“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’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.
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.
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.
The Bible is also abundantly clear about being misogynist and homophobic (even in the New Testament). Skipping over those parts gives an evil book/religion a pass. Fuck Christianity.
I don’t think this thread is about whether the Bible is a valid moral/ ethical guideline nowadays, but rather if the actions of those who pretend to follow it match it. Which it doesn’t.
You seem to have missed my point. The Bible is the holy book for Christianity, and because it’s clear on things like homophobia and misogyny we can state that Christianity is pro those things. When people say that MAGA Christians are not behaving like real Christians, they are being dishonest and putting a pretty face on an evil thing. Their actions help keep the bronze age bullshit bad people use to justify their behavior around.
I’m very tired of the general societal belief that Christianity is actually good and some people are just doing it wrong. Christianity is bad. Its effects on our society are bad. We would be better off if it (and religion in general) went away.
This would be a much easier argument if the Bible were less self-contradictory.
Even that being true, it’s readily apparent that Christians always choose which scriptures to highlight. The fundamentalist ones will say you must take the whole bible or nothing, but that’s not how they behave. Not at all.
Let’s assume the homophobic translation of Romans 1 is the correct one. Is any given Christian talking about that, or are they talking about being kind to the poor, pointing out the hypocrisy of religious leaders, or that the literal, obvious interpretation of “rich men can’t get through the eye of a needle” is the correct one? There’s so many scriptures they could be highlighting, and it’s conspicuous that they choose to make a homophobic one really, really important to them.
MAGA Christians tend to get very angry if you point this out. The usual responses are along the lines of “you only know a few cherry picked scriptures as talking points” or “you atheists would burn alive if you actually read the bible”.
Maybe they do behave like real Christians in that regard, but not in others, which for a religion is enough to not be in line with it, it’s not a choose your own adventure
In the New Testament, that stuff all comes from Paul. Paul was a conservative asshole. He was the first evangelical Christian, in both the historical and modern sense.
Fuckin Paul, bro. Imo, evangelicals worship him as their savior way more than Jesus
Yep. It’s also kinda curious how many boxes Paul ticks of the comments about a false deceiver in 2 Thess 2.
- Lawless? (1 Cor 9:20 - “though not myself under the law”)
- Used signs and wonders to convert? (2 Cor 12:12 - “I did many signs and wonders among you”)
- Used wickedness? (Romans 3:8 - "And why not say (as some people slander us by saying that we say), “Let us do evil so that good may come”?)
- Proclaimed himself in God’s place? (1 Cor 4:15 - “I am your spiritual father”)
- Set himself up at the center of the church? Well, the fact we’re talking about this is kinda proof in the pudding for his influence.
Sounds like they were projecting a bit with that passage.
There’s a defensible argument that Paul invented Christianity. Jesus (whoever he was historically) does not appear to have intended to produce a separate religion from Judaism. Paul did that.
It’s not a complete slam dunk, but even if you don’t buy it, it’s still very apparent that Paul was the central figure in shaping what Christianity would become.
Yeah, it’s very clear that Jesus taught with a very heavy emphasis on Judaism, and had no intention whatever of applying his teaching to gentiles. You don’t really see that happening until after his death.
its always been about power and control. A population in fear of eternal damnation is easier to manipulate.
The homophobia was likely a mistranslation. The misogyny isn’t though. It’s not evil in and of it’s self. It’s stupid and useful for controlling the stupid. Still fuck it but fuck the Baptists extra deep
“Likely” is a pretty strong statement when scholars aren’t in agreement (based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romans_1, I did not read a bunch of articles myself). Saying it’s not evil when it advocates for evil things doesn’t track for me, but it seems we’re on the same page about Christianity in general.
From my understanding of the argument the Leviticus line is probably wrong in the King James versions and the opposition are mostly against mistranslations existing conceptually. Haven’t read in a long while though. It’s a tool mostly bad people pick up. Those who seek power, etc, etc…
Yup. Also condones slavery.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 @[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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
LOL, but at least these those can be fun.
Right, don’t be that.
Phrasing
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
Meh. If social media served a purpose, to me, it was to show just how many dimwits are out there who will beg for someone to tell them what to do and how to act and what to think.
You can take religion from them, but they won’t stop being gullible and lost, and they’ll just fall prey to the next scumbag with no scruples that comes along, be it a politician or some other con artist.
The problem isn’t religion - it’s an excuse, a cover.
Unfortunately, I think you are right.
Even as we see adherence to xtianity slowly dying off, I’m not sure I am seeing evidence that people are getting any better at spotting logical fallacies and not falling under the spell of cults like donvict/qanon (and conservatism/Republicanism in general), Randroidism or being duped by ridiculous conspiracy theories. Which is weird, because even as it’s become nearly frictionless to do a quick check on something whether it’s by your favorite search engine or an LLM, it’s like people refuse to do exactly that, and instead wait for whatever their modern version of a guru (lying liars on Faux, Youtube feeds, IG, podcasts, etc…) tells them to think about the matter.
As much as I hated the hot take from the bothsiderist types about the “new atheists” and claiming any atheism was just another religion ( 🙄 demonstrating they don’t really understand definitions ) I do think the South Park episode where they lampoon all of that was probably not too far from the mark…meaning the future part where there is a war between different factions of atheism…I mean, given the way the typical person approaches these things. It’s like some people really desperately want someone else to do all of their thinking for them.
i see your point, but what “excuse” or cover is better, or even as effective, at hoodwinking people en masse into throwing away critical thinking and denying reality the way religion does? forcing people into a perpetual state of desire while also proclaiming those desires to be “evil” means your flock is saturated with guilt, fear, and shame, willing to do “gods will” in order to win infinite reward in the afterlife. after they die of course
and of course “god’s will” is different for every person you ask, even within the same church
I agree in part. But most of these people are as gullible as they are BECAUSE of religion. They’re taught from birth to follow unquestioningly, and to trust their feelings over evidence. (I know, I was one) Without religion, then indoctrinating children wouldn’t be as easy or widespread.
They’re getting indoctrinated by the fox news and qanon groups or sovcits or whoever gets to them first. It’s not a question of if they get indoctrinated, but by whom.
Some will actually be capable of realising it and break free, but then you have the one actively opting into it.
At least the churches have discernable objectives, unlike many other groups operating in the cesspits of the internet.
They follow repressive religions because they’re suckers. But if they grew up in repressive religions, they are also taught to be suckers.
Some are born stupid, some have stupidity thrust upon them.
One thing that’s certain is that social progress that lessens the prevalence of brutal authoritarian parenting practices also leads to declining support for religion. So that’s definitely one long-term way to break the cycle.
Opium for the masses
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
“I think, therefore I am…” “…gonna eradicate large portions of humanity through violence”
-Descartes, full quote without omissions-
Yes! Matthew 25:32 is one of the best examples of how warped MAGA & Christianity has become.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
I quote this passage a lot because it’s very explicit about going to heaven or not. It’s based on good acts, outlined briefly here. I don’t get how any MAGA person can read that and agree with our current policy. It’s anti-Christian.
The rest of the passage hit harder. First, the setup
31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.Then your section about “the right”. Then the rest
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.As you correctly put, all sacred texts are better informed by their context & message as a whole. As a Unitarian Universalist, I’m not particularly happy with the ending of that passage, because it goes against my beliefs (I don’t think hell is real). But it does set the tone.
I don’t believe it (or the rest) either: the wrathful, vengeful, genocidal god of the old testament (who would not measure up to any sensible notion of good or moral) fatally discredits the religion to me. The passage is compelling, though. By likening everyone (& yourself) to Jesus, it demands we treat them accordingly (like a golden rule by proxy). It, moreover, indicates passive inaction (possibly including monasticism) is not enough, thus demanding positive engagement with the world.
As for rejecting the idea of hell, it’s interesting to compare for reference the older Zoroastrian/Mazdayasna tradition that inspired/originated many of those ideas (duality of good & evil, god & devil, free will, divine justice, heaven & hell, guardian angel, archangels, immaculately conceived savior who resurrects the dead, final judgement) & was in some sense more benevolent & coherent about them. They did not consider hell eternal: impure souls in the dark underworld are purified & reunited with the divine, a good god wouldn’t allow eternal suffering, and when asha ultimately prevails over druj, hell ceases to exist & the universe is restored to a pure state.
Digression: Mazdayasna changed the negative impression Christianity gave me of religion. Another difference is they don’t consider belief a condition for a good afterlife, either: only good deeds for the right reasons (uphold truth, order, justice, no expectation of reward) seem to matter. Mazdayasna impressed on me that ancient people can & have imagined better than the foul visions of the old testament, and they weren’t all just brutal savages. It disappoints me that their benevolent ideas struggle to survive.
There was a news article a while ago about maga hats saying their church was repeating “liberal talking points”, when the pastor was simply quoting Jesus.
Most of the maga hats don’t care. They found their tribe and that’s all that matters to them now.
Facts and quotes don’t change people’s minds. In-group belonging does. So long as they see you as an enemy, they won’t listen to anything you say. We’re all vulnerable to that, but maga hats seem especially vulnerable.
MAGA still lives in the times between 1680 to 1880, mentally.
A time when people had 6 children on average, the mindset that we call “conservative” today worked out, men did blue-collar jobs while women stayed at home and cared for their children.
That was a prosperous, interesting time from the point of view of white settlers. MAGA still things back at that time, and thinks, if they can just behave the same way that people back then did, they’ll have the same, prosperous way of life.
Fact is, that way of life stopped working because the circumstances changed. All of US is settled, there’s no more space, people can’t have 6 children anymore, it doesn’t make sense for women to stay at home anymore.
MAGA has yet to realize that.
Thanks for sending me this.
Religion is a cancer on mankind.
That was one of the core tenets of Zoroastrianism.
And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free - John 8:32
Also Trump wears diapers and smells horrible. Probably because he’s the anti-christ or a reasonable facsimile.
Beautifully stated and thank you for the morning laugh!
I hope you don’t mind if I quote you from time to time. Have a great day.
I watched several of her videos. As an atheist I find her position refreshing.
Wtf is MAGA Christianity? Is that a new word for bigotry?
It’s Christianity but without the teachings of Christ.
I’m hoping that next time they take the nazi out of nazizm.
Supply Side Jesus
So it’s just Ianity.
It’s easy to call it NatC.
No True Christian
No True MAGA
No True ScotsmanIt’s all Christianity. Whenever Christians act horribly, a different group of christians always come out saying “they’re not REAL Christians “ how convenient. The thing is they ARE Christians, because you don’t need an official membership card to get in.
It’s a cop out to brush away these people as not one of you, but they are. These are the dregs of your religion, this is the end game to certain branches of your religion. You don’t get to brush them under the carpet and pretend they don’t represent you , cause they do. Own these people and fix your religion which often leads to this. Don’t just keep pretending that this isn’t part of Christianity
It’s the No True Scotsman fallacy. Sorry, a plurality of Americans are megachurch evangelicals. Their leadership is in bed with MAGA, which makes them complicit.
- 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.
