home
RSS
August 12th, 2011
12:10 PM ET

Bachmann faces theological question about submissive wives at debate

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– Thursday night in the Fox News GOP debate in Ames, Iowa, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, was asked by columnist Byron York whether she would be "submissive to her husband" if she were elected president.

Before the congresswoman had a chance to answer, a chorus of boos rang down from the audience.

"Thank you for that question, Byron," Bachmann responded with a wry smile. "Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10. I'm in love with him. I'm so proud of him. What submission means to us, it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful godly man and great father.

"He respects me as his wife; that's how we operate our marriage," she continued. "We respect each other; we love each other. I've been so grateful we've been able to build a home together. We have wonderful children and 20 foster children. We've built a business and life together, and I'm very proud of him."

"She answered it the most appropriate way in the context it was being asked. She was being asked a deeply theological question in front of millions of Americans," said Gary Marx, the executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition. "That's why there was such a strong and visceral booing over the very premise of the question."

Marx, who was in the balcony at the debate Thursday, said that for Iowa evangelicals, this is a nonissue.

"Most evangelicals know it's not easy to teach in a 30-minute sermon on Sunday. It's impossible to answer in a minute sound bite. Her answer about respect is the only one that can be given," he said.

The question of wives being submissive to their husbands comes from a passage in the New Testament in Paul's letter to the Ephesians. The letter was originally written in Greek, and there are various translations of the Greek word Paul uses.

"Whatever someone thinks Paul means of submission of wives to husbands ... it doesn't leave any room for exploitation," said David Matthewson, an associate professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary. "I would say her response was very consistent with the text."

In the New International Version translation of the Bible, the version most preferred by evangelical Christians and nondenominational churches, a camp Bachmann has said she belongs to, Ephesians 5:22-24 are translated as:

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 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. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything."

The letter goes on to say in verse 25:

"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

"The English word 'submit' is as good a translation as any without using a bunch of words. The problem, though, is the word 'submit' in English carries connotations for most readers that may not have been there in the Greek," Mathewson said. "In English, we think of forced submission or exploiting. ... I don't think that's in the Ephesians passage."

In the King James Version, the first mass-produced English translation of the Bible, the word is translated as "submit."

In Eugene Peterson's translation of the Bible, "The Message," which aims to use more common English, he translates submissive as "understand and support your husbands in ways that show your support for Christ."

Historically, the fifth chapter of Ephesians has been taken in context of Paul's writings to mean Christian spouses should operate as loving equals, though the word "submissive" has long been a divisive one for Christian women.

"It seems it's been, in the 20th century, to have caused a lot of issues in North American Christianity," Mathewson said.

Former Alaska Gov. Sara Palin, another prominent evangelical politician, weighed in on the issue Friday in Iowa.

Palin told CNN's Don Lemon, "That's her opinion, that, to her, submission to her husband means respecting her husband, and I respect my husband, too."

Lemon asked, "If (husband) Todd said don't run, would you not run?"

"I can't imagine my husband ever telling me what to do politically," Palin responded. "He has never told me what to do when it comes to a political step, and I appreciate that. I respect you for that, Todd; thank you."

Bachmann identifies herself as an evangelical Christian. Her congressional office said recently that she has been attending a nondenominational church as her schedule allows.

She has shown over the years that she is fluent in "Christianese," using words and phrases that ring true to evangelical listeners.

She has long been a darling of evangelical voters, serving as keynote speaker at anti-abortion events in Washington and making the rounds at prayer rallies at the Capitol. It is one of the reasons she is expected to do well in Iowa, where the GOP base is filled with evangelical voters.

Her faith has caused a few bumps in the road in the campaign. Her husband's Christian counseling program came under fire by critics for a controversial therapy. She formally pulled her membership in her former church days before she formally announced that she was seeking the White House.

But Marx points out that fielding a question like this in a debate only helps her. "In Iowa, it reiterates that evangelical identity she has."

And, he noted, the last Republican to win the Iowa caucus in 2008, former Southern Baptist preacher Mike Huckabee, got asked a lot of questions about the finer points of his faith, too.

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

Filed under: Belief • Christianity • Church and state • Michele Bachmann • Politics

soundoff (1,672 Responses)
  1. imfedup2here

    This is one of the dumbest lady i've ever met, what an empty head. Well then again i forgot sarah.

    August 13, 2011 at 1:39 am |
    • KC

      Your post is almost an oxymoron.

      August 13, 2011 at 11:00 am |
  2. graciegal

    It doesn't matter what the word was meant to mean, it matters how it is being used today ... and it is being used by evangelical Christians as SUBMIT – exactly what is meant by that word.

    August 13, 2011 at 1:39 am |
  3. Big Johnny Super Republican

    There is a pretty damn good reason why these christian pukes are hated all over the world. Because they want the jesus police to beat you on the street just like the fukin Taliban. These people need to be stopped. They are perverted extremists azzholes

    August 13, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • jon

      how often have Christians beat you on the street? Did it hurt?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:29 am |
    • KC

      Big J, I want to make sure I have this right, you're calling Christians extremists?!?!

      August 13, 2011 at 1:34 am |
    • Spiffy

      There are plenty of Christian extremists. Look no further then the recent massacre in Norway.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:38 am |
    • KC

      Spiffy, I entirely agree. I just found myself a bit in awe of his statements and attacks, all sealed with What comes across A'saaa a pretty extreme sentiment.

      August 13, 2011 at 6:57 am |
    • herbert juarez

      spiffy is unlikely to exist
      the Norwegian by his own manifesto was not a Christian
      Do not be deceived by "spiffyism"

      August 13, 2011 at 8:07 am |
    • Keiichi81

      @herbert juarez

      You mean the manifesto where he called for a new Christian Crusade by his "fellow Christian soldiers", referred to himself as "100% Christian" and a "Knight Templar", stated that government "should be held accountable to the revealed Word of God [and the] need of The Kingdom" and that "the Church and State should work in unison", and advocated a Christian theocracy in Europe? That manifesto?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      @keiichi81
      why don't you post the whole thing instead of cherry picking a couple lines that supposedly prove your point.?

      August 13, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
  4. Q

    The scariest thing about Bachmann is that she makes Perry look more appealing to the base they're both courting.

    August 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
  5. Randoms

    Simple – Keep religion out of politics. It only fires hatred. The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    August 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
    • Joleen

      God did not deny that other gods existed... he just said you could not put them BEFORE him. He said "I am a jealous God." The first commandment is: Thou shalt have no other gods before me. It is all through the Bible. I am not sure how that got interpreted to no other gods EXIST. If they did not exist, why would God say don't put them BEFORE me... he would have just said NO OTHER GODS EXIST. Would God be jealous of something that does not exist? Any time I have asked a minister about this... they just get weird.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:47 am |
  6. ERV Dance Studios

    Michele Bachmann and her husband need Dance Lessons that's all what i know, they look pretty terrible at the stage. Call us we can help you and we are locate in Minnesota.

    August 13, 2011 at 1:26 am |
    • .Tom A

      Just throwing this out there- you might want to work on your grammar. "That's all what I know".., "we are locate in..." Really? Or is it just poor editing, which would speak to your businesses' lack of emphasis on detail, another great quality to highlight in your business plan... geez, i wonder what that looked like! Was it sketched out on a bar napkin?!

      August 13, 2011 at 1:32 am |
  7. Big Johnny Super Republican

    Suk it baby. Suk it. God WANTS you to suk it!

    August 13, 2011 at 1:25 am |
  8. Lenny Pincus

    What is most humorous about this whole thing: these goofy Christianists have no problem saying that the english Bible is a translation and needs to be interpreted while claiming that it is the word of God. How dumb are these people? The irony of such statements is so mind-boggling, I feel like they must be from another planet. Why did God give people brains if this is what they come up with?

    August 13, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • jon

      How does the fact that the Greek and Hebrew have been translated take away from divine inspiration? Certainly one must take into account the linguistic and cultural context in which the Bible was written, but how does the fact that it has been translated take away from its central message?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:04 am |
    • Spiffy

      @jon

      Well for one as in this case many Christians are arguing that in it's original Greek the passage that Bachmann used would have a different meaning then what we in the English speaking community accept.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:09 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      Follow the point. Christianists are saying that "submit" needs to be interpreted because it is a translation. I'm not saying it. They are admitting it. Can you really argue that the Greek word for submit doesn't really mean "submit, whether it is divinely inspired or not? It is what it is, the words of men who claim divine inspiration.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:10 am |
    • Jesus Freak

      Just fyi...this worthless planet we live on now...isn't our eternal home...we are aliens here on earth. Our real home is in heaven with God.
      And The Word of God is just that...the word of God. Have you ever tried to read something in another language, used a translator, and it not make sense. Then you use another translator? That is what each version of the Bible is...another translation.
      It is such a pity that we have so many versions that nonbelievers such as yourself see it as so goofy game we Christians are playing...Christians aren't the only ones who use the Bible. We are just the only ones who use it all.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:13 am |
    • jon

      ok, to unpack a multi-faceted word in an ancient culture is something every translator has to do – whether translating Cicero, Plato, or Homer. It's the same with the koine Greek of the New Testament. The word for "submit" has layered meanings. Yes, it can be a challenge to tease out the implications but again, how does that take away from divine inspiration? You haven't shown that it does – you only keep pointing out what Christians already affirm.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:13 am |
    • Robert

      God gave people brains and the ability to think and reason with them. He gave us the curiosity to lead us to become archaeologists, to dig up the past and study it (including over 5000 manuscripts of parts of the New Testament alone, some dating back to the early 2nd century, and many thousands of portions of the Old Testament, dating back well before the time of Christ). He gave us the creativity to think of comparing these manuscripts with other, secular manuscripts and the analytic power to create a field of study called "textual criticism" that has been used not only on biblical manuscripts, but also on many non-biblical sources.

      Even more amazingly, he allowed us to have access to manuscripts dating back 2000 years so that we can compare our modern translations to the original text and see that THERE ARE NO DOCTRINAL DISCREPANCIES. The only discrepancies are in minor misspellings, or a translation inconsistency such as "owl" instead of "ostrich".

      And does it not stand to reason that text 2000 years old written in everyday language would need to be interpreted? Does Shakespeare not need to be interpreted, and he only 500 years removed from us? Do you think the idioms we use today will make perfect sense to someone even 200 years from now on the first reading?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:15 am |
    • Colonic Cleanser

      Jon: It's hard to know what to believe when you're following a book that has already been interpreted into your own language, but then your leader (pasor, whatever) gets to interpret it into his own opinion at will. Kinda wishy-washy, ain't it?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:17 am |
    • Know What

      So, a supernatural being with an infinite IQ can't communicate clearly, and for ALL to understand without ambiguity? It only speaks ancient Hebrew and Greek, and didn't know that *precisely * these misunderstandings would arise?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:18 am |
    • jon

      Colonic – you've hit on an important point. Human interpreters are not perfect. It's natural that different interpretations of the Bible exist. That's one of the reasons you see different Christian denominations. However, in practically all cases Christian groups – in spite of their differences – all agree on the essentials of the faith. That's because the Bible is clear on the essentials (e.g. existence of God, Jesus Christ's death as salvific, etc.). But again, even with different interpretations, it doesn't take away divine inspiration.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • Spiffy

      We are being told that the word submit actually means something different in ancient Greek. Submit has a totally different meaning in English. How do we know which definition is correct? Has God told us which usage is the correct one? Maybe God intended for the Bible to really be read in English. How do we know seeing as God seems to refuse to communicate with us? The fact that God himself does not clarify his own work is what gives rise to extremism and misinterpretation and why the whole idea of God is a stupid one.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:21 am |
    • Robert

      Lenny, so many people seem to think the word "submit" means to give up, surrender, be a defeatist. It does not. It means to reconcile your position with the other person's, and don't keep debating. One could argue that on the recent congressional debates, both sides submitted.

      In 1st century Greek context, submitting does not carry the master/slave connotation, even the American slavery connotation. Slaves in the ancient world were actually treated quite well. They were fed and protected by their master, and it was a crime to attack or kill a slave. Interestingly, in Hebrew society, someone could sell themselves into slavery to cover a debt, and ALL debts were completely forgiven every 7 years.

      Anyway, the connotation is not that the husband should be the abusive task master and the wife should be cowering in the corner. The husband is the head of the household; he is ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the household. The wife can discuss with him, but the final decision on things is his burden. AND, the text also compares the relation of husband and wife to Christ and the church, that is, believers. One submits to the other, but both love each other.

      It's not about a power trip. It's about a "chain of command", about responsibility.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:24 am |
    • really?!

      Lenny, I would love to tell you how idiotic your statement was but I don't think it would do any good.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:24 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      You folks make my point for me. Yeah, there are different translation which impart different meanings to all ancient texts. That means that the word of God is subject to man's whim. Just ask the Maccabees.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:26 am |
    • .Tom A

      Jon & JesusFreak- I think the main thing here, is that we hear Evangelicals and especially fundamentalists talking about literal interpretation of the Bible. Jon, what your saying shows you do not follow these precepts- you seem to understand that you have to use some sort of interpretation and read things in their context, especially their cultural context. This is all very well. The problem a lot of people have with a fundamentalist view of Christianity is that this faction of the Church clearly does not see such nuance. Because Michelle B. seems to want to be the political representative of this section of the population, when she interprets the Bible, it seems to fly in the face of what Fundamentalists believe, as if its ok to interpret things, as long as it is to your benefit.
      Lenny- the proper term is Christian, not Christianists, your use of the term seems derogatory.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      really, that's about as cowardly a statement as you can make. If you are afraid to counter any of my points, admit it. BTW, I have quite a strong belief in God. I just don't trust the ground crew.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:29 am |
    • Claire

      So why doesn't she just go home and make her gay husband a sammich then?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:30 am |
    • jon

      Lenny, if you claim you can't trust the Bible, nor the "ground crew", on what basis do you hold a strong belief in God? Just curious, not being shrill.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:31 am |
    • jon

      Claire – we're having a constructive conversation on this threat (one of the few). Don't come ruin it with your trivialities.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:32 am |
    • .Tom A

      Well Jon, c'mon! Lots of people have spiritual beliefs, and belive in God without sharing the Christian view on it?! Just ask 1 billion Muslims!! I doubr Thats what he believes in- seems more of an attack on organized religion, but hey, there are an increasing number of people who would agree with him, especially in the West. Right or wrong, its certainly not odd or strange, or illogical.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:36 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      Jon, I posted a long reply and it disappeared. Good luck with your studies.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:45 am |
    • *frank*

      @jon
      "The word for "submit" has layered meanings. Yes, it can be a challenge to tease out the implications but again, how does that take away from divine inspiration?"
      It kinda takes away from the divine inspiration claim when you consider that these people thought Venus was a star (and, moreover, didn't even know what a star was); nevermind them having not the slightest clue about brain chemistry... it makes the premise that these jokers were divinely inspired look a lot less likely than the premise that they were just relatively pretty damned ignorant.

      August 13, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
  9. Jesus Freak

    I gotta say...I just turned 18 on Wednesday...and she has my vote already. God is so good. And just fyi...there is no such thing as a flying spaghetti monster. i would know...I am Italian...

    August 13, 2011 at 1:01 am |
    • Spiffy

      I will turn 18 next September and she defiantly does not have my vote. God was so good that he supports slavery, killed countless, supports cannibalism and gave us a religion that recently resulted in the deaths of many young Norwegians. Sounds like a great guy to me. Also I am Italian too and there is as much proof for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for your God.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:26 am |
  10. Dale

    How did that guy Tartt get a degree in psychology? Must have gone to Bob Jones University, or maybe Liberty. It's clear that Bachmann is speaking out of both sides of her mouth. When she's in front of an evangelist audience, she says she submits to her husband, but when she's in front of a national audience she back pedals and tries to redefine the word. "What submission means to _us_"? And who are _you_, who redefine words in this way? We have already have a word for "respect". She's like Humpty Dumpty

    "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."

    August 13, 2011 at 1:00 am |
  11. Sid E Slicker

    I am not voting for her. If she thinks she can lead this nation from the pulpit we are doomed like Iran, Pakistan. I’ll never feel free with a Christian Taliban in the oval office.

    August 13, 2011 at 1:00 am |
    • really?!

      A christian taliban? lol sounds like an oxy moron... i hope you're joking...really

      August 13, 2011 at 1:08 am |
    • .Tom A

      A "Christian Taliban" would simply be a Christian Theocracy where punishments mirror those laid out in the Bible... you know like if you catch a man "lying" with an animal, you kill the man AND the poor animal who was molested... that sort of banality. The religious right isn't doing a very good job of making us think that's NOT what their ultimate goal is... That's why she could never, never win. 20 % of voters would support her and the other 80% would be sprinting the other way.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:40 am |
    • Hypnotoad

      FYI- The Taliban is a political/governmental structure guided/controlled by the religion of Islam. The Taliban is not a religion itself.....Therefor the statement does make sense. Try and educate yourself so you can keep up.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:48 am |
    • really?!

      Tom and hypno...i dont know what to say...Taliban is and islamist/muslim malitia or fundamental group...whatever you want to call it.....so i believe you need to get your facts straight before you attempt to counter me....it doesnt make since...

      August 13, 2011 at 1:59 am |
    • really?!

      so again, I'll simplify.. what is a christian taiban...a christian that is at the same time a islamist/muslim that is involved in malitia group ..given the history between christians and muslims....or are you saying that a christian can be part of the taliban

      August 13, 2011 at 2:07 am |
    • Spiffy

      Obviously he meant that he didn't want an organization like the Taliban but with a Christian following. If you really need clarification perhaps you should brush up on those reading comprehension skills.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:42 am |
    • really?!

      spiffy......i like people to say what they mean, not try to be cute

      August 13, 2011 at 3:17 am |
  12. fastball

    I am very nervous, giving such a religious person the keys to the White House...as well as the nuclear codes.
    These people admit they don't know any answers....and they are content to say these answers are God's to make.
    FLASH....it's about the economy, stupid. I don't give two holy hoots about what you BELIEVE in the afterlife...your job is to make my PRESENTDAY life a bit better.
    Keep your religious mouthings in the home...not in my White House.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:57 am |
    • Robert

      The current president professes to be a Christian. Whether you believe that or you believe he's a Muslim, he claims to have a religious faith. In that respect, how is he different from Bachmann? (hint: it's the same. We've never had an atheist president and God willing we never will, because a country needs to have someone that's the "man on top" to believe he answers to an even higher "man on top".)

      August 13, 2011 at 1:28 am |
    • pfeffernusse

      Or, how about a "man on top" who sees him/herself as a servant of the citiznery that voted them into office?

      August 13, 2011 at 6:34 pm |
  13. Brian

    Have you seen her husband? He is about the most submissive man I've seen! She obviously wears the pants in this relationship...if she gets the nomination, expect to see some major skeletons fall out of his closet!

    August 13, 2011 at 12:55 am |
  14. judas

    Here's what the Bible says:

    Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. Ephesians 5:22
    For the husband is the head of the wife Ephesians 5:23
    so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing. Ephesians 5:24
    and the wife [see] that she reverence [her] husband. Ephesians 5:23
    ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 1 Peter 3:1

    The Bible spews the most hate of any book. As Shakespeare said – a tale, told by an idiot, signifying nothing. That's what all you Bible thumpers are.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:55 am |
    • jon

      Yet Shakespeare's works are filled to the brim with biblical quotations and imagery

      August 13, 2011 at 12:58 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      And the Bible is filled with imagery and words from other, older texts.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:04 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      You really think the concept of the virgin birth began in the Bible? You need to expand your reading.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:05 am |
    • jon

      Lenny – no I don't believe it did. Nor am I sure how the subject of the virgin birth made it on to your post, but whatever. I am a Ph.D candidate studying ancient texts, so I have in fact "expanded" my reading.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:08 am |
    • Colonic Cleanser

      I see you haven't read the Koran yet.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:12 am |
    • really?!

      Just because I don[t agree with certain scriptures doesn't make me a non believer of the entire religion lol I couldn't quote one scriptire in the entire bible, but I still believe in big picture.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:14 am |
    • jon

      Colonic – it's been a few years, but yes, I have read the Koran. what's your point?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:14 am |
    • Lenny Pincus

      Jon, my point being that the Bible is hardly an original work. Many people regard it simply as literature, and as such there are parts that are pretty good, especially books that have been removed by supposed holy men for political reasons–but as a student you know that. Those books were determined by holy men not to be divinely inspired.

      The fact that Shakespeare quotes it doesn't mean anything, other than he found it an interesting source.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:18 am |
    • Ptrika

      Good cause for staying single.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:19 am |
    • jon

      Lenny – I see your point (esp. regarding Shakespeare). However, in many ways the bible IS original. Think about the implications of the doctrine of the Trinity, or the idea that the divine can become human (not simply inhabit a human form but truly human). Plus (even though I can see people bristle at this) the OT actually has quite an advanced ethical system compared to the peoples of the time.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:24 am |
    • Robert

      If you think this is "hate speech", then you have serious issues. Let's paraphrase:

      employees, submit to your manager.
      children, submit to your parents.
      citizens, submit to the police.

      Do you see the pattern here? If we're all equal, yet in certain situations we're expected to submit to the authority of someone else, then either we're all insane, or "submitting" is good for society; the opposite of chaos.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:31 am |
  15. J.R.

    Our country would be much better off if run by Agnostics & Atheists - people who don't have silly, hair-brain ideas of men in the clouds who are going to come after us if we misbehave. That's all ludicrous, of course, because Science proved Religion to be false, thank you.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:53 am |
    • really?!

      Oh thats right...thats the science that says we evolved from a parasite....btw I'm sure you are a believer of the big bang...what was the origin of the universe prior to the big bang...?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:02 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – Short answer is we don't know and might never know exactly where the singularity which expanded into the known universe came from. Still, no evidence of a divine intervention then or at anytime since. As for evolution, plenty of evidence from every relevant scientific discipline contrasted to zero evidence for ID/creationism.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:25 am |
    • really?!

      Q...as you probably understand science is based on certainty....sorry to disappoint but there is no scientific certainty that HUMANS as we know us now evolved...yes evolution exists but human evolution is still based on theory....please enlighten me...what did humans as we know now, originally evolve from?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:37 am |
    • o'rly?

      Oh thats right...thats the science that get vaccines from evolution of bacteria/virii... if you tell me where bacteria/virii originated, i will believe in vaccines, otherwise i do not believe in vaccines, because i am a MORON!!!
      .

      August 13, 2011 at 1:39 am |
    • really?!

      huh?

      August 13, 2011 at 1:44 am |
    • really?!

      if that was directed to me..i'll try to simplify my point...,people that cant scientifically prove HUMAN evolution use the argument that religion is false because there's no scientific proof,

      August 13, 2011 at 1:50 am |
    • Robert

      ...

      August 13, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • o'rly?

      tell me how bacteria and viruses where created or originated, and then i will believe in vaccines. is that a smart way of rationalizing? we know vaccines help save lives, yet there is not much evidence for abiogenesis. like wise, we know about the universe, just like we know about vaccines... prior to the big bang is ANOTHER ISSUE!!!!

      August 13, 2011 at 1:51 am |
    • o'rly?

      really, that is your problem... if you want to believe gravity, evolution, germs are not real, that is you. but EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:53 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – Actually, no. Science is most certainly not based on certainty. It's based on observable, testable, repeatable evidence. It's strength is in its ability to make valid predictions, e.g. humans would bear evidence of a fused chromosome (chromosome #2) given our 23 pairs vs 24 in the other extant apes, humans would bear defunct genes which would only make sense in ancestral organisms (like our defunct gene for egg yolk production), humans will bear vestigial structures with little/no function or functions different than in their ancestors (male nip-ples, recurrent laryngeal nerve, appendix, etc). I'm not an expert in human evolution but I believe current thought places modern H. sapiens as a lineage branching off H. erectus or H. heidelbergensis (or perhaps some other earlier or undiscovered lineage) with some very modest geneflow with H. neanderthalensis. This is supported by the well established hominid fossil record and more recently, genomics work which indicates H. sapiens are a distinct species from H. neaderthalensis. Essentially, there is considerable physical evidence, both fossil and molecular, supporting the evolution of modern H. sapiens from earlier extinct hominids which themselves evolved from earlier pre-hominids and so on.

      When you use the word "theory", I suspect you're conflating the common usage meaning "a guess" vs its use within a "scientific theory" which is: "...collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."

      August 13, 2011 at 1:55 am |
    • o'rly?

      there are even articles on CNN that state humans of non-african descent have neanderthal DNA... prove to you human evolution. there is some evidence right there. but of course, you the science master can dismiss it by the wave of your hand. =]

      August 13, 2011 at 1:56 am |
    • Hypnotoad

      Science does not claim to be certain at all. Science states that it forms conclusions based on proven evidence available and is willing to adjust and restate facts as new or alternate evidence is presented. Religion however is unwilling to do any such thing. The problem is not having someone with beliefs in the White house. The problem arises when you have someone(s) in the white house that is/are utterly blinded by irrational beliefs that they cannot form realistic and constructive solutions.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:57 am |
    • o'rly?

      if you can understand this : www(dot)gate(dot)net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html ... this is a comparison of human dna vs. other ape chromosomes

      August 13, 2011 at 2:00 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – "...people that cant scientifically prove HUMAN evolution use the argument that religion is false because there's no scientific proof." Again, incorrect. "Proof" is a word with no real meaning in the physical sciences and is truly only applicable in formal logic and mathematics. Science uses evidence and probability, but again, it's strength is in its ability to make accurate predictions about the natural world. Generally, people who argue against religion are arguing against the absence of supporting evidence for religious claims about the natural world (e.g. special creation, resurrection, etc) or are arguing against the logic or reasonableness of the moral, philosophical, etc components.

      Even still, nearly all atheists will concede they cannot know if a deity exists or not. Their position is generally a probability assessment based on the absence of supporting evidence for the proposition, i.e. no supporting evidence means a deity most likely does not exist (particularly when said deity is constrained by a particular theology).

      August 13, 2011 at 2:04 am |
    • really?!

      So in short, you don't believe in creationism because there is no evidence. But on the otherhand, since evolution exists in other species...and humans have unexplained similarities in apes...science therefore, traced the history of apes and said hey......evolution is the simplest answer to how humans, as we know it exists. does that sum it up....becaise like I said there is know scientific "evidence "that you can trace human DNA in anything else.. if so please enlighten me....

      August 13, 2011 at 2:28 am |
    • GodPot

      "So in short, you don't believe in creationism because there is no evidence."

      I think it's simpler than that, in shorter, we don't believe in anything if there is no evidence.

      Why conjecture about what invisible things might exist in the universe. I'm sure there are more of them than we can count, but it won't matter until we develop some way to detect them and thus "find evidence" of said invisible force/thing.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:39 am |
    • really?!

      btw...since we evolved from chimps....are we going to outlast them on earth or is it really going to be a planet of the apes?

      August 13, 2011 at 2:39 am |
    • really?!

      you don;t believe in anything???/ how does that make more since then having faith in a God or supreme being that in your own eyes, either could or could not be real?

      August 13, 2011 at 2:43 am |
    • really?!

      evidence is in the eye of the beholder, faith is in everyone, you just have to find it

      August 13, 2011 at 2:45 am |
    • GodPot

      "since we evolved from chimps" Do some homework, your statement is false, no one believes we evolved "from" chimps, we did however share a common ancestor. You say it with a snark as if you "stumped the atheists" but you only make yourself look ignorant.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:47 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – Actually, the similarities between humans and apes is explained in their shared genes and in the developmental pathways which guide the expression of these genes, i.e. which are turned on/off when, where and for how long. The differences are equally explained by developmental timing and by the divergence of individual gene sequences. It's important to note that evolution explains both the similarities and the differences. Similarities/differences are also found in comparing overlapping or divergent morphologies between modern H. sapiens and ancestral hominds. The hominid fossil record which records these divergent morphologies is well established in a geologic record providing at the very least a relative time scale, but in fact also provides an actual validated timescale. Human DNA has actually been traced to H. neanderthal (that's what I was referring to by "geneflow") and again, we can see vestigial genes which are defunct or have been co-opted to serve different functions from the genes which existed in ancestors (e.g. our defunct gene for egg yolk protein). We can also map various parasitic genetic components (e.g. endogenous retroviruses) and find that they too match up with the lineages and relationships predicted of the evolution of H. sapiens. Underlying all of the genetic evidence are the known molecular mechanisms and timeframes by which divergence happens. Underlying the fossil record is first, the simple layering and relationships and second, the extremely well-validated dating methods employed.

      Suffice it to say that evolution in general and evolution of hominds specifically is definitely not the "simplest" explanation, but founded in hundreds of years of rigorous testing and retesting of all the available physical evidence. Evolution is supported at the small scale by well established molecular mechanisms, in the middle by real time observations of speciation and non-trivial morphological adaptations and at the larger scale by a well doc-mented fossil record displaying a concordant progression of life on this planet.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:50 am |
    • GodPot

      "you don;t believe in anything???" That is not what I said as you can see if you have some minor reading skills and adequate comprehension. I do not believe in things have have 0 evidence for their existence. I do not believe Zeus exists, I do not believe Santa exists, I do not believe Vampires and Werewolves roam the Northwest and randomly attend high school, I do not believe you or anyone else on this planet knows who created everything if it was created.

      August 13, 2011 at 2:53 am |
    • really?!

      o'rly?...btw...i read the article...but don t think you did...you google some guys homework paper.... it article missed one important thing....humans and apes do not have the DNA make up to be fertile....which make it kind of difficult to reproduce...therefore how did we evolve from them?

      August 13, 2011 at 2:54 am |
    • really?!

      GodPot..what is that common ancestor you speak of?

      August 13, 2011 at 2:56 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – "GodPot..what is that common ancestor you speak of?"

      Not replying for GodPot but I believe currently, the common ancestor is thought to have been from either the Ouranopithecus or Nakalipithecus genera.

      August 13, 2011 at 3:03 am |
    • really?!

      Q...you are confusing yourself with too much information....i appricaite your hard work in making sure i understand the science...but the real question is HOW we evolved... reproduction?

      August 13, 2011 at 3:03 am |
    • really?!

      I believe you mean Ouranopithecus were ancestors of apes and humans..but again we;re going on circles....there is still no proof in HUMAN evolution, there is no trail...all you guys have is your so called evidence in similar features.

      August 13, 2011 at 3:10 am |
    • Q

      @really?! – Yes reproduction is key, but there are components to evolution both above and below this. Yes, I was referring to the common ape/human ancestor. Again, proof is a meaningless word here. There is only evidence and the weight of this evidence. For evolution, it's the combined weight of physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline, e.g. physics, chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc, etc. The "trail of proof" is again found in the fossil record and found in our genomes and the genomes of extant and now, even extinct organisms. We see all the expected pieces where they should be as predicted by evolution. And again, its the ability of evolution to predict beforehand that we should (and do) find these pieces in the right places which validates the science.

      August 13, 2011 at 3:25 am |
    • John

      I am wondering when science proved religion to be false in any capacity. as far as I knew science had run into some huge roadblocks explaining somet things and had to create imaginative gap fillers to bridge things they couldnt explain or prove.

      August 13, 2011 at 9:34 am |
    • o'rly?

      The ignorance and stupidity of some people. They ask, tell me how that cake was made, else i don't believe the cake is true.

      We can see the cake!!! Knowing how it was made is IRRELEVANT!!! We can see human DNA is the same as some of our primate relatives with the exception of some chromosomal modifications. That is a FACT, regardless of whether we know HOW this modification occurred.

      But it boggles me the willfull ignorance of some people that throw idiotic statements... it's like they can ask Einstein, "Hey Einstein, e=mc² huh? NOT SO FAST!! tell me where all that energy came from, else I don't believe in that equation!!"

      August 13, 2011 at 11:00 am |
    • Peace2All

      @John

      You Said: " I am wondering when science proved religion to be false in any capacity. as far as I knew science had run into some huge roadblocks explaining somet things and had to create imaginative gap fillers to bridge things they couldnt explain or prove. "

      Science hasn't necessarily proven 'religion' to be false, as first... your use of the word 'religion' is used as an 'intangible' and at such a high-level, that there is nothing to 'disprove' in that sense.

      However, I will answer your question in general, since you asked it that way. Science isn't out to prove 'religion false.' Science deal in 'probabilities', in and predictions, based on testable, verifiable repeatable results through the evidence given.

      In a quick summary, 'science' just hasn't found any reasonable model, such as Int. Design, etc... that is testable, verifiable and predictive, as all of these models are based on some kind of supernatural mechanism to try and 'prove' its accuracy.

      So... science isn't out to prove that there is no God, however, people of faith are the one's that say "Goddidit" which is the God of the Gaps argument when science and their models haven't discovered something... yet.

      Regards,

      Peace...

      August 13, 2011 at 11:26 am |
  16. kenny

    I just love how modern christians try to equate 2k year old bs to the accepted laws of today. We let black men vote 55 years before we let women do it. Why, cause of christianity and their former beliefs that women were second class citizens and did what their husbands told them to exactly what the did 2k years ago. It is just sad how laughable christianity is along with the rest of the religions but scary that someone like that could be in charge of our nuke codes....

    August 13, 2011 at 12:51 am |
    • jon

      It was Christians like William Wilberforce who led England to abolish the slave trade. It was Christians who led abolitionist and pro womens' rights movements in this country.

      August 13, 2011 at 12:55 am |
    • Spiffy

      And it was Christians who put such bigotry in place to begin with. And they justified their actions with the Bible.

      August 13, 2011 at 1:03 am |
    • really?!

      Christians didnt invent slavery...really???

      August 13, 2011 at 1:27 am |
  17. Cat MacLeod

    Ahh Bachman? You don't have to have an invisible friend who lives in the sky to realize your husband is as gay as a maypole. He's been doing your clothes shopping and accessories coordination for 30 years? Do the math sweetie.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:50 am |
  18. Denese

    What a nut job. This is an old, outdated idea from the dark ages when only men were educated and held jobs. BTW I still come across women in their 70's who lived this way and who have now lost their husbands and they have no clue how to take care of themselves, balance a checkbook, etc. Ignorance is not bliss.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:47 am |
  19. Wzrd1

    "He respects me as his wife; that's how we operate our marriage,"... So, in short, she reaffirmed the current interpretation of the bible and her HUSBAND would be the de facto president. Since she must obey him, under such an interpretation.
    OK, yet ANOTHER reason to find her unacceptable, as a candidate, as she's giving the decisions to her husband.
    We're not voting for HIM. Any more than we voted for Hillary for president when Bill ran.
    If she said that she'd take his advise, I'd accept that. I get my wife's advice on many things in life and have done so for 30 years, this December.
    The difference is advice vs rule, which she did NOT rule out firmly.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:43 am |
  20. Wzrd1

    Mark, you get ZERO input as to a US politician, unless you want ME screwing with YOUR politics.

    August 13, 2011 at 12:40 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Advertisement
About this blog

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.