ignorance and arrogance

[agedman]

I have seen these two words (ignorance and arrogance) repeatedly being used by a folks on the BB.

Certainly, there is a tendency or attempt to heighten, impress, or validate a post by use of one or both of these words.

If one were to scour my posts, I am sure that you would find the words used more than once. I have been doing some personal introspection into my own attitude upon their use.

I am, in this post, considering what is the real intent behind the use of the words.

Is it not in every case an attempt to cheapen the opposition?

Is it not in every case a point of pride?

Perhaps not, but what is your opinion?

Are there other words you might add to the list?

Perhaps the ignorance of a person's own arrogance is the most appalling.

 

[Herald]

If someone does not know what they are talking about they are ignorant. If they are overbearing, dismissive, argumentative et. al without cause they are arrogant. What is wrong is using these words when they don't apply.

 

[Revmitchell]

Characterizing another's position in a way that belittles it in order to tear it down is arrogance.

Claiming that others do not understand your position simply because they disagree with it is arrogance.

Refusing to admit that the arrogance of Calvinists is widely known ,even by those who also hold to your position, as an ongoing problem is arrogance.

 

[agedman]

Characterizing another's position in a way that belittles it in order to tear it down is arrogance.

Claiming that others do not understand your position simply because they disagree with it is arrogance.

Refusing to admit that the arrogance of Calvinists is widely known ,even by those who also hold to your position, as an ongoing problem is arrogance.

This post can just as easily, with just as much documentation from the BB, be applied, with as much fervor, to the non-cal folks.

Is there importance to note from which side of ascendency to humility was the first claim which came in this thread?

 

[Revmitchell]

This post can just as easily, with just as much documentation from the BB, be applied, with as much fervor, to the non-cal folks.

Is there importance to note from which side of ascendency to humility was the first claim which came in this thread?

This doesn't make sense. Again this is a problem widely recognized even among Calvinists.

 

[agedman]

This doesn't make sense. Again this is a problem widely recognized even among Calvinists.

So, "widely recognized even among Calvinists" totally excuses and expunges the record of the non-cal?

 

[Van]

Not only is questioning an opponents qualifications and character a logical fallacy, attacking the person rather than the view, but it generates more heat than light, degrading our witness for Christ.

When called on it, the usual response is to claim two wrongs make a right, i.e. the non-Cals are just as bad as the Cals.

And finally we have the inoculation post, where the opponent is charged with doing whatever the transgressor is doing.

Fundamentally, all the deception used by the world can be found repeatedly on this Board. For example, if one complains about mistreatment, why they are branded a whiner and one who plays the victim. LOL

 

[agedman]

Not only is questioning an opponents qualifications and character a logical fallacy, attacking the person rather than the view, but it generates more heat than light, degrading our witness for Christ.

When called on it, the usual response is to claim two wrongs make a right, i.e. the non-Cals are just as bad as the Cals.

And finally we have the inoculation post, where the opponent is charged with doing whatever the transgressor is doing.

Fundamentally, all the deception used by the world can be found repeatedly on this Board. For example, if one complains about mistreatment, why they are branded a whiner and one who plays the victim. LOL

I agree, Van.

It would be good if we all could help in keeping the personal vitriol in check on the BB.

 

[Iconoclast]

Revmitchell

Refusing to admit that the arrogance of Calvinists is widely known ,even by those who also hold to your position, as an ongoing problem is arrogance.

Most times this is the excuse of those who cannot respond to the calvinist,just claim it is "arrogance' in a drive by post,then disappear like a turtle in a shell when the calvinist responds....You do this alot....like you have a chip on your shoulder....
Why not start a thread where you can air out all your gripes,[about cals} but then actually stay around and answer when you get responses,instead of disappearing into cyber space???
You say you believe in much of the same things, not the T.....but you seem all twisted and make cryptic statements......Say whatever is on your mind, but then answer when responded to:thumbs:

To me...for you and others to make these statements is the real arrogance.

As if...here is my imput, I do not care how you respond at all, because I have already commented on it.That is more of an arrogance than a confident cal coming across as short with somebody.

 

[Iconoclast]

Van

Not only is questioning an opponents qualifications and character a logical fallacy,

When you tried to tell us about the greek words and Archangel offered correction, you rejected it and repeated your errors and still do.
What are you supposed to applaud your error and encourage you???

It is not a ...logical fallacy..it was plain error that Archangel graciously offered correction to you on.....you were not qualified to comment on it, someone who is qualified corrected you....simple as that:thumbsup::flower::thumbsup:

 

[Van]

Van
When you tried to tell us about the greek words and Archangel offered correction, you rejected it and repeated your errors and still do.
What are you supposed to applaud your error and encourage you???

It is not a ...logical fallacy..it was plain error that Archangel graciously offered correction to you on.....you were not qualified to comment on it, someone who is qualified corrected you....simple as that:thumbsup::flower::thumbsup:

Folks, Iconoclast misrepresents the unreferenced past to disparage me. My view, shared by the NASB translators, the HCSB translators, the NET translators including Dr. Wallace, is supported by the grammar. The Calvinist rewrite violates the grammar. Note how Iconoclast addresses my qualifications, not the qualifications of Dr. Wallace, or the NASB translators, or the HCSB translators and on and on. Twaddle

 

[Iconoclast]

Folks, Iconoclast misrepresents the unreferenced past to disparage me. My view, shared by the NASB translators, the HCSB translators, the NET translators including Dr. Wallace, is supported by the grammar. The Calvinist rewrite violates the grammar. Note how Iconoclast addresses my qualifications, not the qualifications of Dr. Wallace, or the NASB translators, or the HCSB translators and on and on. Twaddle

Van,
Dear twaddle master,
I have reminded you of that day which anyone can find in the archives.
You were saying things, not wallace and these others.Archangel was very gracious to you that day.....but you trampled on his kindness and help.
You like your own ideas and novelties....but it seems as if the "folks" are not buying what you are selling.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Folks, Iconoclast misrepresents the unreferenced past to disparage me. My view, shared by the NASB translators, the HCSB translators, the NET translators including Dr. Wallace, is supported by the grammar. The Calvinist rewrite violates the grammar. Note how Iconoclast addresses my qualifications, not the qualifications of Dr. Wallace, or the NASB translators, or the HCSB translators and on and on. Twaddle

You're not the only one he's done it too. I disagree with your views on the KJV, but that doesn't mean you have to be qualified to answer me. I took 4 years Greek, and it still makes no sense half the time. And what is qualification? Anyone can go to a library and get the exact same text books I used in college, and it's a lot cheaper

I'd even say that with the technology now on the internet, and the video world, that you could probably learn more at home at your own pace than you could in college.

The Pharisees used this argument against Jesus:

"How knoweth this man letters having never learned" John 7:15

 

[Van]

Yes, DrJamesAch, Iconoclast spreads falsehoods, attacking people rather than presenting biblical views.

I have reminded you of that day which anyone can find in the archives.
You were saying things, not wallace and these others.Archangel was very gracious to you that day.....but you trampled on his kindness and help.
You like your own ideas and novelties....but it seems as if the "folks" are not buying what you are selling.

The truth is Dr. Wallace edited the NET, and thus the rendition of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 in the NET is consistent with Dr. Wallace. The verse as translated in the NASB, NKJV, KJV, HCSB, YLT, and NET says we were chosen to salvation or for salvation, and does not say "to be saved. Thus the clause through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth appends to being chosen. Thus the verse says we were chosen through faith in the truth, a conditional election. Calvinists point to the NIV and ESV which violate the grammar, turning salvation into a verb, so they can append through faith to being saved rather than being chosen. The whole argument is simply a rewrite of the verse to conform to Calvinist doctrine. They substitute G4991 with G4982.

Bottom line, pay no attention to anything Iconoclast says, because verification finds it false.

 

[Tom Butler]

Please permit me to derail the thread for a brief moment. The OP title triggered in my mind an old story.

Two men were talking. One man asked the other, "What do you think is our biggest problem, ignorance or apathy?"

The other man replied, "I don't know and I don't care."

Now back to the thread.

 

[Thousand Hills]

If ignorance is bliss, then why is _______________ so unhappy? :saint:

 

[Van]

Please permit me to derail the thread for a brief moment. The OP title triggered in my mind an old story.

Two men were talking. One man asked the other, "What do you think is our biggest problem, ignorance or apathy?"

The other man replied, "I don't know and I don't care."

Now back to the thread.

One of my favorites, thanks. Now back to topic, our translations translate words and phrases in the same way the earlier translations did. Thus we get "if it were not so" repeated over and over in translation after translation, but the less wordy way to translate that phrase is either "if not" or "otherwise" And, according to Jonathan, that same phrase is translated in other ways in other verses, i.e. inconsistently.
"Or else" was one of the alternates. The translators should strive to translate Greek words and phrases as consistently as possible in order to preserve the content of the inspired words chosen by God, rather than obliterate them by translating them willy nilly.