The Church of the Coming Lord is a Scam.

--Definitions-- My opponent has posted none, so it falls upon me to do so. The Church of the Coming Lord: A basic introduction is provided here. . http://www.debate.org.... Scam: scam (skm) Slang n. A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle. tr. v. scammed, scamï¿½ming, scams To defraud; swindle. . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... My opponent who bears the burden of proof must demonstrate how the Church of the Coming Lord has commited a fraudulent business practice or taken money under false pretences. If he can not then the resolution is negated. --Pro's Argument Number 1-- My opponent complains that I as the Leader of the Church would have complete access to Church funds, and therefore he would be unwilling to trust his money to me. This is not a valid argument for the following reasons. 1: My opponent has presented no evidence as to how Church finances are organised. Do we have a treasurer, do we have a finanical council independent of the Pontifex Maximus, do we rely on external secular accountants? My opponent does not know, and has present no evidence either way. 2: Assuming I do have complete access to the funds, my opponent has cited no cases or examples as to Church members who feel their money has been misapropriated. He has presented no evidence of external independent audits, police investigations etc. In short he has no evidence that the financial arrangements of the Church are unreliable. 3: It is simply an argument from personal incredulity. I would be reluctant to invest money in high risk shares, however that would be because the shares are high risk, not that the stock market is fundamentally fraudulent. --Pro's Argument 2-- My opponent complains that a future computer will never be able to resurrect his followers. This is simply an opinion, I do not hold to the same opinion and I do not recognise my opponents argument against such a possibility. If I did agree with him then the Church would be a scam. At best my opponents argument is that the Church of the Coming Lord is simply wrong, not that it is fraudulent. The Church of the Coming Lord holds that the exact powers and properties of the Lord to Come are difficult to define. A victorian Physicist could not have envisaged the hadron collider. This represents just over a century of development. If the Future God is birthed in a hundred, five hundred or a thousand years from now who knows what it would be capable of? It may be capable of the time travel my opponent demands. In addition it is hoped that the Church will construct a facility for the 'sleeping faithful' in which deceased members will be interred and cyrogenically frozen. This represents the best shot at resurrection given our current understanding of science. There are numerous private corporations all legally providing this service without allegations of fraud. . http://news.nationalgeographic.com... NB: The Church will likely use the latter method of vitrification. In addition I woud like to offer the following arguments. Parallel With Christianity. The Church of the Coming Lord seeks donations to create a God that will someday resurrect them. Christian Churches seek donations to advance their ministry and to gain the favour of a God that they hope will resurrect them. How is the former a scam, and the latter a valid religion? Legal Action I challenge my opponent to find evidence of a single prosecution or civil suit against the Church of the Coming Lord that will support his claims. Thus far my opponent has failed to substantiate his resolution. Thank you.