this post was submitted on 27 May 2026
769 points (97.6% liked)
Comic Strips
23872 readers
3117 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
Rules
-
😇 Be Nice!
- Treat others with respect and dignity. Friendly banter is okay, as long as it is mutual; keyword: friendly.
-
🏘️ Community Standards
- Comics should be a full story, from start to finish, in one post.
- Posts should be safe and enjoyable by the majority of community members, both here on lemmy.world and other instances.
- Any comic that would qualify as raunchy, lewd, or otherwise draw unwanted attention by nosy coworkers, spouses, or family members should be tagged as NSFW.
- Moderators have final say on what and what does not qualify as appropriate. Use common sense, and if need be, err on the side of caution.
-
🧬 Keep it Real
- Comics should be made and posted by real human beans, not by automated means like bots or AI. This is not the community for that sort of thing.
-
📽️ Credit Where Credit is Due
- Comics should include the original attribution to the artist(s) involved, and be unmodified. Bonus points if you include a link back to their website. When in doubt, use a reverse image search to try to find the original version. Repeat offenders will have their posts removed, be temporarily banned from posting, or if all else fails, be permanently banned from posting.
- Attributions include, but are not limited to, watermarks, links, or other text or imagery that artists add to their comics to use for identification purposes. If you find a comic without any such markings, it would be a good idea to see if you can find an original version. If one cannot be found, say so and ask the community for help!
-
📋 Post Formatting
- Post an image, gallery, or link to a specific comic hosted on another site; e.g., the author's website.
- Meta posts about the community should be tagged with [Meta] either at the beginning or the end of the post title.
- When linking to a comic hosted on another site, ensure the link is to the comic itself and not just to the website; e.g.,
✅ Correct: https://xkcd.com/386/
❌ Incorrect: https://xkcd.com/
-
📬 Post Frequency/SPAM
- Each user (regardless of instance) may post up to five (5 🖐) comics a day. This can be any combination of personal comics you have written yourself, or other author's comics. Any comics exceeding five (5 🖐) will be removed.
-
🏴☠️ Internationalization (i18n)
- Non-English posts are welcome. Please tag the post title with the original language, and include an English translation in the body of the post; e.g.,
Sí, por favor [Spanish/Español]
-
🍿 Moderation
- We are human, just like most everybody else on Lemmy. If you feel a moderation decision was made in error, you are welcome to reach out to anybody on the moderation team for clarification. Keep in mind that moderation decisions may be final.
- When reporting posts and/or comments, quote which rule is being broken, and why you feel it broke the rules.
Banned Artists
The following artists are banned from the community.
- Jago
- Stonetoss
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Web Accessibility
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)
Web of Links
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's amazing that a sect leader that promoted peace and frugality unknowingly created one of the most violent and greedy religions.
Yes it certainly morphs after Constantine makes it the state religion, rather than a cult.
I am reading a book on the Baltic Crusades and it was talking about the diametrically opposed ideas of state violence and a pacifist religion. Essentially, pacifism doesn't work as a state policy. The Christian church struggled to decide what violence the state should be able to commit.
Augustine, thought war could be justified in certain circumstances, one of which was if the following peace created more good than the evil if the war wasn't fought.
Nowadays, I don't think people even know that Christianity was/is a pacifist movement.
And don't forget Aquinas, who literally sandwiched his one chapter on war between the chapters detailing mercy. If I remember the professors correctly, that was no mistake, and was very, very thematically intentional. Christians are downright fucked in the head as they try to cognitive dissonance their way into reconciling our species' lust for war with high minded ideals of love and kindness.
I mean, it should be obvious to Christians today that Jesus repeatedly and consistently made a clear distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and secular nations. Separation of church and state was absolutely one of the premises the early church worked off of as a teaching of Jesus himself. The idea of a "Christian Nation" is indeed antithetical to the very foundations of Christianity. The early history of Christianity is pretty lost on people today and people are quite unaware of just how drastic the changes in Christianity were in the early 300s, and how gigantic of a deal it was for the Roman state to adopt Christianity at the time.
That's the neat thing. For some reason every war does.
Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible, with near 100% certainty never existed. He was no more real than Harry Potter.
The absolute lack of evidence of existence for a person claimed to be the most significant person that ever lived, and who performed numerous miracles, means that the only reasonable conclusion is that he never actually existed.
It would be like if we had zero evidence for the existence of Cleopatra, outside some scriptures written by a superstitious sect, where the earliest were written 2 generations after her death, by anonymous authors, and based only on hear say, and written in a place that it would take weeks to travel to or even months. With zero contemporary or first hand evidence.
And then imagine Cleopatra performed miracles regularly too.
AND Cleopatra lived 1 generation before Jesus, and 3 generations before the first "books" of the new testament were written.
But in difference to Jesus, there are loads of historical evidence that Cleopatra lived. When she lived, where she lived, and who she was. But not only her, also her family, like father and brother are well documented, and several events Cleopatra was part of are also very well documented.
Add to that that the search for evidence for the existence of Jesus is probably the by far biggest historical and archeological search in history. Spanning almost 2000 years, with massive financing from wealthy Churches especially the Catholic and Mormons have spend insane amounts of money searching for evidence, but not only that, also traditional historical institutions have participated, because they too, despite the absolute lack of reason for it, thought that there ought to be evidence for the existence of Jesus.
This search we know for sure started already in year 200!! And it was pretty intense for more than 1500 years!!! And the search often included scholars, because they too were deluded.
And their combined efforts have turned up nothing but fakes created after the fact. Zero actual historical evidence.
The few pieces (about 3) some claim are evidence are heavily refuted as obvious fakes too.
Very few serious historians doubt the existence of Jesus the person.
The theory that Jesus the person was himself a myth turns up in the 19th century, whereas skepticism and disbelief about the claims in the Bible about Jesus etc, (which are referenced in it) are older than the book itself, which iirc was begun tens of years after his death.
Clearly you can believe whatever you want to believe of course, and I don't think for a minute wikipedia is going to convince you that Jesus was a historical person, (you don't strike me as someone who would take a detailed look into it having already decided it's proposterous), but for the record, I have to tell you that your assertion that there is no evidence is just factually incorrect.
WTF are you quoting??? Quoting without a source is nonsensical.
Because over centuries of Christianity dominating western teaching, historians have been indoctrinated and even paid to accept or prove if they can that Jesus Christ as a historical person, exclusively based on the stories in the Bible, that are 2 generations after the fact, and by anonymous authors and based on hearsay at best, or rather they are simply made up. The bible is in no way a trustworthy historical document.
If you point to scholarly consensus, you also have to be able to point to evidence that scholarly consensus is based on, and the fact is you can't. This scholarly consensus is 100% based on a circle jerk, where scholars conclude according to their own beliefs in Christianity without evidence.
My beliefs on the issue are based on the evidence, if you want to believe based on superstition and group pressure your beliefs are not equal to mine.
Beliefs without evidence are generally false as in near infinitely unlikely to be true, and false beliefs that are a central point of your world view are demonstrably harmful, exactly in the way Christian beliefs can be shown to be harmful.
I already said: wikipedia.
Forgive me for trusting the scholarship of the majority of historians rather than some random on the internet who wasn't aware what the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real person until a few hours ago, and just assumed there was no corroborating evidence because you didn't think there would be!
Historians, as their day job, what they're best at, and expert in, is evaluating historical documents, taking into account the bias of their authors and drawing appropriate conclusions. I'm going to trust them over you ranting.
Feel free to doubt the religious claims of the Bible, but it's silly to base your whole argument against the church on the one thing that historians, with a few exceptions, agree on.
You're behaving like a vaccine skeptic or climate change denier. There is a field of experts. There was controversy. There was a lot of examination of the evidence and now there is a consensus. You are disagreeing with the consensus on the basis of your instincts and your preexisting beliefs.
No they aren't! You had no idea there was any, you haven't even begun to look into it, you have no intention of looking into it in any serious way, and you just today claimed that there couldn't be any on the grounds that it wasn't true! It's a circular argument only supported by it's conclusion!
Of all the things to disagree with the Bible on, you pick the physical existence of Jesus as the one you most ardently dispute? There's so much that's easy for you to argue is implausible in the Bible, but you pick the very existence of some guy going round preaching to a bunch of religious folk that they should be nice to each other?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Jesus might have been a real person? Do you disbelieve in Mohammed's physical existence, or the Buddha, just because you disbelieve their religious claims? It's irrational. You disbelieve me; am I therefore non-existent?
It's so illogical, and you have your eyes so tightly shut to the possibility that something slightly less simple than "it's all complete nonsense" is true.
Those who will not listen can never learn new things.
Jesus was real.
I absolutely were.
You can't just quote "wikipedia" you have to give the link to the page, so others can see the context. For all I know those quotes could be from a page about things stupid people believe.
No the exact opposite, because they deny the evidence, while I draw my conclusions based on it, or in this case rather the lack of it.
Without evidence there is no reason to believe in the existence of god, and saying that a number of anonymous cultists writing stories about him is proof, is the same as saying a number of Harry Potter books is proof of the existence of Harry Potter.
No that would be the existence of god. A belief that is even more insane, because it's even more crazy to believe in a god without evidence whatsoever.
All the arguments of the existence of god in the bible are based on ignorance, just like you show here.
You are making a string of false assumptions here based on ignorance of the actual facts, exactly like you are on the existence of Jesus.
This is a silly denial. I was the one who told you. You are the one who claims I'm making it up and are disbelieving in the existence even of a wikipedia article without lifting a finger to check for yourself. And you expect me to believe you've given any serious look into this historical question of existence when you didn't even google?
This also is a silly thing to be skeptical about or debate, when google exists. I knew (from having looked it up in the past) that the consensus of historians was that Jesus was a real historical figure but that the claims about him in the Bible were religious rather than historical. So I googled "Is there evidence that Jesus was a real historical person" or something like that, scrolled past the religious links and clicked on the wikipedia entry which was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I might be wrong, but I'm not so sure there are any arguments about existence in it. I think it's just a bunch of stories told with that included as an assumption. All the arguments about existence or not are from the philosophers, mostly much much later on. And I think they're silly too.
Like I said, feel free to doubt the religious claims in the Bible, or any other religious text you have negative feelings about, but it's silly to disagree with historians about the simple existence of Jesus the man, once you know you're on the wrong side of that question compared to the experts whose day job it is to examine and more to the point, evaluate historical evidence!
You present yourself as the scientific mind who decides on the basis of evidence, whilst dismissing, with obvious prejudice, those who have examined the evidence. You clearly believe what you believe because it feels right to you, not because you learned anything about it.
I notice that you didn't answer whether your (presumed) disbelief in Islam caused you to disbelieve in the existence of Mohammed, or your (presumed) rejection of Buddhism caused you to think that the Buddha himself was invented?
Yes because you can read my mind. 🤣🤣🤣
I have known this since the 90's, where in philosophy at University we debated whether religiosity is a kind of insanity.
You are a fool that base your opinions based on insufficient information and lack of evidence, so no wonder if you are religious.
Again a claim based on ignorance. The Bible claims the 10 commandments are from god, and that god created the world, essentially making the claim that the existence of the world is evidence for god.
There is very little logic rationale for this, since the two situations are very very different, Mohammed is an actual historic figure with lots of evidence. The god however is the same, and no matter how many new books are written about Harry Potter does not make it a reason to believe he exist without evidence. The same goes for god.
No, it was a silly (and ungrammatical) denial, not because I can read your mind, but because it was clear from the evidence of the text of your claims to me today, right here in this thread, that you had no idea that there was independent evidence and that historians largely agree that Jesus was a real historical person.
Hehe. Unlike you, I admitted I might be wrong when I hadn't checked (and I have no intention to read the whole Bible just to check if you're wrong).
On the other hand, you didn't even believe there was a wikipedia page about the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus! And you claim I was arguing from ignorance?
Sounds to me like "essentially" is doing all the work in that sentence. I think this is yet another silly philosophical argument about the existence of God that someone else wrote that's just based on some Biblical text that it's trivial to doubt and is therefore pointless because it can't convince anyone either way who isn't already convinced.
I don't believe you can link me to where the Bible says that because the commandments came from God (for which you already have to believe the story), and because God created the world (for which you also already have to believe the story), the existence of the world proves God exists (which I believe isn't even in the story, unless you can prove me otherwise. Right back atcha with the "link or it didn't happen". Again, there's so much in the Bible that youth might have chosen to criticise and yet you pick something that isn't really there?! There's still much in the Bible that you might have chosen to claim was invented and you pick the simple existence of Jesus the person?!)
And even if that silly argument came from the Bible instead of some silly philosopher trying to prove via silly logic the existence of God, it was such a weak argument with so many logical holes I'm surprised your philosophy teachers gave it the time of day to teach you it.
At least I see where you learned to make circular arguments where you have to believe the consequent before you can accept the antecedent. You argued that Jesus never existed because there's no evidence, and also you argued that there can't be any evidence because he never existed. Surely if you've studied any philosophy at all, you must recognise that this is about as far from a syllogism as it's possible to be.
I'm well aware that some philosophers regularly dismiss Christianity and Marxism in the same sentence as deluded nonsense, but I think that you have adopted that prejudice wholesale, and that prejudice has led you to lack knowledge about the historical evidence and consensus for the bare existence of Jesus the historical person.
Can I advise you in the future to (a) check your facts, (b) argue where you're strongest rather than weakest and (c) be prepared to admit you didn't realise something. It undermines your position otherwise.
So you knowingly made an argument from ignorance? And didn't even bother to check!
Romans 1:20: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made”.
That's it I'm out, you just continue to talk nonsense on things you know nothing about, and I honestly don't care to waste more of my time on you.
Love how you deleted all the bits of your original nonsense about what the commandments story says and substituted something from the other end of the Bible to prove me wrong, when I said that the commandments story doesn't argue what you said it did. And you were claiming that someone else was moving the goalposts?!
Sounds to me that that's a claim about God's qualities rather than a logical argument for his existence. Again, I don't think there are logical arguments about the existence of God in there, and I think you're looking for that silly ontological argument some much larger philosophers made that God must exist because God is perfect and not existing is an imperfection or some such nonsense. I don't think it's in the Bible, and I don't think philosophical arguments for the existence of God are in the Bible, because like I said hours ago, it's an underlying assumption in the whole thing, not something presented as a logical argument, just a bunch of stories, poems and letters, some of them second or third hand, about how people perceived the events they experienced or heard of through the perspective of their religion. The fact that you think their religion is hocum should not blind you, as a thinking person who claims an education and adherence to the evidence, to the historical existence of the real historical person Jesus about whom those stories were written.
Admitting you might be wrong when you're not sure is the opposite of ignorance. Ignorance is refusing to learn and insisting you're right when you're worried you're wrong. The stupidest things are said by people who can't believe they might be mistaken.
For example, I might be wrong, but I personally find it plausible that St George, Patron Saint of England, was a real historical figure who was killed in 303CE or thereabouts, but I strongly disbelieve that he fought or killed a dragon. You seem pathologically unable to emotionally and intellectually separate the existence of the person from the stories about them.
I mean, the idea that a guy made a weird sect, telling people to throw away all of their money (to who?) and performing tricks to pass them as miracles isn't so absurd. There's been a lot of scammers throughput history, he could have simply been one that happened to have a long lasting effect.
It's far from being the most significant person or whatever, more of a butterfly effect of some dude that wanted to have his own cult.
Isn't that him the romans were describing it, as a cult gathering people fast? That's probably all it was.
There is still no evidence of that. It's just moving the goal post, but in reality it doesn't make a difference.
There are also communications between Christian groups where the personification of Christ is debated, to make it easier for people to understand Christianity.
Again you are completely missing the point, because according to Christianity Jesus is clearly the moist significant person to ever live, and if the bible was true, that would be a fact, as his existence is claimed to be the salvation of billions of people through 2 millennia.
So saying he is not, is actually the same as supporting my claim that he never existed.
No, Christianity was insignificant until the Romans themselves adopted it for political reasons.
I'm not saying that there is evidence, and I'm not sure what goal post I'm moving. My whole point was that the way Jesus is depicted by Christianity is as a weird sect leader that was promoting peace and frugality, and that it is ironic considering that the religion itself is quite the opposite.
I wasn't debating the proof of existence of Jesus and to be honest, I don't really care if he ever existed or not (and I would argue that most people don't, because most Christians would absolutely ignore anything that would prove that he didn't exist). My point was just to insist on the fact that Christianity has been for a pretty long time a religion of violence and greed, and that it is ironic.
That's false Jesus is depicted by christianity as the son of god, with supernatural powers that allowed him to perform miracles, including rising from the dead, and ascending to heaven after.
On that we agree 100%. But the Bible is full of contradictions, and even the new testament has different books about Jesus that try to deliver very different messages about him, when telling the same basic story.
Same way as it could work with Harry Potter if we didn't have copyright, and everybody could write their own story about him. And a century later a fan club makes a collection of the best 100 year old stories about Harry Potter that are decided by everyone to be canon. And they call it the Holy Bible of Harry Potter, and for 2000 years people actually believe it to be true, and that Harry Potter was a guy that really existed who could do magic.
Eh, I don't think there's much merit to whether or not Jesus was a real person. The focus should be on the obviously fantastical claims because Christian apologists tend to get all caught up in the idea of Jesus being a "historical person" rather than the wild claim of Jesus being a literal god. I don't reject the validity of Christianity because I'm unsure if Jesus really did exist or not, but rather that the supernatural claims fall embarrassingly short of such tall claims.
Nono that's not how it works, the burden of proof is on those that claim he existed. Without such proof, there is no reason to believe he did.
But why quibble over the murkier "did he exist" ground when you could engage on "was he a miracle working guy who came back from the dead" and make them find more evidence for that!
This is my point exactly. Thank you for putting it more concisely than what I'm apparently capable of.
What do you mean? More than zero? There is no evidence, and "more" evidence will never be found, because there is no reason to believe it ever happened. And if you mean evidence that it didn't happen, then again that's not how it works. You can't prove a negative.
@Buffalox @Semjeza technically there is textual evidence of him coming back from the dead. From multiple authors even.
It's readily available in every version of the Bible.
(Now if that evidence is worth a rats ass is another question altogether)
No those are just stories, and none of the "books" are reliable historical evidence.
Exactly, I already mentioned that the bible isn't a valid source. First because it is written by anonymous authors, second because it isn't contemporary, thirdly because it's based on hearsay, and finally because crucial details do not line up among them.
The books of the Bible is exactly what could be expected to happen when you don't have copyright. Someone picks up a story, and changes it to be more to his liking.
OHMYGOD, THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT.
What? To give them more time to not be able to prove a negative?
Or to give them more time than 2000 years to still not be able to prove anything?
You are not making any sense now?!
Or were you being sarcastic about the more time thing? Because if you were, it's very stupid to not use the /s regarding sarcasm, when we are debating stupid beliefs billions of people actually hold.
In any case, you are not making sense now.
Ehhh I'd doubt it. Your average Christian isn't violent and/or greedy. It's just the ones that are make the news as it generates clicks. As someone who is actually a Christian, I see non-christians bring up strawmen of things they have seen in the media which I have never seen in real life.
It's also worth realising Christianity is the most populous religion in the world- so things that happened were more likely to be perpetuated by self-proclaimed "Christian" leaders manipulating scripture purely for their own benefit. Things would arguably be worse if another religion had this amount of followers and influence.
"Your average Christian" depends on where you live. I have "christians" in my family, in my neighborhood, at work, what one would likely describe as average around here, that have expressed at minimum a denial of the humanity of those who are different from them, seemingly instituted or encouraged by their "Christian" culture. I know this isn't all christians, but it seems like where I live, the churches that preach inclusivity are few in number and slim in attendance, and although still not a majority, there are more that preach AGAINST inclusivity, and the predominant culture among most christians regardless seems to lean in that direction. In the lead up to the 2024 election, a number of "christians" close to me expressed extremely violent potentialities should Trump not win, pointing directly toward acceptance and secularism as their motivations and justifications.
You have expressed that things would be worse in the world if it would be some other religion. You think a world where any other religion holding a majority would be worse, is that what you're saying? That is quite an assertion, and I'd like to see you prove that. Imagine if secular humanism were more central in people's lives... What a world we could have.
Edit: I do live in a pretty shitty place, to be fair, haha
I am starting to get that impression.
What is the threshold for inclusivity, though? For example, my Church does have gay, trans and cohabiting people in the congregation, but we don't necessarily preach that these things are okay. However, it is worth acknowledging that everyone is sinful, so we cannot cast the first stone (referencing John 8:1-11 here) and that we aren't saved by being perfect either. Afaik they aren't even excluded from membership. They are people made in God's image whom Christ died for also.
I doubt the world would be better off with secular humanism. It is all generally based on opinion.
There are movements like The Manosphere which I feel would have been a lot more influential if it weren't for Christianity
This by itself is a problem, because people need to be taught aspects of morality, and this is absolutely one of them.
LGBT is an oppressed minority, and not teaching that LGBT is OK, is failing to help LGBT people against bigotry whether it's from Christians or not. The fact you even mention cohabiting people is astonishing, as if there was any reason whatsoever to be against it!? It is not the bronze age anymore.
This is one of the absolute worst teachings of Christianity, that you are born with sin inherited from previous generations, and you need Jesus Christ to help you with that.
No you are promised to be "saved" by being a faithful mindless sheep.
This is just the ignorance that can be expected from a religious person.
Humanism is based on ethics that evolve with increased knowledge from scientific evidence. For instance the bible teaches us that animals have no soul, and for that reason Christians can conclude it is OK to mistreat animals, because they don't actually feel anything. ( For instance Descartes)
Scientific evidence on the other hand, show this to be very clearly false. The emotions of many animals are almost exactly similar to our own emotions. And anyone who isn't a deranged psychopath can see that with their own eyes.
The claim that Humanism isn't better than the bible is outright deranged.
This is a doctrine of Christianity. The Churches that do what you wish are essentially vaguely spiritualist humanists, populated by old people who still think "christian" is a synonym for "good"
This is where humanism fails. Morality changes, as per the culture and time. In some ways, they can even just be flat out colonialist with trying to force their culture on others. There are examples of times when things which were morally horrific were accepted by the culture. People twisted scripture back then as those "progressivists" are doing now. The fruit comes from the same tree.
The difference is, Christians have a justification about wishing to "save" people whether you agree with it or not.
As for your theological issues, that's just Christian doctrine, but you massively misrepresented it. Most religions believe in good and evil (such a thing is absent from atheism) and Christianity just makes a point about everyone being evil, and a divine forgiveness. It also takes away the stress and provides comfort to those scared that they're not "good enough" for heaven
It is my experience again that adherents to the Manosphere and this hyper-masculine rejection of empathy are christians, but as above, I live in a shitty place. You seem like a good person and you're devoted to the kinder aspects of your religion. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but I'd rather not spend my time in the spaces I've described with those people where it can be avoided. I'd rather not base my beliefs on ideas about inherent guilt and blood sacrifice, superstition and unprovable supernatural claims, where differences in interpretation can lead to these seemingly abhorrent separations from one church to another. Instead, and I suppose that you're correct that this is just an opinion, I think a better world would be found when we remove ourselves from these ancient notions of the world around us. I do hope the best for us all, as I'm sure you do also.
I haven't found anyone in the Manosphere who is Christian. Maybe some can be found who claim the label. You even had some insanity like Andrew Tate trying to say "Christ is King" when he's a Muslim - Even the Babylon Bee was making fun of people who embrace Andrew Tate and his teachings
As a matter of fact, I attended a men's bible-study last night, and of course, the manosphere was mentioned and immediately labelled as unchristian and heresy. I have been to Christian men's conferences and the same happened there. In fact, it basically comes up during any Christian men's events, and even has been brought up during Church sermons and studies where the crowd was mixed.
Worth mentioning some of these events were ecumenical as well. I watched the Louis Thereoux documentary on it, and their way of life and attitude of women seemed so Godless. So I believe for young men who do crave tradition and purpose, having them become a Christlike man and looking to Christ is the far better outcome than them using Tate as their rolemodel.
I would disagree. For many, these ancient notions are what fuel a lot of good. They keep people going. I can look at the Manosphere and simply reject it as their teachings are incredibly unbiblical and not in line with Christianity. Same with Nazism, white supremacism, MAGA, etc. Which, for a lot of young men in rural areas, may be their only alternatives. I am of course not speaking of all leftists, as that would be a strawman. But there has been aspects of these movements which have tried to push men away and demean and despise men. Thankfully, I believe leftist movements are becoming more accepting of healthy masculinity and men, but it was still an issue that was perceived by many. There has always been stigma about "straight white male" or "cis men". I did have former friends demean me for being a "cis man" years ago. For some of these people, if they seek community where they are accepted for being a man, a moderate Church is generally a pretty good option.
I'm legitimately glad that your personal experience of Christianity has been a net positive for you.
I was raised in a very standard First Assembly of God church until I was 12 and then my parents pivoted back to Catholicism. The experiences I had growing up in an evangelical paradigm were horrifying, especially in hindsight. I'm still unpacking the religious trauma in therapy today, nearly three decades after walking away.
So, based on my personal experience, the day to day Christians are precisely the greedy and violent ones that fucked me up, abused me relentlessly, and destroyed my sense of self-worth, not the blowhards on the news. Many of us are walking wounded from the divisive, hate-based, soul-crushing doctrines we were raised in under the guise of Christian love.
You probably are an American. You guys are just built different.
It could even be a cultural thing- a lot of the hurt I hear comes from the USA. A lot of UK ex Christians (if they even identify as that) were just culturally Christian and were just bored by Church
Also, I am sorry that you went through that.
Christianity has been the cause for wars.
Even "moderate" Christians are deluded, and can get the idea from their priest that they need "therapy" for their LGBT child.
And can argue that morality comes from god, which is insane since god doesn't exist.
Being deluded makes Christians irrational, and prone to aggression when they feel their convictions are not accepted.
The problem with that is that obviously all the superstitious parts and the bigotry of Christianity does not deserve acceptance and much less respect.
So when Christianity meets evidence based reason, Christians are absolutely prone to be aggressive.
We have seen this through hundreds of years, where scientists were punished by Christians for proving actual facts, or even just suggesting them. Again obviously a scientific theory does not deserve punishment whether right or wrong.
The same is true today, where the basis for the major opposition to abortion in western democracies is Christianity.
Even sometimes demanding the banning of abortion in situations where continuing the pregnancy will mean the death of both the mother and the fetus! Only religious beliefs can make people so irrational and evil for no benefit to themselves.
AND these people even believe they are doing the right thing, because they are deluded. Being deluded is inherently dangerous, not only to the person who is deluded, but also to people around them, and society as a whole.
Which is easy both because the people believing it are delusional and easily fooled, and because scripture is so full of self contradictions, that you can pick a side.
But lets just remember that scripture not only allow slavery, it actually condones it.
And the recommended action if a women is suspected to have been unfaithful to her husband, is to poison her to prove her guilt or innocence, if she dies it is considered proof that she was unfaithful.
The bible is not medieval, because that would be way more modern, it is not barbarian, because it would be way more civilized.
The bible is a bronze age superstitious attempt to explain reality, and with zero understanding the only explanation they could come up with was of course superstitious, and in this case based on an "almighty" god. And in the exact same manner they tried to make rules and define morality, but with very little understanding of anything, except of course the understanding common in the bronze age.
This is the guide Christians choose to follow, and don't try to gas light me into thinking that doesn't have negative consequences.