Stephen, "First of all, religion both historically and now, has been the main way that society has addresses moral training and moral issues."
Religion has been one source, but it hasn't been the sole source as you point out. Families, community, socialization, public opinion, and legal sanctions influence morality.
Stephen, "Just to briefly review: the books of the bible have been written by scribes or other educated folks."
Yes, this suggests moral values spring not from the literal Word of God but from people’s experiences. Dozens of research studies in the last half-century demonstrate religious belief and moral reasoning are not related. For example, from 25 years ago (Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 208-214):
"Historically, many philosophers and theologians have maintained that religious belief is the progenitor of moral judgment and moral conduct. However, the emergence of an applied research base in the social and behavioral sciences has strongly challenged this contention and in some cases repudiated it. Studies comparing religious belief and moral conduct (Hartshorne & May, 1928; Kilpatrick, 1949; Black & London, 1966) suggest that religiosity is not a crucial determinant of situational honesty. Other studies correlating religious beliefs with social attitudes indicate that religious persons show more intolerance of other ethnic and racial groups (Allport, 1966; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) and no more humanitarian concern (Cline & Richards, 1965; Rokeach, 1970) than do nonreligious persons. [However,see Gorsuch and Aleshire, 1974 for evidence which suggests that not all religious persons are intolerant of other groups.] Finally, Kohlberg (1967), in a crosscultural study of moral development, found that religious variables were unrelated to moral development as Buddhists, Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims did not differ on levels of moral development."
Stephen, "With Christ, they [biblical books] convey an immensely powerful set of mores and commandments."
We should examine, then, the quality of the love that Jesus promises to bring to humans. It is not only Jehovah who is jealous. Jesus tells us his mission is to make family members hate one another, so that they shall love him more than their kin (Matt. 10:35–37). He promises salvation to those who abandon their wives and children for him (Matt. 19:29, Mark 10:29–30, Luke 18:29–30). Disciples must hate their parents, siblings, wives, and children (Luke 14:26). The rod is not enough for children who curse their parents; they must be killed (Matt. 15:4–7, Mark 7:9–10, following Lev. 20:9). These are Jesus’ ‘‘family values.’’ Peter and Paul add to these family values the despotic rule of husbands over their silenced wives, who must obey their husbands as gods (1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34–5; Eph. 5:22–24; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 2:11–12; 1 Pet. 3:1).
To be sure, genocide, God-sent plagues, and torture do not occur in the times chronicled by the New Testament. But they are prophesied there, as they are repeatedly in the Old Testament. At the second coming, any city that does not accept Jesus will be destroyed, and the people will suffer even more than they did when God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:14–15, Luke 10:12). God will flood the Earth as in Noah’s time (Matt. 24: 37). Or perhaps He will set the Earth on fire instead, to destroy the unbelievers (2 Pet. 3:7, 10). But not before God sends Death and Hell to kill one quarter of the Earth ‘‘by sword, famine and plague, and by the wild beasts’’ (Rev. 6:8).
But we don't have to bother with such details since we don't take these books literally and acknowledge its human authors. Unfortunately, some people do take scripture literally.
Stephen, "What that means for your conclusions above - frankly - is that they have no grounding. To claim otherwise doesn't reflect on the nature of religion."
Whether you are unaware of accumulating historical and scientific research or adopt selectional observation bias, there's plenty of evidence, but it may not agree with your personal experience of the nature of religion.