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:

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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

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. Karmamaster

    Someone should have asked her how she skirted Timothy 2:12 :I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet. Obviously she only adheres to those Bible passages which suit her; as do most who call themselves devout Christians.

    August 30, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
  2. Dave

    Has anyone heard her husband speak? I'd say he's probably the submissive one...

    August 22, 2011 at 4:33 am |
    • Buddy

      TOTALY UNACCEPTABLE! A presidential debate and some idiot asks a question like this? What is wrong with people in the Media?

      August 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm |
  3. cocoasmom

    I suspect that Deborah, a VERY important judge in the Bible, did not feel the need to have her husband advise her about her job. Otherwise, HE would have been doing her job and would have been mentioned in the BIble as such.

    The hebrew word for submission means put in the proper order. In this case, a Christian man, who truly understands the concept of submission would not interfere with the proper order of his wife's leadership of a class, a town, a state or of a country. He is not part of that order. Within the family unit, from a Christian perspective, it is different. And even then, a Godly man who recognizes his wife's abilities and place in the family, will not feel the need to micro-manage the wife's day to day role, whether she works in the home or out, whether HE works in the home or out. If one studies scriptures diligently, one will discover that there are many scriptures aimed at husbands in treating their wives correctly. The problem is that many men don't bother to read the verses that follow the ones telling wives to submit themselves to their husbands.

    August 21, 2011 at 10:49 am |
    • lorkathack

      I completely agree.
      But at the same time I do agree that her husband might put his input in if she was to become president but only because outspoken people can'tdon't generally keep their opinions to themeslves.
      Don't you think Hillary "advised" Bill? Of Course! They are married!

      August 21, 2011 at 1:49 pm |
    • ben

      THANK YOU! Finally, someone with sense is contributing to the argument. The Bible has plenty of examples of women taking very prominent roles in history. Like anything else, taking one verse out of context creates a situation where folks aren't able to see the forest through the trees. Paul teaches that both husbands and wives should submit to each other in reverence to Christ. He also makes it clear that women should respect their husbands and that men must love their wives. Do you realize that Paul spends twice as much time telling men how to treat their wives as he does telling wives how to treat their husbands? Jesus Christ came into this world to bring the Kingdom of God to believers now. That means that God's presence through his Holy Spirit permeates every aspect of a Christian's life. But, Jesus also said we must respect the rules of the secular world in which we live. New Christians, thousands of years ago were asking the same questions folks are asking today. Are we that arrogant to think we've somehow stumbled onto new information? That our intellect so surpasses our forefathers that we have no use for their knowledge or insight? The saddest thing to me is that Christians aren't able to defend their positions effectively in a world that views Christianity as utter foolishness. It's not like God didn't tell us Christians that was going to happen. The Bible clearly states, on several occasions, that to nonbelievers, God's wisdom will appear as foolishness. God's wisdom is beyond all human understanding. I encourage those that don't know the full story to research it before blasting it as stupid and arcane.

      August 21, 2011 at 7:27 pm |
    • Dreamer

      This is exactly correct. The non-religious don't understand the context of the whole of basically anything they read in the Bible, they just pick stuff that seems like a "gotcha" without any understanding of what they're saying. My wife is a high-risk OB/GYN, and so I'm married to a woman who literally gets that 3am call several times during the week. What am I going to tell her "Don't go. Let that pregnant woman deliver herself! Oh, and BTW, if you do deliver her, make sure to use the vacuum, because forceps misshape the head."? Of course not, that's absurd. She goes and delivers the baby, that's what she does. But, how we operate as a family – that's different. We discuss things, but ultimately, she willingly concedes final say to me, and is happy to do it. You can't have two head honchos in a family. It just doesn't work. You have to trust each other, but ultimately, as man you have to be worthy of that trust. If a woman is married to a man who isn't worthy of that trust, then she has a problem. What's ironic is that most women, even the ones who claim to be relational egalitarians, really can't stand a man who gives in to them all the time. They lose respect for them. Is it cultural? I don't think so. Most women around the world are pretty much the same way. How it expresses itself is different from one culture to another, but the basic sense is that most women worldwide like a man they think is worth "following", to one degree or another. Men, generally speaking, don't have that same motivation.

      August 22, 2011 at 8:36 pm |
    • Dreamer

      I forgot to add: To show how silly these reporters are, had they known anything about what they were asking, they wouldn't be asking Michelle, they'd be asking her husband. What does it mean to HIM when his wife says she submits to him? Does that include presidential duties?

      Besides, does anyone really believe that the President doesn't ask their spouse for advice? Was FDR a girlie-man and unfit for presidential duty for asking Eleanor for advice? Every king and queen throughout the ages has asked their spouse for advice. Sometimes it was given when they didn't ask!

      August 22, 2011 at 8:43 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The New Testament was written in Greek ,not Hebrew.

      August 22, 2011 at 8:47 pm |
    • Dreamer

      Parts of it were probably written in Hebrew earlier on. Like Matthew, for example.

      August 22, 2011 at 8:52 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      Study to show yourself approved before commenting.

      August 22, 2011 at 8:54 pm |
    • Dreamer

      Conversely, you can try Google before responding from hubris. Matthew has Hebrew origins. There are numerous wordplays in Matthew that don't make sense in Greek, unless it has a Hebrew origin.

      August 22, 2011 at 9:08 pm |
    • herbert juarez

      The passage referenced isn't in Matthew.Writing to the emerging church in the first century A.D. was predominantly in the common language, Greek.Since the bulk of the writers were Jewish , it is probable that they brought their Jewish inflections into their texts.Since we have no original texts to reference,anything that deviates from the known and accepted history of the New Testament scriptures is at best speculation and opens the possibility of ridicule by the unbeliever.

      August 23, 2011 at 9:18 pm |
  4. Flag this Comment

    JFK was submissive to a man–The POPE.

    August 19, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
  5. Faith

    America's problem is too many men are made into co-wa-rdly playboys who'd just watch women do the job in the arena by the never-ending entertainment. When men don't fight for what is right or are not willing to lead women and children to the right path, the Bible says women and children will rule and destroy the nation. In this case, con-ser-vative women are 1 million times better than liberal men.

    August 17, 2011 at 10:24 pm |
  6. James

    Who is to say that God would communicate to her husband about matters of state, when it would be Michelle given the position of authority? My wife, a physician, surely receives more direction from God about matters of medicine than I would. God would not call my wife to a job when I am the one meant to have that authority. Otherwise, I would be in that position. Unless God is mediocre at management.

    August 17, 2011 at 7:32 pm |
  7. 2cupsofjoe

    Jeez! where was all this rhetoric when barack said that he confers with his wife on all major decisions? Let's just pretend for a moment that submission would be carried out in Backmann's presidential duties. Are they both so polar opposites that it would matter if he commanded her to do something? Her role would be limited by Congress anyway. let's not fantasize their relationship as Anakin's and the Sith Lord's.
    And come on, people. I am not a bachmann fan, but this is stupid. I am sure every president has asked his wife for advice or an opinion and I am sure during the Clinton years, Hilary took out her claws for the healthcare plan she was behind and Bill kindly submitted to her wishes. She wrote a bill and it was brought up in Congress, but guess what, it wasn't passed.

    August 17, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
  8. Faith

    Why are Americans so allergic to the word "submission"? What's wrong with them? What have they become of by trying to reach complete godless autonomy? Most citizens ended up in welfare or slavery to addiction, to perversion or to the super-rich. When the Bible uses certain words, it means what it says and it is the most practical wisdom. Woman must submit to godly man for everyone's benefit including the woman herself.

    August 17, 2011 at 12:31 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      This is hilarious. Faith/Addled commenting on others' understanding of words.


      August 17, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
    • Jerome

      Your a hypocrite to religion Faith, because it also states that women are not to be spiritual advisers either. You have been using women names so now it's time to SHUT UP and this is from a Godly man!

      August 17, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Oh, good. Another moron who can't figure out possessives.

      August 17, 2011 at 7:15 pm |
    • Faith

      @Jerome, you are another pagan who can not quote a thing right.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:57 pm |
  9. Derek Wain

    What does this stroy have to do with the price of tea in China?
    Whenever the press attacks Bachmann, she gets a flood of support and money. She becomes ‘Every Woman,’ a misunderstood Tea Party mother of five facing down an elitist, arrogant, Obama-leaning press corps. The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on.
    8/13/11 Michele Bachmann wins the Iowa Straw Poll.

    August 16, 2011 at 1:45 pm |
    • Martin T

      Correction: 8/13/2011 Michele Bachman PURCHASES the Iowa Straw Poll.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:02 pm |
  10. Aaron

    That text is always so taken out of context – Paul is talking about the relationship between man and woman; and giving them advice where they are lacking. For men, we play the field and think "well, I attracted this one – I can always find another" so Paul's instruction is that you must be willing to die for your wife (an unnatural reaction). For wives, they don't need that advice because look at how a normal woman protects those who she loves – no need for instruction on that point. However, God, in his wisdom, knows that women have trouble submitting to God – thus, in the relationship (and in the original sin) He illuminates by telling women to do what does not come naturally. Submission is not servitude. In all, Christians are to submit to God.
    To the typical "there is no God responder" save it – this is a topic for the spiritually mature.

    August 16, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • BRC

      No need to bring a discussion about god into this one. Are you saying men don't have an inherent protective instinct? Re you also saying that women don't change their romantic interests?

      August 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm |
  11. gary

    God is pretend, bible is folklore. Bachmann is delusional, greedy, power hungry, judgmental unbecoming of a Xtian.

    August 16, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
    • Dreamer

      If God is folklore, then there is nothing "becoming" of a Christian either. It's just another messed up expression of humanity, in which case, she's like everyone else, including you. So, she'd be perfectly qualified by that rubric.

      August 22, 2011 at 9:09 pm |
  12. jenn

    This "concern" does not at all appear to be genuine. There is a bevy of so-called issues that will come up with any candidate that is not White, male, or protestant. Remember the "concern" about Joe Lieberman being able to govern on a Saturday because he's jewish? Or Kerry being catholic? Why does no one ask how Bachmann manages her everyday life. Does she run to her husband for an answer at every turn? No, so the truth of the matter is that a christian woman with a job has her authority in her job and the submission is related to the family life, not her day job. Give it a rest, people. This smacks of misogyny.

    August 16, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
    • Stevie7

      It's a valid question of a presidential candidate that claims to follow the bible literally. Can you please point to the passage in the bible where it states that the submission of a wife is not job related, and only family related – or are you putting your own spin on it?

      August 16, 2011 at 12:20 pm |
    • jenn

      Stevie7, read the passage for an understanding. The context makes it quite clear. Also, take look above at Aaron's answer.

      August 16, 2011 at 6:11 pm |
    • Stevie7

      I have read the passage. Women did not hold jobs at the time, so claiming that the passage only related to family life is highly disingenuous. The passage lists no caveats or conditions. You're trying to place something into the passage that just isn't there.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:46 am |
  13. demo joseph

    Tom Tom, you get my vote

    August 16, 2011 at 11:08 am |
  14. Antwinette

    The word "chapter" is misspelled in the second paragraph of this entry.

    August 16, 2011 at 10:58 am |
  15. mat

    So if she has to submit to her husband, who will be in charge if she gets elected?

    August 16, 2011 at 10:55 am |
    • gary

      the loony voices in her head will take over! Coo-coo! Coo-coo! Coo-coo for Coco Puffs!

      August 16, 2011 at 1:08 pm |
  16. myweightinwords

    I have serious doubts that Ms. Bachman can or will set aside her faith in any decision making progress. And, if she believes that her God has called her to be submissive to her husband, than the question rises, is a vote for Michele really a vote for Michelle or is it a vote for her husband to be running the country?

    If, in fact, she is submissive to her husband as her faith instructs, then her politics can not be construed as her own, but merely a reflection of her husband's desire for her.

    Do we need a puppet and puppet master? For that matter, do we really want someone who can not be trusted to make the hard decisions without instruction from her husband?

    For me, even if I didn't find her politics abhorrent, this would make me uncomfortable enough to not vote for her.

    August 16, 2011 at 10:39 am |
  17. Faith

    Woman must be submissive to man unless the man is disobedient to God. Magna Carta applies everywhere. Mankind has yet to produce anything remotely close to the Bible in accuracy in reality of this universe and human life.

    August 16, 2011 at 10:28 am |
    • John

      The word "bible" and accurate" do not belong in the same sentence much less the same book!

      August 16, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
    • Faith

      Ok, the word "accurate" was not good enough. The Bible is inerrant.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:36 am |
    • Stevie7


      Please explain, if the bible is inerrant, why the NT contains different genealogies for jesus. Or was Joseph raised in a gay household?

      August 17, 2011 at 12:43 am |
    • Stevie7


      Please explain, if the bible is inerrant, why the NT contains different genealogies for jesus. Or was Joseph raised in a gay household?

      August 17, 2011 at 12:44 am |
    • Faith

      @Stevie: the Matthew's is of Joseph's father and the Luke's is of Joseph's father-in-law. Stevie, because of the likes of you, Muslims think all American men are gays.

      August 17, 2011 at 10:14 pm |
    • potatoheadmary


      Religion never appealed to me. My conscience, however, won't let me get away with ANYTHING.

      August 19, 2011 at 4:43 pm |
  18. 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 16, 2011 at 10:08 am |
  19. HeavenSent

    Hey Billy Boy, read this and save your sorry soul!

    John 3:16-21

    16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
    17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
    18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
    19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
    20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
    21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God. (KJV)

    August 16, 2011 at 8:56 am |
    • Faith

      @HeavenSent, Amen.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:56 am |
    • William Demuth

      People with schizotypal personality disorder may be very disturbed. Their odd behavior may look like that of people with schizophrenia. For example, they may also have unusual preoccupations and fears, such as fears of being monitored by government agencies.

      More commonly, however, people with schizotypal personality disorder behave oddly and have unusual beliefs (such as aliens or demons). They cling to these beliefs so strongly that it prevents them from having relationships.

      People with schizotypal personality disorder feel upset by their difficulty in forming and keeping close relationships. This is different from people with schizoid personality disorder, who do not want to form relationships.

      August 16, 2011 at 10:01 am |
    • Reality

      John 3:16-21 is a single attestation (i.e. found no where else in the scriptures) in the NT and many contemporary NT scholars have concluded that it was not said by the historical Jesus. It was, they conclude, an addition to embellish the life of Jesus to gain converts/money to/for the cause.

      See added commentary at http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?ti-tle=350_Jesus_to_Nicodemus and in Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus.

      Father Raymond Brown [The Gospel according to John. Anchor Bible 20. pp. 135-37] provides a typically cautious introduction to these passages in general and this case in particular.

      August 16, 2011 at 10:07 am |
    • gary

      That the bible says it, doesn't make it so. There is no rational reason to believe in the bible. It's nonsense to believe in anything that is it's own and only source of credibility.

      August 16, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • Free

      This passage asserts that people who do not accept Jesus as God, even if they are very good people who do not harm others, are still somehow 'evil'. This, of course, is an illogical and unjust idea.

      August 16, 2011 at 11:21 pm |
    • Faith

      @Free, there are no good people who don't harm others. Your hypothesis is a fantasy.

      August 17, 2011 at 12:35 am |
    • Free

      Granted, "good" is a relative term, so my point is that being a Christian does not guarantee a person being any better behaved than anyone else, be they Hindu, Taoist, Muslim, Atheist, or adhering to any other moral system. Actually, if Christianity is really all about just worshipping Jesus as a god, and that a person's morality is not the real goal of the faith, then what right do Christians have to speak of being moral authorities at all? Why not leave moral issues to the belief systems that concentrate on them?

      August 17, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
    • Free

      Speaking of 'fantasy' try this article, especially the section ent.itled "Was Jesus the First Superhero?".


      August 17, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • Faith

      @Free: Religions are useful for limitimg humanity's evil. Atheism is no moral system; it's simply an autonomy with denial of truth. Christians are different from all other humans; true Christians have super-natural goodness by the Holy Spirit and we do good not in order to gain merit but out of gra-ti-tude. Maturity varies and a lot of pseudo-followers claim to be Christian. The reason you need closer look and study. God made this world in the way the lazy can never find the facts of the matter.

      August 17, 2011 at 10:10 pm |
  20. William Demuth

    The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar is off her meds again.

    Such a CLASSIC example of Jesus freaks who have serious mental incapacitations trying to present themselves as rational or insightful.

    The classic Charles Manson style blathering leaves one with no conclusion other than that the mental health field of modern medicine is failing in its primary role.

    Her (I assume it is a female by birth) postings are nothing more than a desperate cry for help, masked by fits of paranoia and delusion. Her desperation is palpable. Someone other than the imaginary God she espouses, had best intervene in her life, or she is destined for a tragic end.

    August 16, 2011 at 8:21 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      William, you are speaking the truth. She's totally insane. The nonsense words, bizarre grammar and syntax, and the complete lack of any coherence is evidence of some sort of mental illness.

      August 16, 2011 at 9:39 am |
    • abc

      At what point in this post did you do anything but bash someone else for their beliefs. You offered no counter points at all.

      August 24, 2011 at 11:57 am |
1 2 3 4
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.