But what spread this Greek thinking to say Norway or the UK? The greek themselves or the spread of religion (Christianity in this case) that once covered the whole of Europe.

While I am not religious, many of my morals in life are based on a thinking that was established by a prominant religion because they are established in my society. The rest are based on logic and common sense to determine what is right, not what a book has told me.

You have said twice about religion and the 'false premises' which points that religion as a whole has no hold on your life. You may not have religion as a direct source of your morals but without it many of lifes simple ethics may not be as well established as they are.

I guess that prayer called "The Hail Mary" shows her in a negative light.

I have been to churches since i was little and i never heard anything like that.

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God- 1 corinthians 11:3

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.-1 Timothy 2:12

The words you're looking for is "blind fate".

Jehovah's Witnesses used to take the same view of rape. They claimed that if a woman was raped then really she had committed fornication, and god was angry with her. If she didn't show enough repentence for being raped to a body of male elders then she could be shunned by the congregation and her own family. When I say shunned I mean nobody, not even her parents, are allowed to talk to her or engage with her in anyway (unless she is a minor living in the house, then parents can still have a relationship with her.)

Here's a snippet from an old watchtower magazine.

   "According to the Bible at Deuteronomy 22:23-27, an Israelite engaged girl threatened with rape was required to scream. What is the position of a Christian woman today if faced with a similar situation? Is she to scream even if an attacker threatens her life with a weapon?

According to God's law an Israelite girl was under obligation to scream: "In case there happened to be a virgin girl engaged to a man, and a man actually found her in the city and lay down with her, you must also bring them both out to the gate of that city and pelt them with stones, and they must die, the girl for the reason that she did not scream in the city, and the man for the reason that he humiliated the wife of his fellow man." If, however, the attack took place in a field and the woman screamed and thus tried to get away from the attacker, she was not to be stoned, since she was overpowered and there was no one to rescue her.-Deut. 22:23-27.

But suppose the man had a weapon and threatened to kill the girl if she failed to lie down with him? These scriptures do not weaken the argument or alter the situation by citing any circumstance that would justify her in not screaming. It plainly says she should scream; hence, oppose the attack regardless of the circumstances. If she was overpowered and perhaps knocked unconscious and violated before help came in answer to her screams, she could not be held accountable. The thought of the scriptures apparently is that the girl's screaming, by attracting neighborhood attention, would frighten off her assailant and would save her, even though he threatened her life for not quietly complying with his wishes and passionate desires.

Such Scriptural precedents are applicable to Christians, who are under command, "Flee from fornication." (1 Cor. 6:18) Thus if a Christian woman does not cry out and does not put forth every effort to flee, she would be viewed as consenting to the violation. The Christian woman who wants to keep clean and obey God's commandments, then, if faced with this situation today, needs to be courageous and to act on the suggestion made by the Scriptures and scream. Actually this counsel is for her welfare; for, if she should submit to the man's passionate wishes, she would not only be consenting to fornication or adultery, but be plagued by the shame. There would be shame, not only from the repulsiveness of the experience, but of having been coerced into breaking God's law by having sex connections with one other than a legal marriage mate. Not only that, but she might become an unwed mother, or she may contract a terrible disease from her morally debased attacker."

Or here is a great quote on why rapes happen from a watchtower in the 70s

"Womankind must share the blame. To begin with, until the age of five or six years, the most vital period, little boys have their personalities molded largely by women, their mothers. And as they grow up, it is usually the mother that has the most opportunities to inculcate in her son respect for womankind, both by word and by example. But far too many mothers have come short in this regard. Especially and specifically blameworthy are those female relatives, such as an aunt or even a mother, who have used boys as sexual playthings, thereby starting them on a road that leads to their having aggressive feelings toward women."

They used to print an article every once and a while about rape, and how it was preferable to be killed by a rapist than to be raped and bring shame on yourself. But In more recent times they've softened their stance a bit, namely because people wrote in saying how egregiously disgusting what they were teaching women was. They went through a wishy washy period where one article would state that it is a myth that the woman is to blame for being raped and then a few years later release another article saying you need to scream and fight to the death thusly showing god that you didn't consent to having sex outside of marriage. The last article I had seen on it was from I think 2003, that said you should scream but ultimately it's up to god to decide whether or not you wanted to be raped.

Patriarchy is rarely interested in women's rights.

Oh I have one more scripture to add to my above post on men being the head of women

Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God- 1 corinthians 11:3

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.-1 Timothy 2:12

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. ²⁴ Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Ephesians 5:22-24

The problem is your definition of 'church'.

No protestant denomination teaches that. Only Catholics do. They teach the pope is infailable, thus their preists are by proxy likely to be infaliable too. Comparatively, protestants believe no one is at or above God, therefore, the final authority rests with God and not men. Therefore, understanding scripture is best done on a personal basis, with the pastor helping to direct the congregation with emphasis on certain life-applicable issues.

You kind of missed the other parts by taking it out of context:

Ephesians 5:21-33

Yeah, real inequality in those statements. I guess I shouldn't go all out in loving my wife by giving more than recieving, hunh?

Your first quote only tells that even God and Jesus, who share the same spirit, aren`t "equal", so are neither man nor woman as they have different roles. But that doesn`t mean they aren`t seen the same in God`s eyes.

"27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Genesis
Everyone was created in God`s image.

And those words seem to have a context aswell.