“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.
If jesus came back today, mega will definitely deport him to a concentration camp
I think most atheists I know are much closer to the christian values that the church and people who consider themselves christians are. Almost funny how a religion that’s supposed to be built on sharing, tolerance and love have produce to most selfish intolerent people filled with hatred.
Just a quick reminder that stonetoss is a nazi
This guy?
Daily reminder that the correct response to people accusing someone of being a racist or a nazi isn’t: “But is he really?” it’s actually: "so what?
Holy f This statment could not be more wrong.
Where is that quote from? I didn’t see it in the link aboveI see it now. It was right at the top and a quote from the Nazi
Yes, pebbleyeet is a Nazi.
TIL.
I mean, that guy looks pretty athy, but is he really the athiest?
He doesn’t believe in Dog nor Deer Jesus
MAGA Christians would be so pissed to learn about the real Jesus if they could read
Studies have consistently shown that atheists/agnostics are also as knowledgeable or more knowledgeable about world religions and even Christianity than Christians themselves, especially in the USA.
This pissess me off so much. I was raised in christian family. And I mean motherfucking christian. I was taught from young age to show compassion, to help other, to help others up even if I don’t personally like them. This is what it means to me to be christian. Compassion, love, and charity. Help others without asking for anything back.
Which is also core of fucking theoretical communism, so no wonder that also fell.
But it pissess me off when I meet people who are soooooo fucking hardcore believers, each sunday in church, always praising god and then they start the goddamn gossip of the day. Because Annie has a man of a slightly darker carnation, it’s obvious Annie is abused, poor Annie but in the end Annie knew what she was doing, oh that poor hoe hope she finds god in her life. FFS these gossipin pseudo-christians should find god in their life -.-’
There’s epigram in polish, fun little thing by Jan Kochanowski. Translation would be
“If you’re not sinning, as you’re telling me, why are you, dear, confessing so often?”.
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.
I don’t think they are. Just calling yourself Christian doesn’t mean you are.
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
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.
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
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.
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!)
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
They (Christian MAGA) don’t care. I have a family member I shared this verse, and many others with, and they only got angry at me. This was months ago.
They simply don’t care. Not about what Jesus said, and not about any of us.
My brain is still as broken as my relationship with my father when he looked me straight in the eyes and told me that yes, Jesus would be ok putting kids in cages.
Yeah shit is rough, man. I haven’t spoken to my parents since January 20.
I put the ball in their court and said that all they need to do is disavow Trump, or even just say they made a mistake by voting for/supporting him. That’s it.
Nothing. Apparently clinging onto this hatred is more important than having a relationship with their son.
It’s so bonkers man. I’m curious but afraid to watch The Brainwashing of my Dad cuz I know it will cut too true.
It’s always best to address stuff like this with a very wide grin and say “Ah, it’s good to know that for all your self-righteousness and false piety, you will burn in hell, and Jesus will weep knowing his sacrifice meant nothing to you. Ta!”
You don’t even need to believe it, it just really gets under people’s skin. Fuck 'em.
Or as ol’ JC would have called them: pharisees, liars, hypocrites.
They got…angry? What, typical “don’t sass me” or what? What did they saaaay?
I know it’s not my place to ask but just soooo curious ;-;
Not the person you were asking, but I got kicked out of youth group for saying evolution and the bible could co-exist. There’s that verse about how a thousand years is like a day for god, so clearly the 7 days of creation means evolution could have been god’s mechanism of creation, right?
The youth group leader just told me I was wrong and said I could leave if I wanted to disagree, so I left.
A few years after that, I quit the church for good because they didn’t want to help the community after a tornado because said community was full of demon worshipers (aka, catholics). It made me realize the bible was full of shit, because the pastor was able to believe that god somehow loves sinners, and but also we shouldn’t help sinners, because god wants them to suffer for not loving him back the right way? If heaven is full of those people, I really don’t want to go there.
got kicked out of youth group for saying evolution and the bible could co-exist
That’s now accepted Catholic doctrine.
because said community was full of demon worshipers (aka, catholics)
Yeah, I was brought up as one. Now there’s a reactionary fringe within Catholicism that allies itself with the fundies, and the fundies no accept the traditional Catholic loathing of abortion, which Protestants used to tolerate.
My own journey that led me away from the Church started because the Dominican brothers that taught catechism encouraged critical thought. And one day, I realized that Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil until they ate the apple. So they were thrown out of Eden because they were being punished for their God-given innocence. And, of course, there are all the other contradictions, bigotries, cruelties and outright stupidity. The extent to which St Paul contradicts Jesus is quite breathtaking, to name one instance.
Not just Catholic. Most Christians understand very well that if God created the universe, he also created all the mechanisms within that universe, including evolution.
Seeing God as contradictory to evolution to me betrays a very small and limited view of God, as if he’s just some Slartibartfast creating just this one planet.
If heaven is full of those people, I really don’t want to go there.
Matthew 25 is pretty explicit about that that’s not where they’re headed.
Thanks for the response anyway! So basically “Don’t sass me”. This is simply sad, but even more sadly fits our current times :/
Realizing cognitive dissonance can often manifest as anger - is it possible you were beginning to get through to them? Obviously I wasn’t there, I’m just looking for more information!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
MAGA is a cult. There’s nothing Christian about it.
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.
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.
“Prosperity Gospel” seems such a copout for cult-leaders to justify getting rich on their congregation.
So much for “eye of a needle”…
There’s nothing Christian about it.
You fucking wish.
They seem pretty inline with much of Christian history
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.
So, which one keeps giving it septic tanks full of dead babies?
And why the fuck do we tolerate this shit existing when that’s the benign version?
The broader truth is that you can’t be Christian and be pro-Capitalist.
Once you remove Capitalism as the base, the entire “prosperity gospel” falls apart.
Jesus 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.
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 stay 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.
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.
Hahahha american christianity is schisming
To be fair, the schisms have been occurring for like 200 years.
More like 500. At this point, they’re fractally schismatic.
- 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’m just glad people can tell the difference between Christ and Trump, the beast of revelation
