Aaronshaf diary

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I'll be glad to turn this into a discussion about Christ and the Church.

My wife is a servant to me in the incredible role she plays in making a complimentary marriage work. The Biblical portrait of marriage is one of humble leadership and glad submission. The wife submits to the husband as the church submits to Christ. Ironically, the leadership role of the husband is identified with Christ serving the church. It's a beautiful thing when put into practice, and it has more to do to with relationships and roles than inequality. It in measure reflects the eternal relationship in the Trinity: the Father and the Son are equal in deity and nature (and even ontological being), but the Son eternally submits to the Father (this is classical Trinitarianism).



Submitting to a husband was never intended to a burden, and neither was submitting to Christ. This works in marriage when both are seeking the joy of each other.

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/WareETS2006.pdf

http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles.php

You won't get any argument doctrinally from Mormons on this. I'm sure you know the temple ceremony better than most endowed LDS.

Application of the principle is different. And you'll probably get mocked by Evangelicans and Mormons alike for calling your wife your servant.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

1st Corinthians 14


Unlike you guys, we don't take the entire Bible literally. And we don't believe in your version of the Trinity. But you already knew that.

Not only that but you can make a resonable case that 1 Cor 14:33-36 wasn't even originally part of Paul's letter:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18756_1.html

Feel free to invoke a liberal version of the "as far as it is translated correctly" clause.

[MikeWaters]

aaron hijacked his own diary. ironic.

[aaronshaf]

Unlike you guys, we don't take the entire Bible literally.

Or in other words, "we're not always willing to read a section of scripture in accordance with its genre, especially when dealing with epistles and historical narratives. We feel free to throw hermeneutics out of the window."

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Not only that but you can make a resonable case that 1 Cor 14:33-36 wasn't even originally part of Paul's letter:

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/187/story_18756_1.html

Feel free to invoke a liberal version of the "as far as it is translated correctly" clause.

Ehrman, Brown, Metzger...many Bible scholars make this case pretty well.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Ehrman, Brown, Metzger...many Bible scholars make this case pretty well.

Exactly, SIEQ. The link is to an article by Ehrman (actually an excerpt from Misquoting Jesus)

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Or in other words, "we're not always willing to read a section of scripture in accordance with its genre, especially when dealing with epistles and historical narratives. We feel free to throw hermeneutics out of the window."

One of these days Aaron you might actually understand some of the quotes you snip. Perhaps you may wish to attend a university.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Apparently you are no different than the other Mormons who stoop to the lowest of personal attacks.

I'm going to have to ask you to remove that part about my wife. I don't mind you speaking ill of me, but I object to the slander of my wife. Ironically, as I read your post, I had just finished eating the breakfast she so kindly made me. My wife is a beautiful woman, a wonderful friend, a close helpmate, and a great mother. I love her and care about her honor.

Are you suggesting you don't like it when people degrade something you hold dear? Ah, the irony.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Are you suggesting you don't like it when people degrade something you hold dear? Ah, the irony.

Well, I guess he holds his slaves and servants dear. I wonder if he brands her too.

[aaronshaf]

Are you suggesting you don't like it when people degrade something you hold dear?

No, I am quite passionate about being an iconoclast, and that entails absolutely trashing and bashing and criticizing some things people hold dear (like idolatrous conceptions of God). And I do that because of what is ultimately valuable and satisfying and glorious: the God of utlimate reality. Part of the "fear of the Lord" is hatred of evil and sin. When you love what is ultimately good, you hate what holds people back from it.

As for false portrayals (as someone did of my wife), that is just slander. It's wrong. That's not wrong for degrading something truthfully, nor is it wrong for merely being personal. It's wrong for being inaccurate and personal at the same time. That so many Mormons here on this board shrug their shoulders at it is revealing. I guess when it comes to criticizing what you perceive as an "anti-Mormon", anything goes, eh?

Sidenote: As with the term "Anti-Mormon", it's easy to set up strawmen so that you can topple them down. Doing that distracts you from having to deal with real positions and real people.

"[T]he terminological sleight of hand involved in the label ‘anti-Mormon’ allows us to ignore the differences between honest and honorable men and women who oppose us, on the one hand, and unprincipled villains, on the other." (>>)

"If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed." - J. Reuben Clark