7 sins

[Rev. Ed C]

Heh, well, all that said, there does seem to be a lot of ripples on this end of the forum now.

I don't think anyone is either advocating fascism or putting down the bible belt, Italy or whathaveyou.  But all the points thusfar are valid, I feel.

We're debating a philosophy here and building upon the bones of an ethos that's long existed to try and form some sort of cohesive religious dogma we can all get behind.  I think we can bring in a lot of good from many different religions be they eastern, Zionist or antiquated and extinct.  The thing is to enrich what we're coming together to talk about and practice with things that fit in with what we're trying to achieve.

That is to say... if it's Dudely, let's talk about it and use it.  It's sometimes hard to tiptoe around things that don't seem to be relevant, but then again, maybe we shouldn't, because the whole point about philosophising is to ask questions and seek answers.  With theology and religion it's the same thing, trying to root out the answers, be they positive or negative within the bounds of your ethos.

So, I guess the question still standing is:  Is sin a part of Dudeism?

Well, if it is, it's certainly not the sort of sinning that is associated with other religions.  I think the best way to put it is, undudely.  Anger is undudely, rudeness is undudely, stresspassing is undudely, etc.  We have own own version of sin already, we just need to identify it for the purposes of this argument.  No point in trying to make seven, as a christian parody, we just need to realise what we should and shouldn't be doing to stay within the confines of our beliefs.

Now, I'm not suggesting we start saying there's such a thing as sin in Dudeism, but there is sin in moralistic beliefs, and I'd like to think we have our own version of moralism, because let's face it, we don't really want to be entrenched with arseholes here, cleft or otherwise.  A little bit of positive ethics go into making us a decent bunch of guys, am I right?  Let's not force them on people, but accept that we're generally all a bunch of nice guys and gals, and to be an arse is undudely, what others might call a sin.

So, stresspasses and being undudely, two Dudeist terms that bypass "sin" and become unique to us.  They don't bring us closer to "damnation" (because we have no such thing), but they do keep us from our own happiness, so they can't be compared with "sins", but they are something similar, a big no-no, not a taboo and a cause for chastisement and penance, but a personal shortcoming that can indicate a need for improvement.

The thing about "sin" is that it implies a wrongdoing that requires punishment, and leads to damnation.  We have neither of those two things, and so our closest equivalent really can't be equated to "sin", but is the best version of if we have.

Phew, did I pull us out of the muck, or drag us further back in  

[meekon5]

Just a couple of points.

Bartender stop taking things personally please. I do have friends who are christian. But as a Pagan I can be a bit sensitive about the use of certain (christian) terms.

Secondly Forum from their inception have been areas to discuss and argue your point of view, and not the "Your mums so fat" type argument but reasoned well thought out discussion.

Only by discussing our differing points of view do we get to test the boundaries of how well we believe our own point of view. If you live your life just saying "this is so" and not listening to others you will only stagnate in your view point.

By arguing and discussing we test the edges of what we see as our collective faith here. It gives us the opportunity to expand our viewpoint and get ideas we may never have heard of before.

I don't see rushing in shouting and throwing our toys down then storming out as being a good way to discuss things.

I know there are a few Dudeist christians here on the site, as well as Dudeist atheists, and my self as a Dudeist Pagan. I don't claim my way is the right or best way to do things.

I do think we may all be arguing the same point but getting confused by focusing too closely on the nomenclature that each are using.

I have seen Pagan sites infiltrated by right wing reactionary christians and ripped apart from the inside and do panic at times when (what seems to me) christian ethics start to be pushed in a site I have grown to care dearly about.

So do be aware I may that I may react violently when I think the christians are at he gate.

...Whoa.  

What does the US bible belt have to with anything.  There isn't a literal connection.  There isn't any connection...

The problem with online discussions is you can't actually see the other person as they are "talking".

Don't take things so personally (or too seriously, treat most of my posts as very sarcastic, but affectionate, leg pulls, of the sort in a conversation down the pub). Klaus knows how bad I can be sometimes (I think it was Klaus that finally realised that I am sarcastic on a genetic level so can't help it).

I am generally worried about christianisation of anything (being a Pagan myself I tend to be a bit sensitive to the subject). Not specifically worried about you trying to christianise the forum.

As a non-christian I see your President, and my Prime Minister (and particularly ex-prime minister Blare) sucking up to the church (Blare going as far as converting to Catholicism).

I know this is because both nations are supposed to be christian states, but I know very few practicing christians. Now that may just be my milieu. I know the recent census had a religion question that was optional, I haven't seen the stats on the distribution but the last census before that put religion at 70% christian, but I think people tick that box without thinking about the question.

I live in fear of what we are told (again the news media filters the worst bits IN to make the news more exciting) the american right christian moral "majority" in some areas is actually doing with education and politics.

Though you see no literal connection all of these factors start to ring my paranoid bells, so when there is a big discussion using (what I see as) christian terminology, I jump on the soap box and start shouting through the megaphone.

But that is only because I care intensely for the point of view and the reason i enjoy being here and discussing the faith we share.

Whenever I catch sight of others,
By thinking, "It is through them,
That I will reach awakening,"
I'll look with sincerity and love.

[Klaus Korters]

Klaus knows how bad I can be sometimes (I think it was Klaus that finally realised that I am sarcastic on a genetic level so can't help it).

Fuckin' A man!
Reading that whole thread was like watching kids findin' a gun and havin' some fun...........till it went off!

[greatspiritmonk]

Wow this thread is getting very interesting. Let's see if I can add something more.
First: I know I'm slicing hairs here but Catholics and Christians are two different things, Christians were those Dude-like ones eaten by lions, Catholics were those who invented people flamb? and Inquisition. Having said that how many Christians there are around today? Not many dudes, not many.
Romans, Nazi and so on: Those were difficult times, do you remember another population who slayed two cities just because they were having fun? I'm talking about Sodom and Gomorrah here. Every population in that period had similar behaviors, that's the way it went. Probably knowing better Asian history they too had similar massacre in their history. Coming a little nearer to today is there a difference? Well, how many from Iraq and Afghanistan have died compared to Allied Armies? On another side the Operation Melted Lead had 13 dead soldiers from Israel and 1300 dead people from Palestina; 100 deaths for the death of one.
As Meekon said history is written by winners, so everything is fucked up, but at the times of Romans people were in lanes to become part of the Roman Empire, and in Italy we like to remember the time of the Roman Empire because in that period Italy was at the height of civilization, a place never regained. Romans roads are so well built that there are many around still today, and the same goes for aqueducts and buildings... But we should remember also how the neighborhood was at that times, with good people like Attila going around.
As for the rules, well, nature has it rules, or laws. Animals kill to eat or to avoid being killed. That's the way it goes, but that's also a law, or a rule. If you kill every prey around you die of starvation. That is, there are always rules around dudes.
As you rightly say sin is a Catholics term, but it's also the shortest way to deliver a concept, unless we want to translate it as "behaviors that you shouldn't perform", or something like that. Five words instead of one, that's exhausting. Even Dudeists have rules, simple, few, but rules anyway. Because there are things that even if present in the wholeness of Tao they are not to be accepted carelessly. That is to say that even if I'm a dudeist to the bones, well, more or less, if I find a pederast doing his things I'll broke both his arms and legs, if I'm in a good day. If you want to summarize the Dude's rule as I see it is: Don't fuck unwilling strangers in their ass, that is to say Respect others, until they respect you. Because if you take my rug then I'll take any rug in the house, as the old man said. Dudeism, as much as Taoism, in my humble  opinion is not staying there and doing nothing, because, if it's so what's the meaning of living? Breathing and nothing else?
Lastly, because I've really lost my train of thought, if a man enters a bar in a bad mood and asks impolitely for a beer what's usually happens is that the barman says "fuck you". No waves around.

[Rev. Ed C]

Well, as ever, these are just, you know, our opinions   As varied as they might be getting!

Although history is certainly interesting, and influencing, I think maybe we need to now focus on the Dudeist issue which is the here and now.  No matter where we draw our inspiration from, it's all about the moment, and the moment is here.

So, to recap something I said before, which probably got lost in my rambling spiel:

We might not have sin, which implies a forbidden no-no and a road to damnation, but we have a close equivalent.  Being undude and stresspassing.  These aren't things that will get use excommunicated, or sent to a nasty afterlife, but they are two things you should avoid to stave off a miserable current life.

Maybe the definitions of these sorts of things bares looking into, maybe as an article for the Dudespaper.  Either way, I think the real issue now is not to look at if we have "sin" in Dudeism, but what we constitute as being undude or committing a stresspass and what impact that has on the person and those around them, and what we do to combat that, either before of after.  I think we all know the answers, but maybe an old-fashioned brainstorm couldn't hurt

[greatspiritmonk]

You said it perfectly fellow brother shamus.
In Dudeism there is only one "sin", and that's being undude.
That is being uptight, not abiding, and taking it uneasy, being stressful for others and fucking others in the ass without asking if it's ok first. And I'd also add not respecting nature.

As usual I dig your style dude.

[meekon5]

greatspiritmonk have you been away? I don?t seem to have heard much from you lately Dude. Maybe we?ve just been in different areas of the forum.

?First: I know I'm slicing hairs here but Catholics and Christians are two different things?.

Have to say that?s your opinion man, but your entitled to it, I cant agree though, Pope?s Christian as far as I?m concerned, I think you?re just playing with the nomenclature there. 

As Meekon said history is written by winners, so everything is fucked up... But we should remember also how the neighborhood was at that times, with good people like Attila going around.

Interesting how you get the point then fall into the trap again. Attila?s bad reputation is from the Roman version of the history. See if you can get hold of some of Terry Jone?s (yes the Python member) series ?The Barbarians?.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Jones'_Barbarians

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Terry-Jones-Barbarians/dp/0563493186

As for the rules, well, nature has it rules, or laws. Animals kill to eat or to avoid being killed. That's the way it goes, but that's also a law, or a rule.

Again humanity trying to see reason in chaos. The ?Law? is only from our perception. You are born with big teeth or the ability to run. Only because your parents were born with big teeth or the ability to run.

If you kill every prey around you die of starvation. That is, there are always rules around dudes.

Natural selection in action. Not a law, just because we have not seen the individuals that did this and perished does not mean it did not happen.

Again the only reason our caveman ancestors knew certain plants were poisonous to us (humans) was because they saw someone die from eating them, the only reason we know certain food stuffs are good to eat is because our ancestors didn't kill them selves experimenting.

As you rightly say sin is a Catholics term, but it's also the shortest way to deliver a concept, unless we want to translate it as "behaviors that you shouldn't perform", or something like that. Five words instead of one, that's exhausting.

Up until now you were doing so well. The point I?m making (and Rev Ed) is we don?t have rules. You act and accept the consequences. That is Karma, the Tao, in action, step into the void with your sword drawn and a battle cry screaming from your lips.

Even Dudeists have rules, simple, few, but rules anyway. Because there are things that even if present in the wholeness of Tao they are not to be accepted carelessly.

We accept laws and restrictions only so we can better live together. There are no absolute laws only implied ones that we (as a society, group) accept to be bound by.

That is to say that even if I'm a dudeist to the bones, well, more or less, if I find a pederast doing his things I'll broke both his arms and legs, if I'm in a good day. If you want to summarize the Dude's rule as I see it is: Don't fuck unwilling strangers in their ass, that is to say Respect others, until they respect you.

Interesting that you assume the pederast is instantly guilty of rape.

The name itself comes from the Greek (paiderastia) "love of children" or "love of boys".

The Spartans were actually encouraged to take older male lovers as a ?sponsor? whilst they were in training to become soldiers. For the very interesting point that a soldier would fight harder when fighting next to his lover. The very opposite of the reason used in British armed forces now to exclude homosexuals.

I do agree that none consensual pederasty is not something to be encouraged, but this is still a cultural point of view, not an absolute law of nature.

Here I refer you to many studies of Pigmy Chimpanzees (now called The Bonobo). These Dudes will shag anything, mother, father, brother, sister, uncle, if it has a hole they are there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo (see ?Sexual social behavior? section)

Because if you take my rug then I'll take any rug in the house, as the old man said. Dudeism, as much as Taoism, in my humble  opinion is not staying there and doing nothing, because, if it's so what's the meaning of living? Breathing and nothing else?

To act or not to act are both in themselves actions. You can stand up to the tyrant or accept the oppression.

Lastly, because I've really lost my train of thought, if a man enters a bar in a bad mood and asks impolitely for a beer what's usually happens is that the barman says "fuck you". No waves around.

Artfully completely missed the point I was making there well done.

[Rev. Ed C]

Heh, yeah, I wasn't going to get involved in a discussion about pederasty vs pedophilia, but seeing as it's open now...

It's actually not just the Greeks, who were famous for it, but even certain sects of Buddhists.  There's also an issue of age of concent, which varies from society to society, a lot of older cultures set adulthood as puberty, the start of the teenage years.  Jew still have bar mitzvah at 13, where boys become men, and 12 year old girls become women through their bat mitzvahs.

The pederasty issue is one reason I don't like to go in guns blazing into a discussion on Michael Jackson's supposed activities.  There is an issue of grooming in such cases, but, well, Dudes, we just don't know.

The fact remains, not every society (and even religion) has banned either homosexuality or pederasty, but pretty much all of them look down on the rape of a woman, a man or a child... yes, even chickens.  Consensual should be something we can respect, unless the majority deem the age an issue (the world range is from ages 9-20).  Personally, I might think those extremes are too extreme, but I'd certainly respect the laws of the local governments on this one.  Going to Tunisia and saying I'd like to take a 19 year old home and show her a good time isn't going to win me any friends, apart from maybe a few new prison buddies (and they don't usually look kindly on pedophiles [yes, sleeping with a 19yr old in Tunisia would make me a pedo]).

Ho-hum...

[greatspiritmonk]

Well, dudes, one day or another we should definitely have some beers together. Next time I'll manage to come to UK.
Meekon, my friend fellow dude, I've been away for a while, a broken computer was the main responsible. Let's go down to cases:

The Pope a Christian? Covering pederasts and cleaning feet at Easter with a plate and carafe made of gold? Come on! The real JC, the Buddy Christ, would have just enjoyed a beer with some friends, unless they gave us wrong notes about him. But in this case his memory would have not survived time; read the Gospel of Thomas and give me some notes on it.

Attila was a good chap? Maybe he enjoyed some beers with friends, but not drunken from inside my skull. I could have put Gengis Khan or some other fellas, but the point is that they were almost all a bunch of crazy fucks swirling pieces all around. That's also why they killed all those poor Dionysus and Pan followers.

As for the rules, well, I agree on your consequences point, nevertheless there are rues dude, and the ones of nature are the main ones, again as you said if you want to avoid unwanted consequences: Katrina, Haiti..... But there are always rules, at least to live passably well together. Don't fuck a stranger in the ass is a rule.

As for pederasts or other similar behaviors I'm not for them. We have rightly no rules, but our precepts are rules, and I would say that there are no reasons why someone over 18 should have sex with someone under 16. And if it was allowed years ago now times are different, we don't still survive only at 50 like in Middle Age.

And, I'll stay clear of Bonobo. Too dangerous animals.
Happy to talk with you again dude.

[greatspiritmonk]

Well said Rev. Ed, as regards Michael Jackson though I think it was all a scam for money. They hit his soft spot. But well, that's my onpinion.
Consensual agreement as you said is what matters, and for that you need to have reached the so called age of reason. Well, for some people it never arrives though.

Have a great day dudes!

[Bartender]

Just a couple of points.

Bartender stop taking things personally please. I do have friends who are christian. But as a Pagan I can be a bit sensitive about the use of certain (christian) terms.

So you?re commanding me to stop taking things so personally in a post in which you use the word ?I? 27 times?  Please, I?d like you to go back and read all of my posts on this topic and tell me where I?ve taken anything personally.  It is in fact YOU that has taken things personally by saying this line (among many others) ?Again I am very concerned about a movement towards "christianising" Dudeism to make it more palatable for the US bible belt?  You do understand that using the ?I? word there is personalizing the concern, right?

Just a couple of points.

Bartender stop taking things personally please. I do have friends who are christian. But as a Pagan I can be a bit sensitive about the use of certain (christian) terms.

So you?re telling me not to be so sensitive in the sentence immediately preceding a sentence in which you defend your own sensitivity?

Secondly Forum from their inception have been areas to discuss and argue your point of view, and not the "Your mums so fat" type argument but reasoned well thought out discussion.

I?m aware of the concept of a Forum.  Are you insinuating that I used a ?Your mums so fat? type of argument?  I?d like to know if that was directed towards me and if so, what specific reply prompts you to think I used this type of argument.

I don't see rushing in shouting and throwing our toys down then storming out as being a good way to discuss things.

Are you calling my mum fat?

So do be aware I may that I may react violently when I think the christians are at he gate.

You mean you may rush in shouting and throw our toys down?

I am generally worried about christianisation of anything (being a Pagan myself I tend to be a bit sensitive to the subject)

Again with YOUR sensitivity.  It certainly does appear you can be quite insensitive, so I certainly understand your concern about sensitivity.

Though you see no literal connection all of these factors start to ring my paranoid bells, so when there is a big discussion using (what I see as) christian terminology, I jump on the soap box and start shouting through the megaphone.

Oh, so you?re saying you came rushing in and started shouting?  Well hey, at least you didn?t throw our toys down.

Dudeism to me, and going back to an earlier post of mine on this topic, is about contentment, which I find to be at the heart of the movie (remember the movie, the original question was about the movie), is that with contentment comes true enlightenment, and with this, the Dude abides.

As far as the word sin, again with the movie, the Stranger uses it say takes comfort that the Dude is out there taking it easy for all us sinners.  To me, that means all of us that are not content and want more and more.  That was my only point.  It never had anything to do with Christianity. 

So I will run out leaving this quote:
?True humility is contentment. 
There is no respect for others
Without humility in one?s self?
     - Henri Frederic Amiel

[meekon5]

Bartender, well done fourteen days to craft your answer! By which time we'd actually moved on.

I thought we were Dudeists, as in we take example from the Dude, not worship him as a god.

Not Lebowski-ists, devoted to the film in exclusion to all else. Quoting it at every and any moment without understanding it.

Or Coenists, as in the film is passed down from up on high by the gods Coen. It is not holy writ. If it was we should be calling jihad on any infidel who dares profane it's holiness. there are some cartoons of the Dude that would call for a holy killing for their insolence.

Or Strangerists.

...the Stranger uses it say takes comfort that the Dude is out there taking it easy for all us sinners.

The Dude does not mention sin. That has been my point all along.

The  religion  of  the  future  will  be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism.

For me the religion of the future (and the present) is Dudeism, free of a concept of sin.

Alan Watts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQioBJ0j6lA&feature=related

[Matt the Walrus]

Whoa dudes, we're getting very undude here. I think we can all have a good discussion here without the personal attacks.

Couple of things I want to address:

1. I don't like the term sin either. Too much baggage. I prefer undude, being the opposite of dude. To be dude means to be at a point where the mind is free-flowing, relaxed, and assertive. To be undude is to undermine these characteristics by being uptight, aggressive, etc. Dude/undude actions create states of dude/undude. Therefore (un)dude refers to both action and state of being. Feel free to tear this bit of philosophizing apart. I'm not too sensitive 

2. I don't care what the Greeks did sexual relationships between children and adult are just wrong. It's all about the power dynamic. If a person doesn't feel they have the authority to refuse how can they give consent. To me it's comparable to a slave owner raping a slave. She may not fight it, but that doesn't make it consentual. Sure there are exceptions when one person is legally considered an adult but the age difference is negligible but 99.9% of the time its just morally icky.

3. Greatspiritmonk, I don't like making the distinction between Catholics and Christians. Catholics are Christians because they worship Christ. That's what a Christian is. There are all sorts of Christians: Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, etc. But I think it when you say "Catholics are not Christians because Christians are X and Catholics aren't" you are trying to lay claim to the "one true" Christianity. Aside from being uncomfortable with the idea of "one true" anything I just think it's false and a little rude to say that Catholics aren't christians just because they don't subscribe to your view of Christianity. That being said I'm not Catholic or Christian so, whatever.

[meekon5]

Whoa dudes, we're getting very undude here. I think we can all have a good discussion here without the personal attacks.

I take the point Matt. I just felt my point was being missed. (and apologies to barman, shit sorry meant bartender).

I am actually really enjoying this discussion, but as tends to happen when people passionately believe a point of view things can get a bit personal.

1. I don't like the term sin either. Too much baggage. I prefer undude, being the opposite of dude...

I agree with this hypothesis. It doesn't have any conetation of wrong doing, and tends to the individual being responsible for their own action.

But I was fairly serious about my not being

Lebowski-ists.

Or Coenists.

Or Strangerists.

But that is down to the essence of what I feel Dudeism is, not a doctrine based on the film but using the example of the Dude to live in a Dudeist way.

Applying the Zen idea that what I am attempting to do is cast off the mundane and live in the Dudeist moment. Unfortunately the machina of daily life does still keep intruding.

2. I don't care what the Greeks did sexual relationships between children and adult are just wrong....Sure there are exceptions when one person is legally considered an adult but the age difference is negligible but 99.9% of the time its just morally icky...

I wasn't suggesting the paedophile path was "right". I was trying to make the point that
society gives a lot of baggage that is sometimes assumed to be "right". The for instance being the legal age for sex, and what is acceptable. I have always taken the point that sex should be consensual between individuals who are able to understand what they are doing. Legal systems then try to "protect" people by adding restrictions. a big problem here in the UK (and in the US as their legal system is based on ours) is the law is particular and by the letter.

I picked a very emotive subject and perhaps should have gone with drinking ages as an example. I was just picking up on someone else's comment where they where (again) proposing a restriction as a sin.

3. Greatspiritmonk, I don't like making the distinction between Catholics and Christians. Catholics are Christians because they worship Christ. That's what a Christian is. There are all sorts of Christians: Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals, etc....

I have to agree here it is a very convenient "definition" I (as a none christian myself) do see anyone who follows the teachings of christ as a christian, even though the catholic church  did systematically remove any other version of the teachings very early on in the religion (see the Coptic church, the Arian church, etc etc).

Unfortunately all versions that remain of the christian faith are schisms from the Roman church whatever they as practitioners may feel.

[Bartender]

Bartender, well done fourteen days to craft your answer! By which time we'd actually moved on.

Yes, I'll admit, you are so much smarter than I could ever hope to be Meekon5.  But truthfully, it took me about 10 minutes to "craft" my response (it was a response, not an answer, you know, technically).  I actually have a life other than this forum, which is obviously not the case for you.  I don't care if you've moved on, you aren't the center of my universe.  If you, my friend, are one of the core people of this thing, I'd just as soon do my own thing, which i can assure you, is much more impressive than this thing.  I have a wife, a son, a career, a business which employs 9 people, a dog, 4 cats, a bicycle club and many friends.  You see, I came here to be enlightened by other souls wishing to escape the many pressures of modern life, which has become our western culture charge.  I most certainly didn?t come here to be preached at by an insensitive and pompous religious bigot.  I live in America, where we believe in the freedom of religion for all.  Please, I pray to MY God that you stay right where you are and that enough good souls have the sense to run you out of this area for the hateful beliefs that you seem so willing to impress upon the rest of us.

I just hope that those American bible belt Christians that you so despise do not ever again have to go over there to save your lame souls and leave their bodies in graves all over Europe so to preserve your luxury of spewing idiocy.  I seriously encourage you seek some mental counsel.  You are in dire need of it.  May this forum some day be fee of your presence,  In the meantime, it will be free of mine.

And a good day to you sir.

Frank
Beaver, Pennsylvania, USA

PS.  If you ever feel like threatening me again, please, come do it person.  I'd so enjoy that.  That's how we do things in the country.