Imagine being offended at a request for mercy from a religious leader. Imagine feeling that such a request “weaponizes” the pulpit. How frail do you have to be to feel attacked by a request for mercy?

Imagine being offended at a request for mercy from a religious leader. Imagine feeling that such a request “weaponizes” the pulpit. How frail do you have to be to feel attacked by a request for mercy?

Apparently Trump feels threatened by religious leaders . . . ???

that's the last time that pile of maga shit will be seen sitting in a church during his term ...

I'm waiting for the EO on cutting the tops off all church crosses and posting his picture in all church foyers ...

Who knew that common decency and civil rights was left wing propaganda? Maybe Trump should hear this sort of thing more often (without putting them in the gulag).

"The fact that President Trump demanded that God remain as the foundation of America should have received non-partisan praise from all of our nation's clergy. We are addressing DEI and wokeness in our government and businesses and it's time to address wokeness in churches as well," he said.

Jesus was most likely "woke".  At least I hope so. I dont want a mean spiteful God that would anoint a Donald Trump to save the world.  

For ever, conservatives have claimed they know what God wants , and no one else does.  The absurdity of what they are saying never occurs to them. 

God wants us to give other people the shirt off our back if need be. 

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy". 

Matthew 5:3-12

The bishop was simply using the Gospel to make her case. 

For ever, conservatives have claimed they know what God wants , and no one else does.  The absurdity of what they are saying never occurs to them. 

There are 45,000 denominations of Christianity across the world. The absurdity of just that is certain.

There are 45,000 denominations of Christianity across the world. The absurdity of just that is certain.

Yes, it is absurd. Because it isn't even remotely true. In actuality, there's less than three hundred. If you do the research, you'll find this number is arrived at because of things like taking each country separately. That is, although it is actually the same denomination, it is counted as a separate one because it's in another country. Another reason is if a church is listed as non-denominational, of which there are thousands, they are counted as their own denomination, regardless of what they believe. Yet people keep touting these large numbers, apparently because it pleases them, I guess. 

Actually, I think there are way more than 300 hundred. You have to count all the different sects of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Rites, and then the Protestant churches break down into even more with different sects of Lutheran and Presbyterian.

Here is a link the the Wikipedia entry on Christian demoninations. Too much material to read thru, but scanning the article gave me a pretty good idea.

en.wikipedia

In actuality, there's less than three hundred.

Yet if truth was the objective, there would be only one.   (And, as I see things, there would likely be zero since nobody actually knows if there is a god.)

While one can debate the term 'denomination' vs 'rite', one clear fact is that there are an absurd number of different religious variants of Christianity.   This is consistent with what one would expect if religion was a function of human imagination rather than verified conclusions based on sound evidence.

47,000 And Growing
According to the Center for Study of Global Christianity, in mid-2023 there are 47,300 Christian denominations/rites. By 2025, it is predicted that there will be 49,000; and in 2050, 64,000. The percentage growth of denominations is higher or equal to the percentage of growth of the Christian population and growth of congregations since 1900. Globally the largest Protestant/Independent congregations, and fastest growing mega-denominations, are located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

lausanne

Here is the absurd part about this:

1. Christians who forego other Christians in the Faith based purely on partisanship. (A reason why Churches should not be political in character. See: Christian Nationalism.).

2. An absurdity: Christians protesting and alienating believers and nonbelievers over Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion when conservatively speaking the church has 300 plus denominations under its ONE umbrella category. How come diversity, equity, and inclusion positively WORK for the church, but is negatively DISMISSED politically?

Just goes to demonstrate the inconsistent logic of those who choose to ignore discernment in their worldview. I call upon the Spirit of Truth to enter into the heart of these discussions. 

Shame on Evangelicals for ignoring God for the sake of Manna. Gain the world:Souls lost.

Churches 'split' over any number of doctrine/teaching/dogma issues and other worldly views which can not be settled between congregational leadership. (The Southern Baptists split their church over slavery. Also, churches have split over (of all things) Christmas, over the making of 'saints,' biblical translations, and even if the Old Testament should be apportioned with the New Testament in binding them together,  amongst their reasons. Thus, the 'wild' propagation. 

One thing is clear. Jesus asked his 'Father' (God is Spirit and not a Man) to keep his followers as ONE, but we can see how that has manifested itself in today's world. . .through stubborn 'men' whom DIVIDE and DIVIDE themselves through politics, greed, and jealousies.

Yet if truth was the objective, there would be only one. 

Such a view is devoid of any consideration of human nature. 

While one can debate the term 'denomination' vs 'rite', one clear fact is that there are an absurd number of different religious variants of Christianity.

Again, yes, it is absurd. Because it isn't really true in the sense you guys are using it. If there is a list of 45,000 different Christian belief systems, please provide a link to where I can see it as I have yet to find it.

For goodness sakes. Ask yourself if that number even makes any logical sense! 45,000 distinct Christian belief systems? 

Look up what the studies you guys are citing consider a "denomination". It does not mean there is the range of difference of beliefs that you think the number indicates. 

The most detailed level of our taxonomy of global Christianity is Christian denominations, defined as an organized Christian church, tradition, religious group, community of people, aggregate of worship centre, usually within a specific country, whose component congregations and members are called by the same name in different areas, regarding themselves as an autonomous Christian church distinct from other churches and traditions. Denominations are defined and measured at the country level, creating a large number of separate denominations within Christian families and Christian traditions. For example, the presence of the Catholic Church in the world’s 234 countries results in 234 Catholic “denominations”, though these can be further subdivided by rite (e.g., Byzantine or Latin). The typical way for Christians to count themselves is at the local congregational level and then aggregate these totals at the city, province, state, regional and finally, national levels.

Individual congregations are not counted as “denominations.” We do make note of the fact that many independent congregations are not a part of any denomination. If those churches were to form an independent network with a name, we would consider them a denomination. Using this method, we report 45,000 Christian denominations in the world in 2019. Source

The basis for calling them different denominations is simply geographical location, not differences in beliefs. Same goes for other denominations. Although they may believe the same thing, such as Catholics, because they appear in a different country, they are considered a different denomination when as far as beliefs go, they aren't different. Even within the same country, if they are organized into different conferences, synods or whatever else, they are considered different denominations, regardless of what they believe.

Nowhere in their criteria for what constitutes a denomination is what they believe. Rather, it is based on what they call themselves, where they are located, how they are organized and so on. If their criteria for what constituted a denomination were solely on beliefs, there would be somewhere between 200 and 300 (probably closer to 200 than 300) different denominations, including non-Christian ones that would get included simply because they insist they are Christians, such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, Universalist Unitarians, etc.  

Does that not make more sense than 45,000 distinctly different belief systems? Not even the progressive woke churches could manage that kind of variety! I can't even imagine how one could alter Christianity 45,000 different ways, let alone generate a list of what those alterations could be. 

Such a view is devoid of any consideration of human nature. 

I was speaking logically Drakk.   Obviously I am aware of the need for human beings to invent comforting answers to great unknowns.

Because it isn't really true in the sense you guys are using it.

I used the word variants on purpose to give a label to the noted statistic.   It is right there clear as a bell in what you quoted:

TiG@2.1.3 ☞ While one can debate the term 'denomination' vs 'rite', one clear fact is that there are an absurd number of different religious variants of Christianity.

Because of that, your post was a waste of your time.

Regardless, the number of legitimate belief systems (purposely using your term as you intended) regarding God shows that these are the product of human imagination trying to fill the gap of something that is wholly unknown.

I used thew word variants on purpose.   It is right there clear as a bell in what you quoted:

TiG@2.1.3 ☞ While one can debate the term 'denomination' vs 'rite', one clear fact is that there are an absurd number of different religious variants of Christianity.

Because of that, your post was a waste of your time.

Uh, what? I wasn't aware that we were debating whether or not you used the word "variants", so I don't know what you mean by this. But, you know what? It's clear that I am wasting my time, so never mind. Don't bother. 

I intentionally used the term 'variant' as the label for the item of the 45,000 statistic.   That is because I do not buy the idea that there are 45,000 distinct belief systems (as you use the term) but do buy the idea that there are an absurd number of variations on the theme (even when you account for geographical and naming differences alone).

Try to resist the temptation to interpret everything I write in a manner that is most disagreeable to you.

You are simply backpedaling in order to cover your initial reply to me, presumably because you now realize it is unsupportable. So now you are attempting to sell the idea that "different religious variants" is somehow different than "distinct belief systems" and, even if you think there is a difference, still goes unexplained as to what that difference is. 

I intentionally used the term 'variant' as the label for the item of the 45,000 statistic.

Don't doubt it for a second. That's because I can read what you wrote. It's right there. The problem is, given the meaning of the word "variant" and combining it with the statistic you also used (because I read that, too. It's right there), it doesn't explain how "variant" should not be taken to mean 45,000 of them. 

That is because I do not buy the idea that there are 45,000 distinct belief systems

Which brings one to wonder a) what the point of including the statistic was, then, and b) what in either of your two previous posts prior to your last one indicates even a hint of this? 

but do buy the idea that there are an absurd number of variations on the theme (even when you account for geographical and naming differences alone).

So, if you do not believe the statistic you yourself used, from whence do you get whatever constitutes an "absurd number" of variations, what is that number and what makes them absurd? 

Try to resist the temptation to interpret everything I write in a manner that is most disagreeable to you.

Translation: "Stop calling me out when I say something that can't be supported. Instead, just assume I said something else that is supportable because I'm just going to claim what I said meant something other than what it literally says." This is because there's nothing in your initial post that even hints at what you're now claiming your stance to be. And, again, it's somehow my fault for either not understanding what you said or I'm deliberately twisting it. 

You are simply backpedaling ...

Good grief man, you just cannot stop yourself from interpreting my comments in a manner that is most disagreeable to you.

Get a grip, Drakk.

LOL. You are intentionally writing disagreeable posts and calling me out for it. Have a nice day, TiG. 

Okay, then I am going to just make my point again since you are deflecting like crazy.

There are 45,000 variants of Christianity.   And while it is unlikely that they are all unique, it is also highly likely that their teachings vary.   This is human nature.   We see this right here in the USA where differences in interpretation and religious instruction vary even at the church level.   So, even though I never suggested that there are 45,000 different belief systems of Christianity, your notion that these variants are mostly interpreting the Bible and providing the same religious instruction is unfounded.

My point was made @2.1.3 as my opening sentence in reply to your point.   So now pay attention:

Drakk @2.1.1 ☞ In actuality, there's less than three hundred. TiG@2.1.3 ☞ Yet if truth was the objective, there would be only one.   (And, as I see things, there would likely be zero since nobody actually knows if there is a god.)

I wrote the above as my full response to the statement I quoted from you ("In actuality, there's less than three hundred.").   I did not refute your number, but rather pointed out that even 300 shows that religions (even focusing on the category Christianity) clearly do not even interpret the Bible the same much less have a handle on the truth.

I then drew a line to indicate that I was moving to a different point and commented on the 45,000 denominations noting that regardless of name, this an absurd number of variants.   Making the point again, that even within Christianity, nobody has the handle on truth.   And, per your subsequent post, even if we combine denominations that are in different countries, the variations will be absurd given the numbers we are starting with.

To wit, as I noted in my first sentence in my first reply to your post, the sheer variability in religions, even within the category of Christianity, strongly supports the notion that none of these belief systems (using your term with your meaning) are aligned with truth.   That they are likely all nothing more than human beings inventing comforting explanations for that which nobody could explain based on sound evidence and logic.

To wit, as I noted in my first sentence in my first reply to your post, the sheer variability in religions, even within the category of Christianity, strongly supports the notion that none of these belief systems (using your term with your meaning) are aligned with truth.   That they are likely all nothing more than human beings inventing comforting explanations for that which nobody could explain based on sound evidence and logic.

There were false gospels and false christs, plural, in biblical times (even through the compiling of the 'whole' bible). There are people who only consult the New Testament. People who consult and believe the Old Testament and New Testament combined, 'red-letter' believers (Jesus 'only'), and 'no' Pauline believers—so on and so forth.

At this point. . . one can be forgiven for being so bold as to ask this question: Why would a/ny God write a message to be propounded on with life affecting seriousness and leave it up to vagueness and the vagaries of centuries of 'interpretations'? It does boggle and make 'trouble' for the thinking man's mind! 

Was a bit of a Truth seeker back in the 60s. Gave a look at most every religion that ever came down the pike. Only found small "t" truths.

Was raised protestant but could never get behind all of the obvious falsehoods in the Bible.

Thought that I was a Taoist for awhile but then morphed to Confucianism. Tried Bahai and Buddhism but had the same problem with that whole higher power thingy.

Thankfully I never tried Scientology, but I did read Dianetics. Always loved L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction books but I don't think that even he believed in the religion he created. 

Today, I'm now a guilt free agnostic who leaves the study of mythology and superstition to others.

Went to college and earned a few degrees.

For many years now the scientific method has been my "god".

Jesus was most likely "woke".

Socially progressive, absolutely.

"Woke", definitely not.

T o the Romans?

Definitely woke.

What is your definition of woke?

Seems nobody can actually agree on that definition.

Christ's message was simple: "love one another". He deployed that message further, with instructions for His followers to be inclusive and to care for all less fortunate.

Anyone who doesn't agree with Christ‘s message cannot be a Christian. That is to say... a MAGA cannot be a Christian.

IOW...woke

EXACTLY. So imagine the "surprise" that Evangelicals have taken it upon themselves to disparage, disagree, excoriate, and now in Trump DISMISS what they prejoratively label: 'Woke.'  

Jesus was "Woke" in his time. . . and we see what 'happened' to him. He was disparaged, disagreed with, excoriated, and crucified by the so-call, "leaders" of his day. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I don't believe that there was a "Jesus", but do believe in the philosophy that later folk ascribed to him.

Even this atheist tends to follow the golden rule.

No problem, although it seems to me to be hard to explain the original of Christianity without Christ. If you don't want to accept Jesus's divinity, that's much less of a problem. His message remains in any case.

Lots of triggered people in the pulpits....

trump will be revising the 10 commandments by EO next ...

More likely he'll use the Commandments for a photo op and then break them all within 24 hours.

he's already repeatedly violated all 10 of them directly or indirectly ...

trump will be revising the 10 commandments by EO next ...

1. Thou shall have no other gods before Me.
2. Thou shall not make graven images
3. Thou shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Keep the Sabbath
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. Thou shall not murder.
7. Thou shall not commit adultery.
8. Thou shall not steal.
9. Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. Thou shall not covet.

After Trump gets through altering the ones he likes and trimming out the one's he likes breaking...

1. I, Donald J Trump, am the God of these miserable dirty peoples
2. Thou shall only make images of me and place them everywhere on everything
3. Thou shall not take my name in vain.
4. Honor my father
5. Thou shall not murder anyone yourself; that's what expendable lackeys are for.

And 7 thru 10 are obsolete

[deleted][✘]

Now MAGA is attacking the Pope because he dared to speak out/up against Trump policy. 

What a group of weak minded spineless turds…

The new snowflakes is spelled, MAGA.

Now MAGA is attacking the Pope because he dared to speak out/up against Trump policy. 

Probably because they don't want to hear what a pedophile has to say.

"Ironically, the bishop used the pulpit and the service to not only lecture the president but to promote a secular worldview and her woke ideology. Unity can only be achieved through a commitment to biblical truth, not cultural assimilation. Her sermon was indicative of the heresy being taught by mainline denominations. Our nation was founded upon the truth that there is God, and he alone defines good and evil," he said

The bishop might get better results from asking a dog not to eat meat. Evangelicals are not Christians, they are self-righteous and self-interested jerks. They have used their power to elect a felon to the presidency . . . and worse are not ashamed to have done so. Southern Baptists have an invalid faith.

Evangelicals are not Christian

I have never heard another Christian say that. But I agree with you

I say it because of the disallowances (some) Evangelicals are granting Jesus, when they persecute people whom would not even know or care about them. . .if they would only leave Others/marginalized people alone. Evangelicals have gone on the offensive and seek out Others to mess with and over time and time again. Evangelicals have forgotten the love of Jesus and 'gone' after manna (material wealth). Now even they charge for the gospel. . .and worse. .  .use it to gain power, influence, and yes control over the lives of those willing to sit under their voices. 

I say this, they have gone after "Winning" and in the process they have gained Winning—and lost their souls. They have become like salt that has no savor. 

They come and go in this place even and yet you would never know their beliefs, their arguments, their faith in God and Christ. Because they are ashamed of God and Jesus it appears or worse—they are so ashamed of what they do that they can not PROFESS or enter into discussion from their position.

Evangelicals speak of the love of God toward Others, even while they would see Others return to begging food in the streets.  Evangelicals lie on Others, and won't tell the truth about themselves. They project hatred on others. . . which is emanating from their mouths and conferences. 

As for me, I can surely say in the last ten years I have seen greater love from the godless than I have from the antics, mockings, slow degradation of the gospel from unmodest believers in public forums and media. 

It's a damn shame that (some) Evangelicals are a sham.

Evangelicals are not Christian

I have never heard another Christian say that. But I agree with you

The distinction between Christian and not Christian is easy: does the person make a genuine effort to be kind to all others. MAGAs have cruelty in their dogma. They therefore cannot be Christian.

My biggest problem with Evangelicals is this: their insistence on Self-righteousness. A thing Christians are DENIED to hold as a possession and evangelicals 'exert' in superabundance. Because it denies God's love to operate in others on its own timetable (and not the timetable of 'Men').

All this bishop asked is that the love of God (God is 'tirelessly' patient) be shown to the Needy, the Underserved, the Cripple, the Oppressed, and in MAGA what they are about to get is 'gnashing of teeth.'

My biggest problem with Evangelicals is this: their insistence on Self-righteousness.

You definitely have a point.

It's the same objection people have to the "woke" movement, BTW.

The "woke" movement is not self-righteous. And I am willing to 'walk' with you on that if you need to/wish. Hurting, displaced, neglected citizens of this country - no matter how long or how they became so - need the support of their country. As if they could 'win' all the time or even most of the time. . . then they would not need 'anything' from society such as a hand or to stand on the shoulders of those whom came before them. But wait: even the wealthy have been 'photographed' at times standing at the government's door looking for this nation's largesse (and grants) for their concepts and ideologies. 

It is a shameful LIE that the SHAMELESS EVANGELICALS are telling their memberships: that the secular world is 'after' them. I watch Christian television. . . I hear them do it in various/varying dialogues and techniques meant to divide the Church ("up in spiritual/political arms") from its secular side. It is disgusting. It is revolting. It is 'vomitous.' That the church would demonize the world and at the same time spew out that God is love and accepting.

Long story short theirs is the doctrine of men—not God.

All this bishop asked...

... is Christian behavior. That's much too much to ask of most American "Christians".

Do you condemn Jesus for having been "woke"? Because He was... and he called on His followers to follow His path.

The "woke" movement is not self-righteous.

Neither is the evangelical Christian movement.  The followers of those movements, however, are a very different story.

Hurting, displaced, neglected citizens of this country - no matter how long or how they became so - need the support of their country.

Define "support".  That means very different things to different people.

It is a shameful LIE that the SHAMELESS EVANGELICALS are telling their memberships: that the secular world is 'after' them.

It's an opinion.  For the record, it is an opinion I find more than a little silly, but they have a right to their paranoia as much as you have a right to yours.

That the church would demonize the world and at the same time spew out that God is love and accepting.

It does seem to be a contradiction they find difficult to manage, I do not disagree.

I watch Christian television

You should stop.  There is no value in it.

Do you condemn Jesus for having been "woke"? Because He was.

I've heard this utterly ridiculous assertion before.

Jesus was absolutely not an insufferable, pathetic, obnoxious wastrel who ran around declaring his victimhood and demanding everyone change their vocabulary and diet to avoid offending him.  Like it or not, that's the identity of the "woke" movement in America.

.. and he called on His followers to follow His path.

He called on his followers to love God, so comparing him to a group of people who generally reject God's existence is all the more moronic. He also called them love their neighbor, while expanding the definition of "neighbor" dramatically. (Yes... it includes Trump supporters as well as trans-activists.) 

He specifically admonished them from the judgmental self righteousness that is the hallmark of both conservative evangelicals and "woke" leftists in our current society.

... none so blind...

... none so blind...

Thank you for proving my point.

Again.

Especially evangelicals. They have corrupted their brand with hypocrisies. 

Woke is looking for a place of marginalized people belonging within American culture not to SUPERSEDE OR REPLACE  American culture.As a 'movement' is empty of meaning without followers, share PERSPECTIVE on what Evangelical followers are seeking to be:

1. Counterculture to American culture. 

2. Dominate force over American culture.

3. Neither.

Define "support".  That means very different things to different people.

The concern is what does it mean to a nation of people/citizens. In context of religiosity-specifically Christianity it means: Good Samaritanism. ('If anything else is needed -charge it to my account and I will take care of it when I return.')

Luke 10:

³⁰  In reply Jesus said:  “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead.   ³¹  A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.   ³²  So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.   ³³  But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.   ³⁴  He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him.   ³⁵  The next day he took out two denarii ^{[ c ]}  and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

³⁶  “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

³⁷  The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him. ”

Note : A self-righteous priest crossed the 'street.'  A son of the holy sect, a Levite, passed up the Samaritan, but the Samaritan saw and came and had mercy on him and not just mercy. . .but in the course of his own life events took care to see that any thing the man needed should be provided him. As it is the 'neighborly' thing to do. 

What other good is money and wealth STORED up to do, but provide glory to God through it as the Giver? And for the unbeliever or least of expectations- a service to humanity? In hope of its return in some other valuable order from its receiver through remembrance of a service in time of need done ?  

What does 'SUPPORT' mean to the individual is what counts!

It's an opinion.  For the record, it is an opinion I find more than a little silly, but they have a right to their paranoia as much as you have a right to yours.

This is not about whataboutism. Let's keep it unpersonal (because that is a quick slide into mocking and name-calling for its own sake). 

Jesus was absolutely not an insufferable, pathetic, obnoxious wastrel who ran around declaring his victimhood and demanding everyone change their vocabulary and diet to avoid offending him.  Like it or not, that's the identity of the "woke" movement in America.

That is your definition of woke and the reason that this definition has landed with you is because apparently you agree with the same people pushing that definition.

 "Woke" was the experience of enlightenment, of being awakened to the truth. It was the very essence of the biblical Jesus and the message that he is supposed to have wanted to convey. Then a bunch of bad people started using it to refer to specific people and actions that you refer to above.

I hate it when a good word is corrupted by serial misuse.

Jesus was absolutely not an insufferable, pathetic, obnoxious wastrel who ran around declaring his victimhood and demanding everyone change their vocabulary and diet to avoid offending him

Prove it. Back up that mischaracterization. Don't just drop it and walk away! Let us together drill down on that. Give examples and let's examine them together.

This is not about whataboutism.

My comments are about whatever I decide they are, thank you.

None of us like being reminded of the log in our own eye, but that doesn't make it any smaller.

That is your definition of woke and the reason that this definition has landed with you is because apparently you agree with the same people pushing that definition.

It's based on my experience with people claiming the title.  History tells us pretty clearly the good guys are not the ones telling everybody else what they can't say.

"Woke" was the experience of enlightenment, of being awakened to the truth.

I'm sure some people want to believe that.  Unfortunately, what people claim is often undermined by their behavior.  Fox News claims to be fair and balanced.  That doesn't mean they're not full of shit when they say that.

It was the very essence of the biblical Jesus and the message that he is supposed to have wanted to convey.

In a hyper idealized fantasy sense, maybe. But the actual behavior of people claiming to be "woke" is the complete opposite.

You don't find Jesus demanding people be ostracized from society over some verbiage that triggered Him.  You didn't see him organize riots, burn down innocent people's homes or businesses, tear down Roman statues, demand governmental policy changes, include or exclude people based on race, demand that other people pay his debts, or any of the other nonsense we routinely see angry, militant, "woke" people do.

What "woke" people claim when they're trying to justify their ideology and what they actually do are so vastly different that they give the most hypocritical Christians a run for their money.  If they're all "peaceful protests" then how did we get over $2billion in damage?  They have no credibility left.

Prove it.

You prove it.  

You've got your Bible.  Prove me wrong.

It's based on my experience with people claiming the title.  History tells us pretty clearly the good guys are not the ones telling everybody else what they can't say.

Your mischaracterization seems to be inherently self inflicted. Millions of people can and do consider themselves to be woke who are not akin to the folks who you classify as woke.  

"Woke" was the experience of enlightenment, of being awakened to the truth.

I'm sure some people want to believe that.  Unfortunately, what people claim is often undermined by their behavior.  Fox News claims to be fair and balanced.  That doesn't mean they're not full of shit when they say that.

That is what the word meant before it was sullied by the right. And just because some person claims that they are something does not mean that they are automatically not what they claim to be, which you imply. 

From english.stackexchange

When is the earliest usage of 'woke' and 'wokeness' in their meaning of awareness of social injustice?

Ask Question

Asked   7 years, 1 month ago

Modified   7 years, 1 month ago

Viewed   6k times

The new usage of 'woke' (being alert to issues of social justice) and 'wokeness' appears to be becoming widespread.

Merriam Webster   states:

Woke’s   transformation into a byword of social awareness likely started in 2008, with the release of Erykah Badu’s song “Master Teacher”:

"To keep a healthy life, I stay woke."

Is there an earlier example of the usage of these two words ?

---

[EDIT : subsequent to Laurel's answer I did an   Ngram   of 'stay woke' in AmE. Big blip in 1880 ( interesting ) and then, in line with Laurel's findings, usage begins 1960/1980s to present.]

An interesting antecedent to the social justice sense of woke  appears in Shane Stevens,  Go Down Dead  (1967) [combined snippets]:

He get up slow and he float into the kitchen when he come back he got three in his hand. He give them to me and I light one up. I drag deep and soon it hit me and I feeling good. I mean I feel like everything fine and the world a good place to live and everybody doing the job what they got and nobody make trouble. Everything is just calm and nice and easy. I is a very smart cat what is   woke   to all the sounds.

...

Thats how pot make me feel. Peacefull. I want no trouble and I give no trouble.

Another instance, somewhat closer to the social justice sense, appears in Karlene Faith,   Soledad Prison, University of the Poor: An Exchange Between Students from the University of California at Santa Cruz and Prisoners at the Soledad Correctional Training Facility   (1975) [combined snippets]:

You have become too rigid/ + frigid/ + stupid/ + hung up/ in your dream to see that the lust for/ life will never yield/ to rules and bars/ or to godless/ heartless machines/ but will free us of the/ slavery of deceptive oppression,/ exploitation/ + the illusion of your dream./ Nothing comes to a sleeper but a dream Amerika/ + we are   WOKE / You are being condemned by your non-sleeping/ people Amerikan Dream/ We the people-/ in order to establish a more perfect union-/ Sentence you/ Amerikan Dream/ to humanism/ + awareness/ +/ love +/ peace/ + revolution/ + progressive/ social/ insomnia/ for the rest of your natural/ life

One common source of mainstream slang terms is African American slang. But the likelihood that   woke   in its modern sense was current in African American slang as early as 1975 is diminished by the fact that neither Clarence Major,   Juba to Jive: A Dictionary of African American Slang   (1994) nor Geneva Smitherman,   Black Talk: Words and Phrases from the Hood to the Amen Corner   (1994) has an entry for   woke   in any sense. Likewise, slang dictionaries dedicated to American youth slang ( Flappers 2 Rappers: American Youth Slang   [1996]), hipster slang (( Straight from the Fridge, Dad: A Dictionary of Hipster Slang   [1988/2004]), and college slang ( Slang U.: The Official Dictionary of College Slang   [1989]) do not mention   woke .

The suggested origin in a 2008 song by Erykah Badu seems very plausible, given that popular songs provide a direct conduit to vast numbers of people. Nevertheless, the notion that   woke   can mean "aware of certain truths or realities that most other people have not yet grasped clearly" has antecedents from long before 2008.

---

A very early instance of   woke   in connection with social justice appears in Matilie Singerman,   A Comparison of the Opinion of the Negro Leaders in World War I and World War II ...   [combined snippets] (1945):

The idea that all labor must be united for the benefit of all workers was prevalent. It was felt that the craft union philosophy was becoming passé. Charles S. Johnson wrote

"The ends of labor, as an equal partner in the production of goods and wealth cannot be served without the cooperation of all workers. This is in sharp contrast to the old craft union philosophy based, like the old industrial monopoly, upon the economy of scarcity. The new philosophy based, as a part of its own inherent logic, takes in Negro workers, and this logic has been fortified in some of the new powerful labor organizations by penalties for failure to enforce the policy of non-discrimination, and by a growing political solidarity.

"Negro workers are now recognizing in the new unions the most strategic weapons for [their own] advance[.] ..."

J. Saunders Redding observed that

"The South is learning the lesson taught a few months ago by R. J. Thomas, president of the United Automobile Workers, when he ordered back to work, under pain of expulsion from job and union, some Southern whites who struck in protest against the employment of Negroes in a Wright aeronautical factory. They mean that the Negro is coming to 'have faith in organized labor as a force for social justice.' They mean what a Negro United Mine Workers official in West Virginia told me in 1940: 'Let me tell you, buddy, waking up is a damn sight harder than going to sleep, but we'll   stay woke up   longer.'"

The quotation from J. Saunders Redding originally appeared in   Negro Digest , volume 1 (1942).

Equating awareness of—and an unwillingness to lose sight of—ideas of social justice with being awakened and "staying woke [up]" is sufficiently obvious and intuitive that we shouldn't be surprised to see instances of it extending fairly far backward in history. It doesn't follow that a continuous connection necessarily exists between very early instances of   woke   in the context of social justice and widespread slang or figurative use of it in that sense today.

----------------------------------------------

Its earliest written usage appears to be from a glossary of terms published by the NY Times magazine in 1962, implying that its usage was by then already somewhat established and that its original usage probably dates a few years earlier:

Woke   follows a long history of words and phrases that relate the gaining of knowledge to sleep and/or sight.   Everyone from angry politicians to conspiracy theorists has told the world they’re ‘blind to the truth’ or that they need to ‘open their eyes’, and rap music with a political message is widely known as ‘conscious’ hip-hop. ‘ Woke’ is a natural successor to these, but its grammatical quirk is a product of AAVE (African-American Vernacular English) which through the ambiguity of its tense, implies being woke is a state of mind rooted in the past . The implication is that once someone has become woke, they can’t easily go back to sleep. For instance, people describe themselves as ‘being woke’ as opposed to ‘being awake’ or having ‘woke up’.

Like most words, the history of woke is a surprisingly long one. The word was first used in the 1800s but back then, it only meant the act of not being asleep.   Fast forward a few centuries and the first recorded use of ‘woke’ in its politically conscious incarnation was via a N.Y. Times Magazine glossary of ‘phrases and words you might hear today in Harlem’ in 1962.

The glossary was alongside an article on African-American street slang by   black novelist William Melvin Kelley, and his explanation of ‘woke’ was the ‘well-informed, up-to-date’ definition the OED uses today . In 1972, Barry Beckham’s play Garvey Lives! includes a character claiming he’ll ‘stay woke’ using the work of Jamaican activist leader Marcus Garvey: ‘I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr. Garvey done woke me up, I’m gon stay woke. And I’m gon' help him wake up other black folk’.

(thedebrief.co.uk)

Also   wokeness   has a very old origin. Its current usage is much more recent:

It turns out that wokeness is a very old word in our language, the earliest written documentation dating from around the year 1000 (the Oxford English Dictionary cites the Homilies of Ælfric).

The medieval usage wokeness (also spelled wacnys or wacnysse) is akin to our modern weakness, and means either debility or inferiority.

We seem to have stopped talking about our bodily wokeness/wakenes sometime in the 16th century.

The modern, urgent use of wokeness turns the original usage on its head. Not weakness but the strength that comes from awareness , not intrinsic inferiority but maybe the humility that derives from knowing how privilege and prejudice have benefited those of us who have benefited, and how the same privilege and prejudice have damaged or destroyed others.

(www.chronicle.com)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Words have meanings, the meanings change, and life goes on. You seem like a fairly astute fellow. Wake up.

Your mischaracterization seems to be inherently self inflicted.

Yours seems stubbornly naive.  

Millions of people can and do consider themselves to be woke who are not akin to the folks who you classify as woke.  

Maybe.  But silent majorities always suffer reputation destruction at the hands of the bad actors in their group.  Ask a Catholic priest.

That is what the word meant before it was sullied by the right.

The right didn't sully anything.  Regular, average Americans observed plenty of egregious behavior and drew their own conclusions.

Regular, average Americans observed plenty of egregious behavior and drew their own conclusions.

No. They plugged in to their social media accounts and were taken down the rabbit hole of algorithmic processing designed to make them remain plugged in. The feedback loop thus created made one persons viral post of one person misbehaving (out of a sea of millions of people behaving in a normal fashion) become the "new normal," or the new "Woke." Then the tongue-wags, the regressive, repressive, and reactionary culture-warriors, and the slimy politicians all climbed onboard, using these few to define the many (As you just did in your post) and we end up with you proclaiming that is what woke has always been, when factually it has not, and saying... 

Yours seems stubbornly naive.

...when all I did was indicate what the word meant before and backed that assertion up with factual data in my post. My original definition is the way that the word was used. Usage over time has changed the words meaning, regretfully, because the term woke gave the essence of being awakened to something morally sound and solid. The perversion of the term to the meaning of a whiney bitch is therefore very saddening to me and, IMO, more applicable to the people who have changed the meaning. I am sorry if your conceits won't let you see that.

Now, returning to the point, Jesus, if he was real and behaved in the ways that he is said to have behaved, would be the very epitome of woke used in the non-pejorative sense that I have defended in my previous post.

No. They plugged in to their social media accounts and were taken down the rabbit hole of algorithmic processing designed to make them remain plugged in.

This is a fascinating, if wholly unsurprising line of thinking.  Those who disagree with left leaning positions must be some combination of misled or misinformed.  If they are clearly not misled but still recalcitrant, then they are obviously evil.  If they used to believe the liberal thinking but no longer do, they are apostate.

It's as though the whole thought process has been copied from the Catholic Church.

when all I did was indicate what the word meant before 

Yes.  Pretending that any meaning it may have had before maintains any relevance at all, and that the term has not been co-opted and weaponized... first by the angry militant left and then later by the angry militant right.

The naivete exists when one maintains any belief whatsoever that these people are somehow possessed of some moral awakening.  They have the same level of morality (and many of the same goals) as 11th century crusaders, who sought to impose their world view/morality by coercion and force, grabbing wealth and power for themselves along the way, and hiding under the supposed moral justification that "God wills it". 

God most definitely did not will it.  No moral superiority existed, just as none exists for these people claiming to be "woke" in the current day.  It's all just self-righteousness repackaged and used as a lever to gain power.

Now, returning to the point, Jesus, if he was real and behaved in the ways that he is said to have behaved, would be the very epitome of woke used in the non-pejorative sense that I have defended in my previous post.

You do realize you're making the same assertion Christian nationalists do, where you cherry pick your favorite parts of something and claim it's how Jesus would have wanted it.  I'm not suggesting they're entitled to some sort of monopoly on the practice, BTW.  If you want to play their game against them, go right ahead.

The claim that "Jesus agreed with my ideology" is possibly the single most misused rationalization since His death.

If we're going to accept the unrealistic ideal of something as the working definition, this is where we end up.  Under those terms, anybody this side of the KKK can make a similar claim that Jesus would have been whatever they support.  Socialism sounds very Christ-like until you get to the part where you have to lock everybody in to get them to participate.  Not so Christ like at all at that point.

Gee, you surely have one hell of an imagination. You should do something constructive with it.

While it is plainly evident that you don't agree with perpetrators of the present meaning of woke, you cannot change the past meanings that the word has held. Try as you might, you cannot travel back in time to paste the current day perversion of a definition on a word onto the people who have used the word to describe themselves when it meant something different than it does today, nor can you change the multiple accounts of the life of Jesus. If one understands both of these, a very compelling argument can be made for Jesus, in his time, being awake and aware of the shit that people do to try and lead someone down the improper (what's that?!) path. He was aware and his teachings were to love everyone: One another, love your neighbor, love your enemy, love the lowest people, the highest people. I didn't write the Bible. That was his overriding theme. And I do not use this as a way to push anyone towards any belief. I am agnostic. 

You do realize you're making the same assertion Christian nationalists do, where you cherry pick your favorite parts of something and claim it's how Jesus would have wanted it.  I'm not suggesting they're entitled to some sort of monopoly on the practice, BTW.  If you want to play their game against them, go right ahead.

This is specious and logically flawed argumentation. Your insertion of a group who may claim to be like Jesus is hilarious, It is a strawman argument. To wit: 

The claim that "Jesus agreed with my ideology" is possibly the single most misused rationalization since His death.

Hahahaha... I am not cherry picking anything, by the way. I gave what the definition of the word was for the majority of my existence and said that according to that definition Jesus, as defined by scripture, would have been known as woke. Like it or not, the definition fits. I was not debating anything else. You seem unable to understand this distinction.

While it is plainly evident that you don't agree with perpetrators of the present meaning of woke, you cannot change the past meanings that the word has held.

You'll notice I have not tried to do so.  I merely point out that your usage of the word is no longer valid in today's society, in the same way words like "nice" or "bully" no longer mean what they once did.

Your insertion of a group who may claim to be like Jesus is hilarious

Yes. That was the point.  Your claim that Jesus was 'woke' is equally hilarious.

Let's keep it impersonal. You were asked and you continue to violate. 

 Nothing of substance to address there!

The modern, urgent use of wokeness turns the original usage on its head. Not weakness but the strength that comes from awareness , not intrinsic inferiority but maybe the humility that derives from knowing how privilege and prejudice have benefited those of us who have benefited, and how the same privilege and prejudice have damaged or destroyed others.

Exactly. 'Woke' is about social justice, equality, equity, and justice. Of course, the opposers of wokeness, they're asleep and they want no part of a equally qualified world.

 Your claim that Jesus was 'woke' is equally hilarious.

No. It is definitionally correct with the definition that was used for most of my life. Only recently has woke gained a newer, pejorative meaning. The fact that you cannot seem to understand this very simple fact in no way makes it less true. 

From above (I mean here, not the heavens )

... the strength that comes from awareness , not intrinsic inferiority but maybe the humility that derives from knowing how privilege and prejudice have benefited those of us who have benefited, and how the same privilege and prejudice have damaged or destroyed others.

Seems like a good thing to be woke, by this definition. Which is probably why Donald the Destroyer and the Reactionary Reight dislike it so much they had to work so hard to poison the term. 

Now, returning to the point, Jesus, if he was real and behaved in the ways that he is said to have behaved, would be the very epitome of woke used in the non-pejorative sense that I have defended in my previous post.

Culture warriors (the Right) knows this, but since Evangelicals are in a mindset to turn Christian Nationalism into dominance over our culture and capitalism is their perpetual economy system (of choice) . . . then Jesus must be a 'capitalist'. . .and self-reliant (to the extreme). Even though evangelicals highly rely on anybody they can to help them when they find themselves 'stuck' and needy.

BTW, somebody should ask these culture warriors on the Right if they accept and hold to a belief that Heaven operates on a system of grifting and hustling the masses. Because it can be seem happening (shamefully so) in evangelical churches today.

Exactly. 'Woke' is about social justice, equality, equity, and justice. Of course, the opposers of wokeness, they're asleep and they want no part of a equally qualified world.

I don't think that the true opposers of wokeness are asleep, but rather anti-woke, because they feel that to have certain knowledge, to be woke, makes the person less malleable and much more difficult to control. Words are very important when used to define oneself and more so when used to define others. Identity is what the Reight were attempting to take away when they started calling everything they deemed bad "woke." 

Only recently has woke gained a newer, pejorative meaning.

But that's what it means now.

The fact that you cannot seem to understand this very simple fact in no way makes it less true. 

I understand it perfectly.  I'm just not interested in pretending old definitions matter.

The words "make America great again" don't have the same meaning they did for most of your life, either.  

Seems like a good thing to be woke, by this definition.

Well if we're going to use the definition "trustworthy person who makes good on their promises" then an oath keeper would be a great thing to be.   But nobody's gonna buy that bullshit, either.

Which is probably why Donald the Destroyer and the Reactionary Reight dislike it so much they had to work so hard to poison the term. 

They didn't have to poison anything.  The people who took up the name enthusiastically proclaiming their own misplaced self righteousness did that on their own.

I used the word, "asleep" in contrast to 'woke.' Here is an 'old-timey' reference to 'Stay woke' (another term of phrase in that 'family' of speaking);

Romans 13:

¹¹ Do this, knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we first believed. ¹² The night is almost gone, and the day is near. Therefore let’s rid ourselves of the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light.

Compare: (Sorry for the length of the passage- the 'message' is a treasure found within it.)

Matthew 26:

36 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.”

39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

40 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Couldn’t you men keep watch with me for one hour?” he asked Peter. 41 “Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away a second time and prayed, “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.”

43 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. 44 So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

45 Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour has come, and the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners.

The word, 'watch' is translated in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible as: "Be Vigilant."

In other words: 'STAY WOKE.'  (ever mindful and on the look-out for that which could 'overtake.')

Note the contrasting use Paul and Jesus - gave to: sleep and watch.

There's a huge "machismo" component.

This searcher is now agnostic but will never fault those who are in search of their own truths.

So a female Episcopal Bishop in Washington DC said liberal things.  

I'm curious how anyone could be surprised by this.  It's like buying a goldfish and complaining that it swims.  

If he wanted to hear conservative things, he could have gone to a Southern Baptist church in Virginia.

That was the preceding or following act by Reverand Lorenzo Sewell who took "over the top" sermons to a new height.

It was overly dramatized. Borderline insulting in my book. Some are calling it "coonish" what Reverend Sewell did. I am not sure of that. . . but it was dramatic on MLK DAY at that. (Someone remarked that it was not helpful to the Reverend's cause that he did not acknowledge Dr. Martin Luther King at all before or after his "reading."). Also, it is not clear if the entire room was moved, shocked, or laughing at him for such treatment of the moment.)

He sure would have heard conservative things in a Southern Baptist Church. . . and it would be shameful. The Southern Baptist ought to be ashamed of how in manifested the Bible to this nation and the world. Shameful! The hate that is that organization's past, present, and by extrapolation: future.

So it just may be that God put Trump where he needed to be. . .isn't that how the 'saying' goes? After all, the pretense is Trump is a son of God. . . chosen even.  /s

After all, the pretense is Trump is a son of God. . . chosen even.  /s

Work it, Donnie, work it... 

Hey! You wanna buy my Bible? I signed it!

[✘]

I suggest he go to a Catholic Mass next time

I suggest he go to a Catholic Mass next time

That raises an interesting point.  Or several, for that matter.

This just seems like such a strange bit of ceremony, especially in this day and age.

For centuries, European monarchs were crowned in a church to reinforce the concept of their divine right to rule.  The whole point of not having a monarch is to get away from that idea and commit to the concept of self governance. 

So if we're going to have this bit of ceremony, where we are spending a day installing a leader we firmly assert does NOT rule by divine right but we're all going to church anyway.... why shouldn't it be Catholic?  Or Muslim?  Or Hindu?

excactly

I speculate Trump thought he was causing a moment of UNITY in the church world (binding/bridging two sides of Christendom) and seized the opportunity. But wait: there I go trying to validate Trump's lack of proper communication with the nation by supplying reasons which are PROPERLY his to offer the people (through the media).

I agree.

Trump is a narcissistic showman. He assumed that it was enough for him to just appear in church to be considered Christian. 

Unfortunately for him, the bishop called on him to BEHAVE as a Christian. Which he doesn't even understand.

Trump went because someone he told him he had to. 

He doesn't do what anybody tells him to. His ego was massaged and told that it would make a great photo op and make MAGA love him more

I speculate Trump thought he was causing a moment of UNITY in the church world

You think more highly of him than I do, clearly.

I suspect he was pandering to his hyper-conservative base, which is why they are all shocked that a liberal was allowed to speak.

Well, I specified it was "speculation" and that we would be better served if I didn't do that. So. . . .

Donald only believes in Donald. 

So a female Episcopal Bishop in Washington DC said Christian liberal things.

Rectified. A bishop often says Christian things.

A Christian bishop, that is...

She seriously spanked him and he had it coming!

So a female Episcopal Bishop in Washington DC said liberal things.

If “I ask you to have mercy” is a liberal thing, I’m here for it. It’s hard to think of a more Christian sentiment. It’s bizarre that anyone claiming to be Christian would be offended by that.

I'm an atheist and I'm not offended by it

Since I have been on NewTalkers I have had my views of atheists 'DRASTICALLY' changed—in a positive direction.   Evangelicals, I have concluded, can be the worse persistent jerks. 

And I'm glad I found you. A man who lives his faith.

And then there is this strange 'vein' of alleged atheism cropping up on NT: MAGAs who state they too hold to an atheistic worldview whom seek to keep their fellow citizens in bondage of one sort or the other.

To be clear, I do not know if I believe their individual 'testimony,' as it bears a hallmark of inconsistency which goes against what I have come to accept and understand regarding atheists.

Watching and waiting for discernment on this matter.

Well, as you know, atheism has nothing whatsoever to do with anything other than not being convinced that any of the religions on the planet know anything about a supreme sentient entity.

Oddly, seems to me that the average atheist is more 'Christian' (in terms of loving thy neighbor) than many of the bigoted denominations and sects in existence today.

You, CB, represent Christianity properly IMO ... too bad there are so many CINOs out there.

If “I ask you to have mercy” is a liberal thing, I’m here for it. It’s hard to think of a more Christian sentiment.

 seems to me that the average atheist is more 'Christian' (in terms of loving thy neighbor) than many of the bigoted denominations and sects in existence today.

"I am the way," he said. What is "His way"? His message was "love one another". So... logically... anyone who "loves their neighbor" is following Christ's path. Even if this person has never heard of Him.

Emmanuel Kant spent years refining his formulation of the Golden Rule: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law". Kant would never have called himself a "Christian"... but Christ might have.

After watching Trump come to power and the path 'forward' that (some) conservatives were cutting for him to the front, I simply felt disbelief that the Church was involved-the Evangelical branch-and so I kept reading and researching until it became undeniable and 'necessary' to call them out for their duplicitousness of religion and politics. 

As it turns out a man of great faith and peace can not successfully succeed in the character of waging war- President Carter being an example, nor should the Church turn to solutions for what ails it through the 'weapons' of the state. Better it trust in God and spiritual patience. For it is said that our kingdom is not of this world; it has not yet 'come' (to be), and that our weapons of warfare are what they should be—spiritual.

That is, it is for us believers in a spiritual kingdom to abide in this world doing good wherever and when we can tirelessly. Politics. . . as it turns out in practice is a vicious, lying, low-down, worse— 'cut-throat' affair. Who can know it? Where is the love of God in that believers when they enter the frays can carelessly. . .corrupt their spirituality?

They make it worse, because then they lose their souls chasing after lesser things of this life.

Better to be light all the time to the best of one's abilities—consistently. It will keep one's testimony solid and not fracturing all over the place.

+

I am humbled by the unsolicited sentiments of people whom I have gotten to 'know' (and respect) in the virtual world. That you all can see my 'heart' throughout the struggles over—has it been eight plus years already on NT—gives me joy and relief that my time has been shared well. 

I try to develop; be consistent; be open; and be 'fruitful' with others. Btw, in the virtual world - its really our only reward for being here. . . whom have we shared with our words that are, if not more, at least foundationally honest and of relatively good 'report.' 

Over the years, it came 'jarringly' to me that many atheists (which my faith disregards with a skeptical eye - if not downright disrespect) are 'simply put' regular people—open and forthright in their day to day analyses of this life - apart from the supernatural "utterances" which none can truly testify to seeing in action. 

Thus, it would be morally wrong of me to not say so about them when I see (some not all) religious people 'everywhere' scheming and plotting the downfall of others whom simply are trying to survive in a world being made harder by those supposedly looking for good but, as it turns out, are demanding self-interests. It would be wrong to not speak up and out about it.

If “I ask you to have mercy” is a liberal thing, I’m here for it. It’s hard to think of a more Christian sentiment.

In context, it was definitely a liberal political statement.  

But so what? I mean, really.  

If some fundamentalist Christian had got up at Biden's inauguration and said conservative political stuff, I would be telling all of our perennial liberal victims to ignore it and move on with their lives, so the same advice goes to anybody who has their knickers in a twist over this.  

*Que John and TiG chiming in to scream about how it does matter and we should all lose our shit over it.* 

Whatever.

It’s bizarre that anyone claiming to be Christian would be offended by that.

We live in a world where people like to get offended. 

We live in a world where people like to get offended

And, we now more than recently live in a world where some people in high places persist in being offensive. Trump it is clear desperately wants to be the greatest president of 'all' time: past, present, and potentially future. (Odd I know.) That is, he wants to super-exceed every human that has ever lived. This is his implied pursuit by his constant hyperactivities. But, the office of president even for progressives has its 'caps' and plateaus inherently and sub-planted in the path of leaders. So when a president, this one included, does not care that he is the most brutal or offensive human being to ever man the office. . . it behooves the citizenry to 'check' his offensiveness with push-back or defense of their own positions.

Americans are not the sheep any one should reckon us to be simply because we do not get up in arms on any given day!

So when a president, this one included, does not care that he is the most brutal or offensive human being to ever man the office. . . it behooves the citizenry to 'check' his offensiveness with push-back or defense of their own positions.

That's what we elected our representatives to do.

As far as matching offensiveness for offensiveness, it seems to me that's kind of like arguing with an idiot.... they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.  I'm not sure most of us could match a NY real estate developer at being offensive.  

I do like him occupying his time with things like annexing Greenland or renaming geographic locations.  It keeps him occupied and away from things that might matter.

The far-right wing trashed morality with Fox/Murdoch.

Fuck Trump and the fascists that he funds.

This atheist has no problem with your religion or your sexuality. I'm a live and let live sort.

Yes, we all know that the liberal clergy not only condone sin, they celebrate sin.  And, in typical liberal fashion, Bishop Budde requires that the tired, poor, huddled masses come to her diocese to receive the benefit of compassion.  Apparently Episcopalian compassion is limited by convenience.  

Just another arm chair liberal acting the big fish in their little pond.  Bishop Budde only need worry about the DC diocese.  The rest of the world is beyond her reach.  The extent of her compassion is limited by institutional democracy(?).  And, of course, her little bit of heaven is the only one favored by God.

Yes, we all know that the liberal clergy not only condone sin, they celebrate sin.

None of that happened here. I’m curious why you think “we all know” such an absurd thing.

Don't much care for religion myself.

But I do love a great vocalist when I hear one.

Just rented the commitments today.

The perfect band movie!

:

"that one-on-one conversation with the president."

Interesting that a bishop would so blatantly lie. That was not a conversation. 

Oh of course, attack the Bishop with nit-picking.

She said:

"I was speaking directly to him. I was also, frankly, as you do in every sermon, speaking to everyone who was listening through that one-on-one conversation with the president."

Big deal that she did not use the word monologue to more accurately describe her one-sided conversation.    She clearly acknowledged that she was the one doing the speaking and that she was directly speaking to him. 

You are trying to deflect to the Bishop (of course) rather than deal with the actual substance of the seed.

Do you believe the Bishop was wrong, in terms of Christianity, to ask Trump to have mercy on the people he has stated, clearly, to be targeting?   Did she say anything that was inconsistent with Christian beliefs?

Was my post inaccurate? 

Yes, because you claimed that she lied (you even called it a blatant lie).   Not only is it obvious that she had no intention of speaking a falsehood, the falsehood you claim is nit-picking since a conversation can indeed by one-sided.

Regardless, you continue to deflect from the subject.

Do you believe the Bishop was wrong, in terms of Christianity, to ask Trump to have mercy on the people he has stated, clearly, to be targeting?   Did she say anything that was inconsistent with Christian beliefs?

You are welcome to that opinion. I am welcome to mine.

The post was not in context of what occurred. She initiated an open discussion with the leader of her nation from the pulpit. He listened. Apparently deemed it not to comment or retort in similar manner. Which, by the way, would have been is 'right.' So yes, an EXCHANGE OF IDEAS DID OCCUR as from her mind, heart, and mouth to his mind and heart (hopefully).

Why won;t you answer TiG's question? Don;t Christians believe in mercy? The ones I know do

Don;t Christians believe in mercy?

They'll tell you do.  But when you look at history, that shows that they only give mercy if you capitulate.  Christianity, just like Islam was spread via violence.  Even their dogma relies on threats for non-compliance.  

Christianity in every case where it joins itself to a state (think: nationalism) it becomes a tool of an ambitious leader who wields (its leader) as a weapon against unbelievers. Look at the oppression occurring in any heavily-led so-called religious headed state. Israel and Jordan being something of an exception because of affiliation with democratic countries.

Funny thing too. You can tell why this is false religion 'output,' because it never self-reflects on its behavior in real-time to see its own flaws and correct its course.

I am welcome to mine.

Are you proud of duplicity?

You are welcome to that opinion. I am welcome to mine.

With one opinion being based on facts and reality [removed][✘]

Apparently deemed it not to comment or retort in similar manner.

I can't speak about your church but in my church the people do not comment or retort to things being said.

Do you answer every question asked of  you?  

Christianity in every case where it joins itself to a state (think: nationalism) it becomes a tool of an ambitious leader who wields (its leader) as a weapon against unbelievers. 

That's what happens when it's spread via violence and the use of threats.  

First, it has been clarified that you have a church and we should keep that in mind going forward. Second, we are not talking about any individual right - we are discussing Trump. He behaves distinctly contrarian to most traditions and customs. . . besides, it is anyone's right to speak up when addressed directly by a speaker in a public setting whether they choose to or not.

Interesting that a bishop would so blatantly lie. That was not a conversation. 

No, it’s not interesting. You’ve latched on to her characterization of her sermon style and - ignoring the clear context she supplied - twisted it, apparently to discredit everything else she said without actually addressing her message. I find that approach to be far more dishonest than anything she said.

Of course you do.

What would you have thought if the priest at bidens service told him to have mercy on all the unborn children he is allowing to be aborted? 

Same thing. I sure wouldn’t be offended by it.

There is a difference between being offended and thinking there is a time and place for that "sermon". Or the abortion                " sermon"

This is Franklin Graham at the inauguration, saying that the last 4 years were "pretty dark" for America.   Biden was less than 10ft behind him, so close he is in the picture. 

Biden didnt whine about it,  he took it like a man. 

Is that a church service? 

In those same comments Graham says Trump was chosen by God to save America.  Sounds like a mixing of church and state to me.  The right wing always wants to have it both ways.   Is it right for a fundamentalist  preacher like Graham to make the laughable claim that Trump was chosen by God?  That is far more offensive than anything the lady said. 

Pretty big difference between a church service and a celebration for an inauguration. 

That he should similarly listen and/or go up to the podium and address her remarks and concerns the proportional response it deserves to the best of his presidential-level abilities. 

Trump demanded the bishop apologize to him and the American people.   I'd say that should happen when Graham and all the others who do it apologize to the American people for saying that God chose the constant sinner Trump. 

She spoke up in public. She could have done so in private. She made an "official' decision that public would was the better discernment.

Churches and "leaders" like Graham have pal-ed around with Trump while he was in his 'wilderness' and not they support a felonious president. As I wrote often before 99.99 percent of the Southern Baptist Convention leaders have been preaching the loss of the culture. . . simply because certain groups are/were breaking free from their 'authority' over hearts and minds. 

Now, of course, Franklin sees 'light' in a felonious leader of his choosing to make the world right and his worldview 'king' over all others. Now the question for Graham and other evangelicals is where is God in what they have done and hope to do through a felon like Trump? Has Graham forsaken God for Trump (to 'do' it)?

First, it was that she “lied” about it being a conversation.

Next, there was some unspecified thing wrong in asking a president for mercy.

Last, we have that there is a time and place for such a sermon, but for some unspecified reason, this wasn’t it.

You have a new complaint with each comment. That’s known as shifting goalposts. You seem determined to be offended by this gentle bishop, but you can’t come up with a solid reason as to why.

She could have done so in private.

Could she though? Access to the president is kind of difficult.

Trump demanded the bishop apologize to him and the American people.

Snowflake-in-Chief

She could have asked for it (an "audience") due to the occasion off-camera and in her study/chambers. As he would not have to travel far. But, she discerned to handle the matter openly in fulfillment of her office. Therefore, if there are consequences. . . for example, did she 'warn' her superiors of her intent to do this on behalf of the church. . . did she 'wait' for reply/approval. . .because as we all know, Trump is the epitome of "call and response" . . .we await his antics (or lack thereof) 'next.'

She could have asked for it

I think a lot of people ask for time with the president. Most don't get it.

The thing about church is, religious leaders stand up in front of a group all the time and say things that might make some of them uncomfortable. They do it because they are leaders. 

If someone doesn't want to hear Christ's message, they probably shouldn't go to a Christian service.

Emphatically. One thing though. He was an invited guest that showed up in her 'house.' Albeit, I am not sure of who governs that facility. The larger point is that being whom he is, this president, will accept her 'points' as offered and extended in the manner delivered, or he will ask that she be rebuked either by his response to her or her 'superiors.' That is all I mean to convey in my words.

someone doesn't want to hear Christ's message, they probably shouldn't go to a Christian service.

Why would someone expect to hear "Christ's message" at a Church that had an openly atheist bishop?

IMO it should not have been said.

First, it was that she “lied” about it being a conversation.  She did

Next, there was some unspecified thing wrong in asking a president for mercy. Nothing wrong with it, just not the proper place.

Last, we have that there is a time and place for such a sermon, but for some unspecified reason, this wasn’t it. Same as the last one.  I have never seen a sermon that was directed to an individual like that.  I don't agree with that.

You have a new complaint with each comment. That’s known as shifting goalposts.  Bullshit.  It is called having a conversation, two people exchanging ideas, not what she did.  More than one thing can be true.

You seem determined to be offended by this gentle bishop, but you can’t come up with a solid reason as to why.  True, Except I already said I was not offended and I am not offended.

Perhaps you should listen to what she actually said. 

Link to whole Sermon

She said nothing untowards, harsh, or unbecoming of her stature and station.

He, however, did. AP

After he returned to the White House, Trump said, “I didn’t think it was a good service” and “they could do much better.” But later, in an overnight post on his social media site, he sharply criticized the “so-called Bishop” as a “Radical Left hard line Trump hater.”

“She brought her church into the World of politics in a very ungracious way. She was nasty in tone, and not compelling or smart,” said Trump, a Republican, adding that Budde didn’t mention that some migrants have come to the United States and killed people.

“Apart from her inappropriate statements, the service was a very boring and uninspiring one. She is not very good at her job!” Trump said. “She and her church owe the public an apology!”

The Emperor has no clothes.

just not the proper place

What is? Twitter? That's nonsense. It's a perfectly fine place.

I have never seen a sermon that was directed to an individual like that.

So your personal experience defines how it should be for all people and for all time? Sorry, but the world does not need to check with you first to see how things are done. Maybe try expanding your experiences.

It is called having a conversation, two people exchanging ideas

Or it's a debate. But again, "conversation" is how she conceptualizes her sermon - not how you conceptualize it. 

Yeah, nothing she said or did is even in the same universe as the crap he pulls on a daily basis.

What is? Twitter? That's nonsense. It's a perfectly fine place.

  No it is not a perfectly fine place.  She used the church to cross the line from preacher to activist.  Maybe you could see it better if it wasn't Trump she went after.

So your personal experience defines how it should be for all people and for all time? Sorry, but the world does not need to check with you first to see how things are done. Maybe try expanding your experiences.

         Maybe try realizing what a sermon is for.  IMO it is not for personally calling any individual out for any reason.  If it was I would be pretty sure no  one would go to these services.

Or it's a debate. But again, "conversation" is how she conceptualizes her sermon - not how you conceptualize it. 

Not buying it.  People that spend their life communicating on a pulpit must surely realize the meanings of words.  A one way conversation is just a cop out

She used the church to cross the line from preacher to activist.

ROFL. There’s a line? Says who? You? You’re just making shit up now.

What’s more absurd is that you seem to think there is some strict protocol for when and how a bishop should speak, but the obvious contrast is a president who hasn’t shown any respect for protocol, decorum, or simple good manners in his speech - ever. But you support that asshole.

Maybe try realizing what a sermon is for. 

No, you need to realize that a sermon is whatever she decides it’s for. You don’t get to police her speech.

Your issue this week is that your cult figure idol had to sit there and listen while a soft spoken lady made clear the vast moral gap between them. Even worse, she did it in the sweetest, most graceful style anyone has ever seen, so you can’t honestly attack her for either her message or her delivery.

All of MAGA’s collective head is spinning because this humble bishop invoked the real savior with words like “mercy” and “please” to put your savior to shame.

No, you need to realize that a sermon is whatever she decides it’s for. You don’t get to police her speech.

If she wants to use the sermon to make herself look like some idiotic liberal toddler than let her.  

Your issue this week is that your cult figure

It's kind of funny that many like yourself go on and on then blurt out something like this and still think you have any credibility.

It's kind of funny that many like yourself go on and on then blurt out something like this and still think you have any credibility.

Funny how those that scream the loudest about the separation of church and state before it  was about Trump.

ROFL. There’s a line? Says who? You? You’re just making shit up now.

Of course there is.

What’s more absurd is that you seem to think there is some strict protocol for when and how a bishop should speak, but the obvious contrast is a president who hasn’t shown any respect for protocol, decorum, or simple good manners in his speech - ever. But you support that asshole.

Ah, there it is.  It is all abut Trump and lame accusations.

No, you need to realize that a sermon is whatever she decides it’s for. You don’t get to police her speech.

Now you are just making stuff up.

Your issue this week is that your cult figure idol had to sit there and listen while a soft spoken lady made clear the vast moral gap between them. Even worse, she did it in the sweetest, most graceful style anyone has ever seen, so you can’t honestly attack her for either her message or her deliveryAll of MAGA’s collective head is spinning because this humble bishop invoked the real savior with words like “mercy” and “please” to put your savior to shame.

Thanks for telling me what my issue is but like most of the things you have said you are incorrect.  Matter of fact I made myself clear that I did not think what they did while Biden was there should have been done.   But don't let facts get in the way of your narrative.

she did it in the sweetest, most graceful style anyone has ever seen

Your hyperbole makes you sound like Trump.  Hilarious.

Funny how those that scream the loudest about the separation of church and state before it  was about Trump.

Who mentioned the separation of church and state?  I didn't.

openly atheist bishop?

Lol, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Link, please.

This is truly amazing... or alternatively, perfectly expectable: A Christian bishop gave a Christian sermon with a Christian message... and MAGA lost it.

Demonstrating once again that "Christian" and "MAGA" are incompatible. A person may be one or the other, but it is impossible to be both.

Ad hominem junk post.

Non sequitur 

John shelby strong, for one..

You would think that because he was an Episcopal Bishop that he would believe in God at least. But, then, you’d be wrong. He was giving sermons right until the end advocating away from theism.

medium

She used the church to cross the line from preacher to activist.

ROFL. There’s a line? Says who? You? You’re just making shit up now.

Christ was an activist, preaching love for all and in particular for the least favored of His society. He DIED for that message. The bishop was doing her Christian duty.

he took it like a man

... and there you go.

Yes, and he preached his message in settings that conservatives of his day declared to be violating some rule of tradition or decorum. But the truth is - as happened this week - they were uncomfortable about having a light shown on their corruption and cruelty. Then, as now, they couldn’t attack the message, so they attacked the messenger.

A Christian bishop gave a Christian sermon with a Christian message... and MAGA lost it.

If the message had been about how God only made two genders or about the sanctity of life even in the womb and a plea to the President to support a national ban on abortion MAGA would have been standing up cheering in the aisles.

But dare to preach mercy, kindness and the responsibility Christ left his followers to be humble and generous to those in need and out come the knives and bared teeth from Trump and his MAGAites all pumped up on testosterone and red-light therapy ready to bust some migrant heads and kick some anchor babies back across the border.

Since Trump and his toe sucking servile dog's just love being the biggest at everything, they'll be happy to learn they have just secured the title of biggest hypocrites. Nobody can ever out-hypocrite a MAGAite, it seems almost as if it's woven into their DNA.

Now show us something that claims this person was an atheist, instead of just “advocating away from theism”.  What I’ve read indicates this is exactly the type of person that those who refuse atheism should be listening to.

No, what is happening is an attempt to shift the focus of discussion on other PROCESSES and off the bishop's MESSAGE to the President. 

Deflection

MAGA Christians have lost their way. And, as far as I know we don't have many MAGAs here that profess to being Christian or even religious. Except: One. (But then he says he is not MAGA - though his comments are right-leaning MAGA-styled.)

MAGA dogma is exclusionary. It is racist. It is misogynist. Cruelty to the weak is an integral part.

MAGA is pretty much the contrary of Christ's message.

"MAGA Christian" is a contradiction.

Mollify a Grifter Asshole.

I am going to agree with you with one caveat: MAGA is open to People of Color, Marginalized people, LGBTQ, and Others. But it is INSISTED all, again all, must be dedicated to the Cause (and the 'Man') or s/he will be rejected no matter race, color, ethnicity, sex, or sexuality for not accepting his/her 'placement' in MAGA's big picture. The cult-leader decides where 'all' will be stationed in the frame!

What is excluded is: Liberalism and Progressivism. 

Now then, we can plainly see the true colors of racism in the make-up of the picture'!

People of Color, Marginalized people, LGBTQ folks, and Others largely 'fall' in the liberal and progressive category - 'out' where they can be excluded, neglected, demonized, and largely SEGREGATED against with a pretense of a 'colorblind' society. (But not really colorblind at all!)

You see in every era of this country, pass and present, there have 'always' been Others who 'defy' and rise above racial/ethnic/social/gender/sexual norms. . .but were 'passable' to the church and the government through other means of their character. Even though it served no benefit for the 'affected' social groups/tribes.

MAGA is open to People of Color, Marginalized people

I don't think so... not exactly. A few token Blacks, Latinos, gays... are useful, precisely because they "prove" that MAGA is "inclusive". No one notices that these people are always at the edge. Ramaswamy was quickly ejected from the inner circle. No Blacks. ABSOLUTELY no gays.

Such people are "welcome" at rallies. Not anywhere decisions are to be made.

I agree (again). And the pattern of their services in MAGA has been observed (mentioned in 9.2.46: "placement," "station," and "frame."). They are fools! It pains me to state that these what you label "tokens" once stood on the shoulders of civil rights and human rights leaders before they leaped unto the 'backs' of MAGA.  

It pains me to state that these what you label "tokens" once stood on the shoulders of civil rights and human rights leaders

Yes. It's nauseating. A kind of betrayal.

In addition to be nauseating and betrayal, it's a squandering of progress to watch it regress and in need of repeating at some future point and time.

some future point and time.

I don't see it. Trump has announced clearly that he doesn't want any more elections in America. 

So... I can't see an end to fascism in America until China conquers the world. Fifty years?

. ABSOLUTELY no gays.

Who's the incoming secretary of the Treasury, Bob?

Oh, that's right, the highest ranking gay government official in American history.

Trump has announced clearly that he doesn't want any more elections in America.  So... I can't see an end to fascism in America until China conquers the world. Fifty years?

These sentences are absolute perfection.  Thank you for them. 

Who's the incoming secretary of the Treasury, Bob?

They probably think he is just playing the part.

To them, no way in hell a gay man can be a Republican. I'm just surprised they haven't started the insults yet.

That 'queen' betta work it out then, or expect to get 'read' out about it! Nobody should envy him his wealth, but he best make sure to get it right on effing around with other people's chances to get a piece of prosperity.

There are homosexuals in the republican party and now (if not already) Scott Bessent should join in with them:

Washington, D.C.  — Charles Moran, President of Log Cabin Republicans, the nation’s oldest and largest Republican organization representing LGBT conservatives and allies , issued the following statement on President Trump’s nomination of Scott Bessent for Treasury Secretary.

“Scott Bessent is a terrific choice to become the next Treasury Secretary and the Log Cabin Republicans applaud President Trump for his pick. As one of the most brilliant minds in the financial space and a vocal supporter of President Trump’s economic agenda, Bessent will be a strong asset to help President Trump put America back on the path to financial security and economic prosperity. His nomination is another step in President Trump’s steadfast determination to fill his Administration with the most qualified people for the job who can help carry out his agenda. Trump’s selection of Bessent, who is also openly gay, married, and has two children with his partner, is also a reminder of President Trump’s love and respect for LGBT Americans.

logcabin

Kudos for Trump doing this! Now then I want to watch what he does and see if it tries to ignore the pain and suffering of his fellows whom are not as fortunate as he and other wealthy homosexuals. After all, we all need positive representation. . . the 'needy' more positivity than the rest—it can be surmised. Eyes on you: "Mister 'Thing.' 

She didn't lie. She called Trump the piece of shit that he is.

Trump is the compulsive liar. The bishop spoke truth.

MAGA folk best be careful. There's more of us than you.

IMO, what the bishop should have done was read, verbatim, Matt: 36-46.  

fitting

I also think a reading of the Beatitudes was in order

half the congregation should've been waist deep in salt after the sermon was over ...

as in Sodom and Gomorrah?

yeah. having them melt like they did when the arc of the covenant was opened like in the indiana jones movie would be a really big mess for the church janitor on monday ...

I'm imagining that...all those faces melting....

... a bunch of goo and SS uniforms all over the floor.

I can see the resemblance...

... that's it!

Met a church janitor once who could play the B3 nearly as well as Finnigan. He died young and so did Mike

my grandmother owned a B3 and when she died, one of my uncles gave it to a fucking church ...

I'm imagining cracking a bullwhip.

Sorry, should be Matt 25:36-46

 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

³⁷ “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? ³⁸ When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? ³⁹ When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

⁴⁰ “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. ⁴² For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, ⁴³ I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

⁴⁴ “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

⁴⁵ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

⁴⁶ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Always one of my favorites.

I copied and pasted to save everybody the effort of looking it up

How much time do you think is needed before the stranger, thirsty, hungry, clothe less, sick people become moochers?

Once the stranger is invited in, they're no longer strangers and can be asked to leave.  This country has already did do for the least now they can go.

And also this passage applies to those who are also the least of us, shouldn't it also demand they respect those that have given to them and give back what they can even if it means that they just no longer become a burden unto them.

Easy...

Lots of cynicism in your statement. Is that what happened? Christians became cynics?

This country has already did do for the least now they can go.

So true, I mean without kicking out the immigrants who were just seeking a better life, how will we be able to afford quality educations where actual Americans can learn proper English grammar?

shouldn't it also demand they respect those that have given to them and give back what they can even if it means that they just no longer become a burden unto them.

Sadly, there are some bigots in our country who see it as a burden to simply have to share space with people who don't look like them, pray like them or love like them. If you only look at it from a fiscal standpoint, undocumented immigrants are a relatively small burden when you look at all the ways they can affect an economy, from paying taxes to buying goods. Is there still a cost? Yes, it's just a lot smaller than any of the massive douchebag MAGAites will have you believe.

That may be the most unChristian post I've ever seen.

If people want to say Jesus is irrelevant to this topic that is their right.  But thats not what they do, they claim to be followers of Jesus Christ and then ignore or deny what he actually said on the topic of taking care of one another. 

How much time do you think is needed before the stranger, thirsty, hungry, clothe less, sick people become moochers?

Rephrase the question. For in this manner God can rightful state that the people of this world like the collective you. . . are "moochers" in being stubborn to hear and obey Jesus' command to never tire of doing good!

Galatians 6:9  New International Version

⁹ Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.

Eddy Arnold Lyrics
"Today [Evening Song]"

At what point did you do enough when inviting a stranger in?  Do they stay indefinitely?  When can you ask them to leave because they're becoming a burden?  Is it also becoming unchristian like to continually stay the least of us to continue to keep taking what is given without some sort of reparation?  Is it also Christian like for the least to do good upon the one giving, be grateful, and be as little of a burden as possible? 

I take from the comments that no one wishes to actually address this or thought of the unintended consequences of just giving and giving.

Besides that the lie is most undocumented immigrants are 'no good' in their own countries. When the truth before our very eyes is these people were compelled to leave their true "love" —the land that birthed them - even as every other immigrant that comes to 'seek' our shore and 'knock' for entrance looking to us to be 'open' to their pleads.

They wish to do good. But, were forced out hastily and in a disorderly manner under great duress and stresses from their homelands. 

I do good every day for people in need and for my good works they are grateful and pay reparations for my good works.

But, according to what some have interpreted what Matthew: 36-46 means is that I shouldn't be bothered with when I do the good work, when someone is just grateful that I did it but doesn't follow up with some good for me, do I say hey that's Ok (which I have done this for some truly in desperate need), or do I draw a line because their actions are causing me to be in need.

But, were forced out hastily and in a disorderly manner under great duress and stresses from their homelands. 

I wish to question that.  Where are the countries, that the people came from, demanding their return?

BTW, it is the end of my day of giving, so I will try to return tomorrow.

At what point did you do enough...

Lemme see... Christ died for us... I guess that's enough.

Thank You!    

I take from the comments that no one wishes to actually address this or thought of the unintended consequences of just giving and giving.

How many churches, ministries (online and real world) have stopped passing around the collection plate on 'Sundays'? How many charities write letter that state: "We've got enough - so stop giving now?" Please respond. 

'The need is great in this world."  And so is the 'test' of giving to meet it. 

And the fact is, governments can disperse funds better than any other organization to the 'needy'  for collectively it is government that can reach the individual pervasively.

How much time do you think is needed before the stranger, thirsty, hungry, clothe less, sick people become moochers?

it's a process and they must _

• get a work permit
• get a job and pay taxes
• establish residency
• become a citizen
• then register as a republican voter

I'd guess about 5 years, and if they become very successful, then they can be a maga moocher ...

Just look at all the 'swag' that grifts on Christian networks. . . they sell everything. . .up to and touching accepting 'gifts of love' for superficial "merchandise" of one kind or another. Just how much 'buying and selling' of the gospel is sufficient to getting the message out? How much packaging and repackaging will do?!

then they can be a maga moocher ...

You forgot to add:

• accept your status as a 'token' immigrant among white rightwing conservative Christians to be pointed at and taken out at parties when they need to make it look like the Republican party is diverse.

The eternal punishment thingy always left me a bit cold. Thankfully it's all shit!

Any band that can do mustang Sally to my idea of perfection is cool. 

Just watched the commitments movie. Probably the best band movie ever.

It's not complicated.

Start with "God is good". If that is true, then eternal hell cannot exist. If it isn't true, then God is evil... and not God.

That they believe in mythology and superstition means I care very little about what they think.

Oh and by the way, after all else is considered and delivered - This bishop is part of an organizational church. . . that is to say that if the president through discernment wants to make more of this or see her chastised in some way. . .he can ask her bishop or church leadership for its oversight of her on the matter.  Since she spoke up to him in public. . .he has the option to act appropriately and accordingly. Or to just let it go. I am pretty sure she is aware of the aforementioned as well. 

I have no problem with anybody who speaks truth.

liars annoy me.            

It will be interesting to see if her parishioners share the same views as the Bishop, her attendance may go up or down on how well the people she is supposed to represent feel about her comments. 

It will be interesting to see if her parishioners share the same views as the Bishop, her attendance may go up or down on how well the people she is supposed to represent feel about her comments. 

True. Will there be more folk who recognize her call for mercy as being a positive thing for our country and in line with Jesus' teachings? Or will there be mostly those who think mercy is for weak little chicken shits who deserve a kick in the teeth and the first guy in line with steel toed boots is their Rambo Savior steroid Jesus?

for our country and in line with Jesus'

Every time i see this together from someone on the left i write the post off as hypocrisy. 

Every time i see this together from someone on the left

Because when it comes from someone on the right it's what? Religious 'fact' not to be challenged?

Hypocrisy: the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

I'm still trying to figure out if you completely misunderstood my post or just don't know what hypocrisy means because any way I look at it, you writing such posts off as "hypocrisy" makes zero sense. Did you mean hyperbole?

We can see what is valued by some. . .power for power sake. So what if attendance dips, drops, or waivers. . .how/when did attendance become a standard to uphold and measure truth?

I can not get out of my mind something pollster Frank Luntz once said on an evening primetime cable news segment (with a straight-face): 'The trans-community has no true political power and so it can not get its message across.' (Paraphrased.) 

What he meant (as I am sure I have the quote partially right and partially wrong) is they are a weak force politically and in the eyes of some or of little consequence. When did truth and quality ever need validation in some a way?

She spoke truth. Trump is not used to that. 

Maybe she has morals and doesn't care about folk who don't.

That ain't trump. It looks like he has a 70's mustache...

I'm an atheist, but Trump is evil. Big difference!

Everything about that meme seems evil.

Additionally, country music artist John Rich responded to the sermon by citing scripture. "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Matthew 12:30"

Oh, yeah, the guy whose biggest hit song was "Save a Horse; Ride a Cowboy."  A picture of piety is he.