Hippie flavour

[ravengod]

Hippies were communists
they associated equality with peace and love
does communism stand for peace and love?
is then jesus christ a commie?

[Blibblob]

HELL NO!!
Jesus was a selfish bastard. Constantly speaking about how he was god, and how every1 should love HIM, and then you can love your friends.

[eleventeen crayon]

Jesus was a con man, and a great one at that.
Hippies were not neccisarily communists. However, Romantics (sometimes considered early hippies) often endorsed communist and socialist ideas.

[Blibblob]

"Jesus was a con man, and a great one at that."

THANK YOU!!!, FINALY SOMEBODY AGREES WITH ME!!

AND FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING CATHOLICS!!

[Domitian]

Quote: from ravengod on 10:42 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
Hippies were communists
they associated equality with peace and love
does communism stand for peace and love?
is then jesus christ a commie



I don't think Jesus was a communist, although he spoke out for spirital equality, he did not speak out for social equality. But the again, people back then had no concept (to my knowledge, the majority of them anyways) of social classes, so I guess they didn't need to have the same rights as others to feel equal.

So was he a communist? In present terms - no, back in Roman times - maybe...

[Blibblob]

Yes, yes, true, true, at least Jesus wasnt like the other Jews, that if you were of a different religion, you were the devil incarnate. But he was quite a bastard.

[Domitian]

I'm not particular fond of Jesus because Christianity was one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell and created a dark age that lasted 400 years. It the Roman Empire never fell and progress was continued we might even have flying cars by now.

[Blibblob]

"It the Roman Empire never fell and progress was continued we might even have flying cars by now."

Yes, we would be quite advanced technologically, but what about socially?

[canikickit]

I think Jesus was a comedian. It's all quite funny if you think about it.



I'm not particular fond of Jesus because Christianity was one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell and created a dark age that lasted 400 years.

Right. So you're going to blame one man for four hundred years of a "dark age". I don't think that is in the slightest bit sane.

[Zorio]

Socially, we'd probably be in the same boat as the Romans. I do think however there would have been, or there would be a revolution to overthrow whatever empire was controlling us. It would only be a matter of time before people demanded equality.
Now, would you rather have rights and equal oportunity? Or would you rather have a technologically advanced world? I can see both pros and cons to this argument. Personally, I prefer the socially progressive idea, having freedoms and rights. But the world could be much different with advanced technology.
Also, after every revolution, the technology associated with it was then used to improve the country, or at least, attempted to improve it. Napolean for example adapted basic canons, improving on the original design, coming up with what was later used in the Great War(W.W.I). They also converted these canons into farm equipment, allowing for the begining of the industrial revolution.
So, I believe the technological side would have first outweighed the social. But later on, the social side would have caught up due to revolution, and they would then progress at roughly the same rate.

[ravengod]

jesus a bastard? a comedian?
i wonder if...
maybe a distinct topic will do
jesus a bastard?
ha ha

[Blibblob]

Jesus was a bastard, havent you read the bible, (i read it, threw it against the wall and said fuck this shit) it said that mary was a virgin, therefore, jesus didnt have a father.

And socially, if the roman empire didnt fall, we would be in a more open state of dictatorship, they wouldnt have to hide it.

[Domitian]

Quote: from canikickit on 11:54 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
I think Jesus was a comedian. It's all quite funny if you think about it.



I'm not particular fond of Jesus because Christianity was one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell and created a dark age that lasted 400 years.

Right. So you're going to blame one man for four hundred years of a "dark age". I don't think that is in the slightest bit sane.


I said Christianity was ONE of the reasons. There are a whole bunch of reasons, mass migration, internal fighting, Empire divided, inflation... ect....

[Domitian]

Quote: from Zorio on 12:03 am on Jan. 19, 2003
Socially, we'd probably be in the same boat as the Romans. I do think however there would have been, or there would be a revolution to overthrow whatever empire was controlling us. It would only be a matter of time before people demanded equality.
Now, would you rather have rights and equal oportunity? Or would you rather have a technologically advanced world? I can see both pros and cons to this argument. Personally, I prefer the socially progressive idea, having freedoms and rights. But the world could be much different with advanced technology.
Also, after every revolution, the technology associated with it was then used to improve the country, or at least, attempted to improve it. Napolean for example adapted basic canons, improving on the original design, coming up with what was later used in the Great War(W.W.I). They also converted these canons into farm equipment, allowing for the begining of the industrial revolution.
So, I believe the technological side would have first outweighed the social. But later on, the social side would have caught up due to revolution, and they would then progress at roughly the same rate.


I would think that eventually with technological advances people will have became more educated and they would have brought back the republic and then make other social advances.

[Blibblob]

well, a republic would be nice.

[canikickit]

It wasn't Jesus' fault that Rome fell. Rome was an imperialist power. Fuck them.

[Beccie]

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:45 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
HELL NO!!
Jesus was a selfish bastard. Constantly speaking about how he was god, and how every1 should love HIM, and then you can love your friends.


What bible did you read? Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God because he knew that people would think he was a political Messiah who had come to take the Jews land from the Romans. When Jesus' disciple Peter identified him as the Messiah Jesus told him not to tell anyone. When Jesus is bought before Pilate he was asked, "are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus refuses to say yes instead he said, "It is you that is saying it". Many of the things that Jesus said and did, although the gospels are not historically accurate, depict him as a communist and a pacifist. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common…..There was not one needy person among them” Acts 4:32-34

“They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need….God added to their number those who were being saved” Acts 2:45

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” Matt 5:24

“You have heard that it was said, An eye for eye a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the evildoer. But if one strikes you on the cheek, turn the other also” Matt 5:38

“It is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich towards God” Luke 12:21

“So therefore none of you can be my disciple if you don’t give up all your possessions” Luke 14: 33

“But woe to you Pharisees for you! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others” Luke 11:42

[Domitian]

Quote: from canikickit on 12:51 am on Jan. 19, 2003
It wasn't Jesus' fault that Rome fell. Rome was an imperialist power. Fuck them.


Well, there weren't any non-imperial powers back then. You would rather replace a stable unified state with a bunch a rampaging barbarians? I wonder how people 2000 years to the future would view the United States or the Soviet Union.

[canikickit]

"And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth:

4 And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.

6 And Seth lived an hundred and five years, and begat Enos:

7 And Seth lived after he begat Enos eight hundred and seven years, and begat sons and daughters:

8 And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years: and he died.

9 And Enos lived ninety years, and begat Cainan:

10 And Enos lived after he begat Cainan eight hundred and fifteen years, and begat sons and daughters:

11 And all the days of Enos were nine hundred and five years: and he died.

12 And Cainan lived seventy years, and begat Mahalaleel:

13 And Cainan lived after he begat Mahalaleel eight hundred and forty years, and begat sons and daughters:

14 And all the days of Cainan were nine hundred and ten years: and he died.

15 And Mahalaleel lived sixty and five years, and begat Jared:

16 And Mahalaleel lived after he begat Jared eight hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters:

17 And all the days of Mahalaleel were eight hundred ninety and five years: and he died.

18 And Jared lived an hundred sixty and two years, and he begat Enoch:

19 And Jared lived after he begat Enoch eight hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

20 And all the days of Jared were nine hundred sixty and two years: and he died.

21 And Enoch lived sixty and five years, and begat Methuselah:

22 And Enoch walked with God after he begat Methuselah three hundred years, and begat sons and daughters:

23 And all the days of Enoch were three hundred sixty and five years:

24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

25 And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech:

26 And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters:

27 And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died.

28 And Lamech lived an hundred eighty and two years, and begat a son:

29 And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed.

30 And Lamech lived after he begat Noah five hundred ninety and five years, and begat sons and daughters:

31 And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred seventy and seven years: and he died.

32 And Noah was five hundred years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth."


"7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them"




God was an asshole.



You would rather replace a stable unified state with a bunch a rampaging barbarians?

No.

[Domitian]

Well, you did say Fuck the Romans, what should replace them? What reasonable power? (As in don't say Communists, there were no communists back then)

(Edited by Domitian at 1:22 am on Jan. 19, 2003)

[Blibblob]

In what religion has god not been an asshole.

[Domitian]

Confusium (sp) , they have no god.

[Blibblob]

fine *rasberries*

[workingpoor]

not that anybody cares....

what if jesus was sitting around with a bunch of friends one night getting drunk or better yet high with his friends and he had the great idea that they should start worshiping him. Next thing he knows his little lie like a bad TV sitcom has snowballed and he is way over his head. Now he is fucked and he ends up dieing for some shitty little joke. And the only reason that there is a bible is because like a bad game of telephone history is subjective and people fucking imbelish.

that is just my two cents worth

"god I am god"

[Blibblob]

lol. YAY, see god, your son was just a drunk and a stoner(if he was your son), wait, why am i talking to god, when i dont have proof that he exits, I NEED PROOF!!

[Zorio]

Quote: from Domitian on 12:32 am on Jan. 19, 2003

Quote: from Zorio on 12:03 am on Jan. 19, 2003
Socially, we'd probably be in the same boat as the Romans. I do think however there would have been, or there would be a revolution to overthrow whatever empire was controlling us. It would only be a matter of time before people demanded equality.
Now, would you rather have rights and equal oportunity? Or would you rather have a technologically advanced world? I can see both pros and cons to this argument. Personally, I prefer the socially progressive idea, having freedoms and rights. But the world could be much different with advanced technology.
Also, after every revolution, the technology associated with it was then used to improve the country, or at least, attempted to improve it. Napolean for example adapted basic canons, improving on the original design, coming up with what was later used in the Great War(W.W.I). They also converted these canons into farm equipment, allowing for the begining of the industrial revolution.
So, I believe the technological side would have first outweighed the social. But later on, the social side would have caught up due to revolution, and they would then progress at roughly the same rate.


I would think that eventually with technological advances people will have became more educated and they would have brought back the republic and then make other social advances.


I know that, that's what I meant would happen. Revolution has always led to a period of "enlightenment", if done successfully. However, I think that a technologically advanced society under the rule of one man(ie: Rome) would first use this technology for personal gain, rather than for the people. It would not be until the people were educated that they would be able to use the technology to benefit everyone.

[Blibblob]

well, actually, at the fall of the roman empire, it was ruled by 4. Two Emperors, and two advisors, who usually had the say. and all countries today only have one ruler, so, what the heck, onto a new life.

REVOLUTION!!

[El Brujo]

Hippies are NOT socialists by any means. Their wishy-washy liberals that are even sometimes friendly with the right.

[Blibblob]

Hippies are like an entire different species. They arent anything more than annoying *****y wackos.

[canikickit]

What's a hippy?

[bombeverything]

Quote: from Commie01 on 1:08 am on Jan. 19, 2003

Quote: from Blibblob on 10:45 pm on Jan. 18, 2003
HELL NO!!
Jesus was a selfish bastard. Constantly speaking about how he was god, and how every1 should love HIM, and then you can love your friends.


What bible did you read? Jesus did not claim to be the Son of God because he knew that people would think he was a political Messiah who had come to take the Jews land from the Romans. When Jesus' disciple Peter identified him as the Messiah Jesus told him not to tell anyone. When Jesus is bought before Pilate he was asked, "are you the king of the Jews?" Jesus refuses to say yes instead he said, "It is you that is saying it". Many of the things that Jesus said and did, although the gospels are not historically accurate, depict him as a communist and a pacifist. Here are some of my favorite quotes:

“Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common…..There was not one needy person among them” Acts 4:32-34

“They would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need….God added to their number those who were being saved” Acts 2:45

“No one can serve two masters; for a slave will either hate the one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth” Matt 5:24

“You have heard that it was said, An eye for eye a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist the evildoer. But if one strikes you on the cheek, turn the other also” Matt 5:38

“It is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich towards God” Luke 12:21

“So therefore none of you can be my disciple if you don’t give up all your possessions” Luke 14: 33

“But woe to you Pharisees for you! For you tithe mint and rue and herbs of all kinds, and neglect justice and love of God; it is these you ought to have practiced, without neglecting the others” Luke 11:42




I totally agree with you. I am presuming you are into liberation theology?

As for hippies, I know a few. Some are cool, some are not. It's rather simple.

[Blibblob]

Who do you agree with, cause nobody ever agrees with me.

[eleventeen crayon]

i dont mind hippies. generally, they are harmless. its sad that no one takes them seriously...but they dont have a strong political stance and their protests etc are never really effective. i know a few hippies and they are interesting people. i also know a few stoners who call themselves hippies just to "justify" or whatever their use of recreational drugs. so i agree with bombeverything, it all depends on the person. it would be unfair to make a sweeping generalization on whether i liked hippies or not.

[Beccie]

Bombeverything:

If it weren’t for liberation theology I would not call myself a Christian. It comforts me to know that people can discover the true meaning of the Gospels.

[red warlock]

Quote: from Commie01 on 6:20 am on Jan. 20, 2003
Bombeverything:

If it weren’t for liberation theology I would not call myself a Christian. It comforts me to know that people can discover the true meaning of the Gospels.


I agree with both your posts...
the gospels are not that easily to interprete and most of all they are not to be taken literally!!
Jesus' teachings free of all the jewish, mozaical traditions that were addedafterwards resamble to the hippie philosophy>>>

[Eastside Revolt]

My mom was at Kent State and if you saw pictures of my parents when they were young, you would agree that if anyony was a hippie it was them. What they have to say about hippies being "this" or "that" is: that hippies are just people like anyone; its like saying homies are all leftists. It was mostly a popular culture. One thing my parents always say is "The trouble with hippies is that they were like pigs; you could never find one when you needed them".