Paul of Tarsus is a bigot and should be as revered as he is.

You posted:"The whole thing of women submitting to the husbands and the husbands love the wife as christ loves the church, still says that women are not the equals of men because men are not the equals of Jesus. Men and women becoming one in flesh is symbolic of love. And even if they were one in flesh as paul decrees, a woman still has her own, god given, free will to think as she wills, not as her husband wills." You are missing the point, women and men are supposed to follow a certain role in the marriage. A woman is only supposed to submit to a husband who is trying to love the woman as Christ loves the church. If a man is fulfilling his role in the marriage and the woman is fulfilling her role then they are both following God's word. In life you have a father,boss,president, in one way or another you submit to their will. You have a submissive role to these authority figures. You are correct that in a marriage woman and men do not hold equal roles. Just as in the church a pastor and a choir member do not have an equal role. If everyone is in a decision making role chaos ensues. God knows this, and in his wisdom has decreed that everyone has a specific role to follow. Society is built upon these roles, from households to government. "Shall be one flesh" is not symbolic of love. In Paul's style of writing it is easy to understand when he was being symbolic and when he was not. As a hobby I like to study the New Testament in ancient Greek and the translation. The ancient Greek does not change the meaning of the bible but it helps to put somethings in context. Paul uses words that translate into love approx. 100 times by my count. These are never symbolic and symbolisms for "love" in his writing is rare. The term Paul uses for "one flesh" is sarka mian. Marvin R. Vincent(Baldwin Professor of Sacred Literature)when looking at the possible meanings, the context, and the way in which Paul makes use of these words in his other writings comes to the conclusion that this is best described as a man and woman becoming one person. In a person there are conflicting feelings and emotions as you are well aware. A reasonable person comes to an important decision in life and weighs pros and cons for each course this person can choose, while at this point this person can become undecided. As in a marriage two people can have different opinions and still be of one will. The proposed unity of Paul's decree does not rob women of free will but promotes a husband and wife displaying a united front upon their final decisions and conclusions. You posted:"And when you say christianity does not teach equality between the sexes, i believe you are wrong. Jesus treated woman with just as much respect as men and did not place them below men." Jesus did treat women with respect, just as all men should. Respect does not equal equality. The bible teaches that women and men are placed in different roles at home and in the church. You posted:"People who believe that christianity does not teach equality are the same that take the bible out of context for their own gain like a husband forcing his wife to be submissive." This is an offensive broadly sweeping statement. If a man forces his wife to do anything he is in direct conflict with the teachings of Paul. Jesus does not force the church to do anything. Jesus leads by example as a husband should. You posted:"I am sorry but that is extremely wrong. we all have free will to do as we want. and please find me a husband and wife who agree on everything." As I explained above a man and woman being one flesh does not rob a woman of her freewill. Being one flesh does not mean agreeing on everything but coming to agreement on everything. Many examples of this could be given but I think personal examples have no place in debate. You posted:"Paul was not one of the twelve and they should be given more credance than Paul as they were nearest to Jesus and the hoky spirit came upon them during pentecost." Paul was hand picked to be an apostle, as related by Luke in Acts 9: 3As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?" 5"Who are you, Lord?" Saul asked. "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting," he replied. 6"Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do." Matthew was one of the twelve and his teachings never conflict with Luke's. None of the teachings of the 12 conflict with Luke's or Paul's. So who has credence is irrelevant, as the whole bible is God's revelation of himself to man. You posted:"Yes he was speaking of slavery during his time where it was common, but one human owning another is wrong i any time and it denines the god given rights of others. No free will... for one. no true christian apostle would promote slavery because the holy spirit should have given guidance stating it was immoral despite the times in which they lived." Paul is in no way promoting slavery. Paul is instructing everyone to be Christlike. When Christ was persecuted he accepted his fate and played His role.Christians are taught to rely upon God in all situations, whether they be kings or slaves. Paul was not endorsing slavery, he was giving the slaves a Christlike way of dealing with their situation, Paul was concerned with what is most important in a person's life, their soul. Paul's aim was not to address the immorality or morality of slavery but to address the applications of Jesus' teachings to the new believer's life.