It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Televangelists, knowingly lying?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater


No, that is not the gentleman. I would say he is in his early to mid 50s with glasses. He is not on the Trinity Network but the other one. I really like his teaching for he does GOD's love, and understands that one must start there.




That sounds familiar. Does he do the show in a classroom setting with a whiteboard that he covers with notes? He comes off as a bit angry, but is very thought provoking.

Steve




posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
There are televangelists that are simply out for a buck, the most notorious of these creatures were Robert Tilton.....


Oh man, that guy was a real piece of work!!!



That mfer has got a one-way ticket straight to hell. I have to admit though, he made for great TV.

Peace



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I think that probably they are

either basically oblivious--
not understanding that must actually know the Gospel before sharing it as such, and trusting that the education in the colleges of men are equal to that which the Holy Spirit tutors God's children in--accepting hand-me-down traditions of religion instead of sound and logical scriptural truth.

or a totally fraud who thinks it's all a hoax, anyway--
who do not believe even in God enough to fear the possibility of punishment for teaching lies and misleading His little ones. These are motivated totally by material desires, and so the prospect of profit precludes any willingness for the Spirit to act upon in their hearts.

So the second type should be obvious--they have not the love of God in them.

The first type is not so obvious, unless you just weed out the second type and say the first type are all the rest. But I'm sure there are a few geniune servants of God scattered here and there.

So those who are true and trustworthy as messengers of the gospel would meet certain conditions:

*All their teachings will be solidly supported with scripture, that is easily seen once they point it out. You should have less questions after the sermon than before. If you leave with more confusion than you came with, throw all of it in the trash. There might be a grain or two of truth, but why risk the resultant confusion of trying to sort out a man's uninspired speech?

*They will share with all people absolutely free of charge--selling nothing! Not even a book! They should be only using the bible, anyway, so if anything, they should only ask that bibles are donated for those who have none. No prophet of God is spelled with an 'fi' instead of 'phe'! Any website that says 'buy now' is not serving the spreading of the Gospel.

*They will not teach any kind of negative aspect of God's nature for the purpose of scaring anyone into believing. They actually should be helping others to reconcile seemingly 'bad' or 'cruel' sides of God with His true nature, by explaining the hidden truths of the bible.

No messenger truly prepared and called by God to serve as a witness will damage what has already been built by those who served before--either knowingly or in ignorance. God guides those He appoints, and makes sure their work is faithful.

Personally, I don't see mass TV communication as viable in any sense--individual witnessing comes complete with the testimony of the life and demeanor of the witness--so that the fruits are obvious and serve as the final proof of trustiworthiness in the word. It shouldn't cost anything to either the giver or receiver of God's word--and to broadcast on TV takes money that could be used better to serve the poor and widows, as we've been told is how we show true 'religion.'



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
There are definitely true teachers of salvation and false teachers.

Someone mentioned Charles Swindoll. I would trust him and Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, David Jeremiah, Ed Hindson as speaking the truth. There are certainly more.

I would not believe Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch as they do not preach sound christian doctrine. There are others but I don't watch them so I am not familiar with there names.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
There are definitely true teachers of salvation and false teachers.

Someone mentioned Charles Swindoll. I would trust him and Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, David Jeremiah, Ed Hindson as speaking the truth. There are certainly more.

I would not believe Benny Hinn, Paul and Jan Crouch as they do not preach sound christian doctrine. There are others but I don't watch them so I am not familiar with there names.


What is your basis for trusting those you have listed?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

What is your basis for trusting those you have listed?



My own reading of the Bible and my relationship with God. If you know what the Bible says for yourself then you can see if what they say matches with it. Plus the Holy Spirit will reveal to you who can be trusted.

Tony Evans can be added to the list of those a person can believe.

[edit on 25-7-2005 by dbrandt]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt
Someone mentioned Charles Swindoll. I would trust him and Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, David Jeremiah, Ed Hindson as speaking the truth. There are certainly more.


Yeah, I've heard David Jeremiah, too. He was always pretty good, too. I think he and Swindoll are carried on the same radio stations.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
What is your basis for trusting those you have listed?


Definitely knowing the scriptures for oneself.

I've heard Swindoll's preaching since I was a kid. I've never heard a whiff of scandal with him. And his preaching has always been thoroughly grounded in scripture. His stuff is always dead on the money, with a good portion of history lesson.

He's great.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
John Haggee, while I don't agree with everything he says, is a preacher.

I usually enjoy listening to John Haggee. He goes off the deep end
bashing other Christian denominations ... but the rest of what he says
is interesting.

However .. (there is always a however, isn't there? ) It seems that
some of his fellow protestants now call him a false teacher and a wolf.

www.deceptioninthechurch.com...



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Some do, I'm sure. There are some who see people on TV trying to help others, and think, dang, that's a good way to make money. There are others, though, who are exactly the opposite. Like ECK said, Chuck Swindoll is awesome, as are Yussef, Dickow, Hagen, Joyner, and some others. These people do ask for money during their shows, this is true. The true test is to look at where that money goes. In Yussef's case, he doesn't see a penny of what's collected through his international radio and television ministry. Every cent goes to pay to expand where the message is delivered to new countries and in new manners. In his particular case, he has a focus on the middle east since he originally was from Egypt.

Many people will (mis)quote something from the bible: The root of all evil is money, and assume that, since these preachers are delivering a message but also asking for money, that they advocate evil. This is not true, though, because the true passage from scripture states that the root of all evil is love of money, not the inanimate object its self. If these people are taking in money and returning it as best they know how to better other people's lives without hording it themselves, it is not evil. You want to feed Africa? Your intentions are noble, but first you need a few bucks to actually do it.

And no, I don't believe most televangelists believe they're lying about what they preach. They may have lost sight of the goal they originally had, they may even be allowing sin into their messages with false anecdotes and unnecessary theatrics, but that's a pride thing: "God, I know you want me to do this according to Your will and Your laws, but I have a better idea."

You do not get into the ministry thinking you're going to rake in the cash. The national preachers are at the national level because they were effective at delivering His message, and people beyond their church wanted to hear them speak. However, they started out with a calling, and a wish to spread God's word. If you're in it for the con, there are more lucrative arenas which require less learning and knowledge to rake in the cash in a pseudo-legal manner. After all, you, too, can get rich from the comfort of your own computer!



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Of course they knowingly lie. How else could they con millions and millions of dollars out of normal people?

Take Pat Robertson. What a peice of crap this guys is, sorry to offend anyone. He has lied COUNTLESS times with disregard to any morality. He has stolen from the people who he claims to be helping.

The tax exempt money he collected from his con artist television shows has often found itself in the personal business side of his company. Once he even lied about a relief effort, to gather money from his veiwers. He took that money, and the planes that were supposed to be providing the relief to fund and supply his personal diamond mine that he bought in the first place using portions of money that he collected in the name of God.

He once said that god persoally told him that the end times would start in 82. When they didnt he revised his statements to 84. He even had the audacity to claim that god told him that he was supposed to usher Jesus' second coming in. He stated that he was chosen to provide the ONLY LIVE TELEVISION BROADCAST. So of course he needed people to send money to fund this extensive operation. He gave a timetable. That money is gone. Jesus still aint here.

Televangelists are viewed by many as con artists for a reason. The real question is why are there people who dont view them that way???

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Sight2reality]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater

No, that is not the gentleman. I would say he is in his early to mid 50s with glasses. He is not on the Trinity Network but the other one. I really like his teaching for he does GOD's love, and understands that one must start there.


Madman- could you be possibly talking about Dr. Charles Stanley? He fits your description; although, he is not a telvangelist in the usual sense. His televised programs are actually tapes of his actual sermons, given to his congregation, in Atlanta. But a good preacher.!



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
Televangelists are viewed by many as con artists for a reason. The real question is why are there people who dont view them that way???

[edit on 25-7-2005 by Sight2reality]


Because many of us don't judge an entire branch of ministry based on a few bad apples. It's a case by case judgement. Just because someone says, "give me money" doesn't mean you have to give. I do my research. There are many ministries I would never think to donate to, though some of their messages are good ones, because of how they'll use the money I give them. However, just because there are a few bad ones out there, I, and those like me, don't stigmatize the entire group because of it.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
Because many of us don't judge an entire branch of ministry based on a few bad apples. It's a case by case judgement. Just because someone says, "give me money" doesn't mean you have to give. I do my research. There are many ministries I would never think to donate to, though some of their messages are good ones, because of how they'll use the money I give them. However, just because there are a few bad ones out there, I, and those like me, don't stigmatize the entire group because of it.


..that would mean that Christians aren't mindless sheep after all
. That would go against what a 'everybody' says here!



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
One quick followup. If you ever hear someone say, "and your sins can be forgiven-a! All you need to do is call our lines and donate..." the rest is pointless, you get the idea.

Those are not Christians. Salvation is through Christ, not that telemarketer, and Christ doesn't require one single red cent to forgive you and grant you salvation. He paid the price so we don't have to. So if anyone ever says your salvation is contingent on you donating to a specific ministry, know that it is not and stop listening to that ministry -- that is what they call a false teacher.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   
Just to fill in here, millions of people gave billions of dolars to people like Jim Baker, and Pat Robertson. There is more to that list byt the way than the two of them. Your TV personalities that are called evangelists are ALL wealthy. When one of them shows up to work in a 95 ford escort hatchback or something, then ill give them credit. Its the money. Why go to TV? The money. The exposure.

Judging the whole of TV evangelists is what it will take to curb this ridiculous cult like following. The pressure needs to be put on these people. They should be forced to disclose all finacial information to the public or something. When Jerry Falwell (con artist who stated gays were responsible for those hurricanes last year) stands up and admits his wrong doing, when Pat Robertson does, then you can give the whole of the group more credit. The Evangelistic base is entirely corrupt.

And just a side example...sorry if I offend...

If 5 muslims claim that their religion is a religion of peace, do the 5 million with bombs strapped to their chest in the name of the religion cease to exist?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sight2reality
If 5 muslims claim that their religion is a religion of peace, do the 5 million with bombs strapped to their chest in the name of the religion cease to exist?


What about the 5 muslims with bombs strapped to their chests in the name of a religion while 5 million say it is a religion of peace? Should those 5 million be condemned by the actions of a few?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Jake, honestly, when was the last time you saw a million man muslim march for peace?

Lets go to the root of this problem too. Pat Robertson...still exists in mainstream christianity as a prominent figure, along with Jerry Falwell. If you go to a modern church, you will see and hear their names all over the place. The 700 club is viewed by 10's of millions of people. Who runs that? Who pulls the strings?

The 700 club has no real competition. And who is at the bottom of that evil?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Why do we need teachers on television, or elsewhere, to tell us what our Teacher said?

Granted, it is the privilege of every true disciple to 'preach the gospel' as Paul said. And a light will shine in the dark regardless. But the 'preaching of the gospel' according to how Paul did it, compared to how it's done today, is two different things which are worlds apart.

The gospel is the good news. The good news is that we have been redeemed. All of us--whether we go to church or whatever, blah, blah, blah. There is certainly more to that, but the underlying principle will not change one bit. All men were saved by the death on the Cross.

That being said, Peter had another important point, the logical next step:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
(Acts 2:38)

Okay, what next?

God takes over from here. He can and will, He promised and He comes through--every single time. There is nothing any man, however mature in Christ he may be, can do.

The job of evangelism today is to be a beacon. A beacon of truth and light, evidenced by the love of God which is radiated by His witnesses/slaves.

These are our instructions:

And as ye go, tell others, saying,
The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Freely you have received, and so you must freely give.
Provide no funds in your purses, no plastic credit for your journey, don't worry for a change of clothes, a warm bed, or a bite to eat: for the workman is worthy of his wages and your Father in heaven knows what you need.
And wherever you go, ask who is worthy (seeking); and there stay until you leave.
And when you come into a house, respect it and its occupants.
And if the house is full of love, let your peace come upon it: but if it is full of negativity, let your peace return to you.
And whomever will not receive you, or hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.
(paraphrased from KJV Matthew 10:7-14)

The disciples, by all accounts, adhered to these instructions to the very end. They spread the word and so we have it today.

Do any of those mentioned in this thread adhere to the same instructions? Why not? Disciples are disciples--no matter when or where they live.

I'm not pointing fingers, although it might seem like it. But if no one is available on par with Peter and Paul, James and the others--who lived the example Jesus gave--we have Christ Himself to teach us.

It takes an incredible amount of trust and faith in God to obey the instructions I listed above. But I know it can be done. So how can we bolster our faith by putting another--whose faith is not complete by the standard Christ Himself set forth--between ourselves and God? Because no matter how much we think we are aligning what we hear against the plumb line of scripture--none of these men teach the exact same gospel that Peter and Paul did. And I venture to say that they didn't learn in God's Academy, but at their preferred seminary or school of theology. Last I heard, the Holy Spirit still was a private tutor only.

There's nothing wrong with not knowing all that can and will one day be known. But certain truths are self-evident in the bible, and I have never heard an evangelist declare these things.

Paul writes to Timothy:

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. (1 Timothy 2:1-6)

Test these teachings. If even there is a little bit of leaven, is not the whole loaf spoiled? Manna from heaven is all we should eat.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Greg Laurie is another good radio preacher.

I've never seen Chuck Swindoll on TV. I've only heard him on the radio. I've never once (in over 20 years) heard him ask for money. 'Course he has 'em pass the plate around after service, I'm sure. What church doesn't do that?

Charles Stanley was good, too. I used to see his sermons on tv. (and yes, they were church sermons taped.)

I think part of the problems with televangelists is it all goes to their heads (which is unfortunately all too human). In the case of Pat Robertson (uber fraud), his political ambitions have thoroughly cancelled out his calling. If you can call his calling a real calling, in the preachers' sense.

The first time I ever saw Jim and Tammy Bakker on TV was when I was a kid, about 35 miles down the road from their PTL ministries. My BS FRAUD-ometer went off immediately. Same with Robertson and his 700 Club. I have never been able to understand how folks can be SO friggin naive! In all the years of going to church, for example, I NEVER saw any women coming to church dripping with makeup and jewels.. 'course I grew up in a modest, small town Baptist church. That kind of thing was frowned upon (Apostle Paul tried to dissuade women from painting themselves gaudily).

[edit on 7/25/05 by EastCoastKid]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join