spin

geraldmania:
----------------
This is the heart of much of my anxiety and it makes me angry too. Alot of the anger is directed at myself too for not being able to shake the "long arm" of the christian law. But if I'm honest, I have to say that I'm still haunted by the idea that I've "strayed" and thus my life is more painful and less peaceful because of it. This site is helping with the intellectual side of the issues. But emotionally I'm still stuck.
----------------

This should be useful to you, having reached an understanding of your situation. Religions have very nasty ways for making people feel guity or other negative emotions for breaking their emotional control of your life. You are wrong, it says, for straying. That's blackmail. You are being emotionally blackmailed, the constructors of the religion, people long dead and who have no relevance to your life. Through fear, blackmail and various carrots one is controlled.

I would be angry if I were you angry about what has been done to you. The anger is ok, but direct it where it should be focused, not on yourself -- you probably didn't have much choice --, but towards that which put you in the position of feeling such guilt. You were being manipulated, and that would make me angry. Don't worry about the anger for a while, as long as it is directed in the right direction. Getting the anger out in the right direction will bring peace.

-

spin, who doesn't like people being manipulated.

Douglas J. Bender

Sojourner553,


You said:
What was it that convinced you that the "[i]the Bible was based on superstition and not truth[i]"? Strange - I have an opposite testimony: I used to be an atheist (I would have fit in pretty well here, except for all the insults and low-level discourse that goes on here), but became convinced that the Bible was based on truth and not superstition.

And how do you know that there is "no divinity"? Have you tested the Bible, truthfully and deeply? Are you aware of the prophecies of the Bible which have clearly come to pass, in several cases to the exact year in spite of being prophesied hundreds of years in advance? "'You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'" "'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" (John 14:6).

I am familiar with at least one brand of "fundamental Baptist" church - it is far too legalistic and unloving, and does not truly reflect Jesus' Spirit, although many of its doctrines are correct (I attended a "GARBC" [Jerry Falwell "affiliated"] Baptist high school for four years [although I was an unconfessed atheist during those years]). If that is your only exposure to "Christianity", I imagine you do have a skewed view of Christianity and its teachings and practices.

Truly. The entire Bible testifies to the sinfulness of mankind. It also testifies to the perfection of God, and it is a blessing that the Bible is perfect in its teachings and facts (aside from one or two "typographical" errors in a few numbers in some translations).

A rather arrogant statement from a man who didn't even go by his real name. A pithy comment, which likely created interest in Twain/Clemens, but has no evidence to support its implication.

That's a new one to me. Since when did the Hebrews hold that God was not "all good"? I'm sure Orthodox Jews would be very surprised to find out that their spiritual "fathers" believed that God was sometimes "evil".

Here's how the New King James Version translates that same verse: "'I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.'" The Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV, but "calamity" in the NKJV is "rah", which means, according to Strong's Concordance:

bad or (as noun)evil (nat. or mor.):- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress....

Note that "adversity" or "affliction" is an acceptable translation for this word, and that "adversity" and "affliction" are NOT strictly synonymous with "evil". Thus, that passage in Isaiah 45:7 does not necessarily state or imply that God is responsible for evil.

Here is the same passage from the NKJV: "So the Lord relented from the harm which He said He would do to His people." Note also that God specifically says, in one of the five books of the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) that when He proclaims a judgment against a person or people, that He will "relent of"/"change" His judgment IF that person or people REPENT of the sin or sins which brought about the judgment. Thus, it is not as though God just up and changed His mind, or that He "repented" of some wrong that He had done.

The Bible indicates that God allows evil spirits access into Heaven, at least in order to accuse "the brethren" (Christians and the Jewish "remnant") - at the very least, He allows Satan this access. God also allows Satan certain freedom to act in the world, but within God's limits. When a people rebel against God, they deserve punishment (since God is holy and perfectly good - thus, their rebellion is evil, and evil deserves punishment) - the "lying spirit" might have been an evil spirit who appeared in Heaven to accuse the brethren, but who was allowed to go and bring calamity, through the lie, to those who had rebelled against God through their own lies and deceits. Or, it might have been one of the obedient angels, who simply went and stirred the hearts of the false prophets to speak the lies that were in their hearts (they were of the sort to speak that which "tickled the ears" of their listeners) - if this was the case, then it was not so much the angel who "lied", but the false prophets who responded with one accord to the promptings of the lies which were in their own hearts.

Jeremiah was a prophet known to voice his complaints to God - he was not always correct in his complaints, though. Not much later in that same chapter in Jeremiah, God explains to Jerusalem why the city is being punished, and will be punished: "'Your ways and your doings have procured these things for you. This is your wickedness, because it is bitter, because it reaches to your heart.'" (Jeremiah 4:18) God had promised peace to Jerusalem, and that time will come, but He never said that they could expect peace if they lived in sin and rebellion. Jeremiah was speaking probably "poetically".

This is clearly speaking of the relative commitment and love a person has towards Jesus in comparison with other things - if a person loves his own life more than he loves Jesus, then that person cannot be a disciple of Jesus; if a person is more committed to his family than to Jesus, he cannot be a disciple of Jesus; if a person loves the things that he owns more than Jesus (recall the rich young ruler who wanted to follow Jesus, but was unwilling to give up his great possessions), he cannot be a disciple of Jesus. If Jesus ACTUALLY meant that a person needed to "hate" his own father and mother, then Jesus must have been the most idiotic person who has ever lived, since this would clearly be a direct and irreconcilable contradiction to the commandments to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "honor thy father and thy mother". If He actually meant "hate" (as in "despise"), then that verse alone would conclusively prove that the Bible is false and that Jesus is not trustworthy. Sometimes, people get a little over-excited in their desire to disprove the Bible, and overlook the clear meaning of a passage.

As someone else here pointed out, what is wrong with being very angry with those who would hinder a person from coming to God? Is there something wrong with a man or woman being angry with someone who is unrepentant and who has raped their pre-school children? Some things CALL FOR anger.

(This passage is completely in line with the interpretation of "hate" in the other passage mentioned - Jesus does not mean actual "hate", but a love for Jesus which is greater than a person's love for anything or anyone else.) Again, as someone else mentioned, Jesus is clearly not here advocating actual violence, but is pointing out that following Him will bring about divisions between friends and family. In that sense, Jesus "brings a sword of division" - He is NOT advocating violence. Someone has to be rather unaware of Biblical teaching to come to the opposite conclusion.

Some historical scholars should avoid smoking certain things. These aren't the same "historical scholars" who got together and VOTED ON what they thought were actually statements made by Jesus in the New Testament, are they? I think they called themselves "The Jesus Seminar". Unbelievable things come from them - astounding that they can still claim to be "scholars".

You wrote, regariding something that "TrueThinkr" said:
And it's a faulty "paradox", since it relies on a false and unstated assumption. Namely, that an all-good and all-powerful Being would prevent all "terrible things that happen in this world". The "Philosopher's Paradox" actually goes like this (with the unstated assumption stated, and with an implicit fact made explicit):

1) God is an all-powerful Being
2) God is all-good
3) An all-pwerful, all-good Being would not allow any evil to take place
4) Evil takes place
5) Therefore, either #1 or #2 is, or both are, untrue; or, God does not exist.

The error lies in assuming that an all-powerful, all-good Being would not allow any evil to take place. The Bible indicates that God allows evil to take place because He has, in His goodness, chosen to grant people free will, and they have, using that free will, chosen to sin. The Bible teaches that God is in control in all situations, and that ultimately justice will be administered perfectly "justly", and that eventually all evil will be done away with (removed from the presence of those who choose to follow good). There will come a time when nothing in the universe will experience any evil or suffering at all (other than the "suffering" those in the Lake of Fire will experience throughout Eternity, as just punishment for their sins and rebellion).


In Christ,

Douglas

babelfish

Douglas, you keep asserting that you were at one time an atheist. However, I keep remembering the discussion we had on a previous thread regarding <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001532" target="_blank">Noah's Ark</a>. Your pseudo-scientific assertions then as now really cause me to doubt whether you would ever have fit in very well here.

spin

Douglas, old pal,

while you are squirming away with your apologetics, is it not true that you don't have the facitilities to perceive whether your god exists or not? Is it also not true that that means that you don't have any means to know anything directly from your god that you can test in an objective manner? Is it not true that you are in no position to know whether your god exists at all? Is it not true that there is no way for you to know anything directly about what you supposed to be true about yoru god?

In short how do you survive the epistemological quandry that a belief in such unknowable entities brings you?

Rather than trying to do damage with pagan beliefs from two millennia ago which in no way relate to our present cultural world, why not attempt to stand on your own two feet and deal with the world?

To understand what the bible says you need more than bible-software with Strong's included. You get to trivia level understanding of the Hebrew that way. You can then cite a translation you favour and not really have to deal with the Hebrew. Look, however, at the majority translations of the word r`. BDB doesn't give "harm" as a significance of r`h found in Ex 32:14, so I'd say that your NKJV is doing it wrongly. The three main definitions for r`h are 1) evil, misery, distress; 2) evil, injury, wrong; and ethical evil. (Strong's should at least tell you that while 500 examples exist for evil or wickedness, only three exist for "harm".) You are avoiding the philological problem.

Peddling fear is a loathesome passtime, one that was spotted back in the time of Marcion, who had most of anally retentive christianity pegged. He attempted to preach that God was loving, not an indian-giver who creates people to destine them to eternal flames. Obviously he was made a heretic.

The idea of eternal flames deserves scorn. It has mine. If you propagate such an idea, you also deserve scorn.

Sojourner553

______________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender

What was it that convinced you that the "the Bible was based on superstition and not truth[i]"? Strange - I have an opposite testimony: I used to be an atheist (I would have fit in pretty well here, except for all the insults and low-level discourse that goes on here), but became convinced that the Bible was based on truth and not superstition.
________________________________________________

It took a lot of reasons to persuade me. I began studying the Bible to answer some questions that had bothered me growing up:

(1) If religion is really true, shouldn’t GOOD people of different cultures and time periods have arrived at the same doctrines? History shows just the opposite. How many sects are there just in Christianity? If God’s will is “absolute” why are there something like 20,000 Christian sects? That’s before you start in with the other religions…

(2) How many times have you seen a person proclaiming they know “God’s will”, when it’s obvious they are talking to themselves (fooling themselves). Nice people have compassionate gods; mean people have authoritative, cruel gods.

(3) Why are something like 95% of people born into the religion of their parents? This points to religion being something we learn as children and carry with us in life.

(4) Good people have honestly struggled to find the “true” religion, for millennium. If they are sincere, it is inconsistent that a good God would punish them for honestly choosing the wrong religion; But it is PERFECTLY consistent if this is a human invention: (priests desiring power, secular authorities encouraging people to “wait” for social justice, etc)

"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by
bolts of lightning." – Calvin

(5) Why is there such evil in the world? Why has so much evil been done in the name of religion? (Inquisitions, wars, pograms, witch trials, slavery, torture)? Why have CONSERVATIVE Christian authorities (who have ruled for most of the millennium) been opposed to much of the progress from the last couple of centuries. Indeed most of the American Founding Fathers were either deists or greatly influenced from the deism from the Enlightenment.
See Section V.
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>


(6) Why have literal verses in the Bible been used to oppose much of the progress of science? Why are there discrepancies between biblical texts; why are there discrepancies between science and the bible in the area of astronomy and geology?
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SCIENCE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/SCIENCE.TXT</a>

(7) Why are there so many superstitions in the Bible? For example the belief that ALL mental illnesses were DEMONIC in nature, and required exorcism.

(8) If you analyze the stories in the New Testament, it is apparent they are simplistic superstitions.
See Section II. <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

(9) Much of the stories of Jesus’ miracles were taken from stories of miracles in other religions – especially the Greek mystery religions.
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MIRACLE.TXT</a>

(10) All the classical philosophies that prove God exists, are merely built on foundations of sand!
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSOP.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/PHILOSOP.TXT</a>

(11) Why are important morality laws omitted in the Bible – that are today considered basic to any “humane” civilization:
The Ten Commandments do not have laws outlawing slavery, torture and child abuse. Look at the history of slavery and cruelty to blacks? The arguments FOR it were based on religion and great opposition to these laws came from Christian fundamentalists/conservatives. (usually not liberals though – if you could find any back then!)

This is not a timeperiod issue. The Egyptian Book of the Dead has many humane laws not found in the OT – examples of virtuous living (I like the last one.)

I have not caused terror.
I have not burned with rage
I have never fouled the water.
I have not caused shedding of tears.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT</a>


Also, look at the terrible suffering from witch trials in Salem and Europe that occurred because of superstitious lines like “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” in the OT. As one example.

In 1769, John Wesley, founder of Methodism wrote in his JOURNAL:

"It is true, likewise, that the English in general, and indeed most of the
men of learning in Europe, have given up all accounts of witches and
apparitions as mere old wives' fables. I am sorry for it, and I willingly
take this opportunity of entering my solemn protest against this violent
compliment which so many that believe the Bible pay to those who do not
believe it. I owe them no such service. I take knowledge that these
are at the bottom of the outcry which has been raised, and with such
insolence spread through the land, in direct opposition, not only to
the Bible, but to the suffrage of the wisest and best of men in all
ages and nations. They well know (whether Christians know it or not)
that the giving up of witchcraft is in effect giving up the Bible."
(as quoted by Montague Summers, GEOGRAPHY OF WITCHCRAFT, University
Books, 1970, p 169-70)

(12) If God is omnipotent, if he willed it, everyone would wake up and “know” what was true vs. false (Right now all religious people guess or hopes theirs is THE ONE TRUE RELIGION.

The vast MAJORITY of people must be wrong on the EXACT ONE RELIGION to choose, because of the large number of different sects/religions, yes?

Shelley summarized this once: "If God has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?

In short, I switched after overwhelming evidence against religion. And I choose truth! As Carl Sagan put it: "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

_______________________________________________

from: Douglas Bender
And how do you know that there is "no divinity"? Have you tested the Bible, truthfully and deeply? Are you aware of the prophecies of the Bible which have clearly come to pass, in several cases to the exact year in spite of being prophesied hundreds of years in advance? "'[i]You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.'" "'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" (John 14:6).
_______________________________________________

Why do you “assume” only your holy texts are true, and not those of others? All religions proclaim theirs is true. Using YOUR approach, how could you show Moonies, even fundamentalist Muslims that their “faith” is wrong? Would you do it by quoting verses. They’d just quote you THEIRS.

_______________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender
**"When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know." -- Mark Twain ** A rather arrogant statement from a man who didn't even go by his real name. A pithy comment, which likely created interest in Twain/Clemens, but has no evidence to support its implication.
_____________________________________________

Twain was referring to all known superstitions. One example: why was the Earth created on Day 1 in Genesis, but the sun and moon were created on Day 4. By what process did the trees and plants grow (created on Day 3 ) since the sun (and therefore photosynthesis) was not created until Day 4? (The Deity, at a minimum, should have been able to explain why this wouldn’t match Modern science’s views if there was MAGIC here.

_______________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender

That's a new one to me. Since when did the Hebrews hold that God was not "all good"? I'm sure Orthodox Jews would be very surprised to find out that their spiritual "fathers" believed that God was sometimes "evil".
______________________________________________

It is perfectly consistent with God being all powerful. Therefore he is the source of “good” and “evil”. The Devil does not make an appearance until later books in the Bible. (The snake in the garden is never stated by name to be the devil. Later Christian theologians only “assumed” it must have been the devil.)

__________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender

Here's how the New King James Version translates that same verse: "'I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, the Lord, do all these things.'" The Hebrew word translated "evil" in the KJV, but "calamity" in the NKJV is "rah", which means, according to Strong's Concordance:
bad or (as noun)evil (nat. or mor.):- adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, + displease (-ure), distress....
Note that "adversity" or "affliction" is an acceptable translation for this word, and that "adversity" and "affliction" are NOT strictly synonymous with "evil". Thus, that passage in Isaiah 45:7 does not necessarily state or imply that God is responsible for evil.

* "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people" (Exodus 32:14 KJV)
_____________________________________________

You are playing with words. An all good God would not care to “harm” or cause a “calamity of others; nor would an all powerful God need a human to logically explain why not to conduct that “harm”.
Sigh: Only a CONSERVATIVE religious mindset could argue that causing “harm” or “calamity” are not “evil” (always because there is a “greater” good of course. Sarcasm)
_______________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender

There are also verses on Jesus in the Bible to show he was not so mild all the time.
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple...And whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14:26,33, see also Matthew 10:37).
This is clearly speaking of the relative commitment and love a person has towards Jesus in comparison with other things - if a person loves his own life more than he loves Jesus, then that person cannot be a disciple of Jesus; if a person is more committed to his family than to Jesus, he cannot be a disciple of Jesus; if a person loves the things that he owns more than Jesus (recall the rich young ruler who wanted to follow Jesus, but was unwilling to give up his great possessions), he cannot be a disciple of Jesus. If Jesus ACTUALLY meant that a person needed to "hate" his own father and mother, then Jesus must have been the most idiotic person who has ever lived, since this would clearly be a direct and irreconcilable contradiction to the commandments to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "honor thy father and thy mother". If He actually meant "hate" (as in "despise"), then that verse alone would conclusively prove that the Bible is false and that Jesus is not trustworthy. Sometimes, people get a little over-excited in their desire to disprove the Bible, and overlook the clear meaning of a passage.
_____________________________________________

Obviously by your long apology nothing is “clear”. Secondly, an honest reviewer would expect a divine book to be able to be taken “literally”. Christians have interpreted the Bible for millennium – and these “interpretations” are frequently VERY different! Again, nothing is clear – which does not win it any points for being of divine nature.
quote:
________________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender
Jesus sometimes expresses great anger towards his opponents. For example, Matthew records the following lines from an obviously ANGRY Jesus:
"'You are like tombs covered with whitewash; they look well from outside, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all kinds of filth....
You snakes, you vipers; brood, how can you escape being condemned to hell?'"(Matthew 23:27-33).
As someone else here pointed out, what is wrong with being very angry with those who would hinder a person from coming to God? Is there something wrong with a man or woman being angry with someone who is unrepentant and who has raped their pre-school children? Some things CALL FOR anger.
______________________________________________

There was no rape in this scene – just hypocrisy. This scene is very different from the “turning the cheek” parable (which is quoted far more frequently).

Actually, if you asked me, I would very much wish there was a god who cared about hypocrisy!!!
Who would actually care when a Prez puts on a phony appearance that he "cares" so much for children, when his #1 priority is a tax cut that favors the very wealthy and gives a green light for major corporate corruption. The fact that this hypocrite is so beloved by the religious sector of the public is to me (sadly) another validation of my skepticism!
__________________________________________________

from: Douglas Bender
Jesus also advocated violence for the cause. For example, in Matthew 10:34-9, Jesus says:
"'Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matthew 10:34-39).
As someone else here pointed out, what is wrong with being very angry with those who would hinder a person from coming to God? Is there something wrong with a man or woman being angry with someone who is unrepentant and who has raped their pre-school children? Some things CALL FOR anger.

______________________________________________

But again you have to “interpret” this to come to this conclusion. The LITERAL words do not imply this. I can find Christians though who DO apply these verses literally. You cannot prove your position is better than theirs – only you personally “feel” or “like” it better.


_____________________________________________

from: Douglas Bender
Some historical scholars should avoid smoking certain things. These aren't the same "historical scholars" who got together and VOTED ON what they thought were actually statements made by Jesus in the New Testament, are they? I think they called themselves "The Jesus Seminar". Unbelievable things come from them - astounding that they can still claim to be "scholars".

________________________________________________
And you “feel” you are better qualified? I do not get the impression you have read very deep in this area.
______________________________________________
from: Douglas Bender

It is implicit in the The Famous Philosopher's Paradox on the Nature of God. That is, if one accepts that

(1) God is an all powerful being
(2) God is all good
then God has to be behind all terrible things that happen in this world. I understood this logic implicitly before I had ever heard of the formal paradox.
Vs.
And it's a faulty "paradox", since it relies on a false and unstated assumption. Namely, that an all-good and all-powerful Being would prevent all "terrible things that happen in this world". The "Philosopher's Paradox" actually goes like this (with the unstated assumption stated, and with an implicit fact made explicit):
1) God is an all-powerful Being
2) God is all-good
3) An all-pwerful, all-good Being would not allow any evil to take place
4) Evil takes place
5) Therefore, either #1 or #2 is, or both are, untrue; or, God does not exist.
The error lies in assuming that an all-powerful, all-good Being would not allow any evil to take place. The Bible indicates that God allows evil to take place because He has, in His goodness, chosen to grant people free will, and they have, using that free will, chosen to sin.
_______________________________________________

There is no difference in logic even in your case of free will:
For this implies that God is not completely all-powerful or all-good:—because He could have created humans that CHOSE not to sin. By allowing for the existence of a powerful devil who later tempted Eve in the Garden of
Eden, this implies that God should have foreseen this event--if He was an
all-powerful being. Else if he knew of it, but chose not to do anything, this could possibly mean that He was not all-good.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GOD.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/GOD.TXT</a>

__________________________________________________ _________________
The Bible teaches that God is in control in all situations, and that ultimately justice will be administered perfectly "justly", and that eventually all evil will be done away with (removed from the presence of those who choose to follow good). There will come a time when nothing in the universe will experience any evil or suffering at all (other than the "suffering" those in the Lake of Fire will experience throughout Eternity, as just punishment for their sins and rebellion).
__________________________________________________ _________________
All religions teach some version of this: Somehow your religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong. But you have to ignore all my points given in the first part of this post, to “assume” or “hope” yours will not among the many losers.

Sojourner

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

spin

Sojourner:
-----------
All religions teach some version of this: Somehow your religion is right and everyone else’s is wrong. But you have to ignore all my points given in the first part of this post, to “assume” or “hope” yours will not among the many losers.
-----------


This is an old bookmaker's analysis of the race. At most only one horse can win (though they all might get tangled in a fall and none arrive). But the gull who bets on Pie-In-The-Sky to come in the winner doesn't care about the other runners. S/he has chosen his/her animal and is prepared to put his/her money on it despite the odds, with the clear conviction that it's gonna come home in front of the other hacks. The bookmaker, seeing no difference between the hacks accepts the bet and is almost always the winner.

Sojourner553

Very true, Spin, although I prefer to refer to this person as a "bookie".

In religious matters the "bookies" are the priests plus all the secular leaders who profit from having a gullible public --a gullible public who passively ignors the personal greed and corruption of their leaders because they are assured "this world is not important".

Sojourner

[ April 10, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>