There's good money to be made in serving as a volunteer cheerleader for the other team. The Enemy of God and man sees to it that those who paean his power, and go orgasmic over bizarre fantasies of his global triumph, are very well compensated.
And, if you're really on the good side of the Lowerarchy, you can even have multiple wives, like a certain famous graduate of DTS did! (I note that old Hal appears to have restricted himself to the four wives permitted by Islamic tradition!) Well, no need to get greedy. Just deny the need for Jesus Christ in the work of salvation -- if you belong to the right race -- and two wives should do.
Well, Satan sees to it that his dupes, simps, shills, and pimps are well paid. I tremble to think of what God has in store for those who have made lucrative careers out of unmanning and demoralizing God's people.
I’ll leave it to Richardson and Rosenberg to sort out their differences. I believe they’re both wrong, as I pointed out to Richardson during an on-air debate I had with him on “The Paul Edwards Program.” People have been trying to identify a particular antichrist for centuries. Christopher Hill’s book on the subject dealt only with Antichrist in Seventeenth-Century England. The candidates included Protestants, the Pope, radical sects, bishops, the Crown, the “‘Establishment’ generally,” the universities, and “the Turk,” an early designation for Muslims:Richard Montagu proposed the Turk rather than the Pope as Antichrist. This thesis may have been given fresh currency by a Balliol [College] man, Christopher Angelos, a Greek who had suffered at the hands of the Turks and had it revealed to him in a vision that Mahomet was Antichrist.[1]As history and the Bible attest, they were all wrong in their identifications. Bernard McGinn[2] and Francis X. Gumerlock[3] cover 2000 years of the topic, so Richardson’s foray into the debate isn’t anything new. Like in ages past, today’s antichrist candidates are manufactured from current events rather than Scripture.