I pray that all who enter discussion here, do not ever question that God loves each one of us, as proven by Jesus' entire life here. Yet while God loves us, as individuals, He does not love the erroneous thoughts, speech, actions, practices, beliefs, theologies. See Revelation 2, for while God loves the Nicolaitans (as persons), God does not love their deeds or their doctrine. God hates every false "way".
When someone starts declaring that one is "against God" for their views it provokes the other to present reasons why they think that the other's views are "against God" and soon both have departed from
presenting rules of interpretation.
It is a well established form among theologians to present their case for interpretation of scriptures based on the rules of hermeneutics. (a list of agreed upon rules for interpreting scriptures)
Google "what are the rules of hermeneutic of scripture" these lists will differ slightly but it is easy to identify the main common rules among them.
Labeling people being "against God and His Word" if they don't feel you have made your case i
s not one of the rules. LOL
Use those rules to present your case. If your case is strong doing this exercise will convince the sincere who are truly seeking the authorial intent of these passages. If your case is weak (i.e. fails in one or more of the rules) then you must be sincere and take a second look at your preconceived suppositions.)
And some subjects of interpretation such as identifying the authorial intent of 1 Tim 2:12 is not a salvation issue. Therefore we need to allow for each person to be fully persuaded in their own minds without accusing them or being "against God or His Word".
If someone presents their case on interpreting 1 Tim 2:12 in the light of 1 Pet 3 they have presented a case that is using one of the rules of hermeneutics. (textual context or theological textual context from similar passages in the New Testament)
If you want to rebut their comparison of these two passages as meaningful you must present the reason why this application fails the rule of textual context. If you can't then you must concede that it passes the test of that rule.
No one is talking about teaching that fornication is ok, (Nicolaitans) and so we don't need any anathemas or declarations of judgments upon them as false brethren and headed to the Lake of Fire simply because they don't agree that one is interpreting the scriptures about women speaking in the church correctly.
It always a sign of immaturity for us to declare everyone on the road to perdition that does not agree with out interpretation. Threats like that simply mean you have not done the work to present a case using rules of hermeneutics which is all that is necessary for a civil discussion here in CC. If we find that we have come to an impasse then we simply must leave the discussion as open and we can each continue to examine the scriptures to see if they support our current understanding or if we have made a mistake in interpretation and we should be willing to change our views based on that new light.
Never is there a need to end our contributions to the threads by declaring that everyone else is resisting God for not seeing what we think we see. It is not one of the rules of hermeneutics. It is an emotional dig, a vent of frustration, a form of murdering your opponent in your heart, a stab in the back upon departing, and if anything it casts doubt on our ability to have understanding in the spiritual things of God, because, remember that if we are not walking in love our gifts of interpretation might be tainted.