Thank you for your response, but well here's my problem with that. God created us with free will, so that we could freely choose to worship or reject him. That's my understanding, correct me if I'm off.

Then, we're told we have a defect at birth, but the solution is just accept we are broken (psalm 51:5, genesis 8:21, jeremiah 17:9, ecclesiastes 9:3). Now if we simply reject what to me sounds like a high pressure sales pitch, which is neatly summarized in Pascal's Wager, then we will suffer for the rest of eternity. This is the situation I must accept if I choose to be a Christian.

Honestly, to me the Abrahamic God seems like a petulant child throwing a tantrum when someone rejects the premise under which they were created and looks elsewhere. I think that's because of all the various competing religions ay the time it was invented. Because it was just another religion that was invented and happened to stick.

I am happy with the morals I derive from humanistic thinking and lived experience- like empathy, camaraderie with peers and immersing myself into nature. They have served me well. To me this seems better than relying on morals someone else came up with, and then having to defend them over contradictory ones from other faiths. Refraining from killing me simply because someone fears hell doesn't qualify as moral to me.

What do you think makes Christianity more true than Islam or Shinto or the atheist god of science (which is the one that gave you these internets, not Jesus btw)?

Ps- I'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that if I live in the west I haven't had to test my morals. Does hardship validate Christianity? I think it validates the effect of faith, but I'm sure there were native americans praying to their own gods as christians persecuted them, destroyed their religion and indoctrinated their children.