among the fringe evangelicals and mackerel snappers...

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.12  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @3.4.9    10 months ago
Faith 'masters' push the envelope on faith to its extremes with their rhetoric and actions resulting in what we see today in their ministries. 

Let me be clear. Although, I have read in the bible about having "the faith of a mustard seed. . . . (Matthew 17:20)"  I have never bought into purchasing" faith through financial participation: For the gifts of God are free!

And, on a basic level the Gospel is free. No one should feel compelled to give money for it.  The gospel is simple. That is, it is not that complex: People make it thus.

I've never heard of faith masters.  What you seem to be describing are religious practices and traditions that emerged in the American South from a blending of protestant, European pagan, and African pagan beliefs.  Do not dismiss the influence of African slaves on religious beliefs and practices in the Southern United States.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.13  CB  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.12    10 months ago

What does any of that have to do with 'this'?!!! Are you deliberately attempting to pitch your discussion to my racial makeup and ethnicity in 99.99 percent of our mutual exchanges? I find that unhelpful in this case.

Also, faith "masters" is not a thing, but a rhetorical device used to facilitate understanding. You need not turn it into any thing more.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.14  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @3.4.13    10 months ago
What does any of that have to do with 'this'?!!! Are you deliberately attempting to pitch your discussion to my racial makeup and ethnicity in 99.99 percent of our mutual exchanges? I find that unhelpful in this case. Also, faith "masters" is not a thing, but a rhetorical device used to facilitate understanding. You need not turn it into any thing more

And you can't even quote what you are responding to.  

You are completely ignoring protestant Christian practices and beliefs that emerged in the South.  Catholics will condemn Copeland because he does not conform to Catholic practices and beliefs.  Lutherans will condemn Copeland because he does not conform to Lutheran practices and beliefs.

Of course your argument is correct within your own theology.  But to those who do not follow your theology, you are a heretic blasphemer.  They condemn you just as you condemn them.

Condemning Copeland's ministry for not conforming to your practices, beliefs, reading of the Bible, or scriptural canon is not honest.  Kenneth Copeland has just as much justification for condemning those who do not conform to his theology.  Believe it or not that was addressed in the Lord's Prayer.  But even the ecumenical nature of the Lord's Prayer has been tainted by sect beliefs and practices.

Copeland's ministry is consistent with Christian practices and beliefs that evolved and emerged in the southern United States.  Those practices and beliefs blended protestant, European pagan, and African pagan beliefs.  (Note Indian beliefs were much, much less prominent because of the history of Catholicism in Indian populations.  Indian beliefs are a little better represented in northern protestant sects.)   Copeland's ministry is similar to both white and black churches found in the south over a century ago.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.15  CB  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.14    10 months ago

Well, that happened.  Bye.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
3.4.16  cjcold  replied to  devangelical @3.4.11    10 months ago

Knew a guy once who would let rattlers strike at him and then catch them behind the head. Very fast hands! He was on Johnny Carson and That's Incredible back in the day.

He offered to let me try and I refused.

We sparred a few times and he was good.

It took some Chin Na to keep up with him.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.4.17  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.8    10 months ago
Well, that's simply not true. The protestant apostolic tradition passes spiritual authority to those who have faith.  In the video, Copeland is practicing the apostolic authority over evil granted by Jesus.

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. 

Since most of Protestantism denies apostolic succession, I don't know to what you may be referring. The apostles were a special class of believers, appointed directly by Jesus and there were none after their passing. The same thing goes with the office of Prophet. 

That is in keeping with Jesus sending missionaries out into the world to preach the gospels, as described in the Book of Luke (chapters 9 & 10, IMO).

No, not really. Again, the 12 and the 72 were directly appointed by Jesus himself. Simple observation of events subsequent to the Apostles should be enough to make it clear that believers since then have not exercised the same kind of power. Missionaries have been operating for over 2,000 years but we don't see them bringing people back from the dead, for instance. As for healing or expelling demons, I have no theological opinion to give except to say that I think, personally, that God has limited both the gift of healing and demon possession since Jesus' time on earth. 

In any case, the vast majority of Protestantism holds that the believer, in and of themselves, have no power over Satan. That power belongs to God and we are able to take advantage of it because Christ dwells within us. And that power isn't for the purpose of controlling what Satan does or doesn't do. It is for controlling our own response to what he does to us as individuals. That is, through Christ's power we can resist Satan's attack on ourselves and that's pretty much it. We can ask God to please take Covid away from us but whether He does or not is up to Him. I will post a couple links that explains it better. 

So, looking at Jesus himself, we see him doing many miracles throughout the Gospels. The idea isn't that if we are his followers we would have the same powers. Jesus didn't do those things for the sake of the miracles or even the recipients. Their primary purpose was evidence of the claims he made about himself. They were a kind of certificate of authenticity. 

We see similar miracles by the Apostles but not nearly as many. There is a reduction and I believe it was intentional. It was just enough to give witness of the truth of their claims, but not so much or so often that the miracles themselves would supplant the message they came to proclaim. With the passing of the Apostles, those gifts seemed to have either not been given any longer or are so exceedingly rare that they can't be proven to exist, which I rather think is the goal. Jesus remains the center of the message, not the miracles. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.4.18  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.5    10 months ago
I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you. Luke 10:19

Jesus is not speaking primarily of literal snakes and scorpions but, rather, his enemies. If one wants to take it literally the question would be, why only those? What if who he sends out gets attacked by a bear or a lion? Robbers? 

This is why the snake-handler faiths are so misguided about their practice. While those Jesus sent out were probably protected against things like snakes, bears and robbers, being protected wasn't the issue. The message they were sent to proclaim was. So, it was more a case of Jesus saying 'don't sweat the small stuff. Go proclaim the message. That's what's important and I won't allow anything to get in your way'. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.19  CB  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.17    10 months ago
With the passing of the Apostles, those gifts seemed to have either not been given any longer or are so exceedingly rare that they can't be proven to exist, which I rather think is the goal. Jesus remains the center of the message, not the miracles. 

Begs the question that men and women yet run to and fro in modern times proclaiming themselves prophets and apostles of God (as though they have been given gifts of healing and/or gifts of casting out demons which they do not define as of the "Hollywood variety" or true extra-natural powerful variety). And the institution of the Church is powerless to do anything about it. . . .

It is clear to me that God would not give gifts to men and women to make themselves self-indulgence businessmen and businesswomen promoting a 'product.'  

18 When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money 19 and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.” 20 Peter answered: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21 You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22 Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord in the hope that he may forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23 For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin.”
 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
3.4.20  Nerm_L  replied to  Drakkonis @3.4.17    10 months ago
Since most of Protestantism denies apostolic succession, I don't know to what you may be referring. The apostles were a special class of believers, appointed directly by Jesus and there were none after their passing. The same thing goes with the office of Prophet. 

Yes, protestants reject apostolic succession (almost universally).  The apostles were required to choose to become apostles.  Being an apostle was not a divine right.  Jesus did not force the apostles to be apostles.  Becoming an apostle was entirely up to the apostles, themselves.  The appointment (or ordination) by Jesus was a recognition of the sincerity of the apostles faith and the apostles desire to live, teach, and preach according to the teachings of Jesus.  Many protestant sects believe that ordination is a direct appointment by Jesus Christ to teach and preach the gospels; no different than that of the first apostles.

No, not really. Again, the 12 and the 72 were directly appointed by Jesus himself. Simple observation of events subsequent to the Apostles should be enough to make it clear that believers since then have not exercised the same kind of power. Missionaries have been operating for over 2,000 years but we don't see them bringing people back from the dead, for instance. As for healing or expelling demons, I have no theological opinion to give except to say that I think, personally, that God has limited both the gift of healing and demon possession since Jesus' time on earth. 

In any case, the vast majority of Protestantism holds that the believer, in and of themselves, have no power over Satan. That power belongs to God and we are able to take advantage of it because Christ dwells within us. And that power isn't for the purpose of controlling what Satan does or doesn't do. It is for controlling our own response to what he does to us as individuals. That is, through Christ's power we can resist Satan's attack on ourselves and that's pretty much it. We can ask God to please take Covid away from us but whether He does or not is up to Him. I will post a couple links that explains it better. 

Does a believer have authority over Satan?

What authority do Christians have over Satan?

So, looking at Jesus himself, we see him doing many miracles throughout the Gospels. The idea isn't that if we are his followers we would have the same powers. Jesus didn't do those things for the sake of the miracles or even the recipients. Their primary purpose was evidence of the claims he made about himself. They were a kind of certificate of authenticity. 

We see similar miracles by the Apostles but not nearly as many. There is a reduction and I believe it was intentional. It was just enough to give witness of the truth of their claims, but not so much or so often that the miracles themselves would supplant the message they came to proclaim. With the passing of the Apostles, those gifts seemed to have either not been given any longer or are so exceedingly rare that they can't be proven to exist, which I rather think is the goal. Jesus remains the center of the message, not the miracles. 

You are mixing the theological underpinnings of different protestant sects which only creates an ecumenical misunderstanding.  Picking and choosing bits and pieces to assemble an argument is not illuminating.

Christians do not claim that people have power over anything without God or Christ.  God is the first cause and source of all power and authority over spiritual and tangle nature.  The qualifier in and of themselves seems a clear admission that the statement presents a deliberately false accusation.  Copeland does not claim power over Satan without God.  

The first link you provided give a clear, concise explanation:  The believer’s authority over Satan and victory over the spiritual forces of evil depend on the power of God, the relative power of Satan, and God’s power within the believer.  So, yes, faith does provide a believer authority over Satan and evil through the power of God.  

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
3.4.21  Drakkonis  replied to  Nerm_L @3.4.20    10 months ago
Christians do not claim that people have power over anything without God or Christ.  God is the first cause and source of all power and authority over spiritual and tangle nature.  The qualifier in and of themselves seems a clear admission that the statement presents a deliberately false accusation.  Copeland does not claim power over Satan without God.

It was not said as an accusation. It was said to clarify what power is being talked about and where it comes from. 

You seem to have lost track of what we're talking about. What Copeland is doing in the video. Yes, faith does provide a believer authority over Satan, but only in a limited sense. Certainly not in the way Copeland is attempting in the vid. If we had that power, there'd be no such thing as atheists. 

Perhaps the clearest example of what I mean is Copeland himself. The very first thing Copeland says is...

"In the Name of Jesus, standing in the office of the prophet of God, I execute judgment on you COVID-19."

Here he speaks of standing in the "office of the prophet of God". By saying such he is saying he has had a message from God which he is intended to execute on God's authority and with His power. Had he actually been standing in that office, Covid would no longer exist, because, as God's appointed prophet, he's speaking God's word and God's word cannot fail. Covid still exists. Hence, he's both a false prophet and, clearly doesn't have the power to simply make Covid go away because he tells it to. 

The first link you provided give a clear, concise explanation:  The believer’s authority over Satan and victory over the spiritual forces of evil depend on the power of God, the relative power of Satan, and God’s power within the believer.  So, yes, faith does provide a believer authority over Satan and evil through the power of God.

Yes, but that wasn't all that the link said. It went on to explain what that actually means. Did you see anything in the explanation that we can just tell Covid to go away and it will? And, yes, that can happen... If it is God's will. But again, the office of Apostle and Prophet no longer exist. The relevance of that is that there are no new revelations to be had from God that isn't already in the Bible. And there are two main imperatives in the NT. One is personal repentance and turning toward God in obedience and the other is to make disciples of the nations. There's nothing in there about banishing things like Covid, establishing theocracies as forms of government or other ways to apply God's power according to our own desires or thinking. 

In the end, the authority over Satan that Christians have is the ability to resist both Satan and our own sinful desires for the purpose of being obedient to God. Can anything other than that happen? Yes, but it depends on God's will, not our exercise of God's power. For instance, I read a story about a woman who was about to die due to some disease. Maybe cancer, but I don't remember. Whatever it was, the point is that it was completely beyond treatment. Even experimental. She only had hours or a day or two to live. 

A group from a local church was going through the hospital and praying with each of the patients that God would heal them. When they got to her, they prayed over her. The next day all trace of the disease was completely gone and she was healthy as anyone. The doctors were dumbfounded and astonished. They said they could not even begin to explain it. 

While I think God healed that person through that church group, that isn't the point. They prayed for everyone in that hospital but, apparently, no one else was healed except that one woman. The point is, if Copeland had the authority over Satan he's implying he has, then surely this church group had the authority to heal everyone in that hospital, but obviously they didn't or that would have been the story rather than just the one woman. 

In other words, we can appeal to God to grant our prayer concerning a thing, but it is up to God whether or not to grant it. Copeland, in the vid, portrays a man who's attempting to seize the power of God for his own purposes rather than a humble servant appealing to God with a request. 

 
 
 
independent Liberal
Freshman Quiet
4  independent Liberal    10 months ago

God sent covid-19 to cull the heard of slobs among his flock. Was god successful?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1  cjcold  replied to  independent Liberal @4    10 months ago

The vast majority of hospitalized and dead were unvaccinated.

Everybody dies, but I'd prefer to put it off as long as possible.

Getting vaccinated, Knowing self defense, good tires, etc...

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @4.1    10 months ago
The vast majority of hospitalized and dead were unvaccinated.

That was certainly true in the beginning but not sure it was after the vaccination was readily available.    When many folks expired.

Link?

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.2  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    10 months ago

Caught covid before there was a vaccine.

Have been a long covid sufferer for years. 

Some days are better than others.

Still get the vaccines to avoid future strains.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @4.1.2    10 months ago

Pretty sure I caught COVID before there was known COVID.    And one more time twice vaccinated.   No noticeable long COVID either time.    First time I just thought I had the flu.    Which I think happened to a lot of people.

Do you have a link to that stat.    I would honestly like to see it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
4.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    10 months ago
Link?

Google is your friend.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  cjcold @4.1.4    10 months ago

Backing up your claims is yours …..

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
4.1.6  Freewill  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.1    10 months ago
That was certainly true in the beginning but not sure it was after the vaccination was readily available.    When many folks expired. Link?

HERE is a link to some data and an explanation of what it means.

800

Would be interesting to see the same chart up to a more recent date.
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @4.1.6    10 months ago
... and an explanation of what it means.

An important thing for people to review to better understand the chart.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
4.1.8  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.7    10 months ago
An important thing for people to review to better understand the chart.

Indeed.  For one thing there are more vaccinated people (and growing over that time period) than unvaccinated at this point, so it stands to reason that they might constitute a higher share of COVID-19 deaths if all circumstances were equal.  Although, if the vaccine were truly effective, one would think that the death rate for those who have had it would be way down, despite the fact that more people are vaccinated than unvaccinated (70% fully vaccinated vs. 30% not).  So we are talking about a little more than 2X the number of people who are vaccinated vs. unvaccinated or under vaccinated.  Certainly that is the reason why we seek the vaccination and boosters right, to hopefully avoid death due to the disease? 

So to me, and others, the chart is still alarming, and I think many experts agree we need to do better with vaccine effectiveness.  Again, I'd like to see the same chart expanded to say Aug 2023, which may indicate that we are indeed doing better.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Sparty On  replied to  Freewill @4.1.6    10 months ago

Thx Free ..

History indicates that vaccine effectiveness (VE), for the Flu vaccine for example, ranged from 20-60% the last 15 or so years.    VE is a CDC measure of how effective a vaccine is as a public health intervention and not necessarily just as prevention/cause of death.

Be nice to see a VE chart like that for COVID vaccine but I got tired of digging around the CDC website trying to find it.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.10  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.9    10 months ago
History indicates that vaccine effectiveness (VE), for the Flu vaccine for example, ranged from 20-60% the last 15 or so years.

When ordering flu vaccines they guess what will be the dominate strain and sometimes they guess wrong. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  evilone @4.1.10    10 months ago

Yep, it’s far from an exact science.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.12  evilone  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.11    10 months ago

We'll probably see the same with the COVID-19 variants at some point.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.13  CB  replied to  evilone @4.1.12    10 months ago

What EXPLICITLY is the 'opposer/s' argument against vaccines, right now s/he is straddling the fence: 1. Take the vaccine.  2. Do not take the vaccine.

It would be nice to know what is being concluded by the aforementioned one.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
4.1.14  Freewill  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.9    10 months ago
Be nice to see a VE chart like that for COVID vaccine but I got tired of digging around the CDC website trying to find it.

Well there is quite a bit of info HERE at the CDC website, but you are correct, they don't appear to provide a VE chart similar to that you found for the seasonal flu.  One reason for that might be that there isn't yet a large enough pool of data since the Covid vaccines have only been available for a couple years.  They do have a log/chart of many different studies under various circumstances and the resultant estimates of effectiveness.

VE is a CDC measure of how effective a vaccine is as a public health intervention and not necessarily just as prevention/cause of death

Sure, but the subject being discussed was Covid-19 related deaths based on the vaccination status of the decedent.  Certainly one could expect that taking a vaccine and boosters would greatly reduce the severity of the disease, and prevent (or very nearly prevent) its worst case of course being death, while at the same time slowing the spread of the disease publicly.  A vaccine's ability to cause significant reduction in severity and death in my mind would be at the very core of the definition of the "effectiveness" of said vaccine.  In fact, the traditional definition of a "vaccine" was that it prevented one from getting the disease at all (essentially 100% effectiveness).  Certainly the definition of that term has changed over time to include other than nearly 100% effective treatments.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
4.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Freewill @4.1.14    10 months ago

VE is the CDC’s definition.  

Not mine.

 
 
 
Freewill
Junior Quiet
4.1.16  Freewill  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.15    10 months ago

Understood.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
5  Hal A. Lujah    10 months ago

It doesn’t bother me one bit if hardcore conservatives want to shun Covid vaccines.  They should gather in large crowds to discus it regularly, preferably in small cozy venues.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1  cjcold  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @5    10 months ago

And far away from me and mine.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.1  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @5.1    10 months ago

The damn pandemic seems to be coming around again. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.2  CB  replied to  cjcold @5.1.1    10 months ago

And deaths from Covid-19 are back again albeit on an endemic scale. It would be a shame to die, for nothing more than neglect.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
5.1.3  cjcold  replied to  CB @5.1.2    10 months ago

The only good thing about covid is that it made me stop smoking. Even smelling cigarette smoke these days makes me cough.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  CB  replied to  cjcold @5.1.3    10 months ago

Yes! That is a good thing! 

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
6  mocowgirl    10 months ago

In today's world, we have "influencers".  Is this a new type of con-man/demagogue?   Will our next generation of politicians be selected from the "influencers" on TikTok, YouTube, etc?

Or will they become so annoying that people will shut off their media devices and actually embrace living in and enjoying their own reality?

Vermont town Pomfret CLOSES road in bid to stop influx of annoying influencers taking selfies with fall foliage after they flew drones, blocked roads and set up CHANGING ROOMS | Daily Mail Online

Fed-up residents of a gorgeous   Vermont   town have closed a road to visitors for fall to try and curb an influx of annoying influencers who've caused havoc. 

Pomfret has long been a popular destination for autumn foliage fans - but irritated locals say influencers who've arrived to get perfect autumn images for social media are an altogether different breed of tourist.

Those Instagrammers and TikTokers have been accused of flying drones, blocking roads and emergency vehicles from getting through, while often getting their cars stuck on uneven ground. 

The slew of irritating incidents has prompted residents close Cloudland Road  between September 23 to October 15, when autumn colors begin to emerge.

A few years ago, Doten and his wife were astonished when they watched a woman set up a portable changing booth and frequently emerge in an assortment of outfits to take selfies.

But the drama didn't stop there with residents revealing that pesky tourists have now been flying drones a few feet over a resident's head, stealing tomatoes from vines, and using a private garden house as a toilet.
 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
6.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  mocowgirl @6    10 months ago
Or will they become so annoying that people will shut off their media devices and actually embrace living in and enjoying their own reality?

If only.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
6.1.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1    10 months ago

[]

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.2  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1    10 months ago

Have a cabin up by Ward Colorado with no cell service.

That's why I own a satellite phone. It's worth the cost.

Sometimes business demands one stay in touch.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.1.3  cjcold  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.1    10 months ago

Sandy; Hopefully, someday you will forgive me for messing with you about that barn door thingy.

Editors have to be editors.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
6.2  cjcold  replied to  mocowgirl @6    10 months ago

Still enjoy going into the woods and camping out in a tent.

(These days in a truck tent that keeps me off the ground)

Just me and my fretless Ovation acoustic bass.

The frogs and crickets keep time (sometimes).

Grew up camping with the folks and it brings back memories.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7  CB    10 months ago

Copeland is using: 

John 14: 13: 12   “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater  works  than these he will do; because I go to the Father.  13 “Whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.  14 “If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do  it.

Matthew 17: 20  He replied,  “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.”

Matthew 12: 29  Or how can anyone enter the strong man’s house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong  man ? And then he will plunder his house.

Finally this:  [A Copeland standard "go to"]

 Acts 10: 38   You know of  Jesus

Thus in the article quote up top, when Copeland states: " I n the Name of Jesus , standing in the office of the prophet of God, I execute judgment on you COVID-19."

For those who accept his authority to be a prophet of God he INVOKES the AUTHORITY of Jesus by FAITH (which Copeland insists he has in 'buckets' to spare) , he can do this scripturally. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1  CB  replied to  CB @7    10 months ago

Acts 10:38  how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  cjcold  replied to  CB @7.1    10 months ago

God must love Lear Jets because Copeland owns 3.

Just trying to outfly the devil I guess.

Fools who send him money are full blown fools!

i

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @7.1.1    10 months ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @7.1.1    10 months ago
Fools who send him money are full blown fools!

Indeed.   Imagine believing this utter nonsense from Copeland's wife:

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.4  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    10 months ago

Y'all got to hear this video on the topic under discussion. It is focused and pointed. I did not think I would glean anything useful from it and though I have not finished it in entirety, I have been informed by it. 

TiG, this is 'pulled' from the list of videos which post at the end of your posted video.

FALSE TEACHERS EXPOSED: Word of Faith/Prosperity Gospel | Justin Peters/SO4J-TV

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.5  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.4    10 months ago

This is sickening.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
7.1.6  CB  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.5    10 months ago

As believers our deepest frustrations go into watching what the "name it and claim it" collections of pastor/preachers do. They should know better (and don't) or they are straight-up charlatans. That is, evidentially, some. . .plenty of these people are successful leaders, because . . . they would have been successful businesspersons-even if they never took up the 'call' to pastor/preacher/teacher.

Such abusers have a 'Message,' audacity, and followers.

And such abusers existed in the knowledge and understanding of the first-century Apostles:

2 John 

7 For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you do not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward.

 Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; 11 for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.

All some of us can do is watch and expand on the truth as best we can around them (or while standing around outside their 'gates'). The institution of the Church is not willing to take them down.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
7.1.7  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    10 months ago

That is some seriously delusional insanity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @7.1.7    10 months ago

It is amazing but these people apparently buy it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
8  cjcold    10 months ago

God must love Lear jets because Copeland owns 3.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
9  Drinker of the Wry    10 months ago

Anyone else enjoying the Righteous Gemstones on HBO?

Can I get a hallelujah?

Can I get an amen?

I feel the Holy Ghost running through me when I watch it.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
9.1  cjcold  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @9    10 months ago

Watching Philly and Tampa on Monday night football.

Was hoping Taylor and Travis would show up.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
10  cjcold    10 months ago

Is it weird that Philly has both a Kelce and a Swift?

Especially since the Eagles are Taylor Swifts favorite team?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  cjcold @10    10 months ago

Come on cjcold.   It is one thing to interject a comment about football in passing.   But now you create a thread level sub-topic on it.   I think you should write an article.

 
 
 
cjcold
Professor Quiet
10.1.1  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    10 months ago

Sorry. I'm watching Monday night football. I'll sign off.

 
 

Who is online



47 visitors