Would a Christian be tolerated here if they ridiculed or put down others beliefs... particularly in a forum made to reference them in light of Dudeism? There are only 3 out of 24 threads in "The Jesus" forum section not aimed at attacking Christianity. How does that line up with what Dudeism has advertised?
Is Dudeism even a place where open and unprovoked disparaging commentary should be taking place? "This aggression will not stand"
I have defended nothing but this premise... and have not even attempted to assert a TOE. If the Dudely Lama is the face of Dudeism... This forum is its heart and soul. You are Dudeism.
I may have just joined the forum, and may be fairly new Dudeism, but I think I have an answer.
Dudeism surely means different things to different people, just as being Christian may mean different things to different people. Not saying that to push your buttons, but I hope you catch my drift there. In my opinion, Dudeism is characterized by letting people be themselves, do what they will, think what they think, believe what they want (or don't) as long as they are not harming themselves or others. To me, Dudeism is rooted in the idea of acceptance of all things. Keeping an open mind. Going with the flow. Just taking it easy, man, and being kind.
Agression will not stand, man, but don't let the behavior of others disrupt your inner dudelyness.
Well said. Nothing to add to that spectacularly simple and accurate assessment.
But an unpopular practice from what I have seen here... again... 3 out of 24 Threads are on topic and positive... 21 out of 24 are not, and an exponential number of negative posts. And there is no moderation in place discouraging it from being considered an acceptable way of treating others beliefs. Especially since the posts are not in response to anyone's 'zealot' behavior, promoting of other religions, or any other activities that might warrant a response to take their 'faith' elsewhere.
QuoteInternet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement.
21 out of 24 threads meet that criteria in "The Jesus"... and a vast number of posts. With a view towards what that might infer that Dudeism actually espouses in practice over what has been put out... I am challenging it since no one else is and I don't want that being the image of Dudeism to other faiths that may think it's a cool way to Abide with others.
The Facebook group says the following from the powers that Dude:
QuoteDudes, this is a place to practice Dudeism (dudeism.com). By that, we mean a refuge from all the ego and aggression often seen on the Internet. If you post something that is seen by the admins as outside that aim, it may be removed. Please don't take offense to that. There are other places you can post anything you like.
It would be nice to see that here...
No faith pushing itself... and no anti-faith doing the same should be tolerated here in Dudeism. Only the exchange of that which is useful to Dudeism. There is a difference between an Atheist and an Anti-Theist... And it all comes out in how they 'Abide'... or the fact that they can't without crusading in much the same manner as the religions they despise and accuse of the same. I have read all the previous post regarding Icon... he crossed a line... but he didn't go over it first. He was kicked for taking his complaints outside of the forum it appears... and maybe some other BS he shouldn't have been doing. But is this being addressed here by anyone? If a religious zealot is not tolerated here... why should a Anti-Theist zealot be?
(I am re-posting this here where it is more appropriate)
You guys do get that I am not offended personally by "What" you say or believe?
I just don't agree with where you're saying it. And the fact that it's really not conducive to the philosophy, or core Dudeist 'values' (unless I am miss reading everything on the site, books, interviews, etc...). We should be able to abide together like the set up of a good joke... "So you have a Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and an Atheist bowling together..." kind of thing... "And the only thing they complain about is the other team going over the line."
Or something like that.
No one here in this forum did anything to elicit 23 Anti-Theist threads (in the section purposed for contributions from other faiths... and Christianity specifically). And yes... You have seen this before... and will continue to see... as long as this behavior continues. Many of you have admitted it several times in various threads. Others have commented they have observed the trend to attack other faiths (and most particularly Christians) on this forum and that it is a very 'undude' thing to partake in. No one is going to misread the abundant evidence to be found on this forum... or fail to identify the leaders of that crusade.
If The Dudeist powers that be don't want to only attract, be defined by, stereotyped by, and represented by, an extremely narrow demographic of people (what's that called?) who when examined don't quite line up with what's advertised as
QuoteDown through the ages, this ?rebel shrug? has fortified many successful creeds ? Buddhism, Christianity, Sufism, John Lennonism and Fo?-Shizzle-my-Nizzlism. The idea is this: Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it. So don?t do anything about it. Just take it easy, man. Stop worrying so much whether you?ll make it into the finals. Kick back with some friends and some oat soda and whether you roll strikes or gutters, do your best to be true to yourself and others ? that is to say, abide.
QuoteNow, it?s a basic tenet of the Dudeist ethos to just say ?Fuck it,? or ?Yeah, well, that?s just, like, you?re opinion, man,? when someone micturates upon our faith. But we?re talking about unchecked theological aggression here, drawing a line in the spiritual sand, Dude. Across this line you do not?also, Dude, ?faith? is not the preferred nomenclature??worldview,? please.
QuoteEthics (rules about human behavior): Although this isn?t ?Nam, there aren?t many behavioral rules in Dudeism, either. However, we do recognize that we may enter a world of pain whenever we go over the line and we are forever cognizant of what can happen when we fuck a stranger in the ass.
Don't fuck Christian's in the ass on this forum :)
QuoteSocial (a system shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation): Racially we?re pretty cool and open to pretty much everyone?pacifists, veterans, surfers, fucking lady friends, vaginal artists, video artists with cleft assholes, dancing landlords, doctors who are good men and thorough, enigmatic strangers, brother shamuses?And proud we are of all of them.
Those we consider very un-Dude include: Rug-pissers, brats, nihilists, Nazis, human paraquats, pederasts, pornographers, fucking fascists, reactionaries, and angry cab drivers. Friends like these, huh, Gary?
Stop pissing on Christian's 'spiritual rugs'... it ties their desire for Dudeism together. At least the ones who would come to Dudeism... Why else do you think some find their way?
QuoteLike Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, Dudeism is a non-theistic religion. That isn?t to say Dudeists necessarily don?t believe in God or a godlike power in the universe, only that passing judgment on this issue is not one of Dudeism?s goals. Like the Eastern religions just mentioned, Dudeism is interested in the here and now, not the there and then. The Dudeist objective is to make our lives more pleasant and meaningful to ourselves and each other.
QuoteDudeism, on the other hand, takes the essential messages of all the world religions and simplifies them, purging them of all their dogma and superstitions, leaving only the easygoing, useful and fortifying parts. Moreover, one can be a Dudeist and still remain a Christian, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, etc. Dudeism isn?t a strict system ? it?s more of a method of living, a state of mind. In order to keep your mind limber, Dudeism needs to remain limber as well.
This is why I came to Dudeism... This is what I am going to do with it here...
As we have all heard/seen The Dudely Lama say...
Quote?Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it. So don?t do anything about it. Just take it easy, man. Stop worrying so much whether you?ll make it into the finals. Kick back with some friends and some oat soda and whether you roll strikes or gutters, do your best to be true to yourself and others ? that is to say, abide.?
I know that's a lot of quoting... But it has been implied that I am pulling what I perceive Dudeism to be about out of my ass or something. If you look at these quotes... Is this what you think you represent? If not... and you can admit it to yourself at least... Every day, hour, minute, second... is a fresh start. I don't think I am the Uber-Dude... I am digging Dudeism because I aspire to be a better dude. I can't go back and fix anything I might have done before... or posted here on this forum if the there is anything undude... I can only be a Dude 'in the here and now'.
'
Insert Dudes Names Here', there is schtuff that I can learn from you... we have several common interests... I would love to benefit from that. I feel no need to evangelize you, challenge your 'world view', or imply your 'whatever' for following it. If we can only abide with those who are similar to ourselves or share a common 'enemy/hatred/whatnot'... that's not abiding.
Have no worries... I am 99% sure that Dudeism will not ever be a hot spot of Christian participation as it exists in the world today. They have mostly lost the 'rebel shrug' and forgotten that their own book said they would be rejected and few in number... Those few who seek it might come here. What will they find?
Abiding Dudes... or at least wanting to
8)
*deleting old posts*
I just fail to accept that Christianity should get special treatment.
Nobody seems to be saying anything about any of the very many threads about politics that are critical of one or the other party or candidate. But the minute people are critical of Christianity we hear how undude it is and how it is a personal attack. It's really only different from the Muslim reaction to pictures of the profit in how extreme the reaction is. But the aim is identical. To put criticism of their beliefs out of bounds. Nobody would suggest that criticising the platforms of the Democrats or Republicans is undude or calling Metallica a bunch of assholes. No one would feel abliged to say "take it easy on the Republicans because we have Republican members".
I can't even begin to relate to the idea that I would have any more desire to connect with other atheists than I would want to connect with other people who don't believe in Bigfoot. I might want to connect with people who for instance like classic rock or people who like the big lebowski. But I can't relate to a desire to connect with people who don't believe the same thing I don't believe. It's a bit of an absurd concept.
To me Christians are like the cops. I don't hate them but I can't help noticing that everybody seems a lot happier when they aren't around.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 22, 2016, 03:49:29 PM
Christians should be more forgiving when they encounter resistance to their beliefs on the internet. Christians often make life difficult for non-Christians in the United States IRL, so it is not really their place to complain about receiving some flak on the internet for their beliefs.
Atheists are not abundant in the population and do not have churches or Sunday services. Many do not have an opportunity to converse with other atheists IRL, especially those in rural areas. Some face real persecution from their families or communities, or have to hide their beliefs out of fear of retribution. The Bible clearly states that atheists are not to be trusted or associated with (Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1, Revelation 21:8, etc.) in the same way that we do not associate with rapists or murderers. This results in lots of real discrimination, much of it not visible or obvious for those not on the receiving end of it.
Because of a common lack of IRL social connectivity among atheists and because of the real societal oppression of atheists and other non-Christians, many atheists turn to internet forums to vent, to socialize with each other, and to express themselves. Receiving their satire and arguments patiently is the least that Christians can do for atheists, considering the Christians' many centuries of crimes against humanity within Christendom against atheists and other heretics.
Remember, if you don't like encountering Christian-bashing in forums on the internet, you can always stop and read something else instead. Why should you care what a bunch non-theistic Dudes have to say to each other about what you think? They're only shooting the breeze. There is little enough happiness in the world. Please just let the godless heathens enjoy the small comfort that their conversations give them. Abide.
What your saying almost equates to the same thinking being applied to "White Privilege" that is going around. But I get what your saying... and have no problem with people having a place to gather for whatever purpose they want without someone from the outside complaining about what they choose to do in their own gatherings. But Dudeism is not exclusive to any one 'world view'. Their are many places in this forum dedicated to a number of things to discuss, share, and what have you. That OT stuff pretty much excluded anyone not in the tribes... let alone Atheists. I believe that while a Christian is not to be 'unequally yoked' and a few other considerations... Jesus hung out with the people that the Religious leaders shunned... part of his Dudeness. I thought a lot about this today... I think I can make a better statement regarding my interest in Dudeism... One that only time to show my colors will really tell...
I believe that Dudeism can make Christians (or any 'World View') better Christians ('Insert Worldview). I am not here to make Dudeists in Christians... but rather the inverse... Now I know several dudes opinions on that here... and the fact they see it as not possible to abide the two. Leave that to a Christian to decide and communicate to others. Whether there is or is not a lake of fire or whatever waiting for those who don't worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster AND whether or not someone believes it to be so... is not contradictory to being a Dudeist if they can conduct themselves in a Dudely manner. Thinking that ___ is your end reward for not following a given TOE doesn't mean you can't interact with those destined to ____. And in the case of Christianity... Nothing they believe they are obtaining is based on any works of their own (in contrary to what some may privately interpret). So give or take some in and outs about this or that whatever... they have no reason to judge themselves any better that anyone else based on their own efforts. But I have to save some material for my site... so that is enough on that.
I didn't jump into an Atheist discussion group and complain they were having a Roast of Christianity. So it really does just go back to basic point of 'where' the posts were made. My opinion of whether Dudes should be doing it is a whole other thing that doesn't really connect to the first. Heck... I probably would not have bothered responding or making an issue if they hadn't flooded the one place it didn't seem to fit. I could have happily enjoyed a forum thread dedicated to my area of interest in applying Dudeism someone hadn't pissed on:)
I have no defense for the actions, inaction's, failures, tyranny... whatever attributed to, committed by anyone if the name of whatever... Maybe applying even a few principles from Dudeism is the key... to abiding at least. And that just might be enough. The answers at the end or what someone believes them to be don't have to cloud how they live... unless they think their own works somehow require them to piss on other peoples rugs to get there. I don't believe my beliefs do... or that you have to tear people down to build them up.
Biker Dude:You only have to fear cops if you're breaking the law :)
I thought this was clear... ug.
Do you go out of your way to go to a Metallica forum thread to say they are a bunch of assholes? That would be trolling. Maybe? There is no way around this reasoning except to say "Fuck it", "I really don't care... And just want to be free to say whatever I want... Where ever I want... And if you don't like it don't read it... Go somewhere else... Even if I am posting it in a place that is supposed to be saying positive things about the subject... And I want to make sure people that think they are going to see something positive... know I think that 'world view' is bullshit". ;)
I answered the rest in abundance in other posts...
QuoteBut I can't relate to a desire to connect with people who don't believe the same thing I don't believe. It's a bit of an absurd concept.
I think that is a possible definition of someones ability to abide and the basic idea of Dudeism... and that almost anyone can embrace Dudeism when they differ from other Dudeist beliefs outside the flexible scope of the concerns of the Dudeist 'world view'... which IMO is distinctly separate and not impeded by other beliefs in most cases.
Well again you seem to be merging into gibberish but I will say that yes I do believe that people should be able to say whatever they want. And you seem to constantly be legislating what is and is not allowed.
I think that it is perfectly acceptable to go to a forum on physics and take the position that string theory is a bunch of bullshit if I so please. I actually think that is the perfect context to express that opinion. And I would expect that all the supporters of string theory would interject in a sensible way rather than whining about how mean it is that someone didn't agree with them.
Again with a bad and not comparable analogy...
The forum in question is not a general topic area on Jesus or Christianity (which would imply anything you want about those general subjects)... The whole "Under the Influence" section is for discussing the aspects of the various subjects contributing to Dudeism... I must be crazy to assume that based on what the forum descriptions say... Should we make a quick list of your on-topic forum threads in that section laying out "The Jesus: There was a lot that was very Dudeish about Christianity's original, uncompromised first draft."
I must be missing that promoting Jesus as a Dudeish contributor was the actual intent of your posts... Damn. You are really scoring the troll points today!
Gotta go an abide with the family... Later Dudes!
I am pretty darn confident that most people reading all these posts in the years to come won't have any difficulty following what I have very eloquently written in an attempt to entreat your sensibilities and call to the table the nature of your activities in contrast to the principles we supposedly admire.
No more to say if none of you can get it really... too bad. Maybe my real intended audience to benefit from these exchanges is reading this in the years to come. Actually that's exactly my point:)
*deleting old posts*
;D(http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/smf-curve_dude/images/post/thumbup.gif) I humbly submit that the answer to all these deep questions is .......
(https://freeenterpriseforum.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/beerfriend.jpg)
Even the Good Book says so.........
Deuteronomy 14:26
"And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the Lord thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,"
MARK IT EIGHT!! (http://dudeism.com/smf/Themes/smf-curve_dude/images/post/thumbup.gif)
I dig the quote!
I am fine with criticism or debate and could even engage in it with little personal grievance. Especially in a place it was to be expected or as a matter of course was the intent of the location. I learn a lot from people when I get a chance to see where they are coming from and it allows me a chance to see if they got shafted by people in a way that should reflect on the people rather than the supposed source of their inspired actions. I would still keep matters beyond the here and now, deities, or other supernatural matters out of it... I am more than happy to approach matters from a scholarly, literary scope.
Just fighting for some real-estate that people can abide in that just want to dig different influences... not shit can them.
Stress has abated... Abiding back in place.
8)
Christian dude your whole line of objection is not the content but the location of the content?
Come on. Give us a break.
What are you a park ranger?
I stick to my position that it is perfectly appropriate to take the position in the given context that Christianity is undude. And as far as I'm concerned your endless tirades and continued demands about what people should or shouldn't say and where they should or shouldn't say it certainly seem to lend a pretty clear evidence of that position. Whatever the purpose or expectations of the under the influence section of the forum are I am certain that it was not intended to be a place where only one opinion would be allowed.
If you seek sanctuary get thee to a nunnery.
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:
QuoteThere 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.
*deleting old posts*
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.
Quote from: BikerDude on April 23, 2016, 02:12:08 PM...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?
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 23, 2016, 05:11:17 PM
"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😀
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.
Quote from: Reverend Al on April 23, 2016, 07:09:14 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on April 23, 2016, 02:12:08 PM...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):
QuoteMatthew 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:
QuoteRomans 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.
QuoteRomans 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!
*deleting old posts*
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?
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 23, 2016, 09:11:35 PM...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.
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 23, 2016, 11:28:41 PM...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.
Quote from: RandoRock on April 24, 2016, 12:24:54 AMI 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. 8)
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.
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.
QuoteShould 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
Quotewas 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.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: RandoRock on April 24, 2016, 02:46:23 AMReverend 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.
Quote from: RandoRock on April 24, 2016, 02:46:23 AMI 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.
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 24, 2016, 04:50:01 AMThe 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. ;D
Quote from: Reverend Al on April 24, 2016, 09:08:31 PM
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 24, 2016, 04:50:01 AMThe 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. ;D
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!
Quote from: ChristianDude on April 24, 2016, 11:00:13 PM...I have thinned out on my cap :(...
My hair has definitely gotten thinner over the years, and I'm slowly developing the typical bald spot on the top/back of my head. And it's getting a little grayer every day, slowly catching up to my "salt and pepper" beard. But I'll be 55 in a few months, so I think I'm
supposed to be showing some signs of age by now.
The same woman has been cutting my hair, and my wife's hair, for more than 30 years now. When she noticed it was starting to turn gray we had a humorous conversation about which color I should dye it, and she suddenly got very serious and told me that she would absolutely refuse to dye my hair even if I seriously asked her to, explaining "That's not your style." And she was right.
Some of the wisest dudes have little or no hair (monks), so maybe follicles get pushed out to make more room for knowledge and wisdom, who knows!
In my case I think it's because my brain is so small that it's having to work overtime trying to keep up with everyone else, so it's overheating and cooking the hair follicles to death.
*deleting old posts*
Quote from: SagebrushSage on April 26, 2016, 03:06:57 PMThe human brain uses 20 watts of energy, like a light bulb, with attendant waste heat.
Oh, sure, use science to ruin my joke. ;)
*deleting old posts*
💡
QuoteThere is a difference between an Atheist and an Anti-Theist...
Yes, there is. Some time ago, during a discussion on a religious studies forum, I managed to make a list of something like 40 different types of atheism. And there is a difference between sending everybody to hell and believing. Here I have not made a similar list yet but I can try someday and no doubt the result will be interesting too.