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

I. SURREBUTTAL (arguably you put forth your motion, I put forth my rebuttal, you put forth your surrebuttal and this would be my rejoinder, but since we're out of sequence I'll run with it) : 1) The If/Then Statement (1) If the Judeo-Christian God exists, then he provided the Law, the supreme moral code of Judaism and Christianity. (2) Morality under Judaism and Christianity is "right action in accordance with the established code of morality" and nothing else. ‘Tis better to obey than be merciful' and all that, because mercy outside of that commanded by God is not moral under the moral code of Judaism and Christianity. [1] (3) Therefore, the context in which God has established morality is of supreme importance in determining whether or not, assuming a God, it would be rational for a God to expect his adherents to obey a moral code that he himself need not. The context informs the nature of the morality provided by God, at least as it originates in the Law. (a) My opponent first argues that morality must exist beyond a contract, as there are some actions which people consider good or evil independent of their faith. Perhaps it does. As shown in my previous examples, however, God does not care what man finds moral, or how man's determinations coincide with his own. Nor does it matter whether or not there is overlap in any number of things people would do if not bound by a covenant with God. There is a famous contract case where a man offered his nephew a large sum of money if his nephew would quit smoking for a year. His nephew did and demanded that the man pay him. The man laughed it off. His nephew sued him in court for breach of contract and won. For consideration to be adequate, your performance need not entail something you wouldn't ordinarily, but merely consist of taking or refraining from some action that one would not need to do barring the covenant. [2] God can ask for trifles if he wants. The key is whether or not it is rational for God to expect humans to obey a different moral code than himself, not whether or not every aspect of the moral code is dependent upon God. (b) "This is not a covenant of MORALITY, but of EXTORTION." Man may extort man. When a man threatens to strike an unruly animal and the animal heels, it is not extortion. In a case of contract between a supremely powerful cosmic being and an animal with a superiority complex, the proper term is probably ‘leverage.' [3] (c) Creation matters in so far as that all sense of natural rights essentially spring from the contention that one is entitled to the fruits of one's labor. God could be considered to have a right to control his work, as certainly he had an original work of authorship in humanity and fixed that original idea in a tangible medium of expression. [4] If so, it is not irrational at all for God to exercise those rights by establishing a moral code, putting humanity to a use adverse to that of others' interests. 2) Men are God's bondsmen, not his equals. (a) "If man is a bondsman to God, then God's requirements for proper function and continued patronage are no more than his preferences." Yes, and preferences are what one considers when determining how the other bargaining side under a contract will perform. It is logical for God to take his preferences into account, and rational to believe that God acts logically if he exists. (b)"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." Irrelevant. God expects those he contracts with to perform. He calls this performance "morality." Actual morality is irrelevant in the forming of the contract, and terms may be properly set by the parties to the contract. [5] My opponent's third contention on morality under this section mimics his first and is, I believe, adequately answered above. 3) "… 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." This statement is acceptable, and interesting, but irrelevant as to God. God clearly bought into the concept of contractual morality. 4) Moral relativism of actions pertaining to God's will. As per 3(b), God defines morality on a contractual basis. He "buys into" that concept. God considers performance under the contract to be moral. Humans may feel otherwise. In a disagreement in terms between the two parties to a contract, first the contract is referenced and then the dictionary. God's covenant clearly defines right action, goodness, morality, what have you, as simple obedience to the Law. [6] Beyond that, mankind has only great notions of better terms it could have bargained for. 5) It is therefore rational for God to expect compliance with a morality than benefits Himself, not his people. My opponent concedes that "It IS rational for God to expect compliance with a POLICY that benefits himself." A policy is nothing more than a way of acting. My opponent has basically argued that it is rational for God to expect compliance with a moral code that God himself does not follow. That is the opposite of the resolution, which would mean that the resolution has been negated. Whether or not the policy itself is moral is irrelevant. Whether or not it is rational is. Vote Con. II. CONTRA-CONTINUATION: 1) On the violation of moral criteria (a) God may break the law because the law does not pertain to God. This does not make the Law inapplicable. Remember, God said "Thou shall not kill" not "We shall not kill." If thou kill, then thou art doomed by God unto Hell. The law is enforced, as against thou, the subject of the law. In a similar manner, doctors are not punished for not following the lawyers' code of ethics and priests are not held to the standards of accountants. (b) Arguably those subject to the covenant are the only ones to rationally expect its protection. If thou shall not kill was intended to mean thou shall not kill anything, for example, then the prohibition against killing would prevent the slaughtering of animals, which it clearly did not. Similarly, if "thou shall not kill" meant that thou shall not kill anyone, the parties would not have proceeded under the contract as they did. [7] It is clear from the actions of the parties that the statement "thou shall not kill" was in reference only to the subjects of the contract; God was saying "Thou shall not kill each other," which left the Jewish people free to kill anyone else God commanded. III. CONCLUSION For all of these reasons, but especially my opponent's admission that God is acting rationally, the resolution is negated. IV. SOURCES [1] "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams." 1 Samuel 15:22 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.law.cornell.edu... [5] http://books.google.com... TERMS [6] http://books.google.com... [7] http://law.jrank.org...