Expensive houses of well known televangelists

[genkaus]

I guess busting up drug gangs is what you understand from self-sacrifice.
But self-sacrifice for whom?

For your"self", apparently.

How do you define "work actively".
I've forfeited my life for my ideals. I will give my life if I have to, in order for them to be realized. Is this so hard to comprehend?
My ideals are of political nature. Hermits, dervishes and monks, forfeit their lives to their particular religion, God or tenets. This is called devotion. If this devotion requires them to lay down their lives in an instant, they do so. But most generally abstain from worldly needs as much as they can. Things that define life. For example, women, food, wine, property and etc. Abstaining from these would mean that you did have forfeited your life already. You live only for your God.
I guess this shouldn't be so hard to understand.

But they are still alive, aren't they? Which means they haven't completely forfeited their lives.

But you just took their meaning away by telling them to go kill themselves.
Obviously they still live, and they live for their God and religion. Things that have higher meanings for them.

No, I pointed out the contradiction in their philosophy. The only way for them to have meaning is by destroying the source of all meaning. This contradiction comes from their choice of attributing higher meaning to things that are not real. The only way they can "live" for their god is by dying for it.

Well, you call it imaginary, they call your life imaginary. Buddhism states that whatever you do in this life is merely illusionary. Islam states that it's merely a test. Both come to the conclusion that at the end, whatever experiences you had on this world are moot, if they are not directed towards God, or Nirvana.
They look at you, and say, "what a fool indeed". How long can you keep it up? When will you be ever satisfied? What real meaning and worth do you find in this life?
I myself find worth and meaning in that I live for my people and nation.
It still is a higher ideal beyond my selfish needs. It still is an ideal beyond my ego.
Even after I die, my nation will live. Whatever contributions I have done for it will live with it.
My ideals do not require me to give up worldly needs, but they do not require me to lose myself within them. Worldly needs are merely tools for me in order to serve my people a bit better. Money can contribute to a lot of things. Marriage and having children secure the next generation.

On the other hand, religiously motivated hermits do not aim for a worldly goal. They do not aim to aid a nation or any nation. They aim to aid any individuals they come across as best as they could, at least our dervish orders do, but from their words, "Love the people due to your love of God." principle requires them to do so.
But this too, is merely a tool on the way to their goal. Denouncing selfishness, helping the people who need help, for the sake of God.

Thank you for putting forward your corrupt philosophy so succinctly. That is not a philosophy of a free and rational man. That is a philosophy that shows the relation between slaves and their masters. From the beginning, men have wanted to control other men. When it cannot be done by force, it is done by intelligent sounding false philosobabble. Once you convince a man that his life is worth nothing unless it is a used for a purpose other than his own, you have just found yourself a willing slave who'd lay down his life for your purpose. And since meeting anyone with opposite ideas would simply reveal to this man that his entire philosophy is a mistake, he'll go out of his way to find you even more willing slaves. It doesn't matter which and whose purpose is used to replace what could have been yours, whether it is god's or country's or the poors', as long as it is not your own.

I thought you were an individualist. As you cannot ever hope to best his archivements in the areas of poetry and literature, neither his will in archiving a particular goal, you call him mad and stupid. You on the other hand possess the intelligence of an animal, perhaps, even if your IQ is over 200, you still are like an animal. For you lack the appreciation that is needed to understand how and why he was capable of enduring any hardships, nor his devotion to his art and religion.

Why would you think that I cannot best his "achievements", which seem to be meager. Most of the greatest and influential artists known have been individualists, those who value their view, their judgment and their art above all others. The capacity to endure extreme hardships does not come without having an indomitable ego that would not succumb to anyone else. And without such an ego, there is no suffering because then their wouldn't be anything meaningful to take away.

[kılıç_mehmet]

For your"self", apparently.

No.

But they are still alive, aren't they? Which means they haven't completely forfeited their lives.

I guess we understand different meanings from the word "forfeit". I'm not a native speaker, so I fear using a wrong word whenever I want to explain myself.
Let me rephrase: I was speaking of laying down your life.
This does not mean that you should commit suicide on the spot, without no reason and no meaning, or that you should knowingly put yourself under life-threatening situations, again, without no purpose or not meaning.

No, I pointed out the contradiction in their philosophy. The only way for them to have meaning is by destroying the source of all meaning. This contradiction comes from their choice of attributing higher meaning to things that are not real. The only way they can "live" for their god is by dying for it.

Well, obviously, they have a different source of meaning than you.

Thank you for putting forward your corrupt philosophy so succinctly. That is not a philosophy of a free and rational man.

And I guess you have the philosophy of a free and rational man. Let us hear your philosophy.

That is a philosophy that shows the relation between slaves and their masters. From the beginning, men have wanted to control other men.

Who is my master, friend? Tell me.

When it cannot be done by force, it is done by intelligent sounding false philosobabble. Once you convince a man that his life is worth nothing unless it is a used for a purpose other than his own, you have just found yourself a willing slave who'd lay down his life for your purpose.

No one convinced me, nor Yunus Emre. They have had their own personal convictions. I personally find freedom in the freedom of my nation. Without the freedom of my nation, I am a slave. The only thing that guarantees my freedom is my nation.
Similarly, Yunus Emre, and many other devotees of a religion or god, found freedom in their devotion. For them, devotion to the world was slavery, devotion to things that are finite, like food, gold or women.

By the way, I could say the same about a person who has found life's meaning in whatever capitalist ideology endorses.

And since meeting anyone with opposite ideas would simply reveal to this man that his entire philosophy is a mistake

I've met many people who have opposite ideas. My conviction in my philosophy has only gotten stronger. Obviously, since you have not observed any of my previous debates in this here forum, you can speak with such certainty.

It doesn't matter which and whose purpose is used to replace what could have been yours, whether it is god's or country's or the poors', as long as it is not your own.

How far can your own purpose go?
It goes as far as your life.
It is finite and short.

Why would you think that I cannot best his "achievements", which seem to be meager.

I forgive your ignorance.

Most of the greatest and influential artists known have been individualists

Most, you say. Have you counted all the artists of the world?
How "individualist" was John Lennon, with his humanistic worldviews?

those who value their view, their judgment and their art above all others.

Yes, and most die of drug overdose.
They're great artists, maybe, but they're sad people.

The capacity to endure extreme hardships does not come without having an indomitable ego that would not succumb to anyone else.

They would not endure these hardships if they had this ego. They endured these since they have cast away their ego in front of their ideal.

And without such an ego, there is no suffering because then their wouldn't be anything meaningful to take away.

Perhaps not for people who take the vow of poverty. But this also frees them from many of life's attachments.
I know this sounds like Buddhist texts, but it applies for most hermits, monks and dervishes.

[genkaus]

I guess we understand different meanings from the word "forfeit". I'm not a native speaker, so I fear using a wrong word whenever I want to explain myself.
Let me rephrase: I was speaking of laying down your life.
This does not mean that you should commit suicide on the spot, without no reason and no meaning, or that you should knowingly put yourself under life-threatening situations, again, without no purpose or not meaning.

Ofcourse not. But devotion to your brand of philosophy would require you to seek out those situations and lay down your life, so that it can be claimed to have meaning and purpose.

Well, obviously, they have a different source of meaning than you.

Yes, an irrational one.

Who is my master, friend? Tell me.

According to waht you tell me, your society.

No one convinced me, nor Yunus Emre. They have had their own personal convictions. I personally find freedom in the freedom of my nation. Without the freedom of my nation, I am a slave. The only thing that guarantees my freedom is my nation.
Similarly, Yunus Emre, and many other devotees of a religion or god, found freedom in their devotion. For them, devotion to the world was slavery, devotion to things that are finite, like food, gold or women.

By the way, I could say the same about a person who has found life's meaning in whatever capitalist ideology endorses.

That is the subversive nature of your philosophy. It makes you think you've found freedom in slavery.

I've met many people who have opposite ideas. My conviction in my philosophy has only gotten stronger. Obviously, since you have not observed any of my previous debates in this here forum, you can speak with such certainty.

I was being metaphorical. By meeting someone else meant actually understanding their ideas. Something you have yet to show signs of.

How far can your own purpose go?
It goes as far as your life.
It is finite and short.

And that is as far as anyone's purpose can go. Without your life, your purpose wouldn't exist either.

I forgive your ignorance.

Another trait I find unforgivable.

Most, you say. Have you counted all the artists of the world?
How "individualist" was John Lennon, with his humanistic worldviews?

Very.

Yes, and most die of drug overdose.
They're great artists, maybe, but they're sad people.

Are we on the same page here? By artist I don't simply mean rock stars.

They would not endure these hardships if they had this ego. They endured these since they have cast away their ego in front of their ideal.

They may think they had cast it away, but unless they gave such importance to something they chose they wouldn't endure for it. The fact that they give importance to their choice and not let others dictate it shows their ego.

Perhaps not for people who take the vow of poverty. But this also frees them from many of life's attachments.
I know this sounds like Buddhist texts, but it applies for most hermits, monks and dervishes.

Attachments of life are what make life possible. Freeing oneself from them would only make death possible.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Its cool padraic. Just this OP raises the generalization, that were Christian and we don't do what Christ says but were still Christian, now come join us.

When did I raise the generalization? My purpose in posting was to expose and ridicule the hypocrisy. I wanted to point out how these successful preachers had no conscience or common decency. How religion can be a business. Note that many of their donatiors are "the poor widow who gave everything she had" yet these bastards sit in their luxury homes with their multimillion dollar salaries, security, and lifestyle and they don't give a fuck (although some do to their gay lovers but that's a topic for another post). Then they turn around and tell my ass how to live. They stand in the way of science and moral evolution. They push for our country to become a theocracy.


About my update to my OP: when I posted the information about the investigation I was suggesting (and I may be wrong about this last bit) that the government doesn't seem to care about how the evangelists are cheating people and doing so tax free.

About the tax free bit: This is particularly irritating to me. Here in the U.S,. taxes are gradually getting higher. The government is nibbling away at my income on all sides yet religious organizations are allowed to push the limits on what can be tax free. If the government is so money hungry why don't they dig in the churches pockets for a change (ooh, nice play on words).

I know I whine about this a lot, but there are two businesses that I drive by on a regular basis that run tax free because they are hooked in with a church. One is a motocross track and the other is (supposedly) a religious retreat (but it actually is a neighborhood of multimillion dollar luxury houses residing on a few hundred acres of very expensive property). Even the church that I used to go to bought 75 acres of land, held it for about 6 years tax free while the property value skyrocketed and then they sold it for millions! Why should this shit be tax free? The religion business is where the money's at! If there was only a procedure that could remove my conscience I could go into the religion business.

Thats it! I get it now! God must be punishing me for having a consience. If I didn't have one like his favorites do then I'd be on the gravy train too.

[Reforged]

*sigh* If only I was unethical.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Here's a graphic I made recently let's see if I remember how to post graphics.

[Reforged]

If Kenneth Copelands mansion doesn't show up on tax records then couldn't someone technically take up residence in there and lock him out without fear of legal action?

[Ziploc Surprise]

If Kenneth Copelands mansion doesn't show up on tax records then couldn't someone technically take up residence in there and lock him out without fear of legal action?

I don't know how tax records work I just copied this from the original document. I think the original creator of the document (the one I posted at the beginning of this thread) meant to say is that mr.
Copeland isn't paying taxes on his property. According to the website it's difficult to find the property value of a property that is owned by an organization that isn't paying taxes. I assume this is true for non profits because the property value has to be assessed, known, and current in order to attach the right tax to it. Anyone know anything about how this works for non profits? It's a bit out of my league.

[BethK]

Here's another quote: Long responded in a statement Thursday night, "I am relieved that after more than three years of intense investigation and countless untrue allegations, that Senator Chuck Grassley's review has found no evidence of wrongdoing. Our ministry at New Birth has always and will continue to operate with accountability and integrity. I am thankful to God that the public now knows the truth."

If I were paranoid (and I am) I would venture to say that the lovely senator was paid to "not find anything".

I also wonder how much money was spent to make the senator's investigation threatening enough to require pay offs.

Just a little paranoia. I don't trust these guys as far as I can throw them.

If or when they are shown to have been bribing officials, interfering with a Senate investigation, the S will hit the Fan! If it's handled right, it will open the eyes of "average" Americans. The uber-religious who follow these huxters will continue to follow them. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back from not saying anything to offend them, and people to brush them aside as "religious nuts" or some other similar term. That's how it was for the most part in the 1970s.

How did these people get at least acceptance and not looking too closely by the majority of Americans?

---

Mansions in the here and now can be demonstrated to exist.

Mansions in the sky cannot be demonstrated to exist.

It shows what they really believe - and it's not their own BS.


Note that even if what they preach is true, many of them would have to be positive that they're not going to their reward in heaven... just the opposite from fleecing the poor in the name of someone who preached poverty.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Here's another quote: Long responded in a statement Thursday night, "I am relieved that after more than three years of intense investigation and countless untrue allegations, that Senator Chuck Grassley's review has found no evidence of wrongdoing. Our ministry at New Birth has always and will continue to operate with accountability and integrity. I am thankful to God that the public now knows the truth."

If I were paranoid (and I am) I would venture to say that the lovely senator was paid to "not find anything".

I also wonder how much money was spent to make the senator's investigation threatening enough to require pay offs.

Just a little paranoia. I don't trust these guys as far as I can throw them.

If or when they are shown to have been bribing officials, interfering with a Senate investigation, the S will hit the Fan! If it's handled right, it will open the eyes of "average" Americans. The uber-religious who follow these huxters will continue to follow them. Perhaps the pendulum will swing back from not saying anything to offend them, and people to brush them aside as "religious nuts" or some other similar term. That's how it was for the most part in the 1970s.

How did these people get at least acceptance and not looking too closely by the majority of Americans?

---

Mansions in the here and now can be demonstrated to exist.

Mansions in the sky cannot be demonstrated to exist.

It shows what they really believe - and it's not their own BS.


Note that even if what they preach is true, many of them would have to be positive that they're not going to their reward in heaven... just the opposite from fleecing the poor in the name of someone who preached poverty.

The U.S. government is horribly corrupt. In this case there is little political motivation to "watch the watchers" so to speak so I say that the investigation had more ability to do schenanagans than in other investigations. It looks to me like it was a relatively easy way for a senator to drum up some cash. Then again I might just be paranoid about this.

As for the preachers, for whatever reasons, time and again, people fall for the line "well those preachers may have been phonies (or false prophets) but I've got the real thing." I'm serious, this line works, and it has worked over and over. People want to believe in miracles. They want to follow charismatic leaders who "have the power of god in them." They support someone who tells them everything they want to hear. They want to believe.

Where there is a desire to believe with little to no question there will be con artists who will take advantage of the situation. I was a Christian for 30 years. I've been duped and I've seen many people less skeptical than I get duped. Though I tried to convince them out of their belief, they did it anyway.