Jump to content

Talk:Jesus freak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1970s

[edit]

Was there ever a group called this in america back in the 1970's? [1]Mathmo 13:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was called The Jesus Movement, and I am doing research and finding out that the "Jesus Freaks" themselves liked to be called "Jesus People" not Jesus Freaks.. Alliereborn (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Many people I knew at the time referred to themselves and each other as Jesus Freaks. 2001:1890:1263:AFD:F81B:80A8:EDBD:853E (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manifesto

[edit]

The spelling and grammar in the manifesto are dire. Was the original like this or is this a poor copy? I don't want to change it in case it's meant to be like this. Anyone know? Froj 15:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling and grammar of this entire entry is dire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.98.206 (talk • contribs) 05:37, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

2007-02-7 Automated pywikipediabot message

[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 04:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that this article is beyond a dictionary article, and that is has encyclopedic content. It describes a movement. Royalbroil T : C 14:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In Australia and some other countries..."?!

[edit]

California uses the term widely for all manner of over-the-top or annoyingly proselytizing Christians who manage to make others around them uncomfortable (NOT a slur against all Christians and often used by Christians themselves - about those they see as being too fanatical or public about their faith). Seeing how California tends to set trends for the rest of the US, I suspect the term may be just as popular across America and beyond. For all my respect for Australia, even California alone has a bigger population, so that phrase just sounds iffy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.237.44 (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freak just meant "hippy"

[edit]

I believe hippies just called themselves "freaks", so if you were basically a hippy that was into Jesus, then you were a "Jesus freak", that is a "Jesus hippy". I think it only became pejorative later. Ekwos (talk) 03:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is more or less correct based on the sources. It's funny how fast words change meaning. Viriditas (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

[edit]

Do you need me to go and link every single person to a page that says they are a Jesus Freak? Because they all were in some way shape or form. They all had to deal with the Jesus Movement and were considered Jesus Freaks by the general populas! Alliereborn (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

You might be right. But, this must be verified with third-party sources. Please remove the list from the article. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What if I can give you the link to where I got the list from? Alliereborn (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Okay. But how about removing the list for now until we can check out the link? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay no problem here is the link http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jesus_MovementAlliereborn (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

That's not a credible source. Please remove the list until this is sorted out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is gone. Alliereborn (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Thanks very much. If you can dig up some good sources, then the list can have a place. Wikipedia is very careful about libelous or slanderous statements. We don't want to get sued. Many thanks, and happy editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay question, if I found something about Jesus Freaks in Europe can I add it under a culture section? http://www.hollywoodfreepaper.org/article.php?id=13 Alliereborn (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Well, it's not exactly independent of the subject. It actually claims to be "A Voice of the Jesus Movement Since 1969". An independent source would be best. See WP:GNG to understand what sources are acceptable.
Thought I might bring your attention to these articles, seeing that you're interested in the subject:
I will add them to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Googling this: "Jesus freaks" site:edu

...came up with [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

There are plenty more. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow thanks! I am really interested in this topic! I will go and visit those pages! Hopefully I can get better at editing!Alliereborn (talk) 07:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

You are doing a good job. I suggest going to a more fully developed article, clicking edit, and looking to see how it is laid out. If you need any advice or assistance, just drop me a line on my talk page. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) I apperate the help! Alliereborn (talk) 08:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

[edit]

I think you copy and pasted material from here and here. You must rewrite it in your own word or it is a copyright violation. Sorry to hassle you, but Wikipedia is also really serious about that. In fact, libel and copyright violations are really the only two things we are serious about. Really. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh I didn't know that! Thanks! I'll be sure to reword everything I took ;) Thanks again. Alliereborn (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Is it better now?Alliereborn (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

It looks fine to me. Well done. "Jesus Freak" Google this article as #1 hit. Plus, your work is instantly googlable. If you paste a sentence of what you just wrote in your own words into google, it will come up. In fact, over a hundred people a day will read what you've written. You are making a real contribution. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really!? Oh now that is cool! Thank you for helping me!96.35.178.90 (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn I just added some more info, thought it would be nice if people actually knew what a Jesus freak went through hope you enjoy! Alliereborn (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)Alliereborn[reply]

Pejorative

[edit]

I think it's a mistake to say the term was "incorrectly" used as a pejorative. Nearly any term can be used as a pejorative, whether the target group involved has embraced it or not. Using a term as a pejorative makes the sense of the term pejorative by definition. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that the terms: "Nigger," "white trash," "Mexican," and "liberal" all can be used pejoratively, or as a term of inclusion. And invoking the "authority" of one fiction writer on whether the term was used "correctly" seems extremely inadequate for an encyclopedia. o0drogue0o 18:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I came here to also say that I disagree with calling 'JesusFreak' "incorrectly used as a pejorative". I'm certain that it has been used pejoratively, lovingly, facetiously, satirically, on and on. It might be encyclopedic to talk about the earliest mentions about the terms connotation and how the usage has changed overtime, but I don't think enforcing a connotation on a term is encyclopedic and violates WP:NPOV in my opinion. Reworking this article and getting rid of of its unencyclopedic and disjointed beginning is something I intend to do through edits in the near future but I thought I'd seek consensus on the Talk page first Tjc (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, it is incorrectly "described" as a perjorative. Christian groups, long disaasociated from the counter-culture, and sharing no common values with the Jesus Movement, want to describe the word as a perjorative, likely because it builds into a persecution narrative that wasn't ever true. Wolf and Thompson essentially prove the word was never perjorative, until Howard Stern used it because the FCC would fine him for using anything stronger. And then, it was merely a fill in for an epithet, the way, in a certain tone of voice, "African American" can be made to sound harsher than "Nigger."

The authority invoked isn't one "fiction writer." The sheer ignorant arrogance of that statement is mind-blowing. Wolf is the most important journalist to cover the counter-culture of the 1960's. And then immediately following his reference, is a reference to Hunter Thompson, the second most important journalist to cover the counter-culture. Anyone familiar with the authors named will tell you that if they agree in serial, and you disagree with them, you're miles away from being right.

The word was not perjorative. It is only used as a "perjorative" on airways where harsher terms are punished and then, the harsher term is implied by tone. It is uncommon in speech except when used by Christians as a "co-opted" self-describer. Thus, it is not properly described as a perforative at all.

Don't the first two sentences, placed as they are without explanation, sort of contradict each other?

Yes, they do. In fact, the entire lede paragraph seems to me to be a serial chain of contradictory sentence in alternation, one after another. Your commentary on these matters was spot on, btw..it is rare to come across folks who fully grasp these concepts, even amongst intelligent circles. So, cheers to thee, whoever and whenever thou art and wrote this. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Transcendental Experience

[edit]

In the early 1970's, Jesus Freaks were called "freaks" because they, as individuals, had a sudden, overwhelming, involuntary, transcendental experience, in which Jesus Christ paid them a personal visit. Having no explanation, and finding no explanation in popular culture, they took their experience at face value and concluded that 1. Jesus was real, 2. that they should worship him, 3. they should preach in his name, and 4. they should associate with each other. To the best of my knowledge, these were once-in-a-lifetime experiences and were never repeated. I cannot say if this was the start of the current fundamentalist movement. I think the distinction between freaks and earlier fundamentalists needs clarification. I don't imagine they much cared for each other.

Since then I have been out of touch. It is unknown to me, and of great personal interest, if this is still the standard method of "induction" into this exclusive club. Or if this has been superseded by the standard "circus tent" revival meeting. Which at the time was wickedly parodied by Marjoe Gortner.

While one might expect Jesus Freaks to have been an outgrowth of LSD tripping, they were not. LSD as a pop drug started in the mid 1960's and though there were good trips and bad, religion was rarely if ever a part of them. Jesus freaks started about seven years later. As I had a "freak" experience myself, I strongly suspect Jesus Freaks were like me: No drug use whatever. My "freak" experience involved Ludwig van Beethoven and his 9th Symphony and it lasted a precise number of seconds, as any performance of the 9th will time it, to this day. It was in 1972, so at the start of the Jesus Freak movement. But as my visitor was not Jesus, I was thrown back on myself for explanation. Which, after more than 30 years, I eventually found. Which does not belong here.

"Freak" may no longer be the customary term, but it was at the time. It was not derogatory. It merely signified one who was in possession of his very own transcendental experience. By the early 1970's there were a great many such people. At the time, Vatican II survivors, such as myself, were in actual dread of a "Jesus freak" experience, not wanting to be dragged back to a religion we had left for good reason.

Increasingly Wiki is being sterilized by hard-core materialists. If I want to read the real poop, I go to the talk pages. Dave of Maryland (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2012

I would personally be just slightly more hesitant to completely rule out LSD as having some amount of influence in this phenomenon...indirectly, perhaps. Beyond merely the widely known and obvious fact that LSD can have an effect on an entire culture, despite only being consumed by a subset of society, there are also other, more literal senses of the drug's effects beyond merely the individuals that take it. Acid's effects are very often also experienced by others around that have not taken the drug - to a much milder degree, of course. I do not know if this phenomenon has ever been scientifically studied or documented - whether it has or has not I would think to be about equally likely - but everyone who has spent time in LSD-taking culture knows from countless personal experience that it is a real thing. Firejuggler86 (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The mention of "jesus freak" in a song or song title is not content for a subsection on the musical influence of the term or group. we need bands, musicians, who are/were jesus freaks and played music. the term was and is well known, and pop culture references for such things are not encyclopedic.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.36.185 (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus freak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus freak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus_freak&oldid=1200163069"