Theos-Talk Archives (May 1997 Message tl00420)

K. Paul Johnson wrote:

> Of course, I don't know what those consequences are for
> individuals.  I do think that Rajneesh, Prophet, the Bakkers,
> Hubbard, et al have a price to pay for their avarice, and would
> prefer not to find out that price through personal experience.

	In avarice, an imbalance is created. In charging a fair fee for
services rendered, a balance is created. The difference between avarice
and a fair fee is intent.

> But the consequences for society are clearly evident.  On one
> hand, the whole idea of esoteric wisdom is cheapened and made
> suspicious to most people because of the behavior of money-grubbing
> "teachers."  On the other hand, the minority that pursues such
> things is left having to wade through a morass of
> commercially-oriented counterfeits in search of genuine
> spirituality.

	I have long promoted the various skeptics organizations as a means to
learn about critical thinking. Unfortunately, many people interested in
the esoteric do not realize the value of discriminaton.

> The problem is that *first* people talk about charging money "to
> meet expenses."  But in fact, people *love* money.

	How would you define "money"? Given your definition, how is it possible
to love money?

> their organization) the most.  It's a slippery slope.

	The "slippery slope" analogy is not a valid logical construct.

	Bart