Religious books are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance

I'm afraid you failed to rebut or even address any of my original points. The Greeks, while not Christian or Jewish, had religious beliefs of their own, and many if not all of the philosophers you mentioned believed in a higher power. Socrates was killed because he pronounced before the leaders of Athens that his reasoning had led him to the conclusion that there was one God. Furthermore, I never said that people can't create for themselves a kind of "ethical code", but that without the existence of a higher power there couldn't possibly be any such thing as absolute right and wrong, and that this "ethical code" derived from one's own reasoning and observation would have no moral force. The concept of right and wrong has no meaning outside of the existence of a moral authority, a concept which originated with religious faith. Your second point is a complete red herring. The argument is that without the presupposition of a supreme being, there are no such things as morals, and thus the only morals, by definition, must be derived from a source which at least CLAIMS to be divinely inspired. The argument that the Bible's divine inspiration is in question, or is not widely accepted, does not change that fact. Your second argument is that since, Biblically, different situations have resulted in different moral choices, the Bible changes, which means that it, too does not meet the requirements for an absolute moral authority. However, while the Bible contains different situations, it does not follow from this that the Bible itself changes. In fact, the Bible has been remarkably preserved and remained completely unchanged for thousands of years. The fact that the Bible shows people faced with moral decisions in vastly different situations only serves to give us a more thorough picture of what is right and wrong. It certainly does not change the fact that without a moral authority to dictate what is right and wrong, "morality" itself is an empty word. Furthermore, even the system you propose changes situationally. If someone was going to kill you because they reasoned that by killing you they could take your stuff, and since you have said it is unacceptable for you to die, then you would be justified in killing him to prevent your own death. Therefore, while killing is wrong in one instance, it is permissible in another. That does not mean that it is not absolutely wrong to murder someone in cold blood, it simply means that in certain situations, it is permissible to kill someone. For example, the Bible says that sex outside of marriage is wrong. Within marriage, the very same act, sex, is perfectly permissible, and even sacred. That does not constitute a changing moral absolute. If the Bible said that sex outside of marriage is wrong today, then tomorrow it said it says it is permissible, then the moral absolute would have changed. There would be no reason to believe that today's moral code is any more absolute than yesterday's turned out to be. Kant's argument is very reasonable, but, once again, without a moral authority, nothing derived by his or anyone else's reasoning can possibly constitute morality. What you have demonstrated is that human reasoning can often be used to corroborate actual morals dictated in sacred texts. However, without the existence of a higher power, such reasoning only results in "things we should not do because it benefits society as a whole" and not "morals," things that are right or wrong in a profound, fundamental, and authoritative sense. You cite logic as a valid way to derive morals. However, since life is all just an accident, our evolution the product of randomness, what leads you to believe that the thinking process we call "logic" is reliable or authoritative in any sense? What leads you to conclude that our "logic" is valid, or accurately reflects reality? Logic itself is thrown into question by the non-existence of a Creator, who DESIGNED logic for some productive purpose. Your claim that Christians do what is right and wrong out of selfishness also does not change the fact that without a moral authority, there is no such thing as right and wrong in the first place. That aside, I would also ask you how you could possibly know what motivates Christians to do what they do. If the threat of hell is all it takes, then everyone in the world would be Christian. Furthermore, how do you know what constitutes a moral motive as opposed to an immoral motive? If morality is determined by motive, who determines which motives are right and which ones are wrong? Be careful to remember what I'm NOT arguing. I'm NOT arguing that reason and logic cannot often lead you to correct conclusions about morality, I'm arguing that the concept of morality is logically inseperable from belief in a higher power. The only reason you are now able to conceptualize morality is because of our religious heritage. Eventually I hope it will occur to you, and those like you, that your sense of right and wrong, which you hold up as a matter of pride, did not originate with you and your reasoning. Reasoning may lead you to confirm what the Bible has said for thousands of years, but it will never infuse in you the still, small voice which tells you when something is deeply wrong, or beautifully right.