711
This viral video has people talking about Christianity versus ‘MAGA Christianity’
(www.huffpost.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
711 points (100.0% liked)
politics
24790 readers
2199 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
They are whether you like that or not.
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.
“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
“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?
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.
I'm not going to argue anything. I'm simply going to quote the Bible again.
-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.
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:
So u/andros_rex said:
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:
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
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.
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!)
You read absolutely nothing I said, did you?
Did you not read that I said you're wasting your time? No, I did not read that shit.
It's honestly probably even worse when it's alleged nonbelievers who go out of their way to defend and carry water for Abrahamic religions...
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.
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 :)