 |
|
|
|
|
September 9th, 2013
09:04 AM ET
S.E. Cupp: `Conservative atheist' is not a contradiction(CNN) - With "Crossfire" returning to CNN this Monday, September 9, CNN is taking a closer look into the hosts' lives with a series of Web videos. In this first video, S.E. Cupp, a columnist, commentator and author, delves into her experiences with understanding religion and what it’s like to be an atheist and a conservative. "To me, it never seemed like a contradiction," Cupp explains. "We have the same values," Cupp says of herself and religious believers. "I just think I get them from somewhere else." Cupp, who has a master’s degree in religious studies, says she was always curious about religion. "I was just fascinated by the pomp and ceremony and ritual nature of religion, and yet couldn't completely get there ever; couldn't completely wrap my mind around the idea of God." Cupp says she has been working on finding greater understanding for the last 20 years, and isn't giving up. "I want to get to the bottom of this story. It's something that I'll always be challenging myself on." FULL STORY
« Previous entryThousands fasting and praying for peace in Syria
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
I am not offended by the question posed earlier by UD. Interesting question. It does seem pee sex is becoming more mainstream.
Must have been matriarchal and preflood.
Mention the name 'Sarah Palin' to a tea party patriot and watch his size 34 clown shoes flap wildly up and down, to the point of becoming airborne. For them it's like getting an erection.
I completely understand how an atheist could be politically conservative.
What I cannot understand is how any follower of Jesus' teachings could vote Republican in good conscience.
You drank the sound bite Kool aid.
Both republicans and democrats have had their shot at leading this country and both revealed they really could care less for those in need.
That said socialism, communism and capitalism fail the poor. Capitalism at least allows greed (a common human trait) and power to thirst to drive economies.
Could care less, or couldn't care less? Which is it, fred. You've got me confused.
Both parties fail equally at actually helping those in need. The Democrats just get a lot more media illusion that they do more for the poor.
If you're attempting to claim that Christian values would end poverty, then the only example I need to disprove you is Ireland.
I don't know what Bible you are reading but Jesus never healed the poor with money or phony public service projects. The way out of poverty is to follow Christ. We are to work as if working onto the Lord not our personal man made gods (false idols such as money, fame, power, vanity etc.) or another persons false idol. That is the cure for poverty.
Problem is we are confused between what we need and what we want. We are poor because of our wants not other peoples needs.
Follow Jesus? Did He ever work?
"We are to work as if working onto the Lord not our personal man made gods (false idols such as money, fame, power, vanity etc.) or another persons false idol. That is the cure for poverty."
The problem is that few Christians actually follow that and end up doing all they can so as NOT to work for their fellow man claiming the poor should pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that God helps those who help themselves, that they don't want to help if a single penny might go to planned parenthood that does 97% great things for women and 3% abortions that Christians disagree with. This means Christians are not working for Christ, they are working for themselves.
ME II
Not much is known outside of his 3 years of ministry when he taught, healed and died for our sins at about 30 years of age. His work was that bringing the good news of salvation and taking upon himself the sins of the world which broke the grip of death Satan had over the children of God. Jesus carried out the work given by the Father. The example is his work was the Fathers work and in a like manner God has given each of us certain works.
Is that the same a saying, unemployed?
What if God wants me to watch Judge Judy in my underwear all day?
MEII
That would go against the ways of God as working in the cursed ground was the consequence for rejecting the way of God for the way of man (Adam and Eve story)
In the New Testament we see: "For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
Jesus added a layer in that we are to work as onto the Lord i.e. do your best as if you were doing it for God not your earthly task master.
And yet Jesus didn't work and aren't Christians giving charity to the unemployed all the time. ...hmm confusing.
MEII
We have no record of Jesus "working" just speculation about being a carpenter or stone mason. That does not mean he did not work. If he did not work it would go against many things he taught. It is not reasonable to assume he did not work given the culture.
The record we do have is him teaching in the temple at age 12 and then the jump to about age 30 where his work was to do the Fathers will. An untold number of people were set free from the bondage of sin by his work and a new World View was established as a result of His work. Should we base work on results or some other standard? We are to work as onto the Lord and according to that standard Jesus was the most productive person known to mankind. As to work ethic he was also the best and as far as a perfect sacrifice goes he was perfect. Seated at the right hand of God He remains active to this day.
As to democrats vs. Christians I note Christians give out of their own resources while democrats simply take from those they marginalize and in order to appear generous. Any Christian that gives in order to appear generous or for any other purpose (votes, selfish gain etc) is wasting their time and money.
Actually, setting political nonsense aside when a Christian gives to whomever they are to do so not for themselves but out of a Christlike heart. When I give I pray in earnest and know that God will determine how my gift works. In other words if the person receiving the help is blessed by it is a function of God not me.
"And it came to pass, after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both hearing them, and asking them questions:
47 and all that heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers."
He wasn't "teaching" at the temple, apparently. And, if you want rationalize his "ministry" as work because " It is not reasonable to assume he did not work given the culture." then that is your choice.
ME II
I am not rationalizing the work of Jesus during the 3 years of recorded ministry as that work is obvious and intense.
I am saying that it is not reasonable to assume he did not work during the other 27 years. Given his ability to amaze the Priests of the temple speaks to his capacity to excel. I am not aware of anyone with great capacity that sits and watches Judge Judy
@fred,
" I am not aware of anyone with great capacity that sits and watches Judge Judy"
lol, touche
Although God, apparently, works in mysterious ways, which are not to be questioned...
ME II
If God was not meant to be questioned then the placing of the tree in front of Adam and Eve was foolish on Gods part.
If God did not know man would choose a hostile existence apart from God he would not have put the tree of life in the Garden at the same time.
The beginning and the end for man apart from God is hostile darkness as in the beginning there was darkness before the light entered and in the end the light enters and again. Between the opening of Genesis and the End of Days we see only redemption or at least the offer of redemption. A very simply story that was complete in the beginning where creation simply is the eternal separation of good and evil (light and darkness) unfolding as our soul is revealed in the light of Christ.
Both republicans and democrats have had their shot at leading this country and both revealed they really could care less for those in need.
Republicans very very much more so. Their agenda (today) is to further marginalize and disenfranchise the poor.
That said socialism, communism and capitalism fail the poor.
I don't disagree with this statement.
That is media indoctrination driven by the evils of the lust of the eye and the lust of the flesh. Put that media garbage out of your mind and just look at the actual record of democrats and republicans. Both have sold out the next generation to fatten their pockets today.
It is the claims of marginalized groups not the actual marginalization of groups that drives these misconceptions
What is 'Conservative atheist'??-Being kinda pregnant.
You are either pregnant or not!
I think it's more like being a pregnant lesbian... it's certainly not impossible but you likely had to endure some things you disagreed with to reach your current ideological state...
What is conservative atheist?
Similar to an 'unbiased liberal', a liberal is obviously biased, duh!
con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsərvətiv/ adjective: conservative 1. holding to traditional attltudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
American conservative "traditional" values: pro-salvery, pro-racism, anti-semitism, pro-segregation, anti-feminist, anti-immigrant, anti-separation of church & state.
Personally I am glad most conservative Americans have ditched much of the previously conservative agenda, but there is still a long way to go...
if your not christian your not a true conservative!
Where do you stand on pissing during sex carol?
i think your discusting and a troll!
It's "you're," not "your." Where did you go to school, Carol? (Or did you?)
I am sorry carol, I should have warned you that was the theme. Also, you can't spell.
What does "discusting" mean, Carol?
@ Athy
It always makes me laugh when I see someone spell disgusting that way. I mean, if you can't even pronounce words properly, it make spelling difficult. But from her posts, it looks like Carol isn't big on proper English.
and if you don't got good grammer you ain't nothing
Hi Carol,
Might I suggest using "yer" instead of "your" since if you are going to misspell "you're" you might as well go all the way...
Sorry for not using the queens english on the internet YOU'RE majesty
It's "your," not "you're." How old are you, Carol?
oops, missed again carol.....ouch.
Wrong Carol, I am majesty.
Godless Vagabond
Apparently carol thinks that "your" and "you're" are completely interchangeable. I'd put her at about the sixth-grade level.
No one expects the "Queen's English" from you.
Knowing how to pronounce and spell the word "disgusting" was taught in the first stage of your compulsory education, probably around grade 1-3. So is the difference between your and you're, there, their and they're, its and it's, and other basics of the English language. Most eight year olds have a better grasp of it than you.
I guess if I got stung by a jellyfish while having sex, then I would hope for maximum pizzage. I'd probably even invite others nearby to join.
Actually it seems that's an old wives' tale. It seems you might have better luck preventing athlete's foot with pee than relieving a jellyfish sting. So I guess I wouldn't call attention to a case of athlete's foot, lol.
Yeah, I think it's a base you want like vinegar, not an acid like urine.
oops, my bad vinegar is an acid too.
Me II, you're right about vinegar.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31427/does-peeing-jellyfish-sting-actually-help
Yeah, but for the wrong reason.
Thanks though.
Blessed are the Keynesians for they shall inherit the wealth.
Blessed is the Pentagon for mighty weapons pleaseth the Lord.
Nope – don't remember those bits in the Sermon on the Mount.
If you are conservative and a Christian then you are part of the problem with this country.
Question for the whole group to test your values.
Would you try "pee" sex (i.e. Golden Showers or Water Sports)? Yes or No. Please include comments if you would like.
pee-tini, dirty with two olives please.
Not me! I would just splatter on someone's glasses.
Ok, let's say you are a dude and it is Alyssa Milano in her 20's and she is in to it and want to do it with you?
I would swim through a mile of sh</b?it just to suck off the last guy that pissed on her.
To be clear, that was a mile of SHIT.
No. If that's your gig, okay. But: no.
And this has nothing to do with "values", so...
@Plover Chase
Thank you for responding to our poll. I disagree, it IS values.
Ask around the office and get some opinions....
What does "s.ex" have to do with "values"? As long as it is consentual who cares?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers, you must register a "yes" or "no".
Sex and values go hand in hand.
Isn't that hand in bush... no... a bird in hand is two hands in bush... no... two bushes are worth a bird no bush... no....
Your interest in what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults is not a value that I would commend. Get rid of your obsession with other peoples se.x lives and I will have more respect for your "values".
@My Dog is a jealous Dog
My, you are a little touchy. I will mark you in the "yes" column.
I am not being "touchy". You are being judgmental about what other people do to get aroused. Do you like to have your toes sucked or suck on your partner's toes? Well, I find that disgusting, but it that is what spins your crank, who am I to judge you?
BTW – I like mine about as "vanilla" as any of you can imagine, but urine is sterile and definitely safe – so I have no problem with it as a public health issue.
Easy big dog, I never said I had a problem with pee are anything else people do or like. I just started a poll.
"yes" I value s.ex.
"no" I am not interested in water sports. but it has nothing to do with values.
If I had a million dollars man, two chicks pissing on each other man. I believe you could hook that up for a million dollars man.
Have you by chance seen my stapler?
Values? My local supermarket boasts great values on a daily basis. Some values are easy to come by and some are foolish to try and pursue. Perhaps you should clarify your question.
Every time I go grocery shopping at my local Valu-Mart, I look for a sale on morality, but I can never find brand name ethics at discount prices.
Y'all want men pissing all over yer sweet daughters, Aplle Bush? Is that your wet dream? Nice values, sport.
Maybe a little presumptuous there, Wyatt? Seems like you're the one with the wildest imagination.
He's the author of the fucking question, Tim. Get a fucking clue. Now fuck off.
You have proof the question was authored by AB, Wyatt Twerp? AB's moniker was not used.
Here is the real test of your values – if you were offended by the question, then your values are fine.
What is wrong with asking a question My Dog is a jealous Dog?
As others have said – you are equating se.xual activity between consenting adults with a value judgement. You have no right to make a judgement about anyone's LEGAL se.xual activity.
But that is false. I am not making any judgment.
You are testing peoples values? Not really. You are hharri/aith/ and a variety of other names, and now you are all of the people who are obsessed with urine.
Why you do it is anyone's guess.
Did I pass your "test"?
Swing and a miss.
Right or wrong, your posts are just as pointless, so it really doesn't matter, you are the same, whether you are the same person or not.
AS far as getting peed on is concerned, I am pro choice. I, however, choose not to get peed on.
I did not re-blog this but I would have commented:
NOT dismissing believers gives her more credibility on the issue. She said that. LMFAO
I splatter on you Ms. Cupp!! Now polish those agnostic shoes.
...and kindly remove yourself from the men's powder room.
Reblogged this on Handicap and commented:
So she's Atheist, it doesn't mean she's not faithful. All that really means is they haven't decided on what faith to be yet. They never said she was a devil worshiper so she's not, she just has a lot of questions like a lot of normal people do. And she doesn't want to tie herself down to a specific faith until some of her questions are answered. But the kicker is some of her questions won't be answered until God returns to earth, so does that mean she will get to heaven? No it just means she will get into heaven in a different way if she does, probably by her actions. You don't have to be faithful to get to heaven, sometimes it's just by your actions that you would open the door to heaven. It doesn't have to be a big door, it just has to be a door. You don't have to have your whole body in the door, you just to have your foot in the door. So many people think that if your not faithful you won't get in, that's where they're wrong. That's when God's mercy comes into play. And God is so merciful we will never know how much he's merciful until we meet him ourselves.
I'm sure when she sees any evidence for a god, she'll have faith. Just like me.
It isn't a matter of picking a religion.
Atheist = lack of belief in gods. Religion, by definition, involves the supernatural – something atheists reject.
Furthermore, the Bible says that Baptism is necessary for salvation – therefore, good actions don't get you into Heaven.
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
– Mark 16:16
@ Doc:
1) atheists still make a leap of faith.
an atheist still has faith in a particular set of metaphysical assumptions (which – since they are taken as 'givens' – cannot be proven because they are assumed). it's a leap of faith.
for example, it's the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. the former (the basis for scientific inquiry) operates "as if" there is nothing other than the material universe, but the latter actually claims there is nothing else. the former is just a way of doing research; the latter is an alternate faith. one uses naturalism as a tool, the other makes it one's faith.
as Nietzsche said: "it is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science." to fall into the latter camp is to make the very same assumptions you mock the religious for making. it's the pot calling the kettle black.
2) if the Bible claims baptism is necessary for salvation, why does Jesus tell the thief on the cross that he'll be with him that day in paradise? obviously the thief is unable to be baptized.
while it is widely presumed by the authors of the NT that if you come to faith you will be baptized, baptism is an outward sign of the faith (i.e., that you were 'cleansed' by the HS) – not an actual element of salvation itself. that's why Acts 2:38f stress baptism, but unless a Christian wants to claim Jesus is lying to the thief, clearly the sacrament of baptism is not NECESSARY for salvation in all cases. and there are many other places that speak of salvation without mentioning baptism (Jn.3:16; Rom.10:9; etc.).
Russ
"1) atheists still make a leap of faith.
an atheist still has faith in a particular set of metaphysical assumptions (which – since they are taken as 'givens' – cannot be proven because they are assumed). it's a leap of faith."
Incorrect. Do you have faith that the tooth fairy does not exist, or Loch Ness, or any of thousands of mythical creatures? No. Not faith. Reason. It is unreasonable to believe in the existance of Santa Claus, isn't it. Do you have faith that Santa does not exist? Don't be ridiculous.
1) Except that there is reason to presume that the material universe actually exists, i.e. our own experience which seem to agree with the experiences of others and have, so far, been consistent and testable throughout our known history.
For the supernatural, on the other hand, there is not.
@Russ
So lack of faith is a kind of faith?
Should I visit my doctor to find out what disease I have since I'm asymptomatic?
To what political ideology does someone who is apolitical subscribe?
'A' = Lack of.
"Theism" – belief in gods.
A + Theism = lack of belief in gods.
It is a negative statement that describes only what one does NOT believe. It implies to behaviours, morals, world views or other characteristics whatsoever.
Many Christian sects – most notably Catholics, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., would vehemently argue against your belief that good deeds alone can get you into Heaven.
@ Richard Cranium:
you're trying to dodge with your examples. mocking other positions doesn't answer the critique i've given of your position.
naturalism (one form of atheism) IS a metaphysical leap of faith.
an atheist still hold unprovable, metaphysical convictions.
for example, the classic conundrum for the pure naturalist:
if "only what is empirically verifiable is true", that statement itself is not empirically verifiable. *by its own criteria*, it fails. it's self-refuting. so, not only is it a leap of faith, but it is a self-refuting one.
regardless of how ardently you might attack other faiths, it does not stop atheism from an equally circular point of departure (i.e., a set of metaphysical convictions which it takes as given – thereby unprovable b/c they are presupposed). in that regard, while it might not fit the definition of 'religion' as such, atheism IS a faith.
@ ME II: your problem: the very thing you are citing as a given (the material universe) presses the question. where does existence come from? it is evidence in & of itself – putting a greater burden on those who would deny existence (one we notably DID NOT create & yet we inherited) as a basis for something greater than ourselves.
@ Doc Vestibule: your argument presumes you have no other reason for existence.
lack of faith in gods does not preclude putting your faith in something else in an ultimate way.
as i've now said repeatedly above, metaphysical naturalism does just that – putting faith in the *belief* (taken as a presupposition) that there is nothing else but the material. philosophically speaking, naturalism readily admits this. the problem is people conflating science with philosophy.
to be blunt: you are putting your faith in an presupposition – a rather enormous one at that – and yet claiming you have no faith. if anything, you have either: great faith in your own logic (i.e., yourself) or in the power of scientific investigation (beyond what it claims for itself!)... or both.
If it's all about faith, where does your actions come into play? Why does God allow you to react to everything that happens on this earth? Because you have free will. You can determine between what is right and what is wrong, that doesn't mean you have to have faith to do what is right or what is wrong. So in return that doesn't mean you have to he baptized in any faith to be a holy person. That doesn't mean you have to practice any faith to know God. Just because she is atheist doesn't mean she's the true definition of an atheist. It's all an interpretation. And everybody has a right to have their own interpretation. Every good deed that you do or don't do is a check mark or an x in your book of life. it depends on how many check marks or how many x's you get in that book of life to get to heaven. And some check marks are greater than others, but I don't know how God can tell which ones are greater and which ones have lesser value, but that's for God to know and only God to know. She is still looking for answers to God, some people just get a lost a long the way. I hope everybody finds God before he returns, after all that is what he wanted.
jon
"it depends on how many check marks or how many x's you get in that book of life to get to heaven"
It would also depend on if heaven exists.
So by your reasoning, I can do many many many "bad" things, as long as I do more "good" things, it'll be ok.
I hope you realize the definition you have of a god, if it comes from the bible, is clearly false. I hope you learn critical thinking. I hope you put that silly book down.
Look up the word atheist. You're confused.
You're, not your.
Ms. Cupp,
A recommended opening prayer for Crossfire:
The Apostles'/Agnostics’/Atheists' Creed 2013: (updated by yours truly and based on the studies of historians and theologians of the past 200 years)
Should I believe in a god whose existence cannot be proven
and said god if he/she/it exists resides in an unproven,
human-created, spirit state of bliss called heaven??
I believe there was a 1st century CE, Jewish, simple,
preacher-man who was conceived by a Jewish carpenter
named Joseph living in Nazareth and born of a young Jewish
girl named Mary. (Some say he was a mamzer.)
Jesus was summarily crucified for being a temple rabble-rouser by
the Roman troops in Jerusalem serving under Pontius Pilate,
He was buried in an unmarked grave and still lies
a-mouldering in the ground somewhere outside of
Jerusalem.
Said Jesus' story was embellished and "mythicized" by
many semi-fiction writers. A descent into Hell, a bodily resurrection
and ascension stories were promulgated to compete with the
Caesar myths. Said stories were so popular that they
grew into a religion known today as Catholicism/Christianity
and featuring dark-age, daily wine to blood and bread to body rituals
called the eucharistic sacrifice of the non-atoning Jesus.
Amen
(references used are available upon request)
So basically she's lost and confused like all athiest
@Rocket
nope.
Lol. Poor guy, you haven't a clue about anything outside of your narrow world view, do you? Lol.
What the heck is an athiest?
Godless Vagabond
I think he might have been trying to spell atheist. Not only did he fuck that up, it should also be plural.
What would you expect of someone who can't even attempt an insult correctly.
Rocket. Is there some point you are trying to make or did you just come to call people names? Isn't recess over, aren't you supposed to be back in your classroom now?
@Rocket,
Everyone is lost and confused, Theists just don't realize it.
Her atheism angle comes from a place of envy for Christians that she wants to get to the bottom of. What?
What??
Oh sorry, I should have sad her "nuance"..
Where??
Akira sayz,
Lol??: "A child’s womb is his castle"
Do please show me where HIS womb is located in HIS body.
Thank you.
It' s that way contingent on a needs based test. A woeman can live without a womb. The child living in a womb can't. God made it for him meeting his needs.
Ah, well, sometimes a woman cannot live with a womb that's in a bad state. In this case, nature is working against the woman (or if you prefer, you're imaginary friend botched things).
That isn't what you wrote, though, is it? You gave boys wombs. Tell me, in lollyword, do your boys self-impregnate, also?
If you had written "A child’s womb is His castle”, that would have been marginally clearer. But your contempt for women shines through, and your excessive pride won't allow you to admit you've made a mistake.
Now please do as I asked and show me where a womb is located on the male of our species. Thank you.
It is His womb. God gave it to him.
Oh, of course. It makes about as much sense as any of your other "contributions".
I do not know why she was standing next to me at the urinals.
The shoes were attractive though. Shiny.
Well, even shinier after you got done with them...O.o
Hopefully she put a nice shine on them.
NOT dismissing believers gives her more credibility on the issue. She said that. LMFAO
Were you wearing them at the time?
lol?? Pithiest, YES!!
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Patriotism is patriarchal.. The Frankfurt School era has taken over and destroyed that concept. Banana Republic is right around the corner as the backlash. Bye bye rights.
What kind of "rights" are you speaking of? The right of own slaves? The right to drag a woman by the hair into your cave? Please enlighten us with more of your fabulous ideas.
The ones the Masters already lost are a gud starting point.
Why not just say that you're a conservative then? Adding the word atheist gives no extra meaning to the word. Saying conservative christian has extra meaning as it defines part of the belief. When there is no belief, however, conservative atheist is the same as saying conservative.
Very true.
It just emphasizes the fact that "conservative" in this country often inaccurately implies "Christian" as well.
Unfortunately.
Exactly.
It wasn't always so.
Arguably the GOP had a lot of religious support in the nineteenth century, but the modern phenomenon of Christian conservatives dates to the Reagan era and organizations like the Moral Majority and Focus on the Family working with the GOP to turn evangelical protestants into a voting bloc.
Free while you pee.
(Limited time offer.)