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]

[Replying to 1213 in post #12]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I’ll respond to each of your points in turn.

1. “Good is a matter of opinion in any case.”

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.

2. “If God commands only things that are good.”

That claim restates the very question I asked:

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.

If things are good only because He commands them, then morality is arbitrary - He could command cruelty and it would instantly become “good.”

Either way, divine command theory collapses into contradiction:

If morality depends on God’s nature, we must first use an independent moral standard to call that nature good.
But if morality is God’s nature, the word “good” adds nothing - it just means “God is God.”

3. “I believe if God orders killing, He has a good reason for that.”

That belief assumes the conclusion - it’s a circular argument:

“Whatever God commands is good.” → “How do we know it’s good?” → “Because God commanded it.”

It also removes any moral content from the word “good.”
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.

And if the justification is “I don’t know why, but I trust it was good,” that’s not moral reasoning - it’s surrendering moral reasoning.

4. “Does that mean we should stop aborting a countless number of babies?”

Abortion is a separate and complex issue, and it’s important not to conflate it with genocidal commands.
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.

By contrast, the biblical genocides involve conscious, sentient, feeling infants and children - beings already capable of pain and fear.
So they are not morally comparable.

As for the adrenochrome remark - that’s a conspiracy theory without a scientific or medical basis. Human fetal tissue is used ethically and lawfully in certain medical research contexts, not to harvest “adrenochrome.” Let’s stay grounded in verifiable facts.

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.
A being who “minimizes suffering” by committing atrocities is not good - any more than a dictator who kills citizens to prevent rebellion is good.

True morality isn’t just about outcomes; it’s also about how those outcomes are achieved — with compassion, fairness, and respect for sentient beings’ intrinsic value.

6. In Summary

* Morality cannot be based on mere opinion, or it collapses into relativism.
* Morality cannot be based solely on divine decree, or it collapses into authoritarianism.
* The only coherent grounding for morality is empathy, fairness, and the reduction of suffering - principles that hold whether or not gods exist.

A “good” being, human or divine, would never need to slaughter innocents to achieve goodness.

[SiNcE_1985]

Less misogyny.

Less misanthropy in general.

You're begging the question in favor of your standard...which takes us back to my original question.

"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?"

Good people and bad people, according to whose definition/standard of good, and evil?

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.

It is what it is.

[SiNcE_1985]

Yes, I read about God's selective love, mercy, grace, compassion, rewards, blessings, protection, deliverance and salvation in the Bible.

Yeah, and you also obviously read about God's anger, discipline, judgement, and wrath.

That is about as balanced of a God, as you can get.

"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.

Sure, moral reasoning...according to your moral standard.

I'm still unsure as to why your standard is just, relative to God's.

[Haven]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #22]

You're begging the question in favor of your standard...which takes us back to my original question.

It would only be question-begging if Compassionist were arguing in favor of their own moral standard, but they weren’t doing that.

Yeah, and you also obviously read about God's anger, discipline, judgement, and wrath.

Is it morally justified to be wrathful, angry and judgmental toward literal babies and non-human animals, who have done no wrong? 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 say so. In the context of these passages, your god commands genocide and sexual slavery.

Btw, just to make my position clear, my moral standard is negative utilitarianism. I hold that this is the most rational moral system based on its avoidance of the is-ought problem, its concordance with scientific facts and its recognition of suffering as the one universal binding all sentient life.

[Haven]

I'm still unsure as to why your standard is just, relative to God's.

What is God’s moral standard? How did he decide it was most correct? And how do you know any of this?

[RBD]

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?

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm still unsure as to why your standard is just, relative to God's.

What is God’s moral standard?

Any commandment God gives, is his moral standard.

How did he decide it was most correct?

His commandments reflect his divine immutable nature.

And how do you know any of this?

I know God exists based on simple common sense...and I know the Judeo-Christian God exists based on certain arguments and evidences which points in that specific direction.

[SiNcE_1985]

It would only be question-begging if Compassionist were arguing in favor of their own moral standard, but they weren’t doing that.

But that's exactly what is happening.

Anytime someone says "God is evil" or makes any variation of such a statement as it pertains to God or the Bible...this person is saying...

1. I have my own personal standard of morality.

2. God/The Bible doesn't meet or match my standard of morality.

3. Therefore, God/The Bible is wrong (evil).

Text book example of begging the question.

Is it morally justified to be wrathful, angry and judgmental toward literal babies and non-human animals, who have done no wrong? 1 Samuel 15 and Numbers 31 say so. In the context of these passages, your god commands genocide and sexual slavery.

God's on people (Israel) itself was punished (killed) by God for their numerous acts of disobedience.

So, even much so for evil, pagan nations.

All of the men within those contexts were enemy combatants, and the women were not innocent as verses 15-17 indicate.

And no women were bound to sexual slavery as you claim, while the children had heavenly hopes.

Btw, just to make my position clear, my moral standard is negative utilitarianism. I hold that this is the most rational moral system based on its avoidance of the is-ought problem, its concordance with scientific facts and its recognition of suffering as the one universal binding all sentient life.

Whatever moral position you have, is subjective.

That's the point.

[RBD]

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.

False. The word rape wasn't used, but forcing a woman was illegal rape worthy of death.

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.

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.

It's all a matter of perspective. There are those who say things about the Bible, just to find fault. And then there are those who quote the Bible and teach that.

Neh 8:8
So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

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?

Not forcing women is not new.

And if you want to hash out the topic of 'slavery',

Neither the Old nor New Testament forbid slavery nor polygamy. And the foundation was laid for willing service and monogamy.

Exo 21:5
And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Col 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: doing the will of God from the heart;

Col 4:1
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.

1Ti 3:2
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre;

[Compassionist]

[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.

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. 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.

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.