chaozberg, everyone is entitled to their opinion/belief. Your interpretation is so full of personal pre-conceptions; and so far from that which any logical, detailed, and coherent study of god (both old and new testaments) brings an unbised reader to; that it cannot really be taken seriously as a depiction of the god of the bible. Many serious students of the bible have very differing views on the nature of god, but all can be supported at least in part because they are based on an understanding of god in a more complete sense, and on his relationship, (at least as expressed in the bible) with different peoples at different times.
Thus, your opinion is really only valid as that of a person who, at best, does not believe in a real/physical god , or at worst a person who does believe, but completely refuses to accept the biblical story of god and his relationship with humanity.
One of the most telling give aways is "by todays moral standards." This indicates a belief that moral standards are mutable, (capable of change) according to man's wishes, and also that modern morals are better than "biblical" ones.
At the very worst, biblical standards were much more appropriate, to peoples of biblical times, than our ones would have been, for them. However, the whole point of the bible is to produce a set of moral/ethical standards that are approriate/best for all societies. I would argue that most biblical principles are better, even for modern societies, than the ones we rely on today.
Of course some need adaptation in application. For example, in a small agrarian based society, if a son did not honour his mother and father, this lack could destroy the family in many ways; from lack of productive purpose to outright theft of family property. Thus in OT times the son would be put to death.
Exclusion from the tribe was a possibility, but often resulted in a less humane death, as tribal structures did not often welcome out siders. Today, while the death penalty is not necessary, both because the parents can be supported by the state, and becaiue the son can be safely ostracised from the family unit, the underlying principle and commandment (honour thy parents) should be the guiding light for behaviour.
It is interesting how, as membership of a social unit evolved from family, to clan, to tribe, to nation, this principle has continued to be an important one.
Even in non -christian based nations, failure to "honour" ones nation state has always been one of the crimes awarded the death penalty, and one of the last to be removed from the statute books. The examples here include treason to the state, and failure to suppport the state in times of war.
God's aim was always to protect his chosen peole from the effect of sin' which had entered earth at the time of the fall, and which negatively affected every part of human existence. One of the most personally effective countermeasures to sin was to live by god's laws. (As it is today) This offered physical, and practical, protection to both families and societies. However, when the effects of sin became too great, and almost all inhabitants of earth were contributing to their own destructive behaviour, god did at times try to wipe out sin, by cleansing the earth of sinners. When he did this on a small scale(sodom and gommorah or a big scale (the flood) he sent messengers to first try to turn people back to a safe way of life. Then he sent warnings, reminding people of his authority, and explaining what would happen.Only when left with no alternative did he destroy the cancer which was infecting society. Even then the bible makes it clear that this was done with great reluctance and at great personal cost to god.
The closest modern analogy I can think of is a father who finds one of his sons providing drugs to his siblings, or risking HIv infection of the family through his behaviour. A loving father would have to take some action. He would warn , threaten, educate, etc, but if that did not work, he would have to act to remove the source of the infection. While a modern father might have a range of options, the nature of the problem, including the free choice god had created in man, limited the possibilities open to him.
Having been in this very situation, albeit with a nephew whom we had been caring for, and who had been living with us for many years, I can appreciate both the necessity for action, and the consequent pain, god felt. In our case we had to tell the young person and his family to leave our property were they had a refuge from the world. The drugs, violence and other issues were threatening to destroy our whole family. We said that if they could not live at least basically by our "rules" it was impossible to stay.
The young man committed suicide a few years later. We had done all we could, including taking his partner to a woman's refuge several times, and binding up his wrists after he cut them open, by bashing out all the windows on the caravan he was in. The upside is that his partner and her children, who include two of our great nieces, are among our most loved relatives to this day, and understand that we did all we could to save our nephew.
In NT times we save ourself, by choice, from the effects of sin. While we can minimise sin's harmful effects in our personal lives on earth, through obedience to gods laws, in the end we can regain the nature of humanity and relationship with god which existed before the fall, only by accepting jesus's sacrifice. If we do so, our souls will be reborn into new bodies and eventually placed back onto an earth which has been cleansed of all sin by fire, and which has been recreated as a new earth for all surviving humanity.(this is the actual message of revelation and is quite clear and unequivocal) Of course it only has relevance for a biblical based christian Everyone else can just carry on as normal(just like the inhabitants of soddom and gomorah and the people of earth before the flood)