Indervidual Stances vs Collective Ones

[Andrea Da Fino]

Fucking A, man! I'll see what comes to my mind and add something tomorrow, must go now. 

[Landshark]

...A lot of this work has been accomplished by our compeers, Buddhism/Taoism have very compatible views to our general Dudeist abiding. I say we take any rug in the house that will tie our room together and then make it our own, they wont mind...

See that's what I call proper Dudeism, why do the work ourselves when we can plagiarise some other religion and be done with it.

(I mean it worked for J. K. Rowling very successfully)

Stealing from one person is plagiarism stealing from may is research.

[Andrea Da Fino]

Just a thought about clear definiton of Dudeism: I think we already have it, at least I've got a pretty clear idea of Dudeism reading the website, not the first time but I've read the holy words of DL and AD more than once, and I still do when I need to refresh the concept.

As an European, and someone who lives in the land of Vatican, I've difficulties to understand different points of view about clashes with Christians here, or somewhere else. Actually Christians are those mellow followers of JCD who probably dig our style. You know, all that Golden Rule thing. Maybe Catholics would be a much better correct name. Or Catholic Sect, or Branch, or whatever. There is a distinction: Catholics were those who burned people, Christians were those crucified. This is the correct nomenclature imho.
And as someone wiser than me said there can be a Christian Dude, a Baptist Dude, an Atheist Dude, a Buddhist Dude and so on. Dudeism lets no one out, if he or she is a dude.

Which takes us down to the thing of understanding what Dudeism and being a Dude is, which is not so difficult to feel, but maybe to put in writing yes. Otherwise we could have people who self apply the name Dude to themselves while in reality they are not, like the above examples of Dudeist rapist or Dudeist lobbyist etc.
Or if you prefer those who self apply the term Christians while in reality JCD would just kick their asses, or balls.

It's not how someone calls himself that matters, but how he behaves. As you say being a Dude is being it, not saying I'm a Dude.

Might it be that it could be a good idea, after having summarized and plagiarized everything we see fit, to illustrate the point with examples and short pieces? And let everyone draw his or her own conclusions? That's what we do when we take examples from the TBL right? Taking examples to illustrate a point.

Just strands going around. 

One of the things which makes a Dude, and this relates to the thread hopefully, is not much what you do but why you do. Example: someone thorws a bowling ball to the head of someone else. That's undude. Well, it depends. It's undude if you do it to steal his money, it's dude if he's trying to rape your  daughter. It's not much what happens but why it happens. Just like saying that it's not a weapon which is bad by itself, it depends from who uses it and why. Offence-defence......

Anyway Rev. Ed, next two weeks I'm going to be pretty busy but I'll do my best to contribute to this and the others modest tasks we're blathering about. 

[Rev. Ed C]

Yeah, the idea of talking about these Abidist Inquiries is to set out something that simple and at our core that people can understand easily.  The rest is all free and easy and hazy, from our books to our Dudespaper articles, to whatever goes down at the upcoming Abide University.

We don't want to stuff all of our philosophy onto a stone tablet, but we do want to let people know what are core ideals/principals are, and so define Dudeism and what being a Dude is.

It's like the questions "what makes a man?"  We're looking to say "A pair of testicles" and people can find out what else makes him later.  As long as we have a good starting definition, the other stuff about "doing the right thing" and all that comes through interpretation.

There are many types of men, but I think we can agree, they all have testicles!
(metaphorically speaking, having lost one or more testicles makes you no less a man, I hasten to add!)

[meekon5]

So what's this about these Abidist Inquisitions?

(sorry have to do it:

"No one expects the Abidist Inquisition!"

)

Ah! I feel better now.

[Rev. Gary (revgms)]

Aw shit, just used that same joke "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" at the Colbert forum.

Meekon are you following me? Get out of the fucking car man!

So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.

[meekon5]

Aw shit, just used that same joke "no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!" at the Colbert forum.

Meekon are you following me? Get out of the fucking car man!

So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.

Yeh but i had to set my own up there first.

[Rev. Ed C]

The Abidist Inquisition... hmm...

That sounds like it could be more like Eddie Izzard's Church of England Inquisition to me:  "Cake or death?"

[Andrea Da Fino]

Dude, you've been found guilty of undude behavior, what's your answer?

Sometimes I'm a dick.

Ok then, drink ten beers, ten white russians, have a zesty enterprise and come back for a recheck of your dudeliness. 

[meekon5]

The Abidist Inquisition... hmm...

That sounds like it could be more like Eddie Izzard's Church of England Inquisition to me:  "Cake or death?"

Cake every time.

[Landshark]

WELL WE"RE OUT OF  CAKE! We only had three bits and we didn't expect such a rush.

Good stuff, man.

[meekon5]

There is no Cake!

The cake is a lie.

(to quote Portal).

[Rev. Ed C]

Does this mean we take a collective stance on cake?  Because to be honest, I'm not a big fan myself.

If it becomes a requirement for all Dudeists to eat cake, I'm out!!

[Hominid]

So I am starting to notice, a fondness for Monty Python seems to be a Dude indicator.

Fuckin' eh...  Ministry of Funny Walks.

[Rev. RJ Dudemiester]

Curiously- the post i just made in the last thread is rather applicable here-
given that we all generally understand that once a religion begins to codify stances on subjects, they eventually become rigid dogma that eventually ceases to be of service to the people in their time and place.

i would suggest that IF there is a stance to take- it ought to be the Golden Rule.
It sorta covers the reasoning behind just about any stance on any subject, without being rigid or uptight about it.  or at least it seems to be able to work that way.