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

I. SURREBUT … REJOI … MY RESPONSE (a) A moral code does not have to be universally moral for it to be a moral code. The code that God set down was nothing less than a series of limits on and justifications for action. That is most certainly a moral code. Whether or not one agrees with the morals is a matter of very subjective perspective. Though moral reasoning may be universal, it is not uniform. The morals of Hinduism are clearly different in many ways from those of Christianity and Islam … not to mention more arcane faiths. Assuming that morality is subjective, then anyone can have a subjective view of it, God included. Perhaps some of the things commanded by God are shocking to the modern conscience; even if this is so, it does not make them less shocking than the concept of, say, being uncircumcised would be to God's followers in the olden days. See Romans 2. Of course, God having an overview of everything, his subjectivity can be defined as an understanding of all things; which basically becomes objectivity by necessity. (b) Argument from Comic Books Any person who saw what he took as evil, given infinite power, would demand that the people doing evil either stop or be stopped. That, essentially, is the choice God gave. Yes, it is not a perfect choice, but assuming that there is some greater good, God's actions could well be as moral as Superman threatening to punch Lex Luthor if he keeps plotting world domination. Is Luthor oppressed? Is not the doing of what is evil sufficient to invoke the wrath of that is which is opposed to evil? And is it not reasonable that the strong be charged with protecting the weak through use of its greater strength? Certainly it is. Freedom is freedom to act, but not without consequences. God's ‘extortion' could arguably still be moral assuming, as God has expressed is so, that there is some evil of which he is aware. [1] II. FURTHER ARGUMENTS (a) Men are the children of God and yes, children are practically property My opponent asks whether or not we own our children after they reach the age of majority. No, because they are assumed to be rational and self sufficient at that age. If God is eternal, by what standard must he judge rationality? My opponent's analogy is insufficient to show that God should have lost the right to control his creation, because it does not take into account the presumed vast differences in reasoning capability between an all-knowing deity and a simple man. We let our eighteen years old go as they will; we keep our three year olds locked in a pen. [2] (b) Men as bondsmen to God. I certainly have not said that the code of morality is merely preferential. Obedience, as mentioned many times, is expected as a matter of course, not of choice. I have argued that God's reasoning for establishing the morals is preferential. God is acting in his rational self interest. That God does not establish morals for a clearly moral reason does not prove that his establishment of those morals is unjustified. In fact, some individuals might argue that God is expressing the highest form of morality in undertaking such actions, by opting not to limit the expression of his will when he has no rational cause to do so. [3] (c) Moral relativism in God's will. Please see (b) above. I have shown how God may be moral, in one subjective sense, in establishing a code of morality that he does not intend for himself. (d) It is therefore rational for God to expect compliance with a morality than benefits Himself, not his people. My opponent argues that a ban on mini-skirts in a school would necessarily require that the principal not wear a mini-skirt herself. This is clearly not true. I went to an elementary school where I was forced to wear a uniform … I was hardly in a position to tell my principal that she should be wearing one as well. What is intended for a group under control as a restraint mechanism may very justifiably not be appropriate for the one seeking to restrain. III. CONTINUING ARGUMENTS: (a) On the violation of moral criteria. My opponent first argues that God is and then that God is not the source of morality. I am not sure what to make of this. However, I will attempt to meet his primary contention, that I should be able to show how morals do not apply to all beings equally. Very simple. My opponent is a human (I think, anyway). My opponent has in his profile that he believes that humans are meant to be omnivorous and should eat meat (People Eating Tasty Animals, and etc.) So, I assume he has eaten meat. How could he commit cannibalism! What, it's not cannibalism? Well, murder then! What it's not murder? Well, disrespect to a corpse at least! Who would want to be smothered in tomato paste after they died? … Oh, it's not that either … why not? Because man is as different from the animals as God is from man, assuming God exists. God has never been depicted as a mere human. His ways were never human ways. His relationship to the natural order is presumed to be on a level higher than man. God need not obey morality in the same way that a tiger need not consider morality when it makes a kill; that which is not equal in the natural order is not equal in rights or obligations to those lower in station. My opponent also can not argue that this analogy fails because humans need to eat meat whereas God does not need to harm man, as humans presently may acquire the protein content in meat through healthier non-animal alternatives. It is merely the preference of a being higher in the so-called natural order that provides the justification for it. Sound familiar? [4] [5] (b) On the covetous covenant i. My opponent argues that "the punishments of the contract supposedly do not apply to only Jews and Christians." Actually, the punishments do only apply to those party to the contract. People die in general, those party to the contract are judged under it, and those found worthy under the contract are saved. It is simple contract law – those not bound under the contract can not gain from or be harmed by it, but they must still of course face a world without it --- a natural world that leads to simple death and dissolution. ii. The Gospel of Luke is actually excellent propaganda to induce others to join the contract as well. iii. Romans 2 is fully compliant with my part one, and may be found here: http://www.biblegateway.com... IV. CONCLUSION The resolution is "that, on balance, God's ability to break with his own established code of morality is unjustified." Putting aside, for sake of argument, who bears the burden, it is obvious that on balance I am looking to produce arguments for how God's ability to break with his own established code of morality is justified. Several times over, I have shown how this is so. I have shown that the faith system that defines the characteristics of God sets him above morality. I have shown that the rationale for God not being held in moral parity with man is analogous to man not being held in moral parity with other animals. I have shown how arguably even the actions God has taken in establishing his morality can be considered, from a wide view, moral. In addition I have met every one of Pro's objections while, at best, he has argued that you should vote on your feelings. Whether you believe in a god or not, you can not argue that it is unjustified that a god not bind itself to the act as mortals do. God, being supernatural, can not be expected to act as if on the same natural tier of man. I strongly urge a Con vote, for the resolution has been … NEGATED. [1] http://musingsofastrongblackwoman.wordpress.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.jewishveg.com... [5] http://blueridgebible.org...