Why does God give contradictory commands in the Bible?

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:

Deuteronomy 20:16–17:

“You shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them — the Hittites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites.”

1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Numbers 31:17–18:

“Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.”

If “murder” means intentionally taking a human life, then these divine commands directly violate the very moral law God is said to have given.

Apologists often respond in one of three ways:

1. “Killing in war isn’t murder.”
But these passages go far beyond war — they include killing infants and non-combatants. Calling it “warfare” doesn’t make it morally right, especially when commanded by an allegedly all-good being.

2. “Those people were wicked and deserved it.”
But collective punishment of entire populations, including children, contradicts basic moral justice — even within the Bible itself. Ezekiel 18:20 says:

“The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father.”
So how can innocent children deserve death for their ancestors’ actions?

3. “God’s morality is beyond human understanding.”
This argument essentially abandons moral reasoning. If God’s morality can justify genocide, then anything — slavery, rape, torture — could be justified as “God’s higher purpose.” That makes morality arbitrary and destroys the very meaning of good and evil.

In short:
If the command “Thou shalt not murder” is absolute, then the genocidal commands are immoral.
If the genocidal commands are moral because God gave them, then “Thou shalt not murder” has no fixed moral meaning.

Either way, the Bible presents a contradiction that cannot be ethically reconciled without abandoning either moral consistency or divine goodness.

[Compassionist]

The Bible presents a serious moral contradiction. In the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), God explicitly says:

“Thou shalt not kill” (or more accurately in Hebrew, *lo tirtsach* — “you shall not murder”).

Yet, throughout the very same scriptures, this same God commands genocides and mass killings. For example:


1 Samuel 15:3:

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

Credibility time:

Your definition of murder accuses the Bible God of ordering murder of innocent children during war.

So, you also accuse anyone of murder of innocent babes by abortion, correct?

I am generally anti-abortion unless there is a good reason for it, e.g. risk to the mother's health or the baby's health. Also, an abortion that occurs before the fetus has a brain does not cause pain to the fetus. So, this is very different from murdering babies and children who are already born and are sentient, and therefore, feel pain, terror and distress.

[POI]

False. Show any command, or recorded instance, where taking a captive women into the household is with forced sex and rape.

The standard rape of all warfare has been by the victors on the field. Taking them home provided for them, and in Israel treating them equally under the law:

Num 15:16
One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with you.

The commandment pertaining to captive women taken home, is the open door to compassion on the defeated.

I dedicated a new topic:

viewtopic.php?t=42679

Neither the Old nor New Testament forbid slavery

Why not?

And the foundation was laid for willing service

Only for some, not others.

[1213]

...If “good” is purely a matter of opinion, then moral judgments like “God is good”* or “murder is wrong” become meaningless.
They would only express personal preferences — like saying “I like strawberries.”

But when most people say “good,” they mean something more than opinion - they mean something about wellbeing, fairness, compassion, or justice.
If we truly believed morality was just opinion, then genocide, torture, or child abuse could not be condemned as objectively wrong - merely “disliked.”
That would erase all moral reasoning.

Yes, secular world view makes all moral reasoning subjective matter of opinion. Still, what people choose, can be based on reasoning. But subjective moral reasoning can lead for example to the idea that it is ok, if government steal money from citizens.

Does God command things because they are good, or are they good because He commands them?

If He commands them because they are good, then “goodness” exists independently of Him - meaning moral truths are discoverable by reason and empathy, not by decree.

I believe whatever God does, it is because He thinks it is good. And there are reasons for all the actions. Are they good reasons, I think that is a matter of opinion.

If killing babies can be justified simply by invoking divine authority, then morality becomes indistinguishable from obedience to power - precisely the “might makes right” problem.

It seems killing babies is ok according to you, if you just claim they are not fully developed.

In the case of abortion, the moral question revolves around sentience - the capacity to experience suffering or well-being.
Early embryos have no developed nervous system and cannot feel pain or have experiences. That’s why many ethicists, doctors, and neuroscientists distinguish between potential sentient life and actual sentient life.

So, God can kill people, if He just thinks they are not really sentient.

5. “So, if God minimizes suffering by aborting evil people, is it good?”

No, because this assumes moral ends justify any means, which is a dangerous principle.
Killing innocent people to prevent potential suffering replaces justice with utilitarian brutality.

I was not talking about innocent, but evil people.

* Morality cannot be based on mere opinion, or it collapses into relativism.

But, it seems to me that you can offer only your opinion on this matter.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #33]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’ll address each of your points in turn.

1. “Secular morality is just subjective opinion.”

That’s a misunderstanding.
Secular ethics can be objective in the sense that they are based on observable facts about well-being and harm.

For example, suffering and flourishing are real, measurable states.
If kicking someone increases suffering, and kindness reduces it, then - independent of opinion - we can objectively say kindness is morally better because it improves well-being and reduces harm.

This kind of moral objectivity doesn’t depend on divine commands; it depends on empirical consequences for sentient beings.
That’s why secular moral philosophers like Sam Harris, Peter Singer, and Philippa Foot argue that moral truths can be derived from the facts of conscious experience - not decreed by authority.

2. “Subjective reasoning can justify government stealing from citizens.”

Religious reasoning has justified far worse - holy wars, inquisitions, slavery, and genocides - all “in God’s name.” European Christians colonised most of the world and murdered millions of people in God's name. They also enslaved millions of people. They also forcibly converted many to Christianity. This is why Christianity has the most adherents on Earth.

The problem isn’t secular reasoning; it’s dogmatic justification without evidence.

A secular framework that values wellbeing, equality, and consent explicitly forbids theft, harm, and coercion because these reduce wellbeing and violate autonomy - objectively measurable effects.

3. “Whatever God does is good.”

That position makes morality arbitrary.
If “good” means “whatever God does,” then genocide, slavery, or infanticide are good when God does or commands his followers to do them - which empties “good” of moral content.

You say God has “reasons,” but if we cannot evaluate those reasons by any independent moral standard, then “good” becomes synonymous with “God’s preference,” not a moral truth. That’s the classic Euthyphro dilemma - and it remains unresolved in theology.

4. “You think killing babies is okay if they’re not fully developed.”

That’s a misrepresentation.
I oppose harm to any sentient being - human or nonhuman - because sentience is the basis of moral worth.

An embryo before 20 weeks has no functioning cortex or thalamocortical connections, so it cannot experience suffering or well-being.
Ending a pregnancy at that stage ends a potential sentient life, not an actual sentient life. Just as refraining from sex leads to the deaths (because the body breaks them down) of billions of sperm, which are potential sentient lives. Would you demand that every sperm must become a baby so that these potential sentient lives become actual sentient lives?

By contrast, the Bible describes God killing already born and sentient babies and children in floods, plagues, and wars - so divine morality clearly does not hinge on sentience or compassion.

5. “So God can kill people if He thinks they’re not sentient.”

That’s precisely the danger of your view.
If morality is “whatever God decides,” then even killing the innocent becomes good if God wills it.
That’s not moral reasoning - that’s obedience to power.
It replaces compassion with authoritarianism.

A truly moral system must have reasons that are consistent and universalizable - e.g. “Needless suffering is wrong,” “Consent matters,” “Justice requires fairness.” These principles can be applied independently of who has power.

6. “I was talking about evil people.”

The label “evil” is itself subjective unless defined by measurable harm.
If God kills those He calls evil, that’s divine punishment without due process or rehabilitation.
A compassionate morality seeks to prevent harm and rehabilitate wrongdoers - not to exterminate them.

7. “You only have your opinion.”

I base my moral reasoning on evidence of harm and well-being, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience of empathy - not mere opinion.
Moral realism doesn’t require a god; it requires that suffering and flourishing are objectively real phenomena.

Your moral reasoning, on the other hand, depends entirely on faith that God’s actions are good by definition, which makes moral judgment impossible. You cannot call any act wrong if your deity commands it.

Secular morality begins with compassion - reducing suffering and increasing well-being for all sentient beings.
That’s not mere opinion; it’s grounded in facts about life, pain, and happiness.
If a god exists and truly is good, His actions would align with those principles - not contradict them. The Biblical God is evil because, in the Bible, it deliberately causes harm to sentient beings.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #9]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I’ll respond point by point.

1. “Obviously, the God of the Bible and you do not agree on what is murder.”

If “murder” simply means unlawful killing, then we have to ask: unlawful by whose law?

Exactly. Whose law is the point.

If God’s own commandments define murder (“You shall not murder”), and yet the same text has Him order the killing of infants, then He would be contradicting His own stated law.

By whose law. Not by the Bible God's.

Credibility point: By your definition of murder, killing babes in the womb is murder?

Luk 1:41
And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

Defining murder as merely “what God disapproves of” and killing as “what God approves of” makes morality arbitrary - good and evil become whatever the powerful decree. That isn’t moral law; it’s divine command authoritarianism.

I.e. the divine command authoritarianism of the Bible God. Hence, your moral law is not His, and vica versa.

If “murder” simply means unlawful killing, then we have to ask: unlawful by whose law?

Are you suggesting an authority on murder, that is not unlawful? Is this pacifism?

Credibility point: Are you the standard of moral law? Is your moral law the authoritative command for all?

2. “So you say. Just to be consistent. Tell everyone that you are the moral authority.”

This isn’t about me claiming moral authority. It’s about moral reasoning itself.

False. This is about you passing judgment by your moral law.

If God’s own commandments define murder (“You shall not murder”), and yet the same text has Him order the killing of infants, then He would be contradicting His own stated law.

This is not speculative 'reasoning', but authoritative. You can either claim your own moral authority, or stop passing judgement by it authoritatively.

So long as you claim no moral authority, then your moral judgments are worthless.

Moral reasoning without moral authority has no authority to pass judgment on others.

If humans are commanded to “do God’s judgments” (Leviticus 18:4), then we must use our moral faculties to discern right from wrong.

False. God's judgments are authoritative righteousness and true holiness, not moral reasoning without authority.

The Bible God's judgments are obeyed or disobeyed, not judged by worthless moral reasoning.

Deu 7:11
Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.

To forbid moral reasoning while demanding moral obedience is self-contradictory.

True, among moral men. But the Bible God demands righteous obedience to His righteousness, not moral obedience to worthless morality without authority.

'Moral reasoning' with God's righteousness, is as wood and stubble judging fire.

If you want to argue between morality of men, then that's entirely different. This is about your personal moral accusation against the Bible God's righteousness and true holiness:

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Moreover, the moment anyone calls God good, they are already applying a human moral standard of goodness.

False again. People call the Bible God good by faith in His works, doctrine, and prophecy.

And judging by one's own moral standard, is not reasoning without authority, but is passing judgement as by law.

And calling anyone good by one's own moral standard, is confessing one's own moral authority.

Once again, you can either openly proclaim your own moral authority, or acknowledge your moral judgements are worthless.

Ezekiel 18 explicitly concerns justice and personal responsibility - contrasting it with the old belief that children could bear the guilt of their parents. It says the soul who sins shall die, not “the body only shall die.”

Exactly. The immortal soul and spirit of man and woman dies by sinning against God.

All physical bodies on earth die by natural death. Only the spiritual soul lives or dies by doing good or evil.

3Jo 1:11
Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God.

If God kills innocent children because of their parents’ actions, that violates even this biblical principle of justice.

First, quote the Bible saying God kills a child, because of His parent's actions. And then show how that applies to the promise of life or death to the soul, by doing good or evil...

4. “God doesn’t have morality. He’s holy, pure, and righteous altogether.”

That statement empties “holy” and “righteous” of any moral content.

Exactly. Now you have it. God's righteous and holiness is His own, and is empty of any moral reasoning and judgment of others.

Man's morality is his own, and only applies to oneself for a season. God's righteousness judges all angels and men forever.

If “righteous” does not mean morally right, then saying “God is righteous” is tautological - it merely means “God is God.”

If God's “righteousness” means morally right, then saying “God is righteous” is tautological deism- it merely means “Man is God.”

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

If holiness means nothing that can be recognized as moral goodness (like justice, compassion, or fairness), then calling God “good” becomes incoherent.

If holiness means nothing that can be recognized by man's moral goodness (like justice, compassion, or fairness), then calling God “good” becomes man's goodness.

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Furthermore, if God is exempt from moral evaluation,

He is exempt from man's moral evaluation and judgemnt.

Isa 45:21
Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

Rom 9:20
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Furthermore, if God is exempt from moral evaluation, the Bible’s constant claims that His actions are “good” and “just” are meaningless to humans.

Furthermore, if God is exempt from man's moral evaluation, the Bible’s constant claims that His actions are “good” and “just” means man's morality is without authority and worthless.

5. “God cannot be tempted with evil.”

Agreed - but this verse (James 1:13) doesn’t resolve the contradiction.
If commanding genocide is not evil, then the word “evil” has lost any fixed meaning.

By whose moral authority?

The entire moral vocabulary of the Bible would collapse into circular reasoning:

The entire righteous and holy vocabulary of the Bible would collapse into moral reasoning, if it included morality of men.

Whatever God does is good, because God did it; and whatever God forbids is evil, because He forbade it.
That is not morality - it is might makes right.

Exactly again. It's the Almighty God makes holy righteousness...With all authority and power to judge and execute upon whomsoever He will. Without respect to man's moral reasoning and judgment.

6. “You even quote it. So do you believe the LORD can’t do evil?”

I quote it because it’s part of the same text that contradicts itself.

You believe every word of God commanding children be killed in war, and the cattle. And you do not believe any word of God doing no evil, nor tempting any man to do evil. This is only your contradiction, not the Bible's.

One cannot affirm both that God “cannot do evil” *and* that He ordered the slaughter of babies. If killing infants is not evil, then nothing is.

This isn’t about me claiming moral authority. It’s about moral reasoning itself.

False. Either claim your moral authority, or stop passing judgment by your moral standard.

To restate my point more precisely:

* The command “You shall not murder” expresses a moral principle that killing innocents is wrong.

Who's moral principle? Yours? If without moral authority, then vain principle.

Credibility point: Killing babes in the womb is murder?

* The genocidal commands directly violate that principle.

Judging by your moral principle. Being without authority makes 'violation' meaningless.

* Claiming “God’s definition of good is different from ours” abandons moral consistency.

Gen 3:4
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.


* Claiming “God’s definition of good is different from ours” abandons man's moral godhood.

* Claiming “God has no morality” removes the possibility of calling Him good at all.

* Claiming “God has no morality” removes the possibility of calling man good at all.

As well as being judged by any man's morality.

Therefore, either God’s commands are morally inconsistent, or the claim that God is morally perfect is incoherent.

Therefore, since God’s commands are all righteous, then the claim that God is morally perfect is incoherent.

Since God’s commands are all righteous, and not morally perfect, then the claim that God's righteousness is not man's morality is consistently coherent.

No amount of linguistic or theological gymnastics can make “Thou shalt not murder” and “Kill every man, woman, and child” compatible moral teachings.

Exactly again. Because God is eternally righteous and holy and good, not moral.

I am a pacifist,

Thought so.

But, at least we agree that killing babes in the womb is murder.

so I would never be a soldier in any war.

I would never want you to either, not on my side.

I am also a vegan, because it is wrong to murder sentient organisms.

Including in the womb.

However, you would still be judged a murderer by modern pagan environmentalists, that say it's wrong to murder trees.

I am painfully aware that most humans are not pacifists and vegans.

I am painfully aware that some humans are pacifists and vegans.

However, since they have no moral authority to pass judgment on others, then 95% of human history can rest easy in not being condemned of murder. Especially not the Bible God:

Rom 14:2
For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #35]

Thank you for taking the time to reply in detail. I’ll address your points as clearly as I can.

1. “Whose law defines murder?”

If “murder” merely means “unlawful killing,” we still have to ask: unlawful by whose law?
If the same text that forbids murder also orders the killing of infants, then by any ordinary use of language, that is contradictory.
Redefining “murder” as “whatever God disapproves of” and “killing” as “whatever He approves of” makes morality circular - “good” becomes “whatever the powerful decree.” That is not moral law; that is authoritarian decree.

Even if a deity exists, the only way humans can recognise goodness or justice is through our moral reasoning - empathy, fairness, and concern for wellbeing. Otherwise, the words “good” and “evil” become empty noises.

2. “Moral reasoning without moral authority is worthless.”

Moral reasoning does not claim authority; it seeks justification.
Authority can impose obedience, but only reasoning can show whether that obedience is just.
If morality depends purely on who has power, then by the same logic, any tyrant or warlord who claims divine sanction would be “righteous.” That collapses morality into might-makes-right - the very thing you say God transcends.

3. “God’s righteousness is not morality.”

If “righteousness” and “holiness” have no connection to moral qualities such as compassion, justice, or fairness, then saying “God is righteous” means only “God is God.”
That strips the term of all moral meaning.
When believers call God “good,” they are inevitably using human moral concepts. Otherwise, “good” means nothing to us. If you remove morality from “righteousness,” you can no longer coherently call God “good,” “just,” or “loving.” Those are moral words.

4. “Show where God kills a child for the parents’ sin.”

There are many such passages:

Exodus 12:29-30 - God kills every firstborn Egyptian child.
2 Samuel 12:14-18 - God kills David’s infant for David’s sin.
Numbers 31:17 - “Kill every male among the little ones.”

These are explicit examples of innocent children being killed or commanded to be killed.
If such acts are described as “righteous” but not “moral,” that is simply an admission that they defy moral understanding.

5. “By whose moral authority?”

By the same authority through which you and I recognise suffering, fairness, and harm - the shared capacities of empathy and reason.
When I say killing innocents is wrong, I am not appointing myself a lawgiver. I am reasoning from observable harm.
You appeal to divine authority; I appeal to consistent moral reasoning. Both make truth-claims, but only one can be evaluated by evidence and argument rather than decree.

6. “Killing babes in the womb is murder, so we agree?”

I define “murder” as the intentional killing of sentient beings - those capable of feeling pain or awareness, e.g. a cow, a human child, a turkey, a duck, a zebra, a donkey, a horse, a chicken, a pig, a dog, a cat, a rabbit, an elephant, a whale, a dolphin, an octopus, etc.
Early embryos lack sentience. My concern is the prevention of suffering, not enforcing theological definitions of purity.
Veganism and pacifism follow from the same ethical root: causing needless suffering is wrong. That principle applies to humans and other sentient animals alike.

7. “God’s righteousness is coherent because it is not moral.”

If you claim God’s righteousness is “beyond” morality, then please stop calling Him good, just, or loving - those are moral terms.
If words like good and evil mean different things when applied to God, then we are no longer speaking a shared moral language at all.

8. “Moral reasoning versus divine command.”

Your view ultimately makes morality arbitrary.
Whatever God commands becomes “right,” even if it were genocide.
That is the same logic Plato challenged 2,400 years ago in the Euthyphro Dilemma:

Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?

If it’s good only because He commands it, then morality is arbitrary.
If He commands it because it is good, then goodness exists independently of Him — meaning moral truths are discoverable by reason.

9. My summary

If God’s commands contradict each other (“Do not murder” vs. “Kill every man, woman, and child”), that is inconsistency.
If “good” means only “whatever God does,” the term becomes meaningless.
If “righteousness” has no moral content, moral praise of God is incoherent.
If humans may not use reason to evaluate goodness, then calling God good is meaningless because the word has no human reference.

Therefore, the only consistent path is moral reasoning - reasoning that applies equally to everyone, including any claimed deity.
Otherwise, “holy righteousness” is merely a euphemism for unlimited power, and “good” loses all meaning.

I remain a pacifist and a vegan because I hold that harming or killing sentient beings unnecessarily is wrong - not because I claim divine authority, but because suffering is observable, measurable, and preventable.

If a God exists who disagrees with compassion itself, that would not make compassion evil; it would make such a God morally monstrous. My conclusion is that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary, and the stories in the Bible are false because none of them are supported by evidence. If you have evidence for these Biblical events, then please post in this thread: viewtopic.php?t=42683 Thank you.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #23]

Thank you for your reply.

You’re right that the Bible describes both God’s mercy and His wrath. The question is whether those actions, taken together, can coherently be called good - not by my private opinion, but by any consistent moral standard.

1. “According to your moral standard.”

My moral standard isn’t personal whim; it’s based on ethical consistency:

If an action causes unnecessary suffering to sentient beings, it is wrong.
If it prevents or reduces suffering, it is good.

This principle applies universally - to humans, animals, and even to hypothetical gods. It is the same principle we use when judging human behaviour: compassion and fairness are good; cruelty and injustice are not.

Yet again, you've just given me a standard without providing the basis for why that standard is the correct one, relative to any standard that says otherwise.

If a human ordered the slaughter of babies and children, we would all call that evil. Changing the species or rank of the perpetrator doesn’t change the moral nature of the act.

God can restore the lives of those babies and children, and even more so, they have a secured place in Heaven.

Humans cannot restore the lives of those babies and children.

Do you understand the difference?

The God of the Bible commanded genocides, which included murdering babies. This is an evil act, regardless of who commanded it. “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” - 1 Samuel 15:3, The Bible (English Standard Version). Please see: https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-ho ... -the-bible and https://www.evilbible.com/evil-bible-ho ... the-bible/ for lots of examples of evil commands given by the Biblical God.

Same answer as above.

2. Why God’s “standard” can’t be above reasoning

If “good” simply means “whatever God does,” then calling God good adds no meaning. It becomes a tautology - “God is God.”
But the Bible itself invites moral reasoning: “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do what is just?” (Genesis 18:25).
That verse presupposes that justice has meaning independent of power - otherwise Abraham’s question would be incoherent.

3. In summary

If we say moral reasoning cannot question divine commands, then morality collapses into obedience to authority.
If we say God’s goodness can be recognized, then we are already appealing to a moral framework that exists outside and prior to any scripture - one grounded in empathy and the minimization of harm.

That’s why my question stands:

Would we still call the same actions “good” if they were attributed to a god one didn’t already believe in?

If not, then it isn’t really about goodness - it’s about allegiance.

Do you believe in capital punishment?

[1213]

[Replying to 1213 in post #33]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I’ll address each of your points in turn.

1. “Secular morality is just subjective opinion.”

That’s a misunderstanding.
Secular ethics can be objective in the sense that they are based on observable facts about well-being and harm.

For example, suffering and flourishing are real, measurable states.
If kicking someone increases suffering, and kindness reduces it, then - independent of opinion - we can objectively say kindness is morally better because it improves well-being and reduces harm.

Someone could still disagree and say, the kicking makes the other person do right things and it reduces suffering in bigger scale.

I can agree that it is not good to kick and it would be good to be kind, but these are still just opinions.

2. “Subjective reasoning can justify government stealing from citizens.”

Religious reasoning has justified far worse - holy wars, inquisitions, slavery, and genocides - all “in God’s name.” European Christians colonised most of the world and murdered millions of people in God's name. They also enslaved millions of people. They also forcibly converted many to Christianity. This is why Christianity has the most adherents on Earth.

Faulty reasoning can justify many things. However, when it is said in the Bible, "love your enemy", Christians has no way to justify any evil action.

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Matt. 5:44-45

You say God has “reasons,” but if we cannot evaluate those reasons by any independent moral standard, then “good” becomes synonymous with “God’s preference,” not a moral truth. That’s the classic Euthyphro dilemma - and it remains unresolved in theology.

Bible tells the reasons. For example evilness is a reason why God can kill. What we may not necessary know is, are the people really evil.

An embryo before 20 weeks has no functioning cortex or thalamocortical connections, so it cannot experience suffering or well-being.
Ending a pregnancy at that stage ends a potential sentient life, not an actual sentient life.

But what if you are wrong?

I base my moral reasoning on evidence of harm and well-being, evolutionary psychology, and neuroscience of empathy - not mere opinion.
Moral realism doesn’t require a god; it requires that suffering and flourishing are objectively real phenomena.

But, it is an opinion what is suffering and flourishing, and it is also an opinion are they always good or bad. For example, is it ok, if evil person flourishes and gets to do even more evil things?

Your moral reasoning, on the other hand, depends entirely on faith that God’s actions are good by definition, which makes moral judgment impossible. You cannot call any act wrong if your deity commands it.

I don't think God’s actions are good by definition. And I can call actions wrong, if I have good reason to do so, even if it would be God's action. The problem is, can I really know enough to judge God. By what I know, I have no reason to call God and His actions not good.

Secular morality begins with compassion - reducing suffering and increasing well-being for all sentient beings.
That’s not mere opinion; it’s grounded in facts about life, pain, and happiness.
If a god exists and truly is good, His actions would align with those principles - not contradict them.

the problem with that is, can we really know what increases well-being and happiness and who is sentient. Also, happiness is not in my opinion necessary a good measure, because people can become happy about matters that I don't think are good. For example many "democrats" were happy, when Charlie Kirk got murdered. Was it then good to murder Kirk, when one could say it also took all pain from Kirk?

The Biblical God is evil because, in the Bible, it deliberately causes harm to sentient beings.

I don't think God is evil. Ending evil is in my opinion a good thing.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #38]

Thank you for another thoughtful response. I’ll reply point by point as before.

1. “Kicking may reduce suffering on a bigger scale.”

That’s precisely why secular moral reasoning evaluates actions by their total consequences, not by rigid rules.
If there were evidence that cruelty reliably produced more long-term flourishing than kindness, we’d have to update our model.
But in practice, cruelty breeds trauma, retaliation, and mistrust, while empathy and fairness correlate with social stability and well-being across cultures.
So the evidence overwhelmingly supports compassion as the better principle - not merely as an opinion, but as a fact about how sentient beings function.

2. “Christians can’t justify evil because Jesus said to love enemies.”

That verse is admirable in isolation, but Christian history shows that quoting Scripture hasn’t prevented atrocities.
The same Bible that says “love your enemies” also endorses genocide, slavery, and eternal torture in hell. Many perpetrators of violence sincerely believed they were obeying God.
The point isn’t that all Christians are evil - it’s that a text containing both compassionate and cruel commands gives no objective way to decide which reflects God’s true will.
By contrast, a secular ethics grounded in reducing suffering provides a consistent external measure that can condemn both Crusades and inquisitions without appealing to authority.

3. “Evilness is a reason why God can kill.”

If “evilness” justifies killing, then we must ask how we can tell who is evil and who is not.
The Bible repeatedly describes entire populations - infants included - as “evil” and orders their slaughter.
That is collective punishment, which violates every modern moral principle of individual responsibility.
If we cannot independently verify that these people were actually evil, appealing to divine omniscience simply assumes what needs to be proved.
In moral reasoning, a good being would never deliberately cause needless suffering, regardless of the victim’s moral status.

4. “But what if you are wrong about fetal sentience?”

If I’m wrong, I’ll change my view the moment credible evidence shows that early fetuses can suffer.
That’s what distinguishes evidence-based ethics from faith-based ethics: it’s falsifiable and open to correction.
Religious morality, by contrast, treats its moral conclusions as immutable even when evidence changes.
Currently, the consensus of neuroscience is clear: without cortical and thalamocortical integration, conscious experience of pain is not possible.
So, early abortion ends a potential sentient life, not an actual sentient being.

5. “It’s an opinion what counts as suffering and flourishing.”

We can disagree about definitions, but suffering itself is an observable neurophysiological and behavioural reality.
Brain scans, hormone levels, and consistent self-reports allow us to measure distress and well-being.
Cultures may differ in moral customs, but pain, fear, and joy are biologically conserved across species.
That’s why secular moral realism treats them as objective features of sentient life - not mere preferences.

You asked, “Is it good if an evil person flourishes?”
No. Because their flourishing often reduces the well-being of others.
The objective principle is universalised welfare: actions are good insofar as they improve net well-being for all affected sentients.
That principle condemns both tyranny and indulgence when they harm others.

6. “I don’t think God’s actions are good by definition.”

That’s encouraging - it means you accept an independent moral standard.
But if that’s true, then goodness exists apart from God.
Otherwise, you couldn’t meaningfully say, “I have good reason to call God’s actions good.”
The moment you apply any standard - compassion, justice, non-harm - you are already appealing to moral criteria that are not derived from divine command.
That’s precisely the Euthyphro dilemma: either goodness is independent of God, or morality becomes arbitrary - “good” just means “what God prefers.”
You’ve implicitly chosen the first option, which is a secular moral realism.

7. “Can we really know what increases well-being or who is sentient?”

We can know imperfectly but progressively, just as we do in medicine or psychology.
We once didn’t know how germs spread disease; now we do.
Likewise, neuroscience and ethology are increasingly identifying markers of sentience - pain receptors, emotional learning, problem-solving, empathy.
Ethics, like science, improves with evidence.
The fact that our knowledge evolves doesn’t mean morality is subjective - it means it’s empirically refined.

As for happiness not always being good: I agree.
That’s why I refer to well-being, not mere pleasure.
Sadism can produce pleasure, but it decreases the overall well-being of others - therefore, it’s objectively immoral.

Regarding your example: if people were happy that someone was murdered, that happiness doesn’t justify the killing.
Well-being must be weighed for all sentients affected, not just for the perpetrators or onlookers.

8. “Ending evil is good.”

Agreed - ending evil is good.
But the Biblical God often ends life indiscriminately - killing babies, children, sentient animals - all of them are innocent.
That’s not “ending evil”; it’s multiplying suffering and acting unjustly.
If omnipotence and omniscience are real, there would always be a kinder alternative to mass slaughter or eternal torture in hell.
A being who chooses the cruel option cannot be called good in any meaningful sense.

Secular morality is objective because suffering and flourishing are real, measurable states.
Compassion is the most evidence-based guide to increasing well-being.
Religious morality, when based on authority rather than evidence, can justify cruelty just as easily as kindness.
Even believers ultimately use human empathy and reason to judge whether their God is good - proving that morality transcends divine command.

If a perfectly good god exists, his or her words and actions would already align with these principles of compassion and non-harm - not contradict them.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #37]

Thank you for your continued engagement. You raise an important question - one that helps clarify the foundation of my moral reasoning.

1. “What’s your basis for calling unnecessary suffering wrong?”

The basis isn’t arbitrary preference; it’s empirical and evolutionary.
All sentient beings instinctively avoid suffering and seek well-being - this is the biological root of value itself.
Pain signals damage; pleasure signals flourishing.
A moral framework grounded in that shared reality isn’t “subjective whim,” it’s intersubjectively verifiable - we can observe, measure, and agree that suffering harms conscious beings.

That’s why “unnecessary suffering is wrong” is not merely an opinion; it’s a statement about the conditions under which conscious life can thrive.

2. “God can restore the lives of the babies He ordered killed.”

That response doesn’t justify the act; it merely adds a hypothetical compensation.
If a human murdered children and then promised to resurrect them later, we would still call the murder evil.
Restoration after harm doesn’t retroactively make the harm good - it only shows the perpetrator had power, not moral rightness.

Moreover, if God can restore life, He could have achieved the same end without slaughter - for example, by transforming values, preventing conflict, or using painless means.
Choosing violence when peaceful alternatives exist is, by any moral standard, unnecessary cruelty.

Power does not equal goodness; moral goodness is about minimizing avoidable harm.

3. “Do you understand the difference between God and humans?”

Yes - humans are limited, and gods (if they exist) are not. They are allegedly real, omniscient and omnipotent, but there is zero evidence for their existence and their omniscience and omnipotence.
But moral responsibility grows with power. With omnipotence comes omniculpability. An omnipotent God is also omniculpable.
If an omnipotent being freely chooses a violent solution when kinder options were available, that increases, not reduces, moral culpability.
The ability to restore life doesn’t excuse cruelty; it removes the necessity of it.

4. “Do you believe in capital punishment?”

No.
My principle opposes all intentional killing where less harmful alternatives exist.
Capital punishment doesn’t deter crime more effectively than life imprisonment, and it risks killing the innocent - a harm that can never be undone.
A just society can protect itself by humane containment, not execution.
So, by the standard of minimizing suffering and respecting sentient life, the death penalty is morally wrong.

If we applied the same reasoning consistently, the Biblical genocides - killing babies, children, animals, and entire populations - would likewise be wrong, even if done by or ordered by a deity.
Calling it “justice” doesn’t change its moral nature; it merely baptizes violence with divine authority.

5. The core issue

If morality depends only on who performs an act rather than what the act is, then goodness reduces to allegiance, not ethics.
But if morality has consistent meaning - that kindness, empathy, and fairness are better than cruelty and injustice - then those principles apply universally: to humans, gods, and all sentient beings.

Causing avoidable suffering is wrong, regardless of who causes it.
Omnipotence removes the excuse of necessity.
Moral goodness means helping when one can, not harming because one can.

That is why I reject both divine and human killing when compassion could achieve the same end more humanely.