A Few Observations

[Gordon]

Having now read many threads and contributed to a few, I thought I would like to make a few observations from soemeone who contributes from this side of 'the pond' (England).

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

8. I have met some great US christians so clearly not all are like those in (7) above, but I do get the impression that there are rather too many in that category.

9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.

10. Whatever goes on in the USA, almost all the christians that I know here are happy to socialise with agnostics, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. I get the impression that this is different in the USA.

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

kind regards,

Gordon.

 

[KennyJC]

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

Atheists here simply lack the political correctness with religion which is rampant in the media and in politics. Shame you see it as a personal attack, as it is not often the person, but the beliefs themselves that quite rightly receive a lashing.

If my mother was a fundie Christian, I would speak to her in the same way I would speak to theists here (when talking about religion that is)... By that I mean that I would come right out and say that her beliefs were lazy and stupid.

I also don't see many illogical atheists on this forum. You said that people can arrive at religion and belief in God through logic, so I would not go telling atheists they are being illogical as it appears you don't even know what logic is.

 

[Cris]

Hi Gordon and welcome to sciforums.

There are very significant cultural differences between the Brits and the Americans that make it very difficult and dangerous to compare - they are simply different.

I've been trying to isolate these differences for the past 20 years and don't feel much closer now than when I started. I am a Brit, have been visiting the USA for the past 20 years, and have lived here permanently for the past 10 years and will become a US citizen shortly.

It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

Perhaps but not likely. I think what you really meant was that it is possible to respect the proponent of a belief but disagree with that belief. I certainly have opponents here that I respect but at the same time I have absolutely no respect for their beliefs.

One can still remain polite but violently disagree with the opposing views. Unfortunately we do attract quite a few religious nutters here that display absolutely no reasoning ability. When politeness has no effect abuse often sadly results out of sheer frustration.

Can't remember any atheist nutters recently though - perhaps other members can remind me.

 

[(Q)]

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking.

Yet, they don't appear to apply their intelligence and logic to their faith, why is that?

 

[pavlosmarcos]

A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people

their are many such people, but why are they so irrational when it comes to there religion.

who can be very logical in their thinking.

they need to apply that logic to their religion.

Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical.

yes there are irrational nonbelievers too, but these dont wear the irrationality like a badge.

The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned.

how so, should we all suffer fools gladly, I think not.

Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners

theres slight rudeness and theres flaming which is not allowed, and will be dealt with by the moderators.

and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

it most certainly does not mean that, if you make an inanely stupid remark you dont expect to get a pat on the back for it, certainly not on a science forum.
so if you dont like the heat you stay out of the kitchen.

 

[superluminal]

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

kind regards,

Gordon.

Hi Gordo.

Tell this to xians. I for one am finished with respecting religion and theists, since their respect for my freedoms is next to nil.

 

[SnakeLord]

Just as an interesting side question..

You mention in number 7 about loving thy neighbour, (the main tenet of christianity).

In number 11 you go on to say that you can "try to convert people in a nice way".

Can I ask if the very first question you would ever pose when attempting to convert someone is "do you mind if I try to convert you"? If not, you're not really taking his feelings into account - which isn't really showing love, or respect for that matter.

Upon asking that question, the person you're trying to convert says "yes, I do mind". Do you then leave him alone?

While you might answer yes to that, no matter how many times I tell these people at my door that I mind them being there and attempting to convert me, they never quite get the message, (yes, I live in England).

You mention respecting others beliefs, but if you don't ask permission before attempting to convert someone, then you're not showing respect for them or their beliefs now are you?

 

[Godless]

1. Obvious really but the USA is not the world. Many times what goes on there is extrapolated into what happens everywhere. This can be erroneous in the extreme! More of you need to get about more or at least admit that you have no experience of elsewhere.

Generalization, this statement is utterly bs, FYI this site and many members are from your side of the pond. And as USA is not the world, we know, it's just the world is in USA. We are the melting pot if you will, there live here more people from every corner of the world, then every other place on earth. Thus a your observation is moot unless, like Chris you've spent time living here.

2. Neither truth nor correct judgment are a function of numbers of believers. (You voted in Bush not once but twice and we in the UK have probably done things as (no perhaps not quite as) stupid).

I didn't vote for the dood. As many also didn't vote for the dood, though the vote was hi-jacked twice, we let it happen twice, our fault, but fraud was at play. click
click

3. There are many variants of christainity in regard not only to practice but also some beliefs. Many (most) of these are outside of the USA - see 1. This implies that what you see of 'christians' in the USA may or may not necessarily apply elsewhere in the whole rest of the world.

Do you think of us so naive. Like I said before, there are many cultures that live here, so in essence there are many variants of christianity here as well. We know, we know, were not so naive dood. If it were not for the US dip shit, you may be speaking German!. :bugeye:

4. Roman Catholic beliefs are based on tradition and scripture in that order (their defiinition). Whilst they are as entitled to their beliefs as the next man or woman, Roman Catholic theology should not be confused with scripture. They may not necessarily accord.

This good you address this here to the theist of the forum, though most atheist just know the horror brought about those goddamn beliefs...Be kind and remind theist here of that too...

6. To an outsider, the US church seems strangely racially segregated. The white conservative wings seem to be very into the 'American Dream'. This is essentially based on the worship of money and is totally incompatible with christianity as espoused in the Bible.

Yea we atheist here in the US see that too, specially when televangelist are raking in millions $ per week, and these dumbass theist just keep given them their hard earned money..Go figure, it's cheaper to be an atheist in this regard.

7. The hatred shown soemtimes by some of these same conservatives towards homosexuals, those working in abortion clinics etc. is total anathema to any true evangelical bible believing christian. God loves everyone. His love is not withdrawn whatever you do and it is not for other people to pass judgement. It is even more wrong for them to hate people or hurt people just because they believe that they are doing wrong. This is not in accordance with christianity at all ('love your neighbour as yourself').

I completely agree, but then they wouldn't be too christian of them, if they are not meddenly in people's buisness.

9. George Bush does not seem to represent a christian believer to me. In fact whatever his spiritual beliefs (probably none - I don't know) Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.

Humor: Bush is spawn of the devil. click

If your a theist this is right up your alley.

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them. You may also try to convert people in a nice way (by the good example of loving them). Yo cannot convert people with 'Hellfire and Damnation' speeches. People who try to use this method are sadly misguided.

Now if they only saw it that way during the Inguisitions, Crusades, witch burnings..etc...

12. A very large number of christians I know are thinking intelligent people who can be very logical in their thinking. Conversely I know many atheists and agnostics who are not at all logical. The use of invective on this site by contributors against believers on the basis of their 'inate stupidity' demeans the contributors concerned. Rational logical argument does not consist of abuse and name calling however you may disagree with their view. On the contrary it indicates ignorance, bad manners and a lack of intellectual prowess to counter the argument.

Welcome to Sciforums, we ditched political correctness a few years ago, when the same old tried bs kept coming up as topics..

Godless

 

[scorpius]

5. The Southern Baptist Church has still not managed to get rid of the infiltration of freemasonry, because of the great strength of the latter and the number of freemasons in the church. This applies in part to the Church of England but the C of E official position is that christianity and freemasonry are incompatible. This is probably a far more serious threat than any anything to do with homosexuality.

Im curious just how do you know this, freemasons are suposed to be a very secret org.
and to what or whom are these freemasons threat to?

 

[Gordon]

Just as an interesting side question..

You mention in number 7 about loving thy neighbour, (the main tenet of christianity).

In number 11 you go on to say that you can "try to convert people in a nice way".

Can I ask if the very first question you would ever pose when attempting to convert someone is "do you mind if I try to convert you"? If not, you're not really taking his feelings into account - which isn't really showing love, or respect for that matter.

Upon asking that question, the person you're trying to convert says "yes, I do mind". Do you then leave him alone?

While you might answer yes to that, no matter how many times I tell these people at my door that I mind them being there and attempting to convert me, they never quite get the message, (yes, I live in England).

You mention respecting others beliefs, but if you don't ask permission before attempting to convert someone, then you're not showing respect for them or their beliefs now are you?

I don't do doorstep knocking (I hate it too!). I don't preach at people. I don't do the 'you must become a christian and save yourself from hellfire'. These are not only offensive to most people but amazingly ineffective too! I enjoy discussion but in honesty few will become christians because of that, although it does happen occassionally. One of my colleagues left freemasonry and became a christian after discussion of the issues made him make an objective analysis of freemasonry and what it had done to his life. The main point is that he made the choice. He had to make the commitment and he did that after a discussion he was happy to have. You cannot force religion on people. It is wrong in principle and as I say it does not work either. My experience is that many people who have problems (homeless, seriously ill, marriage breaking up etc.) will often accept a prayer if offerred whereas they would hate to be preached at.


People become true christians (not just churchgoers) because they see God at work and they wish to see God at work in them. Seeing God at work is not usually blinding flashes or great supernatural miracles but seeing practical love in action in the community by christians. If christians are not being seen to do that and not winning more christians that way, they are in my opinion off course. And I am in no way decrying the many secular charitable institutions. I believe that they show the love that God has instilled in them even if they do not recognise that or Him.

Whilst theological and philosophical debate is interesting, life for most people in the west is about far more mundane matters like problems with spouses, problems with children, problems at work, problems with money etc. In the majority world it is of course often simply about survival. Christianity (i.e. christians themselves) either have to be relevant to this or they have no right to preach any scripture at all. Christianity is certainly not about getting your personal passport stamped for eternity!

regards,

Gordon

 

[Gordon]

Im curious just how do you know this, freemasons are suposed to be a very secret org.
and to what or whom are these freemasons threat to?

The problem is well documented. There are many web references (http://freemasonrywatch.org/holly.html is one).

Freemasonry is a threat within a church as the beliefs of freemasonry and christianity are totally incompatible. If you have large numbers of people who are freemasons, you therefore have large numbers of people who do not believe in the central tenets of the faith of the church. This is an obvious danger in itself. Freemasonry is occultic and if you believe in the existence of Satan and demons (as you should if you are a christian) then you should be ensuring that your church is not in ant way supporting such activities.

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

To 'Godless'

Generalization, this statement is utterly bs, FYI this site and many members are from your side of the pond. And as USA is not the world, we know, it's just the world is in USA. We are the melting pot if you will, there live here more people from every corner of the world, then every other place on earth. Thus a your observation is moot unless, like Chris you've spent time living here.

I was trying to put over a perception held by many non US people. The fact that the USA has people from all over the world does not seem (to us at least) to change its insular attitude. I accept the USA is not exactly well served in this regard by its politicians.


I didn't vote for the dood. As many also didn't vote for the dood, though the vote was hi-jacked twice, we let it happen twice, our fault, but fraud was at play. click
click

I have read and enjoyed the Michael Moore books. I read a book by a US christian which stated that the US system was far better than the UK system because the head of state was not elected in the UK. This to me showed an incredible naivity of the issues involved. The reality to us this side at least seems very different. Often the bizarre and apparently illogical works better than the carefully logically planned in politics. I would cite the totally anachronistic House of Lords in the UK which nonetheless does a very useful job as opposed to the carefully discussed and considered Weimar republic in Germany which failed completely.

To me your political system does seem to be a version of an 'elected dictatorship' which must therefore inevitably lend itself to these sorts of problems. You must also understand though that what you admit as 'fraud' in politics combined with statements about 'freedom and democracy' from those same fraudsters does not endear the USA to the rest of the world.

Do you think of us so naive. Like I said before, there are many cultures that live here, so in essence there are many variants of christianity here as well. We know, we know, were not so naive dood. If it were not for the US dip shit, you may be speaking German!. :bugeye:

The UK declared war on Germany in 1939 because of a treaty obligation to Poland, it by then being obvious even to the rather naive right wing upper class Conservative government that Hitler could not be trusted. It suffered massive destruction and civilian death and near bankruptcy to do it. The USA entered the war in 1941 because Japan bombed US ships at Pearl Harbor. Its civilian population and structures were not affected in the same way as in Europe. Your 'moral high ground' is therefore I fear of low altitude. No one in the UK would deny the US contribution in the second world war but it could equally be said that if the British Empire (as then was) and Commonwealth had not held out against Hitler, the Axis powers (by then certainly in charge of the former USSR and the rest of Europe) would have been unstoppable even by the USA and so it could have been you who could have ended up speaking German (or possibly Japanese) except that those who wished to express any opinion (both of us) would probably long since have been killed. Hollywood's consistent attempts to show that the USA won the war single handedly don't exactly help the US cause amongst Brits either! Let's just agree that we both helped each other in the end.

This good you address this here to the theist of the forum, though most atheist just know the horror brought about those goddamn beliefs...Be kind and remind theist here of that too...

Roman Catholics of course normally say that their tradition and scripture are in agreement despite the problems in that that are obvious to those who are not Roman Catholic but have a good understanding of scripture. I think most protestants are aware of the issues. It does seem to me (although I could be wrong) that many atheists are not. Whilst you fairly criticise christians for comment without knowledge, it is clear that some of your atheist colleagues are not well versed in the bible or christian doctrine that they choose to comment upon. It is not all one sided.


Yea we atheist here in the US see that too, specially when televangelist are raking in millions $ per week, and these dumbass theist just keep given them their hard earned money..Go figure, it's cheaper to be an atheist in this regard.

I try to avoid things like the 'God Channel' for the reasons you mention. The people you refer to will have to answer to the God that they have used to make their fortunes. I would have thought they were in serious breach of both the first and second commandments. They are actually worshipping money and misusing God's name to do it.

I completely agree, but then they wouldn't be too christian of them, if they are not meddenly in people's buisness.

I presume you mean 'meddling'. The problem you seem to have (from my admitted outsider's view) is that people (especially politicians) seem to misuse christianity to advance their own personal political and business aims. We do not seem to have suffered this in quite the same way in the UK (fortunately!). In my opinion it is contrary to the second commandment and I know that many christains over here have great difficulty with what happens in this regard in the USA.


Humor: Bush is spawn of the devil. click

If your a theist this is right up your alley.

Quite amusing. It's probably as good a conception of the meaning of 666 as the myriad of others. Is the author serious or not? I was not quite sure.




Now if they only saw it that way during the Inguisitions, Crusades, witch burnings..etc...


The things you mention are as abhorrent to me as to you.

Welcome to Sciforums, we ditched political correctness a few years ago, when the same old tried bs kept coming up as topics..

Thanks for the welcome. I am enjoying being here. I don't ask for political correctness (perish the thought) but an acceptance that all christians are not stupid would be nice.

regards,

Gordon.

 

[Gordon]

To Chris,

Thanks for the insight.

Everyone should always respect others on a personal basis irrespective of their views.

I think you can respect views that are different and that will not be based on theistic grounds. For example I respect the concept of moral humanism although I clearly cannot agree with the belief in 'no God' part. I have no respect whatever for the beliefs of Islamic suicidal bombers even though they believe in one god (a very different one to mine!). I believe that this is an outpouring of evil. The respect here I think comes from whether the opposing ideology is based on co-existance or total subjection. You can respect different beliefs of the former category but not the latter.

I hope you can understand the distinction I am making.

regards,


Gordon.

 

[Quigly]

Could you explain why you feel that Pres. Bush is less spiritual than Michael Moore? Why do you presume to know the presidents spiritual standing?

 

[water]

11. It is possible to respect others beliefs without agreeing with them.

I don't think so.

It is possible to be *neutral* or *indifferent* to that which one disagrees with.

But to say I respect something I disagree with -- that is a travesty of respect.

Granted, the quality of respect has lost all respect, for so many people, so they say "respect", but in fact mean "neutrality" or "indifference".


Just because someone doesn't go and openly oppose or even kill people, does not mean he respects them.

 

[Quigly]

It is possible to pick and choose what to respect about a person isn't it?

I respect so and so's athletic abilities. I respect so and so's ability to lead. I respect so and so's physical features, mind, ect... though if I knew that persons core beliefs, I may or may not respect them. I can always respect the fact that they are human beings. I can respect that an animal is an animal though greatly distrust and have ill respect for a lion, if I were trapped in a cage with him.

 

[Godless]

Thanks for the welcome. I am enjoying being here. I don't ask for political correctness (perish the thought) but an acceptance that all christians are not stupid would be nice.

Well only when they demonstrate an ability to reason in some regards. You use your brain, you communicate well, you deserve respect, as any other. BTW I respect everyone, even though I fly off the wall sometimes at stupid crap being said. I still respect them.. You certainly earned mine. I got christian frinds whom I keep in touch with, and debate occasionally with out the name calling and flames wars.

I was trying to put over a perception held by many non US people. The fact that the USA has people from all over the world does not seem (to us at least) to change its insular attitude. I accept the USA is not exactly well served in this regard by its politicians.

Nor it is by Hollywood either, so the perceptions of those who generalize us by these figures, politicians, hollywood dumbasstars, celeberities, is not an accurate picture of how we really are.

I have read and enjoyed the Michael Moore books. I read a book by a US christian which stated that the US system was far better than the UK system because the head of state was not elected in the UK. This to me showed an incredible naivity of the issues involved. The reality to us this side at least seems very different. Often the bizarre and apparently illogical works better than the carefully logically planned in politics. I would cite the totally anachronistic House of Lords in the UK which nonetheless does a very useful job as opposed to the carefully discussed and considered Weimar republic in Germany which failed completely.

Well Michael Moore is a two face dipshit, you can't account much of what he claims, and what he says, he's the puppet of republican party and the embarasment of the democrats.
Our system of government supposedly came with it's checks and balances, however these have been compromised, by having the majority of the same party in both houses. Thus rendering the president to have seemingly overwhelming power.

To me your political system does seem to be a version of an 'elected dictatorship' which must therefore inevitably lend itself to these sorts of problems.

Mostly all political systems in the world today, could lead to "elected dictartorship" we are no different. However we are a Republic, and given that we still have the right to have and bear arms gives these sob's something to think about. Ocklahoma disasters, would be occuring all over the US if they tried to pull them arms from us, and they know it. So they win the majority by "deception". However not all are fooled.

Will continue latter got to go.


Godless

 

[Gordon]

Could you explain why you feel that Pres. Bush is less spiritual than Michael Moore? Why do you presume to know the presidents spiritual standing?

I did not mention Bush's spirtuality. The actual quote is 'Michael Moore seems closer to the teachings of Jesus Christ than George Bush.'

Christ's teachings were primarily about what to do, love God, love your neighbour as yourself etc. This is reflected in what you say and more importantly in what you do. I find little that George Bush says or does that is in accordance with Christ's teachings. He seems to me to merely play on populist conservative issues such as abortion and homosexuality whilst ensuring that the rich in the USA get ever richer at the expense of the poor. He seemd totally unconerned with the plight of New Orleans, has (as you would expect from an oil man) absolutely no interest in the environment and totally ignores the plight of the majority world altogether, unless there is oil there or money to be made in some other way. For instance our government has finally (at long last) changed the iniquitous practice of tying so called 'aid' to contracts for British firms. There is no sign of this happening form the US giovernment. George Bush actually broke international regulations by continuing to maintain US protectionist policies in regard to cotton.

As I have written elsewhere Jesus was not much phased by sexual matters but what got him really going was the misuse of money. My impression is that George Bush and his associates are regularly in default of numbers 1,2,7,8 and 10 of the ten commandments and there is absolutely no evidence of 'loving your neighbour as yourself'. My view is based on that.

As has been pointed out I don't live in the USA so perhaps I have got it wrong. If you feel that what I say is not correct, please tell me how you think Bush does match up to Christ's teaching for one in his position ('unto whom much has been given much will be expected').


regards,



Gordon.

 

[SnakeLord]

If christians are not being seen to do that and not winning more christians that way, they are in my opinion off course.

But are they not off course anyway? Purely for interest, what if you're wrong? What if your "love" makes you lead someone to the real god's hell all because you aided him in wroshipping a fake god? What if allah is the real god, and all your preaching did was drag someone away from that real god? In the interest of safety and love, would it not be best just to leave people alone and instead just hope that they were right, (on the inside)?

Btw, all this hell nonsense clearly and utterly refutes your "God loves everyone" statement.

 

[water]

But are they not off course anyway? Purely for interest, what if you're wrong? What if your "love" makes you lead someone to the real god's hell all because you aided him in wroshipping a fake god? What if allah is the real god, and all your preaching did was drag someone away from that real god? In the interest of safety and love, would it not be best just to leave people alone and instead just hope that they were right, (on the inside)?

I think many religionists are too willing to assume that the non-religious or other-religious people they are talking to do not take them seriously and don't actually believe what the religionists are saying.

Surely, everyone is responsible for what he or she believes.

But on the other hand, everyone is also responsible for what he or she says.

I think one has to take into account that the other person might actually believe (for whatever reason) every word of what one is saying. Which can lead this person into a lot of suffering.

I think the religionists who argue for their religion from the position "It is up to you to believe it or not, but I know it is true" are acting very irresponsibly.

For one, the cognitive development of beliefs is very complex and can take a long time. So laying religious arguments before a person and then expecting them to make a decision within some foreseeable time is unrealistic. It puts a lot of strain on the person. Deciding about what to think about God and religion isn't something that can be done easily, esp. not if one wishes to retain one's integrity.

For two, in many religions or in their schools, a person's belief in God is considered to depend on God -- that God bestows a person with faith in Himself. It is then not at all up to the person himself or herself -- and claiming that it is, is misleading.


All in all, it has been my experience that the religionists gave me little or no credit in my search for God. They have not taken it seriously. As if I had not spent sleepless nights, crying, over a time of several years.
When confronted with that, they simply said I should turn to God, not to them. Well, were it not that I have heard about God only from them, and not from God Himself.

I took them and God seriously, but they were apparently not willing or not ready to be taken seriously. Which is a shame, considering they "know their religion is true".