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.

[William]

[Replying to Avoice in post #140]

God said dont eat pig

Please provide the supporting evidence that this statement is true.

"And don't eat pork, since pigs have divided hoofs, but they do not chew their cud. Don't even touch a dead pig!"
Deuteronomy 14

Who wrote that?

[Avoice]

[Replying to William in post #141]

I just wrote it. But it was a quote and I gave you the passage. If thats not enough then have bacon with your eggs

[William]

[Replying to William in post #141]

I just wrote it. But it was a quote and I gave you the passage. If thats not enough then have bacon with your eggs

Of course you quoted it but your statement was that God commanded it so I am asking who wrote it. Was it God or someone else.

Once we can sort that out, we can move to examining your beliefs in more detail.

[RBD]

You affirm the latter: whatever the Bible's God commands is good by definition, regardless of human understanding.
I hold instead that moral terms have meaning only if they refer to the reduction of suffering and the promotion of flourishing in sentient beings.

Already noted ad nauseum. You have your own personal moral code. It's not the Bible God's nor mine.

Calling your moral code truth, and judging others by it, doesn't make it true, nor others guilty of evil. Your whole argument of judging others by your moral code is a non-starter, when others don't care, and you have no power to enforce it.

Without that shared referent, “goodness” becomes a mere synonym for “power.”

Correct. Your personal moral code declared to be truth and to judge others thereby, is a statement of power.

Meaningless without the power.

Even Scripture grounds divine goodness in moral intelligibility:

Micah 6:8 – “He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God?”
Hosea 6:6 – “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.”
Matthew 7:12 – “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

If divine goodness were entirely beyond moral comprehension, these verses would be meaningless exhortations.

Since divine goodness is rejected by your moral standard, then those verses only mean to you what you want them to mean, as well as other verses that mean they are evil to you.

God in Scripture does not declare moral standard for moralize men to accept or reject. He declares divine righteousness and eternal truth, for men to repent of other own moral good and accept for themselves, or to reject and justify themselves by their own moral code.

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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.

C. The Epistemic Circularity

Every time you judge one interpretation to preserve “divine righteousness,” you apply human reasoning - linguistic, moral, and inferential.

Every time I judge one interpretation to preserve "Scriptural integrity", I apply intelligent reasoning - linguistically logical.

Interpreting words wrongly, in order to accuse it of error, is undivine lying.

Thus, the claim “I don’t judge God, I only have faith” disguises an unavoidable circularity:
You interpret Scripture → call that interpretation “God’s righteousness” → use it to confirm God’s righteousness.

It declares an unavoidable conclusion, when proving none of His words are unrighteous, lying, nor in error.

Psa 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.


Which is proven when none of the accusations that His words are unrighteousness, lying, or in error, are undivine false accusation against the divine words.

Proving none the commands of the Bible are evil, by proving they are not made evil by any reader's personal moral code, is a divine no-brainer.

Faith in the text still depends on human cognition and moral discernment. Without those faculties, one could not even identify what counts as “righteous.”

Faith in the text still depends on divine intelligence and discernment given by the test. Without those faculties, one could not even identify what counts as “righteous.”, because they still depend on personal moral code. Which is neither divine, true, nor eternal, but only human philosophy with sophist arguments, that only conclude one thing: My own personal moral code is true. Without proving divine righteousness is false.

Col 2:8
Beware lest any man be spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Even the Bible warns against equating divine favor with moral rightness:

The Bible warns against equating human morality with divine righteousness.

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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.

Isaiah 1:17 – “Learn to do right; seek justice; defend the oppressed.”
Proverbs 21:3 – “To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.”
These verses assume that righteousness is intelligible and discernible - not arbitrary decree.

These verses assume that divine righteousness is intelligent and understood. And it's not arbitrary morality.

A system in which divine command defines right and wrong has no independent moral standard.

Correct. Now you got it. It doesn't assume, but rather declares that no independent moral code will ever change it.

The moment moral meaning depends entirely on external decree, moral language loses its normative force.

Correct. Your on a role. Your moral language is neither normal nor enforced.

God has divine righteousness with power to enforce it.

That is not morality - it is the surrender of moral reasoning to authority.

Exactly again. That is righteous power demanding surrender of moral code to it's eternal authority.

[RBD]

The result is not piety but moral nihilism disguised as worship.

It's pious worship if surrendered freely and gladly.

Acts{3:19}
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:


It's unsurrendered moral self-repression to disguise worship.
Jer 3:8
And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned unto me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.

F. An evidence-based alternative

Within a deterministic ontology, moral responsibility arises not from metaphysical freedom but from causal empathy: the recognition that all beings share vulnerability and capacity for suffering.
Goodness is thus measurable: actions are good insofar as they reduce involuntary suffering and enhance well-being for all sentient life.

This standard is neither arbitrary nor decreed - it is grounded in the biological and experiential realities of sentient organisms.
Unlike Divine Command Theory, it can be publicly examined, tested, and improved through evidence and empathy.

I.e. go green and don't eat animals. Oh boy.

Pro 10:19
In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise.

G. On Punishment and Compassion

Rom 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Rom 12:19
Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Yet deterrence and compassion are not opposites.

Destroying the evil to save the good, is compassion on the good by vengeance on the evil.

A scientific framework holds offenders accountable causally (by altering future conditions), not retributively.
The goal is prevention, rehabilitation, and the reduction of total suffering - not vengeance.

Perfect philosophy for unrestrained evil in the name of rehabilitation.

Ecc 8:11
Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil.

Even the Bible links justice with mercy rather than cruelty:

Zechariah 7:9 – “Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another.”
James 2:13 – “Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Justice, in this view, is restorative - not divine retribution cloaked in righteousness.

Even when someone's personal morals must concede divine righteousness, it must still find fault.

Personal morality of man, is personal right to defy divine righteousness, and to judge it rather than be judged by it.

Gen 3:4
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 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.

There is one lie, one truth, and one unspoken false promise: That ye shall not surely die. That ye shall be as gods defining your own good and evil. And that ye be as gods forever.

The lie is not being dead to God and His righteousness. The truth is being gods with own personal moral code. The false promise is being as gods forever. It all ends in the grave. And everyone knows it, and no one's morality will prevent it.

H. Conclusion: Moral Meaning or Divine Power?

Exactly. Repent for divine power, or die for moral meaning.

Deu 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:

Eze 33:11
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Moralists defying divine righteousness, can tell themselves, sing songs, and right books about dying for their own moral meaning. Which ends in the grave:

Jas 4:14
Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.

The crucial question is not whether God can command anything,

True. That's not in question. He has abundantly in so many words...

but whether moral language remains meaningful when detached from sentient welfare.

The only question is whether moral language and detached sentient welfare, can countermand God's commands. The grave answers it forever.

Morality is not the echo of divine command

Now this is truly spot on.

Man's morality isn't even an echo of God's divine righteousness. It's what I've been saying all alone: God's righteousness is not moral, and man's morality is not righteous.

As Jesus himself affirmed in Matthew 12:7 and Luke 6:36:
“If you had known what these words mean, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent… Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

Quoting from a Book with favor, that is attacked with disfavor, is called hypocrisy.

For long time now, I've seen the folly of having accusative unbelievers trying to tell me how to live by a Book, that they condemn so openly...I.e. I don't let false accusers of God and Christ, tell me how to be a God-loving Christian.

[RBD]

If moral language has “nothing to do” with divine righteousness, then all human attempts to understand what “righteousness” means collapse into incoherence.

Correct. Since man's morality will not comprehend divine righteousness, then repenting of personal morality is the only way to receive divine righteousness.

Isa 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isa 55:7Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

In other words, to deny a shared moral framework between God and humanity is to deny the possibility of meaningful moral discourse about God.

Exactly.

All moral discourse about God's divine righteousness, is meaningless.

Denying there is a shared moral framework between God and man is to repent of our our own morality, and receiving His righteousness.

Which of course is by faith in His righteousness, not our own morality.

Rom 10:3
For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

In other words, to choose one's own moral framework rather than God's righteousness, is to deny the possibility of meaningful discourse with God.

Isa 1:18
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isa 55:8
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Yes, the verse emphasizes the transcendence of God’s wisdom, not the irrelevance of human reasoning.

Yes, the verse declares the transcendence of God’s righteousness, and the irrelevance of human morality.

The same Scriptures also say, “Come now, and let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
If human reasoning were wholly invalid, then God’s invitation to “reason together” would be nonsensical.

No, because God's reasoning ends in judgment and destruction for those who refuse to reason His way, rather than their own.

...But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

Isa 66:16
For by fire and by his sword will the LORD plead with all flesh: and the slain of the LORD shall be many.

The prophetic writers presuppose that divine righteousness, though higher, remains intelligible.

The prophets 'presuppose' nothing. They only quote God's words of righteousness.

2 Pe 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So we see here the difference between reading the Bible with faith in the God and words thereof, vs reading the same words with personal morality and reasoning to deny them. You have no clue what the God is saying to you in the Bible, because He's not 'sharing' your presupposed morality and reasoning, which is all you have faith in...

Otherwise, revelation itself would be pointless

It only is to those who trust in their own moral truth, but not to all:

Rom 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

If the Biblical God is real and made us and everything else, then our limitations are 100% his fault.

And, of course, it's God's fault.

Jer 2:35
Yet thou sayest, Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me. Behold, I will plead with thee, because thou sayest, I have not sinned.

It's God's fault for pleading and warning in plain language, the cost of refusing His righteousness for one's own personal morality. Which of course justifies themselves rather than God.

Anyone declaring their own personal moral code to be eternal truth without vote, is declaring themselves to be the one above all. Until the grave, of course.

If he had made angels, humans equally all-knowing and all-powerful, we would all have equal thoughts and equal ways.

Gen 1:26
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

He did. Until man turns from His righteous command, to judge by their own moral code.

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.

[RBD]

The Bible God's righteousness and just judgment can be reasonably understood by any person on earth. It has nothing to do with any person imposing their moral reasoning on the Bible God.

Here, the position becomes self-contradictory. You affirm that divine righteousness can be “reasonably understood by any person on earth,” yet simultaneously deny that moral reasoning has anything to do with that understanding. But “reasonably understood” already implies the use of human moral and rational faculties.

Here, the position remains trusting in personal morality, and refuses to comprehend anything else.

Affirming that divine righteousness can be “reasonably understood by any person on earth,” does not affirm that that moral reasoning has anything to do with that understanding. Divine righteousness “reasonably understood” already implies no use for human moral faculties.

We see here how moral self-righteousness can become all that the moralist sees, and will not see anything else than there own morality, nor even comprehend anything else that does not share it.

Jhn 1:5
And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world…

No one trusting in their own moral code and reasoning, can comprehend any divine righteousness, that does not share anything with their moral code and reasoning. That is not why but because they demand any righteousness must be shared with their own moral code and reasoning, rather than being dismissed out of hand...They will not comprehend, that their moral code and reasoning is darkness refusing light, burt rather see their morality is light that all righteousness must shine with:

Mat 6:23
But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

If all we have is an eye for our own morality, then all we have is a fullness of darkness that is greater than any light can shine to.

Gen 1:1
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was not light.

So it is with only an eye for one's own moral code and reasoning, that is wholly confused about truth, and will not see any true light of divine righteousness at all...

If those faculties are inherently “false light,” as you later claim, then no one could ever understand divine righteousness - not even you.

Only if I repent not like you. But I do see, because I repent, unlike you. And you do not see, because you do not repent, unlike me.

And the result? I know my God in whom I trust. And who do you know and trust, other than your own self in whom you trust? I was like you, but now not at all like you.

I see the true light of divine righteousness has nothing to do with man's morality, who is separated from God, and you see your own light in separation from God.

To claim understanding while rejecting the only tools that make understanding possible (reason, moral intuition, empathy) is to make comprehension impossible by definition.

Exactly again.

Man's moral tools are not the only tools, unless they have an eye only for their own moral tools. It makes impossible any reasoning between the true God and moral man trusting in himself...

Psa 118:8
It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Abraham’s question - “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) - only makes sense if “right” has a meaning accessible to human moral reason.

Abraham’s question - “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” (Gen. 18:25) - only makes sense if “right” has a meaning only from the Judge.

Moral reasoning is false light.

If moral reasoning is “false light,” then all Scriptural appeals to human conscience, repentance, or justice are equally false.

So, you're abandoning morality to make righteous sense. There is no Scriptural appeal to moral conscience, repentance, and justice.

If moral reasoning is “false light,” then all all human moral conscience, repentance, and justice appeals to Scripture are equally false.

The prophets repeatedly call people to repent for doing evil and to learn to do good (Isaiah 1:17). Such imperatives are meaningful only if humans possess a capacity to discern good from evil- however imperfectly

Exactly again, you have now departed from moral argument, and so argue with divine intelligence. You see, you can do it, but for how long?

Such imperatives are meaningless only if humans use a moral capacity to discern good from evil - completely imperfectly.

How much perfection does it take to discern flee from fornication, and a drunkard shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Unless one's moral code and reasoning allows for some drunken fornication...

It's not about understanding words, but about comprehending the commandment of them. You mean, NO drunken fornication, AT ALL?! Yes. Not even a little? Yes. No way God, that's no command for me...

Let's here the sum of your whole matter with God of the Bible: How can anyone comprehend God's divine righteousness, that allows for no shared human moral understanding?! -minus the scholastic fluff...

[RBD]

To call that discernment “false light” is to accuse the very moral awareness that Scripture presupposes as its audience.

There. That's better. Back on the wrong track again.

To call that discernment “false light” is to accuse the very moral awareness that Scripture presupposes it's audience to repent of.

Morality has no meaning. Even as darkness has no light. It's not God's will and true light at all.

If morality has no meaning, then all human moral judgments - including your claim that God is righteous - become meaningless.

Since morality has no meaning to God, then all human moral judgments - that excludes God is righteous - become meaningless.

The entire contrast between righteousness and wickedness dissolves, since both require moral differentiation.
The entire contrast between righteousness and wickedness , since both require moral differentiation.

The entire contrast between righteousness and wickedness dissolves, since both require moral differentiation.

The entire contrast between righteousness and wickedness is clear, since neither requires moral differentiation.

1Jo 1:5
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

All morality differentiates with itself in darkness outside the light.

This leads to theological nihilism: a God who commands whatever He wills, with no reference to moral rightness or wrongness, cannot be called righteous in any coherent sense. One could just as easily say “God is unrighteous” and it would make no semantic difference, since all moral categories are declared void.

This leads to moral nullification: a God who commands whatever He wills, with no reference to moral rightness or wrongness, cannot be called moral righteous in any moral sense. One could just as easily say “God is unrighteous” and it would make moral difference, since all moral categories are declared valid.

Which is why the moral crusader against god's righteousness declares God is unrighteous by his own moral code, as if it makes a difference to God.

It means agreeing God is righteous altogether and all powerful. Not moral.

Then “righteous” here functions as a synonym for “powerful.” Yet the Biblical narrative constantly distinguishes power from righteousness. Pharaoh was powerful; so were Babylon and Rome.

And when righteous, were made powerful. And when became unrighteous, were made unpowerful.

Pro 14:34
Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

How much power has a moral code that condemns God and 99% of all people? Thankfully to God, none, except that of the mind..

To call God “righteous” must therefore mean something more than omnipotence - it must entail moral praiseworthiness.

To call God “righteous” must therefore mean something more than omnipotence - it must entail praiseworthiness greater than moral platitudes.

Otherwise, there's really nothing more to say about His righteousness in terms of man's morality. There's no valid comparison nor common language between them.

And yet you continue to use language - human language - to speak of divine righteousness. Every word in Scripture and every sermon, including your own, depends on the very communicative bridge you deny.

I continue to use language - human language - to speak of divine righteousness without morality. Every word in Scripture and every sermon depends on no communicative moral bridge.

2Pe 2:5
And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Preach righteousness without morality, and righteousness is all that's preached, not any morality.

I have never taught nor preached Scripture with morality. I leave that to the moral sermonizers of their own morality, that is no doubt bridged by similar moral sermonizers against the righteousness of God.

If there is “no common language” between divine and human goodness, then revelation cannot be understood, commandments cannot be obeyed, and theology itself becomes self-refuting.

Since there is nothing in common between divine and human goodness, then divine revelation cannot be understood by human morality, divine commandments cannot be obeyed by moral code, and divine theology itself becomes self-asserting.

In that case, silence would be the only consistent position.

Correct. Without repentance of personal moral code condemning righteousness of God, then there is indeed complete silence between self-moral man and God:

Jde 1:12
Clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

But the very fact that we can discuss these concepts shows that moral reasoning is the necessary medium through which divine claims are interpreted.

Seriously? This is not a discussion, and never has been. It's a debate between irreconcilable opposites: Man condemning God's righteousness by their own morality...And defense of God's righteousness that has no morality of man.

Phl 1:17
Knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Isa 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

Conclusion

By declaring moral reasoning “false light,” your view severs the semantic bridge that allows words like righteousness, justice, and goodness to mean anything. The result is not divine transcendence but moral unintelligibility.

Absolutely correct.

By declaring moral reasoning “false light,” it severs any semantic bridge that allows words like righteousness, justice, and goodness to mean anything like morality. The result is divine condemnation for moral unintelligibility.

A coherent theism must preserve some continuity - however asymmetrical - between divine and human moral understanding. Otherwise, to call God “righteous” is no different from calling fire “wet” or silence “loud.” It turns revelation into paradox and worship into surrender to arbitrary might.

God's divine theism must not preserve any continuity - symmetrical or asymmetrical - between divine and human moral understanding. Otherwise, it's only another semantic philosophically incoherent theism to moralists, that condemn divine righteousness by their own incoherent morality.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #89]

I have only one question: Why are you so angry at the God who is both perfectly loving and fully just? All he does is let the people who live their whole lives without him have their own way after death, as their lives go on without him. I ask again, why are you so vindictive about the God of the Bible, who loves you as your Creator, @Compassionist?

Please see: https://www.evilbible.com and https://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html if you have the time to explore both websites in detail. If you don't have that much time, here are some of the reasons the Biblical God, if he/she/it/they exist(s), has done/is doing/will do more evil than good.

God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve

In Genesis 2:16 and 17 the Bible (New International Version) says:
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die."

If after eating the forbidden fruits, Adam and Eve died just as God had said, then that would have been just and consistent with God's Words. However, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruits, instead of just Adam and Eve just dying:
1. God evicted them from Eden.
2. God punished Eve and all her daughters (an estimated 54 billion and counting) with painful childbirths.
3. God evicted all the other species from Eden, too, and makes herbivores, parasites, carnivores and omnivores instead of making all the species non-consumers.
4. God punished humans with having to toil to survive.
5. God commanded humans to reproduce which leads to more suffering and death. Ruling over other creatures causes suffering and death to those creatures, too. "God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."" - Genesis 1:28, The Bible (NIV)

These acts are cruel and unjust and totally inconsistent with what God had said to Adam and Eve which was they would just die if they ate the forbidden fruits. God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve.

If God had made Adam, Eve, the angels, all the other species all-knowing and all-powerful, then they would all be making perfect choices. It is 100% God's fault that Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge. If they were all-knowing and all-powerful, they would not have the desire to gain knowledge, as they would already have known everything there is to know.

I didn't ask to come into existence. No living thing does. I would have preferred it if I had never existed. If God is real and actually did the things the Bible claims, then these cruel, unjust and inconsistent actions make the Biblical God evil.

Global genocide - The Global Flood

Genesis 6:13, 7:21-23 (ESV)

“And God said to Noah, ‘I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence through them. Behold, I will destroy them with the earth.’ … And all flesh died that moved on the earth, birds, livestock, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm on the earth, and all mankind. Everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died.”
Summary: God kills virtually every living creature on Earth, sparing only Noah's family and the selected animals in Noah's Ark.

Genocide of Sodom and Gomorrah

Genesis 19:24-25 (ESV)

“Then the LORD rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the LORD out of heaven. And he overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.”
Summary: Two entire cities are burned alive - men, women, and children - for collective sin.

The Ten Plagues of Egypt (mass suffering and death)

Exodus 12:29-30 (ESV)

“At midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And Pharaoh rose up in the night … and there was a great cry in Egypt, for there was not a house where someone was not dead.”
Summary: Every Egyptian firstborn - including infants, sentient animals and prisoners - is killed by God.

Genocides ordered in Canaan

Deuteronomy 20:16-17 (ESV)

“But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the LORD your God has commanded.”
Summary: Explicit divine command to exterminate entire populations.

1 Samuel 15:2-3 (ESV)

“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel … 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.’”
Summary: A total genocide command including infants and animals.

Slavery sanctioned and regulated, instead of banned

Leviticus 25:44-46 (ESV)

“As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. … You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers … you shall not rule one over another ruthlessly.”
Summary: Permanent enslavement of foreigners is explicitly permitted.

Human child sacrifice ordered (later revoked)

Genesis 22:2, 12 (ESV)

“He said, ‘Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering…’”
“He said, ‘Do not lay your hand on the boy…’”
Summary: God tests Abraham by commanding the killing of his child - a psychological act of cruelty, even if halted. Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful being need to test anyone? It makes no sense.

Mass slaughter of boys, men and non-virgin women and sexual slavery of virgin girls

Numbers 31:17-18 (ESV)

“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.”
Summary: Command to kill boys and non-virgin women; keep virgin girls as sex slaves.

Sevenfold punishment and cannibalism (threat)

Leviticus 26:27-29 (ESV)

“But if in spite of this you will not listen to me, but walk contrary to me, then I will walk contrary to you in fury, and I myself will discipline you sevenfold for your sins. You shall eat the flesh of your sons, and you shall eat the flesh of your daughters.”
Summary: God threatens to make His people resort to cannibalism as punishment.

Eternal torment in Hell

Matthew 25:46 (ESV)

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Revelation 14:10-11 (ESV)

“He also will drink the wine of God’s wrath … and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night.”

Mark 9:43-48 (ESV)

“It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire … where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.”
Summary: Eternal conscious torment for unbelievers - infinite punishment for finite crimes.

Matthew 25:41 (ESV)

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.’”

Revelation 20:10 (ESV)

“...and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.”

Luke 13:27-28 (ESV)

“But he will say, ‘I tell you, I do not know where you come from. Depart from me, all you workers of evil!’ In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.”

Matthew 13:49-50 (ESV)

“So it will be at the close of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Divine deception and hardening of hearts

Exodus 9:12 (ESV)

“But the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and he did not listen to them, as the LORD had spoken to Moses.”
Summary: God prevents Pharaoh from repenting, then punishes him for it.

2 Thessalonians 2:11 (ESV)

“Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false.”
Summary: God intentionally deceives some people.

Killing for minor offenses

Numbers 15:32-36 (ESV)

“While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day… And the LORD said to Moses, ‘The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.’”

2 Kings 2:23-24 (ESV)

“He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.”
Summary: Death penalty for collecting firewood on the wrong day, and 42 small boys murdered by bears because they made fun of a prophet's baldness.

Collective punishment across generations

Exodus 20:5 (ESV)

“For I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me.”
Summary: Descendants are punished for ancestors’ actions - contrary to the Bible’s own later law: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.” - Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV).

Predestination

Ephesians 1:4-5 (ESV)

“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,”

John 6:44 (ESV)

“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
Summary: God predestined who would be saved and who would be damned forever. It is absurd and utterly cruel and unjust.

Conclusion

These verses show that the Biblical God, by the Bible’s own words, kills entire populations, including children and animals, endorses slavery, inflicts suffering, threatens eternal torture in hell, hardens hearts or deceives minds, and predestinates who would be saved and who would be damned, removing moral responsibility.

When the acts attributed to God are judged by the same moral standards the Bible applies to humans - such as “You shall not kill,” “Love your neighbour,” and “Love your enemies” - they fit the description of moral evil far more often than benevolence. The Biblical God is a hypocrite who has killed and has failed to love his neighbours and enemies.

That’s why I conclude that, if the Biblical God exists and the Biblical text is true, His recorded actions are predominantly evil rather than good.

There are also extra-Biblical reasons. At least 99.9% of all the species that have existed so far on Earth are already extinct. Every year, non-vegans cause suffering and death to 80 billion sentient land organisms (e.g. cattle, chickens, pigs, lambs, goats, ducks, turkeys, etc.) and 1 to 3 trillion sentient aquatic organisms (e.g. fish, lobsters, octopuses, crabs, etc.). Life is full of suffering, injustice, and death. An allegedly all-knowing and all-powerful being, such as the Biblical God, could have prevented all suffering, injustice, and death, but failed to do so. He could have made all organisms made of energy that don't need to consume anything to live forever, but he didn't do that. So, all suffering, injustice, and death are his fault. If he had not created anything, no one would have the burden of existence or the risk of making mistakes. If he had made everyone he had made all-knowing and all-powerful, then everyone would always make perfect choices, and no one would have made any mistakes due to ignorance or incompetence or trickery.

I am an agnostic regarding the existence of God(s) because it is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God(s). However, I am convinced that the Biblical God is imaginary and evil. He is imaginary because there is no evidence for the claims made in the Bible. He is evil because of his many evil words and actions in the Bible. I created a thread requesting evidence for Biblical events: viewtopic.php?t=42683 If you can prove Biblical events by evidence, please do. The Bible doesn't count as evidence for the claims in the Bible, just as other religious books don't count as evidence for the claims in those religious books.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Capbook in post #82]

As finite being I cannot fully grasp the all-knowing God's eternal righteousness.

That’s precisely the problem. If something is unknowable even in principle, then it cannot be meaningfully called “righteous.” The word “righteous” has no content unless it refers to actions or principles that can be assessed as ethical or unethical. Appealing to mystery ends the discussion rather than illuminating it.

As you wish to be all-knowing and all-powerful, let's just take this for an example. You as a good and upright being having the two "all," knows that a certain family of any reasons hates you and your family, had an unstoppable deceptive plan to kill all members of your family. Would you allow them to fulfill it?

Your analogy assumes that violence is the only available solution, but that’s a false dichotomy. I could use my omniscience and omnipotence to make everyone (i.e. all organisms, angels, demons, etc.) equally omniscient and omnipotent, which would protect everyone from harm as it is impossible to harm omniscient and omnipotent beings.

Compassionist, do you believe on supernatural things?

I don't believe in anything supernatural because I proportionate my beliefs to evidence.