Why don't I see love from many American Christians?

.

jazzflower92 said:

That's misrepresenting what they actually practiced. It doesn't mention or encourage any child to be beaten near to death. And it's less like they are encouraging people to beat their slaves to near death, but scenarios if a master did that. Bible slavery was based on the concept of conquering rather than race itself. There is an emphasis on treating the foreigner kindly.

Click to expand...

I am sorry for my poor choice of words. I agree that the bible does not encourage beating people to death. The American slavery model never encouraged beating people to death either. But in both systems it was legal to beat men women and children to death.

I do not see how slaves were procured is relevant to our having a discussion. Jews sometimes captured their own slaves. Americans hired out this occupation. What does this have to do with their being similarity or not in the slavery itself?

I have shown that both systems own people as chattel, that both systems give owner ultimate control over chattel's life, to the extent that in both systems it is legal to beat men women and children to death. Please inform me of what else do I need to show to demonstrate the sameness of the two systems.

Kentonio said:

If this is considered an offensive question, then please delete, but I keep being confused by the version of Christianity I see from many conservative Americans. Growing up in the UK, my experience of Christians was of loving, endlessly forgiving and gentle people who always seemed to be striving to achieve their own self-admittedly flawed version of the the message Jesus gave them. They didn't judge, they always forgave, and they were just basically better people than most of us. I couldn't be a Christian because I don't believe in god, but I always had huge respect for these gentle, meek people who embodied something I instinctively knew was beautiful. The level of commitment and sacrifice to something they felt was greater than them was truly awe inspiring, despite me not believing.

Then I see so many American 'evangelicals' or conservative Christians who seem to spent their lives judging others, attacking their perceived enemies and embodying a message that seems to revolve around a love of wealth, power and hostility towards those who are weak and needy. I don't get it. I thought the whole message of Jesus was that to embrace the weakest and most vulnerable was the closest path to god?

Click to expand...

Have you had as much personal contact with US Christians as you have those in the UK, or are you just commenting on the image of them you see in the media?

SoldierOfTheKing said:

Have you had as much personal contact with US Christians as you have those in the UK, or are you just commenting on the image of them you see in the media?

Click to expand...

I am suspect that his image of fundamental US Christians is also formed from their posts on this forum. Mine is.

Kentonio said:

This is what I don’t think I’ll ever understand about many American Christians. You realize how incredibly inefficient charity is as a way of helping huge numbers of people? The availablity of help ends up being dependent on the area, the time of year/economic conditions at the time and a variety of other factors that can mean that one person gets all the help they require and another gets no help. Not because of any flaw on the part of the charitable people, but just because it’s a terribly inefficient system.

In the UK the proudest achievement of the country was to build a healthcare system that means nobody goes without care. It doesn’t matter where/when or how much care they need, everybody is protected. It was an act of national self reliance and yes charity that protects the smallest, the oldest and the weakest in society, without judgement and without any reliance on personal wealth. Yet time and time again I’ve heard American Christian rail against the idea and insist charity should be the answer to a problem that history (and the current reality) shows it is completely incapable of solving. Can you explain that to me?

Click to expand...

What you mentioned has nothing to do with love. If I pay my taxes, and the government redistributes them, that's not taking step 1 of fulfilling Jesus' command to love your neighbor and give to those in need. And for the record, my ridiculously liberal cousin who wants single payer health care agrees with this.

The matter of health care then, is a matter of what people believe is the best policy. Most Americans don't believe that Canada-style rationed care and waiting lists are the best policy for us. That doesn't make a person unloving. Furthermore, we have government-run health care on Indian reservations and in veterans' hospitals. Let's just say they are not run well, and the level of neglect there is shocking. Not wanting this for the rest of the country doesn't make someone unloving either.

Sketcher said:

What you mentioned has nothing to do with love. If I pay my taxes, and the government redistributes them, that's not taking step 1 of fulfilling Jesus' command to love your neighbor and give to those in need. And for the record, my ridiculously liberal cousin who wants single payer health care agrees with this.

The matter of health care then, is a matter of what people believe is the best policy. Most Americans don't believe that Canada-style rationed care and waiting lists are the best policy for us. That doesn't make a person unloving. Furthermore, we have government-run health care on Indian reservations and in veterans' hospitals. Let's just say they are not run well, and the level of neglect there is shocking. Not wanting this for the rest of the country doesn't make someone unloving either.

Click to expand...

One thing I would have to say is that some Christians can do things that go beyond your stance, and just take their political opinions too far by harshly judging the other side. Or overlooking one side's flaws, in favor of their position.

Kentonio said:

I’ve discussed issues with US conservative Christians on different forums for years. Not the same as talking in real life of course, but better than just seeing media reports.

Click to expand...

Discussing issues with people doesn't tell you how much of their time and money they devote to helping others.

Kentonio said:

If this is considered an offensive question, then please delete, but I keep being confused by the version of Christianity I see from many conservative Americans. Growing up in the UK, my experience of Christians was of loving, endlessly forgiving and gentle people who always seemed to be striving to achieve their own self-admittedly flawed version of the the message Jesus gave them. They didn't judge, they always forgave, and they were just basically better people than most of us. I couldn't be a Christian because I don't believe in god, but I always had huge respect for these gentle, meek people who embodied something I instinctively knew was beautiful. The level of commitment and sacrifice to something they felt was greater than them was truly awe inspiring, despite me not believing.

Then I see so many American 'evangelicals' or conservative Christians who seem to spent their lives judging others, attacking their perceived enemies and embodying a message that seems to revolve around a love of wealth, power and hostility towards those who are weak and needy. I don't get it. I thought the whole message of Jesus was that to embrace the weakest and most vulnerable was the closest path to god?

I've read the bible and it doesn't seem like a complex message. Turn the other cheek, embrace those in need and don't hold yourself above anyone, especially the most humble. Yet I see people quoting random passages and twisting them to somehow say its ok to support violence or war, aspire to prosperity and judge others for their sins rather than leave it to god. It confuses me.

Am I missing something? Is Jesus not a messenger of peace and humility and an advocate for the poor and needy? How did the message of a man who bathed lepers and said "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven" end up being used to advocate for wealth creation and for pastors to collect money to buy private jets while the poorest in society go homeless and hungry, or die from lack of healthcare?

How did the message of a man who said "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them" somehow end up being used to support gun ownership, a strong military and the use of violence against others?

Seriously, can someone explain this stuff to me please, because it leaves me dazed and confused.

Click to expand...

FWIW, I know the differences you speak of with European and American Christians. There is a lot that goes into it that can only be boiled down to cultural differences, an older nation/continent vs a newer nation/continent, and lots of cherry picking of spiritual texts to prove an opinion as fact, and that opinionated fact as something to be legislated onto the whole.

There are many of us who are able to hold political views without bringing the Bible in as the “trump card” to why our views are right. We work quietly and persistently on our faith and practice without a driving need for validation.

Kentonio said:

Or you could maybe stop spending as much on the military as the next 8 countries combined, and look after sick people instead.

Click to expand...

If only. Do you share the fantasy that if America did not intercede in WW2 (which is what resulted in an expansive military), and that if the USSR did not face the prospect of facing the American military, and China did not face the same, then Hitler and the USSR would lay down their weapons and the people of the UK would not be speaking a foreign language, and Taiwan would not be part of China?

Besides that, your parroted polemical assertion that the US is spending as much on the military as the next 8 countries combined is mere sophistry, a misleading dishonest comparison for multitudes reasons, ones of which is that that a dollar spent on defense here would purchases far more in Russia or China in comparative terms.
Plus both the size and role of the US requires a more extensive military.

As a article on this issue explains.

Simplistic comparisons do not account for purchasing power parity. The cost of generating and sustaining relevant combat power is more expensive for the u.S. than nearly any other country, especially when compared to major competitors like Russia and China.

The U.S. bears the full burden of commercial costs for defense.

The All Volunteer Force is expensive.

The U.S. budget accounts for all national military power. The u.S. accounts for all of its military force in its budget. Other countries leverage non-military assets, like fishing vessels and other commercial platforms, to perform national defense and security tasks.

The U.S. way of war, which minimizes unnecessary casualties and damage, is expensive.

The "U.S." compared to "X" argument wrongfully presumes that relative spending translates directly to relative military strength or that the adequacy of U.S. military power should be determined by how much other countries are spending on their militaries...

Given the disparities in what it costs to field a force, the extent to which military forces are needed to support the u.S. defense strategy, and the U.S.'s approach to military operations, it is troubling when someone attempts to reduce to a single sentence an important and complex discussion about what it takes to secure America's interests around the world...

At present, the U.S. military has a force small - er than at any point since World War II and it is strained to meet the range of obligations assigned to it. Relative to historical u.S. force sizes and the growing capabilities of u .S. adversaries, America's military is indeed getting weaker - despite President Obama's claim to the contrary...

After World War II, the U.S. saw that the best way to protect American interests was to remain globally engaged. In order to do so, the u .S. military developed a network of global logistics and power projection capabilities. These capabilities have many associated costs, but - as Madeline Albright and Steven Hadley stated in joint testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2017 - "history teaches us that whenever problems abroad are allowed to fester and grow, sooner or later, they come home to America.".. https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2017-07/BG3229_0.pdf

Moreover,

Efforts to explore the connection between Chinese military spending and Chinese military power are obfuscated by a lack of transparency. Although China provides official estimates of defense spending each year, outside estimates of China’s defense budget are often significantly higher than Beijing’s official numbers.

Furthermore, China provides limited information on the distribution of its military spending..

Beijing does not release accurate cost data on military goods and services, making estimations that rely on purchasing power parity (PPP) difficult.

According to figures provided by SIPRI, China has increased its defense spending nearly fivefold over the last decade. China currently spends more on defense than Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Vietnam combined, and China’s military spending is second only to the United States....

Russia spent $70 billion on defense in 2016, which is nearly a third of China’s budget; however, Russian military spending increased nearly 50 percent from 2010 to 2016. - https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/

Yes the UK has a real obesity problem. Yet still 24 places behind the US..

Click to expand...

Which also affirms what I said, that "if people had to work more and eat less then they would live longer and have less deaths," since that seems to be your basis for socialized medicine.

Yonny Costopoulis said:

I only ask that your statistical "evidence" is placed in your post with the links to the original source. Please do not send me to an amateur webpage that is filled with poorly format wall of text, and expect me to pull out the important information. Thank you.

Click to expand...

They are in an easy to read bulletted format, with distinctive colors, with all the sources at the time they were provided being right after the stats. I do not buy your excuse.

You do not understand what a fallacy is.

Click to expand...

Actually i do, which is just what you provided.
I stated:
"For an example the KKK are Christians, they justify their beliefs from the bible. Slavery was justified with the bible. Blowing up abortion clinics justified with the bible. The inquisition justified with the bible"

Click to expand...

Is it true that Christians such as KKK members have justified their beliefs with the bible? Is it true that slavery was justified by Christians using the bible? Is it true that the inquisition was justified by Christians using the bible?

Of course these statements are true. You know this and I know this. So can you understand why I say you do not know what a fallacy is?

Click to expand...

Are you serious? NO, it is not true that Christians such as KKK members have justified their beliefs with the bible?, and NO it is not true that the inquisition was validly justified by Christians using the bible, since both kinds of persons are clearly contract to what Scripture defines as a real Christian, and what it says on the subject. There might have been a few ignorant Christians among such, but in any case what you claim they justified with the bible, this making this something Christianity does, is plainly false, for both are clearly contrary to Scripture.

Another Christian trying to justify slavery. And the slavery of the bible was exactly the slavery of the USA. You need to study your bible. Slaves were to come from the nations around the Jews. You are saying that people from nations around the Jews wished to be captured and sold into slavery? This is as ridiculous as saying that Africans wanted to be captured and shipped to America and sold into slavery.

Click to expand...

Yes, Biblical slavery was justified in its context, and yes, some people did choose it or choose it for their offspring, and provision was made for Hebrew servants, a class that could leave after 6 years, to remain so.

Moreover, most slaves were not POWs, and women who were taken as such became wives after being provided with a month to mourn, and were never to be sold, though they could be divorced, which provision the Lord Jesus abrogated (except for fornication), as being one allowed due to the hardness of men;s hearts.

But most slaves come from being bought, which parents something sold their offspring into - thus ensuring a life of food and raiment, basic rest every 7th day and year, and inclusion in the covenant - and not by going hunting for them. And escaped slaves were not to be returned to their masters, which would work against abuse,

The bible states that you can beat a slave to death without punishment, so long as the slave does not die in the first day or two. This would include beating women and children to death. How is this different than what we saw with slavery in America.

Click to expand...

No, it does not. It states, And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. (Exodus 21:20-21)

On v. 20 John Gill (who researches Jewish commentary) provides: "he shall be surely punished; or condemned to the punishment of being slain with the sword, as the said Targum and Jarchi explain it: this law was made to deter masters from using severity and cruelty towards their servants.

And thus the contextual purpose would be to actually to deter death, and it would be contradictory to then teach, "but you can kill him slowly." Instead, this is about being physically injured with an instrument, and basically the same as the law for any man being hurt thereby:

And if men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed: If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed. (Exodus 21:18-19)

Thus to be consistent with your skewed conclusion, this would also mean that you can beat a man to death without punishment, so long as the person does not die in the first day or two. But which is not what this is teaching, for the intent is to prevent death, and both teachings come after the general command, "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death," (Exo 21:12) and is followed by "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Exodus 21:24) Yet verses at issue here deal on a basic level with the difference btwn fatal and non-fatal injuries.

The presumption is that a physical injury would either result in quick death, such as in bleeding out in a day when there even the most rudimentary medical care was absent (life was tough!), and otherwise the person would recover. The verses at issue do not deal with debilitating injury, but which follow: "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake." (Exodus 21:26)

And as in judicial law today, such a law serves as a principal out of which other judgments can be extrapolated - and Israel had courts and judges - so that this judgment could also refer to similar injuries.

One last item: "If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit: only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed." (v. 18)

Thus we see the payment of damages. Yet for the slave who suffers the same non-fatal injury, "Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." (Exodus 21:21)

The "he is his money" corresponds to pay for the loss of his time, in that since the slave is not loosing money by not working, nor would have any medical expenses, then there is no payment. The slave is property, but human property, and the killing of whom was thus a capital crime.

Thus we see no intent to allow anyone to be beaten to death without punishment, as instead the things that are dealt with killing a person, or non-fatal injury, and compensation for such. And imagining this basic jurisprudence provides allowance for slow death is reading something into this which is simply not there.

Please provide evidence from a reputable source that "Universal healthcare can also actually make health care unaffordable for those who are poor enough to have to pay into the system."

Click to expand...

I did. Warning: resorting to the "reputable" tactic when faced with what counters you even from mostly liberal sources is not going to work.

You were accusing me of making fallacy arguments. But that is exactly what you are doing. You are incorrectly applying Reductio Ad Absurdem.

I said "a minimum wage large enough that a working family has enough money to house clothe and feed their family without having three jobs each. "

Do you believe that the minimum wage needs to be "$1000 per hour" for a working family to house clothe and feed and their family? We both know this is a ridiculous statement as is your argument.

Click to expand...

Rather than a logical fallacy, that was an appeal to logic, for the premise is that raising the minimum wage is going to provide the recipient with enough money that a working family will have enough money to house clothe and feed their family without having three jobs each. Which means 6 jobs, and is itself hardly realistic (multiple - like 2nd and some 3rd - job holders represented 5.2% of all those employed in 2015, down from 6.8 percent during the summer of 1995).

Yes as said, this raises the cost of doing business, and which is passed on, soon raising the cost of living. Short term gain, long term no real gain. Thus you might as will raise the MW to 1,000 as to raise it to 15 if you think that is the solution. Instead, reduce government spending on such things as debt by reducing its size and fostering holy living and and business.



You have done nothing to change my mind, that in my opinion Atheists often have better morals than Christians. If you could support some of your claims, such as this:

"Universal healthcare can also actually make health care unaffordable for those who are poor enough to have to pay into the system."

with evidence, it would help. Because most Atheists I know and most Atheists on this forum think Universal Heathcare, healthcare for everyone, is good.

In my opinion this is the moral position and the thing which Jesus would have supported.

Sketcher said: ↑
Many homeless shelters and soup kitchens are operated by Christians. Many food drives are also done by Christians.

Kentonio said:

This is what I don’t think I’ll ever understand about many American Christians. You realize how incredibly inefficient charity is as a way of helping huge numbers of people? The availablity of help ends up being dependent on the area, the time of year/economic conditions at the time and a variety of other factors that can mean that one person gets all the help they require and another gets no help. Not because of any flaw on the part of the charitable people, but just because it’s a terribly inefficient system.

Click to expand...

I already commented on healthcare, but as regards As one who knows somewhat of soup kitchen type work, i can attest to the opposite. You are not going to be able to be more efficient than having volunteer workers, with no gov. funding, pick up surplus food, bring it to a location (sidewalk) in the inner city, sort thru and organize the items, pray with thankfulness and and ration it out for free to each (though they choose what they want) to any and all, based upon the amount of produce, veggies, meat, bread, etc. (thanks be to God) there is and the number of people on the list (pick a number). Then recycle the cardboard etc. and even see anything left over picked up by another volunteer to be given out for free in another place. And even use waste (old lettuce etc.) for compost in the summer, so that almost nothing gets thrown out. Without any reliance on government.

In the UK the proudest achievement of the country was to build a healthcare system that means nobody goes without care. It doesn’t matter where/when or how much care they need, everybody is protected. It was an act of national self reliance and yes charity that protects the smallest, the oldest and the weakest in society, without judgement and without any reliance on personal wealth. Yet time and time again I’ve heard American Christian rail against the idea and insist charity should be the answer to a problem that history (and the current reality) shows it is completely incapable of solving. Can you explain that to me?

Click to expand...

Yes, to be increasingly dependent on the government. What could go wrong? Why Stalin to Venezuela had the same noble idea.

Kentonio said:

How can you judge what is or isn’t pleasing to god?

Click to expand...

What? How? Do you think God inspired over 800,000 words in Scripture for no reason? Why you even go on to invoked some of them in teaching what it says is pleasing to God! Do ypou realize your own self-contradiction?

Wasn’t another key message: “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” Perhaps I’ve just misunderstood.

Click to expand...

Yes, you do misunderstand and misappropriate it, along with the rest of those who hypocritically judge others by this text. For it is not teaching that any judging is wrong, but that we must judge according to how we judge ourselves, "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged, and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

It is not necessarily wrong to judge, not must be sinless to do so, but we must consider whether we are guilty of the same thing we condemn others for doing, and then we can judge others, pointing out their faults in constructive criticism. Or as the Lord and men of God did in Scripture, (Mt. 23) condemning what is evil.

When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. (Ezekiel 33:8)

And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Ephesians 5:11)

However, while you condemn those who "judge others for their sins rather than leave it to god," as said before, you are dong the same by judging them as wrong, based upon a teaching you have affirmed.

, but to me that was a pretty clear message that it isn’t the place of humans to judge the supposed wrongdoings of others. That rather each person should just try and life their own lives to the best of their understanding of God’s will, and leave the decision of whether others have fallen short to God’s own judgement. To try and guide others to the best of your own understanding but not try and stand as judge and jury in God’s court

Click to expand...

Except that this does not apply to you when you are judging others for judging.

bhsmte said:

Great question in regards to how some folks claim to be able to determine what is pleasing or not pleasing to God.
I also see, the person you asked, didn't answer the question.

Click to expand...

Well i did three times by showing him the duplicity of judging others for judging.

PeaceByJesus said:

They are in an easy to read bulletted format, with distinctive colors, with all the sources at the time they were provided being right after the stats. I do not buy your excuse.

Click to expand...

The page you link to is a wall of text. I could see no evidence to support your claim. If there is evidence, please provide a link to the original source in your post.

Earlier you said: Universal healthcare can also actually make health care unaffordable for those who are poor enough to have to pay into the system.

Please provide evidence that this is true, because it makes no sense on the cover.

PeaceByJesus said:

Are you serious? NO, it is not true that Christians such as KKK members have justified their beliefs with the bible?, and NO it is not true that the inquisition was validly justified by Christians using the bible, since both kinds of persons are clearly contract to what Scripture defines as a real Christian, and what it says on the subject.

Click to expand...

So you use the "No true Scotsman fallacy", and you change the wording of the argument because you were wrong before. Please note that I see you added the word "valid". Of course this makes it impossible to discuss the point further as nothing will pass the "No true Scotsman" test or the test of being "valid".

PeaceByJesus said:

Yes, Biblical slavery was justified in its context, and yes, some people did choose it or choose it for their offspring, and provision was made for Hebrew servants, a class that could leave after 6 years, to remain so.

Click to expand...

Please my friend, do not try to ignore the non-Jewish slaves. Or are you unaware of what the bible says in this regard?

According to the bible men women and children slaves could be beaten to death without penalty, if they did not die in the first day or two after the beating.

PeaceByJesus said:

Moreover, most slaves were not POWs, and women who were taken as such became wives after being provided with a month to mourn, and were never to be sold, though they could be divorced, which provision the Lord Jesus abrogated (except for fornication), as being one allowed due to the hardness of men;s hearts.

Click to expand...

OK, the female slaves were sometime sex slaves. I do not see how this makes your argument stronger.


Thank you for the discussion. I am staying with my original assessment that in general atheists are more moral than Christians. I believe our discussion supports that assessment. I am not happy with this. I wish my brothers and sisters in Christ would make a better case but I must be honest with myself.

Yonny Costopoulis said:

The page you link to is a wall of text. I could see no evidence to support your claim. If there is evidence, please provide a link to the original source in your post.

Earlier you said: Universal healthcare can also actually make health care unaffordable for those who are poor enough to have to pay into the system.

Please provide evidence that this is true, because it makes no sense on the cover.



So you use the "No true Scotsman fallacy", and you change the wording of the argument because you were wrong before. Please note that I see you added the word "valid". Of course this makes it impossible to discuss the point further as nothing will pass the "No true Scotsman" test of being valid.



Please my friend, do not try to ignore the non-Jewish slaves. Or are you unaware of what the bible says in this regard?

According to the bible men women and children slaves could be beaten to death without penalty, if they did not die in the first day or two after the beating.



OK, the female slaves were sex slaves. I do not see how this makes your argument stronger.


Thank you for the discussion. I am staying with my original assessment that in general atheists are more moral than Christians. I believe our discussion supports that assessment. I am not happy with this. I wish my brothers and sisters in Christ would make a better case but I must be honest with myself.

Click to expand...

When you say that atheists are more moral than Christians it's based on biases rather than actual facts. In my opinion, that actually can be really cringy.

jazzflower92 said:

When you say that atheists are more moral than Christians it's based on biases rather than actual facts. In my opinion, that actually can be really cringy.

Click to expand...

It is based on the facts of my experience.

Please do not get my comments wrong. There are many Christians whose morality matches mine as well. But there are many Christians that have what I consider is almost the opposite of my morality. But I find there are few atheists who have almost the opposite of my morality.

I do not see how or why this is "cringy".

Yonny Costopoulis said:

It is based on the facts of my experience.

Please do not get my comments wrong. There are many Christians whose morality matches mine as well. But there are many Christians that have what I consider is almost the opposite of my morality. But I find there are few atheists who have almost the opposite of my morality.

I do not see how or why this is "cringy".

Click to expand...

I've been around some very smug atheists, who act just as much self-righteously smug and callous.