Forum equality

[The Guro]

Thanks BikerDude. That was an extremely clear statement of position...

My tirades were in support of the position of Dudeism however... not Christianity.

I agree with 'Under the Influence' not being intended to house one opinion. That's one reason why there are so many options in the sub-forum there. But each of them does have the intent of people sharing their opinions on what those influences can or have contributed to Dudeism. Dominating those specific forums with threads saying one doesn't contribute... doesn't really contribute an in context opinion. Your not disagreeing with a post there... you are disagreeing with the idea it has anything to contribute at all...

You are partially right. When you consider the current state of the religion and many people engaged in it. And Dudeism seems to support the same position on the present form most people encounter (in it's myriad flavors).

BUT... The forum and Dudeist materials reference:

There was a lot that was very Dudeish about Christianity's original, uncompromised first draft

Not current hypocrisies, shortcomings, interpretations, and straight up butchered renditions. And Dudeism is really only interested in cherry picking what does contribute to Dudeism. I know your feelings on Christians doing that (in fact you sound a bit like a Park Ranger yourself when you rail about it  ).

And there are Anti-Theist sanctuaries all over the internet dedicated to those working to liberate "Free-Thinking" people from the evils of myths, fairy tails, and other superstitions as they like to refer to Theism. In fact it's such a movement that maybe they deserve to have a section here for them if they feel there is something 'Dude' about what they believe.

I am a bit of a Park Ranger on forum integrity. I see a beautifully well thought out forum structure here that seems to have provided Dudeist with places to discuss whatever they want in places specifically tailored for those interests. And quite a few catch all areas for things lost in the shuffle. Why not use them and make it simple to find what we are looking for and participate in the areas of our interest. Like you said... hanging out with people who share similarities.

One final time... To go to a specific place... that has a specific topic... and intentionally initiate forum threads that are counter to that specific threads topic... Is straight-up unabashed trolling... with no real excuse to contradict that observation. At the very least you could wait for someone to post something and then respond with an opinion specific to that post to have the pretense of an intent other than instigating.

[SagebrushSage]

*deleting old posts*

[BikerDude]

Yeah you know very very mixed feelings about allowing this idea of a safe haven for Christians. For several reasons. Firstly because it is an acceptance that Christianity should have special treatment. Dudeism so far hasn't made anything out of bounds of any form of criticism. As long as it is not a personal attack. This is a good thing.
Secondly you have to understand that as an atheist I really do believe that irrational beliefs are harmful. And once we go down this path what for instance would you suggest should we should do if Scientologists came in here and started expounding their beliefs and posting info about meetings? Should it be out of bounds to point post articles about the horrors of that cult.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/ex-scientologist-reveals-shocking-life-inside-dangerous-secretive-cult-1434269
And when I do should I be accused of being undude because of the several Scientologists that have joined?
I only see the difference between Scientology and Christianity as a degree of harm.

[Reverend Al]

...I stick to my position that it is perfectly appropriate to take the position in the given context that Christianity is undude...

Actually, I think you've got that backwards and that Dudeism is un-Christian, which raises a question that I'd like to ask out of sincere curiosity simply because many of you know more about Christianity and the Bible than I ever have.  I don't know if this is the "proper" place to ask this question, but it seems to be somewhat related to the current conversation so what the hell.

Back in the days when I dabbled in Born Again Christianity (and I do mean dabbled), the Ten Commandments were arguably the most sacred of Christianity's "laws" or "rules" or whatever you call them.  Now, even though Dudeism is considered to be a non-theistic religion, it uses The Dude as an aspirational role model; i.e., we all want to be "Dudes" and be "more Dude-like".  So there is definitely a connection between "Dudeism" and "The Dude".  I mean, we don't "worship" The Dude in the same way that Christians worship God and/or Jesus Christ, but the Dude is clearly a figurehead.

So here's my question:  In that regard, doesn't Dudeism violate the first and second Commandments, and therefore directly contradict those Christian beliefs?

And I suppose that begs another question:  How do Christian Dudeists (or Dudeist Christians) reconcile that contradiction?

[The Guro]

"Beer - It's your friend!"

A fine point.  In response, I leave you with a quote from my favorite philosopher, King Solomon:

"Anyone who is among the living has hope - even a live dog is better off than a dead lion.  For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten.  Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun.     
Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for God has already approved what you do... Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." ~Ecclesiastes 9:4-7, 10 NIV

There is no afterlife according to the Bible.  I agree, but I do hope that the Bible is wrong about this.  Whatever you do, be it rest, play, study, or work, do it wholeheartedly while you still can.

This is one of many references that show that the Bible does not support the commonly held belief that they immediately go to heaven, hell, whatever when they die... but not that there is no afterlife. The OT references the resurrection of the Just and the Unjust... but yes... no fast ticket to immediately waking up to the eternal when your lights go out according to the Christian TOE of choice. Only stuff they tried to bend to that outcome😀

[The Guro]

BikerDude: I am not for special treatment or a safe haven... And definitely am not in favor of people of any faith being tolerated in directly and overtly promoting their 'world views' in an evangelistic manner. "I really do believe that irrational beliefs are harmful"... well... what's a rational belief? That definitely goes down as your opinion here... and that determination needs to be qualified by the information available (if Dude A actually has had tea with Bigfoot... who are you to judge if you never see him?) 

I am not sure if it actually is official anywhere... But I have been told that promoting another religion here in a context outside of a frame of reference to Dudeism is off limits... if not plainly told this... strongly inferred. I agree. If I want to promote a belief in its primary context beyond the scope of Dudeism... I will do it elsewhere if there is no place for it here. That's why I am making a site and keeping that out of here. I say warnings and bans for people who can't respectfully abide in Dudeism among other 'world views'... Christian, Taoist, FSMists, Atheists... and yes... Scientologists.

Judging 'world views' on their degree of harm... sounds exhausting compared to spreading the word on Dudeism and it degree of making the world a better place... no matter what your supplemental 'world view' happens to be.

[The Guro]

...I stick to my position that it is perfectly appropriate to take the position in the given context that Christianity is undude...

Actually, I think you've got that backwards and that Dudeism is un-Christian, which raises a question that I'd like to ask out of sincere curiosity simply because many of you know more about Christianity and the Bible than I ever have.  I don't know if this is the "proper" place to ask this question, but it seems to be somewhat related to the current conversation so what the hell.

Back in the days when I dabbled in Born Again Christianity (and I do mean dabbled), the Ten Commandments were arguably the most sacred of Christianity's "laws" or "rules" or whatever you call them.  Now, even though Dudeism is considered to be a non-theistic religion, it uses The Dude as an aspirational role model; i.e., we all want to be "Dudes" and be "more Dude-like".  So there is definitely a connection between "Dudeism" and "The Dude".  I mean, we don't "worship" The Dude in the same way that Christians worship God and/or Jesus Christ, but the Dude is clearly a figurehead.

So here's my question:  In that regard, doesn't Dudeism violate the first and second Commandments, and therefore directly contradict those Christian beliefs?

And I suppose that begs another question:  How do Christian Dudeists (or Dudeist Christians) reconcile that contradiction?

This is exactly why I love Dudeism! It will immediately engender a question such as this and open an opportunity to give an answer for both Dudeism and Christianity.

I see the 'Under the Influences' forum as a way for any 'world view' to share why or what they feel contributes to Dudeism... or at least being more Dudely. When a Christian sees me rocking a "I am an ordained Dudeist Priest" shirt, bumper stickers, patches, or I attend a Christian function in my vestments... Someone is going to ask me something

But in answer to your question without writing a study on it here (again... I need to save something for my site)... No. It does not violate the Patriarchal 10 commandments or more importantly the summation of them given by the Dude Jesus Christ (and only since you posed that excellent question I will make this reference):

Matthew 22:37-40  Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

The first is my business and has no place in Dudeism as a concern... the second is the epitome of being a Dudeist. Along with others that speak on loving your enemies and other Dudeist aligned principles.

I see no problem with being a Dudeist Christian/Dudeo-Christian. In fact if someone was embracing the full measure of being a Dudeist I think this applies:

Romans 2:14-15  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)

A practicing Dudeist is being a better 'Christian' than any that claim that title and don't live in the real spirit of (IMO) the "original, uncompromised first draft" of what the Dude Jesus put out... But that's just my opinion maybe. I am for the Dudeification of all men as they see the merits of the Dudeist way in their own unique path.

Romans 12:18  If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

That's the most Bible quoting I have done in a while... In fact I think my tally of quotes still favors Dudeist materials

Abiding!

[SagebrushSage]

*deleting old posts*

[RandoRock]

I for one believe there should be no part of the forum where any topic, whether good or bad, is off limits. Part of abiding is accepting things you may not agree with and trying to set up safe zones where certain things cannot be said is just censorship by a different name. Much like the safe zones being set up across college campus's are a blatant attack on the 1st amendment. Whatever happened to just ignoring the ideas you don't agree with?

[Reverend Al]

...But in answer to your question without writing a study on it here...

Thank you ChristianDude.  As long as you don't personally see a conflict, that's fine with me.

Some of the Christians I used to run with were very adamant about issues such as this, and would chastise you for something as common as hanging a poster of your favorite athlete or musical group in your home; "Putting him/them before God" and "Worshiping false idols" and such.  On the other hand, a good and more rationally-minded friend joked about Mickey Mouse being Satanic because he had a "widow's peak", so you do have to consider the source.

...Routinely ignored commandments include remembering the Sabbath, honoring your father and mother, not committing adultery, bearing false witness, and coveting your neighbor's possessions...

Hell, the issue of "coveting" alone would put advertisers out of business.

I for one believe there should be no part of the forum where any topic, whether good or bad, is off limits. Part of abiding is accepting things you may not agree with and trying to set up safe zones where certain things cannot be said is just censorship by a different name. Much like the safe zones being set up across college campus's are a blatant attack on the 1st amendment. Whatever happened to just ignoring the ideas you don't agree with?

Forum posts are the online version of a real life conversation.  In both cases they can veer off-topic, sometimes wildly so.  So as long as the "conversation" falls within whatever guidelines the forum has established, i.e., "no political discussions", "no comments of a sexual nature", and so on, I personally agree nothing should be off limits.  I prefer constructive conversations rather than debates that devolve into insults and name-calling, but that's just me. 

That being said, this is a forum about Dudeism first and foremost.  So if someone were to come here and start making posts that were obviously not in-line with our Dudeist beliefs, I think we should put a stop to it as soon as we possibly could.  This isn't 'Nam and, as comparatively free as this forum is, there are rules.

[RandoRock]

Reverend Al: It's funny that you mentioned the Mickey Mouse Satanist thing, when I was in high school I began dating a girl who's family was very, very religious. I have always leaned towards a more atheist belief system but nonetheless when I met her parents the first time I kept all my beliefs to myself and presented with the traditional Christian upbringing I had. Little did I know I was DOA since I have a pretty prominent widows peak, the moment they saw that it was over and nothing I said or did could convince them that I wasn't the devil in disguise. To this day it was the only time I've ever heard the word vampire used in a serious conversation. Although in hindsight they might have been right about me being a bad influence.

I can't argue against constructive conversation but I have to admit I am a fan of a good spirited debate. I don't think that diving into personal insults is ever a good way to go but a topic that inspires passion on two sides can usually lead to pretty good discussion. I get what you're saying about keeping things within the topic outlined by the forums and I agree with that 100%. It's saying that posts on that topic have to meet a certain criteria that makes me disagree. Should all the topics in the Jesus sub forum relate to Christianity? Absolutely. Should they all be positive? No, I think as long as people are keeping on topic there is no reason to try and censor anyone. That's the only point I've been trying to make in all these Christianity related posts.

[The Guro]

Should all the topics in the Jesus sub forum relate to Christianity? Absolutely. Should they all be positive? No, I think as long as people are keeping on topic there is no reason to try and censor anyone. That's the only point I've been trying to make in all these Christianity related posts.

I don't really think they should relate to Christianity in 'general'... just that they should relate to what

was very Dudeish about Christianity's original, uncompromised first draft.

No more... no less... With comments both 'for' or 'against' made in reply to a threads assertion of the same.

And it would be nice if it was a given that any thread aimed at going further than that (again either 'for' or 'against') shouldn't be (whatever label or level you want... Tolerated, Allowed, Encouraged). That would keep Dudes from either side from crossing a line in my opinion and at least for that 'Under the Influences' forum area keep the flow towards enhancing Dudeist principles from multiple sources and encouraging those from other backgrounds to be Dudes and maybe even consider that some other influences deserve a better un-biased look at what they bring to the table to enhance Dudeism.

I still might be crazy... but it sure seems like that was the reasoning behind the forum section and what is laid out as a good approach to the Dudeway by The Dudely Lama.

[SagebrushSage]

*deleting old posts*

[Reverend Al]

Reverend Al: It's funny that you mentioned the Mickey Mouse Satanist thing, when I was in high school I began dating a girl who's family was very, very religious. I have always leaned towards a more atheist belief system but nonetheless when I met her parents the first time I kept all my beliefs to myself and presented with the traditional Christian upbringing I had. Little did I know I was DOA since I have a pretty prominent widows peak, the moment they saw that it was over and nothing I said or did could convince them that I wasn't the devil in disguise. To this day it was the only time I've ever heard the word vampire used in a serious conversation. Although in hindsight they might have been right about me being a bad influence.

It's sad to know people like that actually exist in our society, but it's an example of the extremist kind of Christians that I used to encounter.   Granted, they were a minority percentage, but I think the extremists in any group tend to cast a negative shadow over the rest of that group.

I can't argue against constructive conversation but I have to admit I am a fan of a good spirited debate.

The operative word here being "good".  Debate is healthy, and even if the end result is a stalemate the participants generally have at least a slightly better understanding of all of the issues involved.  With regards to Dudeism, our discussions here show just how complex and difficult it can be to reach a consensus on what Dudeism should and/or should not be.

The widow's peak is a dominant trait.  Straight hairlines are recessive.  Men have widow's peaks more often than not...

Not only do I not have a widow's peak, but I'm convinced my hairline is afraid of my eyebrows 'cause it's been slowly backing away from them for several years now.  My forehead has become a fivehead, and it's working it's way towards becoming a sixhead. 

[The Guro]

The widow's peak is a dominant trait.  Straight hairlines are recessive.  Men have widow's peaks more often than not...

Not only do I not have a widow's peak, but I'm convinced my hairline is afraid of my eyebrows 'cause it's been slowly backing away from them for several years now.  My forehead has become a fivehead, and it's working it's way towards becoming a sixhead. 

That is some funny schtuff! I have thinned out on my cap

That widows peak mumbo jumbo is real Salem witch hunt era stuff! Wonder what they think of red hair and third nipples!