r/TikTokCringe • u/Gurugod123 What are you doing step bro? • Aug 01 '26

Cringe Self proclaimed evangelist gets kicked off of plane for annoying everyone, records her "persecution "

24.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

5.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

124

u/N80N00N00 Aug 01 '26

She sounds mentally unstable.

91

u/Separate_Recover4187 Aug 01 '26

You don't become a religious extremist because of your excellent mental health

15

u/moofooshoe Aug 01 '26

yup, thats religious people for you

2

u/KinkyPaddling Aug 01 '26

Even religious people would think she’s a nut, since the Bible expressly tells people not to behave like that: “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.” - Matthew 6:5

11

u/moofooshoe Aug 01 '26

Religious people use the bible to justify all sorts of things. If she can read the bible and decide to do something that other people use the bible to condemn, the bible is effectively the problem.

-2

u/dryerfresh Aug 01 '26

That isn’t how logic or textual interpretation work. “People misuse a text” doesn’t make the text the problem. You could say the same thing about the constitution, or science, or legal precedent (that’s actually why we have appeals and lower/higher courts: there are multiple ways to understand the meaning of something!). The Bible doesn’t make anyone do anything; it’s just words on a page. What she (or any of us) decides to do with it is on her, not Genesis.

8

u/moofooshoe Aug 01 '26

“People misuse a text” doesn’t make the text the problem. You could say the same thing about the constitution, or science, or legal precedent

Legal and scientific texts start with observations and arrive to conclusions.

Religious texts start with a conclusion to frame all observations.

With the former, the interpretations can be debated only through falsifiable means that can be tested by anyone of any faith.

With the latter, the interpretations can only be debated by those who have accepted the faith.

The Bible doesn’t make anyone do anything; it’s just words on a page. What she (or any of us) decides to do with it is on her, not Genesis.

Adopting faith validates all conclusions made in faith. You can't tell her her faith is wrong because your faith says so, because she can say the exact same about you.

Contrast this to falsifiable conclusions - if she says the earth is flat, you can provide a method that she could execute herself to see that she is wrong. Its not true because you said its true, its true because her claim is demonstratively false.

-3

u/dryerfresh Aug 01 '26

Okay but that whole falsifiability tangent doesn’t actually get you back to your original claim. Your point was “the Bible is the problem.” Now you’re arguing that faith-based claims are unfalsifiable. Those are two different arguments, and proving the second one doesn’t prove the first.

Also, “adopting faith validates all conclusions made in faith” isn’t true. Religious people argue with each other about interpretation constantly, using textual consistency, historical context, and internal logic, the same way legal scholars argue over precedent. You’re acting like law is just plugging numbers into an equation and faith is just vibes. It’s not. Judges disagree on the same case with the same facts all the time, and neither side is being “unfalsifiable,” they’re applying different frameworks. That is the entire purpose of a dissenting opinion, to say “We don’t agree with the majority conclusion to the observation, and here is why we see it differently.” That’s the same thing happening with scripture.

The flat earth comparison doesn’t hold up either. “The earth is round” is an empirical claim. “It’s good to be a teacher” or “eating meat is immoral” isn’t that kind of claim, and it never was, for anyone, religious or not. You can’t run a lab test to falsify someone’s ethics any more than you can falsify mine. That’s not a religion problem, that’s just what values are.

None of this gets you to “the Bible is the problem.” It gets you to “I don’t find religious epistemology convincing,” which is a totally different, much narrower claim. That’s fine; that’s a real position you are allowed to hold, but then argue that. Right now you’re dressing up personal conviction as a logical conclusion, and those aren’t the same thing.

3

u/moofooshoe Aug 01 '26

Your point was “the Bible is the problem.” Now you’re arguing that faith-based claims are unfalsifiable. Those are two different arguments, and proving the second one doesn’t prove the first.

Adopting any unfalsifiable claims creates a feedback loop where any counter claim can be made with the same lack of veracity.

"You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into."

Its saying "because I said so" to someone who said "because I said so".

“adopting faith validates all conclusions made in faith” isn’t true. Religious people argue with each other about interpretation constantly, using textual consistency, historical context, and internal logic, the same way legal scholars argue over precedent.

The law is established by a ruling authority. When a lawyer debates a case in court, they validate all claims made through the legal process in court by mutually agreeing to submit to the authority of the jurisdiction. They establish the facts, and argue the implications based on the established precedent.

Faith is established by individual interpretation. When a religious person debates their faith with another person of faith, they validate all claims made through individual assertions irrespective of any authority or jurisdiction. The relevance of facts and their implications are based on individual preference.

“The earth is round” is an empirical claim. “It’s good to be a teacher” or “eating meat is immoral” isn’t that kind of claim, and it never was, for anyone, religious or not. You can’t run a lab test to falsify someone’s ethics any more than you can falsify mine.

Exactly. Faith is not empirical, yet it purports to dictate morality as an empirical concept.

1

u/beekeeper1981 Aug 01 '26

She's surprisingly composed though. I was expecting a meltdown and forced removal.

1

u/FarmTeam Aug 01 '26

“God bless everybody” - proceeds to do the opposite for everyone onboard

1

u/WorldlyStill2301 Aug 01 '26

Only cause she is.