“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.
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
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…