Kenneth Copeland Laughing At Media Declaring Biden's Win Watched 8 Million Times

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  tig  •  one week ago  •  103 comments

By:   Khaleda Rahman (Newsweek)

Kenneth Copeland Laughing At Media Declaring Biden's Win Watched 8 Million Times
"The media said what?" Copeland, a supporter of President Donald Trump, is seen telling an audience in the clip before bursting into laughter.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



U.S.Donald TrumpJoe Biden2020 Election

A video of televangelist Kenneth Copeland laughing at the media declaring Joe Biden's election as president of the United States has gone viral on social media.

"The media said what?" Copeland, a supporter of President Donald Trump, is seen telling an audience in the clip before bursting into laughter.

"The media said Joe Biden's president!" Copeland continues, before repeatedly saying "haha" for at least 30 seconds and prompting the audience to applaud and stand up.

The clip, posted on Twitter by Right Wing Watch on Sunday night, has since racked up more than 8.7 million views.

Writer Laird Barron warned that while the fake laughter may appear "cheesy," it was designed to elicit a reaction from viewers.

Click Here for Video

"This filtered excerpt might seem cheesy. It's not. It's a variation of command voice/presence techniques employed by law enforcement and the military," Barron tweeted. "Motivational speakers use it, albeit less violently. This is professional brainwashing for your viewing pleasure. It works."

Matthew Sheffield, a former reporter for The Hill who has also previously written for conservative media outlets, also warned about the danger of Copeland's words.

Copeland "is a billionaire televangelist who most people haven't heard of," Sheffield tweeted. "His followers believe every word he says, no matter how disturbing."

Earlier this year, Copeland made headlines after saying he healed his viewers of coronavirus through their television screens.

A video of Copeland also went viral last year after he was confronted by a reporter, who questioned him about his extravagant lifestyle.

The reporter pressed Copeland on controversial comments he had made in the past about why he needed a private jet.

He couldn't "talk to God" while flying commercial, Copeland reportedly said. "You can't manage that today, in this dope-filled world, get in a long tube with a bunch of demons," he had added. "And it's deadly."

Copeland's latest viral video comes days after Trump's spiritual advisor Paula White went viral after leading a prayer service to help secure the president's re-election.

Both Copeland and White served on the Trump's Evangelical Advisory Board during his 2016 presidential campaign.

White said in her prayer that "demonic confederacies" were attempting to steal the election from Trump.

The Associated Press and television networks declared Biden the winner of the 2020 election on Saturday, after he was projected to win more than the 270 Electoral College votes needed to clinch the presidency.

Trump has yet to concede and has repeatedly falsely claimed the election was stolen from him, while vowing to take legal action to challenge the result.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    one week ago

This slimy con-man is the most successful televangelist of all time.   What a disgusting human being yet millions follow this societal parasite.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2  sandy-2021492    one week ago

How much egg can fit on one face?

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one week ago

I cannot begin to express the contempt I have for this piece of shit.   It just kills me that society allows parasites like this guy to continue to prey on the religious naive.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    one week ago
It just kills me that society allows parasites like this guy to continue to prey on the religious naive.

It's a dilemma.  On one hand, we have the right to free speech and freedom of religion.  On the other, we should have a reasonable expectation that hundreds of thousands (or more) people will not be defrauded of their money.

 
 
 
Dig
2.1.2  Dig  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    one week ago

I've often wondered if there could be some kind of legal loophole allowing action against media figures who regularly spread lies and misinformation. Mostly when it comes to Alex Jones types, but I wouldn't be surprised if Copeland fit the bill as well.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dig @2.1.2    one week ago

I imagine it would be difficult to find a charge that would stick, when it comes to spewing lies.  Tax evasion seems to catch up with a lot of them, though.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.1    one week ago

Yeah, it is next to impossible to legally challenge anything that can qualify as religious.

Fraud, however, seems possible since this sleazebag accepts money for people who expect him to pray for them.   But that requires a very intrusive audit which would probably not be allowed by a judge.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2    one week ago
How much egg can fit on one face?

That gets my vote for funniest comment seen on the internet in the last 6 months!!   The only close exception being the fly on Mike Pence's head that tweeted, "I just doo-doo'd in this guy's hair."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.2    one week ago

Thanks, Sister.  As I am a great admirer of your own wit, I am flattered, truly.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
2.2.2  MonsterMash  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.2    one week ago
The only close exception being the fly on Mike Pence's head that tweeted, "I just doo-doo'd in this guy's hair."

The fly escaped from Kamala Harris's panties.

 
 
 
pat wilson
3  pat wilson    one week ago

I watched it with the volume off and it's still super creepy.

 
 
 
Kavika
4  Kavika     one week ago

The size of that mouth he could swallow the entire Republican party, oh wait.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
4.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Kavika @4    one week ago

 
 
 
Dig
5  Dig    one week ago

It's up to 12.3 million now. I imagine most of them aren't followers, but people like us checking out the crazy.

 
 
 
CB
6  CB     one week ago

That's bizarre laughter. Those people being 'shepherded' by Kenneth and Gloria Copeland don't have their feet bolted to the floor. They want to be under his authority. They exercise their freedom to 'dress to arrive' at his place. One has to wonder about, well, them. What are they after from Copeland? And, what does he supply?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7  Drakkonis    one week ago

Freedom. It comes with a cost. It isn't just the tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of patriots, it's also the right of people to choose their path, right or wrong. 

In my opinion, Copeland is a deceiver. Even so, if we are to be a truly free society, the people who follow him must be allowed to do so, up to the point they try to subjugate others. You may have contempt for Copeland and those who follow them. Fine, but that isn't enough a reason to subjugate them to your point of view. Because, if it were, then they would be just as justified as you for subjecting you to theirs. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Drakkonis @7    one week ago

It doesn't happen often Drak..... But I'm in full agreement with you.

People have the right to be stupid...... ( You have to kind of read between the lines of the US Constitution to see that.  I just wish they would stop reproducing at such a high rate.)

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.1    one week ago
But I'm in full agreement with you

I am in agreement on the freedom to be stupid part.

I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    one week ago
I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud.

Um, yeah. That's the hard part. I certainly don't want someone such as yourself deciding what fraud consists of concerning religion. No offense intended but you have said on more occasions than I care to count that you find the Bible a fraud. Speaking in the broadest terms, the only realistic solution is to let those who wish to be fleeced by someone  like Copeland is to let them be fleeced. They are responsible for themselves. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.3  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.2    one week ago
No offense intended but you have said on more occasions than I care to count that you find the Bible a fraud.

Fraud is intentional deception for personal gain.   Our legal system is perfectly capable of adjudicating fraud.   I have not put myself up as the arbiter of fraud so no need to make me part of the subject.

There is a big difference between true believers practicing their faith and fraud.   I did not deem Copeland a fraud because he is a 'preacher' or because this is a religious-based fraud.   I deemed him a fraud because he is clearly taking money from his 'flock' to give himself a lavish personal lifestyle.   He portrays himself as an intermediary between them and God and that by sending him money, they will reap the benefits of the 'seeds the sow' (money they send).    This is the 'prosperity gospel' of which he is the king.  People send him money because he claims he will personally speak to God on their behalf.

He is thus exploiting faith to steal.

Speaking in the broadest terms, the only realistic solution is to let those who wish to be fleeced by someone  like Copeland is to let them be fleeced. They are responsible for themselves. 

Really?   So how about securities fraud?   Should our legal system allow ponzi scheme peddlers like Bernie Maddoff to continue to fleece people without lifting a finger?   You do not think the government (law and law enforcement) should try to catch and remove those who commit fraud?


Your comments essentially are in defense of Kenneth Copeland.  Why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.2    one week ago
… you find the Bible a fraud

On this point, your language is wrong (and misleading).   I have never claimed that the Bible is a 'fraud'.   It is just a book written by ancient men.   It claims to be the word of a perfect God yet it clearly is not as evidenced by its own contradictions.   Some of the ancient men who wrote parts of the Bible (or funded the writing of same) were no doubt committing fraud by taking advantage of the gullibility of the people so as to control them.   Rulers and religious leaders were, likely, committing fraud.   They used the Bible as a tool in this perpetration.

The Bible is an immensely significant book that should be respected as ancient historical fiction.   My position is that people should not simply believe that what is in the Bible is the word of a singular, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal sentient entity who is the arbiter of objective morality.   But that does not mean the Bible itself is fraudulent any more than the Iliad and the Odyssey is fraudulent.

It is a book;  it is people who use the book as a tool who commit the fraud,  not the book itself.   But, pursuant to your point of people being responsible, I will say that people nowadays should know better than to simply accept what is written in the Bible as 'truth'.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.5  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    one week ago
Your comments essentially are in defense of Kenneth Copeland.  Why?

My comments are not for the defense of Copeland. They are in defense of religious freedom. The problem is, where and who draws the line concerning what is actual faith and what is fraud? You may think I'm trying to make this about you, but I'm not. I'm using you as an example of the many who see things the way you do. Then there are those out there who think any religious beliefs at all are defrauding someone else in some way. How many times in this place (NT and NV) have you seen people state that religion is merely a tool for control of the masses? 

It is a book;  it is people who use the book as a tool who commit the fraud,  not the book itself.   But, pursuant to your point of people being responsible, I will say that people nowadays should know better than to simply accept what is written in the Bible as 'truth'.

This is why my language isn't wrong or misleading, nor is it an attack against you. It is simply recognition of your position concerning what the Bible is. Nor can you say it is only the people who use the book who commit fraud. The book itself must also be a fraud because of what it claims. Its claims must also be fraudulent, yes? Because, for every Copeland who twists what the book says there are thousands who faithfully do not, yet you believe what they proclaim is not the truth.  

To get back to the point, this is why I prefer Copeland continues rather than be stopped by secular forces. While I'm not specifically speaking of you when I say this, I certainly don't want people who feel the way you do deciding that, for the good of people who obviously can't think rationally for themselves, religious people need to be managed away from their beliefs. In that direction lies China. 

I loathe what Copeland and his ilk do. There is a part of me that wants to shut him down and throw him in prison. But that would be wrong. He isn't forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone who supports him do so of their own free will. It doesn't  matter that they are being deceived. They have a responsibility for their own actions. If they stopped thinking and just give their will to this fraud, they only have themselves to blame. I'm sure most of them have someone in their lives warning them about the true nature of Copeland. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.5    one week ago
They are in defense of religious freedom.

My comments were not against religious freedom;  they were against fraud.

The problem is, where and who draws the line concerning what is actual faith and what is fraud?

Fraud is a legal question.   The way law is created and adjudicated is well established.    No need to even ask who and where unless you want to explore every other situation in life where judgment is required.    This is a legal question.   We have laws and a comprehensive legal system.  

Then there are those out there who think any religious beliefs at all are defrauding someone else in some way.

Again, you are off base.   My comment was about fraud, not about religion.   This is fraud committed on the religious but my focus was on the fraud.    You keep trying to force my comment into something that it is not.   How many times must I make this clear?

It is simply recognition of your position concerning what the Bible is.

The Bible cannot commit fraud;  it is just a book.   Again, I made this crystal clear.  

I certainly don't want people who feel the way you do deciding that, for the good of people who obviously can't think rationally for themselves, religious people need to be managed away from their beliefs.

You just keep going with this theme of deciding what beliefs are proper.   Cease the strawman Drakk.

I loathe what Copeland and his ilk do. There is a part of me that wants to shut him down and throw him in prison. But that would be wrong. He isn't forcing anyone to do anything.

Bernie Madoff and other con-persons do not force their victims into their schemes.   Why is Copeland any different from Madoff?"

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.7  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.6    one week ago
Fraud is a legal question.   The way law is created and adjudicated is well established.    No need to even ask who and where unless you want to explore every other situation in life where judgment is required.    This is a legal question.   We have laws and a comprehensive legal system. 
Again, you are off base.   My comment was about fraud, not about religion.   This is fraud committed on the religious but my focus was on the fraud.    You keep trying to force my comment into something that it is not.   How many times must I make this clear?

I'm totally clear on your position. Apparently, you aren't on mine. In the subject on which we are speaking you can't separate the religious question from the secular legal question of fraud. Specifically, who are you to determine it is fraud? Who are you to determine that the people Copeland we both agree are being fleeced don't have the right to allow themselves to be fleeced? Where do you draw the line where something is considered fraudulent and not fraudulent? How does the government establish a law that codifies this? What's the difference between what Copeland does and every pastor in the world passing the plate for tithes? Who decides? And, once we go down that road, where does it end? At what point does the government feel it no longer has jurisdiction in what a believer does and believes? 

The Bible cannot commit fraud;  it is just a book.   Again, I made this crystal clear. 

No, actually, you haven't made this clear. In fact, it's obvious from the cumulative total of all you've ever said about the Bible that you do consider the Bible to commit fraud. How can it be otherwise? The Bible claims to not only describe God but tells us what He has said and what He wants from us. That is either true or it is false. You have made it clear on any number of occasions that you consider it false. Simply the words of primitive herders and nothing else. 

You just keep going with this theme of deciding what beliefs are proper.   Cease the strawman Drakk.

Where's the strawman, TiG? My argument isn't about what constitutes proper beliefs. It's about who gets to decide for another what is proper. Kind of a big difference. My understanding is we are discussing what constitutes religious freedom. Are we doing something else that I'm unaware of? 

Bernie Madoff and other con-persons do not force their victims into their schemes.   Why is Copeland any different from Madoff?"

Religion, TiG. You know this. You know what the difference between Bernie Madoff and Copeland is, yet you pretend otherwise. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.8  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.7    one week ago
In the subject on which we are speaking you can't separate the religious question from the secular legal question of fraud.

See, this proves you are not clear on my position.   One sure as hell can separate religion from fraud in this subject.   Just focus on the fraud itself.   Maybe you cannot do it, but I certainly can (and have).

Specifically, who are you to determine it is fraud?

Again, Drakk, I have never claimed to be the arbiter of fraud.   Did you even bother to watch the video I provided?    Did you read any of the links.   The allegation of fraud is made there (and I happen to agree).  

I could ask:  who are you to say this is not fraud?   What a stupid question, right?  

Who are you to determine that the people Copeland we both agree are being fleeced don't have the right to allow themselves to be fleeced?

Where have I determined that?   Another strawman.

Where do you draw the line where something is considered fraudulent and not fraudulent?

As I have noted, we have a legal system.   Are you even reading my posts?    It is as if nothing I write is acknowledged.

How does the government establish a law that codifies this? What's the difference between what Copeland does and every pastor in the world passing the plate for tithes? Who decides? And, once we go down that road, where does it end? At what point does the government feel it no longer has jurisdiction in what a believer does and believes? 

You could ask those questions for every situation requiring judgment (repeating myself again).

No, actually, you haven't made this clear.

You have to first read what I write to make that claim.

In fact, it's obvious from the cumulative total of all you've ever said about the Bible that you do consider the Bible to commit fraud.

It is a book Drakk.  It is not a sentient agent.   Hello?

How can it be otherwise? The Bible claims to not only describe God but tells us what He has said and what He wants from us. That is either true or it is false. You have made it clear on any number of occasions that you consider it false. Simply the words of primitive herders and nothing else. 

The language I use is ' ancient men ' so you are probably conflating my comments with someone else.   Regardless —and I am yet again repeating an explanation that I have already provided to you— a book cannot commit fraud.   It does not matter how true or false a book is, it is still merely words on pages.   To commit fraud requires agency.   The Bible is just a book. 

Where's the strawman, TiG?

You keep arguing that I want to determine what people are allowed to believe (in a religious sense).   That is the key strawman.   I have stated that Copeland is committing fraud.   I did not state that the government should step in because his flock have false religious beliefs.   Again, the secular analogy to Madoff should have made this clear if you really want to understand my position rather than simply argue for the sake of argument.

My understanding is we are discussing what constitutes religious freedom . Are we doing something else that I'm unaware of? 

See jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png you just illustrated that you have no idea (or, more likely, pretending to have no idea) what I have been saying.   Why should I bother replying to you if you continue with a false presumption no matter what I write?

No I have not once discussed religious freedom in this exchange.   I have been talking about fraud perpetrated by the top dog in the ' prosperity gospel ' scam.   It is a religious scam perpetrated on religious people but that is not the focus (for me).   The focus is on the fraud itself.

How many times have I written this?

Religion, TiG. You know this. You know what the difference between Bernie Madoff and Copeland is, yet you pretend otherwise. 

Yeah, you are without a doubt arguing for the sake of argument.   Go argue with yourself Drakk; you are making up 'my' argument so you do not need me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.7    one week ago

Is it fraudulent, in your opinion, to present oneself as an individual who directly speaks with God and then put forth a promise to personally intercede with God on behalf of an individual if the individual sends in a letter of request and include money, and then mass process by workers (not the self-proclaimed prophet) these letters by extracting the money, generating a canned response and tossing the letters into the trash?

Watch the video I provided @7.2

There are other exposes out there too that go into more detail.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.8    one week ago

Well, this site just dumped my reply to you. Rather than redo it all, I'll just reply to the following.

See jrSmiley_115_smiley_image.png you just illustrated that you have no idea (or, more likely, pretending to have no idea) what I have been saying.   Why should I bother replying to you if you continue with a false presumption no matter what I write?

Whether you believe it or not, I understand everything you've said. I understand what your point of view is. I have no confusion as to what you mean. None at all. The reason you think I do is because you do not appear to understand that I am arguing my own point of view. 

No I have not once discussed religious freedom in this exchange.

Which is the problem. One in which you blame me for. What you don't appear to understand that, emphatically, I am discussing religious freedom. Rather than recognize this or accept it, you choose to proceed as if fraud is the actual topic of this discussion. Nope. You do not get to determine this. You responded to me, not myself to you. I remind you...

Freedom. It comes with a cost. It isn't just the tree of Liberty being watered with the blood of patriots, it's also the right of people to choose their path, right or wrong.  In my opinion, Copeland is a deceiver. Even so, if we are to be a truly free society, the people who follow him must be allowed to do so, up to the point they try to subjugate others. You may have contempt for Copeland and those who follow them. Fine, but that isn't enough a reason to subjugate them to your point of view. Because, if it were, then they would be just as justified as you for subjecting you to theirs.

This is what you responded to. Now, you can claim that I don't understand or that I'm presenting strawmen, but really, what you're attempting is to is limit the discussion to your secular point of view. Not happening. 

It is a book Drakk.  It is not a sentient agent.   Hello?

This has to be about the most ignorant thing I've ever heard you state. If all we are doing or considering is the physical state of something then, yes, it is a book. Kudos for recognizing that. Beyond that, it's meaningless. While the book isn't sentient, it sure as heck has agency. There has never been any other book that comes close to its influence on thought throughout time. It is the most published, most translated book of all time. It has done more to shape the world in which we find ourselves than any other. Everything from morality to science. If that isn't agency, I don't know what is. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.9    one week ago
Is it fraudulent, in your opinion, to present oneself as an individual who directly speaks with God and then put forth a promise to personally intercede with God on behalf of an individual if the individual sends in a letter of request and include money, and then mass process by workers (not the self-proclaimed prophet) these letters by extracting the money, generating a canned response and tossing the letters into the trash?

You already know what my answer to this is, so why ask? I know! Because you want to make this argument about fraud. Nope. It's about religious freedom. Deal with it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.12  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.10    one week ago
I am discussing religious freedom.

I know and I have told you that this was never my point.   So what is preventing you from comprehending that?

... but really, what you're attempting is to is limit the discussion to your secular point of view. Not happening. 

You admit that you have replied to my comment only to ignore my point and try to change the topic.  

While the book isn't sentient, it sure as heck has agency.

What words will get you to comprehend that I do not consider the Bible itself to be perpetrating fraud?   The fraud is perpetrated by human agents.   The Bible is a book that cannot itself benefit from fraud.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.11    one week ago
Because you want to make this argument about fraud.

You replied to my comment @7.1.1:

TiG @7.1.1 ☞ I am in agreement on the freedom to be stupid part.   I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud.

with

Drakk @7.1.2 That's the hard part. I certainly don't want someone such as yourself deciding what fraud consists of concerning religion.

My comment was about fraud and you responded speaking of fraud.   Now, after engaging in games you accuse me of wanting to make this about fraud.  

Look, man, if I start off talking about fraud and continue to talk about fraud I am not the one who has tried to change anything.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.14  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.12    one week ago
I know and I have told you that this was never my point.   So what is preventing you from comprehending that?

Nothing, as I have amply demonstrated. If you do not wish to discuss the actual topic, fine. Done here. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.15  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.14    one week ago
If you do not wish to discuss the actual topic, fine.

I made no claim that government should determine what a religious person should believe.   So, no, I do not want to discuss that.   My comment was about fraud.

If I were to pretend that you had claimed the Earth was flat, how patient would you be if no matter what you wrote in response I kept arguing that strawman?

 
 
 
CB
7.1.16  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.2    one week ago

Fraud is fraud, nevertheless. Nothing 'holy and set apart about it.' Fleecing is fleecing and as long as it is done with the acceptance of the state - Copeland can/may continue. That is his 'right' to do so.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.16    one week ago

Is it really lawful to sell access to God through Kenneth Copeland (the individual) and then instead have 'ministry' workers issue replies that the requested access has been done (and then take the money)?   Did the patrons actually get a good word for them to God from Kenny for their money?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.18  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.13    one week ago
My comment was about fraud and you responded speaking of fraud.   Now, after engaging in games you accuse me of wanting to make this about fraud.  

Total crap, TiG. In this very quote you state your comment was about fraud ...

My comment was about fraud

... and then, in the same statement accuse me of accusing you of making this about fraud. Seriously, do you think that makes any sense at all? 

And then you accuse me of games??? How does that even work? My original statement was that freedom means the right for people to choose their path, right or wrong, religiously. The people who give money to Copeland aren't being forced to do it. They choose to do it. 

I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow con persons to engage in fraud.

This must necessarily mean that, if you consider it fraud, it must be stopped. What else can it mean???

Look, man, if I start off talking about fraudand continue to talk about fraud I am not the one who has tried to change anything.

You replied to my post. That means I set the subject of discussion, not you. I was talking about freedom of religion. You talked about fraud. My rebuttal was that, concerning religious positions, what Copeland does has to be allowed or religious freedom is toast. To do otherwise destroys the separation clause. It's as simple as that. You appear to ignore this fact and simply wish to make the issue solely about fraud. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.1.19  Drakkonis  replied to  CB @7.1.16    one week ago
Fraud is fraud, nevertheless. Nothing 'holy and set apart about it.' Fleecing is fleecing and as long as it is done with the acceptance of the state - Copeland can/may continue. That is his 'right' to do so.

CB, what if I successfully lobbied the government to persecute you for the way you believe? Would that be right? According to what? And that is the point.

Copeland is a weasel. I suspect that God is going to send him to the deepest part of hell for misrepresenting Him. The most relevant portion of that statement is "I suspect". I'm not God. I don't know how He will rule in Copeland's case, even though I feel I have a pretty good idea as to how He will. The best I can do is use scripture to denounce what he does, but that I do so doesn't make me right. But even if I could be assured that I am, that still doesn't give me the right to compel people to believe as I do. And it sure as hell doesn't give the secular government the right to do so. That is part of the price of freedom. I should be able to follow Copeland if I choose to do so. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.20  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.18    one week ago
In this very quote you state your comment was about fraud ...

Yes Drakk I repeatedly stated that my comment was about fraud .

You just demonstrated in spades the problem.   I have been telling you repeatedly all along that I was talking about fraud .   I emphasized it with blue repeatedly and even resorted to large letters.

Now you cry bullshit on the very thing that I have been telling you all along.   This is incredible.

.. and then, in the same statement accuse me of accusing you of making this about fraud.

You had just stated that I was now making this about fraud:

Drakk @ 7.1.11 Because you want to make this argument about fraud.

Drakk, good grief, I was not making this argument about fraud — it was about fraud the entire time !!   I told you that in every post!  

You replied to my post. That means I set the subject of discussion, not you.

I replied to FlyNavy @ 7.1 , I did not reply to you.    You, however, replied to my post @ 7.1.1 .   The first reply came from you, not me.   As for topics, you set the topic for thread 7 but not for sub-thread 7.1  

And in my reply to FlyNavy @ 7.1.1 ,  I stated that I have no issue with the right of people to be stupid but that my issue was fraud.  Here read it:

TiG @ 7.1.1 ☞ I am in agreement on the freedom to be stupid part.   I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud .

Not only was I not arguing that people need to be protected from their beliefs but I stated upfront that I agree that people should have the freedom even to be stupid .  I then clearly stated that what I did not agree with is to allow conpersons to engage in fraud .

Good grief man, read more carefully.   If, after repeating my upfront stated position in every post, you still get things completely wrong the problem is how you are reading, not how I am writing.  

This is beyond nutty.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.19    one week ago
CB, what if I successfully lobbied the government to persecute you for the way you believe? Would that be right? According to what? And that is the point.

Did you not read what CB wrote?   The man is talking about fraud and you return with your strawman argument of government persecuting you for the way you believe?

You are doing the same thing with CB now that you did with me.   Do you not even realize what you are doing?

 
 
 
CB
7.1.22  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.17    one week ago

I take your point. However there are two points here:

1. God is in control (of believers) and so far God has not stopped 50 years of Copeland's ministry (of by hook or crook). God has not 'spoken' to the hearts and minds of Copeland's supporters to just walk away. Spiritually no, I don't think what Copeland does is lawful unto God. Copeland has been called out on it by writers for years, nevertheless. Moreover, God has not rendered a judgment on the ministry or called Copeland 'home.'

2. The state (neither federal or states) has not removed Copeland Ministry's non-profit status, any shows, or 'merchandise' sales from the field

Copeland, as a result, has been left up to the marketplace to judge of being a valued 'commodity.' And thus his fifty years of ministry. As to the second question: For many people there is comfort, appreciation, and familiarity in/with his folksy charm and self-deprecating histronics. Apparently, it adds value to their lives and get them farther down the path of life and so they reward him (through the ministry) "handsomely."

NOTE: I can see these things plainly as a believer who once tried 'on' this ministry—I found it 'wanting.' I walked away. I never gave Copeland Ministries anything of value, but some time watching.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.23  CB   replied to  Drakkonis @7.1.19    one week ago

I see both of the points of view. Copeland is morally wrong in his handling of the scriptures, in my opinion. And the government should do something about Copeland Ministries non-profit status. You may remember the government did do well, something. It came in the form of ministries having to provide something tangible (even if a trinket or swag) for the funds directed for the upkeep of religious leaders and not the ministries per se. Or, something to that effect.

This was ordered by the IRS (in answer to public complaints) or as a consequence many ministries would lose their non-profit statuses.

So I see both of the points of view being shared up to this point @7.1.16 that is.

And it sure as hell doesn't give the secular government the right to do so. That is part of the price of freedom.

Here I disagree. Our secular government sets the rules of our society, including the non-profit statuses of religious organizations ultimately. There is always some human authority at the apex of every human activity, for example. In many cases, the "Judge" of human endeavors is a court! Thus, all the 'parts paid in freedom' are granted or removed by us by the state. Or, in the case of the Church, determined by religious leaders, plural.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.24  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.22    one week ago
The state (neither federal or states) has not removed Copeland Ministry's non-profit status, any shows, or 'merchandise' sales from the field

My point has been that they should have acted on Copeland's defrauding of his flock.   There have been attempts but somehow the government has not been able to actually act.   For whatever reason, I do not know, but it is a real shame IMO.  

I have little patience for liars ... especially those who lie to take advantage of others.   Copeland is at the top of the pile in this regard and it looks as though he will continue to get away with this. 

It is a real shame that so many people can be so gullible.   It is a sad state of affairs for our nation, IMO.    The gullible people will continue to be shafted by the likes of Copeland and apparently there is no stopping him, et. al. even though he is engaging in fraud:  selling his oft touted personal access to God (he and God have direct personal conversations and Copeland has special powers from God such as control over the weather) yet he never even reads the letters from his victims and simply pockets the money they send.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.25  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.24    one week ago

It is because of the right of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. That is, as long as no specific law can be 'struck' against a specific religious function/activity (religious constitutional lawyers will fight it in court) people are at liberty to choose to "perform" it. The government defers to churches to determine what is 'acceptable' dogmas. It is this rationale that allows for all sorts of "creative" churches to possess non-profit statuses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.26  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.25    one week ago
It is because of the right of religious freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.

Correct.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @7.1.25    one week ago

Taxing churches is a tricky subject.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy" ... and making churches exempt is an open invitation to abuse. 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.28  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.27    one week ago

Please elaborate further. . . . (Smile.)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @7.1.28    one week ago

It's hard to find the right balance. 

We have proof before our eyes, that tax-free status for any organization that declares itself a religion, leads to abuse. So we start thinking about taxing churches. 

What tax rate?

Too low, and we have the same problem as tax-exempt. Too high, and we have the state making a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

I personally don't have a solution. 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.30  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.29    one week ago

Yeah, no government agency wants to 'tangle' with the rights and privileges of religious expressions. It is an arduous and amorphous provision of law under which groups largely define themselves. The government does not choose to tell people under what or which 'banner' they can lodge themselves.

As for the governing and taxing body, that is Congress' house of representatives. They can trim around the edges. For example, issuing warnings and citations to religious institutions for definitely outlandish, and irresponsible behavior in a group/groups settings. After all, it is the governing body that is accountable for and to the people it serves.

This is why we see government 'jousting' with religious freedoms proponents over the right to assemble indoors/outdoors during a pandemic. The government is not without its control measures-seen or hidden from the public.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.31  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.30    one week ago

And that is most likely it CB.   Because Kenneth Copeland is hiding behind the protections of religious freedom he is able to continue to defraud people.   Government agencies, etc. probably run up against too many obstacles and just give up.  

I will now connect the religious freedom aspect with the fraud aspect:

People should have the ability to hold their religious beliefs as long as this does not do harm to society.   But here we have one of the bad consequences of that freedom — a charlatan, societal leech is able to exploit this general right and do harm to others for his own benefit.

Given that over the decades there have been several failed attempts to bring justice to this disgusting parasite it seems he et.al.  has all the protection that he needs to engage in his fraudulent activity and be free of prosecution.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.32  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.31    one week ago

I agree with everything you said. 

The problem for prosecuting religious charlatans is that their victims are... willing... 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.33  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.32    one week ago
The problem for prosecuting religious charlatans is that their victims are... willing... 

Well I am talking specifically about fraud.   One of the key charges raised against Kenneth Copeland is that he claims that he will personally intercede directly with God given a letter with the request and a donation.   And even though we know that him doing that means nothing anyway, the fact is that he does not open the letters, read the request and tap his awesome direct chat line with the grandest possible entity.   Instead, he has staffers open the letters, collect the money and offer some reply.   Kenneth, the man with all the godly connections, never even reads the requests.   But he does take their money.

There are other cases of fraud dealing with his use of ministry money.   My point is that this societal parasite is engaging in fraud.   To me, it is wrong to allow fraud to take place.

I am not speaking of the fraud of belief.   That is, he presents himself as a man of God (not) and his followers believe him.  That is on them.  Similarly, when he claims to be able to control the weather, those who believe that are simply victims of their own gullibility.

But when he provides a service for money and does not deliver the service but makes the appearance of doing so, that is fraud.   Mass processing checks in mail and not acting on the requests is (to my knowledge) fraud.   This kind of crap should not be allowed to happen any more than we should allow Bernie Madoff, et. al. to defraud his investors.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.34  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.33    one week ago
But he does take their money.

He's a crook. A fraud.

You know it. I know it. 

But his victims believe in him. 

Not simple. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.35  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.34    one week ago
But his victims believe in him.

His victims do not prosecute, that is the role of government.   The legal authorities are apparently unable to get to this guy.   I find that to be a failure of our system.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.36  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.35    one week ago

Yup... 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.37  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.31    one week ago

I want to expand on this point in a different direction—if only briefly. Free speech activist, Larry Flynt- CEO of Hustler Magazine, contested many obscenity laws under the free speech clause of the Constitution. Many people seriously questioned the moral turpitude of Hustler magazine and its owner Flynt when presented to towns and communities across the entirety of the United States. Religious leaders and families wondered aloud if Flynt was doing great harm to the fabric of American society with his specific brand of smut pictures and images.

As it turns out Flynt's magazine was then and is now protected under freedom of speech provisions in the Constitution. Hustler Magazine, prospers today. Some 40 plus years later.

In his "heyday" of court cases, Flynt even spent time in jail for his insistence on publishing smug. Was Flynt a social parasite feeding off the sexual appetites of men and women alike? One dissimilarity with Evangelical preacher Kenneth Copeland: I don't think Copeland ever spent a day or night in jail over the development of his religious organization/empire.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.38  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.17    one week ago

According to Protestants, one does not need an intermediary between one's self and God. This is is one of the foundations of the Schism, that people have a personal relationship with God without intermediaries such as priests.

He is a fraud and the people who he cons haven't bothered to even read their own Bibles or catechisms to know that they don't need Ken Copeland to pray to God on their behalf

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.39  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.38    one week ago
haven't bothered to even read their own Bibles

Most fundies haven't. It's difficult to talk to them, because they usually don't know what they're talking about. 

 
 
 
CB
7.1.40  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.35    one week ago

I'll agree with this observation.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @7.1.37    one week ago

Larry Flynt didn't perpetuate a fraud on his "readers". They bought his magazine because they knew what was in it and whatever gratification they received was by their own hand...so to speak

 
 
 
CB
7.1.42  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.39    one week ago

Very head-strong. But, not much 'horse-sense.'

 
 
 
CB
7.1.43  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.41    one week ago

True. According to the feds and state authorities, Copeland Ministries is a choice of gratification for those who attend (in diverse ways) his ministries. That is just the way it is. People don't like it.  Yet, Copeland Ministries and Hustler Magazine are both "sanctioned" by the state. Moreover, Sister Trout G', Copeland is making intercessory prayer on behalf of others through his 'prayer warriors' on staff who help with the ministry. That is how the thinking goes. Think deacons and deaconesses, and those with a spirit of administration.

This is where church world bumps up against the secular world.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.44  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.37    one week ago
Was Flynt a social parasite feeding off the sexual appetites of men and women alike?

Here is the difference that I see when speaking of a social parasite.

A social parasite takes advantage of gullible people by dangling a prize, accepting money and then failing to deliver as promised.  

Flynt gave people what they wanted.   They paid for some of the most graphically obscene pictures imaginable and he delivered as advertised.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.45  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.38    one week ago

He is a fraud in several ways.  But he seems impervious to justice.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.46  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.45    one week ago

That's his super power

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.47  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.46    one week ago

So in addition to being able to control the weather, this slimy parasite is invulnerable to federal prosecution?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.48  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.47    one week ago

Well....has he been prosecuted?

Some people get more than one super power...others get no super power.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.49  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.48    one week ago

Yeah, I guess he really is God's bestest buddy.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.50  CB   replied to  TᵢG @7.1.44    one week ago

Agreed. Flynt was a "hell of a guy" in every sense of the phrase. He is still out there somewhere.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.51  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @7.1.50    one week ago

Yeah, he is 78 years old and still alive.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
7.1.52  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.41    one week ago
whatever gratification they received was by their own hand...so to speak

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.53  bbl-1  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.35    one week ago

Uh no.  His victims "Do not prosecute," rather, they "Prostitute." 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.54  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  bbl-1 @7.1.53    one week ago

I am not following.   You are saying that the gullible flock who send their money to Kenneth Copeland are somehow prostituting?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.55  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.51    one week ago

I didn't realize he was still alive. I thought he died a few years ago

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.56  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.55    one week ago

Hugh Hefner died a few years ago.

 
 
 
CB
7.1.57  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.55    one week ago

I thought Flynt had died too. You should have seen my face as I researched him to write about it. I was incredulous for a 'minute' and then accepting of the fact he is still alive. To be clear, Larry Flynt back in the day used to make me look (and cringe). But ultimately, he had the fortitude to touch a really hot 'set of circuits' in our morality codes and legal systems. In sum, Flynt did good in my opinion.

NOTE: I am writing about the man in the past tense, because he did these things before he left the commercial stage and leadership role of his magazine empire.

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.1.58  bbl-1  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.54    one week ago

Yes.  Themselves.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7    one week ago
Fine, but that isn't enough a reason to subjugate them to your point of view.

It is not just my point of view, this man is committing fraud.  

Also, is it your point of view that this man is a societal parasite preying on gullible people?   If not, why?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.2.1  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2    one week ago
Also, is it your point of view that this man is a societal parasite preying on gullible people?

(sigh) You already know that I consider this man just such a parasite. That being said, let me clue you in on what this discussion is about for me. Whether or not the government has the right to dictate what a person can do or not do, religiously. Other than the obvious, like sacrificing humans, the government should have no say in what a person believes or does with that belief unless it threatens physical harm to another or abridges their freedoms. 

Let's look at Ken Ham. I imagine that there are many who consider him to be perpetrating a fraud. Should the government go after him? His organization is, to a lesser or greater extent, supported by donations by what some might call gullible people. If we're going to go after Copeland, why not Ham? And since the Bible teaches that Christ rose from the dead, something that obviously doesn't happen in the empirical world, should we not go after those who claim such? Where do you draw the line, TiG? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.1    one week ago
… the government should have no say in what a person believes

Where do you see me making any suggestion that the government should have a say in a person's religious beliefs?   Go ahead, provide a quote.   You cannot.   So what the hell are you talking about?

You are arguing the strawman that I think the government should govern religious belief.   That is good old-fashioned intellectual dishonesty.   You know I will call you on it so why do it?   Is this entertainment for you?

Let's look at Ken Ham. I imagine that there are many who consider him to be perpetrating a fraud.

I am not aware of Ham promising to deliver divine intervention in return for money.   Ham's gig is to market YEC nonsense.   He feeds his followers YEC beliefs and distorts science to try to save his beliefs from being dismissed as ridiculous based on modern information.   His followers buy his books and videos, pay entrance fees to his museum and his ark.   He delivers what he promised.  

In contrast, a much smaller player, Jim Bakker, has recently been engaging in fraud by selling a COVID-19 cure .   Do you see fraud with Bakker and how that is different from what Ham does?   You should.  This should be obvious.

Should the government go after him? His organization is, to a lesser or greater extent, supported by donations by what some might call gullible people.

I guess you cannot see the difference between promising to deliver divine intervention to gullible people and selling books and videos filled with nonsense to gullible people.  The former is fraud;  the latter is just slimy.   Lying is not necessarily fraud. 

If we're going to go after Copeland, why not Ham?

See above.   We should go after Copeland and Bakker because they are committing fraud.   Ham is not (at least to my knowledge).  Ham expresses his beliefs (and even claims that these are his beliefs and not necessarily absolute truth).   Copeland is quite different.   You should do some research to truly understand what I am talking about here.

And since the Bible teaches that Christ rose from the dead, something that obviously doesn't happen in the empirical world, should we not go after those who claim such? Where do you draw the line, TiG? 

You are so far off base. 

Hopefully after reading this comment you will understand where you continue to go wrong.   If you are going to ask me questions I would expect that you take the time to try to comprehend my answers.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.2.3  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.2    one week ago
Where do you see me making any suggestion that the government should have a say in a person's religious beliefs?

I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow con persons to engage in fraud.

Necessarily, this must mean, in the negative sense, it must not be allowed. What other authority would you suggest for not allowing it other than government? 

You are arguing the strawman that I think the government should govern religious belief.

You consider what Copeland does as fraud. You think it should not be allowed to continue. What other mechanism, other than government, do you see enacting what you believe to be the correct course of action? 

That is good old-fashioned intellectual dishonesty.

Funny, because it seems to me that not admitting the inevitable consequences of your viewpoint seems the dishonesty to me. 

I am not aware of Ham promising to deliver divine intervention in return for money.

Well, aside from the fact that Ham can't empirically prove dinosaurs were on the Arc, what difference does it actually make? From the atheist's point of view, why is one worse than the other just because money is involved? To the atheist, both are deception. 

This is part of the point I have been making all along. If we prevent the Copelands of the world from doing what they do, that is, the government making decisions for people rather than letting them make them for themselves, how is that freedom? 

I guess you cannot see the difference between promising to deliver divine intervention to gullible people and selling books and videos filled with nonsense to gullible people.  The former is fraud;  the latter is just slimy.   Lying is not necessarily fraud.

You are, intentionally or not, missing the point. You are arguing that, unless someone else's beliefs satisfy some criteria of yours, it  shouldn't be allowed. That you yourself draw a distinction between lies for money and lies for a particular view is just that. Your distinctions. There's a whole world out there, TiG, with people of different views. How many lawsuits are currently in courts by secular humanists because they wish to prevent various viewpoints from being part of the public gestalt? 

We should go after Copeland and Bakker because they are committing fraud.   Ham is not (at least to my knowledge).  Ham expresses his beliefs (and even claims that these are his beliefs and not necessarily absolute truth).

Again, these are simply your personal distinctions. And again, there are tons of secular humanists who are trying their best to curtail what religious people can and cannot do. In other words, religion regulated by government. 

You are so far off base. 

No, actually, I'm not. Just look at what China is trying to do to Christianity there. Only an idiot would say that could never happen here. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.4  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.3    one week ago
Necessarily, this must mean, in the negative sense, it must not be allowed. What other authority would you suggest for not allowing it other than government? 

 Let's again go back to my opening comment (the one you replied to):

TiG @ 7.1.1 ☞ I am in agreement on the freedom to be stupid part.   I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud .

Here I expressed my opinion on two distinct notions:

  1. People have the right to be stupid
  2. Government should not allow conpersons to engage in fraud

Item 1 means that I agree that people have the right to believe whatever they wish (even if the belief is stupid) as long as they do not cause harm to society.

Item 2 means that those who perpetrate fraud should be caught and prosecuted.

1 has nothing to do with 2.   Given you and I have never disagreed on 1 (I established that upfront in my opening comment @ 7.1.1 ) your arguing this point is simply a strawman.   When you argue a point that I have already stipulated you are arguing a strawman.  

I made this clear to you on every post that my objection was on allowing fraud yet even now you continue on this freedom of belief track.

W.T.F. Drakk.  Get this straight in your head.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
7.2.5  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.4    one week ago
I made this clear to you on every post that my objection was on allowing fraud yet even now you continue on this freedom of belief track.

Gosh! Maybe because freedom of belief is the actual topic of discussion????????????????????????????????

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.2.6  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.5    one week ago

That is a pathetic excuse Drakk.  And it proves that you did this intentionally.

I wrote a post about fraud and you replied to that post.   You then argued a strawman about the freedom of belief even though my original post had already stipulated what you were arguing :

TiG @ 7.1.1 ☞ I am in agreement on the freedom to be stupid part.   I am not in agreement on the idea that to be free we must allow conpersons to engage in fraud .

Why do you play these pointless games?   To what end?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.2.7  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.6    one week ago
Why do you play these pointless games?   To what end?

             jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
bbl-1
7.2.8  bbl-1  replied to  Drakkonis @7.2.3    one week ago

China doesn't want 'crap shoot' christianity screwing them up like it's screwed up America and everyplace ( it ) portends ( itself ) relevant.

 
 
 
CB
8  CB     one week ago

A man who supposedly speaks to people under the authority of Spirit of Truth, can not stand and abide the tales and conveniences of an obsessive and abusive liar like Donald J. Trump. Copeland is indirectly telling on himself where his allegiance lies. Spirit is not chaotic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8    one week ago

For whatever reason, many religious organizations are supportive of Trump.   If Copeland's 'flock' were mostly D, he would be rejoicing over God choosing Biden.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  TᵢG @8.1    one week ago
For whatever reason, many religious organizations are supportive of Trump.

Trump finds validation in the tele-evangelists, and they find validation in Trump.  Phony-baloneys validating each other for the sake of their own bottom lines. 

 
 
 
CB
8.1.2  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.1    one week ago

There are millions of austere Christian believers in our country and they seek to align themselves with this nation's power and influence. It is these brothers and sisters loosely, t he Religious Right (i.e., white Evangelical conservatives), that are driving a new nomenclature: The Religious "Left." *

[The Rev. William] Barber II, a co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign] who rejects the term “religious left,” hopes the faith-rooted activism of himself and others will dilute the role religion — and especially what he described as nationalistic forms of Christianity — has played in exacerbating partisan divides.

“The problem with these categories of left and right — particularly for Christians — is we’ve got a problem and that is this leader called Jesus,” he said.

“How do you claim to believe in Jesus and don’t care about health care, when Jesus healed everybody he came into contact with and never charged a leper or a sick person a co-pay?”

As for Copeland's position on Trump, I have never heard him mention the man or promote Trump on any single airway. Until now:

How God Is Using Donald Trump

I speed this up to listen to it and get through it 'mightily. ' At 20:02 there is something Copeland says about Trump that is of particular interest (that should not be missed). Overall, I think I see parallels in how Copeland makes his money and the way Copeland sees Trump.

Very interesting, video! There is something else telling about this video I would speak on if you watch it and comment on it afterwards.

* I can tell you this, by far, the majority of proper Christians would rather stay out of the center of politicians and worldly governance. But how can they with all the deceitfulness and devilish schemes afoot in high places of authority? If the opposition to the Religious Right does not speak up; God would be right to cause the 'rocks' themselves to rise up!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @8.1.2    one week ago

That clip reminded me of another from Copeland...

 
 
 
CB
8.1.4  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.3    one week ago

Wow! I've never seen him "perform" those notes before! Not even! (Chuckles.) I do remember talk of this phase of "holy ghost laughter."

JOY UNSPEAKABLE PT 3/3

You all may start this at the beginning and watch the "goings on" or jump to 2:41 and see who is on the front row. The antics beyond that point are well, "hilarious." This is worth price of admission (I guess).God 'suffers' foolishness in preaching, for sure!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.1.3    one week ago

Too funny!!!!! 

 
 
 
CB
8.1.6  CB   replied to  CB @8.1.2    one week ago

TiG? Did you get the chance to watch @8.1.2?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.1.6    one week ago

I did not get anything special from 20:02.   Trump's dad saying to talk to the workers to get the truth does not seem very significant to me.

 
 
 
CB
8.1.8  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.1.7    6 days ago

Well, I thought it would explain something of why Trump thinks he is a 'man's-man.' And, maybe go to why Copeland likes Donald's 'self-creation' persona.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  CB @8.1.8    6 days ago

The advice Trump's dad gave him was very good.   He was right.   To get the truth one needs to go to those who do not have a vested interest in presenting reality in its best light.

It is ironic that Trump's dad was telling him how to work around liars.

 
 
 
CB
8.1.10  CB   replied to  TᵢG @8.1.9    6 days ago

Which is interesting in its own right, because Donald chooses to be a user and manipulator of rank and file men and women. He holds up the technique as if it is some sort of super power he possesses. What Donald has done is 'exampled' in numbers what share of our population wants to glom onto a delusion. People  willing to ignore a pandemic, any kind of it, simply to belong to power.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9  Bob Nelson    one week ago

A jackass braying... 

 
 
 
Ender
10  Ender    one week ago

He sounds like a complete moron. Or someone that I would enjoy punching in the face.

He is an ugly fucker too.

I can only shake my head at the people that say God chose donald yet now demons chose Biden.

They cannot wrap their heads around their own distorted reality.

If God chose donald, would it not make sense that God also chose Biden? It seems people can twist anything to fit a narrative.

So either God is incompetent or playing them for fools.

Oh, I had to laugh at the needing a private jet for two reasons. One to be closer to God and the other because of all of us regular demon folk he would have to be in a tube with. Not exactly spreading the message of Jesus is he...

Can only shake my head at the stupidity of people that get enthralled with charlatans.

I bet he laughs the same way at the morons that send him what little money they have.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
10.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ender @10    one week ago
Or someone that I would enjoy punching in the face

I'll save you a place in line.

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.1  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1    one week ago

512

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
10.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Ender @10.1.1    one week ago

1.  That's my favorite scene in Airplane.

2.  Sometimes a nun just needs to slap someone.  Twice.

 
 
 
Ender
10.1.3  Ender  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @10.1.2    one week ago

And then get back in line....Haha

 
 
 
bbl-1
11  bbl-1    one week ago

Copeland laughs all the way to the bank.  He is a grifter.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

MUVA
Bob Nelson


43 visitors