Sidewalker

Jim Bakker, a prominent televangelist, was sentenced to 45 years in prison and fined $500,000 on October 24, 1989, after being found guilty of fraud and conspiracy linked to his evangelical television enterprise, PTL (Praise the Lord) Ministries. Bakker and his wife, Tammy Faye Bakker, garnered a substantial following through their emotional appeals for donations, which they claimed were critical for the survival of their ministry. However, their operations expanded into commercial ventures, including the construction of Heritage USA, a theme park, and high-profile hotel projects, which were financed through misleading "lifetime partnership" schemes that oversold available accommodations, ultimately leading to financial discrepancies and legal troubles.

Punkass Bakker was an amateur, he probably wanted to get caught, he was faced with the choice between spending 45 years putting on a dress and dancing every night for his cellmate Rocky, or living with Tammy Faye another day, and he opted for Rocky.

Now, the real Master of Charity Deception is Donald Trump.

In 2019, Donald Trump was ordered by a New York judge to pay $2 million in damages for misusing the Donald J. Trump Foundation for his personal, business, and political interests. The foundation, which had engaged in a "shocking pattern of illegality" and "self-dealing," was subsequently dissolved. 

Details of the Misuse

A lawsuit filed by the New York Attorney General's office alleged that the foundation functioned as "little more than a checkbook" for the Trump family's non-charitable activities. Specific instances of misuse included: 

1. Political Campaign Coordination: The foundation improperly coordinated with the 2016 Trump presidential campaign and distributed over $2.8 million in funds to influence the Iowa caucuses.

1. Political Donations: A $25,000 donation was made from the foundation to a political action committee supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi at a time when her office was considering a fraud investigation into Trump University. This violated laws against charities engaging in political campaigns.

1. Personal and Business Expenses: Foundation money was used to settle legal disputes for Trump's private businesses and to purchase personal items, including a $10,000 portrait of Trump himself that was later displayed at a Trump golf club sports bar.

1. Lack of Oversight: The foundation had virtually no oversight, and the listed treasurer, Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, testified he was unaware he was even on the board. 

Legal Outcome

In a 2019 settlement and court order, Trump admitted to the misuse of funds. Justice Saliann Scarpulla found that he had "breached his fiduciary duty". In addition to the $2 million penalty, the remaining $1.7 million in the foundation's funds was required to be distributed to legitimate charities under court supervision. Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump, and Ivanka Trump were also ordered to undergo mandatory training on nonprofit management. 

Faux to Trump. "You had me at racist".

Faux has been trumped again. Not difficult to trump Faux.

Joseph Smith, Donald Trump, seems Faux is just a sucker for conmen.

Trump says Netflix-Warner Bros. deal could be a 'problem' and he will be involved in approval

Of course, "he will be involved in approval", no way an 80-billion-dollar deal goes down without Trump getting his piece of the action.

The "problem" is they haven't agreed to eliminate any and all DEI programs, to appease his white supremacist base, and of course, there's Trump's approval mantra "Show me the money!".

The Paramount-Skydance deal was only $8 billion, and they had to pay him $16 million, the Netflix-Warner Bros deal is ten times bigger, under no circumstances will that get approved till he gets an airplane, or at least a payoff of hundred-million-dollars or so. And as always, they will need to name a bunch of stuff after Trump, and perhaps a new logo.

While many studies suggest the planet's human carrying capacity is around 8 billion or slightly more,

Oh crap, there's already 8.2 billion...we're screwed.

Thanks for sharing that, Rainman.

BTW, why do you think Ernest Borgnine lived to be 95.

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul states that Jesus first appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve and after that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to Paul.

The question becomes, why does Paul's statement conflict with the Gospels, what about Mary Magdalene, the Gospels say He first appeared to Mary Magdalene and another woman also named Mary. Paul said He first appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve, but assuming by the Twelve he meant all the Apostles, but Judas was already dead, so it could not have been twelve, it would have been eleven.

Also, he speaks of Jesus' appearances in a certain order, ending with Paul, but he makes no other distinction as to how He appeared, and we know he appeared to Paul in a vision rather than in bodily form, is he then saying that all of these appearances were visions. Judging by Paul's testimony in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul seems to be speaking of a spiritual resurrection rather than a bodily resurrection.

Sorry, I thought you were serious. My bad.

Nobody has ever thought you were serious.

Language is human, so all words are made up Rainman.

We are talking about Bible. I am still waiting for verse.

Oh, a verse, why didn't you say so Rainman.

"There was an old man from Nantucket."

There you go, a verse.

Asked and answered Rainman.

So no, the word Christianity isnt mentioned anywhere in Bible as word. So we can say Christianity is made up and Christianity is just people adding words to Bible and then saying Bible says something which isnt found in Bible. Nowhere does Bible say "Your religion is Christianity or Catholicism by Bible".

Language is human, so all words are made up Rainman.

The word Bible isn't in the Bible either, what profound wisdom can you tell us about that?

BTW, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but believe it or not, the Bible was not written in English.

Also, in case you didn't know, it was written a long time ago.

The people that wrote it were Jews.

Lesson over.

You're welcome.

What do you think I have added, pray, tell?

Is Christianity mentioned in Bible ever anywhere?

Asked and answered Rainman.

https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/religion/posts/hu/show-me-where-bible-mentions-the-word-christianity?page=1&comment_number=10

The development of intellect, associated knowledge and technological development doesn't seem to make much, if any difference to ongoing levels of general human stupidity.

Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men. - Martin Luther King Jr.

Canada is BRILLIANT.

I must visit.

Just don't go in winter.

FYI - winter is from September to May.

So you know what it is like to be a total reject?

No, I just imagine alternative reality where everyone loves me, where I came down from Heaven on the wings of Dragon to save humanity. So the trick is to just create different reality. You can imagine a different reality, and reality is product of mind anyway.

Abracadabra, watch me pull a different reality out of a hat.

Only people who can think magically can understand your arguments

Its not magic really, just basic deduction from law of identity.

SatanLucy Logic: Abracadabra, now watch me pull God out of a hat!

Maybe don't get so distracted next time, and Trump won't get re-elected.

We don't get distracted because when it comes to...hey look, another Tik Tok video.

Yes really. All of your statements prove God has a sense of humor, and you're the punchline.

Only people who cant think logically dont understand my arguments.

Only people who can think magically can understand your arguments.

If Trump attacks Venezuela there will be more Venezuelan refugees entering America.

If Trump can remove Maduro and have him convicted for trafficking drugs, there will be another pardon he can sell.

They will just have American presidents busy looking at the time while the coffins are buried.

That's the whole point, to have people looking at something other than the Epstein tapes and his cognitive decline.

Dead "suckers" and "losers" are a great distraction.

The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. 

Do you know what "time" is? Let me guess, no.

Do you know what "logic" is? Let me guess, no.

You are contradicting your previous statement

Not really. All my statements prove God.

Yes really. All of your statements prove God has a sense of humor, and you're the punchline.

Sidewalker - Can the Universe be created?

No, the generally accepted Standard Model of Cosmology assumes conventional physics, especially the General Theory of Relativity, and utilizes the FLRW metric. Logically speaking, our current scientific model represents the Universe as uncreated.

Here’s what is meant by that, logically, for something to be created, it must temporally move from not existing to existing, there must have been a time when the universe did not exist, followed by a time when the universe did exist. But per the General Theory of Relativity, the Standard Model of Cosmology says that this is not the case, temporally speaking, the Universe is finite, around fourteen billion years old, but there was not a time when it did not exist, so it was not “created”.

The Standard model says that time came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, which means time began when the universe began, consequently, there was no "before" the Big Bang as the concept of time itself is considered to have started then. The question of "what came before" is generally considered to be meaningless within the Standard Model of Cosmology. If there was no time when the Universe did not exist, then it is meaningless to say it was “created”.

Nothing cannot exist, and therefore, something could not have come from nothing,

Even if you say "Abracadabra" first.

The first cause argument, also known as a cosmological argument, is 

a philosophical and theological argument that asserts the universe's existence requires a first, uncaused cause, which is identified as God. The argument suggests that everything in the universe is caused by something else, and this chain of causation cannot go on infinitely, so it must start with a prime mover or uncaused cause. 

The argument's logical structure

Premise 1: Everything that exists has a cause.

Premise 2: The chain of causes cannot be infinite.

Conclusion: Therefore, there must be a first, uncaused cause (God) that initiated the chain. 

Examples and variations

Thomas Aquinas's argument: St. Thomas Aquinas formulated influential versions of this argument, such as the argument from motion, which states that change requires a mover, and the chain of movers must end with a first mover that is not moved by anything else.

The domino effect: A common analogy is a line of dominoes, where each domino falls because the one before it knocked it over. The chain of falling dominoes can only exist if there is a first domino that was pushed to start the process. 

Common objections and criticisms

Infinite regress: Critics question the premise that the chain of causes cannot be infinite, arguing that an infinite regress is a possibility.

God as an exception: Many philosophers, like Bertrand Russell, have pointed out that if everything must have a cause, then God must also have a cause. The argument seems to make an exception for God without sufficient justification.

The fallacy of composition: Some argue it is fallacious to assume that if every part of the universe has a cause, then the universe as a whole must also have a cause.

Causality beyond experience: Immanuel Kant argued that causality is a principle of our experience and cannot be legitimately applied to a transcendent, uncaused cause. 

AI - Can nothing exist?

No, “nothing” cannot exist, especially in a physical sense, as even the vacuum of space is filled with energy and virtual particles. Philosophically, "nothing" is a contradictory concept because the idea of existence is inherently tied to "something," even if that something is a thought or a void with properties. 

Philosophical and conceptual arguments

1. Contradiction: The very concept of "nothing" is difficult to grasp because it's defined as the absence of existence, making it a self-contradictory idea.
2. A conceptual tool: "Nothing" can exist as a concept in our minds, representing the opposite of "something," but it cannot exist as an independent entity in reality.
3. Absence vs. nothingness: While there can be an absence of a specific thing (e.g., "nothing in the basket"), this doesn't mean true, absolute nothingness exists. The basket itself and the air inside it are still "something". 

Scientific perspectives

1. The vacuum is not empty: According to modern physics, the vacuum of space is not truly empty. It is filled with fluctuating quantum fields, a phenomenon known as "quantum foam" where virtual particles constantly pop in and out of existence.
2. Energy is always present: Even in the coldest, emptiest possible space, there is still energy, which is a form of "something".
3. Physical laws: The laws of physics, such as the uncertainty principle, suggest that "nothingness" cannot exist in the physical universe and that there will always be some form of energy or field present. 

It is eternal or self caused.

You are contradicting your previous statement.... you are still not getting the logic thing.

Saying that something must exist, doesn't mean that it must exist. - SergeantLynch

So you dont believe in logic. - SatanLucy

That doesn't follow, what he said is he doesn't believe in magic.

Saying that something exists isn't a magical incantation that makes things exist. Over here in the real world, you can't just speak things into existence, you didn't even say "Abracadabra" first.

First logical step is an actual GOD, rather than a make believe one.

You cannot explain why things exist without a cause. So first cause is needed.

You cannot explain why a first cause exists without a cause. So first cause is not needed.

"Nothing' and "exists" are mutually exclusive terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to declare that nonexistence exists

It means that there is no existence, if you need translation.

No shit, and that's my point, to say that "no existence" exists, is a meaningless statement, if you need an explanation of simple logic.

For example, the basic category for theory of existence is: Something exists or nothing exists.

The syntax of the phrase makes no real sense. How can ‘nothing’ be a something which does not exist?

"Nothing' and "exists" are mutually exclusive terms, it makes no sense whatsoever to declare that nonexistence exists

If life was fair, I would be born 70 years later, in some nice advanced country.

Including you makes it unanimous; everyone wishes you weren't born yet.

Don't forget chatbots.