Because they only show you what will make them appear righteous.
And your comment about Jews is incorrect, misleading, and quite unfair. But, you are quite consistent in that regard, so I'm unsurprised.
Let's be more precise: I'm against the first imperative of Kant, and very specifically his comments about the 'Law of Reason' - in effect, it is just another idol, just another version of Baal.
When legalists march against grace, the jack boots of history predict the endpoint. Though you don't see it now, chances are pretty good the future history will bear this out .... again. And we'll both argue about who is really to blame.
Because they only show you what will make them appear righteous.
Really... And why would they do that?
And your comment about Jews is incorrect, misleading, and quite unfair.
Not at all. You claimed:
In short, without Christ, a man will screw himself, his brother, and his sister, b/c it his nature.These are your words, not mine. Clearly you said that a belief in Christ was necessary for the kind of morality you were talking about, and that without it, "a man will screw himself, his brother, and his sister, b/c it his nature".
Jews are "without Christ", so clearly you hold this opinion about Jews. Or would you perhaps care to admit that your statement was in error?
But, you are quite consistent in that regard, so I'm unsurprised.
Indeed, I am quite consistent in pointing out the logical errors in your prejudices.