"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord." Ephesians 5:22 - that's what the bible says but it seems nowadays the world is changing and the whole world is changing. Ladies are becoming westernised and are finding it increasingly hard to submit to their partners.
Why is this so? is submission still relevant in modern day climate? Guys what are your views on this?
It gets back to the original statement of being unequally yoked.
The Bible does tell us that wives should obey their husbands, though the addendum needed here is that if the husband is telling his wife to do something which is against her beliefs in God, the answer needs to be a respectful "no" whereby the wife should be prepared to show her husband the scripture she is following.
Coincidently, this also bears out the importance of an equally yoked marriage or serious relationship.
The other side is that the husband is to love his wife "as Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for her." If both sides do their part there is not a problem. I submit to my husband, he listens to me and respects my thoughts, and we always come to an agreement.
One must be very careful with this one. Submitting to the husband as to the Lord, if not taken correctly, puts you dangerously in the position of idol worship. By submitting to him as to the Lord, are we not suggesting also she treat his statements and requests as if Jesus said them? If so, we're putting man on the same level as God which is straight up idol worship.
The existence of all things including marriage is based on one principle.
Single head. Single vision.
For the Common good for all involved.
The head must be one and the vision single with the good purpose for all. And all involved united in pursuit of the vision.
Two heads equals two visions is division and death.
Commands are for those who are not comfortable with the head or the vision.
The cause may be a division in the head and another vision arising within the body.
Those who will not submit to the head will not submit also to the vision, and that one has become the enemy.
The truth will guide all to follow the head and the vision for by them, the good purpose is fulfilled.
Wives will obey husband and children will obey parents, not by command but by necessity of their good existance and that one common good purpose.
As succinctly as AdeleCosgroveBray has explained this issue, you'll notice that the ideal has successfully been indoctrinated into the believer such that the believer is well justified to the point of the wife becoming the "enemy" of the husband if strict obedience is not adhered.
However, she has unfortunately underestimated the issue as being simply "primitive" as it clearly is quite dangerous of an ideal to uphold.
Our view is that only inferior men, that can not succeed and prove themselves in the social life (for ex. career, school, art, sports, etc.) want wives that will be submissive and inferior to them, because for them it is sort of a compensation. They can't dominate in their life, so they want to dominate over their wife. Pathetic.
Why would you want to spend you life with someone that is not equal to you?
Such misogynistic nonsense was written by men for the convenience of men, thousands of years ago. In Britain, the wedding vows were altered long ago so that this oppressive and unreasonable demand was removed.
Why should any woman blindly obey any husband? If he says to jump off a cliff, should she? If he wants everything his own way, despite the disaster this might bring upon the family, does anyone really believe that a wife should sheepishly go along with his every silly demand? Of course not!
What a primitive attitude.
The Bible was obviously not written by women
Men wrote the bible ... men wanted women to submit tho them ... doesn't it make sense they would write a verse to cover this?
Women are to continue to be submissive to the man as they are unto Yah. No matter the change in society... Yah's word never changes, and so being that His word never changes, then His word can be trusted forever.
It is always relevant in any age. It is part of the basis for the proper structure of the family. Over 90% of all the posts on this thread refer to a woman blindly obeying her husband. Nothing is further from the truth. Religious or not the husband and wife are to consult together and plan for the future. However, it is the duty and responsibility of the husband to have the final decision. This does not mean his every word is gospel. This proper family framework can only work if they consult one another and be of one mind and purpose. At this point the decision of the husband should be the mind and will of the wife as well. If they have conversed on a subject then she should be overjoyed and ever-willing to support the decision of her husband. Children historically and should recognize the father as the provider and central decision maker. At the same time they need to know that decisions are made as husband and wife. Yes, there is great biblical background into this docrine and when properly understood makes all the sense in the world and does NOT promote sexism or discrimination. It is order. It is proper. It is the structure of the family and framework for eternal relationships.
The modern mindset is based largely on media, hollywood and those hidden agendas from many different groups and forces. They have served to desensitize us from these foundations and unfortuneately have succeeded. This is proven by the following posts that will take place trashing the views I have just presented. It makes no matter. I have not only studied the structure but have seen the structure in action time after time and when approached the wives and husband are happy with their relationships because there IS communication and order.
NO, the wife submits to the will of the husband AS the husband submits to the will of the Father. That's the proper framework of the hierarchy of the family unit. Murder is not the mind of the Father neither should it be for the wife.
A wholesome productive marriage consists of a threeway relationship between the husband and wife with the Eternal Father at the helm.
Indeed! It takes years of study to understand ancient records and doctrines practiced by those peoples. One cannot superficially look at the words at face value and expect to decipher it's full meaning. On the contrary. The real meaning is in the events around the words.
I like all the smiley faces you put on your posts. Although meant to pull rank I still enjoy the pictures.
Okay, first off, your doctrines, even the main three, are unattainable. In fact- I've put all three doctrines to work in my life. I ended my study with the self-realization that the goals are absolutely unachieveable.
And, I'm speaking from actual experience. The reality of the true situation, based on any relationship made of love is equal in every aspect, regardless of gender. There is no leeway of change. There is NO higher authority, for a family made of love.
Pull rank? What you think you're a higher authority than I am? I seriously hope not.
Whose turn is it to use the riding crop and whose turn is it to wear the slave collar?
On the subject of a wife obeying her husband.There is nowhere in the Bible that says a woman should obey. The word God used is submit to your husband as to the Lord. Yes woman are becoming less submissive but if you read a little further Ephes:5:28 the husband is told to love his wife as he loves his own body. In marriage The two become as one. God made Eve from Adams left rib close to his heart to be loved. By his side as his mate and under his arm to be protected. How many men treat their wives as they were instructed to by God. Maybe both sexes need to read the true wedding vows.
Read and understand the Bible in terms of the time in which it was written. The point of being married to someone isn't in obeying but in mutual understanding and appreciation, in friendship and compromising. The word ''obey'' is primitive if used in the context of marriage.
However when people who are husbands cease to be husbands when they do things that husbands are not supposed to do!
In short when a man is good obey him, when a man is doing bad then he cannot be told as a husband anymore.....
I think religious books need to be looked for inner meanings than just superficial meanings.
OK, looks like you may have stirred up some attitudes, so I guess mine won't stand out that much, huh?
Yes, theoretically the bible says that womenn are supposed to be submissive to their husbands. Can you now tell me what it says only a verse or two away from that about what husbands are supposed to be?
So far as us women folk getting all westernized, I can only say that first off we live in a western country, and the reason why we may not be all that submissive is because WE CANNOT TRUST OUR MEN, and is we are westernized, what are the men? Easternized? If you are going to make a point get both sides of the story so it doesn't look , eh, bias and fanatical, and this is coming from a born again christian
...and when could you ever? And when could you ever expect to? What could someone ever do to deserve that kind of trust?
I don't remember where it is written but is. That ye can not really put our faith in anyone belonging to the human race, ( we are human ).
As far as the submitting thing goes , husband and wife were told to submit to each other.
And one of the two has to have a tiebreaker authority when "important" issues can not be agreed upon. This tiebreaker should be in the hands of the bread winner.
When both people are the bread winner and can not agree upon anything, maybe divorce is the answer,
If divorce is not the answer then learn to not be so stubborn and learn how to get along.
You can't take one passage in the Bible and pull it out and absolutize it against every other passage. A husband cannot expect his wife to commit a crime, a matter that is outside his area of authority. He also cannot insist she do something immoral, an area already covered by God's law.
Any passage should be able to stand on its own. If not, then the entire book can be called into question.
Men submit to other Men that eventually submit to 1 women I think she lives in britan and her name is elizebeth.
Back to the point
if men submit to other men that submit to 1 women then the men are actually not dominating at all otherwise they would be at total peace with their women.
And the women are not submitting to men rather we know that men are following a bad women and they are all confused to some extent some more the others
I think it's important for relationships to be collective. A marriage should make two people into one. In that, both parties should respect the other in every way.
Some part of the World still exist. Submission is much important. And still considering as Holy.
It is irrelevant. This passage really goes back to an earlier time when the role of men and women and society were different. It's a lot more fun to be supportive of each other.
ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.....well although i think i definitely need to read the bible again as i haven't been in church for years. however, i certainly don't think any girl should submit to any guy. don't get me wrong, i understand how that it's still enforced in many cultures and i do respect their right to do that. however, for me personally, i just think it's wrong. i would never ask any girl to submit to me like some sort of slave. as i always viewed love as like a partnership. where people would work together as equals. at least that's what my take is on it.
I do see your point in an equal partnership and when husband and wife are working together, things go so much easier, don't they? What happens, though, when one or the other is doing something the other sees as a detriment or in danger of a problem down the line?
Tolerance of intolerance, man...
No one chooses to be a second class citizen. What about the rights of the affected women to be treated as human beings?
look, i understand what you're saying, and if your going to judge me, then please judge me based on EVERYTHING i say versus only one part taken out of contexts. look, as i stated before, i think all women and men should have equal rights amongst each other. however, i also understand that there are some cultures that don't value that aspect, so there's not much we can do about it. would you like it if a socialist came up to you and told you how wrong a capitalistic society is? or how your way of life is? the point i was trying to make was that even i think all women deserve equal rights as men but i understand that we can't change other cultures. which is basically what i was getting at.
You know what is problem with what you just said? The fact that it can be inferred that you do think that your culture is better than the other cultures and that capitalism is better than socialism. Based on what do you think that other cultures don't value aspect of equal rights as much as your culture does? Maybe they just have different view of what this equality is. Of course, if you start from the viewpoint that your believes and views are best and correct, you will end up with conclusion that other cultures don't value equality and rights.
Although I personally strongly dislike Islam and their views, the truth is that many things that to us seem as imposed onto women in that culture, actually are not imposed against women will. For ex. when the secular government in Turkey banned women from wearing hijab in the public institutions (like at universities or in parliament) it was not the men that strongly opposed it and protested against the ban on the streets, it was the women. Some of them actually abandoned their studies, because they could not wear hijab in school, yet many westerners think that women are forced to wear it and that it is a sign of inequality.
You do make a lot of valid points. In fact, I was actually trying to say the exact same thing as you did, but I guess I worded it wrong. Leaving it up for misinterpretation. I was merely responding to Paul's reply to my message as I thought he was labeling me as a sexist, so I wanted to clarify what I meant in my original comment on page 1 of this forum.
Anyway, to answer your question though, I do agree with you as I never thought any form of society is better than the other because I never lived in their world. Therefore, I don't have a bias towards any society as I would have to live in both for a good amount of time to determine which is better. When i said those things like, "how would you like it if a socialist told...blah, blah, blah", I phrased it as a hypothetical question to paul. thats all. Plus, if you read what I said in page 1 of this forum, I even said I respect other cultures ways of life too. I don't judge cultures based on how they live because I don't know how they live outside of what i read.
As a wise man once said, it's always different to know a culture by studying them in books, but it's completely different when you live amongst them to get to know their society. Therefore, I apologize if you misinterpreted what I said, but I was merely responding to paul's message that's all. anyway, i hope that clears up any issues here.
You've heard the phrase, right? "Tolerance of intolerance is..."?
Either women deserve equal rights or they don't.
And if you understand they do, then offering up platitudes and "respect" to the people who don't instead of challenging them on their primitive, anti-human agendas, well... tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.
Now, people are cowardly about things every day. But let's not pretend it's enlightenment.
okay, lets make a deal then. you and i will go travel to some middle eastern country of your choice, and i'll gladly let you be the first to try to convert and challenge the natives on their ways of life. if you do that, then i'll gladly follow your example and do the same. is that a deal?
That was rather dishonest of you. When did I suggest you go on a suicide mission?
But I'll respond with honesty: Self preservation is a big thing for me. Cowardice is a fact of my life. I'm not going to go plunging into some Hell-hole where people get murdered for disagreeing with the powers that be because I like being alive.
But at least I don't pretend it's because I'm so enlightened that I perceive some deep spiritual benefit to tyranny and oppression.
And the fact I'm not off fighting some suicidal crusade to end oppression of women in theocracies doesn't mean I respect them. I don't feel the need to talk about how "culturally valid" it is to keep your wife so isolated from the light of day she develops bone deformities.
Because I believe that a culture that values empathy and equality over cruelty and oppression is superior. I might not be brave enough to die in a one-man crusade, but at least I'm not afraid to admit I value the things I value.
Umm...when exactly did i say that i was enlightened about anything? I never said that. you can look back and read every post i put down on page 10, 11, and 1, and you'll see i NEVER said that i was. nor did i say anything to imply it. look, i understand and respect your point of view completely. however, like you i value my life too much to ever go up to a bunch of middle eastern countries to challenge their beliefs. That's why i try to respect and acknowledge all cultures. As its one thing for all of us to judge from the outside looking in than to be actually living it. Heck, in most cultures they see us americans as being pompeous and arrogant believe it or not. Yet would you agree with that? I don't, but that's what some countries think about us. Catch my drift? It's easy for us to judge other cultures, but until we live in the one's shoes, we can't judge anything. I personally don't agree with a lot of their views on life in general at all, nor do i condone some of the things they do. However, I certainly don't feel superior to any of them nor do i feel all enlightened either. I never said or implied it. if anything your the one thats acting all high and mighty. therefore, just get over it. unless your willing to do something about your beliefs, then just be quiet. like i said, if you think im a coward for thinking the way, i do, then please take me up on my challenge as i was being quite serious. if not, then please refrain from trying to make it sound like im being all supposedly "ENLIGHTENED" OR whatever.
It's possible I'm letting your tone and Diskobolos' bleed into each other in my mind, as you both argued from pretty much exactly the same point. But it's not the use or absence of the actual word of "enlightenment" I'm referring to, it's the implication of it. It goes hand in hand with claims about realizing all cultures deserve respect, and a few other things. There's this attitude that people often develop that the deepest, most intellectual thing in the world is to call everything the same as everything else. And it's completely vapid.
I'm not sure you do. I don't think someone could really understand and respect my point of view and still respect the "right" of some people to treat others as property. I'm really getting a vibe like you've been lead to believe it's right and proper to just automatically say your respect whatever viewpoint you encounter, regardless of what you really think about it.
And besides the matter of the sense of personal danger to "liberators" there's the matter of if you go into someone else's country guns blazing they don't tend to appreciate your efforts to liberate them.
But that doesn't mean we have to respect it when apostates and rape victims are murdered. Not respecting it doesn't mean launching the missiles.
Well... whatever. If someone imagines you and all your countrymen as some kind of giant stereotype and laughs about it with their friends so what? If you're ever over there in whatever hypothetical foreign land this is maybe they'll actually find some of your behaviors arrogant and pompous. If they point it out to you maybe you'll realize they're right. Maybe you'll be better off for it than if they had "respected" you and kept quiet. I'm not afraid of the notion of someone calling my value system into question. I believe I can defend it if they do. And if I can't, well, it's probably a good thing someone pointed it out to me.
Maybe you should. What you might term "Western society" spent a long time behaving a lot like the Middle East behaves today. We learned better than that.
And in fact, maybe you do. Think of the worst treatment that is directed against apostates, homosexuals, women, or other people Middle Eastern cultures and backwoods American cults hate. Consider that people inflict this treatment on their neighbors and families. Consider the prospect of treating your own friends and family the same way.
Do you honestly not feel that your way is better? Do you honestly think "The way I do things works for me, but if someone else wanted to treat the people who hold the same places in their own lives like dirt that's just as good."
Really think about it. Think about beating your mother or sister or wife or daughter for speaking to man she's not related to. Think about a friend being killed for disagreeing with you on religious matters.
You don't feel like you're better than that?
Well, if everyone else is going to say treating people like property is perfectly acceptable behavior then I guess I am.
Well, for one thing, when someone asks what I think about going back to treating women like its the dark ages, I let my hatred for that sort of barbarity fly and I don't temper it by saying I respect other people's rights to treat women like slaves. If I didn't meet that suggestion with ridicule and scorn I might give rise to the illusion of a silent majority supporting it.
Whether or not your challenge was serious, it's quite ridiculous. Plunge into a place where dissenting voices are are met with force to spread dissent and then what? Curl up and wait to die or reply to force with force? Both are stupid.
But that doesn't mean you have to like it and it doesn't mean you have to be totally silent. To say you respect the rights of one group to take away the rights of another is telling that other group you do not support their rights. It is saying to those people who want the same freedoms we have that we are on their oppressors' side.
look, i think your taking EVERYTHING i said out of context and most of all trying to get me upset so we'll get into some feeble argument. which is sad on your part for doing. i NEVER said that women don't deserve equal rights nor did i ever say I condone how middle eastern women are treated.
I just simply acknowledge the fact that there's not much I can do about it, and that i'm sure there's plenty of flaws about our society that's equally or more flawed.
You claim I have no respect for your opinion, which is fine. believe whatever you want. i know what i said, and i said what i meant. however, as i've learned from life, EVERYONE including ME, is an idiot. your going to assume whatever you want to believe anyway. acknowledging only things you deem important while ignoring everything else i said.
look, i really don't feel like getting into some type of religious or society debate with you as I could care less to discuss this any further. I usually NEVER talk to people about religion or race as i don't like to offend others, so I would please ask you to stop trying to debate and knit pick whatever i say to make it sound like im a hypocrite or whatever. when i know im not, and i stated EXACTLY what i meant.
However for the record, to answer the original question of this forum. NO i don't think any woman should bow and submit to their husband like a slave. as true love should be like a partnership. Both sides should be equal and unafraid to voice their opinions. that's my official take on it.
But you did say you respect it. Is it the case that really you don't but you've been led to believe the proper behavior is to automatically pay lip service to every dissenting idea you encounter in the form of the word "respect."?
Is your criteria for respect whether or not you have the power to change the entity in question?
Given that I can come up with a laundry list of problems with my own culture I'm sure someone outside it could make a few legitimate complaints, but what is the problem with that, exactly? If a foreigner pointed out to you that some of your behaviors and beliefs which you had never thought to question were actually detrimental to you, what's the great evil there? Shouldn't you be glad for the new information you couldn't have gained without an outside perspective?
But just because someone from another culture might have something they can teach you why should that mean you have to walk on eggshells around what you realize they've gotten wrong?
Well if you stated exactly what you meant something's not adding up. You just said that you don't think any woman should bow and submit to their husband like a slave, but you earlier stated you respect other people's rights to attempt to force exactly that on women.
I think what's going on is really you don't respect it, but you claimed to by near-reflex because not making that claim is considered culturally insensitive.
Paul, look i really don't feel like getting into any racial or religious debate with you. therefore, i'm going to ask you to STOP. do not respond to this message, unless its something along the lines of okay. i thought this forum was meant to for people like you and me to voice our own opinions, yet for some reason i get the feeling like im not even allowed to according to you.
as EVERYTHING that i said is being misinterpreted to make me look like a hypocrite when in reality, I said everything i wanted to say quite clearly. look like i said before, your trying to call me a coward and a hypocrite, then lets go to a middle eastern country of your choice. you try to talk to the natives about their ways of treating women, and i'll gladly follow your example. until then, please shut up. my thoughts are if something bothers you, then DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!! don't just be online b***** about it to me. do something about it. You think Martin Luther King Jr. did nothing when was fighting for civil rights in the usa. Hell no, he actually did something about it. Along with other civil rights leaders done over the years.
My thoughts are if you're really bothered by how some women are treated in other countries, here's an idea DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!! its like robert townsend said in "meteor man", "how can you complain, when you do NOTHING." that's my official take. therefore, unless you can provide proof of ANYTHING your doing to stop this unfair treatment of women in other cultures, then you have no right to complain about it. do so only makes you a coward in my book.
Oh no, you don't get to make accusations like this...
...and pretend you're being captain reasonable.
You're the one making demands that I be silent, not the other way around.
Regarding hypocrites, reference my bold.
Ridiculous. Aside from point out your inconsistencies to you what would you have me do, exactly? Should we agree to meet at a neutral location for fisticuffs? If we were engaged in mortal combat would my views suddenly seem more reasonable to you?
I am. Right now. I'm trying to convince someone who knows better than to think well of what amounts to human slavery to stop claiming to respect the practice.
Again, what is a better course of action, in your mind? Be serious. Going into Saudi or Iran or some related country and preaching against their religion is going to end in a long stay in a shitty prison very quickly. Best case scenario.
Okay, I understand your logic and what your trying to get at. Your basically saying that if I'm for equal rights among the sexes, then I shouldn't condone it not being practiced within other cultures, am I right?
However, what is debating with me exactly going to solve? Seriously, do you think I have any control over how the middle east is ran? Even if you do argue with me until I agree with you completely, then it's still not going to change anything in our society or theirs.
As far as not wanting to risk going to jail or getting killed in the middle east for trying to debate their ways of life, all I can tell you is that many civil rights activists had to endure all sorts of hardships to get things done. Martin Luther King Jr. had a lot of death threats when he preached his speech about peace and love between all races. Yet he continued to put his own life in danger by being in the spot light, and preaching his message anyway. As a result, years later that inspired an entire nation to move forward in the right direction.
Look all I was trying to get at, when I made that challenge to you was that sometimes to get things done you have to put your own life in danger to make a difference. Heck, Rosa Parks went to jail when she refused to sit in the back of the bus, and to this day people still praise her for standing up for her equal rights. Sometimes if you want to make a change in a particular culture, then you have to be willing to put your own neck on the line. Plain and simple.
Just sitting here and debating with me, won't change anything. The middle east will still continue to do things the way they do, and that's about it. Plus, I'm a very shy guy in real life, so odds are this conversation won't be discussed after i log off with anyone else. Unless you plan to tell people about this conversation in real life, which again why are you still here debating with me?
As for you claiming im trying to pose as the "captain of reason", I'm not. All i said was that I don't like talking or debating people's cultures. Simply because I believe it's easier for someone to criticize someone from the outside looking in. Versus judging things once you lived in that particular form of society.
Edit: by the way, no I don't want to meet up with you fight fist a cuffs with you. again, your taking what i say to you rather personally, and trying to start a pointless arguement with me. is this how you react to EVERYONE that disagrees with you? if so, then i suggest you seriously need to get a life.
Maybe one less voice offering support for treating women as chattel.
Not in theirs, not right away, but maybe in ours. And what with globalization and everything, maybe if we sort ourselves out and remember that we really do want equality our society as a whole can exert some pressure.
Some things about Martin Luther King:
1) Martin Luther King was a black man. This gave him a certain credibility in speaking against racism and segregation that a white man could never have. True fact. I am not a woman of middle-eastern descent. I can't be an analogue to Martin Luther Kign.
2) Martin Luther King enjoyed the support of thousands to millions of people. By extension of this, not everyone who opposed segregation was Martin Luther King, putting their lives on the line and making themselves into the figurehead of a violently opposed ideology.
3) Without that support Martin Luther King couldn't have achieved anything. No matter how loudly or how visibly he spoke against racism if no one had been willing to admit they agreed with him he wouldn't have achieved anything.
4) Martin Luther King is not without analogous persons living today. You might have heard of Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Oppressed women are not sitting around waiting for an outsider to come save them, they are examples of them rising up and speaking out against their oppression.
If you had been around when Martin Luther King were fighting segregation would you speak of your respect for his opponents? That the treatment of women advocated in Islam (and some fundamentalist Christianity) is any less evil than, or deserves any more respect than the racism of King's time is a lie that certain elements on the left try to feed us for reasons I can't imagine.
Even if I wanted to, being that I'm not a woman, and I'm not surrounded by people who want to take away my basic humanity, I can't exactly fight to claim it back. If I decide to mix it up, get loud and in people's face and say damn the consequences, bring on your fatwas, I'll just totally invalidate myself. That kind of hard stance has to come from inside. But people like Rosa Parks still exist, and I think that those people deserve that we at least declare we share their beliefs in their own equality without qualification or apology.
Even if you're a shy person in real life, you're still plugged into this whole global communications new way of thinking internet thing, so your statement of support for religiously motivated misogyny is still of importance. Especially considering you obviously know better.
Well, here we are, talking about other people's cultures.
I'm still not understanding that complaint. It is easier to find fault when you're standing on the outside looking in. That's an advantage people on the outside have over people on the inside, they kind find problems where people on the inside didn't even realize there was anything to consider. If someone standing outside my culture looking in finds a problem with it I don't understand why that should be a problem. I'm sure there's things that Western society could do better, and if it takes the scathing condemnation of outsiders to realize it then so be it.
No, it's how I react to people who make the ridiculous claim that words are pointless unless I'm willing to back them up with a violent confrontation.
Fine, i'll tell you what. i'll just agree with EVERYTHING you said, since it seems im not even allowed in this forum to have an opinion according to you. Happy? Will you leave me alone and shut up if i do that? Please!!!
However, I would like to say a few things for the record here. One, I did state clearly that I hate talking to people about their culture and religion as its a offensive subject, and meant that. In fact, the only one who brought it up was YOU. therefore, that one you can't blame on me.
secondly, how did this topic turn from me merely stating on opinion to you trying to paint a picture of me being a sexist and a hypocrite. look, as i stated before, your going to believe what you want anyway. however, if your going to quote me, then at least have to common decency to quote me right.
Come on now, where is this coming from? Where have I made claims to the effect of you are not allowed to have an opinion? If you feel like I'm twisting your words, offer some kind of example or clarification instead of making hollow accusations.
If someone begins a topic, would it not be right to be around for followup? That is, unless it was put up for some other reason. I'm outta here.
No of course they shouldn't!
Any marriage worth it's salt has two equal partners, otherwise it would be a relationship of dependence! A really bad idea.
And what is wrong in the relationship of dependence? If two partners are not emotionally dependent on each other, than I have to question such relationship in the first place.
Just because partners are equal doesn't mean they don't depend on each other. Also, just because one partner might be in some way dependent on other doesn't mean they are not equal.
I'm sorry, but there is a HUGE difference between loving someone and being emotionally dependent on them. If you're unable to function normally without your spouse (beyond a reasonable grieving period in case of death or other loss), you have a serious problem.
And being dependent in other ways is just plain dumb. What if your spouse dies suddenly or gets seriously ill? Sure, there's life insurance, but it's much smarter to have a career of your own, or at least enough education to get one if the worst happens. And don't even get me started on the number of men, even in this day and age, who can't even make a pot of spaghetti or run a load of laundry! All children of both sexes need to learn basic financial and household management skills so they're never left dependent upon a spouse to take care of them.
Yes there is and should be a dependable partner who is equal and dependable. That is not a relationship of dependance which is never equal. Totally different thing!
Our older women took a vowel to love, honour and obey. They are accepting of that. It was a social construction of reality for the days when they were young. It would be wrong to make that perception change. This was a contract in the eyes of the law (and God?!).
Today, women have a choice in what they want to commit to their vowel or contract.
What I say, here, is only commit/vowel to what you are willing to fulfill.
Me? My vowels were based around the writings of Kahlil Gibrans 'The Prophit'...
that would be great. Where do I find one because the one I have now is spunky as hell. Oh, wait, that is what I love about her. Nevermind.
I think that we should consider what submit to truly implies.
I think that it is also written for the husband to submit to his wife? A marriage is a partnership, scripture also says that it is a wise man who can make his wife happy.
When really important issues arise,. One of the two needs to be able to cast a tie breaker vote. There are never two captains commanding a ship for a reason.
It is only one part. The other part is that the husband should offer her unqualified love. Which means the love and respect will be mutual. Problem solved
If I disobey my husband he spanks me ...
Was that too much information..hehe
Should Women Always Obey Their Husbands?
Yes, of course!
that's why I never got married.
hey tantrum oh wise one
Thing is that quote or scripture is often misquoted.
The whole script says ..wives obey your husbands as (like) Jesus obeyed the Church (God)...but it amuses me how we as humans often put the horse before the cart ..
The Bible,like all religious books, contains cultural as well as spiritual statements. A failure to distinguish between the two makes for a great deal of anger, outrage and even hate.
It also causes old Welsh Heathens like myself to poke a little fun;
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves.
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Hell no, a woman who totally submits to her husband becomes dependent on him, begins to resent him, and then loses herself in the process.
Exactly right ColeBaby! Dependant relationships breed resentment.
The real men I know like plenty of input from their often smarter female partners.
Modern men no longer resent intelligence and forthrightness in others. I know modern men from 18 to 80, it is a matter of being bright enough to see the truth. We are equals.
Nice discussion, but where is the person that started this thread?
Should anyone do anything that other people tell them that they should do?
I don't think so.
Do what you will, not what someone else wills you to do.
submission ------ no,
respect and making them the MAN of the HOME --taken care of them best that you can, the MEN can also do these as well,,,,,symbiotic relationship is all and sharing of work is great,,,,
I see it as a way to keep men from being lazy. Men who feel like they're in charge are less likely to be the ones who sit around on the sofa all day drinking beer and watching TV. This is only true as long as they're also loving their wives as themselves and giving of themselves as Christ gave himself for the church.
Submission isn't the same as dependence that I can see. It just keeps men accountable and responsible. Why a woman shouldn't be held responsible for her actions I don't know. She should be but at least that would make the men more careful what type of woman they hook up with.
Some people refer to Genesis and act like it's the natural order of things but it was part of the curse that a man would rule over his wife. Believers are supposed to be freed from that, aren't they? Besides, it doesn't say it "should" be this way, just that that's what is going to happen. Women DO often desire their husbands to be the whole world to them and men DO often like to rule over their wives. I think it was just a statement of "here's what you're going to see now that you broke the original order of things."
Any relationship should be a partnership. The marriage vows are the same for both the man and the woman: love, honor, and obey. The woman is supposed to love, honor, and obey her husband. Her husband is supposed to love, honor, and obey her in return.
If my wife ever obeyed me I fall over dead from the shock. Then I'd know if the Bible has any truth in it.... er...It.
Hey Guys, sorry for not been around to monitor the Topic i recently post, i have problem with my laptop as someone delete the Bios of my laptop but i'm willing to buy another soon, i hope you accept my apology?
I DO NOT OBEY ANYONE!!!
I follow rules (to an extent), I treat everyone equally, and I respect people who respect me.
But once again, I DO NOT OBEY ANYONE! Nor do I want my partner to obey me!
Wendi, what Rules do you follow? Bible or what? Yes, everybody deserve respect but what about Obeying the head, Remember that your husband is the head and you have to obey and respect him with everything you got!
I find this statement a little more than just down-right sad. The relationship is equal. There is NO head or higher authority, when two minds, strive to grow together. There is not superior enlightenment by submissive wifes. The enlightenment is in letting them be who they are and the freedom they have a right to, even if married or in a loving relationship.
No one is to obey anyone else. When you speak? No one has to jump. It's luancy.
No kidding, almost makes me want to look for my master's club...it's probably time for him to beat me back into submission!
Over my dead body!!! Any man laying a hand on a woman, is to answer for his actions.
I WOULD NEVER WANT MY WIFE TO BE SUBMISSIVE TO MY EVERY WHIM.
SOMETIMES MEN NEED TO BE TOLD THAT THEY ARE WRONG.
Seriously, if you don't really have something sensible to contribute to the debate, then STFU. I'm tired of people like you coming in on a serious subject with your sarcastic stupidity.
"We hear an awful lot from conservatives in the Bible Belt and on the TV about how we all should be living. Certainly a culture that teaches the conservative religious values of the Christian right must have clean living written all over it. And lots of ripe fruit from their morally superior lives abounding."
"It doesn't. Far from it. People that talk the loudest may be the ones walking the slowest. Joining its history of Biblically correct bigotry and discrimination, it is an area with the highest divorce, murder, STD/HIV/AIDS, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and obesity rates in the nation. As a region, the Bible Belt has the poorest health care systems and the lowest rates of high school graduation."
"These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage." ~~ Ron Barrier
You asked and got an answer. If you don't want answers, don't ask, then.
I personally don't care about the religion, but I don't see that atheist ethics are of higher caliber than religious morals. At the end of the day it's all depending on personal integrity, whether you are religious or not.
Really all this constant quoting of some parts of Bible as a rule how to live and discussions on whether something is in line with religion is ridiculous and it's pretty much present only in America. For ex in Europe a lot of people are religious, but nobody cares about that, it is more a matter of following and preserving certain traditions, such as celebrating some holidays with family, which is in my opinion nice.
Athiest ethics are of a higher caliber than religious morals?
Biblical morals offer the strongest support of family values. I had an athiest husband. He was only true to whatever he felt like at the moment. Supporting his son or fidelity was not of value.
What exactly are "athiest ethics" ? Maybe you could get a hub about that going?
As far as the OP question...
"Anytime only a portion of the recipe is followed, you will get a half baked idea." Husbands also have responsibility, and both husbands and wives need to be Christ focused for this to work.
Holly, you told me I bore you and you're not interested in anything I had to say. Why are you engaging me now? Seems you just can't get anything straight in your head. What gives?
You brought up athiest ethics - a new phrase to me. That I inquire about it and you offer no information leads me to believe I am not the narrow minded one here.
Other than that, I simply posted to a thread that intersted me. What is your problem? Holly
No problem, Holly. Thanks for allowing the privilege once again to respond to your posts. I'll be sure to point out your errors and hypocrisy.
Where does scripture say YHWH's word doesn't change? It says "He" doesn't change, not his word. And even though it says he doesn't change his mind like men do, it also says he changed his mind about several things.
No way! Most of the time my husband is wrong, anyway, so if I obeyed him, we'd be in trouble!
NaomiR, I think you should be prayerful because that's the only way things can be okay with you and your husband. Ok! and make sure you go on fast too for the lord to change his mind. Have faith and believe in GOD!
Pick a newer translation SamSoft, the KJV is so outdated as to be laughable. The world knows a lot more today than it did back then. Even this week, there has been news regarding the dating of the OT and it's now thought to be about 4 centuries older than originally thought. That finding alone will change much of the Christian and Jewish thinking.
Mark, you are too funny! I can't wait to see how this unfolds in the "religious world". Last time there was a major break with "traditions" even the Pope got involved and made a huge blunder by refuting it. Wonder who's going to stumble this time.
God Jesus the holy spirit God created all birth right equally. you have freedom of life love thoughts choice be your own person God gave birth right to
Yes! But they won't and if you push they'll play their trump card or hit you.
A wife should submit to a righteous husband and if he's a righteous man she will have no reason to worry. A righteous man would never take advantage of his wife. Unless of course they're playing policeman and the Ho but thats different, I can't believe I said that.
My beliefs are that this particular part of the Bible is widely misunderstood because it is misinterrpreted. The full message should be read all together to be understood completely.
"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word that He might present her to Himself a gloriuos church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church." Ephesians 5:22-29
What Paul is speaking of is a relationship that is filled with mutual love and respect; where the individual parts work together as one. This is how the church is supposed to act and this is how we are supposed to behave in our marriages. We are supposed to become one entity working together toward a common goal.
The problem is that we have removed God from our lives. We want Him to be there when we need Him and Go away when we don't. We have to include Him in every part of our lives, big and small. We have to submit to Him first as Christian men and women, then we will be ready to submit to each other as Christian husbands and wives. It is a beautiful relationship that runs ever so smoothly when practiced with love and understanding.
Not at all! What difference does it make if you're a man or a woman? Both are human at the end of the day and so both deserve to play equal parts in the relationship; it's like they say, "It takes two to tango"...although you could argue that in a tango, the man leads and the woman follows... But if the woman 'obeyed' the man all the time, she would most likely be living a miserable life. So here comes a contraversial statement: it's not fair on the woman. So, voila, there's my opinion - women shouldn't always obey their husbands! :p
In Ireland up until the 1970s it was written in law that a man could beat his wife with a stick as long as the stick was no thicker than his thumb..........we have come along way since then.....yes indeed women now have the vote and they vote for the same political parties that introduced those anti-women laws....
You can wax poetic about how men are to love and treasure their wives all you like.
When you insist on subservience, none of that loving and treasuring happens in practice.
What you don't understand is that that passage in the Bible calls for mutual submission. Jesus didn't lord (pun not intended) his status over the church, but took the role of a servant. Taken into context, this means that for a man to love his wife as Christ loved the Church, he must not be domineering.
What you don't understand is that it doesn't matter how much you dress it up and talk about how this is a loving and kind rulership, you can rule over someone or you can truly love them, but you can't do both. Not even in the case of a child.
Taking a passage in a book in its proper context is not "dressing it up."
Either way, I don't see what King James has got to do with any of this
no. women should not always obey their husbands. there should be equal voice and respect and understanding of situations. sometimes the wife knows more about a situation and vice versa.
if the husband allows the wife to take care of all of the bills being paid, and he says, o.k. let's go buy a new gazillion inch t.v., and there's no money for it? (sorry guys...) maybe make a plan together of when the purchase can be made.
statistics show that money and sex are the two biggest deal breakers in marriage.
It is when the original context is a dressed up mandate to behave like a barbarian.
And the command for husbands to love their wives- and for husbands and wives to submit to each other- is not a mandate to behave like a barbarian.
No, it's fancy packaging on a mandate to act like a barbarian.
We've got all this global community and world history and everything else at our fingertips. We know where "submission" of this sort leads and we know that talking about how loving it is doesn't change that.
Why is anything that's written in the Bible relevant at all? It's just a book like any other. I live my life by my own rules and make my own judgments.
Did anybody notice that the Dallas Cowboys played like a bunch of Girl Scouts yesterday. I'm sorry, I didn't really mean to insult the Girl Scouts like that. Please accept my apology Girl Scouts of America. You could actually beat the Dallas Cowboys.
By the way you are getting a little off topic, you may want to tighten that up.
Sorry, back to topic: The reasons that men should be told that they are wrong are plentiful. For example: Suppose your dad had a gun to your head for no reason. What do you think your mother should do? Should she submit to your father or oppose him?
The reason I asked why had to do with all caps in your post, I was wondering why? Of course men should be told their wrong when they are wrong, nice talking to ya!
Why would any dad have gun at all for that matter? Interesting family...
Remember Michael Jackson, and his father Joe?
Don't you mean Marvin Gaye and his father? I never heard about Michael Jackson and his father having a problem involving a gun, but then again I didn't spend a lot of time on Michael Jackson.
I'm not sure if anyone considered this, but the question was ... 'Should Women Always Obey Their Husbands'
Now, even if you take the biblical verse to heart that covers this one, there is a MAJOR empirical flaw with this one.
Let's say the husband commands the wife to kill their only son ... should she obey him?
Careful ... murder is a sin as well ... but ask yourself ... does the husband get away with murder if he orders the wife to do it - after all, he's not committing the murder. And what about the wife ... if she kills the child, isn't she obeying her husband's will?
This is an open loophole for murder on a grand scale where any parent can have their child murdered by ordering the wife to do the dirty work and having both be absolved of sin by biblical verse.
So, how does one escape this paradox?
The replies should be interesting, though I imagine many who believe the verse will avoid the question as they will realize there is no escape from this one ...
There is always "order" when one party is dependant on the other.
Women and men are equal, full stop. The bible does a real job on women and the OT treats them worse than cattle!
Many relationships in marriage are structured so that the woman is the bread winner, others where she is not the bread winner but is the one who takes all the final decisions because that is the structure of their relationship.
I cannot agree that women should take a back seat in anything!
Still not getting it. It is not a back seat to anything. As far as the Bible is concerned there are a great deal of doctrines stripped from the Bible and even more with the latest "new" versions with modern language. Biblical passages are heavy on carrying on genealogical and patriarchal lineages. This is why accounts are heavy on the side of men rather than women. The fact of the matter is - is that the great patriarchs of old held their wives to a very high status and not as cattle.
The treatment of women in the OT is deplorable. Do I need to go get my bible and quote a hundred or so cases where women are treated like dirt?
One fine example from the OT is instructions to pay a few dollars to the father and then force the girl to be married to her rapist!
I feel sure most women would not agree with that particular solution!
Is that the Southpark translation of the Old Testament? You can sure learn a lot by watching cartoons what did scoobydoo teach you?
Not from Southpark, from your "good book"
There is grass in Texas better educated about the bible than you are!
Who's good book? Mine? really, watch out Timmmmay!
Some sort of Big man threat from the big state?
The writers at Southpark are way superior to you in intellectually, so I do realise it would go over your head like a hat!
What does submit to consist of?
If it is bow down to their husbands and relinquish all control/thought and decisions to their husbands...No.
But woman should treat their husbands with the same kind of respect that they wish their husbands to treat them with.
I have made mistakes in my marriage-and my husband has as well, but even through the hard times and horrible decisions we have each made, we have been able to come together and re-focus on what matters to us the most; Loving each other and raising our family. If submitting yourself to someone means giving yourself to them fully-not giving into other temptations and staying true to the relationship and love-then I do agree with that. In return the man should submit himself to his wife just the same.
I think that is the best answer! Of course we will need to wait for the southpark intellectuals to weigh in.
It's always funny when an atheist goes to the source and quotes the bible and a theist accuses them of having made it up or gotten it from South Park... It's the irony you see, you would never make the accusation if you were familiar with your own allegedly-holy book.
Assuming I'm a Christian will just make you look as foolish as those who watch south park for its supposed social value.
Ah, so you're one of those people who thinks they're terribly clever if they misrepresent who they are on a forum and are taken at their word?
"Haha! Jokes on you! I'm not really an asshole!"
'cause that's even better.
Spot on! Here it is, straight from the "good book"
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
Sounds like no choice for women. Hmmmm......?
What do you think that passage means to me, Timmay
Sounds like it came from the same King James' ministers as the rest of the "obey" crap.
I don't watch much South Park. I prefer Phineus and Furg from the Disney Channel-their inventions and thought processes have an educational value and include progress, thinking bigger than the box and exploring different realms of possibilities-rather than the superior intellect that keeps us in the previous centuries-in regards to Respect-Religion and God
I think you mean Phineas and Ferb, yeah, I watch it occasionally with my 3 year old.
Yeah-I meant Phineas(like the triangle) and Ferb, sorry... Was not paying attention to the key strokes. I am watching my 1 and 2 year old run a-muck on a sugar high before bedtime
Think I should step out of this forum now, not going to try and get into the middle of some of these conversations and attempt to argue my own values with people that have no interest in seeing anything outside of what they currently believe. Nice Chatting with you- Thanks for the compliment on my answer
Not if he tells me to load my shotgun and blow away something I don't wanna blow away, bein' as we're hill-billys.
Certainly not!!!! Not obey anyway. Obey is a very strong word, which can easily be taken out of context.
Marriage is a two way street, where two people are there to compliment the other, and offer their strengths to the others weaknesses.
Words like respect, honour, give instead of take, are far better words.
Often women have the better intuition out of the two, it is a priceless gift born in women, and they can quite often see things coming way before the man.
Generally the way a woman is treated in marriage is the way she will respond back.
Treat her with love,honour, respect, treat her as she is the most important person in your life, and she will give back a hundred fold.
Besides, I question the original quote as legitimate at all. It comes from a bible translated sometime between 1603-1625, a time when women were thought of as not much more than breeding animals and political assets (or liabilities). And they translated it to suit their agenda at that time. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm now going to rot in hell forever. So be it.
You should take this up with your church leader. My take on anything is to consider the source: biblical quotations are designed to set out rules of conduct in a time of limited resources, tight social groups/clans and a very short age span.
If you promised to 'obey' in your marriage vows, keep in mind that your agreement is a contract. He is supposed to keep you, forsaking all others, in sickness and health. You are supposed to stay, love, honor and obey. If you have doubts about what the two of you are accomplishing in your marriage, you have a right to choose not to obey if it does not further the marriage. Jews in biblical times did divorce.
In the Bible, the role of husband is exemplified by the best aspects of a man. He is epected to be good, honorable, just and committed to the welfare of his wife and family.
Quoting a one-liner from the Bible is just a way to start a really good fight.
This position is not dissimilar to 'if it doesn't work, throw it out'. God *hates* divorce and I can't find a scripture where it says it's permitted except for infidelity or physical abuse. Is marriage so disposable? What about counseling and honest, hard efforts to work it out? We are victors in Christ, not victims.
The phrase 'good, honorable, just and committed to the welfare of his wife and family' means different things to different people; for some that means working long hours and making as much money as they can, for others that means going to church and/or church activities 3-4 days a week; for others something entirely different.
Why is this? you ask.
Well, because it's so obviously a load of old cobblers. Men are at least as often wrong about things as women and there's no reason why anyone should automatically assume a man's opinion to be superior when both sexes have equal access to education.
Why is it happening?
It's happening because, thankfully, women can get decent paying jobs and no longer need to be slaves to a male income and ego.
I will probably never have a husband, so it would be pretty hard to obey him. I love how in many Indian families the woman is actually the matriarch and leader of the family. Something just very cool about spunky women who can be in charge.
That's a part of Hinduism. I'm paraphrasing but it is said that "women are the arbiter's of morals and decency within the family"
I am reading a book called the Secret Daughter, and it is just refreshing to read about matriarchal families. There are also some Native American tribes where the women had a much larger role than the man. Anyway, most women in patriarchal families were adept at making the man believe he was in charge, but swayed him to do what she wanted anyway. Women have always had much more power than some want to let on .
by Liam Hallam6 years ago
I have a stag party to go on in a few weeks and one of the activities involved is going to a Lap Dancing club. Many of the guys partners are very unhappy or uneasy about this. Can anyone shed any light on this? My...
by Tessa Schlesinger3 weeks ago
I have written several hubs about fashion and clothing. I worked as a designer, dressed woman, sewed, created patterns, etc. in the early 80s. I also have a couple of years towards a fashion degree I never completed,...
by pisean2823116 years ago
does bible state that? ...if yes then it must be stating something for husbands too...what if husband himself doesnot know what he it talking about?...if wife expected to obey husband even if husband is irresponsible?
by MissJamieD5 years ago
From experience I know how frustrating it is that my husband is the boss of our family and makes 95% of the choices we face....but I'm also thankful because I have enough to deal with as a SAHM and it's kind of a mental...
by Caren White4 days ago
I was under the impression that we could only submit one hub every two weeks for niche sites. I submitted a hub and an editor replied with changes that I needed to make before it could be moved. As I'm...
by Michael Kismet7 weeks ago
Yesterday I submitted an article for publication, it went through the QAP within a few hours. How long should I wait till I manually submit it to a niche site? I wouldn't want to waste my manual submission. How long...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.