A couple of comments while I'm still very cool and detached regarding Ballard...

Lin Wood and such ilk are heavily attacking Ballard and Caviezel, and Gibson. (apart from anyone or everyone associated with MAGA and Q, etc). I find that encouraging because if Lin wood is attacking it, that's pretty much like CNN attacking it in my book.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a weak point. Maybe it takes an accomplished huckster to recognize a competing huckster when their "attention" space overlaps?

"using excessive emotion and religion manipulation to lure donors by claims to be called by God and being protected by God..."

Substitute the words "nomenclature" for "manipulation" and "encourage" for "lure" and this is factually the case as far as I've seen. It's a common thread among a lot of personalities and orgs that have tie-ins to the topics of concern for the anon communities. Even the ones that go out of their way to claim no affinity to the anon communities.

One can take with that as one chooses. For myself and past experience, I will make this point: the moment an individual or org makes a direct, overt connection between their work and God's work in some special way, in context of putting out content that includes requests for financial assistance for them to continue, when the target audience is known to share convictions about both God and the purpose of the individual or organization's cause.... well, I turn around and go the other direction. I give no benefit of the doubt because that is the easiest way to fleece people, period. Does that mean Ballard and Caviezel are specifially doing that? Not necessarily, but its a bad look at least to anyone who pays attention to movements at this level.

Just set emotion aside and be wary, folks. Keep digging and don't be satisfied with someone else's "research" and conclusions if something doesn't sit right with you.

A couple of comments while I'm still very cool and detached regarding Ballard...

Lin Wood and such ilk are heavily attacking Ballard and Caviezel, and Gibson. (apart from anyone or everyone associated with MAGA and Q, etc). I find that encouraging because if Lin wood is attacking it, that's pretty much like CNN attacking it in my book.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a weak point. Maybe it takes an accomplished huckster to recognize a competing huckster when their "attention" space overlaps?

"using excessive emotion and religion manipulation to lure donors by claims to be called by God and being protected by God..."

Substitute the words "nomenclature" for "manipulation" and "encourage" for "lure" and this is factually the case as far as I've seen. It's a common thread among a lot of personalities and orgs that have tie-ins to the topics of concern for the anon communities. Even the ones that go out of their way to claim no affinity to the anon communities.

One can take with that as one chooses. For myself and past experience, I will make this point: the moment an individual or org makes a direct, overt connection between their work and God's work in some special way, in context of putting out content that includes requests for financial assistance for them to continue, when the target audience is known to share convictions about both God and the purpose of the individual or organization's cause.... well, I turn around and go the other direction. I give no benefit of the doubt because that is the easiest way to fleece people, period. Does that mean Ballard and Caviezel are specifially doing that? Not necessarily, but its a bad look at least to anyone who pays attention to movements at this level.

Just be wary, keep digging and don't be satisfied with someone else's "research" and conclusions if something doesn't sit right with you.

A couple of comments while I'm still very cool and detached regarding Ballard...

Lin Wood and such ilk are heavily attacking Ballard and Caviezel, and Gibson. (apart from anyone or everyone associated with MAGA and Q, etc). I find that encouraging because if Lin wood is attacking it, that's pretty much like CNN attacking it in my book.

Maybe, maybe not. I think it's a weak point. Maybe it takes an accomplished huckster to recognize a competing huckster when their "attention" space overlaps?

"using excessive emotion and religion manipulation to lure donors by claims to be called by God and being protected by God..."

Substitute the words "nomenclature" for "manipulation" and "encourage" for "lure" and this is factually the case as far as I've seen. It's a common thread among a lot of personalities and orgs that have tie-ins to the topics of concern for the anon communities. Even the ones that go out of their way to claim no affinity to the anon communities.

One can take with that as one chooses. For myself and past experience, I will make this point: the moment an individual or org makes a direct, overt connection between their work and God's work in some special way, in context of putting out content that includes requests for financial assistance for them to continue, when the target audience is known to share convictions about both God and the purpose of the individual or organization's cause.... well, I turn around and go the other direction. I give no benefit of the doubt because that is the easiest way to fleece people, period.

Just be wary, keep digging and don't be satisfied with someone else's "research" and conclusions if something doesn't sit right with you.