I support Phil of Duck Dynasty

[tussin]

Rick Warren, Jim Daly, James Dobson, Joel Olsteen, .... They are often asked to "speak" for Christians in this country and their words are taken as the belief of all. I do not always agree with them, but I fall in their category.

2nd paragraph - This is a very difficult one to tackle in this thread but I will do my best(without sounding like a total wacko) while also trying to work:

A: A true Christian is anyone who follows the teachings of Christ and believes in the Trinity. One does not have to be involved in a religion to be a Christian. Also, simply because an individual is not part of an establishment, doesn't mean that they only keep their faith to themselves.

B: Exactly. Just as there are millions of people that attend religious services that focus on that religion more than they focus on the words of Christ. There are religious figures whose lives revolve around the church that do not live the life of a Christian - Priests, Ministers, elders, lay leaders, etc who all attend church or mass on a regular basis and are deplorable people.

C: Our churches today are so far away from what the church was in the New Testament. If you read Paul's letters closely and pay attention to the way the church was structured, there are no grand buildings, there are no rituals, there is no Priest/Pastor, churches were communities. They were people that came together in homes or public places to read the Word, discuss the teachings of Christ as a group, and Worship God. Church was not spectator sport where one person spoke and everyone else listened or gave a pre-planned response. Church was organic, it was truly the body of Christ, it was alive, and every person had equal opportunity to contribute.

Also, there were not separate religions with-in one faith. People were Christians.
Religion has caused Christians to be divided. Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Church of God, Church of Christ, Nazarene, Independent Baptist, the list goes on and on. When the church was formed there was no such thing as denomination - they were Christians.

Unfortunately, I feel like today we are nations of religions and not a nation of Christians.

Great response, a few things....

1. Rick Warren, Jim Daly, etc. obviously can't / shouldn't speak for all Christians, but are they appropriate leaders for their specific church? I really don't know enough to say. I thought your original point was that we have religious leaders that do not follow the teachings of their specific church. I can't speak for everyone but I am almost always in agreement whenever I hear my leaders speak to my faith.

2. Re: the bolded... I feel like this has always been the case throughout history and will never change. There are bad apples in any group of people and that should never define the group as a whole. I'm Catholic so it always pains me to hear the terrible stories of rogue priests or bishops; however, I'm proud of and put my trust in many of the leaders in my church today (most notably Pope Francis and Cardinal Dolan). I feel they are great evangelists for the Catholic faith. Pretty interesting video below of Dolan on Colbert that touches on the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality and many of the topics discussed in this thread:
Timothy Dolan Pt. 2 - The Colbert Report - 2013-03-09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

3. Re: C... I think many of those characteristics still exist today. My parish has always felt like a true community. Sure there is a layer of organization and formality that didn't exist thousands of years ago, but I think that evolution is natural and within the Tradition of the Catholic Church. The general principles of Christianity have always remained the same.

 

[NDohio]

Great response, a few things....

1. Rick Warren, Jim Daly, etc. obviously can't / shouldn't speak for all Christians, but are they appropriate leaders for their specific church? I really don't know enough to say. I thought your original point was that we have religious leaders that do not follow the teachings of their specific church. I can't speak for everyone but I am almost always in agreement whenever I hear my leaders speak to my faith.

2. Re: the bolded... I feel like this has always been the case throughout history and will never change. There are bad apples in any group of people and that should never define the group as a whole. I'm Catholic so it always pains me to hear the terrible stories of rogue priests or bishops; however, I'm proud of and put my trust in many of the leaders in my church today (most notably Pope Francis and Cardinal Dolan). I feel they are great evangelists for the Catholic faith. Pretty interesting video below of Dolan on Colbert that touches on the Catholic Church's views on homosexuality and many of the topics discussed in this thread:
Timothy Dolan Pt. 2 - The Colbert Report - 2013-03-09 - Video Clip | Comedy Central

3. Re: C... I think many of those characteristics still exist today. My parish has always felt like a true community. Sure there is a layer of organization and formality that didn't exist thousands of years ago, but I think that evolution is natural and within the Tradition of the Catholic Church. The general principles of Christianity have always remained the same.

Ah - got ya. Not my intent. I am more talking about those "go to" representatives that the media rely on to get quotes that "represent" Christians as a whole.

I am not Catholic, but I love what is coming from Pope Francis.
I will watch that video over the weekend, thanks for sharing.

Glad to hear your parish has that feel, there are many churches that have lost that.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Oh what a society of victims we've all become

I am curious as to what you mean by this.

I think the French philosopher nailed it when he said, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

I am bemused with people who take the view that things are worse today than they were in the past.

Because I am pretty certain that the whole of humanity suffers less than ever, and humans are more productive than ever. And their are more healthy people than ever.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Please note the bolded text. This is a predominantly Protestant viewpoint. Catholics don't think we are supposed to worship exactly how the bibles mentions it.

I am absolutely not an expert, but from what I remember from highschool religion classes, Catholic's believe that we are to use both Tradition and the Bible to guide our faith. The Tradition branch is led by the church leaders. All the way back to the 12 aposltes up to the current Pope. They use the bible simply as an instrument to improve the ability to spread the truth. This is one of the differences between Catholics and Fundamentalist Christians. We don't take the bible literally to be black and white. Catholic tradition is what gives us the ceremony we attend each sunday. Tradition is why Catholics have been building cathedrals for centuries.

<object width="400" height="325" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/cvp/container/mediaroom_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=291506" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/v5cache/TCM/cvp/container/mediaroom_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=291506" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="325"></embed></object>

 

[Bluto]

This is something I talked about earlier as well. In the article, he was specifically asked "what was it like in the deep south during Jim Crow". So he answered the question and talked about how they were all poor and working the fields. He wasn't trying to connect welfare to blacks, say that Jim Crow laws should still be in place or discredit the hardships of pre civil rights african americans.

He was simply answering the question and trying to make the point that everyone was poor and worked together without animosity. That he felt everyone seemed happy.

So when we hear this message from the media outlets and regurgitations from posters on here (not you Bluto), his comments are being twisted to fit a bigot/rascist narrative that makes those people feel like they are standing for the moral authority.

I see what you're saying.

For me his "everyone got along" line is extremely hard to believe based on the historic record, my own experiences growing up Mexican-American among some overtly but mostly closeted racist white people and conversations I've had with friends and family over the years that were in the South during the pre civil rights era. Again, in the South of his youth African Americans could be murdered by any white with a bone to pick with no repercussions what so ever. Given such a power dynamic of course they put on their happy faces when around whites and tried not to "complain" or "sing the blues". So for me when his observations are looked at in that context this fellow comes across as having a romanticized view of the past, being a bit out of touch with reality and or in denial about the past.

Anyhow, I have a feeling beards and camo will be big this next Halloween. Would that be reverse racism? Lol

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I am curious as to what you mean by this.

I think the French philosopher nailed it when he said, "The more things change, the more they remain the same."

I am bemused with people who take the view that things are worse today than they were in the past.

Because I am pretty certain that the whole of humanity suffers less than ever, and humans are more productive than ever. And their are more healthy people than ever.

Worse today than in the past in what sense? I agree we suffer less than ever, more productive and healthier I disagree.

To make a long post really short, what group of people doesn't think they're under attack somehow? War on this, war on that, etc...

 

[woolybug25]

I see what you're saying.

For me his "everyone got along" line is extremely hard to believe based on the historic record, my own experiences growing up Mexican-American among some overtly but mostly closeted racist white people and conversations I've had with friends and family over the years that were in the South during the pre civil rights era. Again, in the South of his youth African Americans could be murdered by any white with a bone to pick with no repercussions what so ever. Given such a power dynamic of course they put on their happy faces when around whites and tried not to "complain" or "sing the blues". So for me when his observations are looked at in that context this fellow comes across as having a romanticized view of the past, being a bit out of touch with reality and or in denial about the past.

Anyhow, I have a feeling beards and camo will be big this next Halloween. Would that be reverse racism? Lol

Neither of us grew up in the 60's in the deep south of Louisiana. I can tell you this though, Louisiana does have a unique social dynamic between their cultures. It isn't the same as say, Alabama.

Also, they were dirt poor… not like poverty line… like just getting by poor. His comments were regarding how they worked together in the same fields, shared the same struggles, etc. The culture in the bayou during the 60's isn't something you or I would know the first thing about. He was answering a specific question regarding his life during that time and he answered it. Anything anyone makes out of it other than his literal comment is insinuating something they cannot and probably do not empathize with.

 

[autry_denson]

checking out for the holiday break...since I've spent some time in this thread the past few days let me say it here: Merry Christmas to all and Happy New Year. All the best, AD

 

[magogian]

This article nails it:

"The advantages of classical liberal market cosmopolitanism--the idea that it's best to set aside peaceful differences of opinion and creed and worries about different races, nationalities, and genders when deciding how we interact with the world--has a great track record of making us all richer and happier.

The idea that that people should be punished with boycott or losing their jobs over having wrong beliefs hobbles the flowering of tolerant classical liberal market cosmopolitanism.

There may have been a good reason why classical tolerance of expression was summed up in the epigram: "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it!"

That has a different feel than: "I disagree with what you say, I think you are evil for having said it, I think no one should associate with you and you ought to lose your livelihood, and anyone who doesn't agree with me about all that is skating on pretty thin ice as well, but hey, I don't think you should be arrested for it."

A stern insistence on boycotting or refusing any truck or barter with those who hold different beliefs or practice different ways of life (peacefully) does not directly implicate specifically libertarian questions about rights or freedom. No one's freedom in the true libertarian sense is harmed by people trying to drive them from society or the market because of their beliefs or creed as long as it is done through mere refusal to associate, or advocacy of refusal to associate. We have no right for others to do business with us or to tolerate our beliefs or practices as long as said intolerance does not turn to violence.

But regularly acting on the idea that those with wrong ideas deserve to be driven from society in any conceivable non-violent way might, I suggest, make for a less lovable, rich, and peaceful world. When we start regularly restricting people's opportunities in commerce or association over differing beliefs, what could be peaceful ideological differences start to tip over into people fighting for what they can understandably see as their metaphorical life--their social or economic life. It's a dangerous game and if pursued vigorously and across the board by everyone who disagrees with everyone else on issues or practices they consider vital, will make everyone worse off.

Centuries after the Enlightenment, most people's notions of "free thought and expression" still amount to: it's OK to think and express OK things. It's a limited view that can lead to a less varied, vital, and livable culture."

 

[RyCo1983]

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:368px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:southparkstudios.com:edb0e5ba-ed00-11e0-aca6-0026b9414f30" width="360" height="293" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>

 

[Bluto]

The final word? Anyhow pretty funny. Couldn't embed cause I'm on my phone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

 

[irish1958]

The final word? Anyhow pretty funny. Couldn't embed cause I'm on my phone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

A somewhat understated opinion, but it is food for thought.

 

[magogian]

The final word? Anyhow pretty funny. Couldn't embed cause I'm on my phone.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KW343K1-upo&desktop_uri=/watch?v=KW343K1-upo

Good grief. No wonder so many of you libs on here make such uninformed and lame comments.

This is practically the same thing:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NrmPehlHK3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

if this has already been addressed, please disregard. this article covering a video from three years ago casts a different light on the GQ article: ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

i could live with the GQ interview, but this was offensive, in my opinion. i'm hoping that the GQ interview shows that he's moved away from those beliefs.

 

[woolybug25]

if this has already been addressed, please disregard. this article covering a video from three years ago casts a different light on the GQ article: ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson anti-gay video emerges as A&E beefs up security amid threats - NY Daily News

i could live with the GQ interview, but this was offensive, in my opinion. i'm hoping that the GQ interview shows that he's moved away from those beliefs.

What did he say any different in this video than the article? He says that he thinks homosexuality is immoral. He does the same in the GQ article. I don't see what how you could live with the GQ article, but this video (where he says the same thing), crosses the line?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Something we can all agree on.

 

[Bluto]

Good grief. No wonder so many of you libs on here make such uninformed and lame comments.

This is practically the same thing:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/NrmPehlHK3w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Well, the Batman Movie from 1966 is awesome and does provide some wonderful life lessons in its own way. You know like if you're gonna throw a bomb off a pier don't throw it at a family of ducks or if you're gonna crash in your helicopter aim for the local mattress factory.

What the hell is a lib?

 

[connor_in]

Phony Outrage: The Phil Robertson Witch-Hunt

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

What did he say any different in this video than the article? He says that he thinks homosexuality is immoral. He does the same in the GQ article. I don't see what how you could live with the GQ article, but this video (where he says the same thing), crosses the line?

for the most part, the difference is the condemning nature of the comments: "They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

 

[IrishJayhawk]

for the most part, the difference is the condemning nature of the comments: "They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

Agree. These are substantively different comments than the GQ article.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

Agree. These are substantively different comments than the GQ article.

admittedly, i don't really know anything about this guy other than the little i've read up on this media explosion/fallout. to be fair, without knowing if it's been addressed by him, 3 years between comments is enough time to change one's feelings on the matter. if his position in the GQ interview stands in place of those former comments, it's worth letting old dogs lie and move on.

 

[woolybug25]

for the most part, the difference is the condemning nature of the comments: "They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God-haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are truthless. They invent ways of doing evil."

I must have glossed over that. You're right, they are substantially more harsh.

That being said, this type of talk is prevalent in babtist, catholic and evangelical churches around the country. There are some churches that actively try to "convert" homosexuals and "heal them of their sins".

Go youtube "Charles L Worley homophobic sermon" and see the type of discussion that is going on in churches. He straight up says to "Lock them into a pen with an electrified fence, drop food down to them, and because they can't reproduce, they will die out." Now THAT… is hatred. What Phil did was nothing of the sort. He simply preached HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to his parish.

Again… I don't want anyone to misconstrue my beliefs. I do not agree with Phil and believe that gay americans are treated unfairly. I believe that they should have every right as anyone else. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the right for people to have their religious beliefs. As long as those beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others, they are constitionally entitled to them. Phil expressed beliefs that millions of Americans (again… not me) believe. He never tried to hide his conservative-christian beliefs in his show either.

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

I must have glossed over that. You're right, they are substantially more harsh.

That being said, this type of talk is prevalent in babtist, catholic and evangelical churches around the country. There are some churches that actively try to "convert" homosexuals and "heal them of their sins".

Go youtube "Charles L Worley homophobic sermon" and see the type of discussion that is going on in churches. He straight up says to "Lock them into a pen with an electrified fence, drop food down to them, and because they can't reproduce, they will die out." Now THAT… is hatred. What Phil did was nothing of the sort. He simply preached HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEFS to his parish.

Again… I don't want anyone to misconstrue my beliefs. I do not agree with Phil and believe that gay americans are treated unfairly. I believe that they should have every right as anyone else. But that doesn't mean that I don't believe in the right for people to have their religious beliefs. As long as those beliefs do not infringe on the rights of others, they are constitionally entitled to them. Phil expressed beliefs that millions of Americans (again… not me) believe. He never tried to hide his conservative-christian beliefs in his show either.

i don't want to get into comparing phil to anyone else, because it's self evident that far worse things have been said and done. ultimately, i agree that the GQ stuff isn't a big deal. at the very least, it's spurring an open dialogue. most of the people on this board seem to agree that there's a line we shouldn't cross. disagreeing on beliefs is ok, and we will probably debate those until the end of humanity. i'm glad we've been able to discover the line between beliefs and discrimination. good on you irishenvy.

edit: i just realized that if irishpat were reinstated, this thread would self-destruct and all of the civil discourse would dissolve into a nuclear wasteland.

 

[woolybug25]

edit: i just realized that if irishpat were reinstated, this thread would self-destruct and all of the civil discourse would dissolve into a nuclear wasteland.

If this happened during Pat's time. He and many others would have surely been banned. The board would have been a train wreck for weeks. haha

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If this happened during Pat's time. He and many others would have surely been banned. The board would have been a train wreck for weeks. haha

You're not wrong.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Dusty was right, DD is fake.

I am thinking that from what we are starting to see, this guy wasn't very poor as a child, though he is a multi-millionaire now : Lap it up.

That adds a certain smarmy ring of falsehood to his comments.

I heard a lot of generalizations made against people that question conservative values. Most have been insulting and over the top. No logic whatsoever.

We could make this whole conversation go away if you could show where any of these viewpoints of the Richardson's or the supporters on this site, reflect the words of Jesus, make a difference, or in their many attempts at application have actually made a difference in the world.

I went into a store I frequent, you know a kind of lp, DVD BLUE RAY, GAME reseller, there are some musicians, some very clean cut individuals, a couple that prefer bikes, a few techies, and so forth. People from all walks. And so on.

It is their thing to bring up this thread and laugh at some of the opinions expressed in these posts. I had to ask them to stop today, as they began spreading it around how mentally deficient some ND fans were. Wish I would have thought that one through first . . .

 

[GDomer09]

Been thinking about this more than ever.

Been thinking about this more than ever.

Clay Aiken weighing in on the controversy!
“I think the thing that frustrates me the most is that there have been people who’ve come out today and said, ‘It’s free speech, it’s free speech,’” Aiken continued. “And I would ask them … if the person had said something about interracial marriage, or said that we should put all children with disabilities in institutions, would we still say, ‘Well, that’s free speech, we’re okay with that opinion?’ And I think the answer is no.”

Aiken did, however, say that society has made progress in its acceptance of gays — though total acceptance isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

Please hold off on the, you're a homophobe, baby pusher, unreasonable bigot BS until you've thought fully of your answer. I've had a lot of hateful replies when engaging in these types of conversation, but I'm honestly looking for good answers. It could change my perspective.

Before I continue I don't believe people are born gay, but I do believe certain things in their childhood caused these thoughts in there mind to unfold. I believe that people have the right to be Gay and live a peaceful life. Unfortunately gay supporters are pushing to the point where my opinions are somehow radical and hateful. Therefore keeping me from speaking my mind out of fear I could be fired or exiled (A&E's opinion>Phil's opinion).

First off I have several homosexual friends and are wonderful people I wouldn't trade them for the world so I don't discuss this with them. I'm for accepting to the point that all men/women are created equally. Even with that statement you run into problems. Naturally the majority of men/women are attracted to the opposite sex.

My most important question is what is the definition for "Total Acceptance" to the gay community?

First bold comments-
This stuff bugs me the most about Homosexual supporters views. The color of someone's skin is not the same as sexual preference. A black straight man in a stall next to me is not the same as a gay man, unless that black man finds me sexually attractive.

On that subject, restrooms IMO are a serious talking point for the total acceptance of Homosexuality. I know there's other things to deal with, but I think for total acceptance this would have to be looked at. It never adds up. I've heard the following comments from this.
"Oh you dummy it's not like they're trying to mate with the first person they see."
"You being uncomfortable about it is your problem."
"Where do you expect them to use the restrooms."
"Gay people don't find straight people attractive." (Gaydar?)
"It's separate to begin with because they share different private parts."

First off there are a lot of lesbians that I find attractive. Is this not the same as a Gay man
and a straight one? Should we cancel the whole restroom separating all together? Should we have just one big public bathroom for all to use? Do we segregate and have separate bathrooms for Gay's? I know I know it sounds horrible, but not as horrible as trying to figure out how that would work for Gay society. Gay women's/Gay men's (women are attracted to women, men to men). The whole where does my partner go that's different from me thought process. Do I want my gay son going to a restroom with a bunch of people he's sexually attracted to?

Remember this was a just one tiny subject on the matter (restrooms).

I'm thinking total acceptance will happen around the same time Jesus is totally accepted.

Lastly does anybody find what I've said to be offensive? If so please let me know so I don't get banned for my belief on making since out of something that doesn't make since.

 

[GDomer09]

Dusty was right, DD is fake.
I heard a lot of generalizations made against people that question conservative values. Most have been insulting and over the top. No logic whatsoever.

We could make this whole conversation go away if you could show where any of these viewpoints of the Richardson's or the supporters on this site, reflect the words of Jesus, make a difference, or in their many attempts at application have actually made a difference in the world.
. .

Hahaha....Did someone on here say Homo freak? Because I definitley heard a Jesus Freak and things of that nature.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Hahaha....Did someone on here say Homo freak? Because I definitley heard a Jesus Freak and things of that nature.

I was specifically talking about ideas. Not name calling. Although as you pointed out there was plenty in both direction. Please include all of that that went too far with my point. My point is the only kind of things I saw that were peaceful, loving, and wise, were these :

Q 6:20-21 The Beatitudes for the Poor, Hungry, and Mourning
20 <…> And •rais‚ing his •eyes to‚ his disciples he said: Blessed are •«you»‚ poor, for God's reign is for •you‚. 21 Blessed are •«you»‚ who hunger, for •you‚ will eat •your‚ fill. Blessed are •«you»‚ who •mourn‚, for •<you> will be consoled‚.

Q 6:22-23 The Beatitude for the Persecuted
22 Blessed are you when they insult and •persecute‚ you, and •say every kind of‚ evil •against‚ you because of the son of humanity. 23 Be glad and •exult‚, for vast is your reward in heaven. For this is how they •persecuted‚ the prophets who «were» before you.

Q 6: 27-28, 35c-d Love Your Enemies
27 Love your enemies 28 •and‚ pray for those •persecuting‚ you, 35c-d so that you may become sons of your Father, for he raises his sun on bad and •good and rains on the just and unjust‚.

Q 6:29-30 Renouncing One's Own Rights
29 •The one who slaps‚ you on the cheek, offer •him‚ the other as well; and •to the person wanting to take you to court and get‚ your shirt, •turn over to him‚ the coat as well. •29?30/Matt 5:41‚ •«And the one who conscripts you for one mile, go with him a second.»‚ 30 To the one who asks of you, give; and •from the one who borrows, do not •ask‚ back •«what is»‚ yours.

Q 6:31 The Golden Rule
31 And the way you want people to treat you, that is how you treat them.

Q 6:32, 34 Impartial Love
32 .. If you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors do the same? 34 And if you •lend «to those» from whom you hope to receive, what <reward do> you < have>?‚??? Do not even •the Gentiles‚ do the same?

Q 6:36 Being Full of Pity like Your Father
36 Be full of pity, just as your Father .. is full of pity.

Q 6:37-38 Not Judging
37 .. Do not pass judgment, «so» you are not judged. •For with what judgment you pass judgment, you will be judged.‚ 38 •And‚ with the measurement you use to measure out, it will be measured out to you.

The English Translation of the Sayings Gospel Q

I always thought "Jesus Freak" was a term of endearment so I looked it up.

Jesus freak is a term arising from the late 1960s and early 1970s counterculture and is used as a pejorative for those involved in the Jesus movement. As Tom Wolfe illustrates in The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, the term "freak" with a preceding qualifier was a strictly neutral term and described any counter-culture member with a specific interest in a given subject; hence "acid freak" "Jesus freak." The term "freak" was in common enough currency that Hunter S. Thompson's failed bid for sheriff of Aspen, Colorado was as a member of the "Freak Power" party. However, many later members of the movement, misunderstanding the counter-cultural roots believed the term to be negative, and co-opted and embraced the term, and its usage broadened to describe a Christian subculture throughout the hippie and back-to-the-land movements that focused on universal love and pacifism, and relished the radical nature of Jesus' message. Jesus freaks often carried and distributed copies of the "Good News for Modern Man,"[1] a 1966 translation of the New Testament written in modern English. In Australia, and other countries, the term Jesus freak, along with Bible basher, is still used in a derogatory manner. In Germany, there is a Christian youth culture, also called Jesus Freaks, that claims to have its roots in the American movement.

My understanding and use is of the bolded. I would describe myself as a Jesus Freak today. And I don't see where current fundamental Christians have much in common with the Jesus Freaks of the 60's.

 

[connor_in]

.