TL

”On this discussion I have seen complementarian thought described as “abusive” “trauma inducing” “something that all Christians should find abhorant” “unhealthy” and others.”

Tiffany,
Sometimes we can over generalize things. It was not complementarian thought that was being questioned, but the concept that erotic/romantic love constitutes the basis for hierarchy.

”TL jumped on me saying that I was attacking her relationship with Christ and it would be behoove me to explain myself”

Tiffany, you stated:”I think you and I have very different views about the lordship of Christ over the Church.”

I responded: Since you are now questioning my relationship with the Lord, I think it behooves you if you explain what you mean and quote what statements lead you to think such.

I did not say you were attacking my relationship, but you certainly did question it and it is reasonable that when a person makes that kind of statement to another Christian, that they be asked to explain what they mean and why they said it. Since you explained yourself, I don’t understand why you are bringing it up as if I was the initiator.

”I only jumped into the Eros topic to point out that we can (by Cheryl’s definition) use words to describe things we see in the Bible whether that word is used in the Bible or not.”

And several people have agreed with that principal. However, that does not work with the subject at hand. Eros or erotic and sensual love is not being described or discussed in Ephesians. However, it does fit with SOS.

It’s understandable that such a long discussion (even though clearly not long enough) gets confusing now and then.