[Azure]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

As near as I can tell from that answer, you appear to agree with me that both the bible and Wikpedia have been put together by both expert's and dimwits, an amalgam of opinions subject to a tug of war of opinions.

Digging into that comment though, you can certainly see that the term "dimwit" would be more readily applied to the superstitious and myth believing originators of the Bible than it would to Wikpedia.

Their excuse, I suppose, is they might be considered ignorant 1900 to 1500 year-old savages versus the modern warriors arguing over the content of Wikpedia.

In the case of Wikpedia, my primary quibble comes from the evident politicization tug of war that appears to occur in certain topics . . . . . . irritating to be sure but a far cry from lowering itself to the level of the Bible.

However, entire organizations have not been built on the teachings of Wikipedia as have with the Bible.

That, of course, is irrelevant to what we are talking about. Just because "entire organizations" exist does not mean there is any truth behind them . . . . unless you're going to tell us Tom Cruise is legit.

The argument is pretty basic . . . . . is the bible a compendium of opinions gathered, argued about, alternatively accepted and dismissed through a period of time and is the formulation of Wikpedia a comparable to that process?

The answer is obviously yes.

Cowperson

As far as I know, Scientology does not render use of the Bible.