827
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Summary

Episcopal Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde refused to apologize after delivering a sermon at the National Cathedral that criticized Trump’s anti-LGBTQ+ and immigration policies, calling for compassion and mercy for marginalized groups.

Trump responded by attacking Budde on Truth Social, labeling her a "Radical Left hard line Trump hater."

Budde, known for prior criticism of Trump, said she stands by her message and has received both support and threats.

She emphasized the need for dignity and respect in public discourse to counter the "culture of contempt."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 229 points 1 year ago

You heard it here first folks. Jesus was of the radical left.

Right wingers have lost their goddamn minds.

[-] Alk@sh.itjust.works 136 points 1 year ago

Unironically, Jesus was radical left in many ways. Many Christians do not like to confront those aspects of the bible.

Let criminals into your home. Give them shelter and food. Give all of your money to charity. If someone harms you, turn the other cheek. Feed the poor before yourself. Brutally whip greedy wealthy people. Those are just some fun examples.

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

If someone harms you, turn the other cheek.

This is a bit of an aside, but the "turn the other cheek" passage from the bible is interpreted in multiple ways. My favorite is:

The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.[3] At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: the left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek

[-] rwtwm@feddit.uk 11 points 1 year ago

I'm hardly a biblical scholar, but that interpretation doesn't feel like it fits with the rest of the passage...

38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

It says turn them the other cheek also, after 'do not resist'. So it's about offering even to the worst, rather than resisting.

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

So it's kind of like a pre-medieval gentlemanly way of saying "let's take this outside"?

[-] Xanthobilly@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

It’s what MLK did so well, and honestly, this is the first step to breaking the GOPs monopoly on religion and the Southern Strategy.

[-] foofiepie@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

“And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.” ‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭44‬-‭47‬ ‭ESV‬‬

Sounds pretty radically left to me.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 year ago

And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.

Huh, sounds vaguely familiar... Something like, "from each, according to their ability, to which according to their need"?

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

where does Jesus say to feed the poor before yourself?

[-] Alk@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I'll be real with you, I have no idea, but I do know that that sentiment is expressed several times in several different parts of the bible. It's not one of the more popular messages with the standard Christian crowd.

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

It isn't though? It's you should feel hungry people when you are not hungry.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 year ago

Nobody wants you to do that, shut up.

[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Except for brutally whipping greedy people, I don’t think any of that is radical at all.

[-] Alk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

It isn't, but we're talking about Trump's definition of radical.

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Jesus told you that if you saw a guy who needs clothes and you have clothes you aren’t wearing you should give that guy some clothes. This was a strong inspiration for a major philosophy that for some reason many “Christians” hate called Marxism

[-] kmaismith@lemm.ee 19 points 1 year ago

Every church has the potential to become the a mutual aide community. It’s what Jesus would have wanted

[-] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

They used to be and some still are.

[-] magic_lobster_party@fedia.io 39 points 1 year ago

Conservatives would probably be first in line to crucify him if they lived back then.

[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

Or if he returned, as their legend portends.

[-] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

They see Trump as the Second Coming, and wear his symbol on their foreheads, blinding themselves to the truth that he's the antiChrist.

[-] cygnus@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 year ago

TBH he really was, but most self-professed Christians don't understand that.

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago
[-] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

"Blessed are the aggressive, for they shall inherit the Earth."

[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Unmeekness is not necessarily aggressive (Matthew 5:5 is about humility, not docility).

[-] samus12345@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago
[-] zloubida@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Sure thing, but if your implicit criticism of this poster holds from a strictly grammatical point of view, it holds less from a theological one.

[-] cows_are_underrated@feddit.org 11 points 1 year ago

Attacking traders, saying that you should share your food because you'll get it back several times over, rebelling against autocratic rulers, solidarity and meeting the poor and marginalised at eye level

Definitely extreme left.

And does anyone remember the time when his affinity group resisted Jesus' imprisonment by the security authorities by cutting off one of the officers' ears? I have my doubts that it happened that way because the guy was seen with both ears several times afterwards, but the ~~police~~ legionnaires would never invent details to make the leftists look worse.

This shows that the movement surrounding the carpenter "Jesus" is obviously ready for violence. Also, numerous talks by followers of this group about a "Kingdom of God" (we suspect this is dog whispering for "dictatorship of the proletariat" as some leftists say they are "their own god"). In addition, influential members of this movement openly spoke of overthrowing the existing order. Although these plans were thwarted by "Jesus", his tolerance towards potential ideological perpetrators of violence suggests that he does not rule out a violent overthrow.

The group should be categorised as left-wing extremist and left-wing terrorist and should be smashed immediately.

this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
827 points (99.1% liked)

News

35915 readers
3437 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS