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

I. Rebuttal 1) The If/Then Statement My opponent argues that God has established a moral code for Judaism and Christianity, and this in this context, God need not adhere to the specifics of the code because he is not one of the individuals the code was intended for. However, the weak point in this argument is that the code God has established is not a moral code - it is merely his preferences. Morality cannot be contained only to Jews and Christians. All persons (barring unusual cases) are capable of moral reasoning - it's not something that only Jews and Christians engage in. Morality is generally held to be conforming to the rules of moral conduct, moral conduct being that which brings about a just, good, upright, etc... end. Morality is not simply the whims of God. Thus, my opponent's contention 3A is rebutted - if there are (as CON admits) actions that people consider good or evil independent of their faith, then one CANNOT escape the necessary conclusion that the criteria for what is good and evil does NOT lie with God. And from this information, it is obvious that whatever code is given to us by God may agree with the basis of morality, but cannot be in and of itself the basis of morality. My opponent's example used in point 3B is quite simply, wrong. When a man threatens to strike an animal and the animal heels, this is EXACTLY what the definition of extortion states - "to wrest or wring (money, information, etc.) from a person by violence, intimidation, or abuse of authority; obtain by force, torture, threat, or the like" (http://dictionary.reference.com...). And if God's contract with man is not a case of wresting "devotion" or servitude by means of violence (Sodom, Gomorrah, the Flood), intimidation (threat of hell), or abuse of authority (Entirety of Job) then I'm not sure what sort of bizarre understanding of English my opponent operates under... The covenant with God is a covenant of extortion, and it doesn't matter one bit if man doesn't KNOW he's being extorted - that just means man is stupid. To respond to my opponent's point 3C, I offer that God gave up his ownership of man as a creation when I created man with free will. To truly have a free will, man must not belong to anything or anyone else. An analogy - suppose my girlfriend and I have a baby. Is that baby our property? Even when it is 18? 25? 40? It has long been recognized that people cannot justly be the property of someone or something else. 2) Men as bondsmen to God. In points A and B, my opponent shies away from the clear intended meaning of the resolution and begins to fall back on the position that the contract we're talking about is simply some preferences. I won't indulge this line of reasoning, as it isn't what the debate is about. God delivered his preferences to the Jews/Christians under the guise of morality. If God is going to behave in a manner as though he is delivering a moral code, his actions must be consistent with this premise. Violating the parameters of what is supposed to be an objective moral code, yet calling this violation a moral action is not rational. 3) - Irrelevant 4) Moral relativism in God's will. My opponent states that God considers performance under the contract to be moral. My opponent must either also hold that God is above morality, in which case, he must explain how the supposed "source of morality" (Round 1 - point 1) is amoral, or must explain how the violation of objective moral principles constitutes a moral action. 5) It is therefore rational for God to expect compliance with a morality than benefits Himself, not his people. Of course I concede that it is rational to expect compliance with a policy one in power enacts. If the principle a grade school implemented a no-miniskirt policy, he would rationally expect compliance with that policy. I'm not sure why this is surprising... I argue that it is irrational to offer objective moral principles, and then to violate those principles, yet claim to still be a moral entity. II. Continuation: 1) On the violation of moral criteria. My opponent holds in point 1A that the law does not apply to God. However, he has not answered the question of why objective principles do not apply to all. Objective principles are not versions of "For everyone except X, Y, and Z, ABC is true".... There are a couple different questions similar to this one posed throughout the debate, so I see no reason to dwell on this one instance. If my opponent wants to make the "Oh morality doesn't apply to God" argument, then he needs to defend his reasoning for this. God is NOT the source of morality. Why does it not apply to him then? Point 1B raises an interesting position that those in the covenant with God are the only ones that expect its protection. However, this notion is negated by three simple facts: i. The punishments of the contract supposedly do not apply to only Jews and Christians. ii. The Gospel of Luke was specifically written to show non-Christians/Jews that the covenant was with THEM as well. iii. Romans 2 makes it clear that there is no excuse for not belonging to the covenant. III. Conclusion. My opponent attempts to mislead the reader here, noting that I stated God acted rationally... but he doesn't bother to mention that my statement wasn't about God's moral code... I shall make a similarly brief closing statement. The arguments here are all well-laid out... please read them and ask yourself the same questions I raise, particularly: How can God be above morality if he is not the source of it? How can God rationally violate what he purports to be an objective moral code? How can God rationally (or justly - see extortion) impose a subjective moral system on others as though it were objective? If you are puzzled by any of these questions, or think the answer is in the negative... the resolution is AFFIRMED.