You want more? What about ripping the unborn from the womb, killing homosexuals, killing apostates, keeping slaves, keeping sex slaves, bear maulings, drownings, killing rebellious kids, killing those who violate the sabbath, kill witches, kill women who aren't virgins on their wedding night, it has such an utter lack of respect for the autonomy of others even permanent body modifications are ok to force on others under some circumstances.
No, I don't want to discuss more than 3 points at the same time.
So, let's do it that way: I address your first three points. Please leave the rest to another thread.
1) if the mother dies, it's probably best for the unborn to let it die a sudden death instead of suffering painful starvation or maybe suffocation.
That's how I understand it at least.
2) it's not only about homosexuality in the classic sense, as I see it. The concept of sexual orientation did not evoilve until the late 19th century, as far as I'm informed.
Today, there are men having sex with men although they are straight.
Maybe God wanted to address
this. God maybe did not want straight men to abandon their sex with their female partners for the sake of having sex with men. Maybe.
But since nobody would have understood the difference between gay sex and same sex sex between one gay man and one straight man... he made a one size fits all solution. This is at least how it could be, as I see it.
There is nothing to support that, and the passage says specifically she was a merchant, not a church leader.
She was a merchant... and became a church leader once her house was baptized.
Her house became a church. This is at least how I see the matter.
In my opinion, Lydia was the church leader then.
The passage is all about Lydia. Her house was seen as an attachment, as it seems.
He didn't make rules about having to do those things. He made rules and policies for churches.
Grasping at straws isnt apologetics.
In this case, when he says "I suffer not the woman"...he made the rules for his churches. The ones he addressed in his letters.
Yes.
That does not mean anybody in the Christian world has to follow the rules for that particular church the letter was directed to.
No straws here.
He didn't say that. He said in church men lead, women shut up and hang their heads in humility. Women, after all, need to cover up because it's a problem with them that men don't have (interestingly, the genders roles are flipped here in Judaism).
So, if men have all the power as you suggest they are entitled to delegate it back to the woman then.
At 50% I suggest.
If they can't talk at church, they can lead or whatever they want in return.
Except none of that is there. The Bible is not egalitarian.
Galatians 3:28. The church (I mean all faithful believers) is as explained by this verse.