Original Sin

The reason Jesus is so revered is that it is believed that he was a scapegoat to save the world from "original sin"; the "sin" of Adam's ignoring Gods advice not to eat fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil".

What is puzzling is that there is no mention in the Old Testament of the existence of original sin, defined as mankind's inherited guilt of Adam's going against God's advice as told in Genesis 2:9 and 2:17, which stated that Adam would die that day if he ate of the fruit.

Too, I have a little difficulty understanding exactly what "sin" was transgressed. God "advised" against eating the fruit since it was supposedly poisoned. Nothing was said of Adam's expulsion from the garden or that his future children would suffer as well. God's advice was like a child being warned not to get into rat poison after it had been placed out where it could be easily accessed. What did the serpent do wrong, since he obviously only told the truth? Who then was the liar?

Their removal from the garden meant eventual death since the garden also held the "tree of life", which gave them immortality, as long as they ate of it, as Genesis 3:22 states.

Adam was merely the gardener, tending it and living off its produce. Eve wandered about, presumably doing nothing special, except keeping Adam company. It appears they did not have sexual relations until they were exiled from the garden, as stated in Genesis 4:1.

The subject of "free will" crops up when anyone discusses Adam's transgression. But I find a weakness in the logic regarding Adam and Eve's "free will", since without some knowledge of good and evil they would not know the concept of "right and wrong", therefore be unable to make a moral choice, and thus not have "free will". It would be like disciplining a very young child who has not yet developed a sense of right and wrong and telling it not to do something that might harm it. Even our laws reflect the concept of innocence; so why not God in all his omniscience?

Original sin is not a subject that a person can find in a Bible Concordance. No references to Adam's sin can be found in the OT, and only four passages mention something similar to it can be found in the NT, such as: John 1:29, John 16:8, Romans 5:2, and 1 John 1:7.

Romans 5:2 states "...sin entered the world through one man...."; that Adam is to blame for sin entering the world seems extreme: and 1 John 1:17 states "...and the blood of Jesus, his son, purifies us all from sin." None of the NT passages clearly point to Adam as the source of the world's sinful state; however, even if Adam was accused of being the source of mankind's sin, Deuteronomy 24:16 counters the idea of sin being passed on to others by stating; "Fathers are not put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers, each is to die for his own sin." Other scriptures also support each person being guilty for his own deeds, such as stated in Romans 2:6 and Ezekiel 18:20.

If there was a need for a scapegoat, a human sacrifice to absolve mankind from some sin done by a distant ancestor, there would be no need for a Jesus Christ the Savior.

Another argument against using a human sacrifice to save mankind is that God says that he alone is the Savior of mankind; as Isaiah 43:11 states, "Before me no God was formed, nor will there be one after me....and apart from me there is no Savior". Other scriptures such as in Isaiah 49:26, 60:16, and Hosea 13:4 also so states. The passages also settles the question of Jesus being a deity--he apparently was not.

Was Jesus a Messiah?

When people of "trust"--politicians, religious leaders, astrologers--attempt to convince others to believe in what they believe they invite an honesty check on what they are promoting.

The Bible invites scrutiny since it is one of the most promoted of story books around, especially now that TV shows are showing Bible stories and new "revelations", as "new" information comes to light through study and archaeological digs.

Religious leaders and others promoting the Christian belief have had 2000 years to create what I call "explain-aways", which they use to obscure contradictions and errors that abound in the Bible; errors, such as bats are birds per Leviticus 11:19; birds with four feet per Lev. 11:20-21 etc.

These "explain-aways" consist of "reinterpretations" to outright lies. Reinterpretations, such as God's "day" as found in Genesis 2:17. When God said that if anyone ate of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" Adam would surely die that day. Adam did not die that day after eating of the fruit and that made God in affect a liar. To get around that dilemma God's day was changed from a day to mean a period of 1000 years. That creates another dilemma for if a day is now 1000 years how is the Sabbath falling on the 7th day explained as per Exodus 31:15? Apparently to some the Bible scriptures do not mean what they read to mean.

Deceit is part of the Christian tradition from the beginning, for Paul advocates deceit to save souls in 1 Corinthians 9:20, "...to the Jews I become like a Jew, to win the Jews."

We find contradictions in the Bible, as illustrated in John 1:18, where he states, "No one has ever seen God..." and in Exodus 33:20 God says, "and he said, "thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me, and live." Yet in Genesis 32:30, "... and Jacob called the place "Peniel": for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (See also Numbers 14:14, Job 42:5, Deut. 5:4 & 334:10)

Jesus himself misquoted the Bible, for in Mark 2L25-26; "And he said unto them, Have ye never heard what David did, when he had need, and was hungered, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat of the shew bread." In contradiction 1 Samuel 21:1 states that David came to Ahimelech the priest. Abiathar was the son of Aitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David." Jesus also quoted scripture from the OT, which did not exist, such as in John 7:37-38: "In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying "if any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink, He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of water." No such scripture exists in the OT.

All of this is pretty tame, though it illustrates the lack of "divine inspiration" attributed to the Bible; the argument being that if it were truly divinely inspired it would be without errors or contradictions.

The basis for Christianity lies in Jesus being the Messiah, a prophet, and a deity. Very little prophecy was fulfilled that would prove his being the Messiah, and nothing in the OT makes mention of any "second coming", or of a Messiah being a deity. There is nothing in the OT about "original sin", and of a need for the world being "saved".

According to the scriptures Adam's sin was his alone; his children did not inherit his guilt. However, the subject of "original sin" is another topic left for another time.

One argument against Jesus being the Messiah is the failure of his prophecy about how long he would remain buried. In Matthew 12:38-39 Jesus prophesied, "Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said unto him (Jesus), "Teacher we want to see a miraculous sign from you".
"He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign, But none will be given except for the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The scripture applying to Jonah can be found in Jonah 1:17. Also of note is Deut. 18:22, about false prophets.

The Jews reckoned time in periods of light and dark; a day measured of light from sunrise to sunset; night being dark, from sunset to sunrise. Jesus was put in the tomb in the waning hours of Friday, since Jesus was said to have died about 3 o'clock, the ninth hour of a 12 hour day. That means if would be a stretch to include Friday as counting one day; but, for sake of argument we'll include Friday in the count, since some claim that parts of a day counted as a whole day.

Friday night (from sunset to sunrise) counts as the first night. From sunrise Saturday to sunset counts as the second day. From sunset to sunrise Saturday night counts as the second night. Now according to the gospel accounts the women arrived at the tome just before or at sunrise Sunday so Sunday can't be counted as one day since Jesus was already gone from the tomb. In fact he could have risen on Saturday or at any time before Sunday since no one saw him leave.

The total count then is two days and two nights. Jesus's sign of a miracle failed and thus he is no prophet or Messiah. However, other facts, as revealed in the Bible, also eliminate him as being the Messiah. Consider the claim made that he was a legitimate descendant of David and thus a claimant to the throne.

Matthew and Luke both wrote down Jesus' genealogy in an attempt to prove that Jesus was the Messiah by virtue of his supposed descendency from King David. Both listed Shealtiel and his son Zarubbabel. They both left out Jehoiakim, whose line was cursed by God in Jeremiah 22:18-30; "This is what the Lord says: Record this man as childless, a man who will not prosper in his lifetime, for none of his offspring will prosper none will sit on the throne of David." Including Jehoikim would have been embarrassing and would have disproved Jesus' claim to be a Messiah. The genealogy appears in its entirety in 1 Chronicles 3:16, which showed the lineage to be: Josiah, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachim (aka Jeconiah, Coniah), Shealtiel, Zarubbabel--who is listed as being the son of Pedaiah, though Ezra 3:2-8 and others list Shealtiel as father to Zarubbabel. Another problem, in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:31) is that he puts Nathan, the brother to Solomon, as being in the lineage. However, it was through Solomon that inheritance to the throne was to be passed as oer 1 Chronicles 22:9-10. These contradictions and errors illustrate the problems that exist in the Bible--who and what to believe?

By now the reader's head is swimming due to "scripture overload". The complexity and confusion found in the scriptures is the reason few people read the Bible with a critical eye. It is tedious work and few people read the Bible to determine truth, they do more for confirmation of faith and belief, as they are already predisposed in believing in something they already have some knowledge of derived from their culture--who hasn't seen "The Miraacle of 49th Street", or whatever street it was?

This predisposition to believe in something allows over-zealous religious teachers and leaders to practice their deceit, much as Paul did, by means of Propaganda and "explain-aways".

One last point for those who believe in the "virgin birth"--anyone causing a pregnancy without the consent of the woman and without her knowledge is a rapist, and double criminal if the woman was already betrothed, such as the case of Joseph (Matt. 1:18). It seems, according to the scriptures, that God broke one of his own Commandments.

Do Heroes Lie?

Last night I watched an interview on CNN with General Cody and he was implicitly and explicitly stating that our troops were fighting "a war on terror", specifically in Iraq.
Fact: there is no more terrorists in Iraq than there is in Syria, Lebanon, and Iran and would not be even if we left. Al-Qaida isn't loved by other Arabs any more than they are by us. Those fighting against American troops now for the most part are trying to drive us out of there homeland and the only means of doing that, since they have no standing army or air force, is to use guerrilla tactics against us; which we label "terrorist tactics".
The Administration and its supporters in the Pentagon have waged an unethical Propaganda campaign, for some obscure goal, against the American people so that they can carry out war in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The "War on Terror" is a great campaign slogan but its real goal is to beef up the Military Complex in the U.S. (Follow the Money) The Military hardly ever turns a gift horse or golden goose away so they are happy to play the Administration's game. Generals after all are not Generals unless they can command a certain number of troops; and in our case they need to keep the Big Lies going to keep recruitment up. Who after all would call a hero a liar? Generals, with all those ribbons, are after all heroes are they not?
So everyone, including the Press, plays the game of hyping the troops as heroes, calling a mistake a part of the War on Terror, and calling for more people to sacrifice their kids for no real purpose.

Bush's Microphone

I watched some of Bush's press conference today and a question was asked about using "the microphone" to advance his agendas. Besides being an instrument for communication as a definition of "microphone" the question could have been phrased as "are you going to use Propaganda to further your agenda?" Of course he is, that is what Bush is all about--spreading BS to the public. Any time he wants something he goes on a Propaganda tour of the country and sends his Propagandists out to do likewise.
I've mentioned Propaganda in the past and it seems that its dangers to the public are minimized or ignored. Many nations in the past and present have felt its powers as ours did in the beginning of the Iraq war. Seventy percent of Americans were behind Bush after he perpetrated his Propaganda campaign to invade Iraq. The campaign was so successful that the Press failed in its function to raise questions about the validity of the war. All criticism was stifled. Germany, before WWII, fell to the power of Propaganda. Germany was the most advanced technologically and culturally in the world at that time. Berlin was the largest city in the world at that time. All was destroyed.
We continue to listen to the inane arguments he poses, very craftily, about world trade, freedom, comprehensive immigration, and the like and no one pins him down about them.
Inane arguments such as helping the border patrol do their job by making illegal immigrants legal. What kind of an argument is that? And he is full of such illogical rambling arguments that don't make sense. Yet where is the criticism, the critique, by the press?

Oh, What To Do?

Our leaders are saying they need more time to work out all the complexities of "solving the problem" in Iraq in their search for "the way forward", whatever that means.
The Way Forward--versus "The Way Backward"? Seems that this administration has had their directions mixed up all along. I guess they never heard of Pandora's Box!
No one told this Administration of the Arab regard for their land; that it is considered "Sacred Ground", the bombing of our facilities in Saudi Arabia was a clue as to Arab thought? A lot of people weren't paying attention.
Of course the scapegoat for Politicians, when they make bad mistakes, is to blame "Intelligence". How could it have been "bad intelligence" when they didn't have verifiable information--which was obvious when the U.N. Inspectors asked the Administration where the WMD's were. This is when the Administration was in full swing spreading Propaganda about WMD's being in Iraq and about the danger from Iraq's drones?!
The U.N. inspectors weren't finding the WMD's where the Administration was saying they were. Remember, the Administration was insisting that certain buildings were be rebuilt as nuclear facilities? People have such short memories and attention deficit problems.
The big question should have been, and still is, does a country go to war based on facts, or on faith, as this Administration obviously did. That is a good one, Faith-Based governance! No verifiable information, just belief.
Is that what is to come out of our "way Forward" policy, about to be implemented? What is at stake?
We have embarked on a dangerous and very expensive course. We can win, but it will be at the expense of our National Treasure. In other words, we will go bankrupt.
Inflation is bound to grow, just as it did during and after the Vietnam war. You can't run a war without a lot of borrowing, and we are doing just that; to the tune of two billion dollars, or more, a week. The talk is, we can't get out because that will encourage all the bad guys to attack the U.S. and its allies. What is not being said is that if we go broke we wont have the resources to fight them after some conclusion is drawn. Catch-22 again. We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. The best course then would be get out with something left of our treasure; both in terms of men and material. There is no win or victory that is desireable in Iraq. We could devestate the place and kill off a lot of bad guys but there would be no desireable end to the conflict. We aren't able, with the conditions and history that exist, of winning minds and hearts in Iraq and the region. If anyone wants an idea what it takes to govern in that region take a look at the successful governments that exist now and did exist. Maybe someone ought to ask Saddam Hussein what should be done.

What's Wrong With The Media?

A little background may be in order so as to understand my critique. I get the low end package from Dish Network as I generally think what cable and satellite TV gives out is a scam on the public; i.e., mostly garbage what with cartoons, auctions, christian networks and lousy news.
So the only news I get is CNN, which when they aren't obsessing about some disaster does give some news--over and over again. This week-end is pretty typical of CNN and their version of what news should be. The whole week-end was blanket coverage of "Search the Mountain". Shaky views of Chinook helicopters and climbers, repetitious interviews with climbers who had spent days in snow caves, incessant press conferences by National Guard personnel--everyone who may have had some experience on a mountain was covered. What wasn't said was that the lost climbers made a basic mistake that ultimately caused a tragedy and that was they took the mountain and weather for granted. It should not have happened. They did everything "right" but one thing and that lead to disaster. They cut corners by not giving themselves time to get out if something went wrong; and it apparently did. They put themselves in mortal danger by hiking just before a deadly storm was about to hit. A real tragedy. Now back to CNN.
They view the news as entertainment, something to keep people distracted, rather than what it should be, education and information. Instead, we get titillation, endless rambling, and stories. The "story" is what is important--not the information. It is a mad scramble for the "story"; the Holy Grail of news. Is this what they are teaching in Journalism these days? Drama instead of intelligence? When drama takes precedence over information the Press isn't doing its job.
Another gripe. CNN talks more about what it is going to talk about than what it does talk about.
Endless self-serving leads to upcoming stories, which often are the last items to be covered.
And talk about aggressive women news expounders! They cut in talking over guests answers, "shaping" the answers, posing rhetorical questions. That's not news folks that is making the story, not reporting it. Lets get back to journalism, at least an ethical version of it.

Iraq--What A Mess!

Now that the Iraq Commission turned in its recommendations--recommendations that went against George's common theme of "stay the course"--the Administration will burn the midnight oil figuring out how to change the rhetoric and still be able to "stay the course". In other words use propaganda to be able to "stay the course" only have people believe that he is changing course. Already "stay the course" has become "a way forward"; with the goal being the same and the strategy really being the same, only different. If all this makes sense to anyone they have succumbed to the Administrations propaganda already, or all along.
The unfortunate fact about Iraq is no one can possibly win or have a victory. At least not in the short term--say within five to ten years. Any attempt by the U.S. to seek a "win" in Iraq will result in much more bloodshed and destruction--that is inevitable. There is too much at stake in Iraq for anyone to back away from. In the U.S.'s case it is George Bush's ego and Presidential legacy: the Sunnis and Shias are fighting for control of Iraq's assets and political and religious control: the Kurds the same plus autonomy. On top of it all small groups have their own power base to protect; budding tyrannies at work. The only solution is to pick a solution that works for and against all; like knocking two or more heads together to gain some sort of reality.
Unfortunately in our haste to make a propaganda coup, by creating a democracy in Iraq, we did so at the expense of security. Without security democracy can not flourish and giving sovereignty to a democracy that is dis functional ties our hands to the extent we cannot establish security. A Catch 22 situation.
Now the retired Generals are calling for a withdrawal, saying Iraq is unwinable. That means that the Sunni States in the region will have to step in and there goes our oil up in smoke. A little scary: a reason to pause and think of the consequences; by everyone involved. Some may rub their hands in glee, but I'm sure the majority are biting nails--or should be.
The threat by the Saudis might bring some rationality to the situation. A united threat, from Syria, Jordan, and the Saudis might cause some to back off from trying to make the situation worse. A united Sunni front, backed by the U.S., could bring the conflict to a halt, and save face for everyone.

Obama

Now the media has a new "darling" to make over--Barack Obama, a two year Senator, originally from Kenya I believe. It would seem that Americans would be a little leery of charismatic figures after what happened with George W. and the Iraq war fiasco. Slick rhetoric does not a good President make.
It would seem that the media should have learned a lesson about covering worthwhile stories after having watched George go through his bag of propaganda tricks to dupe them and the American public. I guess wisdom and smarts are two different things.
Obama has a knack of saying the right things to sway people but rhetoric alone is not a good stand in for experience. Give him another ten years, then he might have the maturity and experience to govern a nation. That might be sufficient time for his real character to be known. Something people overlooked in George W. Bush's case.

Glenn Beck's Version of the Israeli--Arab Conflict

Last night Glenn Beck gave a cartoon version of the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict--which was nothing more than disinformation--not for what it did reveal, but for what it did not reveal. I am not against the Israelis or other Jews; I am in fact somewhat sympathetic regarding their struggles, however, if there is to be any solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict some impartiality must be observed and that requires an honest historical appraisal.
Before and right after WWI there were an estimated 23,000 Jews living in the Palestine region; and many more than that of Arabs. Palestine was promised to the Arabs by the British, who were protectorates of that region after WWI.
Zionist Jews had other plans for the region and began immigrating from all over the world to greater Palestine. Their increasing numbers, and subsequent efforts to take over Palestine, created hostility, not only by the Arabs but also by the British who were making an effort to keep their promise to the Arabs. Remember "Lawrence of Arabia"?
In 1929 a major Kibbutz was attacked by the Arabs and the Jews began a counter program of terrorist bombings--not only against the Arabs but later against the British. Many people were killed over time. After WWII the British went against their word and divided Palestine up to form a Jewish state. The U.N. gave their blessing and an Arab-Israeli conflict was the result; which is still going on.
There are no heroes or villains just people caught up in nationalism and religious ideologies. Any side that outsiders take is bound to be the wrong side and one hard to defend. The history of the conflict is hardly a cartoon matter as Glenn Beck and CNN seem to think it is.

More On Amnesty etc.

As I've said before "illegal immigration" is not immigration--it is akin to "squatting", or taking over land and possessions by adverse possession; i.e. taking possession by physically placing oneself on someone else's land, without their permission or invitation. The Democrats are collusionists in this process; i.e. aiders and abettors. The Democrats have used all sorts of emotional appeals to advance these squatters program, appeals which are fallacious through and through. Emotional appeals are designed to shut down people's thought processes. Emotional appeals are part and parcel of Propaganda, which is a program of disinformation.
Take the "virtual fence" issue. We all tend to think that technology is the miracle cure for everything. Put up cameras, sensors, infra-red devices, computer systems, communications, all the gimmicks and the illegal immigration will go away. Not!
For one thing watching someone jump the border does little to stop people from jumping the border. People and real barriers stop people from jumping borders--most of them anyway. It takes people on the spot to apprehend border jumpers. A camera or sensor just lets someone, maybe, know that the border has been crossed at a certain location.
Remember all those pictures on our TV sets showing groups of border jumpers crossing into the U.S.? Were they picked up? No one ever says. Multiply those pictures by the thousands and you have an idea of the problem with "virtual fences". Democrats arguments is nothing more than "virtual reality", rhetorical smoke and mirrors. They take the public for granted. They assume that we believe that they have "good" intentions; that they will keep their word. Not!
I watched the lines grow in 1986 as many thousands of illegal immigrants took advantage of the amnesty program--then watched over the intervening years as illegal aliens have taken over our country--all because the government broke its promise to us--the people. Now I hear and see the same crime being perpetrated by the very same people. Then--shame on you. Now--shame on us!

Amnesty--Big Mistake!

I don't know what the Democrats hope to gain by pushing an amnesty program down people's throats, but if they do I for one will not, I say again, not vote for Democrats again. At least as long as they represent everyone except the average American.
There are no real moral grounds for them to use in arguing for amnesty. Those who are here are not here to become Americans but are here for economic reasons and are doing everything in their power to subvert our way of life. Not in the sense that terrorists are but just as effectively. They are destroying the American way of life. Most "immigrants" often referred to chose to come here legally, following custom--not jumping our borders and squatting on our land, all the while demonstrating for "their rights". They do not have "rights"; they are here illegally. The rights they do have are "right to due process", with deportation or prison as the end result of that process.
Arguments that proponents of Amnesty use are distorted and are basically emotional appeals that are fallacious in nature.
Governor Richardson's argument that deporting an alien mother would make an orphan of her "anchor" child is fallacious. She could go back to Mexico, with her child, and send her child to American schools, just like thousands of others are doing now. Failing that, he could go to a Mexican school, like thousands of other Mexican children are doing. I don't feel Americans should be responsible of the result of her sneaking over the border, like thousands of others, to have children in this country to take advantage of our law that states that anyone born in this country is automatically a citizen. About time for a change--retroactively to 1986.
The law should be changed to read "anyone born to a parent, residing in this country legally, shall be given the opportunity to become a citizen." That would discourage Mexican mothers to be from using our laws against us.
The amnesty proposers keep saying "we can't ship everyone back to where they come from so we will solve the problem by making everyone citizens". Anytime a solution is all solving you can automatically deduce that it is a "pseudo-solution". In other words there is no such thing as a magic wand.
To get by counter arguments the amnesty proposers, like in 1986, say this will solve not knowing who is here and will solve the future problem of illegal immigration by creating a "virtual" fence, and creating a large bureaucracy in order to take care of all the promises made "not to create a carte blanche amnesty program". What a nightmare!
A virtual fence. You still have to have manpower to catch those penetrating the "virtual" fence. They have to be strategically placed so as to apprehend border jumpers and smugglers. So you are right back to manning the fence--why then make the fence virtual?
Then the bureaucracy of it all. Billions and billions of dollars spent on maintaining a farce--of course everyone knows it will be side lined by not funding the program; just like all the promises made in the 1986 program.
So, the Democrats should think about what they in truth are really doing. For every vote gained by amnesty is one vote lost by independents, conservatives, and moderates.

So They Want to be President

Hillary Clinton--represents the elite rather than the Middle Class, great rhetoric but she lost me when she thought we should be "good Samaritans" and give amnesty to the ten to twenty million border jumpers and squatters now illegally in this country. Clearly she doesn't represent the Middle Class in this country. Guiliani? He lost my vote when he called a semi-automatic pistol an "assault pistol"; when it was used by some deranged individual to shoot up the Empire State building. Clearly he is "a New Yorker" and doesn't represent the Middle Class. McCain? When he stabbed John F. Kerry in the back regarding the joke about "Bush stuck in Iraq" he clearly showed further his lack of ethics. He is in my mind still tainted by the Savings and Loan Scandal. Another point against him is his slavish loyalty to the "Party". Parties can be wrong--like about Iraq for instance. Kerry? Too much of a lightning rod. He is too much of a stereotype and has a tendency to make it worse--he has some good ideas but his favoring going into Iraq shows a lack of judgement. Gore? If he would get serious and get someone to ride herd on what he says he would be a great candidate. One of the best speeches I ever heard was the speech he gave giving Bush the Presidency. It was serious, well written, and delivered. If he had had that presence during the debates we wouldn't be in Iraq right now.

Stock Market--A House of Cards?

A few years ago I did an analysis of why the stock market suddenly started to climb. For years it barely grew then in the middle 1980's it took off. My study revealed that its meteorological climb corresponded to the amount of money that was being set aside in IRA's and 401K plans. It had very little to do with the desirability of the investment but was more dependent on "we have all this new money, where can we invest it".
The new money distorted the reality of investing. Dividends no longer took on real meaning--it was the questionable "value" of the stock itself that took on "meaning".
Too, it was a great scam on non-investors caught up in participating in investing through pension plans. Many lost their shirts because of greedy opportunistic brokers and "entrepeneurs".
To be sure, there is money to be made in investing but when you consider that if "investors' and players who live this stuff can lose their shirts it stands to reason that the millions of investors who don't have a clue about investing stand an even less chance of making money on the stock market and are targets for fraud.
I have found that over the years corporations have found more and more ways to get money out of you--check your phone or cable bill for instance. Investing is no different--a fee for this, a fee for that--and they seem to appear out of nowhere, at odd times. You can also thank your government for that too: some watch dog!
I would view the stock market as a house of cards; one that can collapse at any time. What with corporate greed, government neglect, and anarchy growing in the world; it is not the best time to have lot of money out of sight and out of control.