Every thing.
He does not allow us choice of action with one hand, and prevent us murdering with the other.
What does this have to do with free will?
Maybe I should back up: IMO, the term "free will" addresses, well,
will. Motivation. The term "free will" addresses your ability to choose a course of action, not necessarily whether you're physically possible of carrying it out.
The way I understand the term, preventing someone from murdering while not reaching into his brain and removing his motivation to murder would not interfere with free will at all.
And if your definition of "free will" is violated by doing this, I think it's worth pointing out that our actions are constrained in all sorts of ways. As I've pointed out many times in discussions about the "free will" approach to wriggle out of the Problem of Evil, there are all sorts of things that we're physically prevented from doing: I can kill a person with a knife or a gun, but not with my thoughts or a snowball. If the arrangement of the universe was designed, then it was the designer's choice to make murder (or any act) more difficult than it could have conceivably been. Since we're physically limited beings, it makes absolutely no sense to argue that God doesn't want to impose physical limits on us.
Also, if you're going to argue that God is concerned with preserving free will, then you're implicitly arguing that free will exists... and I think this is less than certain.
Not quite, but it is a result of social intercourse.
But why would this mean that we can't apply morality to God?
For instance, take another social construct: game rules. It would be valid to say that God (or you, or me) is ineligible to play in an under-18 football league. The mere fact that God (presumably) doesn't care and would never try to join a team doesn't mean that he isn't ineligible.
Simply arguing that morality is a human construct doesn't get rid of the question of whether God is moral. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite: if morality is a human construct, then it's
completely in our purview to decide what is moral and what isn't.
Morality needs to be taught, it is not in some way instinctive. Most societies come to similar conclusions about what is acceptable... but very different limits and solutions as to how to deal with those that break the rules. Once British law and American law were like two peas in a pod, today they are drifting further and further apart.
I think the law question is a bit of a red herring, and on the whole, virtually every human society agrees on the fundamentals: life is better than death, suffering is bad, etc. The details are generally just that: details.
God does not have a disregard for humanity. I would not suppose it to be any different to his regard for any other being in the universe, nor would I expect it to be.
What suggests to you that God does not have a disregard for humanity?
When I look at things, I see it as completely in agreement with the idea that the universe (or the mind behind the universe) doesn't give a fig about us. What have you seen that makes you reject this?
God is not some sort of nanny that kisses us better every time we cry. We are given the opportunity to live our own lives, in what ever way we choose.
Any unfortunate outcomes, both individual and collectively, are down to us.
This seems like a very non-Christian (or at least unbiblical) worldview:
25 Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?[g] 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin, 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or What shall we drink? or What shall we wear? 32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Morality is not a yardstick. It is not universal in that way. It is something individual societies develop individually, and sign up to.
Different religions and peoples come up with different priorities in ordering their lives. This informs their morality.
A yardstick does not have to be universal to be used. I think the argument you're making here is a side issue. You're addressing the questions of how morality arose and how important it is, not the question of whether we can judge God to be moral or immoral.
"God may be immoral but our morality doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things" does not equal "God is moral."
