Why do women want to be Christians?

[Archer0915]

Ephesians 5:24-28King James Version (KJV)

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

And to answer the question in the OP? The husband is duty-bound to give up his life for his wife.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Ephesians 5:24-28King James Version (KJV)

24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

And to answer the question in the OP? The husband is duty-bound to give up his life for his wife.

True, and for what it's worth, women have legally had it far worse in any atheistic state, such as the Soviet Union and (arguably) Nazi Germany than they have in most "Christian" ones.

My understanding is that the Leviticus Law in its time and place was actually an improvement and assertion of the rights of men and women over what existed in the pagan societies of the time.

What is ironic is though the same progressive atheists don't extend the same sentiments to Islam despite the founder marrying a 9-year old girl. Or for that matter, to atheism itself, under which the notion of "women's rights" does not logically exist, and Darwinianly speaking, a woman is is just a sexual commodity for reproduction and survival of the species.

[McCool]

Men's dominance was a necessity before technology. The physical fact of life.That said, it's no longer a necessity.

Can you elaborate? In reading your comment, one might get the feeling that you believe there are zero differences between men and women.

[Devil'sAdvocate]

Men's dominance was a necessity before technology. The physical fact of life.That said, it's no longer a necessity.

Dominance is relative, and the notion of "men's dominance" having been universal in any time period is actually rather mythological.

In certain fields such as war and politics, they were viewed as exclusively male endeavours. Culture as a "whole" was not entirely structured around the male "self-interests", many aspects of the cultures were arguably more designed around the interest of the woman and her offspring. While they may have had laws curbing freedoms of women, there were also very strict laws and penalties which insured that males were responsible for the provision of women and their offspring, and were obligated to the woman's family not to dishonor her.

(Women my have many more legal rights today, but on the same breath, a man today has a far easier time sleeping around with many women, and bailing on the pregnancy, with little real ability for the law to punish him, while under a legal system like that of the Old Testament, he would likely have had to fear violent retribution from a father or brother of a woman in question).

If anything, I view the Levictical law as primarily family or "tribe" centered, with very little individual freedom as one's family or "tribe" was viewed as the center of one's life, and male and female were expected to sacrifice everything for it.

Likwise the notion that "technology" has provided some universal means of security, as technology or not, in the event of future major world wars, society could change in a more survivalistic direction.

[McCool]

I've always wondered why any woman would be Xian. I have assembled several Bible verses that, I feel, no one can defend. My words in bold:



Female Inferiority

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (I Corinthians 11:3)

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man." (I Corinthians 11:8-9)

I know that in my own home, my wife and I are working together and it's all we both can do to keep our ship afloat. There's time for little else.

We've been married for nearly ten years and we've both gravitated to our roles naturally. She takes the lead on some things, and I take the lead on others.

My role, as father and husband, is to support my family; and that means spiritually, temporally and morally. My wife's role is to make sure our house is a home. When we're both doing what we're supposed to be doing, then there's peace and happiness on all sides. When we're not, then all hell breaks loose. And in the final judgment, the last thing I want to report to the Lord, is that I didn't step up and be a man of God in my own home. I'm sure my wife feels the same way about her role as a woman of God.