There are some people who question God’s morality and ethics, and their critique is based upon the law He gave to man, and then there are some who base it on their own ideas about morality and ethics. But the objections are incoherent due to their fallacious nature, as their propositions are assumptions. For example, the laws He gave to man cannot be above Himself, that He should abide by them. The law for man would thus be God over Himself, and He would be bound. That would take away the definition of what God is. He is not bound by anything because everything He says and does is righteous by definition.
As an example, I will use as an illustration with the following comparison:
A software architect forms a set of commands and instructions, behaviors and operations, that tells the computer/program what to do. Now, in all this, the software engineer is above the programs he’s designed and implemented – i.e., he is not bound to act in the manner prescribed to/for his software/computer. If he writes a command that causes the computer to not kill the power every time the enter button is pushed, the engineer certainly is above that command and can kill the power, simply by pulling the plug, or power supply.
Would it be reasonable for the software (believer and non-believer) to despise the architect (God) for not being bound to the behaviors, operations, commands, and instructions (precepts and decrees), that the architect (God) has intended for the software (believer and non-believer)?