“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
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.
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 :)
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?
I don’t think they are. Just calling yourself Christian doesn’t mean you are.
^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.
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.
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!)
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.
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.
Most “Christians” have never actually read their own handbook, and just stick with shit they’ve heard that reinforces their venomous beliefs.
- 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.
I read about this story today and looked her up. Why do so many people watch her content? I genuinely couldn’t get through more than 30 seconds of anything she’s posted. Not that she’s a bad person, and I hold nothing against her personally, but it’s just utterly uninteresting to boredom. Like photos of food but of people.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
its always been about power and control. A population in fear of eternal damnation is easier to manipulate.
Yup. Also condones slavery.
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.
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…
Religion is a cancer on mankind.
Wtf is MAGA Christianity? Is that a new word for bigotry?
It’s Christianity but without the teachings of Christ.
So it’s just Ianity.
Supply Side Jesus
I’m hoping that next time they take the nazi out of nazizm.
It’s easy to call it NatC.
I watched several of her videos. As an atheist I find her position refreshing.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On the other hand, I have known many hard dicks in the past.
LOL, but at these those can be fun.
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?
There are more than one church.
And yet all of them are full of bastards.
The kid said “churches”. It’s right there.
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.
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.
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!”.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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.
No True Christian
No True MAGA
No True ScotsmanJesus is definitely an amalgamation of a variety of stories and characters. I believe a real Jesus existed and was really killed by the state for what he did on what they celebrate as Palm Sunday, he mocked the emperor and was killed. He likely also mocked the Jewish leaders of his time and the Mystery Cults/public perception of Jews in his time.
Example; the Eucharist was an act of mockery towards Mystery Cult rituals and the negative stereotypes of Jews.
The Bible Jesus and much of his teachings are a culmination of thought put upon one character to tell a story like Gilgamesh (who was also a carpenter), any Roman-Greco hero, King Arthur. The story of the three wise men is, in my opinion, the idea that Eastern/foreign thought is introduced somehow namely Zoroastrianism. The dude lived in Palestine and likely alongside heavy trade routes into Rome, probably got exposed to interesting folk. He’s born in both Nazareth and Bethlehem? Sounds to me like he’s all these different folks smooshed into one story.
In my opinion, Jesus is anti-authoritarian first and foremost, likely some form of socialist. And likely a punk.
Kurt Cobain is probably closer to Jesus than any Republican.
the Eucharist was an act of mockery towards Mystery Cult rituals
More likely the version we ended up with was intentionally obfuscated from what it originally was.
Notice how in John, which lacks any Eucharist ritual, that at the last supper bread is being dipped much as there’s ambiguous dipping in Mark? But it’s characterized as a bad thing because it’s given to Judas? And then Matthew goes even further changing it to a ‘hand’ being dipped?
Does it make sense for the body of an anointed one to not be anointed before being eaten?
Look at how in Ignatius’s letter to the Philadelphians he tells them to “avoid evil herbs” not planted by god and “have only one Eucharist.” Herbs? Hmmm. (A number of those in that anointing oil.)
There’s a parallel statement in Matthew 15 about “every plant” not planted by god being rooted up.
But in gThomas 40 it’s a grapevine that’s not planted and is to be rooted up. Much as in saying 28 it suggests people should be shaking off their wine.
Now, again kind of curious that the Eucharist ritual of wine would have excluded John the Baptist who didn’t drink wine and James the brother of Jesus who was also traditionally considered to have not drunk wine, or honestly any Nazarite who had taken a vow not to drink wine.
I’m sure everyone is familiar with the idea Jesus was born from a virgin. This results from Matthew’s use of the Greek version of Isaiah 7:14 instead of the Hebrew where it’s simply “young woman.” But almost no one considers that line in its original context with the line immediately after:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey by the time he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good.
You know, like the curds and honey ritual referenced by the Naassenes who were following gThomas. (Early on there was also a ritual like this for someone’s first Eucharist or after a baptism even in canonical traditions but it eventually died out.)
Oh and strange that Pope Julius I in 340 CE was banning a Eucharist with milk instead of wine…
Now, the much more interesting question is why there were efforts to change this, but that’s a long comment for another time.
Jesus is anti-authoritarian first and foremost
I mean, he did exhort his followers to sell their shirts and buy swords!
The Roman empire was putting to death many prophets and god incarnates. The innovation of the Jesus story was that he didn’t say dead, but he also conveniently didn’t stick around.
Curiously in all those stories in Josephus Rome killed the messianic upstarts immediately without trial and killed the followers they could get their hands on.
Yet the canonical story has multiple trials and doesn’t have any followers being killed.
Also, I’m surprised more people don’t pick up on how strange it is that the canonical stories all have Peter ‘denying’ him three times while also having roughly three trials (Herod, High Priest, Pilate). Peter is even admitted back into the guarded area where a trial is taking place to ‘deny’ him. But oh no, it was totally that Judas guy who betrayed him. It was okay Peter was going into a guarded trial area to deny him because…of a rooster. Yeah, that makes sense.
It’s extremely clear to even a slightly critical eye that the story canonized is not the actual story, even with the magical thinking stuff set aside.
Literally the earliest primary records of the tradition is a guy known for persecuting Jesus’s followers writing to areas he doesn’t have authority to persecute and telling them to ignore any versions of Jesus other than the one he tells them about (and interestingly both times he did this spontaneously suggesting in the same chapter that he swears he doesn’t lie and only tells the truth).
I believe it was Josephus who pushed the theory that Paul was an agent provocateur sent by the Sanhedrin to make sure that the Christians split from the Jewish religion.
Considering Paul’s relentless proselytizing and his martyrdom, I don’t quite buy it, but I don’t reject it outright either.
MAGA is a cult. There’s nothing Christian about it.
There’s nothing Christian about it.
You fucking wish.
They seem pretty inline with much of Christian history
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.
“Prosperity Gospel” seems such a copout for cult-leaders to justify getting rich on their congregation.
So much for “eye of a needle”…
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.
This is why you hang out with Catholics instead of the evil christians.
This is why you hang out with people with good heart no matter the religion.
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”.
Are you joking?
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.
