Steve, I can see why you think that I am making your point. From one perspective I am, but I am adding a different angle or perhaps a deeper level to how/why humans experience and understand things. In other words, how they come to KNOW. This is called epistemology. How people come to know things. Humans come to know things through a variety of means, one of which is emotion. Sometimes, what they have come to know is false (ie you would say Christianity, I would say Atheism). Perhaps a person had a spouse die and it caused such an emotion that they a. believed in God or b. they didn't believe in God anymore. OR, as the case may be, they watched a video and it caused an emotion that pushed them towards a belief in God. Your question is, was that God. The element I am adding, as you know, is that God is behind the scenes of those emotion causing events. So yes, God can cause the emotion. But that doesn't mean that God causes the same emotion in everyone. Or more accurate may be that God doesn't utilize each person's emotion in the same direction. God treats each person as a unique individual. Does that remove our freedom, or our culpability. I don't think so. It just suggests that God uses human endeavors to accomplish his ends. So yes, someone can make a cheezy christian video that causes some people to have an emotional response that God uses...actually, that God intended. Of course, this presupposes God in the first place. Fair enough. But I take issue with you presupposing that it is manipulation (whether from one human being or from God) for this to happen. That is unfair. If I told you that you making a video that promoted atheism was manipulation would that be fair? I also am not so confident about less educated being more taken by hoaxes etc. That is so ethnocentric (or at least myopic). You do know that many people that followed Jim Jones to their death were educated? I could think of all kinds of educated "sheep." Besides, you would say that I am a sheep lead astray, and I have a graduate degree. I disprove your own point (according to your own presupposition). Mark