we aren't discussing omnipotence. The lion isn't called wicked because it's doing what it does. Yet you would call a human wicked for following the same natural processes that you believe got you to where you are. If you believe you are a product of the same process as the lion then how is anything humans do.......wicked?
How can you assert "morality" when there is no such standard in the natural world?
But again since when do you call the lion wicked? one that murders for the sake of eliminating any perceived competition & is not ever satisfied with what it has but rather seeks what it doesn't yet have.
Actually the bible doesn't claim such a thing, in fact the bible asserts otherwise; read the account of Lot or Sodom & Gomorrah. In the accounts that 8750 cited it's actually fairly clear that the entire culture was one of evil & perpetuated evil. In the flood account we are told that every thought of every person was evil all - the - time accept for Noah.
You are attempting to make judgement calls based on mans understanding & law, then apply that to God using Gods account. If you want to argue against God that's quite alright, however if we are going to engage I will insist on bringing in the bible rather than speculation not derived from the bible.
You are attempting to say on the one hand there are no moral standards yet you kick against God, someone you don't even believe in, for violating your sense of morality. Yet your very sense of morality is derived from the bible whether indirectly or not. You do not live & judge by the natural process you claim to have given your rise.
At the same time you also fail to actually understand, nor seem to even seek to understand, the very scripture you are espousing to prove God's lack of morality & those that follow Him. I can understand not liking what scripture has to say yet if we are going to argue then we ought to at least lay all of the relevant text on the table. What's relevant in this case is that God created everything, is sovereign over everything, that sovereign is sovereign whether we like it or not, that we are eternal- our existence in this place is temporary, we all physically die, and we are all accountable to God.
God can't murder as He is sovereign & as such paying homage(which is really missing the mark as the guilty parties aren't found guilty of some thought crime, they acted on their homage with evil behavior) to another is in violation of His law, as such one is not innocent- they are guilty.
The lesson of the vengeance you hint at was to stop the evil perpetuated by the guilty party, to prevent the evil from infecting the rest of His people & to be an example. So describes the text.
My question is if there are no absolutes then how is the kings actions vile and evil. We see this everyday in the natural world that you claim has given us rise. In fact we are loath to label other peoples evil & condemn actions you describe because we aren't of nor understand their "culture".
How is it that you vilify either of these persons when the book you read from claims all is good or ok, even the actions of your king, since he is nothing more than a product of natural processes?
Tesla & Dawkins are self admitted eugenicists. there are posters on this very forum that espouse eugenics & use the "human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God." as their justification.http://creation.com/christian-vs-evo...ary-atrocities
In America, the leading school biology textbook was George Hunter’s A Civic Biology. The famous Scopes Trial was about the atheistic ACLU’s defending the right to teach from this book. This book was ardently eugenicist:
“If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race. Remedies of this sort have been tried successfully in Europe and are now meeting with success in this country.”
The book also blatantly taught white supremacy:
“At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the others in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”
Darwin himself, see his words in The Descent of Man:
At some future period … the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous [Having or suggesting human form and appearance] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope … the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
So why do you stand in the way of these humanistic goals?
Why? because of this:
Yet virtually all the secular ideas that non-believers value have Christian origins. To pretend otherwise is to toss the substance of those ideas away.
It was theologians and religiously minded philosophers who developed the concepts of individual and human rights. Same with progress, reason and equality before the law: it is fantasy to suggest these values emerged out of thin air once people started questioning God.
And again you display nicely the misunderstanding you have of scripture seemingly in it's entirety.