That's fucking interesting, man, that's fucking interesting.

[meekon5]

Of all the Xian - Dudeism articles, I think this one was the best. But I don't think any of them are offensive.

I think I was taking more the point of view of questioning whether I should be offended, more than saying I was offended (it was an open question to the theoretical reader to comment on).

For me it's just that Chistianity is "overplayed" - like a pop song that you hear too much. I too groan at attempts to link Jesus with the Dude but only because Jesus is like Britney Spears and the Dude is so much more unsullied and non-co-opted by nations and corporations and armies of slavish dimwits. But people do feel strongly about the original Jesus, and if we can help show Xians how they might re-fashion their savior into an image more in keeping with his Dudeist origins, then we've done a good deed. Am I wrong?

Or xianity is like the glam rock bands at the onset of punk, trying to catch on to the new trendy exciting religion that is growing by saying Dudeism is really xianity therefore xianity is still relevant today by association.

I've replied to Cakebelly's complaint and Meekon's reply, which Meekon posted in the comments section of the article. http://dudespaper.com/saint-lebowski.html/comment-page-1/#comment-3720

Please reply here, there or everywhere!

I can identify with Cakes point of view. Though there are a number of very obviously xian members of this forum, TheRighteousDude for instance (Though he is working very much in the other direction, having listened to a couple of his podcasts, heavily pointing out Jesus's Dudeist aspects, with reference to his extensive biblical knowledge, though I did feel like i was playing bingo when he started quoting chapter and verse, sorry righeous ).

I do occasionally feel embattled by people trying to take what is the culmination of a life of religious study that finally makes sense of what I have been doing and where I have traveled (don't even mention the road less traveled) and twist it either to a slavish cult of low intellect morons who can only quote from their version of the film script, or another branch of a religion that I rejected at the age of thirteen as being completely unsuitable for me because I failed to identify with any of the text or the way it's practiced (IMHO).

(I may come back and put more punctuation in that last paragraph later)

Forum Dude I do see your point of view. But I am very much of the Buddhist based line when it comes to these xian diatribes (also Dudeist ritual, Dudeist prayer, and Dudeist saints)

"That is your point of view, and it works for you , but stop waving it in my face because it doesn't work for me."

I find this works for most things from sexism, to sexuality, politics, to philosophy, and especially religion.

I am a Practicing Pagan as well as a Dudeist, and you don't see me post things like "That Dude, he's really like Pan because..."

(I am on holiday now until January, so I may come back with a full critical analysis of this article later, or a may even get some work done on my Dudeist I-Ching I keep threatening).

[cakebelly]

                                                

Well, fuck it - now I feel compelled to reply  ; I wasn't offended, particularly, by the article in question. I don't think the pictures that were added did the Xian's words any great service - in fact I found them rather patronising ("Jesus is cool" with an electric guitar / Jesus as Superman . . I may give the impression that I am immature, from time to time, especially with the gifs and smileys and shit but really, I ain't 14 years old). However, that is just my opinion and I guess the pics were added as a kind of 'welcome mat' for the Xian's text - a friendly overture, if you will to his sermon - I mean, er . . rap.

I'm not sure the "onus" is on us to do anything, actually . . well, maybe draw a line when/if it looks as if Xian folk are trying a little too hard to draw parallels between their myth and ours. I am not an evangelical so I won't be partaking of any "steering' activities.

Hmm, "bridge building" - I was not aware that there were any bridges that needed construction or repair. I thought the dust had more or less settled in that particular arena of debate. I guess I was wrong. I have had a look at Mr. Byassee's site and read a few of his posts concerning various topics including Missionary work and 'New' Evangelism (and I was immediately reminded of a quote from an anonymous African on his view of Missionaries: " When white man first came nigger had land, he had Bible - now white man has land and nigger has bible"*). One ought, I imagine, to be careful that the  'bridge/s' that you hope to be built are not pontoon bridges to expedite the  assault and advance of Xian shock-evangelical-troops.  

EDIT:* I think the quote came from:
It has been years since I read it (I have never owned a copy but would like to if anyone has it on a digital format)

I trust that the Phd after Mr. Byassee's handle hasn't coloured anyone's impression on the depth of his (for want of a better expression) spiritual insight. He does appear to be an erudite chap; I know that M5 is an erudite chap, too - you yourself are also a learned man. I, myself, am not but I know that his chosen example of Mother Teresa as the avatar of holiness (in our time) is dubious (to say the least). You've got to be f'n kidding me . .

http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Aplank/Criticisms_of_Mother_Teresa
http://www.fitz-claridge.com/Articles/MotherTeresa.html
http://www.meteorbooks.com/introduction.html

His inclusion of MT - as holy avatar - speaks volumes, to me, of his lack of perception in these matters. He may be trying to correct that by - as you put it - bridge building and I am not attacking his character or doubting his good intentions. He is a very well educated cleric - I see no evidence that he is anything else. A 'good man and thurra' he may be but I can most definitely decide for myself whom I consider to be holy or worthy of my esteem, thanks very much. Saints are generally dubbed so because they live lives to the extreme letter of their dogma. There are real saints among us who go unmarked by us - or the world - everywhere. In my book they are generally untainted by dogma (Dudeist, Xian or otherwise). Fuck it.

I'll let the zealot thing pass but I must take issue with the 'knee-jerk-anti-Jesus-club" remark.

[cakebelly]

In fact I may even resort to a 'fuck you' - no one on this forum, to my knowledge, is anti-Jesus. I thought we had done all that. No one, here, to my knowledge is a knee-jerk reactionary. Oh, we may spout and vomit up the odd diatribe, now and again, but we are generally just fuckin' around and playing (unless otherwise stated). Why do you think JC appears in those little videos I put together? We accept and take on board the essence of JC's teaching (not the Church dogma - okay, we are guilty of accepting what we think was/is the essence of JC's teaching); along with all the other groovy stuff that we find - we are not (as yet) restrained by our own dogma. Dude Soup, Dude (another image from the vids). We want to drink heartily of Dude Soup but we don't want to choke on the croutons of dogma (especially some other faith's dogma). I can't believe I just typed "croutons of dogma").

I guess (speaking for myself) I was just feeling a little run down when I viewed the post we are discussing (and patronised as mentioned). I have no ill-will towards the Methodist Dude or anyone else, here. Yeah, it would be nice to hear from other folk - as you say - Dude Buddha, Dude Humanist, Dude Flat Earth Society . . what-have-you. All are welcome to add their flavours to our soup. But we've done the Jesus thing, haven't we?

                         

Here's a Dudtide gift for ya'll (a fun read for the hols); "Lamb,The Gospel According To Biff (Christ's Childhood Friend)": http://www.mediafire.com/?9cdvoqvhjacsyc4                    

[cckeiser]

I have no problem with Religions. My problem is with the Religious.

[Caesar dude]

This is fucking brilliant:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20101217/tuk-farmer-accidentally-shot-burglars-6323e80.html

Yeah sure he didn't know his shed was being used as a cannabis farm....Yeah sure he was shooting at a fox.....

Bloody good shooting that man...and this from a mobility scooter!!! 

Peace dudes. 

[cakebelly]

  "It was pitch black. Black as your hat. There are no lights here at all"

[meekon5]

....
I trust that the Phd after Mr. Byassee's handle hasn't coloured anyone's impression on the depth of his (for want of a better expression) spiritual insight. He does appear to be an erudite chap; I know that M5 is an erudite chap, too - you yourself are also a learned man. I, myself, am not but I know that his chosen example of Mother Teresa as the avatar of holiness (in our time) is dubious (to say the least). You've got to be f'n kidding me
....

Firstly thank you for that cake.

1)

I personally draw a distinction between academic, intellectual, and clever.

Having seen the quality of university students (I was a mature student at Durham, UK, an oxymoron I know but anyway) it is my belief that all university (in the UK especially) does for you is make you able to get a degree. In fact it is much like the IQ test, the only thing the IQ test measures is how well you can do the IQ test (do look into why the French who invented it abandoned it in the fifties). Getting a degree just proves you're good at getting a degree. (IMHO)

(see also pay particular attention to Binet's own comments on his tests:
http://iq-test.learninginfo.org/iq01.htm
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/int-history.htm
http://www.iqtest-center.com/history.php)

I hope Klaus wont mind me mentioning this (sorry mate if you do mind). I have seen him do a two page quadratic equation (to calculate pressures of gases) which he does on a regular basis. Now he himself will be the first to say he has very little academic experience, but is one of the cleverest people I know.

I think here I'm saying be careful when someone feels they have to "publish" the fact they are  a PhD.

2)

I find the level of academia and so called clever publication (particularly television) has dropped considerably in recent times.

For instance there was recently reported by the BBC (sorry can't  find the links) an academic proposing that the "Carry On" films were an excellent indicator of sexual attitudes towards women when studied together.

Now I find this particularly ridiculous because even their producer is quoted as having said he was surprised he had been allowed to get away with the same joke so many times. A much better way to do this with film would be to take a genre (say Sci Fi) and plot a similar period from Baberella to Alien Resurrection.

I find academics are becoming very lazy in their hypothesis, probably because if you don't make it too complicated it is easier to argue the case (see another case in point, THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA, not what you think a very interesting point of view on cinema, but watch it then go back and look more carefully at the films he has chosen as examples).

If you don't ask hard questions you don't have to look too deeply to find the answer you want to find.

3)

Finally there is a blind spot in most xian review of the message of Jesus. There is a complete negation of the fact that the Bile (sorry Freudin slip meant Bible) as we have it is a distillation committed and approved by the Catholic Church by The Council of Carthage, held on 28 August 397 CE (I use CE, Common Era, rather than Anno Domini, AD, because it is none sectarian).

(see: http://romanchristendom.blogspot.com/2008/03/where-do-books-of-bible-come-from.html and http://bfhu.wordpress.com/2007/03/20/who-decided-which-books-should-be-in-the-bible/) and that there are other extant texts from branches of the church purposefully destroyed by the ROMAN Catholic Church, in it's fight to gain dominance.

The Vandals are often cited as destroying Rome, but the Vandals where actually just another branch of xian faith (Arain Christians, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Domestic_religious_tensions and http://www.roman-empire.net/articles/article-016.html). The sacking of Rome being the end of a disagreement about land the Romans had promised them.

The Coptic church was a similar victim of religious consolidation, Unfortuntly for the Roman xians there is a surviving set of documents from this church.

The Nag Hammada Library (see http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html , http://www.nag-hammadi.com/, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library, I myself have an English translation of this in my library)has such jewels as the gospel according to Mary Magdalene (hints and fragments only, but also leading to theories that Jesus passed his true doctrine on to his favourite disciple Mary Magdalene herself) and the gospel according to Thomas the doubter (removed because a religion that does need someone to stand between you and your god to interpret, lacks the potential to charge you for the privilege (IMHO)).

When constructing a critique of a a historical persons point of view one should look at all evidence not just one source produced to give one biased view point.

---
So that's my opinion.

Well that was a fun Saturday morning .

[DigitalBuddha]

"It was pitch black. Black as your hat. There are no lights here at all"

........darker'n a black steer's tookus on a moonless prairie night?

[forumdude]

Yeah, none of this religulous stuff should be taken too seriously. Always gets peoples' hackles up. But obviously Cakebelly (hallowed be his handle) is a bit sensitive about it too! The knee jerk remark wasn't directed at you, cakes.

Don't worry - there's no danger of a council of Carthage (I thought it was the council of Nicea?) forming Dudeism into a fascist cult like the Catholic one. You guys are here to help prevent that from happening.

Just want to make sure that we keep the welcome mat out for The Jesusish folks, even if they can be goddamn morons (just like everyone). The worst thing about them (again, my opinion, man) is that they can be boring. Like listening to a broken record. When I said the "onus is on us" I mean that as Dudeists we should act like the Dude and try and try to incorporate and identify the far out while parrying the full of shit as pacifistically as possible.

[SpaceDog]

I tend to agree with cakebelly & meekon5.

That's all I'm saying, man. Nothing else.

[forumdude]

They are indeed honorable, perceptive, and interesting fellows. No disagreement here.

[cakebelly]

Why, we are all interesting, honorable but slightly gamey chaps; Dude bless us, everyone   You know you are in the right religion when you can say "fuck you" to the DL  . You possess, Dude, a very fine pair of knees, unblemished by the ravages of time, not a rug-burn or weeping-sore in sight; strong - yet somehow womanly - knees, zesty knees . . dare I say Holy Knees(?) Knees that we can all follow. Well done . . and fuck you, again.
Now I must go and rinse out those hair Y-fronts that M5 lent me - Merry Dudetide, folks and fuck you all, too.

[meekon5]

...Don't worry - there's no danger of a council of Carthage (I thought it was the council of Nicea?) forming Dudeism into a fascist cult like the Catholic one. You guys are here to help prevent that from happening...

Depending on which version, there are various councils that ratified without a "Revelations" ending, but The Council of Carthage remained the official version for about a thousand years.

I still go with the Buddhist saying that you may have gotten the religion wrong this lifetime perhaps you'll do better next one.



(Tetchy old fart signing off)

[cckeiser]

I'm a Christian.
Yep,that is what that second c stands for in c.c.keiser! 8^)
I was born and raised roman catholic. Went through 12 years of catholic schools. After graduating and escaping the brainwashing of the church I morphed into Atheism in my 20s. Took another 30 years to rid myself of the last of their mind fucking. But still find myself taking the name in vain when I'm startled. Some mind fucks just run to frickin deep.
If you really want to know about The Church you need to research how they got started in the Dark Ages. Anything written after the year 400 is suspect and of little value since just about everything after that date was written by The Church itself.
The Dark Ages are "dark" because that is what The Church wanted. They wanted to erase or rewrite all history that did not conform to their teachings.
They sparked The Great Migration by persecuting the Druids and "Heathens" that would not convert. Everyone was fleeing in terror of the army of the church, but where ever they fled the church was either there already or not far behind.
By the time of Charlemagne there was no place left to run.
If you want to know the truth about the church, start with Charlemagne and work backwards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
Just remember that just about everything you read after the year 400 was pretty much written by The Church itself. The Jesuits were every where and have pretty much corrupted all history ever since.

[forumdude]

far out. i guess i have to change my middle initial to D. at the moment it's A, which is cool by me as well - anarchy? atheism? antidisestablishmentarianism? two out of three ain't bad.

on the whole all religions are full of mind fucking. buddhism isn't that much better, at least the way it's practiced here in asia. taoism is a mess of magic tricks.

there was a great chapter in "the lucifer principle," a book i read years ago which drove the point home that control of the invisible is far more important than control of the visible in recounting the henry vs hildebrand debacle - http://www.scribd.com/doc/22589677/Howard-Bloom-The-Lucifer-Principle.

luckily, there isn't anything invisible in dudeism. hopefully it will stay that way.