“As a Christian, I don’t think you can be both MAGA and Christian,” one person wrote in the comments of the video.
Two weeks ago, Jen Hamilton, a nurse with a sizable following on TikTok and Instagram, picked up her Bible and made a video that would quickly go viral.
“Basically, I sat down at my kitchen table and began to read from Matthew 25 while overlaying MAGA policies that directly oppose the character and nature of Jesus’ teachings,” she told HuffPost.
In the comments of the video ― which currently has more than 8.6 million views on TikTok ― many (Christians and atheists alike) applauded Hamilton for using straight Scripture as a way of offering commentary. Others picked a bone with Christians who uncritically support Trump.
- MAGA = Inhuman.
- Lives are saved by supporting this nurse in getting her fellow Christians to stop following MAGA twats.
- Now isn’t the time to dilute her impact by debating the pros and cons of various beliefs. We have a facist to beat.
Most “Christians” have never actually read their own handbook, and just stick with shit they’ve heard that reinforces their venomous beliefs.
I ain’t seen the video so it ain’t viral
If jesus came back today, mega will definitely deport him to a concentration camp
Jesus was definitely not liberal. He was a socially-conservative socialist. Pope Francis is probably a good modern example.
I’m not sure that modern political terminology, especially with regards to something like socialism, really fits someone who predates even the invention of those words. Sure, you can find similarities, but you can’t always expect consistency with it in all their positions if the person in question got to those positions in a very different manner.
The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus, an excerpt from Al Franken’s Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them - Beliefnet https://share.google/SHxHP3CZmxXC7m8j0
this has always been relevant
If you interpret monotheism as incompatible with materialism and as prescriptive of equality, most Jews, Christians and Muslims lose it at the first commandment.
Edit: Self included, naturally.
Why though? Don’t get me wrong, I probably agree with your point of even not your numbered selection.
“I am the lord; thy god” doesn’t even really say anything.
I think they might have meant the second commandment.
I wish Christians in red states were Christians.
I’ve taken to begging churches in my state to investigate the states systemic refusal to investigate the physical and sexual abuse of children. I’ll see if our “Christians” believe in the words of Christ.
They will pray about it. God’s will and all that.
Yeah, probably.
But like Kierkegaard’s Knight of Faith, I’m attempting to make the infinite movement and have hope in the impossible. We’ll see if the someone shows up to save Isaac.
Praying is literally just thinking with extra steps.
Strictly speaking, I don’t think there’s a single scripture that specifically calls out sexual abuse of children. There’s general prohibitions against sex outside of marriage and such, but nothing that applies directly to pedophilia.
You get there by not being a monster. Literal, direct interpretations of the Bible won’t do it.
If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
Matthew 18:6
It often interpreted to refer to people who are new to the faith, but I think that it includes children too.
That could mean anything though.
I wish Christians in red states were Christians.
They are whether you like that or not.
I’ll see if our “Christians” believe in the words of Christ.
Pretty sure your savior had a lot to say about judging others.
I don’t think they are. Just calling yourself Christian doesn’t mean you are.
They are whether you like that or not.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
-Matthew 7:21
Pretty sure your savior had a lot to say about judging others.
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
-Matthew 7:15
Wait, are you telling me the Bible is contradictory?!?
No, that’s not right… Only the verses that apply RIGHT NOW matter and we need to ignore the rest.
Or are you going to argue that according to the Bible, it’s other Christians who are actually the ones who are meant to judge?
Faith Without Works Is Dead
14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.
25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?
26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
^understanding falls short.
Oh? Please, explain to me how the “No true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply to the argument.
And do I really need to quote the verses about judging not lest ye be judged, and the plank in your own eye, etc?
I have a pretty deep understanding of Christianity, which is why I’m disgusted by it.
Please, explain to me how the “No true Scotsman” fallacy doesn’t apply to the argument.
Yeah, sure, let’s do that. Throwing out some random fallacy names without understanding what the fallacy actually is is easy. Actually understanding what the referenced fallacy actually means is more difficult.
So let’s go to the Wikipedia definition:
The “no true Scotsman” fallacy is committed when the arguer satisfies the following conditions:[3][4][6]
- not publicly retreating from the initial, falsified a posteriori assertion
- offering a modified assertion that definitionally excludes a targeted unwanted counterexample
- using rhetoric to signal the modification
So u/andros_rex said:
I wish Christians in red states were Christians.
That was their initial assertion, which asserted that those who call themselves “Christians” in red states don’t follow the definition of what Christians are.
To which you answered:
They are whether you like that or not.
So we have an initial assertion, which you didn’t falsify, you just claimed that it was false.
To which u/ABetterTomorrow (note, a different user) answered
^understanding falls short.
Which means, the original commenter didn’t change anything about the original assertion, and neither did u/ABetterTomorrow.
Since no modification happened, points 2 and 3 or the definition of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy don’t apply either.
The whole situation really has nothing to do with the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, except of sub-groups within a larger group being part of an argument.
Which makes your argument that this is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy in fact a strawman argument, which itself is a fallacy.
Do you now understand what the “no true Scotsman” fallacy is and why you should actually try to understand what terms mean before using them?
Edit: What’s also important to know is why is the “no true Scotsman” fallacy a fallacy? It’s because the argument becomes a tautology, something that’s always true. “No true Scotsman will do X” means “A Scotsman who does X is no true Scotsman, thus no true Scotsman does X”. That’s always true, so it doesn’t mean anything. It takes the original claim “No true Scotsman will do X” and transforms it into a meaningless argument. That’s the fallacious part.
What u/andros_rex actually said meant was “If you don’t follow Christ’s teachings, you shouldn’t call yourself a Christian”. It’s a subtile difference, but an important one. The “no true Scotsman” fallacy argues against doing X by saying that no true Scotsman would be doing X. But what u/andros_rex argues for is that these supposed Christians don’t live up to the standards of Christ/being a Christian. It’s basically the opposite reasoning.
Wow that was a waste of time lol
Your understanding of Christianity seems more r/atheism and less informed by any actual engagement with the text.
I’m an atheist because I lived in an Evangelical Christian home for over 18 years. Are you sure you want to question my understanding just because I’m hostile toward it?
I’m questioning your understanding of Christianity because you aren’t really providing evidence for any claims, you are mostly just angry posting. You seem to have religious trauma, and that is normal growing up evangelical. You assume that any argument you perceive of as “in defense of” Christianity to be being made by a Christian. You are reacting from a place of emotion, not logic.
You are trying to make an argument from authority here. Growing up in a Christian household does not automatically make one an expert on the text of the Bible or the history of Christianity. (Have you read the entire Bible? Which translation?)
You can’t apply “No True Scotsman” to Christianity because it is an ideology with many complicated and mutually exclusive beliefs. Can we call Mormons “Christians”? How is Catholicism different from American Protestant evangelical Christianity (versus say, Jamaican Protestant evangelical Christianity?)
I’m assuming the Christianity which you were raised is the American Protestant evangelical Christianity, which is often less based on theological understandings of the Bible, and more about “sola scriptura” - reading random bits of the text and letting the Holy Spirit tell you what it means.
This has a deeply different character from many other forms of Christianity, and might be understood by some as a perversion of the faith - especially with things like the popularity of “Prosperity Gospel” theology in this community. There’s an abandonment of works to focus entirely on faith - which I think is one of the ultimate failures of this version of the religion.
I will not deny your experience with a form of Christianity, but you cannot generalize it to the whole.
I know you think you’re accomplishing something, but I promise you that you’re wasting your time.
I have zero desire to prove to you my understanding of your hateful religion.
Go beat your Gentile slaves (but make sure you don’t beat them to death!)
Matthew 25:41-46 is pretty clear on who the “goats” are.
I’m not even a Christian, but that’s a really cute way to understand Matthew 7:1-3, and not really relevant here :)
deleted by creator
There isn’t a meaningful difference between the most moderate Christians and the Accelerationist Doomsayers, the only difference is the random person who controls the flock and what ideology they force on the group.
But if this gets idiots to shame religious people for falling for con men hopefully it does some good?
You know the David Frum quote?
“ If conservatives become convinced they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
That doesn’t just apply to democracy. It applies to religion, too. They were never believers in scripture or Jesus socialist-humanist teachings. They are blind adherents of authoritarianism, and that is ultimately all that matters. Everything else is a smoke screen.
When you corner an authoritarian with “their own” scripture (which is very easy because very few actually know any of it, besides a few choice out-of-context snippets fed to them by their leaders), they will casually dismiss the entire conversation and walk away. Maybe they will say something like “even the devil can quote scripture”, without ever bothering to engage with the topic itself.
I also think it’s crazy how few American Christians understand to what level their ideology has been coopted by right wing extremists.
Nixon, and then Reagan, worked with celebrity megachurch pastors to manufacture abortion and anti gay beleifs in churches as a wedge issue.
Almost all political rhetoric from large churches since the 70s has been an attempt to create issues that Christians never had and then abuse their religious faith to maintain loyal and hateful voters for conservatives.
And it worked.
Maga Christianity is be good to people who look like you and everyone else is a demon
I’ll tell you exactly why these trump supporting Christians don’t realize this, it’s because most of them don’t actually think critically about what’s actually in the Bible. They have piss poor media literacy, and their example of Christianity is what their probably racist parents and community instilled into them. That’s how my father is.
…pretty much this: they’re conformant authoritarians and christian nationalism just happens to be the cultural identity in which they were raised…
Exactly. It has nothing to do with following Jesus, and everything with cultural identity. They identify as Christian because they were raised that way, not because they actually care about anything Jesus said.
MAGA is a cult. There’s nothing Christian about it.
Most white evangelical Christianity is a cult as well, with beliefs that directly contradict their own scriptures.
Most blatant is the “Prosperity Gospel”, which blatantly and directly preaches the polar opposite of what Jesus said explicitly several times.
Seeing prosperity gospel in action is crazy. They really chant shit like “give me the money now, give me the money now”. It’s really a money cult. Religion Americanized. As far away as one could get from Jesus really.
“Prosperity Gospel” seems such a copout for cult-leaders to justify getting rich on their congregation.
So much for “eye of a needle”…
There’s nothing Christian about it.
You fucking wish.
They seem pretty inline with much of Christian history
So, which one keeps giving it septic tanks full of dead babies?
And why the fuck do we tolerate this shit existing when that’s the benign version?
I always laugh when I hear shit like this, there is an old german saying my father taught me. “When there are 9 Nazis at a table, and you go sit with them, there are 10 Nazis at the same table”.
If you are sharing the same church with them then you are sharing the same ideology. Start kicking these maga fucks out of your churches and I might start believing you.
Start kicking these maga fucks out of your churches
You say that, but when people start saying these MAGA fucks aren’t Christian the only response they get is “No True Scotsman. Anyone who claims they are a Christian is a Christian.”
So they aren’t free to disassociate from the MAGA fucks and then are vilified for being associated with them. For all we know this nurse’s Church has kicked out these MAGA fucks, but the MAGA fucks go to a different unconnected church so this nurse is still accountable for them for some reason.
It’s very fucking easy to dissociate from those fuck sticks, you kick them out or you leave. you don’t speak to them, you don’t tolerate them in any way.
Myself and many people like me have managed it quite easily.
All you are doing is further enabling them with your stupid apologetics horse shit.
It’s very fucking easy to dissociate from those fuck sticks, you kick them out or you leave. you don’t speak to them, you don’t tolerate them in any way.
And people do that, but they still call themselves Christian, and the MAGAs still call themselves Christian as well. Then some idiot that doesn’t understand the “No True Scotsman” Fallacy thinks they’re a genius for saying “you’re both Scottish, therefore I’m going to hold you accountable for everything they do!”
They will never kick out a donor. As long as they keep tossing cash or checks into the donation plate, then they will accept them with open arms.
It’s a crying shame that I’ve had to do the same with some of my extended family. They’ve gone ultra MAGA and I’m sorry I cannot support you when you want to harm others.
I lost a childhood friend to the MAGA cult. It sucks, I knew him since elementary school. He slowly became angrier, then he one day was just all out hateful saying the most vile hateful crap he could and I just cut ties completely.
The stupidest part is I heard through someone else that “he has no idea why I wont talk to him”. I didn’t ghost him, I told him to his face on my way out his door for the last time that “I will not tolerate hatred, never speak to me again.”
I suspect most of maga are the same way, they know full well what a massive piece of shit they are, the problem is that they are proud of it.
That always reminds me of the “missing missing reasons” post. It’s about estranged parents specifically, but I think the behavior shows up elsewhere. People’s ego is too fragile to let them remember or admit some details, and their emotions are creating their whole reality.
https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/missing-missing-reasons.html
I haven’t seen that page before but its the way things are. My parents died last year and I didn’t go to their funerals. They of course had a opportunity to reach out but doing so would have been an admission that they had done something wrong. I had a couple of their flying monkeys come at me from time to time. I just call them fools and move on with my life. That is what you have to do. You will never get resolution from narcs. They can never see any wrong they do as wrong. They will never seek help because they fear it.
Edit: I will say one of the things I miss about reddit is the raisedbynarcissists sub. It is where I discovered I wasn’t alone. That in itself was validation for me. Reading about others in similar situations to mine really helped me end a life long cycle of depression, anxiety and anger.
Damn, that is incredible. I am somebody who comes from a conservative white religious family. I am not estranged from them and we actually have a good relationship, but I do keep them at a certain distance because of it.
But while the estrangement context is unfamiliar to me, all of the issues discussed absolutely ring true.
The whole “emotion creates reality” versus “reality creates emotion” thing is a fantastic was to phrase it. I think that simple description might hit the nail on the head for what the hell is going on with conservatives/religious constantly trying to fuck up the world and having ridiculous beliefs.
It also speaks a lot to narcissism, which does admittedly go hand in hand with the whole conservative need for social hierarchy and the expectation that oneself is obviously at the top.
I am not estranged from them and we actually have a good relationship, but I do keep them at a certain distance because of it.
Well according to OP: seeing as you have not cut them out of your life completely, you are sitting at the table with Nazis.
This is an absolutely fascinating read; as someone with parents that tread a very thin line this is an incredible validation of what I’ve observed. And with multiple examples.
Are you me?
I had a very similar experience, except it involved them running after me and trying to punch me in the face, after I’d walked 5 minutes down the street.
Then a few weeks later they messaged an “apology” saying we’re both to blame that things got out of hand.
Fuck Trump, fuck Farage, fuck Republicans, fuck Reform, fuck racists, fuck hatred, fuck intolerance. I just want my dumb, funny, stoner friend back, but that’s not possible now that he’s a hate filled arsehole.
I was genuinely sad when it happened. I miss my friend he was a fun goofy guy, I just deal with it as if he died because it hurts less than knowing hes become everything he hated.
30But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners? 31And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick. 32I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Luke 5
They aren’t repenting and don’t consider themselves sinners.
So Jesus didn’t come for them.
Red-Letter Christians is a non-denominational movement within Evangelical Christianity. “Red-Letter” refers to New Testament verses and parts of verses printed in red ink, to indicate the words attributed to Jesus without the use of quotation marks.
The organization was founded by Tony Campolo and Shane Claiborne in 2007 with the aim of bringing together evangelicals who believe in the importance of insisting on issues of social justice mentioned by Jesus (in red in some translations of the Bible). They believe Christians should be paying attention to Jesus’s words and example by promoting biblical values such as social justice issues. These issues include the fight against poverty, the defense of peace, building strong families, respecting human rights and welcoming foreigners.
Or, you know, Just don’t be a dick. It’s really not that hard.
It’s really not that hard.
It would seem like it’s pretty fucking hard.
Everyone I associate with doesn’t seem to struggle with it.
Same here, but we’re clearly not MAGA Nazi Jackboot crayon munchers eh?
On the other hand, I have known many hard dicks in the past.
Right, don’t be that.
LOL, but at least these those can be fun.
Phrasing
There are more than one church.
The kid said “churches”. It’s right there.
Members of the Presbyterian Church are supposed to kick people out of a Baptist Church?
In English, “you” can refer to an individual or a group.
Apply the group in this context. Each member of a group taking care of their individual mandate of responsibility is collective action.
So no, to your question, no-one meant that.
So if this nurse’s Church doesn’t welcome Nazi’s then they’re good and not to be vilified? How do we know that isn’t the case?
That’s not logical, nobody but you is saying that.
But it was a generalization all the same. Who says there are MAGAists in the church of the person who commented that one can’t be Christian and MAGA?
Grammar. I can’t parse what you are trying to say, but I am going to guess that it is a defence of Paulism.
Sorry, English, as you probably understood, is not my first language. But I think my idea is quite simple: asking all Christians to eject the MAGA from their churches is like asking all Muslims to eject terrorists from their mosques, or all Jews to stop supporting the Gaza genocide. A lot already do, so that demand makes no sense, and is just bigotry.
So, when someone posts: “As a Christian, I don’t think you can be both MAGA and Christian,” answering saying that all people eating with Nazis are Nazis makes no sense and is bigotry, as the author of the comment doesn’t necessarily prays with people supporting Trump. They even probably doesn’t.
is like asking all Muslims to eject terrorists from their mosques, or all Jews to stop supporting the Gaza genocide
Both of those are perfectly reasonable things to ask.
This is a terrible statement on ethics, or an excellent condemnation of organized faith under authority.
You can choose a mosque or church or temple, or choose not to associate at all where the common practice is to include unrepentant authoritarians. This does not require you to abandon your core beliefs.
The basic lesson of the 20th century, for all humanity, is to tolerate all behaviour except the oppressive and, ironically, the intolerant.
I’m sorry, my English must suck quite more than I knew: my message is in favour of kicking the oppressive and intolerant. The thing I oppose is to consider by default that the Christian who published the Tik Tok comment tolerated the MAGA Christian, when they probably didn’t.
And yet all of them are full of bastards.
You do understand that acceptance… is the point…
And what I’m saying is that Christians will accept hateful people because they believe God’s love will change them.
So… yes, acceptance is kind of the point.
Edit: we’re saying the same thing, I’m saying that expecting any kind of worthwhile change from Christians is unrealistic.
Ah, I see what you are saying now. I assumed you were just another apologist, my bad.
No, former Christian disillusioned with Christians. Easy misunderstanding to have, though — in these troubling times. I understand you.
Like tolerance, acceptance is a social contract.
What I’m saying is that Christians will accept MAGA because that is the point of Christianity.
Sinners are sinners waiting to be saved.
Edit: I’m not Christian.
They (Christian MAGA) don’t care. I have a family member I shared this verse, and many others with, and they only got angry at me. This was months ago.
They simply don’t care. Not about what Jesus said, and not about any of us.
Realizing cognitive dissonance can often manifest as anger - is it possible you were beginning to get through to them? Obviously I wasn’t there, I’m just looking for more information!
My brain is still as broken as my relationship with my father when he looked me straight in the eyes and told me that yes, Jesus would be ok putting kids in cages.
Yeah shit is rough, man. I haven’t spoken to my parents since January 20.
I put the ball in their court and said that all they need to do is disavow Trump, or even just say they made a mistake by voting for/supporting him. That’s it.
Nothing.
It’s so bonkers man. I’m curious but afraid to watch The Brainwashing of my Dad cuz I know it will cut too true.
It’s always best to address stuff like this with a very wide grin and say “Ah, it’s good to know that for all your self-righteousness and false piety, you will burn in hell, and Jesus will weep knowing his sacrifice meant nothing to you. Ta!”
You don’t even need to believe it, it just really gets under people’s skin. Fuck 'em.
Or as ol’ JC would have called them: pharisees, liars, hypocrites.
They got…angry? What, typical “don’t sass me” or what? What did they saaaay?
I know it’s not my place to ask but just soooo curious ;-;
Not the person you were asking, but I got kicked out of youth group for saying evolution and the bible could co-exist. There’s that verse about how a thousand years is like a day for god, so clearly the 7 days of creation means evolution could have been god’s mechanism of creation, right?
The youth group leader just told me I was wrong and said I could leave if I wanted to disagree, so I left.
A few years after that, I quit the church for good because they didn’t want to help the community after a tornado because said community was full of demon worshipers (aka, catholics). It made me realize the bible was full of shit, because the pastor was able to believe that god somehow loves sinners, and but also we shouldn’t help sinners, because god wants them to suffer for not loving him back the right way? If heaven is full of those people, I really don’t want to go there.
got kicked out of youth group for saying evolution and the bible could co-exist
That’s now accepted Catholic doctrine.
because said community was full of demon worshipers (aka, catholics)
Yeah, I was brought up as one. Now there’s a reactionary fringe within Catholicism that allies itself with the fundies, and the fundies no accept the traditional Catholic loathing of abortion, which Protestants used to tolerate.
My own journey that led me away from the Church started because the Dominican brothers that taught catechism encouraged critical thought. And one day, I realized that Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil until they ate the apple. So they were thrown out of Eden because they were being punished for their God-given innocence. And, of course, there are all the other contradictions, bigotries, cruelties and outright stupidity. The extent to which St Paul contradicts Jesus is quite breathtaking, to name one instance.
Not just Catholic. Most Christians understand very well that if God created the universe, he also created all the mechanisms within that universe, including evolution.
Seeing God as contradictory to evolution to me betrays a very small and limited view of God, as if he’s just some Slartibartfast creating just this one planet.
If heaven is full of those people, I really don’t want to go there.
Matthew 25 is pretty explicit about that that’s not where they’re headed.
Thanks for the response anyway! So basically “Don’t sass me”. This is simply sad, but even more sadly fits our current times :/
