Women - Rebuttal

Hey everyone. Sorry for being gone for one week, was taking a small break, but now we're back so do not worry! I liked how Daniel structured his arguments because they were easy to follow, so I am going to do the same. As Daniel said himself, some points were strong, others were not. I will focus on the points which ruffled my feathers. Also, some of the points will be skipped not because they held no value, but because they were answered by other explanations about other points.
P.S. Underlined is my assertion from my previous post, italicized is Daniel's rebuttal, and the normal text is my rebuttal to his rebuttal. Hopefully that made sense :|
1) "He must provide Scripture in the post itself; hyperlinks are not sufficient and simply build an argument for Daniel" 
I need hyperlinks because if I copy and paste every bit of Scripture I use, then my posts would easily exceed 2000 words. I still provide the evidence; just in a much neater format that takes one extra click to access. Also, reading the source from which I gather my conclusion isn't "making an argument" for me; it's understanding how I came to my conclusion.
I disagree with almost everything. Ok I understand that you don't want it to be very long. However, I'm going to return to my example about a prosecutor and the jury. If the prosecutor doesn't have all of his evidence, and tells the jury they have to go get it for him, it's a bit silly. So yes, by clicking the hyperlinks we are creating your argument for you, which is extremely convenient.
2) "Daniel twists Paul's words to fit his (Daniel's) own narrative; takes things out of context." 
Yes and no. His words are quite direct in what they mean, but I put very little attention towards the "husbands love your wives" parts, and more towards the ones that put women down. With historical context, this status of women is completely justifiable. But as a status imparted upon women by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity? Cultural context should have no bearing whatsoever on an eternal, righteous, and holy commandment. Therefore, these commandments given through Paul by an eternal, omniscient, and benevolent entity are eternal, righteous, and holy (modest, no adornment, blah blah blah) 
Ok guys, buckle your seatbelts for a most elaborate explanation of context and you will see why it immensely important.
Paul writes, “The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Cor. 14:34-35).
There are some things to be noted here...
First, the context of this passage is a confusing, and rowdy Christian gathering. The Church of Corinth were known to have crazy meetings, talking over one another. The context shows this. Let's look at verses 34 and 35. Paul writes,
“Therefore if the whole church assembles together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad?” (1 Cor. 14:23).
Paul wrote this, because the Corinthians must have had such crazy gatherings that it would have made Jehovah's witnesses look less in comparison. Later, Paul writes,
“What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification” (1 Cor. 14:26).
Imagine showing up to a gathering, and someone blatantly began to yell. Paul was taking on this topic in this chapter. Paul goes on to write,
“If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God” (1 Cor. 14:27-28).
Here, men are told to “keep silent.” Is this because they are inferior? Of course not. It is because they are being distracting and "unedifying". Next, Paul writes,
“Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent.” (1 Cor. 14:29-30).
 Here, Paul explains that people need to say things in an orderly manner. Was this because of their gender? Obviously not. Instead, he gave this command, because they were being completely chaotic and disregarding of one another. Finally, Paul writes,
“For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints” (1 Cor. 14:31-33).
Summarized:
A. The gatherings of the Corinthians were confusing, distracting, and chatoic but “God is not a God of confusion.” Therefore, Paul was giving instructions to have more calm, coherent meetings.

B. Earlier in the letter, Paul wrote that women were prophesying in this church. Paul writes, “Every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head…” (1 Cor. 11:5). Clearly, women were allowed to speak; otherwise, Paul would never have written this.

C. I don't think the OT says anything about women keeping quiet. It's weird that Paul wrote, “Just as the Law also says” (1 Cor. 14:34). I think he is quoting the Law in a general sense—not a specific sense. He may also be referring to the common way of ecstatic worship.

3) "Paul says, (paraphrasing) Husbands, love your wives. Wives, love and respect your husbands." 
Yes, he did. That's great that Paul teaches mutual love and respect, but my main problem is that God gives women a submissive and subservient role, and then justifies it with arguments that Eve was made after Adam, and that Eve was deceived, not Adam. It heavily implies "Women are naturally inferior and/or easily deceived, so make sure a man is watching over her or she might say something stupid in church, or teach something wrong, or stray from my righteous commandments."
The Bible teaches husbands they should lead their wives in marriage. Most people are completely cynical toward leadership, because leadership usually comes with a negative connotation.  However, when we read the text, we need to figure out what the words meant to them not us.

A. Leadership does not equate inequality. The husband is no more superior to his wife, than the Father is superior to Christ (v.3). Later in this passage, Paul writes, “In the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman” (1 Cor. 11:11). Elsewhere, Paul explains, “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28; Gen. 1:27; Gen. 5:1).

B. Leadership does not mean that women have to obey all men. It was made clear that women should obey their husbands. Paul writes, “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord” (Eph. 5:22).

C. Leadership does not equate patriarchy, as a matter of fact it retains a great deal of responsibility. Paul writes that husbands should love their wives “just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her” (Eph. 5:25). Jesus loved the church enough to sacrifice his life for her. This is the example against we should compare leadership in a serving matter in marriages. Under this definition, servant leadership is not authoritarian/totalitarian—but sacrificial. In fact, servant love is the complete reverse of patriarchy.

D. Jesus gives a well-rounded definition of leadership: “You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great men exercise authority over them. 43 But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; 44 and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:42-45). Here, Jesus defines what leadership means: humility, compassion, and sacrificial love.

E. Leadership is within limits. Paul writes, “Christ is the head of the man.” In the biblical view of marriage, the wife and the husband submit to God. The husband cannot command  his wife to do anything that not within Scripture. In Ephesians, we see how marriage should be: by being “subject to one another in the fear of Christ” (Eph. 5:21).

Summarized: People in our culture think that leadership means totalitarian control, but under the biblical definition, leadership means sacrificial love and service. Based on this view, the husband is responsible to love, serve, and be responsible for leading the marriage. Through all of this we see that marriage is not a way of being a total dictator over our spouse, but a responsibility.
As Daniel hoped, I hope that I answered his counter-arguments to my counter-arguments about his argument well. There is however one more thing he brings up.

4) Alright, so I hope I answered all of your counterarguments sufficiently. And read Isaiah 3:16-24 again, because this example of God punishing women who resemble at least 80% of American women today should be extremely frightening. Not only does it validate what Paul taught about a modest women, no jewelry, etc. God's actions here thoroughly define it as a sin. I have heard one argument about how God cared about their motive, which was to be promiscuous, because jewelry and walking proudly was very promiscuous in that culture. One tidbit of information I found to counter that notion is when God killed a man for reaching out to stop the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. This guy sees God's Holy Covenant unsteady as the oxen stumble, touches it with the intention of saving it from breaking, and is freaking fire-blasted by God. The man's intentions were good. Did God care? Not in the slightest. And so it will be for the women in Isaiah 3:16-24; their intentions don't matter because they are blatantly sinning by what they wear and how they walk. God's actions tell us this is sinful, Paul's teachings tell us this is sinful, yet no Christian that I know of listens... 
Well this is a fun passage haha. So in the Isaiah passage the women are regarded as "haughty" and "flirting with eyes" and "strutting along with swaying hips." Yes God did care about their motive and their motive was not pure. Daniel was correct about promiscuity. However his analysis of the passage in 2 Samuel 6:6-8 is wrong. The man's intentions were not good. "6 But when they arrived at the threshing floor of Nacon, the oxen stumbled, and Uzzah reached out his hand and steadied the Ark of God. 7 Then the Lord’s anger was aroused against Uzzah, and God struck him dead because of this. So Uzzah died right there beside the Ark of God."Other translations in verse 7 ends with: "...God struck him dead because of his irreverence." Irreverence is the opposite of reverence which means respect towards things that are generally taken seriously. The Israelites knew that only Levites (priests) could only touch the ark, yet Uzzah disregarded that fact or in this case disrespected something so serious and God punishes him. God cared that his rules were broken and we know that God does not take this lightly at all in the OT. God punished the women for their motives and He punished Uzzah for his irreverence. Only shows that God is the real deal.
Thank you for bearing with me through all of these explanations. I have been receiving complaints about my use of "ad hominem" (I never used any ad hominem) and that I don't "refute" Daniel's arguments. Well ladies and gentlemen, I attempted my best to not give any excuse for anyone to accuse me of "ad hominem" and the rest of the refuting it is, up there ^^. I better not receive any complaints over how long my posts are...
P.S. Next week I will be leading the debate. I will make an assertion and Daniel will have a rebuttal for it. Basically him and I are swapping roles for next week. The topic will be atheism! Stay tuned.