Going to a christian website, pulling out some inane babble and subsequently pointing and laughing is too easy. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. A world view dominated by highly edited and dubious words of divinity is easy to bash. The real trick is finding a way to reach the lost and lead them to inner peace, without replacing their doctrine with something equally contrived.

Time to abandon revealed religion and rely upon reason instead. My point is satirical. I want to hold a mirror up and let the emperor see that he has no clothes.

You can't lead someone to inner peace. Only the individual can find "inner peace".

I agree that it's time to abandon revealed religion. As far as not being able to lead someone to inner peace, I beg to differ. I revealed religion can lead someone astray, could there not be individuals that lead other individuals to a better way? Inner peace must be a journey completed by the individual, but they can be brought to that place where they see the path. Then again, defining inner peace could be tricky. If inner peace is found through the merciless killing of chipmunks, the chipmunks might not like it.

I think the role of a devils advocate is better than a leader. In our church, it is the duty of everyone to challenge, through logic and reason, the beliefs of our fellow members. the end decision always rests with the person being challenged. The challenge isn't meant to demean the member in any way. Example. If the Deist believes that God comes out of Nantucket sound on the 29th of every month and does the panda dance, then we may ask some questions to help understand, and clarify, some of their statements...much like a panel on a thesis dissertation.
We encourage each individual to find their own path without any of us stating that we have the TRUE way.
There ARE texts which may aid in the path. One of these is the Tao Te Ching. These are merely observations which may be accepted or discarded. If a "leader" of someone to inner peace were to approach Deism in that manner, then I see no problem with helping someone along. It is when the terms, guru, mystic, sage, and other expressions enter into the discussion then caution is to be warranted.

I'm not sure that someone who must be led to inner peace can experience it. At best, I think some may stumble upon it through some life-changing event, but nothing that I, or anyone else can say will "lead them to inner peace". I think any attempt to "lead" someone to inner peace is, by virtue of the effort required, a "contrived" endeavor.

And I think there are simply some who are more likely than others to find it. I think the statement made here by "RedLeg" …

"Then again, defining inner peace could be tricky."

…alludes to this. I'm not sure that "merciless killing of chipmunks" could ever be correlated with "inner peace", though, since causing distress is essentially a result of inner distress, not inner peace. I think it is important to not confuse inner peace with inner happiness or pleasure or enjoyment, etc. Despite the fact that inner peace can lead to those emotions, one can have inner peace without those emotions.

In the case of organized religion, I think it is primarily structured in a manner that mostly leads to distress, not peace. One source of that distress is the idea that there is ONLY one way, and that others must be converted to that one way of belief. There are many other sources of distress, as well. For instance, the distress created over the use of particular words or over particular acts in which nobody is harmed cause individual and societal psychological harm. Organized religion is a plague on humanity.

It is far past time that humanity starts recognizing religion for what it is and starts ignoring it, which would displace it from the pedestal upon which it currently resides. It should be removed from all matters of societal importance such as politics and policy issues.