Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Proof there is a higher power: I just ordered a chili-cheese burrito at Taco Bell and they let me add bacon to it.

/drops mic

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
These are skills the child will need for sure being an atheist. He learned his lesson well. Next time someone asks him his beliefs he can just say he is spiritual but not religious and then everything is gravy

Ah, I see - so the take home message here has to be that in order to be accepted by society you have to lie about a fundamental part of your outlook on life so as not to be ostracised by people for whom the golden rule is supposedly "do unto others as you would have done unto you"?

It is actually a healthy outlook on life and an important lesson to learn.

I'm a liberal in an office full of hardcore conservatives, and if people start talking politics I just dance around the subject as best I can while staying as vague as possible. Because I have learned a long time ago that avoiding to talk about that fundamental part of my outlook on life is better than being ostracized by everyone in my office.

It doesn't excuse a damn thing the teachers did, but it is still an important lesson to learn.

I think the golden rule was the key part I was referencing

I do hope you detected my sarcasm - however there is a point in every atheists life that you realize sometimes you are better off avoiding talking about religion with people who are religious. Yes, sometimes you are better off lying to them. I've never ment an atheist that doesn't feel this way. This boy learned early - so really - good for him. It doesn't excuse the teachers actions.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Religion doesn't predict stuff. It explains stuff that has happened.

Science does that too. With a twist: when new evidence is discovered that proves the previous explanation wrong, science tries to provide a new, better one. not hiding the fact the previous explanation was wrong. It was just promishing best effort anyway, not definite truth. Religion, on the other hand, will handwave the problem as "it was just metaphors all along, we just failed to notice it before". Which is funnye because it makes religion argue in bad faith lol.

So basically, science understands that it went wrong and tries to improve its results, but religion does not?

The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Major religions get updated every time there is a new sect or a new consensus. Vatican 2, Mormonism, Reform Judaism, Chabad Judaism, Jews for Jesus, So many new sects or revisions of old dogma.

As for translations, I think the KJv is the oldest and most archaic of mainstream translations. Just look in the bible section of any bookstore. There's the NIV, for example, as well as many updated versions to appeal to modern reading sensibilities. There are more direct translations of the OT from the original Hebrew.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:
Proof there is a higher power: I just ordered a chili-cheese burrito at Taco Bell and they let me add bacon to it.

/drops mic

And one hour later, you will be whimpering that there is no God.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:


The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today? Whereas I can't think of a single science book which is that old and is still in use without having some form of adaptation.

Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton.

Newton's laws are still taught as they are correct for everything which doesn't require relativity.

I'm pretty happy that we don't use his books for Calculus, though. Newton's Method...ugh.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
It is available in the libraries of all universities which have a physics department. The basis of it has not changed. For non-relativistic motion Newton is still king. So it is still in use, which is what was asked for.

It was actually asked which science book has been used the C17 without adaptation. Newton's work is not used as originally printed, hence it has been adapted. Only the curious would actually look up the original book

Euclid's Elements are used today in whatever translation Dover has the rights to.

"And one hour later, you will be whimpering that there is no God." Post of the thread, good job Sir!

 welshhoppo wrote:

The last time someone updated a major religion was back in the 17th century with the King James Bible. I might be wrong, but isn't that the same version of the bible we use today?

Naw, religions change their outlook/practice all the time. I know, for example, catholics underwent a major change called vatican 2 that shook up some old stuff (and upset old people).

There are more recent bible translations than the king james, too. Different sects use different translations of varying ages. The message is usually the same though.

They'll change their tune if they think they are doing it wrong.

This could have severe psychological damage on the kid. Yes, the school should be sued for this. Or at least have the teachers who did such irreparable damage to the kid's psyche fired. Horrible damage, you ask? Kids that age will believe a lot of what teachers tell them. If the teachers showed them it was acceptable (and correct!) to avoid this student, then he or she is a pariah in class, even if the teachers later "change their minds". The damage has already been done. As a Christian, do I feel sad that a 7 year old kid doesn't believe in God? Of course. But he/she shouldn't be treated like an outcast or shunned. And the teachers involved have done just that. I wouldn't be surprised if the student was taken out of school and brought to another one where the reputation hasn't already been tarnished. Can the kid eventually move on? Probably. But it'll likely take a while, especially if he/she doesn't know what was done wrong.


tl;dr-fire the teachers involved, kid might have some serious emotional scarring from this.

 zgort wrote:
So many people go straight to tearing down the Bible. While considered divine-inspired for it's overall messages, it was ultimately written by ancient people. Broken, imperfect people.

Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass. You do realize that less "imperfect" peoples have written way better books on morality by now?

 zgort wrote:
Same goes for attacks against the historical organizations. There have been atrocities committed in the name of God, shame on those people. Again though - churches are made of broken and imperfect people.

Okay. But once you got rid of the bible and of the churh, what remains of religion? Some extremely basic morality, that anyone with a shred of empathy will understand without any need for religion (and please stop implying that only religious people do humanitarian stuff) and some mythology that comes from the bible, and therefore is "broken and imperfect"...

 zgort wrote:
The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit.

Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 zgort wrote:
The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit.

Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

As others refuse to consider the good...

Pot, meet Kettle.

It sounds like the kid is going to school in a benevolent Saudi Arabia, just bullied for not believing in sky fairies rather than being executed.

For the greatest nation on earth, the USA has some surprisingly backward religious be!iefs.

 zgort wrote:

The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit. Science produces good fruit, knowlege is to be strived for, to better help our fellow man, but it does not necessarily have to be to the exclusion of all religion.

Religion (at least, Christianity) has no fruits at all - Adam and Eve ate the only one!

 CptJake wrote:

As others refuse to consider the good...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Indeed... Things in the bible that are good: -Good Samaritan parable. -Prodigal Son. -Feeding the hungry masses with only a little bit of food. (seriously, if you don't take it literally, it becomes a story about feeding those who have no food with what you have, even if it's not "enough") -I'd say probably a good 8 or 9 of the 10 commandments are pretty good and universal. (obviously, I take issue with the whole "thou shalt not worship any god but this one" thing).

But there are also some bad things: -if a guy rapes a girl, and she gets knocked up, he should marry her. -If a wife cheats, she should be put to death. -If you're a guy, don't be putting your thing into wrong holes. -Sodom and Gomorra was pretty bad -Slavery is pretty bad as well.


All that said, I'd bet you could find plenty of similar aspects in the Qu'ran (which I've only managed to read parts of, unabridged). You can find similar positives and negatives in the Poetic Edda and the Sagas, or a large number of religious texts out there.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass. You do realize that less "imperfect" peoples have written way better books on morality by now?

Yes, I am saying that. If all you take from the Bible is the old testament, you've missed the mark. The purpose of the old testament was to convince practicing Jews that Jesus is the messiah by him fulfilling the various prophesies. The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright. That is what Christians hold dear, not the old testament.

Okay. But once you got rid of the bible and of the churh, what remains of religion? Some extremely basic morality, that anyone with a shred of empathy will understand without any need for religion (and please stop implying that only religious people do humanitarian stuff) and some mythology that comes from the bible, and therefore is "broken and imperfect"...

I am saying take the good with the bad. Nobody dogs science because of Joseph Mendell, scientists got together to make codes to fix it. When you have many millions of scientists, some are bound to be bad. Neither should religion be docked for crimes people commit against its tenants forever, provided they fix it.

You are correct, non religious people do humanitarian work, I would not imply otherwise. You also cannot deny that religious institutions together feed, clothe, and provide more medical care than entire nations, even continents, could ever hope to.

Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

There are bad fruits. But there are bad fruits from EVERYTHING. Try to look at this objectively, instead of with an anti-religion lense.

 CptJake wrote:
Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

As others refuse to consider the good...

Pot, meet Kettle.

I think you are using that wrong. Refusing to consider the bad fruits has very different implications to refusing to consider the good. It would not be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For example: refusing to tell someone about the poison in a bottle labelled water, is not the same as refusing to tell someone about the water in a bottle labelled poison.

In any case, I don't think anyone was refusing to consider the good people. It's true that there are lots of good people who follow the bible. Given the shear amount of murder, rape, genocide, more rape, incest, child murder, and torture that is perpetuated by the protagonists of the book, it is nothing short of "miraculous" that so many followers are so good. Though I suspect most "Christians" haven't read the bible and just assume the "do unto others" bit and "the good Samaritan", are representative.

However, religion trying to take credit for people being good is disagreeable to me. I propose that those people are good in spite of religion, not because of it. Religeous people are equally likely to be found spreading misinformation about evolution and birth control, referring to women as "unclean", waving "god hates fags" billboard, and condoning murder in the name of [whoever].

As Steven Weinberg so eloquently put it: "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

As others refuse to consider the good...

In any case, I don't think anyone was refusing to consider the good people.

Clearly your interpretation of some of the posts in this thread is a lot different from mine. The full post I replied to for example includes this gem:

Are you seriously implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by way to many people as the ultimate moran reference despite it being "written by broken, imperfect people", and therefore quite a terrible book to take as a moral compass.

And there is the whole 'anyone who believes in a god is either stupid or mentally deranged' thing going on in the thread too. None of that is indicative of considering the good...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

But there are also some bad things: -if a guy rapes a girl, and she gets knocked up, he should marry her. -If a wife cheats, she should be put to death. -If you're a guy, don't be putting your thing into wrong holes. -Sodom and Gomorra was pretty bad -Slavery is pretty bad as well.

A lot of this is old testament. The Bible also has Jesus preventing an adulteror from being stoned by saying (paraphrase) whoever has no sin may cast the first stone. Teaching to turn the other cheek when you are struck. And to humble yourself to service, even washing anothers feet.

Paint the whole picture, there is good in there too.

Part of why the teachings of Jesus were so radical are they they went against the traditional "eye for eye" and "vengeful God" in the old testament.

However, religion trying to take credit for people being good is disagreeable to me.

I would NEVER claim that people are good because of religion. Empathy is universally human. I was trying to stick up for something that is important to me by presenting the other side of the case.

Also - I find it appalling when people wrap God around their own twisted agenda. It happens too often.

If what you are doing doesn't meet the criteria of love, forgive, and do not judge, you have no place putting God's name on it.

 zgort wrote:
The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.

That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".

 Smacks wrote:

 zgort wrote:
The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.

That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".

I do remember reading that if you are a "uber true Christian" then the old testament does not apply and you should only follow the new one. I'll try and find the link.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'd say probably a good 8 or 9 of the 10 commandments are pretty good and universal.

Not really, half of them are gak insane.

1. Have no other gods.
....A useless and meaningless commandment.

2. No idols.
....Also a pointless commandment and one which is ignored by everyone that is not an extremist nutcase.

3. Do not blaspheme.
....Blasphemy is not a sin, but the prohibition of blasphemy is wicked and evil. This isn't a good commandment - it is absolutely vile.

4. Remember the Sabbath.
....This one has got to be a joke right?

5. Honour your parents.
....What if your parents are evil people who abuse you? People deserve respect for their actions. Diktats like this are so wrong.

The no adultery one is pretty weak when you take into account the no lying one. So long as you aren't cheating or lying to your loved ones it should be no one else's concern who you're getting down with. The remaining four are pretty good, but seriously if you need a religion to tell you that killing people is bad then you've got some big issues.

And so the legal systems for most western countries don't use the ten commandments as inspiration for their laws.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 zgort wrote:
The teachings of Jesus have some pretty strong morality - find me some gospel (aka quotes from Jesus) that aren't morally upright.

That's easy, how many do you want? A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".

I do remember reading that if you are a "uber true Christian" then the old testament does not apply and you should only follow the new one. I'll try and find the link.

I believe it comes from the Last Supper, where by Jesus telling the disciples to drink of his blood he was violating the Jewish laws regarding Kosher food and hence freeing them of some of the rules from the Old Testament.

Or at least I remember hearing something about that from somewhere.

 Smacks wrote:
A well known one is where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children. In fact Jesus was pretty adamant that gods laws were in full effect, he says "It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.". A lot of Christians like to pretend that the old testament stuff doesn't apply to them, which is just another example of religious cherry picking, but Jesus would beg to differ, he was quite a hard ass about that stuff: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law".

I am not sure which passage you speak of - would you mind referencing the passage? I have never heard of Jesus saying to kill anyone. I think the text you reference is here, if you care to read it, but I am not sure. You will see, if you read the source, the context is that Jesus is actually rebuking following law to the letter. He is calling the Pharisees hypocrites, not actually criticizing them for not killing children.

It is easy to google hateful things about religion/Christianity, it is much more difficult to take the time to understand it.

But this is not a Bible class. My original post on this thread was essentially "live and let live," but for some reason people are not content with that - they feel the urge to trash religious teachings. If it is what makes you happy, no one can stop you. I do want to impart that, just like most things in life, religion is much more nuanced than it appears at first glance. It's offerings deserve more than a passing dismissal, if for no other reason than it's importance to our culture.

Of course anything in English is a bastardized version of the documents that were used to make up the bible. What people read today is the result of heavy pruning and the equivalent of retconning what they didn't like. The Council of Nicaea and later of Trent made serious revisions to the Bible and Christianity as we know it today. I studied Latin and Greek (but not Aramaic) in college and read some of the older documents and translations. What you hear in church is not what was actually written all those years ago. I especially hate how the apostle Paul's writings about temple prostitutes were changed into validation of hate against homosexuals and the bit about sodom and gamora being destroyed because of homosexuality when the references from the source material were about congress with angels.

History and languages are fun.

When you said congress with angels all I can think about is a bunch of angels sitting around shouting at each other about politics.

Regardless of my views, I do find language interesting, but we have to remember that retcons become the new canon, and this applies to GW just as much as it does religion. It doesn't matter what any holy text originally said, all that matters is how people are interpreting it now. I mean, holy crap, that is pretty much the basis for the entire Imperium of Man, not to mention current splinter groups of Islam.

To quote Batman, "It's not who I am, but what I do that defines me."

 Vitali Advenil wrote:
When you said congress with angels all I can think about is a bunch of angels sitting around shouting at each other about politics.

Regardless of my views, I do find language interesting, but we have to remember that retcons become the new canon, and this applies to GW just as much as it does religion. It doesn't matter what any holy text originally said, all that matters is how people are interpreting it now. I mean, holy crap, that is pretty much the basis for the entire Imperium of Man, not to mention current splinter groups of Islam.

To quote Batman, "It's not who I am, but what I do that defines me."

Heh heh heh. I said congress.

It's all very interesting to take a long view approach in examining religion and how each of them have changed over time. My personal fav is Shinto; really cool stuff there.

I'm actually pretty down with Taoist philosophy. It's a "go with the flow while staying firm," balance sorta deal. It's not as extreme as Buddhism (eschewing material possessions completely) and it's generally pretty chill.

 zgort wrote:
You will see, if you read the source, the context is that Jesus is actually rebuking following law to the letter. He is calling the Pharisees hypocrites, not actually criticizing them for not killing children.

I know the passage, it is also in Mark (incidentally, Mark is my favourite). I read it differently. Jesus' disciples are breaking gods law, by not washing their hands before eating (probably one of the few laws worth keeping). When the pharisees ask him why, he goes off on a big rant about them being hypocrites, but then cites an example where the law clearly contradicts itself (where someone can only honour their father and mother by taking from god). In this case the pharisees would not condemn the man (necessity is a good defence even now). Yet Jesus somehow infers that they are playing this wrong.

But let it not be said that Smacks is uncompromising in discussions. I will accept your point that the New Testament is much less violent and horrible than the Old Testament. And there is a case to be made that Christians don't need to follow the laws in Leviticus. Although given how many contradictory statements are made in the bible, there is a case for just about anything.

However, I think the New Testament still needs to be read in the context of the Old Testament. Jesus quotes from it a lot, and is essentially claiming to be Yahweh, who did all those terrible things. And he doesn't seem to change his mind about stealing, and homosexuality, so I'm really not sure how much Christians can legitimately distance themselves from OT morality.

What's your point?

Are you arguing that modern Christians should hold slaves, condemn homosexuals, have concubines and marry their dead brothers' wives?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless.

That is complete bs.

Oh please, do me a favour and stop just saying useless gak like that. If you think it is bs, explain why it is so. Don't just say things in a discussion without an argument.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Also, if the Bible is the word of God then it shouldn't matter when it was written, it should be correct. Unless of course God didn't have a clue how the Universe he supposedly created worked whilst we humans who just live in it do.

The Bible isn't the word of God. The Bible was not written by God.
The Bible is the word of God as interpreted by thousands of different writers over a thousand years. Of course it is going to have inaccuracies, even if the original version was flawless.

 CptJake wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 zgort wrote:
The way I try to look at it, to use a philosophy often referenced in the Bible, is that you can tell a tree by its fruit.

Yet somehow for religion you will refuse to consider the bad fruits...

As others refuse to consider the good...

Pot, meet Kettle.

Sure there are parts of the bible that teach good lessons...why credit it to the bible though? You could learn a much better morality through reading Dr. Suez - to my knowledge suez doesn't condone slavery,rape, or murder. Theres plenty of moral codes to follow that predate the new testament too...Socrates anyone?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's your point?

Are you arguing that modern Christians should hold slaves, condemn homosexuals, have concubines and marry their dead brothers' wives?

That doesn't sound like the kind of thing I would argue. To recap:

1. Zgort asserted that people are too quick to tear down the bible, and that this was somehow bad (or at least misses the point).
2. Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl replied: Are you implying that there is no need to tear down a book that is taken by many as the ultimate moral reference?
3. The old testament being the ultimate moral reference is untenable.
4. There was discussion in which I felt Zgort (very wisely) tried to disconnect the old testament from the new.
5. My point is that this is not possible. Even if you allow yourself to ignore Leviticus. You are still worshipping the same god that demanded babies heads be dashed against rocks. So the bible is certainly worth tearing down as a moral reference point.

Regarding your post, many Christians currently do condemn homosexuals. Not so long ago they also kept slaves (and cited the bible as justification). That stuff isn't even exclusive to the Old Testament, it found its way into the NT as well. I think this is just a case in point of what a poor moral reference it really is.

 Smacks wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I think most people get too bogged down in the details when they try to rationalise their belief, and then don't see the bigger picture. God allows children to die, because otherwise the life of a child would be taken for granted and effectively worthless. Without evil, there can be no good. Death is not a bad thing, and no more evil than life itself. Without death, how could there be life?
Inaccuracies in the Bible are easy to explain, because the Bible was written thousands of years ago, by people with a vastly different worldview. Heliocentrism is not in the Bible because the people who wrote it did not even know what it was. They wrote about the world familiar to them. The value of the Bible, and why it is a sacred book, is not in the details of the stories written a thousand years ago or in the lawbooks of the ancient Hebrews, it is in the messages contained within those stories about the religion and how to live a good life.

I can understand why you turned away from God, I often doubt and struggle with the same things. But for some reason, whenever I am like that and pray, I become completely calm and come to understand why things are the way they are. Call it some kind of deeper understanding, belief or whatever you want, it is not a feeling that can really be explained.

This is a nice post, I think you have presented your idea in a way that is understandable, and not confrontational, and I appreciate that. Exalt from me.

I agree with you that the value in the bible is within the stories, and what they can teach us about how to live a good life. However, they are very old stories, which you seem to agree were written by people with a very limited knowledge of (if nothing else) the solar system. If we can't trust them to teach us about the solar system, then can we really trust them to teach us about morality? Morality has come a long way in 2000 years, there has been a lot of philosophising about ethics, law, human and animal rights, government etc... We don't really need the bible's morality any more. In fact, it seems that the bible is now just sending mixed messages, because its outdated morality can be seen to justify things like stoning and the death penalty (for adultery), stuff which seems vengeful and barbaric by modern standards (amoral).

I can understand that you might feel that there is a power in the universe, and that you can feel closer to that by praying (or meditation). I don't think there is anything wrong with that. But to then say that power is the judeo-christian god, and that for some strange reason one tribe of ancient nomads knew about him, even though they didn't seem to know anything else useful about natural history. Don't you think that's a little far fetched?

I agree with you here. The Bible is not a science book, was never intended as such and should not be used as such. I think that people who take all the stories literally are extremist nutjobs.
And morality has come a long way (just look at the laws of Mozes). However, the Bible did form an important basis to the modern Western culture and morality. Many of the things we now take for granted can be traced back to the Bible. Many lessons from the Bible, especially the more important New Testament, are also still completely relevant and have been repeated by many philosophers since. The Bible is not the only source of morality, but that does not take away it can still teach many valueable and beautiful lessons. Sure, you could learn those lessons elsewhere, but does that really diminish the value of the Bible? I have read quite a lot of philosophers on ethics and religious texts. But nothing ever quite 'struck' me like the Bible did, even though I come from a family that is either atheist or non-practising chrisitian.

I think a problem many Churches and individual christians struggle with is the decision which parts of the Bible are relevant, and which are outdated, and how those outdated passages can be interpreted in modern times so that we can still learn from them. And of course the problem with interpretation is that different people see different things. I think this is something everyone needs to decide for himself. In the end my opinion is that the only thing that really matters is the Great Commandment (Love God above all and your neighbour as yourself), which, funnily enough can be found not just in christianity but in every religion (with 'God' obviously replaced by the deity(s) of that religion).

And as for your last point. No, there is no way of knowing this "power" is God. Maybe all the other gods exist too. Maybe it is just one single god with many names and aspects. Maybe it is a single god who made himself known to all people, but different peoples interpreted the same thing radically through their different cultures, thus creating different religions. I don't really care either way. I believe what I do and that feels right for me. If other people have something else that feels right for them, that is great. I hate it when people try to force their way on others.