A Christian response to Hitchen's challenge isn't that there is some sort of act, in and of itself, that only someone with God can do, but the reality that, despite that every single act that is seen as moral is doable by about everyone, the fact is that people fall very short of being moral.  But then, what is "moral" can end up a slippery slope, because I am sure I can speak of several things Mr. Hitchens would find offensive.  The word "Submit" I am sure is offense to Mr. Hitchens, but there is Bible verses that tell people to submit, and submission is seen as virtuous.  So, in end end, the goalposts will end up getting moved.  

Maybe a better way to phrase Mr. Hitchens challenge is to then ask if there is anything religious people can that Mr. Hitchens finds morally accceptable, that Mr. Hitchens and other atheists can't do.

In regards to Hitchens, one could argue there is ONE thing that religious people, like say Mormons, are able to do which he seemed to not be able to do, and that is avoid smoking and drinking which shorten one's life.  Hitchen confessed that his smoking and drinking caused him to get cancer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

Hitchens died on 15 December 2011, from complications arising from oesophageal cancer, a disease that he acknowledged was likely due to his lifelong predilection for heavy smoking and drinking

He also apparently got divorced and remarried, so he apparently wasn't able to do what is considered an ideal regarding marriage, that is the "until death do they part" bit also.

There is no such thing as christian morality, only christian obedence.  The morality of any act is judged by the society of the time, and certainly not absolute in any religious framework.

Let me give you an example.  There are things that are conditionally moral, immoral or amoral.  Killing a person, for example, if done because they have dark skin, is something that we as a society would consider immoral, while killing a person in defense of an innocent life we might consider amoral or moral, depending on the situation.  Rape, on the other hand is something as a society we would not deem moral under any circumstances

Not so in a christian framework.  In several sections of the bible, god commands people to rape.  Were these people NOT to rape the virgins as commanded, they would be disobeying god's word and would therefore be sinning.  From a christian viewpoint, then, sometimes it is actually immoral NOT to rape someone, if so commanded by god.

And how does this not correspond with compliance with any moral code at all?  There is either obedience to the code or there isn't.  

If one were to bring the gospels in, then you end up missing things in it, if you simply have the net sum as "obey" or "not obey".  You have examples of giving, and other acts seen as having greater virtue, things beyond just simple sinning.  You also see things like the parable of the talents, where the command was to bring a return, and not exactly do this or that, but do something.  

I would also suggest you do a tad more bit of research, including context on things.  If you are arguing that God COMMANDS men rape women, go and show it.  You could go here, the next sum of all verses brought up, and show where such is argued:

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

You can't find where God commands raping in that at all.  You do see commands on what to do during a military campaign. You don't see rape though.  If you want to argued forced marriage as the worst evil on the planet, along with shaving a woman's head, you can argue that, but not rape.

And the verses also aren't rape, they are kill.  It was don't kill the virgins.  But, feel free to find something else there to show otherwise.

I am not religious. I don't drink, and I have never smoked. There are religious people who do both. What point are you even trying to make anymore?

Regardless of what is considered virtuous, moral, or immoral, they are done so in the bible by command, rather than by self reflection, logical analysis and mutual interest in the betterment of the society in which we exist, all of which are completely disjointed from any religion. Morality only exists in a realm where there is the possibility of no punishment or no reward for your actions. Doing something good, or not doing something bad motivated by self interest is not morality. With an omniscient, omnipotent being, there is an ever fear of punishment and hope of reward, which nullifies any potential moral decision on the part of the individual. In which case, we a re back to obedience to what is commanded, or not.

You may try to split hairs and say it wasn't rape because it doesn't use the word rape, but that is what the passages mean. Numbers 31:18 is particularly blatant. "but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"

Sorry, that is telling them to take the virgins as spoils, ie to have sex with. I don't think these rampaging savages were interested in reading poetry by a babbling brook. And this wasn't an abstract "what to do in war" this was a specific command for a specific instance.

But fine, I will allow that tap-dancery. Another act that is objectively immoral is slavery, which is commanded frequently in the bible too. Or the murder of innocent children, etc etc etc. These things are objectively immoral. They are wrong regardless of whom commands them.

Based on your modern view of things, you have these view of things.  About every culture on the planet ended up doing slavery.  A question you have to ask is, who exactly lead abolition movement around the world and how did it happen.    You may want to look into that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism

You may also want to look up the history of William Wliberforce and how he got into the abolitionist business.  Thing is that you aren't going to end up find anything on the atheist side that manage to get anyone to suddenly be anti-slavery from that side, because atheism is a negation.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Hitchens argues that atheism is morally superior, but fails to shows in practice, particularly his life, that it is so.

Reading this thread its clear most you dont get the entire point of the Christiam faith

The fact he even brought up living a "moral" life as grounds to rebute the teachings of Jesus is well.....pointless? Im not even Christian.

Have you "sinned" or done something bad in your life a single time? Then you are going to hell. It takes ONE sin to send you to hell according to Christian teaching. Living a "moral" life alone is not enough to get salvation. Christianity teaches Jesus was the son of God and lived a perfect life. Seeing as he was the only one to do so and being both God and man he gave his life on the cross as a substitute for the sin of man. The perfect sacrifice.

So I litteraly dont understand the point of his rebuttal. It in no way addresses anything at the core of Christian faith and neither do pretty much any of the posts isn this thread.

My post wasn't starting out as one regarding Christianity, or even trying to rebut Hitchens.  It was mean to ask, if the measure for an ethical system is whether or not someone can do it, then why isn't there anyone anyone can find who is moral all the time.  Theoretically able to do some of the time, when one feels like it, isn't a meaure of a good ethical system, or if it is possible for someone to do it.  What matters, in regards to morals is how often someone actually does it.  If Hitchens was right, then there should be totally moral people who haven't slip up once today.

From this, the thread then became one not of a look at what Hitchens said on a practical level, but one about Christianity when this came up:

Looks like others have already beaten me to the punch, but I'll say it anyway: why do Christians sin when they're told in definitive terms what is right and what is wrong?

Because human beings are fallible and influenced by many divergent factors. You know this already, I'm sure. In fact, Christianity hinges on this idea to a large degree.

So what was neither an attempt to rebut Hitchens, or end up speaking about the Christian religion became one BOTH about rebutting and defending Hitchens, and also on why Christian is nasty and really amoral, because morality has nothing to do with obedience to God, and then a big long laundry list on how God sometimes COMMANDS people to take slaves and rape, so thus, Christians are not moral, and their religion has nothing to do with morality.

The answer to Hitchens question is simple.

At our core, as a species we are corrupt.  There is no denying this. Its impossible for any moral system to lead someone living a perfect life because we ourselves are imperfect.  This cant be denied and is an absolute truth regardless of religion or creed.