There is a fine line sometimes between an arrogant or belligerent attitude and taking a strong stand in contending for the truth. Often times we can misinterpret the words of another as arrogance, when in reality they are nothing more than strong debate. I heard someone once say that theological debate is not for the thin-skinned or those easily offended. I will accept that as an axiom. Webster's Dictionary defines arrogance as, "an insulting way of thinking or behaving that comes from believing that you are better, smarter, or more important than other people". If we use Webster's as an accurate definition of arrogance, then we really need to examine whether a direct post fits that definition. For instance, if one poster states that another person is wrong, does it immediately follow that the reason he is stating that is because he things he is better, smarter, or more important? Could it be that he actually believes the other person is wrong based on the facts? Instead of focusing on the facts (and adequately refuting them if necessary) the person on the receiving end will often take it as a personal attack and respond in kind. Now, if one party truly does believe they are better, smarter, or more important than the other person, arrogance is being displayed. But just because one party believes their position is right does not mean they believe they are personally better or superior to the other person, and that is the rub. We need to keep this in mind when we disagree; and oh, brother do we ever disagree! Baptists eat their young and shoot their wounded, so it is no secret that our theological debates can bring out emotions and reactions that belay our profession. I am not going to point fingers at anybody in particular in this post because I am an offender in this area. I do pray it gives all of us something to consider.