Oh. I thought you meant anti-intelectual. The above insinuates intelectual dishonesty.
Intellectual dishonesty would involve something like making up bogus quotations from non-existant sources, or refuing to apply reasonable logic to given data, or refusing to accept commonly accepted data.
Anti-intellectualism is to simply refuse to entertain any information which might cause you to re-think your position. To rely solely upon one's own understanding of "Truth" and to be afraid to subject it to reason at all.
SD
Ah ok. I would say you're anti-intellectual then. :-)
The pharisees applied logic and reason and had the OT laws all screwed up - God fired 'em for it. Yet here you sit tellin us by inferrance that their method is the preferred method. If you were arguing "preferred if you want to get fired" I'd say you're right. But the word says trust in the Lord and lean not on your *own underdstanding.* Ultimately, rather than admit to a leading of the Holy Spirit which you have no ability to discern, anyone who doesn't agree with your lofty intellectualism based on reason is by definition employing their own reason only. If you can't discern and can't understand scripture because you don't have the leading, you can't know if your leaders are doing what they're supposed to be doing. They can bald faced lie to you and you'd be clueless - which point ya'll readily have demonstrated in the last 10 threads.