My Take: 5 biblical passages for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry
What parts of the Bible do candidates really follow?
August 16th, 2011
10:57 AM ET

My Take: 5 biblical passages for Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry

Editor's Note: Stephen Prothero, a Boston University religion scholar and author of "God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions that Run the World," is a regular CNN Belief Blog contributor.

By Stephen Prothero, Special to CNN

The audience booed when columnist Byron York asked U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota at the Republican presidential debate last week, if, as president, she would be “submissive to her husband.”

That question would have been out of order if she had excluded her evangelical Protestant faith from her presidential campaign. But she has made her faith as a Bible believer central to that campaign, so voters have a right to know which parts of the Bible she really believes in, and which parts (if any) she ignores.

Unfortunately, we cannot ask God whether He has in fact called Bachmann to be president, but we can ask her to interpret what she affirms to be the Word of God.

The same goes for Texas Governor Rick Perry, who earlier this month led “The Response,” a prayer and fasting event at a Houston football stadium that had the look and feel of an evangelical revival.

So here are my five Bible quotations for the two Republican presidential candidates now vying most vociferously for the evangelical Protestant vote.

1.  “Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands” (Colossians 3:18).

Should female presidents submit to their first husbands? As it should be obvious to anyone who saw this portion of the debate, Bachmann did not answer this question. She said she respected her husband. She said he respected her. But the question was about submission, not respect.

When John F. Kennedy was running for president, some voters were worried about whether, as president, he would take his marching orders from someone else. That someone else was not Jacqueline Onassis but the pope.

In a famous speech delivered on September 12, 1960, in Houston, he answered the question clearly and definitely. “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President - should he be Catholic - how to act.”

He also drew a sharp distinction between his private religious views and his public political views, pledging that his private faith would have no bearing on his actions as president. “Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected, on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject, I will make my decision in accordance with these views - in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates.”

I would like to know whether Bachmann will say the same about her evangelical Protestantism. If her husband tells her to veto a bill, will she submit to him? Is there any separation for her, as there was for Kennedy, between her private religious doctrines (in this case, that wives should be submissive to their husbands) and her public responsibilities (to act as "the decider")?

2. “But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:6).

When I watched Perry’s performance at “The Response,” this Bible quote came to mind. I would like to know what he thinks of it.

Should Christians make a show of praying in public? This passage at least would seem to say no. In fact, it seems to say that when you pray you should go into your room and shut the door before addressing God. But perhaps I am misreading it. Either way, I would like for Perry to tell me what he makes of this Bible passage. And Bachmann, too, while we are at it.

3.  “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).

Part of the Ten Commandments, this passage has been used by many social conservatives to argue against Roe v. Wade and abortion rights. After all, if God said, “Thou shalt not kill” then why are we taking lives inside the womb?  But if God said, “Thou shalt not kill” then why are we allowing capital punishment?

I would like to hear from both Perry and Bachmann about how they read this passage, and how it can simultaneously justify opposition to abortion rights and support for the death penalty. (During his term as Texas governor, Perry has overseen 234 executions. Bachmann's position on the issue is unclear.)

4.  “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25).

This famous quotation, which appears in parallel form in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, arises when Jesus is asked a "gotcha" question about paying taxes to the Roman government. It has been read in various ways by various Christians.

Nonetheless, Jesus seems to be drawing a clear distinction here between religious and secular authority - a distinction that neither Perry nor Bachmann appears to see.

Admittedly, neither of these candidates agrees with the famous metaphor of Thomas Jefferson famous metaphor of a “wall of separation between church and state” but does either see a line of demarcation of any sort - a picket fence, perhaps - between “what is Caesar’s” and “what is God’s”?

5.  “Blessed are the poor" (Luke 6:20).

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously begins, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). In Luke, he says, more simply, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).

This Lukan passage is a key source in the social teachings of the Roman Catholic Church for the so-called “preferential option for the poor”—the notion that Christian communities have a particular responsibility to take care of the poor in their midst.

How do Perry and Bachmann read this passage? Did Luke mess up by leaving out "in spirit"? Or did Jesus really say "Blessed are the poor"? And if he did say that, what did he mean by it? Do his words carry any meaning for us today, and to the way we craft our federal budget?

I have more quotations, of course, but these five will do for now.

I presume both candidates will acknowledge that these passages are, in fact, in the Bible. And I take it for granted that, as self-professed Bible-believing Christians, they believe these passages are true. But what truths do they teach? And what import, if any, do those truths have on their public policies?

I understand the impulse to draft Jesus into your political campaign. At least in U.S. politics, Jesus is good for business. But if you are going to call Jesus to your side, you need to let voters know how that affects your politics. Might you change your mind if you saw that a political position of yours was contradicted by the Bible? Or is the Bible a dead letter, useful for invoking divine authority but never for correction or reprove?

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen Prothero.

- CNN Belief Blog contributor

Filed under: Bachmann • Bible • Christianity • Politics • Rick Perry • United States

soundoff (1,020 Responses)
  1. svann

    They will tell you that you cannot take biblical verses at face value, but that "they mean what we tell you they mean".

    August 17, 2011 at 9:48 am |
  2. coyote2625

    There are many words in Hebrew and Aramaic for words referring to "take life". The word used in the bible is for murder, not kill. The bible then goes on to state how you should kill people (including your own children) who break the laws. Go do some reading and stop cherry picking. Your god was blood thirsty.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:47 am |
  3. Larry C. Wilson

    The Old Testament belongs to the Jews.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:46 am |
  4. JustMe

    Sir, can you ask the same questions to Mr Obama, please ?

    August 17, 2011 at 9:46 am |
    • Frogist

      @Just Me: Why? He's not making his religion a selling point for his leadership capacity.

      August 17, 2011 at 11:51 am |
  5. Separation of church and state

    Is integral in or society both to prevent and protect. Prevent one religion from pushing themselves onto America and prtect religions the right to practice without government interference. For this reason, churchesa re not taxed. But when the churches like Focus on the Family, etc. want to push their religion onto others through politics, they should be taxed accordingly.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:46 am |
  6. Keith

    Prothero, like many on this blog, take one verse, out of context(which is a pretext), without considering the whole counsel of God. This is why the OT and NT must both be together. It is one book, not two. Funny how people like him know and quote only a handful of verses of the Bible over and over. This guy should refrain from the use of farming equipment or being on a construction site if he demonstrates as much "expertise" in those areas. I could definetly see some loose clothing getting wound up in a PTO shaft. Sheesh!

    August 17, 2011 at 9:38 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      I do not know personally this "fellow" you seem to berate. But you did however give me a chuckle! 🙂

      August 17, 2011 at 9:45 am |
    • Keith

      Prothero works for the ministry to truth. He wrote the article.

      August 17, 2011 at 4:28 pm |
  7. ldean50

    I agree with this article. Perry and Bachmann have made their religious beliefs part of their campaign; therefore, I think they should be questioned about it. I also want Romney to open up and tell the truth about Mormons. I'm more concerned about him than the others. Unlike, mainstream Christianity, Mormons do not believe that baptism via Jesus Christ is a prerequisite to heaven, and they believe in 3 levels of heaven – the top is "celestial." Mormons believe "obedience to the Church and the hierarchy of their church" is the only way to heaven. And the only way a woman can get to "celestial" heaven is via marriage to an obedient Mormon man. No single women allowed. Mormons believe that Adam & Eve were married by God-so marriage becomes a commandment. If a woman is not married, she has disobeyed God's commandment; therefore, not allowed into heaven. Heaven is a planet. They do not believe in the mainstream Christian idea of the Trinity. They believe "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" are three distinct people that are made of flesh and bone – not infinite and omnipotent. Each lives on his own planet – side by side, and "good" Mormon men become gods when they die and they get their own planet to rule. They believe that God has a wife and humans were all spirit children born of God and his wife prior to coming to this 'earth.' They push for big families, because part of their responsibility for existing is to reproduce so that the spirit children can come down to this earth. Also, Blacks were not allowed to be "priests" until 1978. Their priest is not like main-stream Christians think of them. There is a clearly defined hierarchy of priethood with many layers. A male child becomes a priest/prophet at age 12 – capable of receiving direct communication and visions from their god. Theoretically, mothers become subordinate to their sons when they turn 12 yrs of age. Mormon temples exist ONLY for secret ceremonies, receiving holy garments ("magic underwear") that protects them from evil, marriage, baptism, and being awarded priest positions. Local bishops rule the neighborhood and everyone reports to him. In order to get into the temple, the bishop has to give you a temple pass after an in-depth interview that is recorded (that have been used later as blackmail). Counterfeit temple passes are a real problem in Salt Lake City. . . educate yourself on this "religion" before voting for Romney. For me personally, the most difficult thing to understand about Mormons in general is that each one I have ever known lives in great fear of not being accepted into their celestial heaven – fear of the hierarchy and authority of the church. It is very real for them, and very very sad for anyone who cares for a Mormon friend.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      If only these "Mormonites" did really know the "true" grit around "Fractal Comology" which I have so taken a liking towards, but have deduced my compilation in such as being "Fractal Cosmologic Relatives" for and toward being a better-suited actualism!

      August 17, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • Jacob

      Mormonism is just as much of a "religion" as Christianity or anything else for that matter. They all sound crazy when broken down logically. If you think that Romney believing these things would be an issue; would you not also think it's an issue if a president believed the Earth was only 5,000 years old? Or that there was a massive flood and two of every of the millions of species got onto a boat and survived for 30 days? It should bother you that any leader of our country would believe things that can be proved wrong by facts and simple science.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:55 am |
    • M. newman

      I'm not sure if where you got your information from was Wikipedia, but there's a lot of misinterpretations there. I grew up mormon in the heart of SLC. I think if you have so many questions, you should contact the church and ask someone who is actually a member, like a missionary or someone who goes to church every Sunday. The mormon religion is widely misunderstood, and I never understood why growing up until I started listening to people who were outside of the church, like you. I'm not coming down on you or anything, I'm just saying now I understand why mormons are so protective of their religion.
      First, mormons do believe baptisim through Jesus Christ is a prerequisite to gaining entry into the highest level of heaven. Children are baptised at the age of 8, not necessarily to wash away their sins, but to give them the gift of the holy ghost, or the ability to pray and receive inspiration from The Spirit. They do believe that there are three degrees of heaven, though believing they are different planets is not as literal as you might think, they just believe that there is a place for people, even if they aren't the most devout believers. Hell is reserved for only the most wicked of the wicked, which differs from the traditional "black and white" version of heaven and hell that mainstream christianity teaches. Marriage is essential for attaining the highest degree of heaven, though men and women both must fulfill this requirement. It is believed that the husband is to lead his wife into heaven, though he is not allowed without her. It is correct that they believe the holy trinity are three different people, which in their belief system makes Jesus Christ our brother, and God is actually the Father, who does have a holy partner, his wife. It is said that He never mentions her in scripture as a form of protection, which was sweet, I thought.
      Boys at 12 recieve the priesthood, yes, but they are far from prophets at that age. It only allows them to begin learning to become leaders as husbands and fathers in their own future households, as well as prepare them for going on missions, which boys do at the age of 19. Women do not receive the priesthood, though at the age of 12 they also begin learning skills to become wives and mothers (at appropriate ages, not as teenagers– not to be confused with the FLDS, devout mormons aren't even allowed to date or wear makeup until the age of 16 )
      There is a hierarchy, though it isn't as rigid as you are describing. There is a bishop, who looks after a particular area of the community, but it's more of a responsibility, not a dictatorship. People look to him as a spiritual leader, it's a very honorable position that should be treated as an honor, though there are those who abuse the position, that's not the acutal intention of the religion. Think of the catholic priests, sort of the same concept.
      And if your mormon friend is truly living in that much fear, then there is something seriously wrong with the picture that runs deeper and needs to be addressed.

      August 17, 2011 at 10:04 am |
  8. Rainer Braendlein

    5. “Blessed are the poor" (Luke 6:20).

    In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously begins, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3). In Luke, he says, more simply, “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20).

    In order to get the verse right, we must take in account that it was written for people, which want to follow Christ, that means for people, having submitted themselves (all areas of life) to Jesus. Someone, who has submitted himself to Jesus, automatically loses the appreciation of the "world", and is thus spiritually poor, because all, what he owns, is the despised Jesus.

    But what about material property?

    With the term "poor" Jesus meant "not holding on to fortune".

    A Christian has submitted all areas of life to Jesus, including his finances.

    What does that mean in practice?

    The fortune (big or small) of a Christian should be available for God's matters.


    Many Christians in Palestine were in need at the time of the apostles. Probably a lot of them had lost their job, because the Jewish leaders had put a ban on them or they were excommunicated from the synagogue. This Christians wanted to work, but it was difficult for them to find a job.

    First, a lot of converted Jews made available their fortune for the brothers in need. Later even the Greek Christians sent money to Jerusalem for the persecuted brothers.

    Conclusion: The alls of a Christian should be available for people in need, firstly believers in need, but even ordinary people in need (good Samaritan).

    Current examples: Christians in Islamic countries often cannot rise socially. What about helping them? What about funding Christian vocational shools in Africa?

    August 17, 2011 at 9:31 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Pure self-deprication your Word is due in main-part that your base-rooted secularisms do show thru with much transpancies that I am so blinded by your ambiguous animosities when your reguarded idealisticisms surrmountives aptly portaled and in your so stating such, "Many Christians in Palestine were in need at the time of the apostles. Probably a lot of them had lost their job, because the Jewish leaders had put a ban on them or they were excommunicated from the synagogue. This Christians wanted to work, but it was difficult for them to find a job."

      Purely hypothetical inuendos, nothing more and nothing else.

      August 17, 2011 at 10:07 am |
  9. James Swanson

    "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"

    This is the "basis" for separation of church and state as it is seen today. The original intent of the letter was to as-sure pro-testants there would be not be another Church of England situation with persecution of those not adhering to those practices. This phrase is warped and twisted to say that religion shouldn't play any role in politics. I do think however, that the Caesar example would be a really good thing to hear about from all the Republicans especially since it deals directly with taxes.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:26 am |
    • ldean50

      Actually, those words are from a letter that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists. At the time, in VA, church buildings served as the school building. In the earliest days of America . . . the only "school" children got was reading, writing, math etc that was taught in the church after services. That morphed into a dual use of the building – church on Sunday, school during the week (a la Little House on the Prairie :)) The state paid for the schools which were part of the church. The state also paid a salary to the Ministers of the churches in VA. During this time Irish Catholics had to pay for their own schools – in an effort to avoid Protestant teachings – with no help from the government. The Baptists were going to have to do the same (private schools) if they wanted to teach/raise their children with Baptist's traditions. So, they wanted the same funding that majority Anglicans had been receiving since back in the day when everybody were all of the same mind/religion. Long story short. The Baptists wrote Jefferson and said they wanted their "own" money to establish their own churches/schools to teach their children Baptist beliefs. As a result of this, VA stopped supporting their churches/schools and Jefferson began his campaign for creating the "Bill of Rights." It all started more accurately as a "separation of church and schools."

      August 17, 2011 at 10:13 am |
  10. Stephen Welch

    You may as well ask them questions relative to the lessons of Aesop or the brothers Grimm.

    August 17, 2011 at 9:20 am |
    • petercha

      There is a BIG difference between the Holy and inspired Word of God, the Bible, and those fables. No need to insult Christians by comparing the two.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Wasn'tthere an oldie Tv cartoon called Arsop's fables around 1960's or so? Your posting did remind me of this! Got me a chuckle it did! 🙂

      August 17, 2011 at 9:35 am |
    • Tom

      Or Stephen you might follow with the moral lessons from the Saw movie series or from Adolph Hitler. For everyone out there that considers the Bible of no moral value, and us the products of a random universe, there is no basis for calling anything 'good' or 'evil.' Everything just is. Therefore alluding that the Bible has the same value as fairy tales is also a meaningless moral judgment.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:50 am |
    • tallulah13

      Wrong, Tom. Good and evil existed long before the bible, and it exists in cultures that do not adhere to the bible. People are well able to make choices based on pure human compassion and empathy. If you need the promise of heaven or the threat of eternal damnation in order to be a good person, that's your weakness, not mine.

      Needing a bronze-age rulebook to show you how to be a good person shouldn't be held as a virtue, especially since that rulebook has been used though out history as an excuse to hurt, enslave and degrade others.

      August 17, 2011 at 11:11 am |
  11. Michael S.

    I have pulled out my very dusty, but still very trustworthy King Jame's version of the Bible my father used his entire life as a Christian. Both in Exodus AND Deuteronomy, the passage reads as "Thou shalt not kill".........nowhere do I see "murder".

    August 17, 2011 at 9:17 am |
    • Michael S.

      But to add to my previous post, "Chris" points out of the difference between the Jewish version ("Thou Shalt Not Murder") with the Catholic/Protestant version ( the use of the word "kill"). It just goes to show that the Bible has been translated so many times through the centuries that we all tend to use the "version" most applicable to our own needs.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • Evan

      The King James Bible is not a great translation. After all, it was translated from Greek to Latin, and then Latin to Greek. The Hebrew word used in this command, תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח׃–tir·tzach, more accurately translates as "murder". Kill, on the other hand, as we see in Deuteronomy 19:4, is יַכֶּ֤ה–yak·keh, a different word.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:37 am |
    • Evan

      Sorry, I meant "Greek to Latin, and then Latin to *English*".

      August 17, 2011 at 9:38 am |
  12. JW

    They don't really believe in the teachings of Christ. They lust for materialistic power and wealth in this life, seek to lay up treasures in this life, and don't really believe in the next. It is all just a show of modern Pharisees. The very people that claim Christ's name today would be the first that Christ told "I never knew you."

    August 17, 2011 at 9:16 am |
    • petercha

      Judge much, JW?

      August 17, 2011 at 9:32 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Such a "truer" state,ment could only be from a idealist foresoothing Christian relavencies,,, (I do humbly honor you written Word!) 🙂

      August 17, 2011 at 9:41 am |
    • tallulah13

      I agree with you JW. People should be judged by their actions, not their words.

      August 17, 2011 at 11:12 am |
  13. FDR

    John 17:16 'They are no part of the world just as I am no part of the world'. If you're truly a follower of Christ how can you be President and no part of the world at the same time?

    August 17, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • Evan

      Look at the previous verse, John 17:15: "I'm not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one." I'm sure you've heard Christians say that they are "in the world but not of it". That is essentially what Christ is saying here; we shouldn't part of the evil in the world. He keeps His followers so that we may make the world a better place. So, can a Christian president, or even a politician for that matter, hold office yet still be in the world but not of it? I believe that they can.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:26 am |
  14. The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

    If there is to be a 'true' separation of "state and religion" but not a separation of religion and Republicanism within the Federal mainframes of our counntry's now manifested Secularistically conflagrations of duo-partisanships, how can such embollden reverances of sodomizing bickerings in the public's eye be but a morsal of dicontenments' foreskenness and outright shoddiness?

    August 17, 2011 at 8:58 am |
    • Jacob

      Wow, that's cute. I remember the first time I used a thesaurus.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:43 am |
  15. oldbones24

    I have had these same questions and I can only revert to one of grandma's quotes, "actions speak louder than words." None of these people have much 'action', "proof is in the pudding" and I haven't seen much pudding either. So their words are like the wind with no substance.

    August 17, 2011 at 8:54 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      I like the old lady in NcDees Commercedness saying, "Where's the beef?" much better,,,,,,,,LoL

      August 17, 2011 at 10:17 am |
  16. HFM

    No doubt these two candidates will dodge the questions, and obfuscate their replies with a load of double speak....as do most hypocrites.

    August 17, 2011 at 8:54 am |
  17. The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

    Stevie7 did in the past posted, "The country which was established based on the Christian principles.
    As much as you may want to wish this to be so, it is simply not true. Try picking up a history book."

    Were not Christian religions in the 16th and 17th centuries coming to the shores of the Americas to escape religious persecution In-Charge Religious despots who rather ruthlessy did admonish any inadvertant waiverings of religious laws?

    Did not the Nation of USA's founding fathers utilize the religious fathers back in 1776, to bring together the amassings for the event fated uprising and revolution of Indepenence? (Me thinks you are but a religious zealot of non-conformism)

    August 17, 2011 at 8:49 am |
    • M. newman

      Actually, this country was originally explored by England as a cash-cow, so to speak (along with the french, dutch, and Spain). The royal saw dollar signs in the potential of the land if they could rid it of the inhabitants. The original settlements were composed of all men (to develop this land into a business endeavor), and only after a couple of failed settlements composed of all men did the idea of sending entire families across the water come about. The "christian" zealots of this country like to throw the fact that this country was "founded by moral, christian people" when in fact this country was founded as a way to make money.. which is exactly what this country is obsessed with now.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:08 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      @ M. newman et all,,,,,

      It may be a authoritative comment regarding England's wants to "capitalize" upon it's national interests but were not many individuals and/or families of mostly religious persuasions; the 1st colonizers of the then 'New World"? It may well be attested as truth that the then hierarchies of secularims' patronizings amid the 17th and even into the 18th centuries, were aligned themselves with profiteering principles, but many of those early colonizers were matter O' factly of religious persuasions.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:21 am |
    • ldean50

      To M. Newman . .. your limited Mormon education is showing. First settlers here came for religious freedom . . . do you know who was on the Mayflower? Puritans. Exploitation came later. Do you recognize the name Virginia Dare? born in Roanoke VA in 1587? her mother was white, english and believe it or not . . . a woman . . . a woman in the new world in 1587 . . . during the first and short-lived colony of Roanoke.

      August 17, 2011 at 11:08 am |
    • tallulah13

      Lion, many of the most prominent founding fathers were deists, that is, they believed that a god created them, but that god was not interested in human affairs, there are no miracles and that Christ, while a fine teacher was no more than another human.

      Here is a link to a site that gives quotes so that you can see for yourself what they had to say about religion.


      August 17, 2011 at 11:18 am |
  18. MikeC

    # 3 The bible doesnt say thou shall not kill. It says thou shall not murder. Simple change complete different meaning. Nice try but now I have to check the rest of your work.

    August 17, 2011 at 8:40 am |
    • The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

      Oh contrair moan amie,,

      Mark 5, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:"

      Romans 13, "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

      Are you MikeC truly a literate reader of scripture or,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?

      August 17, 2011 at 9:11 am |
    • Chris

      Nice try, but the Jewish version says, "thou/you shall not murder." The Catholic and Protestent version say, "thou/you shall not kill." The /yous were provided for the hundreds of translations. Source: Religous Literacy.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:14 am |
    • Joseph

      What is murder? Illegal killing. What is illegal? What the human earthly authorities decide.

      So, "Thou shalt not murder" means nothing except, "You shouldn't kill if it's illegal."

      Rather redundant, isn't it? God depending upon human laws to validate his own prohibition?

      August 17, 2011 at 9:43 am |
    • Henry

      'Kill" "Murder" – Please get off your collective high horse. You are arguing about snuffing out the light on somebody. All this nonsense about the meaning of a word is maddening. The Bible has been translated so many times by so many people that words have changed. The meaning is the same and we can learn from it as long as we stop dissecting every word. You literalists wind yourself up over this nonsensical minutia. Please get a grip.

      August 17, 2011 at 9:52 am |
  19. John


    August 17, 2011 at 8:39 am |
    • ....

      Don't bother viewing this junk click the report abuse link to get rid of this troll.

      August 17, 2011 at 10:31 am |
  20. The Lionly Lamb of The Gods Does Roar

    J Elkins did post on August 17, 2011 at 7:22 am, "And further, you will submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21"

    Submissions without admonitions and admissions are submissions,,,,,,,,,,,, the circlular relativisms of rationalisms.

    August 17, 2011 at 8:37 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
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.