What is the true faith? I am a Jehovah's Witness

Thanks to Pro for his response.I will be using this round to both defend Religious Pluralism from his objections and make my own objections to his faith. Starting with objections, I only have one to make...The central premise of Pro's entire faith seems to be that the Bible is God's Word. However, examining the contents of Bible and the history of its composition, there is no evidence to suggest that it is divinely inspired.Looking at it from the pragmatic pluralist perspective, we see a view of the Bible that is much more consistent with internal and external evidence: it's is a collection of over 60 books, written by a variety of authors over the course of almost 2000 years of Hebrews history, ranging in content from ancient mythology to tribal folklore to actual historical record to early Christian propaganda. There is nothing even remotely divine about it.Now, this is not to say that we must dismiss the Bible completely; the Bible does have some valuable teachings in it, but based on how it was written, and coupled with its numerous factual errors and internal contradictions, there is a very good chance that it is a man-made artifact, reflecting the cultural norms of the time and serving other materialistic purposes rather than being the "word of God". The only evidence that Pro has provided to the contrary of this analysis is a personal anecdote about two people having similar interpretations of the Bible... this does not prove that the Bible is God's Word... it simply proves that the Bible has a consistent theme throughout it, which isn't all that extraordinary considering that all the books in it came from the same Judaic culture. Pro must provide much more convincing evidence that the Bible is God's Word if we are to accept the validity of his faith.Now onto defenses..."What I think we both agree on is that there can only be one truth"I do agree that ultimately there is only one objective truth regarding the divine reality.However, where we seem to disagree is that, while Pro believes that his religion IS that objective truth, I believe that all religions are valid interpretations of that truth, each being divinely inspired at heart but each also having plenty of false, man-made components to it. These man-made components are added on as a result of religions being distinctively human reactions to the divine, as well as religions being modified by the cultures practicing them over time. These components are unnecessary and often result in meaningless doctrinal contradictions between religions."There's also the religions that have their own holy book. Many books claim to be from God, but they can not agree in many essential things"First of all, let me point out that most "holy books" are not much different from the Bible. Books like the Quran and Vedas are also like the Bible, being man-made artifacts that reflect cultural norms more than they do any sort of divine will, as we can deduce from their contents and histories. No scripture written by humans can really be considered God's Word, though many of them do have some great teachings in them, since they were written by earnest followers of God.In Religious Pluralism, the best way to receive God's word is through direct personal contact with the divine (i.e. prayer, meditation, spiritual experiences, etc.).As for contradicting claims, Religious Pluralism generally explains any such instance as either...1) a result of unnecessary man-made components contradicting each other, in which case the contradiction is completely meaningless, since it has nothing to do with anything which is actually divine (e.g. rites, rituals, claims to exclusivity, etc)or2) different ways of looking at the same concept, in which case all that is needed to resolve the supposed "contradiction" is a reconciliation of sorts between the two differing perspectives (e.g. nature of material reality, descriptions of God, differing systems of the afterlife, etc.).I have sufficiently asserted my own objections to Pro's faith as well as adequately addressed all of his objections to Pluralism.I look forward to Pro's next response.