Well, again, if—a large "if, " I grant you—there's an omnipotent, omniscient Creator-God out there, then I maintain that He's worth following and obeying. No matter how alien His morality is, if He's what He appears to be then His is the only genuine morality on tap, however I might feel about it on an emotional level.
I would argue a being as alien as you would describe is useless as a source of morality not matter its powers or awareness specifically because
of its nature. Even assuming that its right if it will not or cannot explain its reasoning in ways that we can understand and universally agree on (and I think thread has proven that there are those who disagree with the common interpretation of those biblically passages) then we are not under any obligation to follow its directions.
And this is what it boils down to. You have a specific idea of what God is and are arguing from that position as if its a given. But the only reasons you've give is that this is the only way you can conceive of such a being
. But just because you can only think of such a being in that way doesn't mean that others can't think of it other ways
That's why I mentioned those tropes before. Because myself and others are capable of conceptualising different formulations of an ultimate being the onus is on you to prove that you idea of God is in fact the correct one. Until you do, your reasoning is to us hypothesising ahead of evidence at best
. Less generously its just a case of GIGO, Garbage in, garbage out.