“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 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!”
Hey @prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone, can you please explain to @the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 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).
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.
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 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.
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.
Phrasing
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There are more than one church.
And yet all of them are full of bastards.
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?
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.
I watched several of her videos. As an atheist I find her position refreshing.
Removed by mod
Are you joking?
I don’t think the US evangelicals really qualify as christians. They’ve created their own thing based on the same symbology, and have kept some of the names, but it has very little in common.
Everything they say, do, teach, and proselytize is overtly “anti-christ”.
This is why you hang out with people with good heart no matter the religion.
Like Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum?
The more conservative American Catholics have a theology that’s close to the right-wing, protestant-derived groups around them. Ask Paul or Rick about how their views on evolution jive with the Vatican’s official position, and they’ll start to squirm.
Yeah its why you hang with the Jesuits. And mostly stick to talking about the natural world
fuck off with that shit. too little too late. ACAB. destroy all religions for the future of humanity
I often feel this way and my inner-angry-atheist called the shots for years, but so many of us have done this, and we’ve formed a bubble thinking angry atheism is spreading and it’s not. In reality we’ve just ceded the most important debates, the ones that morality can be baked into - LGBT rights, immigrant rights, death penalty, etc - leaving the left without the support we need to win in these arenas.
If you really want progressive ideals to win, drop the attitude about religion, run the other way - embrace religious progressives, support progressive faith communities, and watch as we start winning elections again.
nah
I stopped being an angry atheist once the religion-inflicted trauma was a thing of the past. For the past few decades, I’ve been a jolly atheist.
embrace religious progressives, support progressive faith communities, and watch as we start winning elections again
Allies are allies, but don’t kind yourself about how big a slice of the electorate you’re talking about. They’re vastly outnumbered by the snake-juggling hatemongers.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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
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.
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!)
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
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.
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.
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
I don’t think they are. Just calling yourself Christian doesn’t mean you are.
I am happily MAGA= I am happily fascist.
I ain’t seen the video so it ain’t viral
I’m just glad people can tell the difference between Christ and Trump, the beast of revelation
Christians are evil people.
They celebrate their “savior” being murdered
They’re all insane and have victim persecution complexes
They think that being persecuted makes them good.
But they aren’t persecuted. And they persecute others.
Christians are the worst.
If jesus came back today, mega will definitely deport him to a concentration camp
Just now thinking about it?
Clearly suffering from TDS.
TDS is a thing, but you’ve misidentified who suffers from it.
Amazing how you all missed the sarcasm. I am honestly shocked at what I have to blatantly call out as sarcasm here.
How many trumpets you actually get in here? I haven’t encountered any, it is all moderates arguing with tankies/socialist/anarchist.
In the United States, evangelical Christianity is the dominant religion, and MAGA is part of their doctrine.
- 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.
