“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.
I ain’t seen the video so it ain’t viral
- 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.
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.
If jesus came back today, mega will definitely deport him to a concentration camp
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.
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 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.
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
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.
Your understanding of Christianity seems more r/atheism and less informed by any actual engagement with the text.
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
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.
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?
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
I’m just glad people can tell the difference between Christ and Trump, the beast of revelation
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!
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.
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.
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 :/
