It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We Need God In America Again - Karis Peters

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman


I think the US is religiously backward because it's almost the only Christian country with such a high percentage of fundamentalists.

You say that as if fundamentalism is the only problem with Christianity. I would agree that extremism in any religion is bad, but the problem with Christianity is Christianity. Any time a religious group, whether literalist or not, lives by a book that pronounces anyone outside of said religious group as headed for eternal death by the hand of their "god". They are extremists. I don't care how spiritual they appear to be. Their god, and their book are not conducive to a free and equitable society. It is the Abrahamic religions as a whole that are backward, where ever they are practiced. Not just the U.S.


edit on 6/9/2015 by Klassified because: missed a word.




posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
Thanks to folks like her, only in USA is something like this possible


It's not thanks to her. It's thanks to the Texas board of education. And if we go further than that, it's thanks to Princeton Theology which radicalized Christian faith in the US around the 19-20th century and pushed for Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism unlike in the rest of the world.

I think we can all agree your problem with "religious people" is when they read the Bible literally and consider it the infallible word of God. Well in the US today it's mainly because of Princeton theologians.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
lives by a book that pronounces anyone outside of said religious group as headed for eternal death by the hand of their "god".


It's not a problem if you understand this as an allegory, thus the problem really is literalism.

The Vatican doesn't recognize hell as a real place but as a self-imposed state of separation from God.

Thus not a judgement from God, nor an eternal torture.

Also the Vatican recently reminded that it's more important to be an atheist with ethics than a hypocritical Christian so really I think you and the Vatican are more in line than you would imagine.

It's just it takes some critical thinking to get rid of preconceptions and approach what is unknown with an open and non judging mind



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
First off miss peters has been brought up with a very narrow view of the world. Her exclusively christian upbringing has not allowed for any opposing arguments so i don't blame her fervor solely on her. She is doing what is expected of her from her family and peer group. She is a lovely and emotional speaker who was taught to spread these opinions and she did a wonderful job.

The poem she is orating is from Carmen Dominique Lisiardello, and revised by Ken Peters, whom i am willing to bet is Karis Peters' father. I tried to look up Carmen lisiardello to see how much revision that Mr peters made to her poem/rant, but alas i cannot find her on Google. Perhaps i'm spelling her name wrong.

I'm not surprised that a young person who was raised to believe wholeheartedly in this version of the christian faith cannot see all of the wrong she expresses in her recitation. The misquotes that are included in this poem are the same misquotes that far too many christians parrot to rationalize the hardcore push to get their particular christian beliefs forced on the uninterested people of this country.

But wait.... Don't the majority of our politicians already regard themselves as christians? Perhaps they are just not her particular brand of fundamentalist? She obviously feels as though they have failed to keep up a certain standard but there has never been a time in this country when the religious right has not held a majority of the power and influence. Therefor all of the problems she is complaining about were brought on by the influence of people that she would support otherwise.

Obama = christian
Bush = christian
Clinton
Bush
Reagan
Congress
Senate
Governors
Mayors
Etc
Etc

Who are the non christians that she is complaining about?








a reply to: SuperFrog



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
They are extremists. I don't care how spiritual they appear to be.


I can see that.


originally posted by: Klassified
Their god, and their book are not conducive to a free and equitable society. It is the Abrahamic religions as a whole that are backward, where ever they are practiced. Not just the U.S.


I disagree but understand your view. When I was a kid I too had a caricatural understanding of the message of the Bible mostly centered on some passages of the old testament, out of their context, and read literally.

Even a controversial book like the Quran calling to war, to most muslims this is understood as an internal war against personal demons, but most people prefer to think they understand a whole tradition just because they saw a youtube video about it.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Christian persecution complex is a tactic used where the majority pretends like they are being bullied by the minority. It's one of the points talked about in the thread I posted this morning about how the ptb use propaganda to maintain the status quo.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman


It's not a problem if you understand this as an allegory, thus the problem really is literalism.

Mark 16


15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Care to explain the allegory? There are many verses like this in the new testament alone.


The Vatican doesn't recognize hell as a real place but as a self-imposed state of separation from God.
Thus not a judgement from God, nor an eternal torture.

The Vatican is not the final say over biblical interpretation for all Christians.
I didn't say anything about hell. I said eternal death. As in the second death referred to in Revelations, and as Jesus referred to in Matthew 10.

28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

In the first verse I quoted, the bible clearly says "condemned". Condemnation is not a self-imposed separation. It is a judgement. And there are many verses that support that interpretation. An allegory would be the "four horsemen of the apocalypse" and possibly the aforementioned hell. The verse above, and many others like it are obviously literal, and meant to be taken as such.


Also the Vatican recently reminded that it's more important to be an atheist with ethics than a hypocritical Christian so really I think you and the Vatican are more in line than you would imagine.

Here again, the Vatican is not the final say on biblical interpretation. There are thousands of Christian sects. The problem is the bible itself, and those who take any part of it seriously enough to actually live by it. Including the Catholic church.


It's just it takes some critical thinking to get rid of preconceptions and approach what is unknown with an open and non judging mind.

My critical thinking skills are just fine. I have been on both sides of the fence. A devout Christian many years, and now an atheist. I know the bible, and I know Christian theology.

ETA: You and I may see the bible as a book full of stories and allegory, with some history thrown in. The problem is, those who believe it to varying degrees don't. They're betting their lives on it, and many are betting my life and yours too, their belief is right. However benign you may see that book, it's followers are not.
edit on 6/9/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Well gee, thanks for that. In the spirit of the New ATS, I decided to watch the video before I read any of your comments and well, I could'nt take more than about 15 seconds of it. That voice? well sure, that voice. But for me it was the gleam of "I will be famous some day" sparkling in her eyes.

Then I read your comments and as so pleased that you had not accepted her as your new prophet.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: SuperFrog


because you can't believe all fairy tales and then accept what kids in other places on earth have for granted -

America is the land of fairy tails. We're delusional and in denial. Our favorite pastimes are TV, video games, Disney, circuses, fairs, and zoos.

Oh, and religion.


And politics... Oh wait you already mentioned religion.


Yes, the Church of State. Long live the king.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Wow, her voice has damaged my ears.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
It's not thanks to her. It's thanks to the Texas board of education. And if we go further than that, it's thanks to Princeton Theology which radicalized Christian faith in the US around the 19-20th century and pushed for Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism unlike in the rest of the world.

I think we can all agree your problem with "religious people" is when they read the Bible literally and consider it the infallible word of God. Well in the US today it's mainly because of Princeton theologians.


I don't have a problem with religious people, on contrary, I find real religious people kind and humble. I do have a problem with religious extremism and literal interpretation of fairy tale books and with all that follows starting from denial of science and education to prosecution of all of those who don't think a like.

For example, sentence of Purvi Patel is nothing but religion doctrine transformed into OUR institutions that should be FREE of religion. It is all based on denial of science, has roots in middle age teachings and lucky for Patel, she would be by now burn on stake if time was wrong, or should I say right??

Now to answer Krazysh0t's earlier question - why should we care or who the hell is Karis Peters?! - Reason is simple, this girl as many other are brainwashed and trained to lead this country in future years. It seems to me as we experience deeper gap between rich and poor, there is also gap between extreme religion and science and atheism. Many states still have laws that prevent anyone who does not belong to some religion of becoming state official?! Same goes for presidential candidate. Why is important for each candidate to state their religious views as well that they will support state of Israel??

And for closure, yes, I do blame this little girl for not thinking and using her own head to figure out why we are not number 1 in science and education... she and similar kids are part of the problem, or more accurately - they WILL be part of the problem.
edit on 9-6-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
That girl is enough to turn anyone from religion. Does she break out in to song, I couldn't stick around long enough to find out
edit on 9-6-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2015 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman



it's thanks to Princeton Theology which radicalized Christian faith in the US around the 19-20th century and pushed for Biblical inerrancy and Biblical literalism unlike in the rest of the world.

You may be thinking of Westminster Theological Seminary after the split up of Presbyterian Church.
see OLD PRINCETON, WESTMINSTER, AND INERRANCY, MOÏSES SILVA

And yet, given the historical contexts that brought Princeton into
new prominence in the late nineteenth century and that
brought Westminster into existence half-a-century ago, one
must fully acknowledge the unique role played by the doctrine
of inerrancy as that doctrine has been understood by its best
exponents, notably Β. B. Warfield. It may be an exaggeration,
but only a mild one, to say that the infallibility of Scripture,
with its implications, has provided Westminster's raison d'etr
. . .
What I would like to stress in this chapter, however, is the
definition of inerrancy implied by the words in the previous
paragraph: as that doctrine has been understood by its best exponents.
The contemporary debate regarding inerrancy appears hope-
lessly vitiated by the failure—in both conservative and non-
conservative camps—to mark how carefully nuanced were
Warfield's formulations.

Warfield's views were not the views of American Fundamentalists today.
See also

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching";[1] or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".[2]

A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified

The issue is that most people (believers and none believers) haven't caught up to "enlightened" views of language theory, hermeneutics, deconstructionism (ala Derrrida) and historical cultural analysis. While a wide majority of the world's population doesn't have access to such education, it is a crying a shame to not pursue it when one lives above poverty in a first world nation. I find many rationalists and non-religious people also don't have this background, but inevitably that is just a minor inconvenience compared to the clusterfudge created when "believers" engage with mythical-spiritual-religious writings without such a background. Language theory has shown that it is even doubtful that we actually ever reach the referent in our constant "sign" language, thus (to the discomfort of literalists) reading is always a massive project of interpretation. So, spreading the gospel and being a follower of Jesus can just as much mean living ethically even if one has never heard of Jesus, the gospel can mean representations of a greater "good" be it any religious text or even moral stories in a children's cartoon. Historicism and cultural theory add the nuance that particular interpretations were necessary at certain points of cultural development. Also, every document (bible etc.) is a form of cultural and historical interpretation prone to scribal errors of transmission. There are Christians who follow such a line of thought (as well as Muslims, Buddhists etc.)

Literalists are scared of this idea because it connotes that you can read anything you want into a text. This is true, the text is secondary to our own interpretation that is born of culture and society. Still, especially religious folk, need to embrace and understand this.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: AudioOne



This is true, the text is secondary to our own interpretation that is born of culture and society. Still, especially religious folk, need to embrace and understand this.

The Bible is in no way a science book, that includes Sociology and Political Science. It's a really bad History Book, and completely flawed as a Biography. It really should be treated as Mythology in understanding the roots of the rot of civilization.
edit on 9-6-2015 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

I never said it was a science book, but the act of reading and interpretation is taken for granted by some people who read it, who feel that there is only one meaning possible. Yet, there are many different theologies that state they are proven by the "clear" text of the bible. This is because "every" act of reading in every religion (or text period) is an act of interpretation. Thus I have a commentarry on the gospels by Paramahansa Yogananda that makes perfect sense yet would scare a typical Christian in its Hindu Yoga heavy interpretation (as interpretations by OSHO would as well.)

I have studied religion for over 21 years with a library of 300+ books (plus I've head many more.) I've found convincing use of Biblical scripture in everything from Kabbalah, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, New Age movement writings etc. And within its context it all makes sense... Which is exactly why you are right, it isn't science, there isn't one true way or meaning to a text as there is one answer to a question such as how fast would a car have to go to get 20 miles in half an hour.. That's science... This isn't science hence there is no "Right" answer. It's interpretation. If all the philosophies of different peoples represented on my bookshelves are to live in peace, they need to start understanding it is always an act of interpretation. The Abrahamic faiths are the worst at this, Buddhism and Hinduism are way more comfortable living in a world of multiple answers... But the Muslim Sufi traditions also set powerful precedents for acceptance of multiple ideas. In India it was normal to see Muslims take a Hindu teacher of vice versa... It's all an act of interpretation.

For instance, for Christians, the work Mathew Fox is doing with Creation Spirituality and its openness to other religious myysticisms is great.

The Dalai Lama is doing a great job being open to other traditions.

Certain Muslims Sufi sects as well as Progressive Muslims see the Qur'an as affirming (some of) the beliefs of Hindus, Buddhists, and other religions... (I mean come on, Hindus lived under an Islamic Empire and they are still around.) I personally see myself as a Muslim though some would question my orthodoxy.

The issue atheists sometimes have (as well as Christians, Muslims, anybody) is thinking that somehow 90% of the world population (or whatever percentage for the other groups) will magically see the error of their ways and change. Just like Christians who instead of supporting liberal Muslims attack all things Muslim, thinking that converting 1.6 billion Muslims is a better strategy for peace than supporting the liberal progressive elements within it. Even if atheism was correct, the real answer about reality, the pursuance of converting the world's population to atheism is about the most ludicrous unrealistic strategy imaginable. It's hard enough to get people to open up their beliefs to be open to others, that by itself is almost unrealistic. Making 90% of the world reject their beliefs entirely is just not going to happen any time soon. Hence....
Interpretation..

Get the religions to be open to one another by understanding that it is all interpretation. My thoughts anyway. The Muslim world could sure use Westerner's parading their progressive open thinkers right now instead of just regurgitating extremists so Christians can keep asking where are all the moderates... They are speaking loudly but the Western media won't give them a microphone.. Give a microphone to progressives of every religion.
edit on 9-6-2015 by AudioOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
The problem is the bible itself, and those who take any part of it seriously enough to actually live by it.


Who are these people and what fraction do they represent among Christians worldwide? Because I personally never met such a person among the Christians I know.


I mean people who believe that non-believers will suffer eternal death and things like that.

I wonder if you are not projecting your own experience since you called yourself an ex-devout christian. It might surprise you but the majority of self professed Christian called themselves because they have Christian values in heart, not because they follow the bible or christian rituals religiously.

I doubt Jesus even wanted to start a new religion in the first place.
edit on 9-6-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I don't have a problem with religious people, on contrary, I find real religious people kind and humble.


Good to know since it contradicts a bit what you posted earlier


originally posted by: SuperFrog
In short, Miss Peters managed to show all what is wrong with religious folks



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog
This is a perfect example of what's wrong with our society.
What an unfortunate, brainwashed young women.
And the audience, all so sad.

Living down in the Bible Belt now really makes me miss NYC.
I thought the people wouldn't effect me but I was wrong. Nothing but oppressive billboards and bad bumper stickers.
One of the first things someone wants to know is what church you go to.
So insulting, so sad.



posted on Jun, 9 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: FinalCountdown

Oppressive bill boards?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join