The odyssey

[BLEmom]

On 7/22/2026 at 9:49 PM, dljbsp said:

A Christian should be on neither side of the woke argument. They need to be neutral. Woke is either social or political. We take no side. John 17:16

 

Exactly. Using the word “woke” in our current culture is divisive. If your mind leads you to this description quickly, what types of news or content are you feeding yourself?  It’s very hard but we have to stay out of social issues just as much as political ones. 

[Jim Jam]

1 hour ago, Hope said:

Regardless, it's still wild to me that Witnesses would be upset to the level I've noticed here. Are we really so socially/ racially conscious? 🤔

 

Respectfully I think your post, while good intentionned, shows a surface level understanding of Hollywood’s objectives.

 

It’s not about being socially/ racially conscious, it’s about not being ignorant of Satan’s schemes (2 Corinthians 2:11)

 

Are you familar with Blackrock, ESG scores, Barbara Lerner Spectre and the WEF and its relation to Hollywood?

Edited 5 hours ago by Jim Jam

[Jim Jam]

56 minutes ago, BLEmom said:

Using the word “woke” in our current culture is divisive.

 

Wokeness is what divides. Recognizing something as woke is simply being informed of a political gambit. As Christians we must recognize propaganda if we want to remain no part of the world

 

Some of our publications also comment on how lgbt themes are being incorporated in entertainement. Wokeness is just a word that idenfies this concept by name, it doesn’t make anyone who uses it magically become non-neutral

Edited 5 hours ago by Jim Jam

[trottigy]

1 hour ago, Jim Jam said:

 

Wokeness is what divides. Recognizing something as woke is simply being informed of a political gambit. As Christians we must recognize propaganda if we want to remain no part of the world

 

Some of our publications also comment on how lgbt themes are being incorporated in entertainement. Wokeness is just a word that idenfies this concept by name, it doesn’t make anyone who uses it magically become non-neutral

 

Isn't every movie produced by someone part of the Satanic world - propaganda?

 

There is no need to delve deep into more of his propaganda to know and recognize it. It is better to look at the real item (God's word) than taking a deep study in all the counterfeits. I remember seeing "propaganda" as far back as a simple movie "To Kill a Mocking Bird". Note: that would have been considered"woke" by today's standards.

 

But we can't be taken out of the world. We just have to be careful.

Edited 4 hours ago by trottigy

[LeolaRootStew]

23 minutes ago, Jim Jam said:

 

Wokeness is what divides. Recognizing something as woke is simply being informed of a political gambit. As Christians we must recognize propaganda if we want to remain no part of the world

 

Some of our publications also comment on how lgbt themes are being incorporated in entertainement. Wokeness is just a word that idenfies this concept by name, it doesn’t make anyone who uses it magically become non-neutral

 

We can recognize propaganda without using the verbiage of politically-bent social-advocates. From the perspective of a native English-speaker, even using the word "woke" comes across as non-neutral and it was actually jarring to see it here. We have to think not only about what a word means, but what it associates us with - in this case, the American Right political spectrum.

 

"Woke" is a condemnation of the Left's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes homosexuality - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "woke", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

[Michał]

2 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

We can recognize propaganda without using the verbiage of politically-bent social-advocates. From the perspective of a native English-speaker, even using the word "woke" comes across as non-neutral and it was actually jarring to see it here. We have to think not only about what a word means, but what it associates us with - in this case, the American Right political spectrum.

 

"Woke" is a condemnation of the Left's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes homosexuality - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "woke", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

Thank you for this clarification. As a non-native speaker or more importantly someone who isn’t living in American culture, I had quite a problem of understanding this term. 

[Jim Jam]

2 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

We can recognize propaganda without using the verbiage of politically-bent social-advocates. From the perspective of a native English-speaker, even using the word "woke" comes across as non-neutral and it was actually jarring to see it here. We have to think not only about what a word means, but what it associates us with - in this case, the American Right political spectrum.

 

"Woke" is a condemnation of the Left's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes homosexuality - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "woke", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

 

Is Russia a dictatorship ?

 

[trottigy]

Wikipedia says of Russia:

 

Following a constitutional crisis in 1993, a new constitution was adopted, establishing a semi-presidential republic. Since the turn of the century, Russia's political system has been dominated by Vladimir Putin, under whose leadership it has experienced democratic backsliding, transforming into an authoritarian regime. 

 

 

[LeolaRootStew]

4 minutes ago, Jim Jam said:

 

Is Russia a dictatorship ?

 

 

I don't know. There are many ways to classify rulership and some of them seem to be decided upon based on people's feelings about a leader. I'm not sure if Russia is classified as a dictatorship. Here's how ChatGPT answers:

 

Spoiler

Russia isn’t usually described as a full, classic dictatorship, but it also isn’t considered a fully democratic system. Most political scientists place it somewhere in between, often using terms like:

• authoritarian state
• hybrid regime
• or competitive authoritarian system

 

[Jim Jam]

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes suppression of personal freedom - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

[trottigy]

17 minutes ago, Jim Jam said:

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes suppression of personal freedom - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

 

I believe Wikipedia allows people to submit edits. This is a link to that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

 

As for me, a deep dive into splitting terms and then people is time wasted.

 

Note: Chad GPT probably took your quote from that Wikipedia article or similar. It really is just an internet search engine.

Edited 4 hours ago by trottigy

[Jim Jam]

8 minutes ago, trottigy said:

 

I believe Wikipedia allows people to submit edits. This is a link to that article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia

 

As for me, a deep dive into splitting terms and then people is time wasted.

 

The organization does use the term dictatorship to label some governments

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Jim Jam

[Jim Jam]

6 minutes ago, trottigy said:

Note: Chad GPT probably took your quote from that Wikipedia article or similar. It really is just an internet search engine.

 

And yet

 

[trottigy]

It seems even Wikipedia and ChatGPT are "woke". No wonder no one understands what it really means.

 

Anyway, best to just stay out of that discussion. huh? 

 

Jesus said only his Kingdom is the solution. I can see yet another reason why.

 

Edit: meanwhile we are to:

 

Keep awake, then, all the time making supplication that you may succeed in escaping all these things that must occur and in standing before the Son of man.” Luke 21:36

Edited 4 hours ago by trottigy

[Qapla]

Most people, even those who live in the US, call it a "democracy", which is technically wrong, since it is actually a "republic".

 

Democracy
Direct Rule: Citizens vote directly on laws and policies instead of using leaders.
Majority Control: The side with the most votes wins and makes the rules.
High Participation: Everyone takes part in daily choices for the group. 
Republic
Elected Leaders: People choose representatives to make laws and run the government for them.
Rule of Law: A written constitution is the highest law.
Rights for All: Laws protect minority groups so the majority cannot take away basic rights. 

 

If we call the US a democracy - are we compromising our neutrality?

If we call it a republic - are we compromising our neutrality?

 

Since, in the broadest context, both describe the US in terms most people accept as what the US is, using either of those terms does not put us on one side or the other of the pollical or social arena. Likewise, referring to any government with the commonly viewed method they rule or the way their rule is perceived by most of the population is also not compromising our neutrality.

 

That said ...

 

The bigger question is, since the OP asked:

On 7/19/2026 at 7:33 AM, halfspanishlee said:

Hi all just wondering if anyone has read the odyssey by homer or seen the movie?

 

What do any of the recent posts have to do with the original question asked in this thread?

 

A simple, "yes" or "no" as respects have you read the poem or seen the movie would answer the question. Discussing the meaning of "Woke" or various forms of government of various nations on this planet has no bearing on the question that was asked.

 

To that end, "No", I have not read the poem nor have I seen the movie.

[LeolaRootStew]

1 hour ago, Jim Jam said:

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes suppression of personal freedom - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

I'll repeat what I said: "There are many ways to classify rulership and some of them seem to be decided upon based on people's feelings about a leader."

 

Yes, I do think describing Russia as a dictatorship can be evidence of bias or non-neutrality, which is why I won't do it. And now that I know they don't describe themselves as authoritarian and that is a label put on them by others as a condemnation, I will not use that term either because it would align me with political opinions.

 

1 hour ago, Jim Jam said:

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say something is inappropriate because it promotes suppression of personal freedom - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one.

 

Condemning a country because it "suppresses personal freedom" is a political stance, not a biblical one - so I would never say it. The Bible doesn't promote personal freedom, it promotes following Jehovah. This is how it should read:

 

Quote

"Authoritarian" is a condemnation of the Russia's political and social views - whereas we should be neutral. If you want to say a country is inappropriate because it rejects Jehovah's sovereignty - that's fine - but the second you say it's inappropriate because it's "authoritarian", it becomes a political stance, not a biblical one."

 

Now the quote is consistent. Do you see the difference? We can reject things on the basis of biblical standards, but referencing political opinions as the reason we reject something makes it a political stance even though our underlying motive might originate with biblical standards. When the word "woke" is used, it associates you with political elements and no one sees that you are rejecting something because it is unbiblical - they see you rejecting it because it's anti-right wing (a political group).

 

 

[Qapla]

Somehow, it seems some may have missed the reminder posted above to return this thread on the actual theme ... if you have seen or read The Odyssey

 

It may also be on theme to discuss various aspects of the actual poem or the actual movie if you have seen it ... but the discussion of governments, Woke and other social and pollical subjects should not be part of this thread.

 

Please keep/return this thread to the subject of the OP

[LeolaRootStew]

17 minutes ago, Qapla said:

Somehow, it seems some may have missed the reminder posted above to return this thread on the actual theme ... if you have seen or read The Odyssey

 

It may also be on theme to discuss various aspects of the actual poem or the actual movie if you have seen it ... but the discussion of governments, Woke and other social and pollical subjects should not be part of this thread.

 

Please keep/return this thread to the subject of the OP

 

Can you move them to a new topic? It's an interesting discussion.

[trottigy]

13 minutes ago, LeolaRootStew said:

 

Can you move them to a new topic? It's an interesting discussion.

 

How about just start a new topic about wokeness and various other political speech. That way, I'll see the title and completely avoid it. 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by trottigy

[Hope]

Y'all carry on.. my thoughts have been expressed 🫡🤐

[JBee]

On 7/23/2026 at 8:53 AM, Michał said:

I read Oddesey (or rather a good summary) because it was one of the set books in primary school. I don’t regret it because I understand better Greek/Roman culture. However I wouldn’t watch a movie (woke or not woke) because I don’t want to feel emotional attachment to the (godless) stories. 

I don't disagree with your stance, but I am intrigued by the thought of watching a movie making you feel emotional attachment to the stories, I can't say movies have done that to me much 🤔

 

Edited to add: movies like this one in particular.

Edited 49 minutes ago by JBee