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

[DogmaHunter]

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

And provide a decent meal for teenagers in high school, instead of greasy deep fried crap.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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.

What? What you need to do is to show that, as showed, the context of Ex. 21, which lays down that "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death," (Exodus 21:12) "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot," (Exodus 21:24) somehow sanctions killing due to making a distinction btwn fatal and non-fatal injury in the cases of both freeman and slaves, and that this means that slowly taking a man's life is consistent with the intent of these laws, whether the subjects be freeman or slaves.

Instead, you can only imagine that the distinction btwn the two as based on time mean the judges would consider an injury that still resulted in a death beyond that time would not be considered as a violation of the basic commandment, "he that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death sanction it." "So that he die" means the injury is the cause, and the one who caused the injury is to be executed, while continuing a day in mobility or so is used as indicative that the injury was not fatal, though loss of money was to be compensated when such occurred.

For which you can provide no examples of sanction for, while the intent of the laws are to prevent killing, and which is what the judges would consider in judgment, not provide a loophole to allow for killing slowly in both the case of freeman as well as slaves, since the fatal vs. non-fatal distinction is mad in both cases.

 

[rjs330]

I wanted to address the poor issue in America as well. America's poor are wealthy compaired to other countries. America's poor are not really poor.

They are poor according to American standards and there are a number of reasons for that .

1. Poor health. They may be unable to get or hold a decent job due to poor health beyond their control. These folks we need to care for.
2. Poor choices. Babies out of wedlock, drug addictions, unable to handle money etc. Some if those we need to try and help move forward in their lives. Others of them we need to just let them wallow in the consequences of their actions.
3. Laziness- Hate to say it but the Bible does speak to this. Laziness can and does bring poverty. These folks we shouldn't help.
4. Lack of talent- This one is often overlooked. As we know people are born into this life with various degrees of natural talent, and intellect. I could never be Einstein or Bill Gates. Therefore my natural abilities do limit me on what I am able to do. In America people have the opportunity to do many things and have the ability to make money on what they are suited for. They also can build their own business as well and have the opportunity to make more. Such as being a car mechanic and open your own car shop. Will you be rich? Probably not. But that's okay. But some folks are poor just because their natural talents do not send themselves to making a lot of money. These folks should be afforded freedom of opportunities. Perhaps trade schools or community colleges that educate for trades.

Being poor in America is not just a matter of laziness or bad choices. There are many reasons for it. From my experience in working with the poor the top two are:
1. Bad choices
2. Lack of ability

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Yeah, I just want to say the above post doesn’t even begin to describe how I view any of those issues and as a Christian, I find that whole attitude to be completely counter to what I believe and the total opposite of how I conduct myself.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The point you seem to be missing is that I’m not insisting on any standard of behavior in this case other than people following the standards they themselves insist upon. Look at that definition again: “behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel”. As I don’t believe in God, why would leaving judgement to God be something I ‘believe or feel’?

Because it seems you yourself were also affirming and advocating what you erroneously think Christ taught, "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." If not, tell us that in your opinion it is correct to judge others rather than leaving it up to God. And what your moral standard is that we can hold you to.

Or is it that you have no moral standard and thus you can judge others for judging by no one can judge you?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I see your point.

I am sorry for not explaining my side in a more clear manner. Perhaps this will help?

Please note that the following is only very rough numbers, but my morals match 80% of the atheists morals, but only 50% of the Christians morals. So I say that I find atheists more moral than Christians.

Which means that you are the supreme standard for what Christians are to believe and do?

 

[Hieronymus]

Germany and Japan both declared war on America. You didn’t have the option of isolationism.

That's not entirely true though...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Your government paranoia is ridiculous. You are completely dependent on the government for almost every aspect of modern life, and these continual comparisons with Stalin and Venezuela are idiotic. This isn’t the 18ty century, there are too many people in the world to not have strong centralized government ensuring their needs are met.

Really? . And just how am i dependent on government welfare, which is the issue?

As for the charity thing, you totally missed the point. It’s not that a volunteer isn’t as efficient, it’s that charity means the number of volunteers varies as does the amount of food/money. You can’t care for and protect everyone who needs that help if you can’t allocate and manage resources to ensure you always have enough. So then what happens when you don’t? People should just starve/die?

And what happens when the government brings everyone to be dependent upon them for everything from food to health care, but the feds do not have the money or resources, as you see happening in the U.K. and esp, in Venezuela, or the gov. decides to favor those who affirm its ideology, as under Stalin?

A baby will be fed by a good mother, but to continue to foster that codependance all thru life is not wise or healthy.

 

[A_Thinker]

And provide a decent meal for teenagers in high school, instead of greasy deep fried crap.

One thing that strikes me about the American ethos ... is that it is tied to the concept of "Every man for themself". Which, ironically, is quite similar to "survival of the fittest".

This might be one of the reasons we have such difficulty with policies that support the general public ... as opposed to individuals. You would think that Americans would understand that good meals ... make for "better students", and, to be fair ... there is some progress in that direction. But we constantly struggle with the "I got mine ... you get yours" ... and "pull yourself up by your own bootstraps" attitudes, ... even though the prelude to our Constitution says that we should strive to "promote the general welfare".

Which is not to say that America hasn't had major accomplishments in this area. America has been quite open to immigration over the years, to the point where, I am happy to say, the US Olympic teams feature athletes whose origins are from all over the world. And we have provided for paths to success in the country for pratically all who have come here.

Of course, the present national direction might be a bit off course of this, but hopefuly, ... that's temporary ...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I wanted to address the poor issue in America as well. America's poor are wealthy compaired to other countries. America's poor are not really poor.

They are poor according to American standards and there are a number of reasons for that .

1. Poor health. They may be unable to get or hold a decent job due to poor health beyond their control. These folks we need to care for.
2. Poor choices. Babies out of wedlock, drug addictions, unable to handle money etc. Some if those we need to try and help move forward in their lives. Others of them we need to just let them wallow in the consequences of their actions.
3. Laziness- Hate to say it but the Bible does speak to this. Laziness can and does bring poverty. These folks we shouldn't help.
4. Lack of talent- This one is often overlooked. As we know people are born into this life with various degrees of natural talent, and intellect. I could never be Einstein or Bill Gates. Therefore my natural abilities do limit me on what I am able to do. In America people have the opportunity to do many things and have the ability to make money on what they are suited for. They also can build their own business as well and have the opportunity to make more. Such as being a car mechanic and open your own car shop. Will you be rich? Probably not. But that's okay. But some folks are poor just because their natural talents do not send themselves to making a lot of money. These folks should be afforded freedom of opportunities. Perhaps trade schools or community colleges that educate for trades.

Most of this comes down to how one is raised.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Fox news?

No. Just Goggle it.

 

[Hieronymus]

I've understood and agreed with a number of your points, ... but it is undeniable that America has become, to a great extent .... the protector of the free world.

Well, that highly depends on wht you consider to be American and from which angle you look at things.

One could argue that the US came into the WW1 conflict as a viable partner to the other nations allied against Germany's alliance, ... and the same for WW2.

One could argue all kinds of things actually..
I take it you agree with the "official" history of things.

But the last decades it's the deep state that's calling the shots in USA, and in most of the world actually...
We can all thank God that the present POTUS is dealing with that and more.
We should pray he will succeed.

But, perhaps, because of its exemption from a lot of the war damage inflicted by the European wars, ... it was more able to spearhead the efforts/expense of crafting/supporting NATO to oppose new threats to Western civilization.

Maybe you should "take the red pill", because (i.m.h.o.) what you say is a bit naieve.

It is unquestionable that it was the US who posed the only true balance of power to the USSR's goal of global domination and whose military expense/advance was fueled by such a role.

The big picture is money and power for the military industry and plans behind the scenes thought up by a godless elite.
(actually they're quite religious, but the adversary is their god)

Don't get me wrong though, even after some 70 years of perversion of what the USA was supposed to be, it's probably still one of the best places to live.
I'm sometimes seriously considering migrating from my brain dead country to the USA.
[edit]...maybe not brain dead, but "claiming to be wise they became fools" does apply...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

And provide a decent meal for teenagers in high school, instead of greasy deep fried crap.

This i can agree on, though i am not sure how common this is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. Just Goggle it.

No kidding.

So when you google for "UK NHS issues and problems", you actually get lists of articles that detail issues and problems?

Wauw!



Nobody is claiming that these systems are perfect.
Just like nobody is claiming that democracy is perfect. Rather, we say that democracy is the best we've tried so far.

People are saying that government - run universal health care systems work objectively better, provide more and better reach, more effective results and a better allocation of resources for less budget, as opposed to the privatised systems you have in the US, where "health" has been degraded into a luxury product. Where braking your leg can literally bankrupt you.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No kidding.

So when you google for "UK NHS issues and problems", you actually get lists of articles that detail issues and problems?auw!

Yes, amazing isn't it. If you had tried that the you would not have relegated it to Fox News.

Nobody is claiming that these systems are perfect.
Just like nobody is claiming that democracy is perfect. Rather, we say that democracy is the best we've tried so far.
People are saying that government - run universal health care systems work objectively better, provide more and better reach, more effective results and a better allocation of resources for less budget, as opposed to the privatised systems you have in the US, where "health" has been degraded into a luxury product. Where braking your leg can literally bankrupt you.

It could be better in today's world, if run efficiently within a competitive system that fosters competition that works for the best price, versus when insurance pays for everything and thus a unit like an oxygen machine for humans costs between $550 and $2,000 when it likely cost about $50 to make.

And every hospital has to have their own latest equipment to do something like open heart surgery. In PBS article on this, it said in "all of Ontario there are 11 hospitals that can do open heart surgery. Pennsylvania has roughly the population of Ontario and it has a bit over 60 hospitals that can do open heart surgery." And that "Americans receive more medical care than people do in other countries."

Then there is the billions of wasted dollars in medical supplies. And the astronomical administrative costs of the present US health care, and not buying drugs in bulk.

Why health care costs so much and how fix it is still much a matter of debate.
Here is a popular analysis on it in Australia.

in the US, where "health" has been degraded into a luxury product. Where braking your leg can literally bankrupt you.

It is expensive. But i think they should train and license even car mechanics to xray and set and cast broken legs.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

You can buy reading glasses for 0.78 at Ebay.
Atheists [Barna links worked when they sourced, but Barna changed their whole site since]

• Atheists and agnostics comprise 9% of adults nationwide (2007); 6% of souls over 61, 9% of those ages 42-60, 14% of those 23-41, and 19% of those 18-22. Indications from the past indicate that these beliefs stay fairly constant through life. http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=272
• In 2008, 70% of Americans believed in a personal God, roughly 12% of Americans are atheist (no God) or agnostic (unknowable or unsure), and another 12% are deistic (a higher power but no personal God). The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2008. http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
• Among 5 groups, American atheists and agnostics were the segment most likely to describe themselves as being politically liberal (32%) and were the group least likely to describe themselves as being conservative (4%) http://www.barna.org/barna-update/a...s?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
• Protestants constitute 51% of the total US adult population, with Catholics being 24%, and Jewish, Mormon, Atheist and Agnostic all being 2%. Total Unaffiliated: 16%. Orthodox, “Jehovah's witnesses” (so-called) and Buddhist were at 1%, while “Other Christian, Hindus and Other World Religion were 0.5%. All figures rounded off. Religious Landscape Study '
  
• 42% of American atheists and agnostics (who make up approx. 8% of the American adult population) claimed to be stressed out,and 14% said they were lonely. 68% were concerned about the moral condition of th country, versus 98% of evangelicals, and 4% describe themselves as being conservative, versus 64% of evangelicals, but 71% of the former said they have traditional or family-oriented values., with 96% of the latter group concurring. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/80-peoples-faith-flavor-influences-how-they-see-themselves
  
• Evangelicals averaged 6% participation in each of eight behaviors, (exposure to inappropriate contentography, using profanity in public, gambling, gossiping, engaging in sexual intercourse with someone to whom they were not married, retaliating against someone, getting drunk, and lying.) http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/25-young-adults-and-liberals-struggle-with-morality Note : unlike other pollsters, Bara evangelicals, being a movement, are not identified by religious denomination or self-identification, but according to responses to basic criteria: See http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/111-survey-explores-who-qualifies-as-an-evangelical?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page= and http://www.peacebyjesus.com/RC-Stats_vs._Evang.html
  
• Skeptics (atheist or agnostic) averaged five times the level (29%) of evangelicals. Common acts among skeptics included exposure to inappropriate contentography (50%), gossip (34%) and drunkenness (33%) http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teensnext-gen/25-young-adults-and-liberals-struggle-with-morality
  
• While only representing 10% of the population, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.” Prison Incarceration and Religious Preference
  
• Among 5 groups, American atheists and agnostics were the segment most likely to describe themselves as being politically liberal (32%) and were the group least likely to describe themselves as being conservative (4%) http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/66-american-faith-is-diverse-as-shown-among-five-faith-based-segments?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
  
• 70% of self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics affirmed abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances, while 60% approve of clergy performing gay marriages, and 90% approve of cohabitation. ^
  
• More than three out of four of self-proclaimed atheists and agnostics embrace inappropriate contentography as a moral behavior; and 66% deem drunkenness and using profanity to be morally acceptable acts. ^
  
• 75% of the above say that all moral truth is relative to the person and circumstances; only 10% believe in absolute moral truth. ^
  
• Self-proclaimed American atheists and agnostics were the group that is least concerned (41%) about the moral condition of the nation. ^
  
• 30% of atheists and agnostics grew up regularly attending Christian churches. Just 10% believe that the Bible is totally accurate in all that it teaches; only 25% say their religious faith is very important in their life; and 15% reject belief in the existence of Satan; 13% do not believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit, and 20% reject that Jesus led a sinless life. ^
  
• A major survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that only 14% of atheists and 10% of agnostics believe that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society, versus 51% of of Protestant churches (64% of Evangelical) and 30% of Catholics. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf
  
• Just 13% of atheists and 14% of agnostics believe abortion should be illegal in most cases, versus 49% of Protestant churches (61% of Evangelical) and 45% of Catholics. ^
  
• Only 19% of atheists said their values are threatened by Hollywood, versus 53% of those in evangelical churches , 46% of Protestant churches and 43% of Catholics. ^
  
• Atheists and agnostics religious skeptics were also much less likely to be driven to have a clear sense of purpose in life (55%, compared to 77% of all American adults) or to want just one marriage partner for life (58% versus an 80% U.S. average). They were also less interested in making a difference in the world (45%, versus 56% nationally) and in having close friendships, http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/18-congregations/29-survey-reveals-the-life-christians-desire (2008) and the least likely to look forward to spending time with friends http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/145-americans-just-want-a-good-night-of-sleep?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
  
• 56% atheists and agnostics believe that “radical Christianity” is just as threatening in America as is radical Islam. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
  
• 22% of those who self-identified as having No Religion in 2001 were living together with a partner outside marriage (fornication), versus 6% or less of those in Catholic or Protestant denominations. ARIS 2001, p. 27 Page Not Found However, the 2008 Pew study shows the first category as 10%: Religious Landscape Study
  
• 51% of atheists and 42% of adults who associate with a faith other than Christianity had co-habited. Atheists/Atheism and Divorce Rates/ Statistics Vs. Christians
  
• Based upon the percentage of single adults from the The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) 2001, atheists are 58.7 percent more likely to get divorced than Pentecostals and Baptists, the two born-again Christian groups with the highest rate of divorce, and more than twice as likely to get divorced than Christians in general. Stated in “The Irrational Atheist," by Vox Day, (Dallas, TX: BenBella Books, Inc., 2008). doc | Scribd7682654/The-Irrational-Atheist-by-Vox-Day based upon (ARIS) 2001 Page Not Found
  
• The percent currently divorced or separated varies from a low of 6% (Jehovah’s Witnesses) to a high of 14% (Pentecostals), with Catholics and No Religion being 9%. ^
  
• At 19%, the No Religion group showed the lowest incidence of marriage of all twenty-two groups. In sharp contrast, those identifying with the Assemblies of God or Evangelical/Born Again Christians showed the highest proportions married, 73% and 74% respectively. ^
  
• In the U.S. population as a whole, 48 percent of adults are male, as are 47 percent Catholic adults. By comparison, males account or 56 percent of the no-religion group, 70 percent of Atheists, and 75 percent of Agnostics. ^ Also, the Pew Research Landscape study finds 70% of atheists and 64% of agnostics are male, and 30% and 34% respectively, are female. Religious Landscape Study
  
• While Pentecostals, Baptists, and Mainline Christians are 56%-58% female, those who profess no religion or self-identified as atheists or agnostics have a ratio of 60 males to 40 females. (ARIS) 2001 Page Not Found
  
• 37 percent of all Americans, and 55 percent of atheists are are under age 35. Only 20 percent of the latter are 50 and over. Page Not Found ^
  
• As regards voter registration (2001), those with No Religion were 43% Independent, 30% Democrat, and 17% Republican. Those identifying as Evangelical/Born Again were 58% Republican, 20% Independent and 12% Democrat. ^
  
• Self-proclaimed American atheists and agnostics were the group most likely to define themselves as “mostly liberal” on current issues in 2002. They were also least likely to donate any money to a religious center or non-profit organization. Among those who did donate funds to non-profits, atheists and agnostics gave away the least amount of money during the year. 5 http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/66-american-faith-is-diverse-as-shown-among-five-faith-based-segments?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page
  
• 78% of atheists and agnostics were registered to vote, versus 89% of active-faith Americans. 20% of the former volunteer to help a non-church-related non-profit, and 41% of said they personally helped or served a homeless or poor person versus 30% and 61%, respectively, of active-faith Americans. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/102-atheists-and-agnostics-take-aim-at-christians?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
  
• The typical no-faith American donated $200 in 2006, versus $1500 contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult. Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics, and only 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, versus 22% among the no-faith adults. ^
  
• 12% of atheists and agnostics were focused on living a comfortable, balanced lifestyle, versus 4% of Christians in general. to be 10% of the former class were focused on acquiring wealth, versus 2% of the latter. ^
  
• 25% of atheists and agnostics said the phrase "deeply spiritual" accurately describes them, while 67% described themselves as being "at peace,” a state 90% of Christians affirmed. ^
  
• About 40% of skeptics were registered as Democrats, 40% as independents and just 20% as Republicans. 76% of atheists and agnostics gave their vote to Sen. Obama, while only 23% backed Sen. McCain. That is a step up from the level of support Democrats have previously received from skeptics. In 2004, 64% of atheists and agnostics voted for Democratic challenger John Kerry. http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/18-how-people-of-faith-voted-in-the-2008-presidential-race?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=
  
• On average, weekly churchgoers donate 3.8% of their income to charity, compared to 0.8% for those who never go. Independent Sector (charitable clearing house): Atheists won’t save Europe by Don Feder; http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27937
  
• Religious citizens who make $49,000 gave away about 3.5 times as much money as secular citizens with the same income. They also volunteered twice as often, are 57 percent more likely to help homeless persons, and two-thirds more likely to give blood at their workplace. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares. Books and Culture2008/001/8.11.html
  
• On questions about Christianity in 2010, which included various questions about the Bible, Mormons (7.9 out of 12 right on average) and white evangelical Protestants (7.3 correct on average) showed the highest levels of knowledge. Jews (7.9 out of 11) and atheists/agnostics (7.4) had the best grades on questions about other world religions, including Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. White mainline Protestants scored 5.8 and 4.9 respectively, and white Catholics scored 5.9 and 5.1. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, “U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey,” Spet. 28. 2010 Back

You are supposed to take your mouse, and move the cursor onto the link and left click on it, and the article will appear.

Wrong. The "No true Scotsman fallacy" is only a fallacy when there is no definitive standard for what a true Scotsman is relative to your claims, which in this case we must surely have, and thus I am not failing to give any objective criteria and "changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude the counterexample" as per definition of the "No true Scotsman fallacy." You should have known that rather than fallaciously charging me with this.

The same Bible which states "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch" (Acts 11:26) also teaches and describes what they overall believed, esp. relative to your claims. Thus not all your charges were denied (slavery being defended, if critiqued) And the word "valid" is what you should have used, since there is a definitive standard for what a Christian overall is and is not, without which you can claim Hitler was a Christian (which many atheists incredulously try to do, while absolving atheism of any blame in Communist atrocities).

Of course i am aware, lilely more than you are, thus the distinction btwn slaves and "Hebrew servants, a class that could leave after 6 years." Or is this also something you could not see?

So you also cannot see how it was shown at length that this cannot be established, in context, so you just assert it again!

Another fallacious charge. Do you realize that the normative dreaded state for a women in that era was not to have marital sex and thus be barren, so that failure of the husband to provide her with conjugal relations or to diminish the same (along with food and clothes) meant she was to "go out free without money," (Exodus 21:10,11) thus enabling her to find this with another husband. But both the freeborn wife and the slave were expected to want and to have sex and children in the bonds of marriage. Which was the priority, versus fornication, and children out of wedlock without the "lock" as today.

Which is simply self delusion, for instead this "discussion" has shown that you will not read what counters you, or just blithely dismiss reasoned substantiated reproof in order to maintain your parroted fallacious atheistic charges, all of which I have seen and countered before. "Eyes have they but see not."

May God yet grant you repentance unto the acknowledging of the Truth.

TL;DR Especially the wall of text stats. Please limit yourself to the relevant stats, and explain why they are relevant.

And what do you think I have to repent? This makes no sense in the terms of our discussion, I am very happy with my morals, and Jesus is as well.

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

Which means that you are the supreme standard for what Christians are to believe and do?

Which means I can only judge other's morals against the morals Jesus gave me.

And I find that typically atheist's morals match the morals Jesus gave me more closely than Christian's morals.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

TL;DR Especially the wall of text stats. Please limit yourself to the relevant stats, and explain why they are relevant.

What? You do not think these are relevant to the issue of "superior morality" issue of atheists which they were originally sited for? It is you who must explain why they are irrelevant

And what do you think I have to repent? This makes no sense in the terms of our discussion, I am very happy with my morals, and Jesus is as well.

Who knows what morals you hold to. What substantive supreme moral standard can we hold you to, like the OP (ignorantly) attempts to do for conservative Christians? You sound so much like an atheist I thought i was responding to one.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Which means I can only judge other's morals against the morals Jesus gave me.

What is the source of these? Just the red letters like another poster here?

And I find that typically atheist's morals match the morals Jesus gave me more closely than Christian's morals.

And just what are the typical atheists morals? What supreme substantive moral standard can we hold them to, like the OP (ignorantly) attempts to do for conservative Christians?

You mean atheists hold to worship of God being supreme, and marriage only being btwn male and female, and condemning fornication, and things like inappropriate contentography, drunkenness using profanity in public, while being very engaged in sacrificial giving (out of their own pocket) to the needy?

 

[Yonny Costopoulis]

What? You do not think these are relevant to the issue of "superior morality" issue of atheists which they were originally sited for? It is you who must explain why they are irrelevant

I have no idea why you think those stats are relevant. You never said. I can not read your mind.

You sound so much like an atheist I thought i was responding to one.

I will take that as a compliment. I am very happy to have my morals compared with many of the atheists on this site. They are clearly some very good people. Thank you.