“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.
If jesus came back today, mega will definitely deport him to a concentration camp
- 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.
Inhuman? Im pretty sure doing terrible things is exclusive to humans.
Most “Christians” have never actually read their own handbook, and just stick with shit they’ve heard that reinforces their venomous beliefs.
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
This is why you hang out with Catholics instead of the evil christians.
I ain’t seen the video so it ain’t viral
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.
There’s nothing special about socialism.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Wait, are you telling me the Bible is contradictory?!?
I’m not telling you anything, I simply quoted it. Read the passages.
If you see a contradiction then that’s what your brain is telling yourself.
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?
I’m not going to argue anything. I’m simply going to quote the Bible again.
But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister[c] but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.”
-Corinthians 5:11-13
^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
Explaining something to someone who doesn’t want to understand, or cannot, is a waste of time. But it’s not a complete waste of time trying, just in case they were actually interested in a good-faith discusstion.
You asked for an explanation since you obviously didn’t understand the argument you were making.
I understand that it was rhetorical, since you thought you knew what you were talking about. But I thought, if you are already asking so nicely, maybe you’ll learn something from it.
Looks like not only do you not know what you are talking about, but you are also resistant to learning.
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!)
Religion is a cancer on mankind.
fuck off with that shit. too little too late. ACAB. destroy all religions for the future of humanity
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.
The first commandment IS monotheism.
That is not true. The first and second commandment together are monotheism.
- I am the Lord thy God
- Thou shalt have no other gods before me
The first one only specifies that “I” is your God, not specifically forbidding other Gods, and only the second one then forbids other Gods.
If the first one should be interpreted as “I am the Lord thy ONLY God”, then the second commandment would be redundant.
Seems like you’ve cracked the code.
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.
Hey @[email protected], can you please explain to @[email protected] that people cannot kick these maga fucks out of their churches, or how doing so would be irrelevant, because “No True Scotsman” as per your comment here?
This is the problem. Christians are blamed for not disassociating themselves entirely from MAGA, and when they do and try to state as much the response is “nO tRuE sCoTsMaN!@!!1!”.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my disgust for Christianity is separate from its involvement in MAGA (that just adds to it).
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.
“So if this nurse’s Church doesn’t welcome Nazi’s then they’re good and not to be vilified” is not logical?
Even if their church doesn’t welcome Nazi’s it’s still logical for them to be vilified?
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.
the problem with religion, and the reason it should be completely eradicated, is that you can spend your entire life trying to explain how one interpretation of the stone age holy book is “wrong,” while the other person does exactly the same thing with you, and there is no valid proof that either side is “right.” meanwhile people are killing each other over the whole thing. it’s all such fucking bullshit.
it’s time for the human species to grow up and stop wasting time (not to mention lives) with religion
You can do the same thing with philosophy or ethics. Check out The Good Place on Netflix or torrent. Chidi isn’t much different from some religious scholars
