Kenneth Copeland's New G-V

The only difference is that the climate evangelists deal in measurable facts. The church clowns deal in mythology and sleight of hand.

If they followed their data they would fly around in coach.
Or better, tell us how to live our lives via Skype.

I do have to admire crooks like Creflo Dollar and Copeland. They don't even make a secret of the fact that they have their donors finance their lifestyle. Beats the hypocrisy of other charitable organizations that hide their lavish spending behind consultant bills and 'purchased mission related services'. If you are dumb enough to sent money to Copeland, you know it's going to be spent on JetA. It's like gambling at a Trump casino back in the day. Your dollars in the slot machine paid for the next gold plated toilet paper hanger.
 
They are 'churches', all income related to their 'mission' is exempt from taxes to start with. Not much to deduct from.

It's not just the televangelists who have their hand in the collection basket. We have a couple of local churches with aircraft ranging from Meridian to a GII. Of course, all this flying around is for the glory of God and to support the mission of the church.....
 
The only difference is that the climate evangelists deal in measurable facts. The church clowns deal in mythology and sleight of hand.
Not at all.

The is some genuine history behind Christianity that unfortunately, people like Copeland and church groups frequently distort in order manipulate and control people.

The same thing happens in climate change. Measurable facts are frequently distorted and massaged/manipulated for political and financial gain. Doesn’t necessarily mean that climate change isn’t real, but it is something being twisted and used in a false way.

The belief that scientists (who are human beings just like the rest of us) are above reproach and would never manipulate their research for gain is no different than believing that priests have no sexual urges because they took a vow of celibacy.
 
Last edited:
Ken Copeland Ministries has a nice airport (former NAS). They list it as "public access" so as to protect its airspace from encroaching structures, but I hear they ain't all that friendly if you show up.

Where's that located?
 
G-V ain't sh$t! There is a 747SP in Ohio that's owned by a local church.
 
G-V ain't sh$t! There is a 747SP in Ohio that's owned by a local church.

Yeah used to see it when I was flying into Canton-Akron, one of those short 747s.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, most of these guys probably aren't cheating or scamming anyone. People willingly send them donations to support the mission. There is nothing preventing any individual from demanding accountability before they write the check. There are plenty of entirely secular charities and other non-profits which squander millions in donations on leadership perks and other questionable ventures. In any case, the issue is not the merit of the mission but rather the accountability to it that must be objectively examined. Many Internet and other resources exist to help with such an examination.

There are many--many--Christian charitable organizations who operate aircraft, and some aircraft a lot larger than the G-V, but they do so for clearly charitable/humanitarian purposes. It isn't difficult to understand why a relief or mission organization would need private aircraft, as they often travel to some of the poorest and most remote parts of the globe. However, those types of missions don't require "executive transport" appointments or amenities and generally carry things other than the celebrity preacher and his brood.

To be clear, I'm not defending this guy or any other individual or organization. In fact, I've never heard of most of these guys. However, there are many great prominent Christian evangelists and many great Christian charitable organizations who "walk the walk." If donating to a Christian charity is your desire, there's no reason to send money to one whose activities are questionable or whose operations are not transparent.


JKG
 
Honestly, most of these guys probably aren't cheating or scamming anyone. People willingly send them donations to support the mission. There is nothing preventing any individual from demanding accountability before they write the check. There are plenty of entirely secular charities and other non-profits which squander millions in donations on leadership perks and other questionable ventures. In any case, the issue is not the merit of the mission but rather the accountability to it that must be objectively examined. Many Internet and other resources exist to help with such an examination.

There are many--many--Christian charitable organizations who operate aircraft, and some aircraft a lot larger than the G-V, but they do so for clearly charitable/humanitarian purposes. It isn't difficult to understand why a relief or mission organization would need private aircraft, as they often travel to some of the poorest and most remote parts of the globe. However, those types of missions don't require "executive transport" appointments or amenities and generally carry things other than the celebrity preacher and his brood.

To be clear, I'm not defending this guy or any other individual or organization. In fact, I've never heard of most of these guys. However, there are many great prominent Christian evangelists and many great Christian charitable organizations who "walk the walk." If donating to a Christian charity is your desire, there's no reason to send money to one whose activities are questionable or whose operations are not transparent.

JKG

Good post. This is how I prefer to look at it.

Not to mention Copeland was a professional pilot from his youth before ever becoming a minister. Obviously he knows the value of having a private aircraft for a corporation. And I know for a fact that his Citation X that he had previously, a friend of the ministry personally solicited the funds for that jet from Copeland's supporters. Every person that gave KNEW that their money was going for a jet. So it was their choice. I imagine this wasn't handled any differently. Or sold the X and put the funds toward this one.
 
Good post. This is how I prefer to look at it.

Not to mention Copeland was a professional pilot from his youth before ever becoming a minister. Obviously he knows the value of having a private aircraft for a corporation. And I know for a fact that his Citation X that he had previously, a friend of the ministry personally solicited the funds for that jet from Copeland's supporters. Every person that gave KNEW that their money was going for a jet. So it was their choice. I imagine this wasn't handled any differently. Or sold the X and put the funds toward this one.
And of course if it saves just one soul, isn't it worth it?
 
My aviation related rant:

I was taxiing in at PDK in a Cessna 401 once (around 2000ish) and I got cut off on a taxi way by a purple Bentley.
I would have called the FSDO.
 
Dare ya go do some touch and wents over thar. Let us know if ya got shot down, or reborn.
I’m curious how they get away with that. The airport shows on the charts that it is open to the public, but the AFD remarks say ‘closed to transient aircraft except with 3 hour prior permission’
 
And of course if it saves just one soul, isn't it worth it?

Don't know whether you're being facetious or not, but it's worth it to that one soul if heaven and hell is a reality (and I personally believe it it). You cannot place a price on an eternal soul. It is invaluable.

Having said that, I'm not using that as an excuse for ministers misusing the money that is donated to them. Although having a plane doesn't automatically cause a ministry to fall into that category.
 
And of course if it saves just one soul, isn't it worth it?

That is, and should be, a question left to those who support his mission.

Whenever these topics arise, I always sense an implied suggestion that the government should step in and protect “stupid” people from these “religious swindlers.” That’s rather ironic, considering that the government perhaps more than any other organization frequently misappropriates the funding that it receives, with no consequence or practical mechanism for accountability.


JKG
 
That is, and should be, a question left to those who support his mission.

Whenever these topics arise, I always sense an implied suggestion that the government should step in and protect “stupid” people from these “religious swindlers.” That’s rather ironic, considering that the government perhaps more than any other organization frequently misappropriates the funding that it receives, with no consequence or practical mechanism for accountability.


JKG
The government steps in all the time to protect the gullible from swindles and imprison the swindlers. Why are "religious" swindles exempt?
 
The government steps in all the time to protect the gullible from swindles and imprison the swindlers. Why are "religious" swindles exempt?

No one in most of these cases is swindling anyone out of anything.

Whether religious followers are “gullible” is a matter of personal opinion, and your opinion should carry no more weight than mine.


JKG
 
I’m curious how they get away with that. The airport shows on the charts that it is open to the public, but the AFD remarks say ‘closed to transient aircraft except with 3 hour prior permission’

Especially if they receive taxpayer money.
 
No one in most of these cases is swindling anyone out of anything.

Whether religious followers are “gullible” is a matter of personal opinion, and your opinion should carry no more weight than mine.


JKG

Doesn't the opinion of the alleged swindlee count for anything? It's their money, who are you (or the gov't ) to tell them how to spend it?

And if it's OK for the gov't to tell "those people" how to spend or not spend their money, then it must be OK for the gov't to tell "these people" (including you and me) how to spend or not spend their / our money. And I guarandamntee you that you and I won't like that!!
 
And who in this case would that be?


JKG

That would be the people called "gullible" above, because they send money to televangelists.

Maybe we are gullible because we send money to the FBO, month after month after month, whe we could be saving it to leave to our children . . . . Someone should stop us! :eek:
 
That would be the people called "gullible" above, because they send money to televangelists.

Maybe we are gullible because we send money to the FBO, month after month after month, whe we could be saving it to leave to our children . . . . Someone should stop us! :eek:

How is anyone “gullible” in this case? It sounds as though people sent him money knowing full well that he operates jets. If they didn’t know, that would make them ignorant, not gullible. And that ignorance would be a fault of their own.

If your suggestion that people who donate to televangelists or Christian ministries in general are gullible, then it is you who is ignorant.


JKG
 
How is anyone “gullible” in this case? It sounds as though people sent him money knowing full well that he operates jets. If they didn’t know, that would make them ignorant, not gullible. And that ignorance would be a fault of their own.

If your suggestion that people who donate to televangelists or Christian ministries in general are gullible, then it is you who is ignorant.


JKG

You're arguing with a supporter. Try fussing at the others in this thread who are busy dissing them! I'm just standing up for the people donating . . . .
 
I don't want to tell people what to believe, I just want organized religion to lose the tax exemption.
 
You're arguing with a supporter. Try fussing at the others in this thread who are busy dissing them! I'm just standing up for the people donating . . . .

I’m not arguing with you personally, I’m challenging the argument that you’re putting forth.

The reality is that there are charlatans in religion just like every other area of life. There are also really good people. Some of those in ministry who I was led to believe were sketchy turned out to be much different when I looked beyond the popular hearsay and media reports. I cannot say whether the individual in this case would pass that test.

Charitable giving—to both religious and secular organizations—is a very personal, highly subjective decision which is based on the beliefs and desires of the one donating. There’s no way to police those decisions without removing an individual’s freedom to make them.


JKG
 
I’m not arguing with you personally, I’m challenging the argument that you’re putting forth.

The reality is that there are charlatans in religion just like every other area of life. There are also really good people. Some of those in ministry who I was led to believe were sketchy turned out to be much different when I looked beyond the popular hearsay and media reports. I cannot say whether the individual in this case would pass that test.

Charitable giving—to both religious and secular organizations—is a very personal, highly subjective decision which is based on the beliefs and desires of the one donating. There’s no way to police those decisions without removing an individual’s freedom to make them.


JKG

I agree 100%. Many posters above do not . . .
 
Back
Top