• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fellow Christians - What is your take on the Old Testament?

Gringo allstar said:
Wow I have nothing to add, excellent thread and great explanations of the OT and the NT.

God bless the men and women who posted here, I totally enjoyed the read! :bravo:
Click to expand...

Glad you enjoyed it! I hope to have more conversations like this here! Have wonderful day!
 
Fearandloathing said:
and well said yourself. It is amazing that just today during a lull in my afternoon that I thought it would be nice to have another Christian to roll these ideas off....and here you are.


God is not about church. Did you know that there is NO Biblical directive that we attend church at all. Instead there is Acts, 2:11 I believe where John paints a lovely picture of socialism at work, the apostles living and eating together and sharing everything.

Frankly, with many churches today I get Images of Jesus and a whip.

And you said it perfectly...a "beautiful journey" in a one on one relationship.
Click to expand...

Churches can and typically are buildings with people in them and it is the people using Jesus as a "whip" which is what I think your point is here.

The common mistake made by many is the view The Church (typically referring to Catholicism)within the context of its hierarchy and people rather than what The Church is for Catholics.

The church, as has been seen, is a society formed of living men, not a mere mystical union of souls. As such it resembles other societies. Like them, it has its code of rules, its executive officers, its ceremonial observances. Yet it differs from them more than it resembles them: for it is a supernatural society. The Kingdom of God is supernatural alike in its origin, in the purpose at which it aims, and in the means at its disposal. Other kingdoms are natural in their origin; and their scope is limited to the temporal welfare of their citizens. The supernatural character of the Church is seen, when its relation to the redemptive work of Christ is considered. It is the society of those whom He has redeemed from the world. The world, by which term are signified men in so far as they have fallen from God, is ever set forth in Scripture as the kingdom of the Evil One. It is the "world of darkness" (Ephesians 6:12), it is "seated in the wicked one" (1 John 5:19), it hates Christ (John 15:18). To save the world, God the Son became man. He offered Himself as a propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). God, Who desires that all men should be saved, has offered salvation to all; but the greater part of mankind rejects the proffered gift. The Church is the society of those who accept redemption, of those whom Christ "has chosen out of the world" (John 15:19). Thus it is the Church alone which He "hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Of the members of the Church, the Apostle can say that "God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love" (Colossians 1:13). St. Augustine terms the Church "mundus salvatus" — the redeemed world — and speaking of the enmity borne towards the Church by those who reject her, says: "The world of perdition hates the world of salvation" (Tractate 80 on the Gospel of John, no. 2). To the Church Christ has given the means of grace He merited by His life and death. She communicates them to her members; and those who are outside her fold she bids to enter that they too may participate in them. By these means of grace — the light of revealed truth, the sacraments, the perpetual renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary — the Church carries on the work of sanctifying the elect. Through their instrumentality each individual soul is perfected, and conformed to the likeness of the Son of God.
Click to expand...
Catholic Encyclopedia

The Church must be defined not by walls or cities or people, but by the acceptance of Christ's sacrifice. God and Christ are most certainly about "Church" make no mistake about that, but The Church is defined not as a place but a society of "the redeemed world".
 
CrabCake said:
I find it impossible to read the New Testament and not be fully aware that the believers gathered together. Nearly the entire New Testament is devoted to instructing these gatherings of believers which came to be called churches. Acts shows us how they first started meeting. Remember the incident where the young man fell out of a window and died because Paul had been preaching for so long (indeed all night)? (Acts chapter 20). The New Testament is filled with references to "the elders of the church of ___". In 1 Timothy, we are introduced to the concept of Deacons, yet Paul doesn't write it as if it's a new concept, he writes as if Timothy already knows that churches should have deacons but he is only instructing him on the qualifications one should have to be a deacon. Likewise this epistle is filled with instruction on how church should be conducted. In fact, in the middle of all these instructions about how to conduct church, Paul writes:

1 Timothy 3:14-15 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Nearly every epistle is written to the elder of a specific church:
1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 1:1 "To the church of God in Corinth..."
Galatians 1:2 "To the churches in Galatia..."
Phillipians 1:1 "To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons..."
Thessalonians 1:1 "To the church of the Thessalonians..."
etc...

It seems clear from reading the New Testament that the idea of forming a body of believers called a church, along with associated elders and deacons, was the structure set up as the basis of Christianity.



This idea would have been unthinkable to the apostles. The very essence of Christianity, as most beautifully revealed in Acts, was a life lived together. The idea that one could be a Christian by himself would have made no sense. If Christianity is about sharing the good news, breaking bread together, praying together, worshipping together, looking out for each other's needs, etc. How does one do that by themselves?

Such a solitary journey is more in line with gnostic thinking than with Pauline Christianity.

It would be very challenging to support such a view using scripture.
Click to expand...

I certainly don't want to speak for him, but I think he was referring more to church in the institutional sense. Sure, social gatherings of believers constitute "The Church," but it is the public sharing of this personal relationship with God that gives value to group worship. The informal church is a beautiful necessity, but the formal, institutionalized church, at least here in modern times, is not. EDIT: To the Protestants, that is. Of course, the most Catholics revere the authority of The Church as one of the three pillars. Don't wanna seem dismissive of that.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
Most of you strike me as being on the judgmental side - "Frankly, with many churches today I get Images of Jesus and a whip".

Really? I get images of Jesus sacrificing his body and blood for all mankind.
Click to expand...

Growing up in church in the heart of Southwestern Virginia, I can see his point. Churches here supersede the image of Christ dying for our sins with the Jesus with a whip image. Certainly not all churches, but many are caught up in the latter so much that they forget that the former is what it's all about.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
What do you think Jesus preached from? How about Paul?

The way of salvation is found in both the OT and the NT. Don't believe me? Try reading a Psalm every day.
Click to expand...

Your post reminded me of John 10 about the Good Shepherd.

Jesus the Good Shepherd
…15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. 16 "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd. 17 "For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again.…

Cross Reference

Isaiah 56:8
The Sovereign LORD declares-- he who gathers the exiles of Israel: "I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered."
 
polisciguy said:
The informal church is a beautiful necessity, but the formal, institutionalized church, at least here in modern times, is not.
Click to expand...

The church promoted by the bible, the one Paul wrote his letters to, was a church with a leadership structure (deacons, elders, and overseers) (1 Timothy 3:8), (Acts 14:23), (1 Timothy 3:1). It was a church with rules (see the whole book of 1 Timothy). It was a church with different official offices (1 Corinthians 12:28). Finally, it was a church that believed in respecting spiritual authority:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

It was not an informal church, at least not in its final form (in parts of Acts it was certainly informal, as they were just getting started).

If we look at the narrative the New Testament is expressing, it is of a church developing and going from an informal gathering into a fully formed institution. In Acts 6:1-15, you see this begin to happen as the disciples realize they can't do everything by themselves and so they create the first leadership structure. Throughout the rest of the New Testament, we see more and more structure developing. We see the concepts of deacons and elders starting to materialize, we see rules about how to deal with dissent start to take shape, we see guidelines for how to conduct gatherings, the further we get into the New Testament, the more we see the structure of the church developing.

It seems to me that an argument against the church as an institution is an argument against the full thrust of the New Testament.
 
CrabCake said:
The church promoted by the bible, the one Paul wrote his letters to, was a church with a leadership structure (deacons, elders, and overseers) (1 Timothy 3:8), (Acts 14:23), (1 Timothy 3:1). It was a church with rules (see the whole book of 1 Timothy). It was a church with different official offices (1 Corinthians 12:28). Finally, it was a church that believed in respecting spiritual authority:

Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

It was not an informal church, at least not in its final form (in parts of Acts it was certainly informal, as they were just getting started).

If we look at the narrative the New Testament is expressing, it is of a church developing and going from an informal gathering into a fully formed institution. In Acts 6:1-15, you see this begin to happen as the disciples realize they can't do everything by themselves and so they create the first leadership structure. Throughout the rest of the New Testament, we see more and more structure developing. We see the concepts of deacons and elders starting to materialize, we see rules about how to deal with dissent start to take shape, we see guidelines for how to conduct gatherings, the further we get into the New Testament, the more we see the structure of the church developing.

It seems to me that an argument against the church as an institution is an argument against the full thrust of the New Testament.
Click to expand...

This is where the question remains though, and I totally see your point, but this is often where Protestants tend to disagree wildly with the Catholics. Is the attendance at a formal institution required in order to receive salvation?

Many Protestants would simply disagree at a fundamental level with your last statement.
 
My simple take on the old testament is that Jesus Himself said that he "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Mathew 5:17 KJV and it's also written "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matheww 5:18-19 KJJV Therefore from these statements of Jesus Christ himself i have to conclude that we cannot throw out the old law and anyone who says so shall pay for there decision in time i feel most Christians abandon the old Testament when in fact they are the greatest of our laws the entire New Testament was simply an extension of the Old with Christ's laws as well as the apostles neither testament is greater then the other.
 
CrabCake said:
I find it impossible to read the New Testament and not be fully aware that the believers gathered together. Nearly the entire New Testament is devoted to instructing these gatherings of believers which came to be called churches. Acts shows us how they first started meeting. Remember the incident where the young man fell out of a window and died because Paul had been preaching for so long (indeed all night)? (Acts chapter 20). The New Testament is filled with references to "the elders of the church of ___". In 1 Timothy, we are introduced to the concept of Deacons, yet Paul doesn't write it as if it's a new concept, he writes as if Timothy already knows that churches should have deacons but he is only instructing him on the qualifications one should have to be a deacon. Likewise this epistle is filled with instruction on how church should be conducted. In fact, in the middle of all these instructions about how to conduct church, Paul writes:

1 Timothy 3:14-15 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Nearly every epistle is written to the elder of a specific church:
1 Corinthians 1:2 and 2 Corinthians 1:1 "To the church of God in Corinth..."
Galatians 1:2 "To the churches in Galatia..."
Phillipians 1:1 "To all God’s holy people in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons..."
Thessalonians 1:1 "To the church of the Thessalonians..."
etc...

It seems clear from reading the New Testament that the idea of forming a body of believers called a church, along with associated elders and deacons, was the structure set up as the basis of Christianity.



This idea would have been unthinkable to the apostles. The very essence of Christianity, as most beautifully revealed in Acts, was a life lived together. The idea that one could be a Christian by himself would have made no sense. If Christianity is about sharing the good news, breaking bread together, praying together, worshipping together, looking out for each other's needs, etc. How does one do that by themselves?

Such a solitary journey is more in line with gnostic thinking than with Pauline Christianity.

It would be very challenging to support such a view using scripture.
Click to expand...




This is why I hate to enter these discussions.

I believe I stated I do not care to debate nor argue. Theology is not a competitive sport.

Thank you
 
polisciguy said:
This is where the question remains though, and I totally see your point, but this is often where Protestants tend to disagree wildly with the Catholics. Is the attendance at a formal institution required in order to receive salvation?

Many Protestants would simply disagree at a fundamental level with your last statement.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is an accurate portrayal of the divide between Catholics/Orthodox and mainline Protestants. The divide has to do with the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura and rejection of Apostolic succession.

Neither do I know of any major denomination (including Catholicism) that claims attendance at church is necessary for salvation. According to most protestants, salvation is the result of faith in Christ. According to Catholics, salvation is the result of dying while your soul is in a state of saving grace, which means you have been baptised (through water, blood, or desire) and have not committed a mortal sin that you have not repented of.

The issue isn't whether church attendance is necessary for salvation, to my knowledge no major Christian denomination supports that claim. The issue is whether church as an institution is supported by the bible. I find it impossible to get through the New Testament without concluding that it is.
 
Fearandloathing said:
This is why I hate to enter these discussions.

I believe I stated I do not care to debate nor argue. Theology is not a competitive sport.

Thank you
Click to expand...

You stated you had been interested in having a Christian to roll these ideas off of.

I assumed that meant you also wanted to hear other people's opinions.
 
CrabCake said:
The issue isn't whether church attendance is necessary for salvation, to my knowledge no major Christian denomination supports that claim. The issue is whether church as an institution is supported by the bible. I find it impossible to get through the New Testament without concluding that it is.
Click to expand...

If that's the case, I have misunderstood you and apologize. Certainly the church is supported by the Bible, and it was never my intention to argue otherwise. Sorry if I was misleading in my posts.
 
Hello
I am a follower of Christ, not men. I am Christian. I am a sinner. I have faith God forgives me. I am a man, and we are the purpose for all creation. I believe the Bible. I believe in humility. That means, if the Bible and reality conflict, the error is in our interpretation. God created both reality/nature and the 'Word of God' and does not contradict himself. Only in arrogance do we insist OUR interpretation is correct contrary to evidence.

Following that introduction, the ENTIRE Bible is important. My opinion, but based on scripture.

"Eph 6:10-17 (NIV) ...Be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. Put on the full armour of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armour of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled round your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

2 Tim 3:16 KJV "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

May I join the conversation please?
 
polisciguy said:
The question is in the title, of course, but I'll give some context here. As a child and young adult, I was raised in what was technically a non-denominational church, but the theology was most certainly Baptist in nature. For a long time, and for obvious reasons, that's what I considered myself and didn't think much of it. But, as a lot of us do as we get older, I began to question the things I was taught and the things I believed. Ultimately, I spent a lot of time praying, meditating, and studying in the hopes of finding out whether or not I was inclined to believe differently than my parents/upbringing had suggested, and if so, how much differently. Coupled with my internal studies, prayer, and mediation was a great deal of time spent studying comparative religion and as much theology (from across the board - Catholicism and the seemingly infinite number of Protestant theologians and philosophers that emerged later on) as I could/could understand well, and I finally found myself comfortable and confident in my faith.

Along the way, I noticed a running theme of reverence, but disregard for the Old Testament in practical terms. I realized that the Old Testament was kept around during the birth of Christianity largely due to the prophecy it laid out, but beyond that, it didn't seem, in practical terms, to have much functional value. I don't want to seem as if I am diminishing the value the OT offers. But even in my youth, the OT was only occasionally taught/preached from (aside from the famous allegories of Adam and Eve, Noahs Ark, etc., as well as the Ten Commandments), and when it was, it was usually about prophecy or was from Psalms and other, more poetic and esoteric books. Otherwise, it seemed to be disregarded. And, at least from my personal endeavors into studying Christianity, this seems to be the case, speaking in general terms of course, across the board. But I did notice that when I went to discuss this with some fellow Christians, they seemed put off by it - like I was attacking it or something. I certainly didn't mean to come off that way, and hope I don't here.

So, TL, DL: What is your take on the Old Testament? Do you view it as merely the prophetic justification of the New Testament and therefore ultimately replaced by it? Or is it still core to your particular denomination, sect, etc. of Christianity? I certainly don't want to undersell its utility, but what do you feel is its practical purpose in the faith, if you believe it has one?
Click to expand...

I am a Christian and always will be.

The OT has a lot of confirmed history (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar's sacking of Jerusalem, the verification of King David via the Tel Dan Tablets, the Exodus from Egypt [see link below], archaeological sites, etc.).

The OT reveals righteousness was always by faith in God (Genesis 15:6). Same in the NT (Ephesians 2:8-9).

And it reveals the Christ who was to come, and when he would appear. See link below.

It also reveals the Moral Law of God, which has never changed, although punishment is now by either God or government (Romans 13), or both.

There's a wealth of information in the OT.

Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus

IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Evidence of the Exodus from Egypt

Why Israel Missed its Messiah

http://righterreport.com/2014/02/11/why-israel-missed-its-messiah/
 
Fearandloathing said:
This is why I hate to enter these discussions.

I believe I stated I do not care to debate nor argue. Theology is not a competitive sport.

Thank you
Click to expand...

I didn't do it for your benefit, I did it for the benefit of someone reading this who might not know any better.
 
If I may,
I have no great expertise in biblical matters or interpretations and hold no disrespect for those who study the bible. Having said that I have to admit that I have a great disdain for all who would brow beat their fellow man with the bible either physically or with its contents.
That greatly varying interpretations of the bible exist is evident by the few posts in this thread already, but I have to ask why is it necessary at all to study it? The question is not as simple as it seems.
Place yourself in the early years of the complete bible and ask how many of those people could read it and if they could, would have drawn the same conclusions as people today? How many people back even had access to it? So how many were saved without it? How about the countless people in the rest of the world many to this day who have never even heard of the bible, are they all destined for eternal damnation?
 
prometeus said:
If I may,
I have no great expertise in biblical matters or interpretations and hold no disrespect for those who study the bible. Having said that I have to admit that I have a great disdain for all who would brow beat their fellow man with the bible either physically or with its contents.
That greatly varying interpretations of the bible exist is evident by the few posts in this thread already, but I have to ask why is it necessary at all to study it? The question is not as simple as it seems.
Place yourself in the early years of the complete bible and ask how many of those people could read it and if they could, would have drawn the same conclusions as people today? How many people back even had access to it? So how many were saved without it? How about the countless people in the rest of the world many to this day who have never even heard of the bible, are they all destined for eternal damnation?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't that draw you towards the conclusion that you are blessed to be living in a time when you are able to do that? Why wouldn't you take advantage of all the privileges you have?

You are right it was once the case that study of scripture was the sole domain of the most educated class. Now that it is accessible to more people, shouldn't it be studied even more?
 
Testament means witness. Covenant means contract.
In the old testament, the old covenant was between God and His chosen people. He chose them.
When a contract is fulfilled, it's finished. Jesus didn't come to destroy but to fulfill the law. Fulfilled the covenant.
Under the new covenant, people choose God to become his people.
Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
Acts 8:30,31 "Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" 31And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him."

There are many misconceptions about Bible teaching. Probably the worst is Hell. It's Greek for the grave.
Revelation 20:13
And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Eternal Hell also refers to the grave. The opposite of eternal life isn't eternal life under torture. God isn't a monster. Opposite of eternal life is eternal death.


"For the wages of sin is death." Romans 6:23.
"They shall be as though they had not been." Obadiah 16.
"they shall be destroyed forever." Psalm 92:7.
"When the tempest passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous is established for ever." Proverbs 10:25.
"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Mat 10:28

As to those who never heard the word? Didn't make a choice for lack of opportunity? Good hearts but didn't understand the Bible? God will decide. Not our place to judge.
"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." Rom 9:18

Ist Tim 2:3 "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth."

Obey, and your safe. God doesn't break promises. Disobey, you are gambling on His mercy. He IS going to destroy the wicked. Not EVERONE gets special mercy. God doesn't lie!
 
Last edited:
prometeus said:
Having said that I have to admit that I have a great disdain for all who would brow beat their fellow man with the bible either physically or with its contents. That greatly varying interpretations of the bible exist is evident by the few posts in this thread already, but I have to ask why is it necessary at all to study it?
Click to expand...

Do you understand the Asimov quote at the end of your posts? Asimov is speaking against relativism in this quote while you seem to celebrate relativism in your post. Not all "interpretations" are correct and should not be given the same weight. If you study, you know this, which is why we study.

Place yourself in the early years of the complete bible and ask how many of those people could read it and if they could, would have drawn the same conclusions as people today?
Click to expand...

The NT epistle letters are mostly topical, and are addressed to individual congregations with specific issues, and they should be understood in that context. Many of the faulty "interpretations" stem from our tendency to think that they were written for someone in the 21st century to "discover". There are lessons to be learned as long as they are the right lessons.
 
polisciguy said:
Growing up in church in the heart of Southwestern Virginia, I can see his point. Churches here supersede the image of Christ dying for our sins with the Jesus with a whip image. Certainly not all churches, but many are caught up in the latter so much that they forget that the former is what it's all about.
Click to expand...

If that's true, a change of church is needed. My own observation is that there is very little "church" in many contemporary churches. It's more like a motivational seminar, and I can't judge that, I suppose anything that gets people talking about God and praying is a good thing. My own prayer is that all who call themselves Christian will be led into the way of truth. Some people like the structure of the "carrot and stick" churches. One of the very first Bible verses I read as a Christian was John 14:23:

Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Click to expand...

And so I ended up in a high Church Eucharistic service. It's hard to escape the reality of Jesus' death and passion there.
 
Jesus dying for our sins is certainly important, but at least just as important and I personally believe MORE important, is his resurrection. In that he defeated death, and we see the promise of our own resurrections.
If He had died and not resurrected, what's unique about that? All men die, some even in acts of sacrifice.
His resurrection proclaims Him LORD!
Do you believe Christ was crucified on a Wednesday or Friday? Easter Sunday as the resurrection day isn't in contention.
 
Last edited:
CrabCake said:
Shouldn't that draw you towards the conclusion that you are blessed to be living in a time when you are able to do that? Why wouldn't you take advantage of all the privileges you have?

You are right it was once the case that study of scripture was the sole domain of the most educated class. Now that it is accessible to more people, shouldn't it be studied even more?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily as evidenced by so divergent interpretations of so many so learned people.
More importantly, why have you not answered my question before asking your own?
 
I enjoyed and still do, Isaac Asimov's science fiction stories. He was also a respected biochemist and professor. No doubts he was intelligent and talented.

Many intelligent and talented people say foolish things, inspired by their politics or religion or antithesis to religion.

My take on Asimov's "cult of ignorance" quote is, he was an arrogant elitist. My opinion on science fiction or bio-chemistry wouldn't carry the weight his opinion does.

My opinion on politics or other topics he wasn't expert on, should carry the same weight. Topics I'm expert on, my opinion carries more weight than Asimov's.

Worshipping famous people and hanging on to their every word as if it's golden, is error. Think for yourself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom