The 7 deadly sins are
"Wrath", "Avarice", "Sloth", "Pride", "Lust", "Envy", and "Gluttony".
2 parts.
Which if any of the 7 deadly sins does the dude suffer?
Clearly sloth is beyond debate.
And
Which do you suffer from.
Personally my life is like a giant pool of all 7.
I'm not comfortable with the word Avarice, is that like vagina?
it's only a sin if you see something bad about it, and I see nothing wrong with taking it easy.
that said, I might have to say pride
I don't think lust is a sin, is it? 8)
lust can be a zesty enterprise, not a sin.
and what about #8, letting your toe slip over a little? That apparently could be deadly. Who made this list?
Also missing is turning on the oven on shabbas. I think this list could be expanded. Where would rug-pissing fit in?
And what about that 8 yo thing?
Do you understand english?
Parla usted Inglese? I'll say it again.
Did I urinate on your rug?
No sir, Woo peed on my rug.
Anyway pederasts should be sentenced for life, automatically. In a beautiful place like Siberia.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of sin. Sin implies a strict moral order imposed by a higher being. Like, if I jerk off I'm going to Hell because I'm murdering my sperm and dead sperm makes Baby Jesus cry. I don't want to make Baby Jesus cry, but sometimes... ah, I'm rambling again.
But seriously, The problem I have with some of the 7 deadly sins is that some of them are actions rather than feelings. I mean, seriously, I get a go directly to Hell card if I feel envious? Or proud? You can't help how you feel sometimes, but you can control how you act. That's what matters.
I just had a thought. I'm not well versed in Christianity but isn't the concept of the 7 deadly sins pretty old testament? And in the old testament is God not portrayed as a wrathful god? So... like... how does that work? Serious question.
"You can't help how you feel sometimes, but you can control how you act. That's what matters."
I think this sentence goes right at the target. Fucking A, man.
You should be right though, 7 sins should be Old Testament thing, the book written to allow slaying everyone who didn't agree. But there should be a list of deadly behaviours:
pederasts,
polluters,
vivisectionists,
fur farmers-traders-furriers,
those fucking fundamentalists who think that religion is a good reason to kill others,
.....
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on November 26, 2009, 01:25:54 AM
"You can't help how you feel sometimes, but you can control how you act. That's what matters."
I think this sentence goes right at the target. Fucking A, man.
You should be right though, 7 sins should be Old Testament thing, the book written to allow slaying everyone who didn't agree. But there should be a list of deadly behaviours:
pederasts,
polluters,
vivisectionists,
fur farmers-traders-furriers,
those fucking fundamentalists who think that religion is a good reason to kill others,
.....
you forgot cleft assholes
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on November 26, 2009, 12:55:59 AM
You can't help how you feel sometimes, but you can control how you act. That's what matters.Quote
I have no problem with that statement, I would just like to add that it is possible to control how you feel. With a little practice, I have learned this most beneficial coping skill.
Also, keeping unclean thoughts in your mind eats at your soul, if you have one. Hatred, envy, misdirected lust, such thoughts can be banished. I don't believe that we are all defenseless against the tyranny of our own thoughts.
And Nihilists. ;D
What about threatening castration! Are we gonna split hairs here?
And keeping amphibious rodents...
within the city limits..
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on November 26, 2009, 01:25:54 AM
You should be right though, 7 sins should be Old Testament thing, the book written to allow slaying everyone who didn't agree. But there should be a list of deadly behaviours:
pederasts,
polluters,
vivisectionists,
fur farmers-traders-furriers,
those fucking fundamentalists who think that religion is a good reason to kill others,
.....
Charity sponges... definitely a form of behaviour I do not condone!
----------------
I think the thing about the human condition is that we all suffer from these sins in small amounts, it's natural. Find me a man who's not felt envious, or lustful, or angry... I'm not a greedy person, but I have suffered pangs of avarice. It's the way of the human. We just need to know how to keep aggression checked, and our gluttony suppressed at most times.
We're all born sinners in the eyes of the pure, but those Dudes are few and far between and are all about puring their own humanity in the opposite extreme to the corrupt. A human is equal measures of purity and corruption, we're flawed, therefor we are.
That's why there are some truly beloved characters in fiction who are all fundamentally flawed. We love the Dude because of his flaws and his merits combined. It's the unique mix of virtue and sin that makes a person special.
And hey, you know what... I take real pride in that, Dudes ;)
It's impossible to comprehend virtue, without some understanding of vice. In fact, I'd argue it's impossible for virtue to exist without vice. Our mortal world cannot exist without a balancing opposite. Life goes on man, but not forever. You cannot take it easy without knowing when the stress is talking. There can be no passivism without aggression. The bums always lose because the achievers always win. Money cannot be recovered unless it has been lost. And so on and so on.
I made reference to this sort of thing in another thread on here, but basically, the whole entertaining story could not have unfolded without his lust for of possession, which is a sin, regardless of how well that possession tied the room together. But his virtues in the end overcame his sins and he remained in harmonious balance, thereby returned him to the state of abiding.
In summary, I believe the story shows that without a polar opposite, one has no frame of reference; one would be like a child who wonders into the middle of a movie and wants to know?
Fucking A, man.
Quote from: Bartender on March 30, 2010, 11:06:19 AM
...but basically, the whole entertaining story could not have unfolded without his lust for of possession, which is a sin, regardless of how well that possession tied the room together. ...
Sorry have to disagree entirely, there are well placed actions and badly placed actions. An action is only "good" or "Bad" as analysed after the fact.
History is written by the winners which is why everyone was brought up to regard the Romans as the pinnacle of civilization, because they told the world they were. The Nazis on the other hand are held up as the most evil beings to have walked the earth this last millennium.
Even though both groups did exactly the same thing, both tried to conquer the whole of Europe (the Nazi, or more specifically the Fascists, based themselves on the glory of the Roman empire).
Both had a policy of elitist racial purity (if you were not pure roman it was very hard to hold any position of power in the empire).
Both ran vast slave cultures.
In fact the Romans probably killed a higher percentage of the world population at their time than the Nazis ever did. There being more people around by the time the Nazis tried the same.
The Nazis only gassed people, the Romans stole you, your family, and anyone else, then had you put to death in public for their enjoyment.
The major difference is that the Nazis lost their war, and the romans won thiers.
Why am I making this point?Because the Romans did far worse things to the non-roman population than the Nazis ever did but did not SIN.
SIN is a Christian concept created to beat the population down and control them. Sin is a control on what you really want to be doing.
Yes certain agreements have to be reached to be able to live together and prosper as a society.
Theft is not a good thing in a reward based (capitalist) society. But theft does not exist in a society that does not recognise property (yes I know thats communism).
I go back to the Taoist idiom of "The more laws you have, the more criminals you have". As indicated by Hollands recent need to reduce the number of prisons they have because they don't have enough criminals to fill them.
It is a sin to kill someone.Except in a war.
Except when they are trying to kill you.
Except if they are attacking your child.
Except if they have killed another and you are a properly appointed executioner.
Except if they have been born into a country whose politicians disagree with your politicians so your politicians have said they must die.
Except when they have the wrong religion and the leaders of your religion say they have to die because they have the wrong religion.
It is a sin to steal.Except if its to take food to feed the staving.
Except when it's only that one pen that you need to use at home.
Except when it's that paper the company will never miss that your kid would love to draw on and the company byes so much of it it wont be missed.
There is no such thing as sin. It is a completely fabricated control.
The misplaced action of Bunny accepting money from Jackie Treehorn, then not paying it back, drives the film not the Dude taking the carpet.
Usury is a sin.Except when your a multinational incorporated bank that shags world economies.
Sin is entirly subjective and just there to make you feel bad about the things you just may enjoy.
Finally.If you live with a group of people and steal from them or rape their women, they will be less inclined to let you continue to stay with them.
If you happen to be living with a Viking Hoard on the other hand they will be more than happy for you to join them raping and pillaging other people.
I am a Pagan.And as such I have no sins. I enjoy my life and indulge myself.
But I accept responsibility for my actions (all of them).
A sin is something to blame for your own lack of self control. (Vatican+Priests+Abuse of minors) "Forgive me father for I have sinned".
This is of course just all my opinion.(Put the soapbox down and step away with your hands behind your head).
Not wishing to dissect all of the last point down (because sloth is taking over), I'll try for some uncharacteristic brevity.
I completely agree with Meekon's above points. Sin is completely subjective, and the idea of right and wrong is an entirely human concept.
Nature is 100% neutral. Life is supposed to do what it does to function along with all other life. Animals kill because they're hungry, or threatened, those are all instincts of preservation that transcend the human moralistic concepts.
As evolved forms of life we have managed to create countless concepts that are entirely new and outside of nature. With evolution comes the capacity to create and with creation comes all that we have over the rest of our animal brothers.
I think all these new human concepts have become not only ingrained into society, but also into the human mind, becoming racially instinctual. So, as I said, "sinning" is part of being human. We have the capacity to be what most animals are not, because of the limited scope of their purpose in nature.
I for one am very aware that fascism started in Rome. Today the Italian mindset is still quite fascist in a lot of ways, because of the "glory of Rome". Look at Mussolini, all too often forgotten when we talk about WWII, something that is still recent to us all, and as such is a real sticking point. In Italy today they still have marches and parades dedicated to some of the fascist elements of the Roman Empire, where man dressed as legionaries walk the streets holding symbols of oppression, and so many people don't understand.
No expansionist empire can be considered "good" by our standards today, because the "glory" comes from defeating the enemy, and the enemy in the case of these empires are the locals whose land is good and defences are weak. I'm only glad the British Empire is all but defunct now, as I think it's a shameful blotch on our heritage. Largest empire in the world, and yet, where was the comeback? The fact is, Hitler did a lot of good for Germany, but alas he admired ideals of others, such as Fascism from the Italians, Arianism from the British and euthanasia which had been practiced worldwide for a long time, and most recently at the time in US mental institutions (leaving mental patients to die of simple untreated head colds).
Hitler is undoubtedly a true villain, but no more so that countless others that came before him, all building an empire, doing good for their own people, and crushing others underfoot in their wake. It's something that scares me about any large nation who's big on patriotism and expansionism (The US, Russia and China to name but three). The German film, The Wave, is a great example of how a mindset can be easily instilled and suddenly morals and ethics can we upturned, and the concept of good an evil can go out the window, I'd thoroughly recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.
All nations, and all people are guilty of sin, because, as I said, sin is only quantified in the eyes of the pure. I mean, we all recognise what we consider wrong in others, most people agree on what is right, based on what benefits people (ie, not being stab or robbed, etc).
I guess, as Dudeists, we have to abide the sinners and carry on as best we can, trying to look out for our own interests and the interests of others as we see fit. That might be a selfish way to look at it, and most religions would teach a far greater moral responsibility, but when you get down to it, Dudeism is about helping yourself and those that matter to you, and hoping we can set a good example for everyone else to do that same. Sometimes the best person to help you IS yourself, and sometimes you need a help from others, and some people are beyond help. If we all do the best by ourselves to begin with, without trying to scam anyone, or screw anyone else over, that's not really selfish, it's just natural.
I do hope to expand look more concisely issue in a future Dudespaper article I have on the cards "What is Karma? Your friend, Dude", where I look at the social meme of good will and being excellent to each other.
Hmm... guess my brevity gland failed me again... ho-hum.
Ah, and quickly slipping into the Lebowskian issue...
The catalyst for the film is a questionable one.
Basically, we all know the plot is essentially an empty story, built on lies, deceptions and misconceptions, and that's what makes it so genius. No one should have had to have gone through any of that, the entire underlying premise was a lie!
Bunny's irresponsible and selfish hedonism, the Nihilist's greed (despite believing in nothing, they sure seemed to believe in the almighty dollar enough), the Big Lebowski's greed, Jackie Treehorn's deepseeded amoral way of life, the Treehorn goons' laziness and Walter's sense of righteous indignation. All key elements into getting the Dude into all this mess.
If Bunny hadn't have run away from home without a thought for her parents, and if Jackie Treehorn hadn't have pimped her out as a hollywood bimbo and lavished her with money, and if she hadn't have left on a bender once again without letting anyone know, and if the Nihilists hadn't have lusted after ransom money, and if bitter old Lebowski wasn't so greedy and callous about his own trophy wife, and if the goons had bothered to check which Lebowski they were after, and if Walter had not insisted the Dude was owed a rug by Lebowski, and if the Dude had just said "oh fuck it, let's carry on bowling".... maybe Donny would still be rolling perfect games all the way to the finals.
But hey, that would be a boring movie!
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 07:58:32 AM
Ah, and quickly slipping into the Lebowskian issue...
If Bunny hadn't have run away from home without a thought for her parents, and if Jackie Treehorn hadn't have pimped her out as a hollywood bimbo and lavished her with money, and if she hadn't have left on a bender once again without letting anyone know, and if the Nihilists hadn't have lusted after ransom money, and if bitter old Lebowski wasn't so greedy and callous about his own trophy wife, and if the goons had bothered to check which Lebowski they were after, and if Walter had not insisted the Dude was owed a rug by Lebowski, and if the Dude had just said "oh fuck it, let's carry on bowling".... maybe Donny would still be rolling perfect games all the way to the finals.
...
Oh that's what the movies about then! ;D
Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 08:36:15 AM
Oh that's what the movies about then! ;D
Well... it's the sins of all these people that sets the thing into gear, and who suffers the most? Donny, possibly the most innocent character in the whole film (above even Smokey and his toe-slipping and even Marty, with his crimes against dance).
The sins of the many weigh heavily on not only themselves, but the one innocent child who wanders in and out during the middle of the movie. Rest easy, sweet prince, in the bosom of Dude's ever-abiding beard.
"There is no greater curse than the lack of contentment;
No greater sin than the desire for possession."
- Lao Tse
Above quote is to what I was referring to the sin of possession. The Dude wanted his rug back (that's all he ever wanted). He wanted his possession. He coveted that rug. Was the Rug worth Donny dying for? I doubt it.
I find it difficult to abide that a person can abide, while wanting a lousy rug back (it may indeed have tied the room together, but it doesn't take much to tie a crappy room together).
In any case, there's no story without the Dude wanting the rug back. He could've just gone out an bought a new rug, which is what I would have done. But I have a job, sir, and the Dude did not. So he basically stole a rug off of someone that really did not owe him a rug. It was Woo that peed on his rug.
The Dude lied on a number of occassions... "The old man said take any rug in the house", "We dropped off the money".
He also lusted for money "What's in it for the Dude?" to Jackie Treehorn.
I'm not prepared at this time to get into a philisophical discussion on this, but my point is... Oh, it's my roll.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 09:41:11 AM
...
The sins of the many weigh heavily on not only themselves, but the one innocent child who wanders in and out during the middle of the movie. Rest easy, sweet prince, in the bosom of Dude's ever-abiding beard...
See there we go again. Not their sins but their actions. The actions of the many. I still refuse to accept Sins in a Dudeist philosophy.
And Donny only seems pure and blameless because he actually doesn't do that much, therefore has few actions.
Yes suffering is needed to understand joy. pain to understand pleasure. This is Yin and Yang.
But none of them are "sinners" until you apply an arbitrary frame work of what is good and evil, bound by a concept of Sin.
Action (or non-action) creates Karma that has effect on an individual, there is no judgment in karma. There is no moral imposition.
Life is like a clear calm pool. you throw one stone in , an action, and the waves move outward. You throw many stones in and they all create waves that effect and interact with each other. Many people acting and interacting with each other. the wave does not judge it just is.
You go into an empty pub (the clear calm pool). you are in a bad mood (action, a stone thrown into the pool). You order a pint and are rude to the barman (another action). The bar man gets pissed off and is rude to other customers as they come in. Your action has been transmitted through the bar man to the other patrons of the bar. The many stones have all produced waves that interact with each other. the wave is not judgmental but just is.
Quote from: Bartender on March 31, 2010, 10:20:34 AM
...
The Dude wanted his rug back (that's all he ever wanted). He wanted his possession. He coveted that rug. Was the Rug worth Donny dying for? I doubt it.
...
No it was not worth Donny dying, but who could have said at the beginning of the story that wanting his rug back would lead to his (Donny's) death?
20/20 hindsight is a wonderful skill but who can see what any action will result in as and when we begin to act.
But as Rev Ed said if the Dude had just gone out and bought another rug it would have been a lot shorter film.
Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 10:22:36 AM
See there we go again. Not their sins but their actions. The actions of the many. I still refuse to accept Sins in a Dudeist philosophy.
And Donny only seems pure and blameless because he actually doesn't do that much, therefore has few actions.
Well, I agree with you, Meek, but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin". I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations. When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil. Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer.
So, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not ;D
I consider Donny innocent because he doesn't get involved, like you say. He takes no part, he is an observer. He's not in it to fuck anybody up, nor in it at all to accidentally fuck someone up.
Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 10:22:36 AM
Action (or non-action) creates Karma that has effect on an individual, there is no judgment in karma. There is no moral imposition.
Life is like a clear calm pool. you throw one stone in , an action, and the waves move outward. You throw many stones in and they all create waves that effect and interact with each other. Many people acting and interacting with each other. the wave does not judge it just is.
You go into an empty pub (the clear calm pool). you are in a bad mood (action, a stone thrown into the pool). You order a pint and are rude to the barman (another action). The bar man gets pissed off and is rude to other customers as they come in. Your action has been transmitted through the bar man to the other patrons of the bar. The many stones have all produced waves that interact with each other. the wave is not judgmental but just is.
And, and you're pretty much along my lines of thinking again here! My forthcoming article, as mentioned above, was going to tackle my idea of a social meme being true karma, as opposed to a any supernatural universal force. Treating people in one way will prompt a reaction and so sparks the chaos theory into action. I've always firmly believed in the chaos theory of life, of action and reaction, how the smallest of actions can alter action and thought across the world. That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance.
I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months. Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas ::)
But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm. I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok. Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility 8)
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin"....
Yes sorry I come from a fairly technical philosophical debating background where one has to be specific with their terminology (add the immense weight of pedantry from my job and the dyslexia) which tends to make me very unforgiving about the use of language.
But I do believe that one should be careful the way one phrases an argument. A clearly defined and articulated argument causes less offense than a knee jerk off the cuff response.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations...
A very taoist point of view. I see karma as an aspect of chi, the interaction of yin and yang. Chi, and karma as an effect, are like the noise a car engine makes when it's turned on. Not necessary to the process of running the car but there as a side effect of the engine running.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil. Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer...
I agree but argue semantics again. Using the term "sin" carrys all the cultural baggage that is implied by the christian guilt trip. The same way I continue to argue the use of the word "evangelism". these are and have been very particular phrases, and if this discusion were to be observed by someone else I would want to be very particular about what I am arguing.
Again I am very concerned about a movement towards "christianising" Dudeism to make it more palatable for the US bible belt (no insult to our US Dudes).
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AMSo, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not ;D...
I refer to above language is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance...
All is chaos, hail eris, all hail discordia, and hope the goddess doesn't notice you and apply some extra favour.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months. Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas ::)..
No problems.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm. I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok. Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility 8)
It's the way I've seen things for a long time now.
Only the true (Dudeist) Ninja can enter and leave the water causing no ripples.
Quote from: meekon5 on March 31, 2010, 12:14:16 PM
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...but I got kind of fed up with using "s around the word "sin"....
Yes sorry I come from a fairly technical philosophical debating background where one has to be specific with their terminology (add the immense weight of pedantry from my job and the dyslexia) which tends to make me very unforgiving about the use of language.
But I do believe that one should be careful the way one phrases an argument. A clearly defined and articulated argument causes less offense than a knee jerk off the cuff response.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I agree with my other half there is no such thing as good and evil, but, the words still exist and have certain connotations...
A very taoist point of view. I see karma as an aspect of chi, the interaction of yin and yang. Chi, and karma as an effect, are like the noise a car engine makes when it's turned on. Not necessary to the process of running the car but there as a side effect of the engine running.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...When I say "sin" I mean what people recognise as a negative action via a disfavoured ethic, the same with evil. Like I said above, these are human inventions and own to interpretation, depending on which side of the gun you are, and who's your lawyer...
I agree but argue semantics again. Using the term "sin" carrys all the cultural baggage that is implied by the christian guilt trip. The same way I continue to argue the use of the word "evangelism". these are and have been very particular phrases, and if this discusion were to be observed by someone else I would want to be very particular about what I am arguing.
Again I am very concerned about a movement towards "christianising" Dudeism to make it more palatable for the US bible belt (no insult to our US Dudes).
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AMSo, sorry for the confusion, but I like my words, false in their philosophy or not ;D...
I refer to above language is a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..That's why I like the Discordian ideals you yourself ascribe to, they really fit in with my idea of cosmic balance...
All is chaos, hail eris, all hail discordia, and hope the goddess doesn't notice you and apply some extra favour.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
...I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on the article once it's published in a few months. Had it planned and on the back burner since before Christmas ::)..
No problems.
Quote from: Rev. Ed C on March 31, 2010, 10:53:50 AM
..But I really like what you said about the ripples and the calm. I might paraphrase you when I write it, if that's ok. Does help bring my concept even further into the Dudeist ethos, trying to make as few ripples as you can in life so as not to upset the tranquility 8)
It's the way I've seen things for a long time now.
Only the true (Dudeist) Ninja can enter and leave the water causing no ripples.
Whoa.
What does the US bible belt have to with anything. There isn't a literal connection. There isn't any connection.
I'm cool with your basic premise, but that line just strikes me as a bit mean spirited when it's coming with no frame of reference.
Mind you, I'm not from the US Bible belt and have absolutely no use for the culture there (obviously, I'm here), but still, they're entitled to their views. No one needs your approval on any of this.
I was talking about his rug.
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 ???
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.
Quote from: Bartender on March 31, 2010, 02:50:00 PM
...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.
Quote from: - Shantideva, The Way of the Bodhisattva
Whenever I catch sight of others,
By thinking, "It is through them,
That I will reach awakening,"
I'll look with sincerity and love.
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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!
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. :)
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 :P
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. :)
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
?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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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)
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
Quote from: greatspiritmonk on April 07, 2010, 10:39:46 AM
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.
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...
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.
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!
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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?
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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?
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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.
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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?
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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?
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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.
Quote from: meekon5 on April 01, 2010, 09:04:43 AM
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
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.
Quote from: Bartender on April 14, 2010, 05:17:46 PM
...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.
Quote from: Albert Einstein
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQioBJ0j6lA&feature=related)
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.
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on April 18, 2010, 01:38:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on April 18, 2010, 01:38:36 AM
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.
;D
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on April 18, 2010, 01:38:36 AM
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.
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on April 18, 2010, 01:38:36 AM
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.
Quote from: meekon5 on April 15, 2010, 05:29:49 AM
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.
Ouch I feel a little unclean.
Ah that was not my intension.
All my posts are made with a tongue-in-cheek sarcasm that I always thought was self deprecating. Obviously the medium of text here doesn't portray that.
I never mean to brow beat and am always willing to admit I'm wrong.
Could someone please point out the threat element because I haven't a clue.
I feel this is a complete overreaction.
BTW I come from a long line of military types and had relatives die in Japanese prison camps, and all over europe, and friends and family continue to fight and die in many theatres of war all over the world still.
I didn't think I was undertaking Undudely conduct I look forward to your comments.
Uh, I was worried about this. But since we've already dug the whole...
Quote from: Bartender on April 20, 2010, 11:47:06 PM
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.
Frank,
1) This has nothing to do with WWII
2) Yes there has been some poking of tender spots here but there's no need to get so nasty
3) Though I totally understand if you don't wish to contribute this thread anymore leaving the forum entirely is a bit drastic. Nobody wants to push you out and we all lose when we create these divisions.
4) Digital group hug?
And I had already apologised Dude
Quote from: meekon5 on April 19, 2010, 06:44:19 AM
Quote from: Matt the Walrus on April 18, 2010, 01:38:36 AM
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.
I did also have a couple of friends look over this post as I was completely confused by this reaction. It's a bit like having a laugh with a group of friends down the pub when one turns on you and stabs you, for no apparent reason. I was a little shocked.
I am told that the phrase:
Quote from: meekon5
So do be aware I may that I may react violently when I think the christians are at he gate.
Could have been taken the wrong way, "react violently" was not meant as physical violence. This is not a threat of physical violence, and I am slightly offended it was taken as such, being a ex-Buddhist pacifist.
All I can say is I meant all my posts in a teasing way and think this is a total failure of a sense of humour.
Though I realise there are Dudeist Christians on the site, perhaps they should remember we are not all Dudeist Christians.
And surprisingly some of us are not Americans as well so will have different points of view on religion, economics and politics (and History). Also we tend to phrase things differently.
Frank, I agree with Matt that leaving the forum is a bit drastic, at the end we are all here to learn to take it easy, am I wrong? That's what makes the difference with other religions, we can stay at the same table with a polytheistic pagan and still talk with him appreciating the conversation. And btw Meekon has very interesting points of view, well, most of the times ;D.
Being mainly Taoists we know that everything has a bit of truth and everything has its place- I'm wandering a little here but the point is that if we aren't (and some times I'm not too) able to take things easy than we must see the movie some more times.
Matt, I see your point, nevertheless "you" can call yourself how you like but if you don't do what Jesus did you are not a Christian. And He said mainly two things: there is only one God (+- the Tao concept) and respect the others.
This is what means being a Christian. In other words I can say that I'm Napoleon, but this doesn't mean that I am. Even if I call myself in that way. The message of Christ was strong and very appealing, that's why it has been twisted and used to enslave people. A lot of so called Christians even these days would like to burn books, since burning people is not anymore allowed, but they are another thing than Christians.
And btw the Bible has nothing to do with Christianity, just like the Qumran is a copy of the Torah. If you want a more original book on Christ read the Gospel of Thomas. ;D
Peace Dudes. ;D
Uh....just take it easy man.
Most religions are just like...uh...sometimes there's a man...sometimes there's a man....ah hell, lost my train of thought...
Oh yea.... well heres some Dead lyrics for ya...
QuoteThere comes a redeemer and he slowly, too, fades away
And there follows his wagon behind him that's loaded with clay
And the seeds that were silent all burst into bloom and decay
And night comes so quiet, its close on the heels of the day
[chorus]
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own
And sometimes we visit your country and live in your home
Sometimes we ride on your horses, sometimes we walk alone
Sometimes the songs that we hear are just songs of our own
----http://whitegum.com/intro.htm (great site!)
of, fuck, i thought this thread was about my favorite vino called, 7 deadly zins....never mind, out of my element.
Much like a child wondering in half way through the film there Hannah.
;D
Quote from: meekon5 on July 01, 2011, 04:55:10 AM
Much like a child wondering in half way through the film there Hannah.
;D
my whole life, meekon-dude, my whole LIFE. it's been such a 'blessing'.
Which ones do I suffer from ....... HHMMM ...... I just sufferabide....
Quote from: Da Stranger on August 23, 2010, 02:11:21 PM
Uh....just take it easy man.
Most religions are just like...uh...sometimes there's a man...sometimes there's a man....ah hell, lost my train of thought...
"... the sandal! follow the sandal..!"
"...no! the gourd... follow the gourd!"
i hope i've clarified everything.