Why do people support this?

Macarthur said:

---

Why do people support this?

---

Charlatans indeed. It's disgusting.

Here's more from Copeland.

Quote:

---

I have felt for some time that the onus is on Christians to police this. Folks like myself or even the media aren't going to change this from the outside. It's going to take reasonable people of faith to shake people awake to these frauds.

---

The problem isn't that people don't know that they are charlatans. The problem is at they are at their wits end and in a state to try anything and everything to get out of whatever hole they're in.. They don't care that they are charlatans. They can't risk not sending in the $273 and think they didn't try everything.

Now, what I will concede is that for some portion of their "market", people have felt safer at home and giving money over the phone/whatever and turn to these guys than to go to their local church. This is fair criticism.

That interview with Copeland was interesting. You can tell he has lied to himself so much that he no longer has any clue the charlatan he is. I also think he's had so many facelifts that he looks like a robot.

There is Divine Judge who will arbitrate these things.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

I have felt for some time that the onus is on Christians to police this. Folks like myself or even the media aren't going to change this from the outside. It's going to take reasonable people of faith to shake people awake to these frauds.

---

The problem isn't that people don't know that they are charlatans. The problem is at they are at their wits end and in a state to try anything and everything to get out of whatever hole they're in.. They don't care that they are charlatans. They can't risk not sending in the $273 and think they didn't try everything.

Now, what I will concede is that for some portion of their "market", people have felt safer at home and giving money over the phone/whatever and turn to these guys than to go to their local church. This is fair criticism.

---

I supose there is some of this.

I'm more than a little biased because I found out that my elderly grandmother was giving $ to these jackholes before she passed. She had very little money to be giving in the first place. Makes my blood boil.

It's the sort of problem you have to expect when you can form a "church" and have people send you money and not have to pay taxes on it.

Now I don't understand it from the other end at all. I can't wrap my head around sending money to a person on the TV or radio that you have never met. That's so far outside the realm of my thought and upbringing to be literal unfathomable.

It's not that weird. I've given money to ministries with people I've never met.

The issue is discernment. Making sure you are giving to ministries that are legit and not being peddled by rich charlatans.

Quote:

---

I'm more than a little biased because I found out that my elderly grandmother was giving $ to these jackholes before she passed. She had very little money to be giving in the first place. Makes my blood boil.

---

I'm sorry for that.

Quote:

---

The issue is discernment. Making sure you are giving to ministries that are legit and not being peddled by rich charlatans.

---

It may not be weird to everyone, but it certainly is to me. Did you parents do this and teach you that you should? Is it something that you just felt you should do? I just really don't understand.

I've donated to faith-based charities, but I vett them extensively. I've also contributed to ministries if my church or pastor specifically vouches for them. But with any of these megavangelists or televangelists I would never even consider it

I'm confused, what exactly do you disagree with me on? You said pretty much what I said.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You said you've donated money to ministries for people you've never met and been a part of. Since we were specifically talking about Copeland on the thread I figured you had sent money to him or someone similar. I was trying to figure out the thought process behind that.

No offense, but a fool and his money are soon parted...

What do you guys think about the fact that homeopathic remedies are sold and marketed? The Placebo effect works in lots of different ways...

No I have not. I was trying to say I understand why some give to them. Its their version of what I do albeit not the most precise judgement.

So what sort of ministries do you donate to sight unseen? If you don't mind me asking

I wouldn't say I give "unseen" but I've donated to things I'm not involved with and simply only heard a plug on a podcast. But I trust the pastor plugging the ministry and sometimes my heart strings are pulled. I don't think I'm much different than anyone else on this.

I don't think you're unusual in that regard. Clearly, people like Copeland can make a lot of money this way. The heart strings thing makes sense. I'm almost 100% analytical with my giving, but I can at least abstractly wrap my head around others being emotionally driven

JJMt said:

---

I do think that these guys are disgusting, but it's also hypocritical of the national news media to be criticizing them for it. Their own executives also have personal jets made available to them by their corporations.

---

I think the criticism isn't the simple fact that he flies a private jet. It's because he's supposedly a Christian minister flying around in a private jet. I wouldn't call the criticism hypocritical, because the issue isn't the jet, but the job.

JJMt said:

---

These guys do have worldwide ministries. So why wouldn't the same rationale used to justify jets for corporate executives also apply to ministers with worldwide ministries?

They are also celebrities. Traveling commercial would be a real beatdown for them as such.

I am having a difficult time making these arguments, because I do think that they are sleazebags. However, I'm not sure that corporate Jets is the best argument to use to illustrate how sleazy they are.

---

This sounds suspiciously like you're defending these creeps.

Let me say this, if they could make the argument that they needed a plane based on the fact that they have worldwide ministries and they could be more efficient with a private plane, you still have to convince me why they need multiple planes that are decked out extravagantly. Then you have to convince me why they are taking, what seems to be, 3 to 1 vacation trips versus 'business', and that number might be generous.

You sure you want to go there?

Quote:

---

Let me say this, if they could make the argument that they needed a plane based on the fact that they have worldwide ministries and they could be more efficient with a private plane, you still have to convince me why they need multiple planes that are decked out extravagantly. Then you have to convince me why they are taking, what seems to be, 3 to 1 vacation trips versus 'business', and that number might be generous.

You sure you want to go there?

---

He's just parsing out the actual argument I think. It's one thing to say that there's never a need for a private jet at all, and it's another to call in question how extravagant, how many vacations you use it for, what model you buy, etc.

Surely, these guys are grotesque in their justification. No one's going to argue otherwise.

I think it's a very flawed argument. Business men, at least, have to answer to someone.

These guys answer to no one and that's before you even mention the tax benefits they get.

Quote:

---

I think it's a very flawed argument. Business men, at least, have to answer to someone.

These guys answer to no one and that's before you even mention the tax benefits they get.

---

It depends on the argument you're making. If you are keeping your arguments purely on the necessity of private transportation vs public transportation, then I don't think it is.

However, it's clear that these guys have gone past the "necessity" stage and have been using it as justification to do what they want.

JJMt said:

---

Thanks for the help, diehard. You're spot on.

Just because these guys are creeps, doesn't mean everything they do is wrong or outrageous. We really need to know a lot more before we grab the pitchforks and form the lynch mob. For example, someone above mentioned the ratio of business to vacation travel. Do we actually know what that is? How many people are using the jets - just the main guy or other members of the ministry? How are these planes decorated, and were they decorated that way before these guys bought them?

Also, I think I read somewhere that the CEO of Exxon got the personal use of 3 (that's 3) executive jets for himself and his family as part of his compensation package, in addition to the $50 million or so he's being paid. Stuff like that's becoming increasingly common. Where's the outrage over stuff like that? His alleged oversight (his board) actually agreed to that package. And we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing that excess through the tax deductions that Exxon is presumably taking for the expense of the jets.

No one is forcing people to give money to these charlatans. In fact, many of their supporters like the extravagant lifestyles they lead; it's a weird enabling relationship.

---

I think you're wrong on this issue on a number of levels.

The piece that was done by Inside Edition actually does have some numbers on the amount of useage for personal vacations. It's insanely high. Now, we don't exactly know how many days they use it for business, but we do know there are only 365 days in a year so when you take out the days for vacation, they can't be flying that much for business, esp since their business is based right where they live. It goal tending of the highest order

I think there is a decent point to be made about the gov subsidizing Exxon and the CEO getting that type of a package, but I think your point is misguided. The fact is, the CEO of Exxon does have to answer to the board and stockholders. And it completely falls apart when you compare the fact that Exxon is an actual BUSINESS that provides an actual good/service that people pay for. I think you can make a very strong case that these guys are legitimate frauds. They provide no discernible good or service and prey on the weakest in society.

And I agree with the very last sentence, but I find your defense of this really misguided.

Quote:

---

I am extremely uncomfortable when I see Christian leaders living lavish lifestyles, but truthfully I don't know what the correct answer is.

---

Personal opinion? Should be more of a reimbursement of bills paid system rather than a salary for services rendered. I can get into more details if people really want to have this discussion.

You guys are being too harsh. That Duplantis guy is slumming in a Falcon Jet. Now Copeland knows what's up and has a Gulfstream. I feel sorry for that poor Duplantis guy. But this is proof that he is pinching pennies.

Woody2006 said:

---

No offense, but a fool and his money are soon parted...

---

I agree. It's not like these charlatans are hiding their wealth. If people are still sending them money, well to use another quote: "a sucker is born every minute." - P.T. Barnum.

Private jets are low-hanging fruit for a lavish lifestyle if one is of a mind to criticize excesses, but as mentioned above, where does one draw the line? These guys will have to answer for their actions as will I, Lord have mercy on me.

That said, I don't get these guys' business at all. I'm not sure what particular appeal they have to certain folks to get them to fork over cash, but clearly they do. They look like charlatans to me too, but many kind-hearted folks see a successful ministry that they want to support, Dassault Falcon notwithstanding.

That said, I'm completely charisma blind. I have none personally and see none in others.