home
RSS
August 15th, 2011
04:31 PM ET

Your Take: Bachmann on wifely submission

By Eric Marrapodi, CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

(CNN)– On Friday we posted a story about U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann responding to a question about a biblical admonition for wives to be submissive to their husbands during Thursday's Republican presidential debate. The question drew boos from the audience. Bachmann replied by saying that she loved and respected her husband.

The very fact she got the question has drawn lots of attention from the media. It also has a lot of people talking about the meaning of the biblical passage about submission that appears in the fifth chatper of Ephesians.

Byron York, the Washington Examiner columnist who posed the question, has taken a lot of heat.

In a Monday column, Bork explained why he asked it.  Bachmann had talked about submitting to her husband in a 2006 stump speech at a church while she was running for Congress.  The clip went viral in 2006 when it was picked up by anti-Bachmann opponents.

York prefaced his question at the debate by citing the 2006 speech, in which she talked about continuing her education at her husband's urging and paraphrased Ephesians 5.  In his column he wrote about the role of the 2006 speech in provoking his question:

But Bachmann's statement - in public, on stage, microphone in hand, in the context of a political campaign - raised a legitimate question.  What role does her husband play in her performance in public office?  With that in mind, I asked Bachmann this question...

York noted in his column that his question opened the flood gates for others to query Bachmann about biblical submission. On Sunday, following her win in the Ames, Iowa straw poll, Bachmann was asked about submission to her husband on "Meet the Press."

Over at RealClearReligion Jeffery Weiss wrote that Bachmann "should submit a different answer," suggesting her answer at the debate was evasive.

It's wonderful that she's got a happy marriage filled with mutual respect. That kind of deep and mutual respect is surely part of the Ephesians equation. But when push comes to shove, when does she hear the call of God when her husband speaks? And what happens if the call comes in at 3 a.m.?

On Salon.com, Sarah Posner, wrote that the submission question had as much to do with who would be calling the shots in the White House were Bachmann to be elected as it had to do with the Congresswoman's faith.

It’s common for Christian politicians questioned about their adherence to submission theology to dodge a scriptural explanation, as Bachmann did. After all, while dominionist-minded evangelicals like Bachmann intentionally set out to bring their "biblical worldview" into politics, they recognize that it’s bad 21st century politics - especially for a female candidate - to admit to a theology that could cause the same gasps and boos from voters who would recoil at the image of an obedient wife as president of the United States.

Our Friday piece generated over 1,600 comments that contained a lot of strong opinions on the matter. Lots of commenters wrang their hands at what they saw as violation of the separation of church and state:

Jair
Bachmann has spoken of the importance of her faith to a degree where it must be examined. Also, this BS about "submission" meaning something different today is not accurate. My mother is a 60 yr old christian. She is submissive to my father, due to both religion and culture. If she were elected, my father would really make the final call. That is the issue at hand. Is Bachmann submissive to her husband, to the effect that electing her would by proxy be electing her husband. Current translations of the Bible mean nothing. What does Michelle Bachmann believe or how does she intend to act on a policy?

Denise
I really would like to see a clearer line drawn between church and state. The question is: As a candidate, and if she holds a higher office, can she separate church and state, or are her religious values so predominant in her life that she cannot make decisions for citizens without having her faith take priority. Every President, and any leader for free citizens, for that matter, need to make decisions that are not faith-based. Can she do that? I am not so sure, but the question applies to all candidates.

And there was plenty of debate about the meaning of the word "submissive."

MTATL67
SUBMISSIVE – characterized by tendencies to yield to the will or authority of others
RESPECT – The condition of being esteemed or honored
Yes, yes I see how the definition of these two words are the same and interchangeable.
Typical politician BS say something without actually saying anything at all.
She did not answer a damn thing.

w w
Ms. Bachmann answered in the correct way. It is society and culture that has changed the perception of 'Submission' into something negative. Submission is Respect, whether to your spouse, an employer, the law, an educator, a superior officer, etc.
It is unfortunate that candidates who have declared themselves to be of Evangelical faith are being targeted by these types of questions. It would be informative and more encompassing, if moderators in future debates would ask questions pertaining to Judaism, Mormonism, Islam or other belief systems. If they ask of one, they should ask of all.

Martin T
What Michele is saying is "the bible is the inerrant word of God, except when I say it isn't" And, isn't that so typical of the Christian response to these types of questions. Believe what the bible says, but only to the point that I interpret it. Use the words when they can be used to strike fear or make a point against someone, then interpret them when they don't agree with your current situation.

The fact question was brought up all also generated some spirited debate.

eightoeight
The question may seem stupid to some, but the fact that Bachmann has strongly identified herself as a Christian and seems to use her faith as a cornerstone of her campaign makes me wonder how much of an influence her husband would be if she were elected as President. I think her answer was as good as she could have given, but what actually goes on behind closed doors is another matter.

TexasCentrist
It's all non sequitur anyway. Arguing about whether she is consistent with the Bible is pointless given that it's all interpretation anyway. If religion were based on fact, don't you think God could manage to make his intentions clear? The idea that He could be so enigmatic and we have to figure out the ambiguities is ridiculous.

Jasie
I don't understand why people assume that if you vote for Bachmann then you're voting for her husband too. She's a woman in the modern day, not the sixties or ancient times.

If that's the way some people want to think, for all you know, Michelle could be calling the shots.

What are your thoughts about the submission question, Bachmann's answer, and the coverage that followed?

- CNN Belief Blog Co-Editor

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

soundoff (205 Responses)
  1. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    Faith is an idiot.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:34 am |
    • Stevie7

      Faith is a troll. It's best not to feed the trolls.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:40 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Tommie Tom Tom, a bigotrous son,
      stole a piggly wuggly and away he did run!
      Put he did upon the alter that pig of stoled ness,
      That bloody vermon Tommie Tom Tom made a big mess!
      The moral of this pun is jsut bhave some fun,
      Such kiddie witties should never own not even one gun!
      Lest Tommie of Tom Tom fathered of son did proclaim,
      Guns do harm and they do maim.
      Never shoulod Tommie Tom Tom play with man's guns,
      The Lord and your savior just wait until he comes!

      August 16, 2011 at 8:18 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Tommie Tom Tom, a bigotrous son,
      stole a piggly wiggly and away he did run!
      Put he did upon the alter that pig of stoled ness,
      That bloody vermon Tommie Tom Tom made a big mess!
      The moral of this pun is just have some fun,
      Such kiddie witties should never own not even one gun!
      Lest Tommie of Tom Tom fathered of son did proclaim,
      Guns do harm and they do maim.
      Never should Tommie Tom Tom play with man's guns,
      The Lord and your savior just wait until he comes!
      Your father's that do own and believe in the Gospel of our Lord,
      Should sit with their sons even though they get bored,
      Keep faith in the mix of all things,
      Just think of the pleasures all of life brings!
      and now I must quit,
      my meandering witt,
      Be good young Tommie Tom Tom and respect your elderly foes,
      They are of truth begging you nothing toward woes.

      August 16, 2011 at 8:27 am |
    • Faith

      Tom, I love you. I always will.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:25 am |
  2. The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

    Denise wrote, “Every President, and any leader for free citizens, for that matter, need to make decisions that are not faith-based. Can she do that? I am not so sure, but the question applies to all candidates.”

    People who claim they are “free citizens” are made as fools for such beliefs are but perplexisms of stupidity! The paragon of privies’ salutations upon the very word, “free” are of mindless dribbles of bemoaning meanderings unbecoming the common bonds of workmanships’ approvals. “Free at last” is but a quandary of the once oppressed, but only the menus of libertarianisms have been changed.

    August 16, 2011 at 7:24 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Complete and utter drivel.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:30 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Tommy Tom Tom The egalitairians son,
      stole that piggie and away he did run!

      August 16, 2011 at 7:32 am |
    • Stevie7

      "perplexisms of stupidity!"

      I think that just about sums up every post of Lionly I've read

      August 16, 2011 at 7:41 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Stevie7 and Tommie Tom Tom seem a bit small-minded and are probably nothing more then adolecent mimickers who read but do not comprehend what they read. Go to school you 2; stay there and learn the corrective ness of the King's English and the all so many means and ways it can be construed! 🙂

      August 16, 2011 at 8:00 am |
    • Stevie7

      Lionly – what school did you go to where they taught you to regularly make up words when communicating? Trying to sound intelligent? Fail. You could get your point across far easier if you used real words. You know, the ones found in a dictionary. Merriam-Webster's has around 470,000 entries, and that doesn't include alternate spellings and various conjugations. Surely you can find a real word that suits your purpose instead of making one up.

      August 16, 2011 at 8:05 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Lionly Lamb
      Another fine example of the oratorinatical speechification expected of you.
      Have a grandilomenti.tudinous day!

      August 16, 2011 at 8:09 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What simplificaceous mulleting! What horrortudinous platehotfulness! Really, Addled, the dope must be phenomenously delicatious.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:42 am |
    • John

      Lionly sounds like the Yoda of middle earth.

      August 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  3. Jaybird

    The bible is a joke and would be hilarious if not for the horrible atrocities it has inspired over the centuries!

    August 16, 2011 at 6:56 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Secularism, oh kind hearted Jaybird; did and still does walk hand in hand with today's religiosities regardless what "otherly" ones to postulate and/or ponder and in such privies of malcontenments are as the wayfarer in need of things unbecoming their ideals of moralisms' bemoanaments.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:30 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Translation: Lionly is blotto.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:42 am |
  4. Ladervijd

    Aside from the issue of various (fictional) translations of Ephesians 5:23, looking at 5:22, one thing should be clear to everyone:

    There is only One Lord. So any so-called land-lord, politician, pimp, etc. claiming (in private) that they are lord and that it gets them the 'right' for s3x with wives, or anything based on such premise, is pretty much a blasphemous/heretical fraudster.

    What does Ephesians 5:22 say then? In some translations, one interpretation is: Wives, treat your husbands how you did/do treat the Lord.
    From what I know, none of the husbands complained afterwards.

    August 16, 2011 at 5:22 am |
    • Ladervijd

      *with wives (other than their own wife/wives)

      August 16, 2011 at 5:25 am |
  5. Eileen

    Not that I interpret the Bible literally, but how many of you have referenced the very next mandate in the bible after the part about submission? It says for husbands to treat wives like part of their own body. If she is part of his body, she is equal in every way and if a man believes in the bible, then he must also take this to heart just as well. I think the verse about wive's submission is taken out of context.

    August 16, 2011 at 12:52 am |
    • Faith

      Eileen, you got it wrong. Woman is to respect man and man is to love woman and protect her as one protects his own body. The protecting mode must be so intense it should be like an instinct. Men are selfish; the Bible knows the human nature too well.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:31 am |
    • jimtanker

      You two are both crazy. Try the non-fiction isle next time you go to a book store.

      August 16, 2011 at 3:33 am |
    • Jaybird

      If you don't interpret the bible literally, then why even give it credence? It's an old relic with words of wisdom so you'll be suckered into believing the stupidity and lies! A truly evil deceptive book, indeed.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:54 am |
    • Frogist

      @Eileen: Even if you take into consideration that verse you quoted, it is not the same language and does not mean the same thing. Love =/= Submission. Respect=/= Submission. There may be some overlap of the two concepts but it all depends on one's interpretation of it. And no matter how you interpret it, Bachmann interprets this particular bible scripture as a wife needs to give over her will to a man.

      August 16, 2011 at 8:57 am |
  6. gupsphoo

    Does Mr. Bachmann really want to be the first FIRST GENTLEMAN in US history?

    August 16, 2011 at 12:18 am |
    • Free

      Why not? He'll get to be on Sesame Street!

      August 16, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Martin T

      Not sure "gentleman" is a word I'd use to describe Dr. Bachman.. too manly a word for him.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
  7. Reality

    For those who may have skipped page one:

    E. Marrapodi noted: "The very fact she got the question has drawn lots of attention from the media. It also has a lot of people talking about the meaning of the biblical passage about submission that appears in the fifth chatper (strange spelling- secret word filters at CNN but no spelling checker ?) of Ephesians."

    Well E.M. finally got the chapter correct. He, however, again failed to note that said passage, as per most contemporary NT scholars, was not from "St." Paul but was from a pseudo Paul as was the entire Epistle to the Ephesians.

    Some added notes about "St." Paul:

    o Did Paul see the physical, risen, simple preacher man aka Jesus on the way to Da-mascus? Or was it in a drunken stu-por/dream/hal-lucination brought on by his per-se-cu-tion of the Christians? It is obvious that Paul knew all about Jesus since he was a rabbinic per-sec-utor of said Christian cu-lt. And why pray tell did Jesus not appear to Tiberius or Caligula or Nero?? Sure would have saved a lot of time.

    It was obvious that Judaism in its conflict with Rome was about to be relegated to a second class cu-lt. Paul saw the "writing on the wall" and set about getting ahead of the destruction of Jerusalem and the near an-nih-ilation of the Jewish race.

    And please note the "trips" Paul took. Definitely not affordable by a poor Roman Jew.

    Also please note the extensive monies collected from the Ge-ntiles for famine relief in Palestine. That won the day for the Ge-ntiles entry into the new Jewish cu-lt without having to undergo circ-umcision.

    Also please note, Paul's death appears to be heavily embellished. See Professor JD Crossan's book, In Search of Paul, p. 401 for a good review of the history of his ma-rtyrdom i.e. Paul (as was Peter) was rounded up along with many Christians in Ne-ro's purge of the c-ult using the great fire of Rome as the pretext for the exec-utions. No special death wishes granted. It was a group execu-tion.

    With respect to Paul's "unchristian", pru-dish comments about women, Professor Bruce Chilton, a contemporary historic Jesus and Paul exegete says it best:

    "He (Paul) feared the tu-rn-on of women's voices as much as the sight of their hair and skin..... At one point he even suggests that the sight of female hair might distract any angel ("pretty, wingie, talking, fictional thingie") in church attendance (1 Cor. 11:10)."

    Simply add Paul's (and pseudo Pauls') thinking about women to the list of flaws in the foundations of Catholicism/Christianity.

    And from Father Raymond Brown's ep-ic NT reference book.

    Excerpts: The First Letter to Ti-mothy

    p. 654, 80-90% of the critical sch-olars believe the letter was written by a pseudo Paul toward the end of the first century, early second century.

    "Authenticity – Probably written by a disciple of Paul or a sympathetic commentator on the Pauline heritage several decades after the apostle's death.

    p. 639 ditto for T-itus

    See also Professor JD Crossan's conclusions in his book (with Professor Jonathan Reed), In Search of Paul, about Timothy and T-itus. (Same conclusions as Father Brown).

    See also Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul.

    And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#The_challenge_to_Pauline_authorship

    August 15, 2011 at 11:24 pm |
    • Wylie

      What kind of stupid English allows hyphenated words for no clear purpose? I keep seeing it in various posts, and it makes me wonder about the intelligence of the poster and what is posted.

      August 16, 2011 at 5:10 am |
    • Reality

      The moderators of this blog have set up a secret forbidden word filter which unfortunately not only will delete or put your comment in the dreaded "waiting for moderation" category but also will do the same to words having fragments of these words. For example, "t-it" is in the set but the filter will also pick up words like Hitt-ite, t-itle, beati-tude, practi-tioner and const-tution. Then there are words like "an-al" thereby flagging words like an-alysis and "c-um" flagging acc-umulate or doc-ument. And there is also "r-a-pe", “a-pe” and “gra-pe”, "s-ex", and "hom-ose-xual". You would think that the moderators would have corrected this by now considering the number of times this has been commented on but they have not. To be safe, I typically add hyphens in any word that said filter might judge "of-fensive".

      • . Make sure any web addresses do not have any forbidden word or fragment.

      Sum Dude routinely updates the list of forbidden words/fragments.

      Two of the most filtered words are those containing the fragments "t-it" and "c-um". To quickly check your comments for these fragments, click on "Edit" on the Tool Bar and then "Find" on the menu. Add a fragment (without hyphens) one at a time in the "Find" slot and the offending fragment will be highlighted in your comments before you hit the Post button. Hyphenate the fragment(s) and then hit Post. And remember more than one full web address will also gain a "Waiting for Moderation".

      They recently have taken to dividing the comments in batches of 50 or so, for some strange reason.

      Zeb’s alphabetical listing

      o “Bad letter combinations / words to avoid if you want to get past the CNN "awaiting moderation" filter:
      Many, if not most, are buried within other words, so use your imagination.
      You can use hyphens, spaces, or other characters to modify the "offending" letter combinations.
      --–
      ar-se.....as in Car-se, etc.
      ba-stard
      co-ck.....as in co-ckatiel, co-ckatrice, co-ckleshell, co-ckles, lubco-ck, etc.
      co-on.....as in rac-oon, coc-oon, etc.
      cu-m......as in doc-ument, accu-mulate, circu-mnavigate, circu-mstances, cu-mbersome, cuc-umber, etc.
      cu-nt.....as in Scu-ntthorpe, a city in the UK famous for having problems with filters...!
      do-uche
      ef-fing...as in ef-fing filter
      ft-w......as in soft-ware, delft-ware, swift-water, etc.
      fu-ck......!
      ho-mo.....as in ho-mo sapiens or ho-mose-xual, ho-mogenous, etc.
      ho-rny....as in tho-rny, etc.
      jacka-ss...yet "ass" is allowed by itself.....
      ja-p......as in j-apanese, ja-pan, j-ape, etc.
      ji-sm
      koo-ch....as in koo-chie koo..!
      nip-ple
      pi-s......as in pi-stol, lapi-s, pi-ssed, therapi-st, etc.
      pr-ick....as in pri-ckling, pri-ckles, etc.
      ra-pe.....as in scra-pe, tra-peze, gr-ape, thera-peutic, sara-pe, etc.
      se-x......as in Ess-ex, s-exual, etc.
      sh-@t.....but shat is okay – don't use the @ symbol there.
      sh-it
      sl-ut
      sn-atch
      sp-ic.....as in disp-icable, hosp-ice, consp-icuous, susp-icious, sp-icule, sp-ice, etc.
      ti-t......as in const-itution, att-itude, ent-ities, alt-itude, beat-itude, etc.
      tw-at.....as in wristw-atch, nightw-atchman, etc.
      va-g......as in extrava-gant, va-gina, va-grant, va-gue, sava-ge, etc.
      who-re....as in who're you kidding / don't forget to put in that apostrophe!
      wt-f....also!!!!!!!

      There are more, some of them considered "racist", so do not assume that this list is complete.
      -–
      Allowed words / not blocked at all:
      anal
      anus
      ass
      boob
      crap
      damn
      execute
      hell
      kill
      masturbation
      murder
      penis
      pubic
      raping (ra-pe is not ok)
      shat (sh-@t is not ok)
      sphincter
      testes
      testicles

      The CNN / WordPress filter also filters your EMAIL address and NAME as well – so you might want to check those.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:29 am |
  8. Bo

    =================@Faith================ Do you have a good Bible commentary, a Strong's Concordence and a good Bible Dictionary?

    August 15, 2011 at 11:03 pm |
    • Free

      I know many of you have your own copies, but here is an online source of what Strong's has to say for those interested. Enjoy!

      http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5293&t=KJV

      August 16, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • jimtanker

      LIke we need one more person's interpretation/translation/opinion on what the bible says?

      August 16, 2011 at 3:37 am |
    • Free

      jimtanker
      Point is, Strong's is the reference that many, if not most, Christians use to help interpret the Bible for themselves. It's been trusted for a very long time, and does not seem to support Bachmann's interpretation of what 'submit' means. So, either she is actually right, in which case people have a right to know what scholarly work she bases this on and millions of Christians who have been relying on Strong's are in error, or she is just making a personal interpretation of this based on what she wants it to mean.

      August 16, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
  9. Bo

    I would not doubt that, if elected as presiden, Bachmann talk to him about some issues. I can believe that men who were president probably talked to their wives about issues, especialy if theY had a close relationship. That's what husbands and wives do. You can bet your bottom dollar that the Clintons talked about issues. A lot of people thought she probably "wore the pants in the family", and he didn't make any major decision without her input.

    August 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • Frogist

      @Bo: And you know how much flack Hill took over all of that? That's where the bias shows itself very well. It was just fine to beat down Hillary for her being a strong personality, but it's absolutely wrong to think about Marcus Bachmann being able to influence and control his wife.
      But even that is less of an issue because Bachmann already said she is submissive because her God wants her to be and she holds her religion and God above all other things. That's hardly the same as being strong willed and having an opinion when Bachmann is compelled by God to do as her husband asks of her. Hillary and Bill had no such issues.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:04 am |
  10. Faith

    America has lofty ideals and sane judgment and strength only because of the long-standing Judeo-Christian heritage and the realistic education from the Bible. When the rest of the world was about to recover from the abuses done by atheism, stupid Americans are demanding atheism. Is there any cure for the stupidity of a country with a short history? Do Americans remember how much they received from the Cristian Britain?

    August 15, 2011 at 10:47 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      The Cristian Britain? Or is it the Cristian Britian? What a freakin' delusional dweeb.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:44 am |
  11. Faith

    The Chinese and Arabs were much better advanced than the stupid Westerners. The only thing we didn't have first was the Bible.

    August 15, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
    • Jim

      You guys really shouldn't beat yourselves up over that because the Bible isn't that special.

      August 16, 2011 at 12:25 am |
    • Faith

      Jim, the West became superior only because of Christianity and the Bible. It had no other value.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:26 am |
  12. Faith

    Mythologies are similar because we humans are all from the same single parents. Only the Hebrews were smart enough to retain the whole story and to give us something to think about deeply. All who get into mythologies do nothing but oppress women and minorities and kill children; those who study the Bible rescue, liberate and advance the world. The Westerners would have been as barbaric as any civilization if they had no Bible. The Jews should have educated the Chinese instead of Europeans!

    August 15, 2011 at 10:33 pm |
    • Free

      Perhaps you are unaware of how much we have of other mythologies, and just assuming that much has not been lost of the Jewish and Christian editions. There were, for example, lots of other books that were popular with both groups that was never canonized. Maybe they were less popular than the rest, but they do deserve to be included in any study of Judeo-Christian myth.

      August 16, 2011 at 12:23 am |
    • Faith

      @Free, so tell me what valuable things those mythologies and non-canons teach? Countless Bible schools are everywhere all around the world. All schools started as Bible schools. On the contrary, all pagans discouraged schooling and prohibited learning. Ignorance was a virtue in non-Christendom. The world was saved by Christianity.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:24 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Faith
      Once again, you are full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
      The tiered model of public education emulated throughout the modern world comes from Ancient Greece and Rome.
      One of the earliest formal schools was Plato's school of philoshophy in the city of Akademia, which as a temple to the Goddess Atehna was decidedly not Abrahamicly inclined (so to speak).

      August 16, 2011 at 8:29 am |
    • Faith

      @Doc-, you are wrong. To Greeks and Romans, slaves and women and children were sub humans. And they crucified people to death. It's Christianity with the Bible that made Europe civil and thus the entire world. You never read the Bible so you never know where O Canada came from.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:23 am |
    • Doc Vestibule

      @Faith
      You said "All schools started as Bible schools. On the contrary, all pagans discouraged schooling and prohibited learning."

      You're either lying, or were misinformed.
      I have informed you.
      If you continue to insist that schools are a Christian invention, then you are knowingly bearing false witness.
      Doesn't your God prohibit lying?

      August 16, 2011 at 10:17 am |
    • Free

      Faith
      "tell me what valuable things those mythologies and non-canons teach?"
      Beyond all their other contributions to our culture they may have served as the entire foundation for the Jesus legend. Surely you are aware that there is virtually nothing of the Jesus story that could not be argued came from other, earlier mythologies? The dying and rising demigod is a standard ancient mythic hero of the greater region. Might I suggest that you actually read some other ancient works and the scriptures of other religions before asserting that the Bible is unique.

      August 16, 2011 at 11:14 pm |
  13. Bo

    She can say anything she wants to; I can't judge her, I don't live in their house, much less their bedroom.

    August 15, 2011 at 10:29 pm |
    • Free

      But you do vote, don't you? Is she someone you would vote for?

      August 16, 2011 at 12:18 am |
  14. Dionysius John

    I'm wondering when people will realize that all of this religion stuff is just a lot of codswallop. There is as much significance in Christian mythology as there is in Norse, Roman, or Greek mythology, that is, none! Get off of your crutches and walk like men!

    August 15, 2011 at 10:28 pm |
  15. Paco the Avenger

    The bible (and the other holy trash rags) are collections of fairy tales and borrowed mythology from older civilizations. The sooner this is recognized and accepted, the sooner we can can advance as a species.

    August 15, 2011 at 10:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, you dingbat. Abortion isn't murder and never has been. Even when illegal it was never prosecuted as murder. Only idiots like you make such dimwitted, utterly ridiculous pronouncements, thereby revealing yourselves to be no more than tools.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:47 am |
  16. Faith

    @Tom, how are you? Please vote for Mrs. Bachmann for me.

    August 15, 2011 at 9:33 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Please remove your thumb from your bunghole.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
    • Faith

      Tom, I know only a little about Mrs. Bachmann. But as usual, a lot of bad Americans hate her, so I concluded she is a very good woman. Tom, I'm older than your mother and I'm sure she'd vote for her.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:38 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      For you to know a little bit about anything, you'd have to actually grow a brain, muttonhead.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
    • Free

      Faith
      A lot of 'bad Americans' in our prisons really hate child molesters. So, by your logic...

      August 16, 2011 at 12:16 am |
    • Faith

      @Free, no, those Americans who hate Mrs. Bachmann support killing children by abortion, not just molest. A legal murder in America.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:19 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      "Murder" is a legal term. It refers to illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal; therefore, it is not murder. Furthermore, children are born. A child can't be aborted because it is already born. Fetuses can be aborted.

      Learn English. Grow a brain.

      August 16, 2011 at 7:32 am |
    • Faith

      Tom, you are wrong. Murder is a ethical term. Destroying a fetus is murder. Once you were a fetus and your Christian mother decided to keep you just like mine did.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:20 am |
    • Free

      Faith
      'Murder' is a legal term, otherwise the USA is guilty of 'murdering' bin Ladin, and also guilty of attempting to 'murder' Castro several times.

      August 16, 2011 at 11:16 pm |
  17. Faith

    Woman should submit to man unless man is disobedient to God. Otherwise, man becomes destructive to himself and everyone on his path, woman becomes unhappy and ugly, and the children become hopelessly immoral.

    August 15, 2011 at 9:26 pm |
  18. Womanowner

    Woman are property, and are to be treated as such.

    August 15, 2011 at 9:14 pm |
    • Faith

      @Womanowner, you are wrong. Woman ought to be a help for her man and not be his burden. Read Genesis and Proverbs.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:35 pm |
  19. Dictionary

    It was a simple yes or no question. The fact that there is all this debate and disagreement over what the passage means is a testament to the imperfection of the bible. Why would a perfect god confuse people over something that could mean their salvation?

    Or, maybe, the bible is perfect and it says exactly what it says. Either way, Bachmann loses.

    August 15, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
    • Faith

      The Bible wasn't written for simple Americans who refuse to think. It's for honest and sophisticated humans. The message of the Gospel is simple and plain but the living by the Word of God is more profound than the universe.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:20 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Then why are YOU commenting about it, Faith?

      August 15, 2011 at 9:29 pm |
    • Faith

      The Bible was designed special so that lazy or self-smart humans can never get the meaning or significance. The God-relying, honest mind that is willing to use its intelligence allows understanding.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      When you learn English, do let us all know.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:36 pm |
    • Faith

      Tom, you are the one who use the uncommon English vocab too much. Try to understand the ESL people. We are humans, too.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:40 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      If that were true, we'd be classifying vermin as people.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:42 pm |
    • Faith

      Tom, why do you hate those who love you? There is the Absolute Truth in this world. The world is not something you imagine it to be or wish it to be. It's an objective en-ti-ty, Tom.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:45 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, right, and you're the expert on what the world really is, aren't you? That's why you're typing nonsensical pap on your Apple 2C in some dumpy apartment in Eastern Europe.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:49 pm |
    • Faith

      I'm living in Asia. I want to come to America to meet with you, daughter, and fix the way you talk so your mother would be happier.

      August 15, 2011 at 10:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Well, just let me know when you figure out how to raise the dead. Muttonhead.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:48 am |
  20. CJ

    Jesus treated women like equals. Paul didn't. I'm going with Jesus.

    "If Eve hadn't been created, it would have been necessary to invent her."

    Most men on this planet want nothing but for women to be 2nd class, kicked around, kept down, treated like servants.

    August 15, 2011 at 8:06 pm |
    • Faith

      Jesus never appointed woman as an Apostle because He agreed with Paul 100%. Men who treat women to be equal are godly civilized gentlemen but men who expect women to hold the same roles end up being slaves to women. Everything has balance and order. Secular Westerners worship un-natural things.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:17 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Idiot trolls worship the internet and post drivel.

      August 15, 2011 at 9:43 pm |
    • Free

      Faith
      So, women are 'equal' to men just as long as they don't try to take on any of the more desirable male roles, right? Isn't that like saying that women will be happy as long as they keep their place. How easy is it to subst.itute 'blacks' or 'Asians' for the word 'women' in that sentence?

      August 16, 2011 at 12:12 am |
    • Faith

      @Free, the Bible doesn't talk about racial difference but it talks about womam's submission to man. Woman is not fit for spiritual leadership and not desirable for most leadership. The female leadership increases the number of criminals.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:17 am |
    • tallulah13

      So what you're saying, Faith, is that you are not fit for spiritual leadership? So why do you keep posting, telling people how to worship?

      August 16, 2011 at 2:21 am |
    • Faith

      @Tallulah13, anyone can testify the truth. It's transmission of information, not preaching. Besides, women can teach boys as a mother teaches her sons.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:35 am |
    • tallulah13

      No, you're definitely trying to show authority. And you often admonish male posters. Don't bear false witness, Faith. That's a sin, too.

      August 16, 2011 at 2:59 am |
    • Faith

      @Tallulah13, no, you have troubles with authority, that's why. Men need admonishing from everyone. What false witness? It must be the fakes some of your fellow atheists posted. You need repentance.

      August 16, 2011 at 3:15 am |
    • tallulah13

      Faith, your arrogance blinds you to your hypocrisy. You pretend to be an authority, you preach to others as if yours is the only voice that matters. If that is not defying the wishes of your god, I don't know what is. If your bible is true, you will probably end up burning for eternity with all of us horrible American atheists. You've been warned.

      August 16, 2011 at 10:44 am |
    • Free

      Faith
      There are millions of Christians who do not share your interpretation and opinions. Aren't you suggesting that you are a better authority on God's word than they are? If so, then you are overstepping your role as a woman, yes?

      August 16, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
1 2 3 4
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.