How do we know what God's rules are?

This topic has always been a confusing one for me. As a teacher I am often asked 'How can we prove God is real?' My usual answer is that we can't but also, how can we prove that God doesn't exist? I find it hard to get some atheist pupils to understand that once you have experienced God's love and direction in your life it is hard not to believe. But when I am asked by some pupils how I know, as a Christian, what God's rules are I stumble because of two reasons:
1) The answer is obviously that the Bible is like the 'rule book' given to us by God through people in different times and places. This I believe to be part of the truth, but I have issues with the Bible as a complete piece of scripture. I will expand on this below
2) I am inclined to think, that although the Bible was God-breathed, that is, inspired by God (I do not, and have never, considered that God dictated the Bible word by word - again I will expand on this later) and is therefore very important, that God's word and direction through prayer should be considered as showing God's rules. If I need guidance, I pray, as I have been taught and advised by 'older' Christians in the past, and then I listen. It might take me to a place in the Bible, it may be that God answers through another person, or it may be that God answers in His silence. Either way when I think I have an answer, I pray about it again for reassurance. I think that sometimes people get too caught up in relying on the Bible and forgetting that God is alive and can be addressed personally. As far as I am concerned...that is what God wants, a living relationship with His people, not one based solely in the past.

Issues with the Bible as a piece of scripture
I am not going to pull the Bible apart here, as I believe that it is a very important document and as I have said above, I rely on it in many areas of my life.
My problem comes when I think of how the Bible as we know it today, was put together and how some books were included and some were left out by two Councils of men who decided what was 'Godly' and what was not. I am sure that they had stringent rules of what to look for and what not to look for and I am hopeful that there was a lot of prayer involved in the decisions that were finally made. However, a part of me worries that an important part may have been left out or that the men that were a part of the council had an agenda in what they chose to include, consciously or subconsciously.

Obviously, these doubts say more about me than they do about anything but they are there nonetheless. For example, I believe that Paul was a godly man who gave good advice, but it has always worried me that much of the Roman Catholic (amongst others) doctrine about leadership in the church, that is men can lead, women can't, is based on him and essentially his opinion. After all, he is just one man who, whether he meant to or not, wrote from his context. It is doubtful that he considered his words to have such exacting longevity and they would still be being applied today in a totally different time, place and culture. Or that his letters would make up a majority of the New Testament.

My second point about the Bible follows from the previous point. It is that someone, sometime decided to close the book; decided that enough had been written about God and Jesus. When they did this they were stopping God's word in a moment in history. They were leaving the application of those words in the early part of the first century and, for those who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God to be taken as written, condemning them to try and fit the advice for a particular context into theirs.

*Please do not misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that the Bible is outdated and simply a history book, the point I am trying to make is that it should be open to the changing contexts in which it finds itself. Simply because God is fluid. Therefore, returning to the women in leadership argument, I think Christians should be aware of the context in which Paul was writing when he said that women should not be teachers, should be silent in church etc because there are a plethora of reasons that he may have said it, (including the fact that he may have actually meant women forever, in every context - I am open to that). The thing that concerns me most about religion as opposed to faith is that people do not question, they are told what to believe and what certain passages mean, blind acceptance is never good. I believe that there instead should be a culture of people learning to ask God for His guidance when reading the Bible. (This is one of the reasons that I am in favour of Alpha courses and the like, where people are actively encouraged to ask hard questions of God and the Bible)*

Why is this bothering me so much at the moment? I am not sure, I suppose I am readdressing a lot of things in my life. I am looking at what is most key and am aware that my faith is the most important thing to me. I feel closer to God now than I ever have. I am now at the point of understanding the idea of a constant companion, I now do not feel that I am alone. If I'm honest, I feel that I have opened my eyes for the first time and really seen the world in all it's glory. I now WANT to sing at the top of my voice during worship not because I think God will hear the loudest, but because I want Him to know how much I love Him and how thankful I am to Him. Bearing this in mind...I think I need to know that the thing that I am basing so much of my life on, is real to me...not that it says something because another person tells me it does, I want to be in charge of my relationship with God, strike that...I want God to be in charge of our relationship, not anyone else.

I have spent the last couple of weeks in limbo regarding my faith and my life and feel that I am coming out of the smoke, I am starting to see things clearer than I ever have, and I am excited and completely and utterly scared by it all.

*As a footnote...I am aware that the position that I am taking has it's flaws in that our own interpretation means that the Bible can be used for our own means and not God's. However, I am not proposing that we just read the Bible and think, what does that mean to me. I am asking that people give some air space to God in their reading and deliberation of the Bible and act on His advice. In the past I have prayed to God about something and really disliked the answer that I have been given but have had to follow it (albeit eventually in some cases!!) because God is a God that prods us when we need it.
Second footnote...The reason I do not like the 'God dictated it approach' is because my experience of it has been that people do not follow it properly, they interpret as much as the next one , only they try to make out that they don't. Everyone that reads a text, be it the Bible, or a novel, brings their own context to it, it is impossible not to. The problem comes when people do not realise this.*

Misplaced Ownership...

I joined another church for a Bible Study this week, partly because I was invited and partly because I was curious as to what a Bible Study entailed as I have never been to one per se. The passage we were looking at was Luke 4:14-30 which isn't one that I haven't really given much thought to but one that has a lot of meaning within it.
There was much discussion on areas such as why Jesus chose to quote from the book of Isaiah, why he missed out the part about destroying enemies and why the crowd suddenly became very angry with Jesus after He talked about the Gentiles that had been helped and healed by the prophets Elijah and Elisha. On all of these points I had many thoughts (which will not shock those of you who know me) but I kept quiet as it was the first time I had met most of the people and I didn't want to talk them to death!

Of the thoughts one has stayed with me and I am starting to feel that there is a message from God in it. A message about a part of my life that I am currently struggling with.

The vicar asked us why the crowd became angry at Jesus when he said that the prophecy was fulfilled in Him and when He chastised them, reminding them that God loves all people and heals Gentiles over Jews in some instances. My first reaction was to say that it was because they felt they had ownership of Jesus and it was totally misplaced. Let me explain...
Jesus had returned to His childhood home, where people knew Him as a little boy 'Joseph, the Carpenter's son'. They felt that they knew Him and now that He was a 'Celebrity' due to all of His healings and sermons, they wanted a little bit of the action, and with it a little bit of the glory. So they felt that they had ownership of Him because they had been 'instrumental' in His journey.

An everyday example would be the X-Factor Finalists going home in the last week to see the people who are supporting them and finding people who are best friends with them...having known them at school...who are three years below them...and said hi in the corridor...once! These people often to profess to know the person and when asked 'How do you think X will react if they win?', explain in detail how they will react saying, 'that's so them!'. The truth of the matter is they have no idea and if person X was to say 'actually, you don't know me and I would never react that way', the other person would likely become angry and defensive and judgmental...just as the people who were listening to Jesus did.

Returning to the crowds...they became so angry that they 'drove Jesus out' and to the edge of a cliff. Jesus' reaction was not to fight but to stand tall and then simply walk through the crowds.
Firstly, the reason I think the crowds became so incensed (I think it is right to use such a strong word) is because they felt they had the right to say how Jesus should react and what He should say and when He did something that they didn't like, they felt disappointed in Him and let down and were reminded that in fact they had no special ownership of Him.
We were also asked what this passage might be teaching and what our three points would be if we were giving a sermon on it. One point I thought of was 'Not to base your decisions and actions on fear'. This is a two-fold point.
First part - That the reaction of the crowds was a collective one, it was fear of the unknown and the power of Jesus' words of fulfilled prophecy. They fed upon each others' fear and became a 'mob'.
Second part - This decision to drive Jesus out wasn't a sound one because the basis was fear. Jesus showed no fear (at least it isn't mentioned here in the passage). He stood there and chose the simple act of walking to show that He would not be intimidated and that His word 'A prophet is never accepted by His people' had in fact come true. The passage doesn't say that why the crowd didn't stop Him, but my guess is that they didn't trust their decision because it wasn't built on a firm foundation. It was built on summation and opinion, Jesus' was built on God.

So how does all of this apply to me?
It reminded me that no one is owned by another regardless of how 'indebted' they are to them, or what relationship they are in with them. And although we may think we 'know' people we shouldn't project our expectations on them in such a way as to make them feel that they have failed, God knows best.
Secondly, it helped me to realise that I do not need to fear another person's opinion when making decisions (which I am prone to doing), because if I do then I will base what I do on that fear and it will not be a firm foundation. Instead I need to pray about situations and listen for God's voice. If I do that, then surely, whatever the path I take, it will be the right one.