Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Asha'man · 01-29-2002, 07:16 AM

I just want to add two thoughts into this discussion.

One, the idea of cause and effect. While it may be provable that the Roman Empire became more charitable alongside the development of Christianity, it would be extremely hard to prove that Christianity caused this. It might be just as true to say that Christianity reflected a growing charitable value in society.

Second, the idea of non-Christian charities. Fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Hamas are primarily charities. They provide critical services that the government is unable or unwilling to provide itself, including things like basic education. (The fact that they also have a terrorist wing is probably a separate issue.) While Christianity clearly has become a mechanism for charity in the west, I think the correct generalization is that religious institutions, regardless of faith, have a strong charitable function.

Layman · 01-29-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
<strong>I'm sorry Layman, I spent too many years in Historian Seminars, and doing PRIMARY research in archives on the way to my histroy degree to be impressed by your research equivalent of a high school paper. You do cite some primary research, and that is good, but I would say that it is approximately 15% or less of your citations in the original post.

I wasn't trying to impress you, I was trying to demonstrate a point. It is not necessary that I right a 50-page college thesis with footnotes. Which is one reason I referred to so many scholars' assesment of the situation. Are Hinson, Stark, Fox, Durant, Herrin and Lecky all wrong? Is there something wrong with their research?

And you are wrong, the comparison of primary sources to secondary sources is close to 50%.

Quote:

You also post scripture, which scholastically counts for naught without supporting evidence.

Right out of the SecWeb Handbook! Of course, your argument makes no sense, because I was quoting scripture as primary evidence for the beliefs of early Christians--which it indisputably is.

Quote:

All your secondary citations demonstrate your ability to parrot other people, but gain your argument no true scholastic value. That is why Ph.D. dissertations don't cite the Encyclopedia Brittanica that often, you have to do your own research, in the primary sources.

I wasn't writing a Ph.D dissertation. If you have counter evidence though, it is welcome.

Quote:

So that is the source of my discounting your argument. If you want to REVIEW what other historians have said, you can do that with your abundance of secondary sources, but unless you speak and read ancient latin, and greek you are a little short on the standard of proof, other than hearsay.

Depends on the standard of proof I guess. Most of us do tend to place at least some deference to Historians in the area of their study, especially when their seems to be such a consensus on the issue. Unfortunately, most of us don't speak Latin.

And again, you have no evidence or sources to the contrary.

Quote:

Then we open the can of worms called the "Dead White Man" syndrome in history. As this syndrome is applied to U.S. history we see that most all that is known, recorded, and studied about US history is about and written by dead white men of power. Thus a "populist" history is lacking, a minority history is lacking, a feminist history is lacking. Thus it is incredibly difficult to objectively say this is the history of america, with the millions of available primary sources we have archived around the world. It is very easy to say, This is objectively what Lincoln said, or did, or thought, it is also easy to say that about Washingon, Jefferson, well all the presidents, major politicians, judges, writers, and so on. Mostly made up of dead white men.

Fascinating. And irrelevant.

Quote:

This historical problem grows geometrically when you turn it to face Roman History. Where is your source about the common housewife of Rome and her average behavior? Where are your sources that conclusively document the behavior of the massive slave culture in Rome? Did they help each other, were they charitable to each other? How about the Legioners, the foot soldiers, not the leaders. Did they share water while in the desert, did they share food, did they share blankets? Oh what, do you mean there is no primary sources for these massive portions of Roman cultures. Of course there are not. Thus, your argument is impossible. You cannot take the sources that you have, which account for a sliver of a culture, and make sweeping generalizations. What you can say is that according to these other historians, christian ideals of charity changed the official govermental position on charity. And even that is not safe from being argued or questioned.

But my post wasn't about soldiers sharing water, or about whether slaves were nice to each other, or what housewives did every second of the day. You are being silly. I was discussing the impact of Christianity on Roman Society's attitudes towards charity.

Quote:

Which is why I asked for fifty pages with footnotes. Actually it would take fifty pages just to explain the cultural gaps that you have no ability to know about, because there is no evidence that exists. Mind you, I'm not insulting you, this is a historical impossibility for anyone. Your problem is you think that your meager sources, the meager sources available are ROME. They are faded snapshots of a tiny corner of Rome.

This is all very abstract, and really just a way for you to try and discount the primary evidence offered--and an apparent scholarly consensus--without having a shred of evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

A great example of this is a book (I can't find the title) that was being published by a professor in my history department when I was an undergrad. In a basement in central Illinois, a family was cleaning out after a patriarch's death, and found a handwritten journal. The journal was an ancestor's diary kept when he was a footsoldier in the revolutionary war. It was poorly written, in a hard to read, half illiterate, mode of english, but it provided insights into that war, and that time that were never known before. Does it tell us anything about Washington, King George III, and the creation of this nation. No, but do the histories of Washington, King George III, and the creation of this nation tell us anything about the common man? No. Are you going to say which is more important? If you can claim that, then you need to go on the history lecture circuit and publish immediately, because historians have been fighting this out for going on three decades now.

See above.

Quote:

So, your research is fine, your argument is fine, if you want to prove that the government of Rome changed due to christianity. But there is, there must be, no alternative to the fact that 99.9 percent of Rome will never be known. It is not an obscene level of proof that I demand, it is the fact of history.

We have plenty of evidence about life in ancient Rome. Much more in fact than almost any other ancient civilization--except perhaps China. And the evidence we have all supports my argument. You have no evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Charity is best carried out by the individual. If I give money to your list of christian charities it gets watered down. It pays for organization, payroll, rent, and marketing, and then gets to the one in need. If I, as an individual, give a starving bum in the street a sandwich, 100% of my gift is received. Your history of Rome does not take into account the acts of common people, (which must be the vast majority of acts) because it cannot, and I don't need sources to prove that there are no sources.

I understand that this is your opinion, but I expect a 50-page Ph.D. Dissertation tommorrow morning to back it up.

Besides, this is all irrelevant.

Quote:

Now as to christian charity, I maintain that it is often not charitable, and when it is, it is not the huge conglomerates that perpetrate it. It is the kindness of individuals. And once again there are no stats on that. We can get further into that in another post if you wish to reply.

Not really, unless you have a 50-page Ph.D. Dissertation--properly footnoted of course--to back up your clear prejudices.

Quote:

edited to add: So you may be right, but you can't prove it, I can't prove you are wrong, but that doesn't mean that you aren't. But it is clear that the sources don't exist to make the broad claim you make.

I disagree. I've offered primary evidence--and references to several respected scholars--to back up my argument. You have offered nothing.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: dangin ]</strong>[/QUOTE]

Layman · 01-29-2002, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man:
[QB]I just want to add two thoughts into this discussion.

One, the idea of cause and effect. While it may be provable that the Roman Empire became more charitable alongside the development of Christianity, it would be extremely hard to prove that Christianity caused this. It might be just as true to say that Christianity reflected a growing charitable value in society.

But that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the Christian emphasis on Charity was unique to the pagan world. It spread along with Christians. Christianity did not spread through one homogenous social movement in Rome that happened to promote Charity, it spread among many different social and cultural classes, and took the concept of Charity to those classes that had not known of it--except perhaps for some God-fearers.

Do you have any evidence of an increasing emphasis on the virtue of Charity independent of Christianity? I actually don't claim Christianity invented the idea out of nothing--there certainly was some level of Jewish precedent--but they are the ones who spread it throughout Rome.

Quote:

Second, the idea of non-Christian charities. Fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Hamas are primarily charities. They provide critical services that the government is unable or unwilling to provide itself, including things like basic education. (The fact that they also have a terrorist wing is probably a separate issue.) While Christianity clearly has become a mechanism for charity in the west, I think the correct generalization is that religious institutions, regardless of faith, have a strong charitable function.

Well, since Islam was an outgrowth of Judaism and Christianity, I'd be surprised if they didn't develop some concept of Charity. Nor has the Islamic world been uninfluenced by the Western World. Nor have I claimed that Christianity is the only way in which the concept of Charity will pervade a society. What I've claimed is that in the West, it grew out of Rome. Certainly it didn't exist as a widespread norm in the then existing pagan religions that dominated the Empire.

jess · 01-29-2002, 08:45 AM

Dammit--- I get sick and stay in bed and a silly little rambling post explodes?

sorry---

layman:In what way was Jewish teachings on charity superior to Christianity's? And what are your sources for that statement?

Sorry, I don?t remember. The local Christian station was running a one hour show based on it. I listen to local Christian 24/7 (except Sat. mornings--- there is just so many Bee-Alive ads I can take) so I did not note the show. The pastor basically said that Jews had mandatory charitable donations and there was a ?balloon? payment in the thrid year, thus making their average yearly contributions 28% (gross, of course), far superior to the 10%(gross) of modern Christians--- Christians should pay MORE!!!! And to your local Church, as well as to other missions!!!!/end his rant

Other than that, your premise was, as I read, ?how great were the Christians! look at their charity!?. Instead, I tried to point out that the Jews gave more--- thus making them better by your own standards.

I was not speaking of ?grace?--- which alone would be disgusting to ?force? upon a starving person before feeding them--- but of ?confessing of sins?. Either way, forcing someone to thank you (or your god) before giving them food removes the ?virtue? of the act, IMO.

Most sacrifices to pagan gods were distributed to the poor and needy after the gods had taken the ?spirtual? part of the sacrifice. What did Hera need with old clothes, anyway?

Quote:

according to an Independent Study Report conducted by a polling outfit, "religious belief is a major factor in contributions of time and money. Those who attended religious services weekly, 'were clearly the most generous givers of both time and money, compared with all other groups.'" Also, "people who attended church regularly were far more likely to give a higher percentage of their household income to charitable causes."

Show me numbers? not ?most? and ?more?

E_muse: interesting that Jesus also said not to bother feeding the poor while he was about--- they would be here always, but him for only a short time? Real charitable /sarcasm.

Quote:

But does a legal requirement to give make a person any more generous on the subjective level?

No, but you chose which religions to be a part of (other than the state religion)

Cheetah:

No stats--- only personal experience ad infinitum. We are very careful who we donate to as a result of checking it out.

And yes, it was trying to get people motivated to give more money? what else is Christian radio for, at all?

Layman: your use of Christian/or Christian inspired Charitable Foundations is too broad and thus includes now secular or donations to marginally Christian organizations by secluar people as Christian. My donation to the Red Cross after 9/11 had NOTHING to do with religion.

Layman:

Quote:

Rather, I was discussing the origins of the Charitable impulse.

And then you brushed the higher Charity of the Jews under the rug--- although, I am sure you will admit they came before the Christians?

About making people pray--- A bit of pop culture from the Carribean---

(chorus)We are going down, Jordan
We are going down, Jordan
We are going down, Jordan
Let's walk the heavenly road

I was livin' me life as an Anglican
Let me tell you how I changed to a Baptist man
I was livin' me life as an Anglican
Let me tell you how I changed to a Baptist man
One night I was walking down Fred'rick street
Poor and hungry, no shoes on me feet
I passed a door that said "Down with sin"
It was the smell of food that pull me in

(chorus)

Well, the leader walked up and he shook my hand
Said "I want you to be a holy man"
Right away I made a big decision
Me stomach was a growling for this new religion
I started over to get some food
When some sisters approached me in a mystic mood
They dunked me in the water 'bout four, five times
I couldn't see a thing 'cause I was almost blind
Singing I've got a sword in my hand
I'm going to use it well

I was drenched to me skin and I was feeling cold
But the sight of the food made me take a hold
The sisters started to break away
They said "Kneel, believers, kneel and pray"
I prayed and I prayed in a new-found style
In the meantime me taste buds was running wild
I was about to fall clear out of me seat
When a man jumped up and said "Before you eat
You got to mourn, children, mourn
You got to mourn, children, mourn
And if you want to go to Heaven when you die,
You got to mourn, children, mourn

Well, before I baptized I had plenty pain,
Now I find myself a free man again
Well, before I baptized I had plenty pain,
Now I find myself a free man again
Don't talk 'bout the leaders they treat me good,
Plenty sweet oil and plenty food
Brother it was then that I realized
Ev'ry man on earth should be baptized

(chorus)

Sauron · 01-29-2002, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman:
But that is not what the evidence shows. The evidence shows that the Christian emphasis on Charity was unique to the pagan world.

You presented no such evidence of uniqueness. You presented only one case history: that of Rome.

It's already been pointed out to you that Islam's emphasis on charity had a society-changing effect wherever Islam spread. That would undercut any claims of christianity's charitable emphasis being "unique to the pagan world."

Layman · 01-29-2002, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Omnedon1:
[QB]

You presented no such evidence of uniqueness. You presented only one case history: that of Rome.

Well, Rome and Greece. But yes, that is what I meant. That's clearly been the focus. I don't presume to talk about China, for example, or India.

Quote:

It's already been pointed out to you that Islam's emphasis on charity had a society-changing effect wherever Islam spread. That would undercut any claims of christianity's charitable emphasis being "unique to the pagan world."

No, actually, it could very well reinforce it. First, Muslims aren't pagans. Second, Islam is by admission and as a historical fact an outgrowth of Judaism and Christianity. Third, necessarily growing out from the second point, your timing is wrong. Even if you considered Muslims pagans--which would be silly--Islam did not exist during Christianity's spread throughout the Roman Empire. In fact, Islam didn't exist until about 300 years after Christianity's rise to dominance in the West.

By the way, what is your evidence that Islam has an emphasis on Charity? I'm interested to enhance my research.

dangin · 01-29-2002, 09:51 AM

Layman, I guess we have differing opinions as to what counts as historical evidence, and a difference of opinion as to what amounts to a "great deal" of cultural evidence, and to the value of history of the powerful(a tiny minority of a population), and the value of a populistic history. Which is fine, it means there is little to no common ground for us. But I do find it interesting that slaves, and soldiers helping each other does not count as charity in your book. The only thing that counts for you is money, and according to your stats, money given to huge corporations of charity.(which you still haven't defended properly as either efficient, or innocent of forcing dogma on people who would receive said charity)

I think that jesus would count acts of kindness, and the sharing of non monetary resources as charitable. But that weakens your argument so I guess you better ignore what jesus would do.

Also, I am very aware that my opinion of christianity is an opinion. But as I said before, I don't need sources to point out that sources don't exist to back up your statements beyond the realm of Roman politics and power brokers.

Merely one example is your lack of knowledge about what the slave culture was like, beyond the writings of the masters, and the accounting of some of the sales. Even the few examples of the slaves that were literate, and did contribute writings are the tiniest representation. If the slaves helped each other, if they aided each other, if they covered for each other, if they did anything "charitable" for each other, then your thesis fails about that aspect of roman culture. How many slices of Roman life must be demonstrated to be absent from your research for you to accept that you do not have a representative view of Roman life, because a representative view is an impossibility.

Simply fine tune your argument to the tiny smidgen of roman culture represented in your research, and our argument evaporates.

Layman · 01-29-2002, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jess:
Sorry, I don?t remember. The local Christian station was running a one hour show based on it. I listen to local Christian 24/7 (except Sat. mornings--- there is just so many Bee-Alive ads I can take) so I did not note the show. The pastor basically said that Jews had mandatory charitable donations and there was a ?balloon? payment in the thrid year, thus making their average yearly contributions 28% (gross, of course), far superior to the 10%(gross) of modern Christians--- Christians should pay MORE!!!! And to your local Church, as well as to other missions!!!!/end his rant

You guys are so silly. You are all attacking my thread as insufficiently posted-one of you claiming it must be a 50-page Ph.D. dissertation--but your source is something you think you heard on a Christian radio station? Get real.

Quote:

Other than that, your premise was, as I read, ?how great were the Christians! look at their charity!?. Instead, I tried to point out that the Jews gave more--- thus making them better by your own standards.

You haven't given me any reason to believe that the ancient Jews gave more than the ancient Christians. Nor, from your garballed discussion of what you might have heard on a Christian Radio station, can I tell if you are talking about modern giving or ancient giving.

Nor do I see the particular relevance. The argument presented was not that Christians were more charitable than Jews, but that it was Christians who transformed the Roman Culture's emphasis on Charity.

Quote:

I was not speaking of ?grace?--- which alone would be disgusting to ?force? upon a starving person before feeding them--- but of ?confessing of sins?. Either way, forcing someone to thank you (or your god) before giving them food removes the ?virtue? of the act, IMO.

I really don't think so. But I'm still waiting for you to prove that 1) they those being helped object to praying, and 2) that Christian charities are forcing them to confess their sins (which would be very odd for a Protestant Charity to do).

Quote:

Most sacrifices to pagan gods were distributed to the poor and needy after the gods had taken the ?spirtual? part of the sacrifice. What did Hera need with old clothes, anyway?

So you say. But you don't prove it.

Quote:

And then you brushed the higher Charity of the Jews under the rug--- although, I am sure you will admit they came before the Christians?

Well, you haven't demonstrated that their Charity was "higher." But I certainly did not sweep it under the rug. Far from it. I discussed the Jewish precedent for Christian Charity, but focused on how Rome moved from having little--if any--value for Charity, to having much more of a value for Charity. And the reason that change occurred is because Christianity spread the word.

**Pop culture song removed**

Quote:

Show me numbers? not ?most? and ?more?

Sorry, don't have it. I think "most generous" and "far more likely" leave little room for doubt.

Quote:

Layman: your use of Christian/or Christian inspired Charitable Foundations is too broad and thus includes now secular or donations to marginally Christian organizations by secluar people as Christian. My donation to the Red Cross after 9/11 had NOTHING to do with religion.

I didn't claim your contribution did. But the fact remains that the Red Cross itself exists because of the Christian motivation of its founders.

Layman · 01-29-2002, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin:
[QB]Layman, I guess we have differing opinions as to what counts as historical evidence, and a difference of opinion as to what amounts to a "great deal" of cultural evidence, and to the value of history of the powerful(a tiny minority of a population), and the value of a populistic history. Which is fine, it means there is little to no common ground for us.

Please don't give me all the credit. You also have no common ground with Fox, Durant, Lecky, Hinson, and Stark, among others.

Quote:

But I do find it interesting that slaves, and soldiers helping each other does not count as charity in your book.

That's not what I said.

Quote:

The only thing that counts for you is money, and according to your stats, money given to huge corporations of charity.(which you still haven't defended properly as either efficient, or innocent of forcing dogma on people who would receive said charity)

I never said all that counts is money. Nor was it my intent to argue about efficiency. And I don't have to prove charities "innocent" of forcing dogma on people since no one has proved that it occurs, or occurred in ancient Rome. Nor would it detract from my argument about the origins of the Charitable impulse.

Quote:

I think that jesus would count acts of kindness, and the sharing of non monetary resources as charitable. But that weakens your argument so I guess you better ignore what jesus would do.

I'm sure he would, but that's really not the point. I'm willing to stipulate--for the sake of argument--that soldiers might have helped each other out before and after Christianity. Clearly, this was not the focus of this post. And I never said non monetary resources can't count as charity.

Quote:

Also, I am very aware that my opinion of christianity is an opinion. But as I said before, I don't need sources to point out that sources don't exist to back up your statements beyond the realm of Roman politics and power brokers.

Sure you do. Is this a widespread belief among those who have studied ancient Rome? Do they agree with your assesment that we cannot know anything at all about ancient Rome? If they do, please provide the references. If they don't, I'll stick with the scholars I have read and referenced.

Quote:

Merely one example is your lack of knowledge about what the slave culture was like, beyond the writings of the masters, and the accounting of some of the sales. Even the few examples of the slaves that were literate, and did contribute writings are the tiniest representation. If the slaves helped each other, if they aided each other, if they covered for each other, if they did anything "charitable" for each other, then your thesis fails about that aspect of roman culture. How many slices of Roman life must be demonstrated to be absent from your research for you to accept that you do not have a representative view of Roman life, because a representative view is an impossibility.

We have letters from slaves, to slaves, and about slaves. Some slaves actually had control of money, some had nothing. I'm sure some slaves were nice to each other. But such a broad categorization of "charity" is not what I was talking about. The record is clear that the Roman culture did not have an emphasis on Charity until Christianiziation. If you are claiming that the slaves did, please present your evidence (as we do have evidence about slavery from ancient Rome). Even if there were some indiciations, what would you prove? Nothing really, because slaves lacked the influence to implement any sort of charity as the Christians did. Those in power in Rome--who left behind the most writings--did not value Charity before Christianity. After Christianity they did.

Quote:

Simply fine tune your argument to the tiny smidgen of roman culture represented in your research, and our argument evaporates.

My argument is fine. You have nothing to offer to rebut it, so you claim we can't know anything about anything. This is typical SecWeb playground taunting.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Ron Garrett · 01-29-2002, 10:52 AM

Layman commented:[QUOTE]You do realize that Benny Hinn's salary is taxed don't you? And he pays property taxes on his house. Ditto for Jan Crouch's jewerly. She or her husban paid taxes on the money used to buy it. I'm not sure about her husband's breeding stallions, but if it wasn't taxed then it's because its a side business, not because he's a preacher.{QUOTE] It's not as segregated as you might believe. When I was living in Irvine I became acquainted with a high level exec at TBN. He lived in a TBN furnished apartment with more sqaure footage than most homes. All the furniture and art was donated. The pastor of the large church I attended had donated houses, inlcuding one on Catalina. They were on the church's books, but...

And do you seriously believe Robertson financed the family channel with funds completely outside the 700 Club? For instance he was caught using planes on the books for Operation Blessing for operation of his Liberian gold mine.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-29-2002, 07:16 AM	#31
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	I just want to add two thoughts into this discussion. One, the idea of cause and effect. While it may be provable that the Roman Empire became more charitable alongside the development of Christianity, it would be extremely hard to prove that Christianity caused this. It might be just as true to say that Christianity reflected a growing charitable value in society. Second, the idea of non-Christian charities. Fundamentalist Islamic groups such as Hamas are primarily charities. They provide critical services that the government is unable or unwilling to provide itself, including things like basic education. (The fact that they also have a terrorist wing is probably a separate issue.) While Christianity clearly has become a mechanism for charity in the west, I think the correct generalization is that religious institutions, regardless of faith, have a strong charitable function.

01-29-2002, 09:51 AM	#37
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Layman, I guess we have differing opinions as to what counts as historical evidence, and a difference of opinion as to what amounts to a "great deal" of cultural evidence, and to the value of history of the powerful(a tiny minority of a population), and the value of a populistic history. Which is fine, it means there is little to no common ground for us. But I do find it interesting that slaves, and soldiers helping each other does not count as charity in your book. The only thing that counts for you is money, and according to your stats, money given to huge corporations of charity.(which you still haven't defended properly as either efficient, or innocent of forcing dogma on people who would receive said charity) I think that jesus would count acts of kindness, and the sharing of non monetary resources as charitable. But that weakens your argument so I guess you better ignore what jesus would do. Also, I am very aware that my opinion of christianity is an opinion. But as I said before, I don't need sources to point out that sources don't exist to back up your statements beyond the realm of Roman politics and power brokers. Merely one example is your lack of knowledge about what the slave culture was like, beyond the writings of the masters, and the accounting of some of the sales. Even the few examples of the slaves that were literate, and did contribute writings are the tiniest representation. If the slaves helped each other, if they aided each other, if they covered for each other, if they did anything "charitable" for each other, then your thesis fails about that aspect of roman culture. How many slices of Roman life must be demonstrated to be absent from your research for you to accept that you do not have a representative view of Roman life, because a representative view is an impossibility. Simply fine tune your argument to the tiny smidgen of roman culture represented in your research, and our argument evaporates.

01-29-2002, 10:52 AM	#40
Ron Garrett Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: United States Posts: 1,657	Layman commented:[QUOTE]You do realize that Benny Hinn's salary is taxed don't you? And he pays property taxes on his house. Ditto for Jan Crouch's jewerly. She or her husban paid taxes on the money used to buy it. I'm not sure about her husband's breeding stallions, but if it wasn't taxed then it's because its a side business, not because he's a preacher.{QUOTE] It's not as segregated as you might believe. When I was living in Irvine I became acquainted with a high level exec at TBN. He lived in a TBN furnished apartment with more sqaure footage than most homes. All the furniture and art was donated. The pastor of the large church I attended had donated houses, inlcuding one on Catalina. They were on the church's books, but... And do you seriously believe Robertson financed the family channel with funds completely outside the 700 Club? For instance he was caught using planes on the books for Operation Blessing for operation of his Liberian gold mine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.