Well, on a methodological note, Christian values are innately antithetical to 'hippie' culture. As stated, their predisposition to promote the underlying ideals of the economic system of the time is what has made them so pervasive. From the inception of the hierarchal ministry structure of Christianity, and its adoption by the Roman Empire as the sanctioned religion, its values have consistently encourage and conflated themselves with economic models.Bloodline of the Holy Grail by Sir Laurence Gardner = Utter ownage
Why is it that when people make a conscious decision to change their life and take steps to achieve their goals, they attribute their success to God? Are they afraid of being responsible for their own life? Is it that far fetched to believe that man is capable of altering his reality?
In Mark 11:24, Jesus Christ said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.” He was referring to creating reality, manifesting thoughts and ideas, the power of the mind and the power that man posesses.
Anyway, the whole thing bothers me. Religions just seem like massive cults of followers unwilling to entertain arguments that challenge or test their blind faith. Not to mention that Christians are by far some of the most unchristian people you will ever meet. A whole base supposedly devout followers of a hippy pacifist, who support wars and violence, and vehemently oppose government assistance programs to the impoverished. How hilarious is that?
Anyway, in short, the bible was written by men, not god. The end.
Christianity represents the 'best defense' from a
pastoral-materialist world view. The majority of religions/idealogues to that point had expressed man as a positive self-determination of an objective 'Nature'. Therefore, exchange with 'Nature' was seen as necessarily reciprocal for the alienation of man from the objective 'Nature' was an alienation oif man from himself. By positing the triad incorporeal God-Head as the creator of existence, and thereby creator of man, 'Nature' is not given the same credence in Christian theology and institution. Thereby also positing Man as the subjective representation, in conscious form, of the objective value of 'God'. This allows for both exploitation of Nature and its justification (God's way).
Aside from that, I don't find any advantage in generalizing Christians. We all adhere to certain ideologies and normative values, but I think it unfair to 'lump' individuals under collective categories. I have met many Christians, B-Fidday included, who are open to the historicity of their faith, and its basis in a material reality.