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.

[POI]

I read of slavery approved, but not rape.

This is because the specific English word "rape" did not yet exist in ancient Hebrew, as the concept as defined today is a modern one. Biblical Hebrew did not have a single legal or technical term that exactly corresponds to the modern, nuanced understanding of "rape", which focuses on a lack of consent. Which, of course, consent was neither necessary or required (by women) in either the result of a) the spoils of war or b) the institution of marriage.

Instead, the Hebrew Bible uses several different verbs and descriptive phrases to refer to forced sexual assault. The biblical concept of sexual violation was viewed primarily through the lens of family honor, economic consequences, and social disgrace, but not the woman's violation of autonomy. Curious...?

Which begs the question... If an all-knowing god produced these commands, did this god not have the foresight to know that lack of consent is a fundamental definition of the word 'rape' today? And before you tackle this question, why was the concept of the modern term 'rape' not realized or understood until well after the apparent all-knowing god laid down what we humans revere as some of the most important violations in "morality" to humans? If I had a nickel for every time a Christian states 'rape' is wrong, I'd have at least a few hundred dollars. And yet, the Bible god completely omits what we later humans understand to be a very clear violation, regarding the topic of 'morality'.

I don't expect much of a viable answer here... It's just another nail in the coffin, as to why you guys are placing your faith upon a man-made collection of incomplete and/or inconsistent set of "moral law(s)".

And if you want to hash out the topic of 'slavery', I have created topic(s) you can join. If you have not seen them, and are interested, feel free to ask.

[1213]

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

Good is a matter of opinion in any case. But, I think if God commands only things that are good. And I think they are not good just because God says so, but because it is the right thing to do.

If the former, then morality becomes arbitrary ...

How could you offer anything else than arbitrary morality? I think it is always matter of opinion and opinions can always be called arbitrary.

Here we face a moral paradox. If killing babies can be called "just" merely because a text claims divine approval, then “innocence” loses meaning entirely. The idea that infants could deserve slaughter undermines the very concept of justice and compassion. It replaces morality with obedience.

I don't know enough about the killing of the babies. Therefore I can't really tell was it just. But, I believe, if God orders killing, He has a good reason for that.

A universal ethical principle would be one that applies equally to all sentient beings, regardless of tribe, faith, or species and including all gods (if they exist). For example: “Help all if you can, harm none if you can avoid it.”
In Compassionist-naturalist terms, moral value arises from the capacity to suffer and flourish, not from divine decree or group identity. Killing an innocent being who can suffer is wrong because it inflicts needless harm, not because of which side of a sacred text the command comes from. All babies are innocent because they are babies, regardless of who their parents were.

I can agree with the idea that ethical principle should be applied equally.

Does that mean we should stop aborting countless number of babies? Abortions are probably the most cruel things humans do, especially when you know how it is often done. Or what would you think, if you would be killed by tearing your body when you are alive? But, I can understand why people do it, the body parts are valuable and the promise of better life for sacrificing your kid can be alluring. It may also be a good way to get adrenochrome.

We have to work out what is true and what is moral. Any being - god or human - who commands or commits acts of cruelty cannot be called good by any ethical standard. If morality collapses into “might makes right,” it ceases to be morality at all.

In short, if morality is to mean anything beyond obedience, it must be grounded in empathy, fairness, and the minimization of suffering - principles that can stand whether or not gods exist.

So, if God minimizes suffering by aborting evil people, it is good?

[SiNcE_1985]

I had a similar experience to yours. After reading the whole Bible

When you read the whole Bible, did you read the parts about God's love, mercy, grace, compassion, rewards, blessings, protection, deliverance, patience, and ultimately, salvation?

Did you read those parts as well?

, I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is evil and imaginary. The Bible is not good news. It is fake news.

To call God evil is to subject him to your standard of goodness...but what makes your standard of goodness the golden standard?

[Difflugia]

To call God evil is to subject him to your standard of goodness...but what makes your standard of goodness the golden standard?

When compared to a morality that cuts off women's hands, makes them drink dirty poop water, and throws rocks at them until they're dead, it doesn't even need to be golden. When the morality standard includes a ritual for raping prisoners of war, even the proverbial unpolishable turd starts to look pretty shiny.

[JehovahsWitness]

MURDER OR KILLING


There is no contradiction in the bible command not to murder since the scriptural premise is that "murder" is any killing unauthorized by the God of the bible. Therefore, any killing (whether of an adult or a child) authorized by God , is biblically not murder. One can agree or disagree with the justice therein but one cannot justifiably argue any internal "contradiction".




JW





RELATED POSTS

Does the global flood prove God a "baby killer"?
viewtopic.php?p=979190#p979190

Did God send bears to kill children?
viewtopic.php?p=830572#p830572

Was God's killing of the Egyptian firstborns justified?
viewtopic.php?p=1138432#p1138432

Was the drowing of Pharaoh and his army justified?
viewtopic.php?p=1041972#p1041972

Why did God command the destruction of the MIDIANITES?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 42#p359442

To learn more please go to other posts related to ....

DIVINE WAR, VIOLENCE and .... THE "BAD" GOD

[SiNcE_1985]

To call God evil is to subject him to your standard of goodness...but what makes your standard of goodness the golden standard?

When compared to a morality that cuts off women's hands, makes them drink dirty poop water, and throws rocks at them until they're dead, it doesn't even need to be golden. When the morality standard includes a ritual for raping prisoners of war, even the proverbial unpolishable turd starts to look pretty shiny.

Well, forget golden; why does your standard have more virtue than any other arbitrary standard, PERIOD...must less God's.

The person who is committing those "atrocities" you mentioned, feels justified..and as long as that's the case, your opinion becomes irrelevant.

[Compassionist]

[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?
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.
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.

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.
If humans are commanded to “do God’s judgments” (Leviticus 18:4), then we must use our moral faculties to discern right from wrong. To forbid moral reasoning while demanding moral obedience is self-contradictory.

Moreover, the moment anyone calls God good, they are already applying a human moral standard of goodness. Otherwise, “God is good” becomes meaningless - it would just mean “God is whatever God is.”

3. “Ezekiel 18:20 refers to spiritual death, not physical death.”

That distinction isn’t found in the text itself. 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.”
If God kills innocent children because of their parents’ actions, that violates even this biblical principle of justice.

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

That statement empties “holy” and “righteous” of any moral content.
If “righteous” does not mean morally right, then saying “God is righteous” is tautological - it merely means “God is God.”
If holiness means nothing that can be recognised as moral goodness (like justice, compassion, or fairness), then calling God “good” becomes incoherent.

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

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

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.

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. 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.

7. Summary

To restate my point more precisely:

* The command “You shall not murder” expresses a moral principle that killing innocents is wrong.
* The genocidal commands directly violate that principle.
* Claiming “God’s definition of good is different from ours” abandons moral consistency.
* Claiming “God has no morality” removes the possibility of calling Him good at all.

Therefore, either God’s commands are morally inconsistent, or the claim that God is morally perfect is incoherent.
No amount of linguistic or theological gymnastics can make “Thou shalt not murder” and “Kill every man, woman, and child” compatible moral teachings.

I am a pacifist, so I would never be a soldier in any war. I am also a vegan, because it is wrong to murder sentient organisms. I am painfully aware that most humans are neither pacifists nor vegans.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

And the fun does not stop there.... I recently opened a thread in which theists could not 'resolve', regarding another contradiction. (viewtopic.php?t=42592&start=220). See post 224 for the exciting conclusion, thus far...

Anywho, have fun with all the presented mental gymnastics, I mean "Christian apologetics" to come your way... Weee!

I am convinced that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary, and the events in the Bible (e.g. Adam and Eve's creation and eviction from Eden, Jesus being conceived without sex, the various miracles in the Old and New Testaments) never actually happened. It's a book full of lies. Jesus is never going to return because he was never divine in the first place. Quoting verses from the Bible does not make the verses true.

[Compassionist]

I had a similar experience to yours. After reading the whole Bible

When you read the whole Bible, did you read the parts about God's love, mercy, grace, compassion, rewards, blessings, protection, deliverance, patience, and ultimately, salvation?

Did you read those parts as well?

, I came to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is evil and imaginary. The Bible is not good news. It is fake news.

To call God evil is to subject him to your standard of goodness...but what makes your standard of goodness the golden standard?

Yes, I read about God's selective love, mercy, grace, compassion, rewards, blessings, protection, deliverance and salvation in the Bible. "Even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will," - Ephesians 1:4-5, The Bible (English Standard Version). It's not about my standard of goodness. It's about moral reasoning. If the God of another religion said and did the things the God of the Bible said and did (according to the Bible), I would consider that God equally evil.

[Difflugia]

Well, forget golden; why does your standard have more virtue than any other arbitrary standard, PERIOD...

Less misogyny.

must less God's.

Less misanthropy in general.

The person who is committing those "atrocities" you mentioned, feels justified..

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil--that takes religion."—Steven Weinberg, "A Designer Universe?"

and as long as that's the case, your opinion becomes irrelevant.

From "God is good" to moral relativism in only two posts. I'm impressed. Now accuse me of a taxicab fallacy and my day will be complete.