SM

To SM (253)

NN, we cannot progress if you keep change the game. 258 comments in, plus the questions posed on your blog, and you want to change games. I am going to stick with your thesis presented in your article under discussion in this thread which you first brought to this thread in your comments which have remained unsubstantiated.

Your thesis in your article is that when we turn to Eph 5:22, “it becomes apparent that there is another sort of love operative here – “eros”….The presence of this type of love is distinctive of the marriage relationship….And if we recognize that this sort of love is between two inequivalent people *** THEN *** the hierarchical nature of the marital relationship instructed by Paul becomes evident…. And we see that in the marital relationship – when there is “Eros” that this leads to the specific instruction of the wife to submit to the husband AND the husband to take responsibility over this to exercise a sacrificial love to care for his wife.” (emphasis added)

Now you are changing your position and claiming:

“The concept of hierarchy stems from ‘eros’ necessarily hinges first on hierarchy existing.”

Gosh, which is it?

I am beginning to think you are not convinced of your own thesis. If you are not convinced, you cannot sell it to anyone else.

I will only address your thesis presented in the article under discussion on this thread. I am eager to have you explicate, substantiate, or retract.

Still patient,