It is irrational for God to hold humanity to a code God does not follow

REBUTTAL: 1) Introduction. Le's argument is quite interesting, but unfortunately for him, largely irrelevant. Let's begin by examining his point 1A - that "If the Judeo-Crhistian God exists, then morality is properly understood in the context by which it is established by the Judeo-Christian God." This proposition is at the heart of the debate, and I contend that his conclusion of this if-then is incorrect. As I stated in my contention 4 above, God is not the source of morality even for the religious. a) This study (http://tigger.uic.edu...) was conducted among Catholic, Mennonite, Amish, and Jewish Children - among the most conservative of the Christian sects. The study concluded that: "Between 80 and 100 percent of children across denominations stated that engagement in any of the acts entailing a moral transgression would CONTINUE TO BE WRONG even if there were no biblical prescription or statement by God concerning the act. The justifications children provided in support of such judgments all dealt with the intrinsic features of the acts as hurtful or unjust. This last set of findings suggests that even for deeply religious children from fundamentalist or orthodox backgrounds, morality STEMS FROM A CRITERIA INDEPENDENT OF GOD'S WORD... Our analyses of the children's responses revealed that the majority of children from each denomination and at each age REJECTED THE NOTION THAT GOD'S COMMAND TO STEAL WOULD MAKE IT RIGHT TO STEAL." [emphasis added]. Continuing in my opponent's point 1A above, he states, "Morality is the price God exacts in exchange for God's blessings in the Bible." Once again, I believe he has made an egregious mistake. God has indeed made a covenant with man, but this covenant contains terms that cannot be described as moral by more objective moral systems (I argue that RBAU is one of these systems). God's covenant is no more than a powerful being stating that if a group of people does what he wants, then he will use his power for their benefit; otherwise, he will use his power to bring about eternal suffering for them. This is not a covenant of MORALITY, but of EXTORTION. My opponent's points 1B, 1C, and 1D are irrelevant - nothing about who made man has anything to do with where morality comes from. If Satan had made man, moral decisions would still be possible because the criteria for morality does not rest with the creator. 2) Men are God's bondsmen, not his equals. In this section, I contend that my opponent's points 2B and 2C do not follow from his point 2A. Whether or not man is some sort of divine property is completely irrelevant to their "proper" performance. If man is a bondsman to God, then God's requirements for proper function and continued patronage are no more than his preferences. These preferences may be delivered under the GUISE of morality, but as demonstrated above, a simple thought experiment proves that morality stems from a criteria other than God. What we have in this situation is the case, again, wherein God is simply a powerful being, and it is in the best interests of s mere humans to follow his wishes, lest we be punished. Consider if God was an all-powerful, but purely EVIL being - it would STILL be in our best interests to follow his wishes, but nobody would call this morality. In fact, the MORAL thing to do would be to reject God's wishes. 3) The requirements of utilitarianism. I will accept my opponent's point 3A and raise a contention with point 3B. Utilitarian moral reasoning has no obligator/obligee agreement. Or rather, the obligations imposed by utilitarian morality are not towards another individual or entity, but rather "towards" the concept itself. I may have a moral obligation to save a drowning man, but that obligation is only to the man VIS A VIS the concept - in other words, moral obligation is a function of both whether or not an actor buys into the concept and whether or not the actor acts in self-interest. 4) Moral relativism of actions pertaining to God's will. My opponent states that actions that fulfill God's will but may otherwise be immoral are moral because they fulfill God's will. This is a famous circular argument called The Euthyphro (http://en.wikipedia.org...), which asks if an action is moral because God commands it or if God commands it because it's moral. My opponent answers that an action is moral because God commands it. Unfortunately for him, I have demonstrated above that God is not the source of morality even for the religious. 5) It is therefore rational for God to expect compliance with a morality than benefits Himself, not his people. With the exception of the word "morality," this statement is correct. It IS rational for God to expect compliance with a POLICY that benefits himself. However, this policy is not a MORAL policy - it happens to coincide with several moral principles, but the policy itself is not MORALITY. Furthermore, this statement s entirely irrelevant to the resolution - this debate concerns whether GOD should follow he policy - not whether PEOPLE should follow the policy. ********************************************************************************** CONTINUATION: 1) It is irrational to propose that violating moral criteria can be a moral action. Even if one considers God to be the source of morality, the laws that he hands down are the criteria by which morality is decided. This takes the form of Action-Question-Criteria-Decision. In this case, "Criteria" may be something like "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder." All actions that violate the criteria are deemed immoral. Thus, it does not follow with the moral system to include the violation of the criteria (no matter who the actor is) to be a moral action. The most common response to this is that God is not bound by his own law. In "The Morality of Law," Lon Fuller describes 8 ways to make a law fail (A simplistic overview - the book is MUCH better - http://en.wikipedia.org...), one of which states that if a law is enumerated but not enforced, then it fails. Of course, the (pseudo)contrapositive to this holds as well - if it is enforced, but not enumerated, it fails. Two other criteria are that the law be clear and that adjudication be consistent and not on an ad hoc basis. I contend that God violates these principles in two ways: a) He breaks the law himself, as in Genesis 7:21-23 (where undoubtedly thousands of innocent babies died), when he breaks his own prohibitions on murder and unjustly ends the lives of people. b) He orders others to break the law, as in 1 Samuel 15:3 (where God orders the "smiting" of the Amalekites, down to the last "man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and a$$"), when he orders others to violate one of the laws under the guise of doing his will. This is a case of arbitrary an ad hoc adjudication, and in some ways, retroactive legislation, because it was deemed moral to take vengeance on these people after the prohibition on murder was in place. ******************************************************************************** I'm going to save some space and introduce the move towards RBAU in the next round. I await rebuttal. AFFIRMED.