Whoa, hold the phone! There it is - the explanation is context. You've had at least three opportunities to provide an answer, and finally, we see one peeking through. But I would implore you to tell me - to tell us all - exactly how the verse was taken out of context; or, if that's not the case, just exactly what context we are supposed to be framing it in. I wouldn't have pegged you as someone to read around specific wording in the Bible, or the Constitution in the name of "context" (Read: your signature), but perhaps you will explain otherwise.
But, that's understandable when your objective is to p*ss on the infallible Word of God.
Except that you can't even seem to give a convincing argument of what "the infallible word of God" actually is. Apparently, some of it needs to be read "in context," which might bring into question just about any of those laws of the Bible which strike as absurd (e.g. if a man rapes a woman, he must marry her) which means there is hope yet - perhaps you don't march around following it word-for-literal word. But that still remains to be seen.
How utterly ironic for you to post that.
No more utterly ironic than for you to refer to Romans 1:22. Best regards.
From the start, you mocked the Bible. Among other things, you said it demands that women be "cowering, submissive robots." You declared the Word of God "hogwash" and "absurd." Thus, I'm sure you can understand if I see no benefit to bother with you any longer. Because, if I were to answer your questions by casting pearls from the Word, I would be guilty of enabling your further mocking. Perhaps you can find someone else to be your straight man.
By the way, the context I mentioned has absolutely nothing to do with cultural or historical context. It is only the textual context. In other words, let Scripture interpret Scripture. It's still a literal reading of Scripture.
Have a nice weekend.