NN

To Kristen (399-400)
Your argument for the difference is then that Paul’s address to the “Ephesians has an entirely different focus… he is talking about how Christians “in Christ” should relate to one another [Christian-to-Christian relationships].”
You are saying that Paul’s instructions in Ephesians to husbands and wives should actually be read as “wives submit to your husbands if they are a christian” – since you claim Paul is talking about only about christian-christian relationships.

Of course this is not what Paul actually says, and it is interesting that this is the same general instruction (‘hupotassoe’) which is offered to wives in Col 3, 1 Pet, Titus 2, etc. – regardless of the circumstances of who is being talked to.

To SM (364)
I am afraid that if we cannot find common ground on a simple factual true/false statement:

The apostle Paul gave different instructions to husbands and wives. (Eph 5:22-30, Col 3:18&19, etc.)

Then I really can’t figure out what what common there is at which we can start this discussion.

I shall make one parting remark since you keep talking about ‘how the word eros is not in the Bible.’ And seem to have missed my response on the matter (361) –

Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?… Of course it isn’t, so there must be cases in which we believe concepts to be Biblical even when the word itself is not used in Scripture. [a more formal discussion of this was given in (377)]

Before closing I wish to recommend something for your consideration (you may do with it as you please) about methods of Bible study that was once recommended to me by one of the Christians who I most respect. – It is often very easy to ready a sentence and get very caught up in our prior presumptions about theology and miss the content of the sentence itself. It is often very useful to simply diagram the sentence: what is the subject, what is the verb, what is the direct object, etc. This will often keep us more centered upon the text itself, and has very curative effects upon cultural and personal biases from creeping in.

To Susanna (384)
Your quotation from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is correct: “A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises; its conclusions are consequences of its premises.” The point is that an formally invalid argument DOES NOT follow from its premises.

Your arguments are not formally valid. There are two valid syllogism forms:
1) Modus Ponens – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens
2) Modus Tollens – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

There are two formal logical fallacies for syllogisms:
1) Your first syllogism committed Affirming the Consequent – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
2) Your second syllogism committed Denying the Antecedent – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Hope these help

On 377 – my apologies for the confusing formatting – I forgot to turn off blockquotes

To Susanna (366)
Logic acting upon axiomatic premises is the ONLY method of acertaining provable truth.

Your first syllogism is not formally valid, you have committed the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Since formal validity is the most basic concept of basic logical inference may I humbly suggest that your grasp of logic is rather more tenuous than you might hope. (oh, and actually the converse of a true statement is not logically necessarily true, only the contrapositive is)

To show the problem your syllogism is equivalent to:

If a being is a god then it can sustain life (If p then q)
Women can create and sustain life (q)
-> Therefore – Women are gods (Therefore p)
Though you could also look at it as an improper commutation of conditionals depending on which error you wanted to use

In addition what you call “dialectic’ here is simply a definition of terms – you are proposing axioms.

With regard to your second “logical reasoning” – I will recast it into logical forms (and include the premises you did not for clarity):

[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not say that God gave man authority
-> Therefore, God did not give man authority.
… This one is actually a form of denying the antecedent. (There are two fundamental types of binary logical fallacies – you have now managed both.) An equivalent invalid syllogism would be:
[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not mention the “Trinity”
-> Therefore, the “Trinity” is does not exist.

Might I suggest that Lewis’ lament for the state of the educational system was not unjustified.

May I close by stating that I am quite certain that I have not underestimated an opponent – but I also hope that there is no need for you to be an “opponent.” Debate should not be a competition – but an exploration; not about “winning” but about ascertaining truth. (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/34685.html)

To SM (360)
Concerning most of your misconceptions I shall bite my tongue since you are apparently unwilling to work through a formal logic chain point by point.

Let me ask you only one question with regard to your conclusion:
Do you believe in the “Trinity”? Pray tell, where is that word used in Scripture?

(… rhetorically and for the sake of charity I would like to leave it at that and presume that you can see the flaw in what you have concluded – but I should probably be extra careful to be crystal clear and not leave such things presumed. If you believe in the “Trinity” then you believe that concepts are found in the Bible which are never mentioned as such. This is in direct contradiction to your claim concerning my conclusion.)

To SM (358)
Quick note: I use ‘eros’ because it was used in ancient Greek as one of the four common words for ‘love’ and because in a more modern sense it was used by Lewis to describe the romantic love between a man and a woman. The word itself is never used in Scripture. But I hope that we can agree that there exists a romantic love between a man and wife which is distinct from other sorts of affection.

But again – to develop an understanding of the concept itself we will first need to find common ground for communcation – so back to (357 http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/comment-page-3/#comment-12223):

Can we agree on this point?

The apostle Paul gave different and distinct instructions to husbands and wives.

To SM (335)
My thanks that you have attempted to comment on (239). Clearly we were not on the same page, and this is why it was so vital to address this before moving on – without finding common ground of agreement no dialogue can ever be clearly communicative.

Regarding your comments I will start only with the most basic element to seek to establish common ground:
I did not say that Paul “attempted to differentiate between husbands and wives” – I said that Paul’s instructions did differentiate between husbands and wives. That is, he addressed both individually and gave them different instructions. This is in the text directly. (You keep trying to jump ahead to what you presume my argument will be without following the argument itself – one must always read an argument for what it actually is.) If you refuse to acknowledge this then I fear no further progress can be made. In fact you yourself acknowledge this “differentiation” but attribute it to culture – that’s a valid hypothesis, but to even make such a hypothesis you first must acknowledge differentiation. Until you can actually do that nothing else that I can say will make sense.

So, can we agree on this point?

The apostle Paul gave different and distinct instructions to husbands and wives.

To Gengwall (318)
So your claim is that “authority” is not nurturing, self-sacrificing or centrally focused on the good of others.

What then are the implications of raising children as described in the Bible? What then shall we call the actions of a parent who nurtures their child by disciplining them for getting into the medicine cabinet? Or insists that they do need to finish their homework despite the pressing allure of a video game? (fortunately my children are still young)

Are these actions characteristic of “authority?” – Absolutely
Is this type of authority rightly nurturing, self-sacrificing and centered on the good of others. – Completely
Is this the type of authority that God exercises over us as His children. – Most assuredly

To Kristen (308)
With regard to your dispute of the logic chain of (239) – your position falls within the scope of possibility 2 – you claim that the instruction was specific to the culture and not universally applicable.
However, I presume that you grant that some instructions are universal and transcend ANY cultural institution:
e.g. God exists, man is sinful, all men are instructed to repent from their wickedness and seek God through the atoning work of Christ, etc.

Since you have sought to answer this, ask yourself this question:
How can one tell the difference? Let us presume that Paul gave instructions which were specific to the culture and are no longer directly applicable to our culture and also that he gave instructions which were universal and transcend any specific culture. How can one biblically tell them apart.

I quite agree that Paul was both wives and husbands radical things about marriage – I think that Paul was telling husband’s that, in Christ “authority,” is quite a different thing and to be used in an entirely different way than the world preaches. That it is about nurturing and sacrificing, quite the opposite of the self-centered power of the world.

To SM
Is there a reason that you are so averse to commenting on the logical content of comment #239? – Here it is for your easy review – http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2010/05/23/authority-vs-submission-biblical-view/comment-page-3/#comment-12105

I would quite like to discuss the idea of eros as operative within the marital relationship and its consequences – but any such discussion would be pointless without first establishing the common ground as I developed it in #239 (or alternately at the post on my “blog” prior to the one about “eros” in which I detailed the theoretical groundwork)

To SM (283)
I’ve reiterated more times than I care to recall – I will not do so again.

Once and only once you address the content of 239 we shall move forward.

To SM (282)
Here at least I see where you have misunderstood.
– “Leads to” this is a shorthand from scientific writing (and philosophy in general). My apologies, I am so used to it that I sometimes forget that most people are not. What this specifically means is that “If we presume ‘X’ then this has the logical consequences of ‘Y’: and the shorthand is that we say “‘X’ leads to ‘Y.'”

(Realize first that my “blog” is not so much meant for the public as to record my thoughts for my own later reference [I state this at the top of my “blog”].)

To SM (277)

To reiterate – the content of (239) is essential to any concept of hierarchy based on ‘eros’ – therefore I do not plan on discussing it further until you respond to the content of (239).

And on the matter of patience – I have taught physics to the intellectual equivalent of labradoodles before and they did not test my patience so much. I have asked repeatedly for you to respond to the content of (239) and you have made none – but since this is fundamental to the concept of eros it would be highly ill-advised to proceed without establishing the groundwork first. (Please understand, what you are asking for is the equivalent of asking someone to explain algebra to you – this is fine but only if you understand arithmetic first)

To SM (262)
In my original post on “eros,” (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/53190.html) I note that this concept is underpinned by a previous post giving explicit proof for hierarchy (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/52878.html) – the proof for hierarchy came first; though you seem to have latched onto them in reverse order. That I am telling you that any discussion of hierarchy based on “eros” must first presuppose that hierarchy exists is something I have already said and should not be strange to you.

But to clarify the nature of the other statement – we have a quote in physics:
“But the real glory of [a conceptual model] is not that we can find the answer, but that we can find a way of thinking such that the answer is self-evident.”
The concept of “eros” as explaining marital hierarchy is a model; but we must have a common understanding of the data before a model can possibly make any sense.

This is what leads us back to the content of (239) – we must be mutually clear on the data before having a meaningful discussion of the model.

To Susanna (252),
I will say this as nicely as I can…
Your grasp of the concept of formal proof is completely incorrect.

Formal proof is any logical proof developed from axioms (‘first principles’ – truly fundamental first principles, by definition cannot be proven). This is quite as true of science as of theology (though of course what each considers “first principles” are quite different)

What you call “the scientific principle of a hypothesis” – is also a poor understanding of the scientific approach to discovering things. In science the best practice is to determine a hypothesis from the most straightforward interpretation of some fact and then to determine what ‘data’ would show the hypothesis to be false – and then examine this ‘data’.

Which incidentally is exactly the approach that my original post details:

A straightforward reading of passages such as Col 3:18, Eph 5:22, 1 Pet 3:1, etc. suggests a hierarchy implicit within the nature of the marriage relationship.
What could make this hypothesis untrue? Well if we misunderstood the nature of the instruction given – for instance if ‘hupotassoe’ didn’t really convey the ideas of obedience. Or if the command was given because of a specific cultural condition which is no longer true.
Then we examine both of these falsification conditions (as discussed in my original post – http://nuallan.livejournal.com/52878.html, and throughout this comment thread, including (239)). And both of these falsification conditions are shown not to be the case – as such the original hypothesis is demonstrated from first principles.

When I say that I have proven something (theologically); the presumed first principles are that the Bible is inerrant (true in all it espouses and does not contradict itself); and that it may be understood in context of the text itself.

Finally, as an aside which I should have asked many times over now: what would the falsification conditions be for your theories? I know that most people do not naturally think this way but it is essential to being able to identify when things are true & false (based on certain axiomatic presumptions), proven & unproven.

As an example consider (250 – my apologies Mara but it really makes a great example)
“Authoritative and erotic combined (by which she means ‘the fusion of erotic pleasure with the domination of females’) lead to pornography.” This implies that pornography is the result of a “male dominant – female subjugated” sexual mindset. But if this were true then we would not expect to find pornographies (and illicit sexual practice) in which the two partners were “equal” or in which the female were dominating over the male, and yet this is empirically observed to be the case.

Always look for falsification conditions – without them we can never recognize a proof and tell it apart from a hunch.

To SM (253)
The concept of hierarchy stems from ‘eros’ necessarily hinges first on hierarchy existing. This is why I am asking you to respond to the content of (239) before we proceed. (there must be a common grasp of arithmetic before there can be progress in algebra)

I shall await your convenience.

To SM (248)
Before I continue, may I ask you to respond to the rest of the 239 comment to ensure that we are ‘on the same page to that point’ – if not then anything more that I say in continuance will be unclear. We must ensure complete understanding up to this point before proceeding if we wish to get anywhere.

(It is really quite necessary to make sure that everyone agrees about the data points before trying to draw a correlation line through them.)

And I guess another post-script is in order: by ‘hypothesis’ I also mean something quite specific. In physics we use the ‘ergodic hypothesis’ – it is something that is quite apparent in every observation we ever make of the universe; but we haven’t yet figured out how to prove it from first principles…. By hypothesis, I mean that it is the best model that I have seen to date to explain the available data, but I have not found a way to prove it from first principles.

To SM (227)
(I apologize for the clipped nature of this post: I don’t have time to sit and make the prose nice)

I asked:

“I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (”hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.”

If I may paraphrase: You answered – ‘No, the distinctions of instruction given to husbands and wives are due to the particular people and circumstances which the apostle is addressing.”

I shall lay out the argument from beginning to end as a thread of formal logic –

• The apostle tells the wife and the husband different things. (This is indisputably in the text itself – the sentences which Peter & Paul address to “husbands” and “wives” are different)
• There are three possibilities regarding the differences:
  1) The differences are purely prosaic & have no substantive meaning
  ~ This is implausible as the words used are quite different and non-parallel; also two different apostles in three different places utilize extremely similar instructions which differentiate between husbands and wives
  2) The instructions are intended only a particular set of specific individuals or only to the specific culture being addressed and are not universal.
  ~ This in unsupportable due to in text commentary of the apostles on the matter; each time the apostle discusses the matter he makes no reference whatsoever to the particular circumstance or culture. In various places Paul comments on the metaphysical origin for differentiation between the husband and the wife. In Ephesians 5, Paul makes analogy between the marriage relationship of a man and a woman to the union of Christ with the Church – this relationship, by definition, transcends any cultural boundaries. In 1 Tim 2, Paul makes differentiation between men and women and then gives the reason that it is due to the events with Adam & Eve in Genesis – again the events of Genesis preceed any particular human culture. The commentary offered by the apostle when discussing the nature of any gender based distinction in marriage universally denies us any possibility of concluding that the remarks are only pertinent to a specific culture. Rather, they are transcendent and will therefore find expression within any particular culture. This brings us to the third possibility –
  3) The instructions are intended to be universal as part of the current created order (whether due to God’s original design or as a result of the Fall it is the proper order now)

The above logic chain proves that the differentiation between men and women is a truth which transcends particular culture – but it does not prove that it is hierarchical. To prove that we must examine the particular instructions give:
Women are told to “hupotassoe” their husbands – this same general instruction is used by Paul in the same context to describe the proper actions of citizens toward their governments and slaves toward their masters. Furthermore, we are instructed by the Christ that we are to obey the governing authorities (“render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”) so we must interpret Paul’s specific instructions to wives to be in keeping with his use of the words to describe other obedience relationships. Since Paul explicitly gives no such equivalent instruction to the husband the relationship logically must be hierarchical.

Thus is it demonstrated that the apostolic instruction regarding the marital relationship is both hierarchical and universal in application.

Having gotten thus far let me state clearly that the origination of hierarchy from the basis of what I have called “eros” is a hypothesis on my part. It fits by far the best with all available evidence provided by Scripture that I have seen – but I cannot logically prove it in the same way (as a scientist trained in formal logic I mean something very specific when I say “prove”).

…. My computer is apparently not liking the length of this response, lest I lose it I shall continue later in another comment rather than risk losing this. This is also probably a good stopping point to make sure that there are no questions thus far.

To Gengwall (219)

“Authoritarian agape love is utterly paradoxical.”

Both our proper love toward God and His love toward us is described by the word “agape” – yet He is in authority over us. Whether you think it paradoxical or not it clearly is possible.

Regarding comment 214 – this string was requested by SM and I am waiting for him (I presume?) to respond to the question for the discussion to proceed.

To 215
To be perfectly clear – comment #214 draws no conclusions whatsoever. None.

The point is only to establish a common ground of agreement. Once we can find some common ground then the discussion can proceed from there.

Hopefully we can agree that the apostles give different instructions to husbands and to wives? (regardless of what the difference might mean or why the apostles might have said it)

To SM (comment 209)
If interested for gmail chat ingarandur[AT]gmail[DOT]com – it is so much quicker to figure out where the common ground is for a starting point in the discussion that way, and easier to step through a discussion point by point without it taking aeons…
Though you raise a good point, I could post a transcript of the conversation for any who might be interested.

For now though –
I presume that we can agree that the apostles consistently give distinct and non-equivalent instructions to husbands and to wives separately:
Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, etc. – In each case the wife specifically is told that she is to be submitted (“hupatassoe”) to her husband; while in each case the husband is given a distinct and different instruction.

Whatever the origin of these distinctions are in the case of the instructions given: personal, cultural, or universal – we can at least agree that the instructions given are distinct and non-equivalent.

Agree? Disagree?

To All,

This is a “last call” of sorts – much as I see several threads emerging that I would like to comment on – I have long since run out of time for this and need to move on to other commitments.

But, I know that I missed questions that you find important – so to honor the general participation thus far, I offer a “last call” to respond to a few questions which you think most central to the matter before I bow out completely.

To SM (comment 200 & in general)
May I again ask that we stop bouncing back and forth between comment strings here and at my site – I find it difficult to keep track of what questions you think answered and what you are currently trying to ask. May I ask that we either establish a specific thread at my site so that I can better keep track of the conversation and be certain to answer your questions and ensure that I have answered them to your satisfaction? (Alternatively, if you would like we could establish a Google chat – which might facilitate the whole process more if we can find a mutually satisfactory time…. It’s really too bad this conversation didn’t happen two years ago – I got my PhD in Physics from Rice and could have simply met you for coffee to actually discuss this in person…)

To answer your question “how or why NN equates the existence of “eros” within marriage as the basis for a “natural, God-made asymmetry” which is patriarchal.”
– I made the earlier answer (at my site):

“In the marital relationship the husband is not the wife and the wife is not the husband – these two people are inequivalent upon interchange.”

And you agreed – furthermore we note that the apostle gives distinct instructions to husbands and wives (whatever the reason he did this for – the instructions are consistently different: we can at least agree on this?) So the husband-wife relationship in that context was an asymmetric (inequivalent) relationship.

…. So thus far we have proved inequivalence – but not the nature or origin of it…. This further and complete proof is going to be a longish one, and I want to be extremely careful not to skip a step. I ask again if we can move venues to make it easier to keep track of.

To SM (189)
Please read 184 & 190 regarding my usage here of “eros” it may clarify some things.

Sue (187)
Let us put it another way “eros” describes the type of love which exists between a husband and wife which should not properly exist between other people (surely we can agree that there is such a love and that it should exist only between a husband and wife).

On agapeo & phileo – they are not completely synonyms in the ancient text though certainly their scopes of meaning overlap (not really relevant to the current topic but worth the two line response)

To SM (183)
On one point let me make sure that I am absolutely clear – ‘eros’ should NEVER supercede ‘agape.’ As I stated on my site

The operation of eros within the marital relationship leads to an natural and God-made asymmetry of the relationship; but, the love of Christ – agape – is of FIRST IMPORTANCE. When you are married you are FIRST a christian, then a spouse. Just as in any other aspect of life; Christ is to be central and our other actions a corollary of this most fundamental truth. It is an issue of first and second things. Submission is enjoined within marriage, true; but if this interferes with christian interaction then you have done it wrong. And you will lose not only the good of the christian interaction but will destroy the good of submission in the the marital interaction. And when this plays out is it any wonder that so many people question the apostle’s instructions.

As to your question about eros – I am happy to discuss it but hopping back and forth between blogs is confusing. Given the ever growing number of comments here I ask if we can have the discussion at my site for simplicity where your questions are already posed?

Lastly, I would note that the master-slave relationship, while hierarchical, is not expressed to be patriarchal and such assumption should not be imported without cause.

In general
Let me make something quite clear “eros” (&epsilon&rho&omicron&sigma) is NOT exactly the same thing as the modern english “erotic.” Eros encompassed what we might today call “romantic love” ~ certainly encompassing the sexual but not limited to it. (This is in distinction as a type of love to “agapeo” ~ ultimate love, “phileo” ~ affections, or “storge” familial love.)

To Sue (170)
I have already answered this question on this blog in another discussion and will simply give a pointer to that rather than retype it here:
http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2009/12/11/can-a-wifes-authority-be-overruled/#comment-9575
(and elaborated in the discussion following this original comment)

To Susanna (comment 167)
My apologies – I must admit that I am only half glancing at these comments any more. I answered Charis because she asked the comment on my blog so it registered an alert.

If you have some question you think of significant importance I will be glad to revisit it.

Other than that I think that this discussion has gone nearly as far as it can usefully go and I will be stepping back into the other time commitments which are somewhat more pressing.