I just thought this was kinda well-written The general point with some of the previous posts was this: 1. If the Bible is not 100% accurate, then we are left with the conclusions of people to determine what God meant. Humans are...human. It's difficult if not impossible to then separate out what God really meant from what the human writers wanted to say. 2. If the Bible is not the source for Truth, then we must rely on other methods like "personal revelations" and feeling God inside us. 3. If #2 is a valid way to find God, then we must also consider all the millions of people who have experienced this and found a DIFFERENT God than the one that Christianity teaches. Basically, if there is no single source of verifiable "TRUTH" from God, then we're just left with men trying to decide what sounds good. Logically speaking, if you accept something as true, then it must remain true. If you point to someone's life turning around because they found Jesus as evidence of the power of God, then must you not also accept that a different person in China has found God when their life was turned around by Buddha? If you accept that someone was "spoken to" by God, then shouldn't you accept that someone could be "spoken to" by Alah? The "Religious Experience" is so similar around the world for thousands and thousands of years that it would seem to be only common sense by now that the results of "believing in God" are the same no matter what you decide to believe. The power is in the BELIEF in something, for most people. The concept of a God is built into most peoples' brains, and they build religion around the search for this missing piece of the puzzle. And every single religion fails in the attempt to put logic and reason behind what they believe, yet they each maintain the belief that they've truly communicated with *THE* God. Seems ridiculously obvious that humans always have and always will convince themselves into believing that they've found the higher power, whatever the flavor of the millenium happens to be. 1