The Dudeism Forum

Sorry Dudes my comments may have come across harsher than I actually meant them.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 20, 2014, 07:53:55 AM
...
A person would need to either bend the rules of the faith to accommodate a Dudeist stance or be less Dude to be of the faith.
I would not make a claim that a person can not be of any given faith and be a Dudeist but I would state that the beliefs of some faiths are diametrically opposed to the basic principles of Dudeism. A faith, any faith is not Identity. It is belief.
As the first thing that any person sees to do with Dudeism is "An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness". As soon as one goes down the road of a theist position of a personal and involved God aligning the inevitable outcomes with Dudeism IMPO becomes like putting a camel through the eye of a needle.

I just think this is an overly dogmatic stance to take.

I think this says more about your personal experience than actual facts.

I don't believe you can claim all theists are evangelical, (All Inuit are Eskimo's, but not all Eskimo's are Inuit).

There are branches of certain faiths that are evangelical I will admit.

The Jehovahs Witnesses for instance believe only a certain number of individuals will get into heaven , they also believe they can boost their place on the "list" with every person they convert which is why they are knocking at your door sunday morning.

On the other hand Nichiren Buddhists are one of the worst buddhist groups for being evangelical and they are in no way theists.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 20, 2014, 07:53:55 AM
The idea that "Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it" does not IMO resemble most of the religious "biggies". They make no bones about the idea that they DO know what to do about it. They actively prescribe a way and go so far as to say any other way is bound for all sorts of ugliness.
Now beyond that I'd rather not go down the same old road of people pointing out that most "moderate" whatevers don't think that way. It's been hashed over ad nauseum.

Isn't this saying you know what the arguments against this point of view are but don't want to consider them?



And finally:

"Probably the earliest form of Dudeism was the original form of Chinese Taoism, before it went all weird with magic tricks and body fluids." from What is Dudeism? on Dudeism.com.

Does that mean that any of you who have not studied Taoism can't be Dudeists?

I think not.

The quotes are not canon.

By saying all theists are unable to abide by "An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness" is shutting the door on so many people.

Which is entirely the wrong thing to do.

Invite them in and let them see the light, don't shut them out and leave them in the cold.

This is of course all meant in the best possible taste, and entirely my opinion, as all post here are only the opinions of their posters.

Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult.
For me it's pretty simple A person can't be a circle and a square.
If they say they are they are factually incorrect on one count or the other.
They can be a large circle and a small circle or a circle and a slight oval perhaps.
But the chasm between Dudeism and most organized religion is so wide that the type of practitioner of the other faith would have to be so "not evangelical" as to render them no longer of the faith by any reasonable measure.
In your example Innuit has meaning. Saying you are Innuit does not make it so.
The same holds true of claiming a faith without at least claiming some basic set of the beliefs.

Quote from: BikerDude on May 21, 2014, 11:49:24 AM
Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult.
For me it's pretty simple A person can't be a circle and a square.
If they say they are they are factually incorrect on one count or the other.
They can be a large circle and a small circle or a circle and a slight oval perhaps.
But the chasm between Dudeism and most organized religion is so wide that the type of practitioner of the other faith would have to be so "not evangelical" as to render them no longer of the faith by any reasonable measure.
In your example Innuit has meaning. Saying you are Innuit does not make it so.
The same holds true of claiming a faith without at least claiming some basic set of the beliefs.

Oh I'm sorry my mistake I thought this was a forum for discussing ideas openly not just stating your point of view as fact then slagging off anyone who disagrees.

Somebody not getting laid?

Quote from: BikerDude on May 21, 2014, 11:49:24 AM
Well I don't want to go down this F***ing road again.
From my side of the bar it looks like just being difficult...

Let's be honest if you don't want to have your opinions questioned and debated, just don't bother posting them here.

Some thirty years ago a friend explained to me that just because it is my opinion does not automatically make it fact.

"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

Vagina.

That is all.

Quote from: Hominid on May 22, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Vagina.

That is all.

...and beer.

I'm afraid that we can't just reduce all of Dudeism to one ethos i.e. hedonism ("vagina") or nihilism ("we believe in nothing"). "Has it ever occurred to you, that . . . given the nature of all this new shit, you know, I-I-I-I... this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... uh, you know?"

Comedic levity is all it is dude... we just like -  take it easy here man....

Quote from: DigitalBuddha on May 23, 2014, 01:14:20 AM

Quote from: Hominid on May 22, 2014, 10:13:04 PM
Vagina.

That is all.

...and beer.

I agree but then I am a devotee of Bacchus and Bast (Roman god of wine, Egyptian goddess of beer, and hemp)

Quote from: claird on May 22, 2014, 06:30:56 PM
"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

I get that you're differentiating between thinking and doing.  But if you ponder it for a bit, you'll understand that any serious believer in a mono-theistic religion (Christian, Jew, Muslim) is not very dudely, as they require exclusivity from their believers.  Dudeism encompasses the philosophy of Buddhism, which is in antithesis of old-school, elitist religion. 

Quote from: Hominid on May 23, 2014, 07:37:56 AM

Quote from: claird on May 22, 2014, 06:30:56 PM
"Is anybody listening to Administrator Dude's story?" What he is rightly getting at is that so much of this uptight shit that we're calling religion or ideology or what have you, is really not the issue here. The issue we are talking about here is "a way of being" and not just "a way of thinking."  Is it possible to be both a practicing Buddhist or a practicing Nihilist and follow Dudeism? Again, the problem with this question is the question itself? "What are you a fucking (theological) park ranger?" As one of those smart Greeks taught us, "not all cats are gray." The idea that a follower of say, JC (not to be confused with "The Jesus") is somehow automatically compelled to be an uptight fascist, well that brilliance smacks of the same wisdom of "bombing for peace" that I read under someone's handle.

The problem is with the need to control everything in advance - labeling and defining everything that moves - this is the kind uptight thinking that seems to plague all people regardless of their religious convictions or lack thereof. "Tell me what you believe and I'll tell you who you are."  The way of the Dude involves putting away the label-guns, stop waiving them around during league play. Dudeism is about finding our unique place in the story (a story filled with a wide variety of characters) and learning to be content with our role, the place that we "fit right in." And then hopefully after this whole darn comedy has played out, we can "die with a smile on our faces without feeling like the good Lord gipped us." 

I get that you're differentiating between thinking and doing.  But if you ponder it for a bit, you'll understand that any serious believer in a mono-theistic religion (Christian, Jew, Muslim) is not very dudely, as they require exclusivity from their believers.  Dudeism encompasses the philosophy of Buddhism, which is in antithesis of old-school, elitist religion. 

I think often we confabulate "being a Dudeist" with talking about "what Dudeism is".
A Dudeist would have to cut a Christian or a Muslim or whoever endless slack.
That is part of what it means to be a Dudeist. But when answering questions about Dudeism and how it relates to other religions we need to step outside the role of the Dudeist to answer.

A Christian or a Muslim or whatever is bound by the beliefs of the religion. That is what it MEANS to be a Christian or Muslim. Saying that you are either of those while rejecting the majority of the beliefs is just FACTUALLY untrue. Now people contend that there should be a gray area where people are free to pick and choose which beliefs to accept and which to reject and still remain "of the faith". OK. Even if I accept that then it is reasonable to believe that a Christian would at the very least accept the things actually said by Jesus. (And that definition is way lower than any of even the most liberal faiths who require acceptance of Jesus' divinity as the son of god) 
If being a Christian is believing what Christ said it looks to me like a non starter.
If Abiding is about Tolerance then Christianity can in no way be seen as Dudely.
It is so overwhelmingly littered with intolerance that I simply see no subset belief adequate enough to contend it constitutes "being a Christian".
THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE NOT A TON OF PEOPLE OUT THERE CALLING THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOT INTOLERANT. MOST HAVE NEVER EVEN READ THE BIBLE AND FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THERE OWN RELIGION IS.
THEY TAKE COMFORT IN THEIR FAITH WHICH HAS VERY VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY IN REALITY.  THEIR REAL COMMITMENT TO THE ACTUAL TEACHINGS IS SO LACKLUSTER THAT IT COULD NEVER RISE TO THE LEVEL OF INTOLERANCE.
AS A DUDEIST I CAN ACCEPT THIS AND MOVE ON. LIVE AND LET LIVE. BUT IF WE ARE DISCUSSING DUDEISM VS CHRISTIANITY I DON'T THINK THESE PEOPLE EVEN ENTER THE CONVERSATION.



2 Timothy 4:1-2 ESV / 355 helpful votes

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.

2 John 1:10-11 ESV / 311 helpful votes

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.

1 Corinthians 5:11 ESV / 299 helpful votes

But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler?not even to eat with such a one.

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 ESV / 172 helpful votes

?If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ?Let us go and serve other gods,? which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.



1 Timothy 6:3-5 ESV / 36 helpful votes

If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god.  Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own.  Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you.  Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own.  Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn?t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah.  Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don?t believe in him.  Jude 5



Ignorance is bliss.  Christians should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians:

Don?t associate with non-Christians.  Don?t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them.  2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views.  Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8



Judge other religions for not following Christ:

Whoever denies ?that Jesus is the Christ? is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are ?of God;? everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is ?a deceiver and an anti-Christ? 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn?t share Paul?s beliefs has ?an evil heart.? Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of ?the synagogue of Satan.? Revelations 2:9, 3:9

This is my problem with your statement that Theists can not be Dudeists.

Your entire argument relies on christian quotes from the bible, there are other theists apart form Christians and the abrihamic faiths.

I am a theist and I am not a Christian.