For immorality to exist one must first presuppose a source of ultimate morality to exist, via a chief arbitor of some sort. Attempting to justify our definitions right and wrong simply from nature is wholly circular because we must first define morality from an anthropocentric perspective. No doubt, morality in nature is conditional. And any study of this planet's history and the evolution of life will demonstrate that morality has minimal utility, at best. Take the axiom "murder is immoral." Is murder immoral under all circumstances or just some? Is this an absolute statement or a relative one? Would you not murder, cheat, or steal to feed your starving children? Of course, because evolution has favored those individuals. Those with absolute moral codes simply die because they are always inferior competitors. Largely because they cannot adapt to a changing environment. Ergo, claiming that man can be 'moral' without God is partially correct. He can be moral in his own mind under a subjective, ultimately arbitrary, contrived, bullshit delusion. Therefore, is a man justified in punishing another for what is unilaterally conditional? Therefore, your indignation against the precepts brought forth in the Bible are simply your opinion. A universal moral code cannot accurately be defined without first accepting a Universal Judge from which Truth is absolute.
