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 RBD in post #176]

Scripture doesn't speak of man's morality as an argument, period.

Scripture constantly addresses human moral conduct:

• Do not murder
• Do not steal
• Care for the widow and orphan
• Do justice
• Love mercy

Those are moral categories.

If Scripture truly had “no morality there, there,” then these commands would be unintelligible.

The very act of calling something “evil,” “wicked,” or “sinful” presupposes moral distinction.

You cannot deny the category while using it.

There is no morality in Scripture of God's righteousness, at all.

If that were true, then words like:

• Righteous
• Just
• Holy
• Good

would carry no evaluative meaning.

But Scripture itself contrasts:

• Justice vs oppression
• Mercy vs cruelty
• Faithfulness vs deceit

These are moral distinctions.

If they are not moral, then what are they?

Since all human moral judgments are meaningless, then no human utterance about God’s righteousness carries content either. Therefore, only quoting Scripture carries content.

Quoting Scripture is still a human act of interpretation.

You select verses.
You interpret them.
You apply them.

If human judgment is wholly meaningless, then:

• Your selection of verses has no meaningful validity.
• Your interpretation has no authority.
• Your distinction between true and false teaching collapses.

Appealing to Scripture does not bypass human cognition.
It relies on it.

If righteousness and wickedness require no moral distinction, then moral distinction collapses into indistinguishable labels.

That does not follow.

The issue is not whether moral distinctions collapse.

The issue is whether your position collapses them.

If righteousness cannot be understood morally at all, then the distinction between righteousness and wickedness becomes opaque.

You cannot both:

• Deny shared moral intelligibility
• Continue using evaluative language meaningfully

Invoking “light” and “darkness” dissolves gray moral distinctions — those truths work because God is light.

The metaphors of light and darkness only function because humans already grasp the moral contrast they symbolize.

If humans had no moral awareness whatsoever, the metaphor would fail.

A warning only works if the hearer understands what is being warned against.

A call to repentance only works if the hearer recognizes wrongdoing.

Recognition presupposes moral cognition.

Your morality will never be so much as acknowledged by the Bible.

This is not about “my morality.”

The question is conceptual:

If human moral awareness is entirely invalid, then Scripture’s moral exhortations are unintelligible.

If human moral awareness is partially valid (even imperfectly), then moral reasoning cannot be dismissed outright.

You cannot require repentance while denying the cognitive capacity to recognize moral failure.

Only quoting Scripture carries content of God's righteousness.

Quoting text does not automatically generate meaning or make it true.

Meaning arises through interpretation. Truth is proven through evidence.

If interpretation uses human faculties — language comprehension, inference, evaluation — then human cognition is not wholly meaningless.

And once human cognition is admitted as functional, moral reasoning cannot be declared “mere vapor” without self-contradiction.

The tension remains:

If divine righteousness is utterly beyond moral comprehension, then calling it “good” communicates nothing.

If it communicates something, then moral concepts must be at least partially intelligible.

You continue to use moral language while denying its legitimacy.

That is the unresolved contradiction.

[Tcg]

Yes. No.

You'll need to pick a lane. It is logically impossible to be both. Of course, that may not bother you.


Tcg

[RBD]

If God's righteousness is explicitly non-moral, then calling God “good” is not a moral statement. It becomes a declaration of supremacy, power, or authority — not goodness in any recognizable ethical sense.

Since your morality is explicitly not God's righteousness, then calling yourself moral is not a righteous statement. It becomes a declaration of supremacy, power, and authority of your morality over God'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.

I will say honestly, more than any other person, you have perfectly defined for me the error of being a god to oneself by your own moral standard, over the righteousness and true holiness of the good and eternal God and Creator of heaven and earth.

The problem of course is that you and your morality ends in the grave, unless you have 'faith' beyond the grave? In any case, the promise of being a god to oneself on earth is from the lie, that ye gods shall not surely die...

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.

You cannot both:

• Deny that divine righteousness is moral
• Continue to use moral praise language (“good,” “holy,” “just”) in a meaningful way
If “good” does not refer to moral goodness, then it is no longer ethical language at all.

Dittoes again with your personal morality being for yourself alone the foundation of good, holy, and just. Your own personal foundation that ends in the grave.

Thanks again for such clear example of personally fulfilling the half true/half false promise of Gen 3:4.

Scripture doesn't make moral exhortations, only moral men that have not the righteousness of the holy God above.

Scripture repeatedly commands:

• Do justice
• Love mercy
• Care for the poor
• Do not murder
• Do not oppress

Those are moral categories.

If those commands are not moral exhortations, then what are they?

The righteousness and true holiness of the eternally good God, of course. Which you reject for your own personal morality unto the grave.

If humans are incapable of moral discernment, then they cannot understand what is being commanded.

Since moralists make their own moral discernment for themselves, then they refuse to understand and obey the righteous commandment of the true God.

I reject it out of hand. You're free to reason it all you want. No one else must engage it.

Rejecting moral reasoning is not the same as refuting it.

Freely rejecting your morality without consequence, is refuting your self-godhood.

That is a theological stance, not an argument.

Rejecting and refusing to even argue your morality, is proof of a stance for the liberty of life.

If divine righteousness is beyond moral evaluation, then calling it “good” is not an ethical claim — it is a statement of allegiance.

Correct. The Bible God is not moral nor ethical, nor argues with the morality and ethics of men's own relative ideologies, that all end in the grave.

God is light, without any darkness at all. He doesn't argue with man's own morality and ethics, but just refuses and rebukes it.

2Co 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

That is not an argument against morality.
It is an exit from the discussion.

Exactly.

The accusation of the Bible God contradicting His own commandments, based upon man's own relative morality and ethics, is a non-starter. It only proves that man's own short-lived morality and ethics is not the eternal God's righteous judgment and true holiness.

And the discussion about why man's morality has nothing to do with the Bible God's righteousness, has been interesting. But that too is simply a matter of some people personally choosing their own temporary morality to the grave, over doing eternal righteousness with everlasting glory.

1Jo 2:15
For all that is in the world, and the morality thereof, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the morality thereof: but he that doeth the righteous will of God abideth for ever.

[RBD]

Moral arguments are meaningless beside divine eternal righteousness.

They are only meaningless if one assumes — without demonstration — that such divine righteousness exists and is perfect.

Moral arguments are only meaningful to them that reject divine righteousness and perfect judgment.

Moral arguments are only meaningless to them, that believe and trust in divine righteousness and perfect judgment.

Moral arguments are only made by moral unbelievers from their own minds. Divine righteousness and perfect judgment is declared by righteous believers from Scripture.

The former only argues for their own temporary things, and the latter only argues for God's eternal things.

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

You cannot declare moral reasoning irrelevant by presupposing the conclusion that God is perfectly righteous. That is circular.

You cannot declare moral reasoning relevant by presupposing the conclusion that God is not perfectly righteous. That is circular.

You cannot prove that God is not perfectly righteous. But any man can prove your moral reasoning is irrelevant, by rejecting and refusing to argue with it.

The structure becomes:

1. God is perfectly righteous.
2. Perfect righteousness cannot be judged by imperfect morality.
3. Therefore moral critique is meaningless.

Well said.

But premise (1) is what needs to be established.

1 does not need to be proven, in order to prove moral critique is meaningless, by not critiquing mortality, and rejecting it out of hand.

Do you not agree it's a waste of time to argue against the perfect, by arguing for the imperfect?

If something is genuinely perfect, then moral reasoning will not defeat it.

And once again, here is where the true light does shine to you. Which is because you are at least honest about your moral objection to the Bible God of light. Those who choose their own morality by their faith alone in the name of Christ, are the dishonest that the true light cannot shine to.

Now, you have a clear choice to repent of your own temporary morality, that you know ends in the grave, and ask for the faith of resurrected Jesus Christ, to seek and do His eternal righteousness with Him forever.

2Co 4:6
For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Once again, this in not objectionable preaching for conversion, since it is in reasonable context of the argument at hand.

Since you acknowledge that your morality cannot be the perfect righteousness of the Bible God, and that it's meaningless to argue by your morality against His righteousness, and finally that your morality is presumed by unbelief in the perfect God, then you have a choice made available to you by that God's crucified and risen Son, to repent and personally see for yourself before the grave.

Rom 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

[RBD]

You acknowledge that if the perfect Bible God does exist with His perfect righteousness, then morality being imperfect, is not a functional argument for debate.

No.

Even if God exists and is perfect, moral language must remain intelligible.

Only for those that reject the righteous judgment of the perfect One, and also seek to replace it with their own moral judgment.

There are some that reject the righteous judgment of God, and don't bother trying to invent their own morality instead.

And there are a few with God, that reject all relative morality and don't use moral language at all. It's all unintelligible arguments that end in the grave. Moralists are free to live and die by them, but after that their moral works will be judged by the righteous Bible God:

Heb{9:27}
It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Since the Bible is the only Book on earth that declares the perfection of righteous law and judgment, then the Bible can be the only Book on earth that could possibly be written by that eternally perfect God in heaven.

This argument fails for multiple reasons:

1. It assumes uniqueness equals truth.
Many religious texts claim perfection, divine origin, or ultimate authority. The Quran does. The Bhagavad Gita does. Many other religious books do.

False. This is where you moral theorizing tries to bleed over into grammatical fact.

The Buddha does not declare to have eternal truth, nor says what it is. The Gita only seeks to restore 'moral balance', but does not declare to be righteous and perfect in judgment, or what 'his' eternal righteousness and judgment is. The same for Muhammed who only declares his God Allah is eternal, but never says 'he' has eternal wisdom and truth, nor declares 'his' law to be perfect. Muhammed only gives his own personally mixed up variation of the law of Moses.

NO OTHER BOOK on earth, other then the Bible, has an Author declaring Himself perfectly righteous with perfect judgment, and give His righteous judgments for all to read, understand, and obey or disobey.

Job 28:12
But where shall wisdom be found? and where is the place of understanding?

Job 28:23
God understandeth the way thereof, and he knoweth the place thereof. And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

Having been a Socratic philosopher and reader of Plato, this one declaration in the Bible won me to the Bible, where at least someone is declaring what wisdom is, not what wisdom is not.

Granted, more must be read from the Bible to know exactly what the fear of the Lord is, and what is good vs evil, but at least the Author makes a plain declaration of what they are, not just hints at them in philosophic, moral, or mystical arguments.

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

The nonrighteous nonperfect moralists can certainly object to the LORD's declared righteous judgments, for men and women to be eternally judged by, but relative and nonconclusive moral and ethical arguments prove only, that moralists simply object to them.

And so, if anyone is going to read a Book for perfection in eternal righteous judgment and true holiness, then it can only be from the Bible whose God declares Himself to be, and have, and teach it. It's certainly not going to be from all the other book authors, that don't declare having it in the first place.

[RBD]

A book claiming to be flawless does not establish that it is. The Bible is full of inaccuracies and self-contradictions. Please see: https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/categories.html

I don't run off to other websites. You've failed to prove contradiction in one area. If you want to try another, I'd be glad to look at it.

But remember, it must be a contradictory error within the Bible itself, not something contradicted by a person's own moral ethics, or they just don't 'believe' it.

Even if the Bible uniquely declared perfect righteousness, it would not logically follow that it was written by a perfect God.

Granted. However, it certainly proves to be written by many perfect authors, over thousands of years, from many different places and backgrounds.

However, they would be proven liars in one obvious way: THEY declare their writings are from the one true and eternal LORD God Almighty.

2 Tim 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

So, if you want to say that a perfect book is written by imperfect writers, then that's as dysfunctional as saying perfect law is proven false by imperfect morality.

[RBD]

Yes. No.

You'll need to pick a lane. It is logically impossible to be both. Of course, that may not bother you.


Tcg

Ok. Yes God's righteous commandments are divine. No, they are not morally right. Obeying the righteous commandments of God is being right with God. Doing the morally right things of man, is being right with man.

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

Eph 4:24
And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Morality is man's own knowledge of good and evil, by rejecting God's divine 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.


The moral man seeks to be morally right with the world. The righteous man seeks to be righteous with the God of heaven and earth.

Mat 6:33
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

1Jo 2:15
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the morality thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.


The righteousness of God is with a pure heart of divine nature. The morality of man is self-control with lust of the world.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #175]

The divine tools of God are faith and righteousness by His Spirit in Jesus Christ.

You were asked to name tools other than moral reasoning without presupposing the conclusion.

What you have offered is:

• Scripture
• Faith in Scripture
• The Spirit affirmed by Scripture

That is not an alternative epistemic tool.

That is not alternative tools for the natural man:

1Co 2:14
For the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

They are tools for the spiritual man to have and use.

Just because you refuse tools others have, doesn't mean we don't have and use them.

Your argument is self-justifying foolishness. The perfect cannot be challenged and ruled by the imperfect. Nor can them that have, be taken away by them that have not. Riches of this world can be stolen by the thief, but not the riches of the Spirit by the adversary.

Jas 2:5
Hearken, my beloved brethren, God hath chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him.

The unbelieving Jews also trusted only in their own moral tools.

Even within the biblical narrative, Abraham reasons with God:

“Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” - Genesis 18:25 (KJV).

Already answered. Either you ignore the answer, or you missed it. If the latter, then I can show you the post.

The submissive request proves that his view of right is true or not, based solely upon the answer of the righteous Judge of all the earth.

No.

If Abraham had no independent grasp of justice whatsoever, he could not even formulate the concern.

So you have seen it, and only repeat yourself.

Abraham had instruction in God's justice, and submitted it to the LORD for judgment. Not an independent morality, demanding God abide by it.

The rest of your stuff is just more rehashed moral arguments imposed upon the righteousness of the Bible God. You can keep hashing them out for yourself if you like.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #183]

Since your morality is explicitly not God's righteousness, then calling yourself moral is not a righteous statement. It becomes a declaration of supremacy…

No.

Calling an action moral is not claiming supremacy over God. It is making a normative claim about what ought to be done.

You are reframing disagreement as rebellion.

But disagreement about moral claims is not self-deification. It is ethical reasoning.

If someone says “causing unnecessary suffering is wrong,” that is not declaring themselves a god. It is articulating a moral principle open to examination and debate.

The righteousness and true holiness of the eternally good God, of course.

Then those commands — do justice, love mercy, do not murder — must have content.

If they have content, humans must be capable of understanding that content.

If humans can understand it, then moral cognition is not meaningless.

You cannot both:

• Say humans have no valid moral discernment
• Require humans to understand and obey divine commands

Understanding presupposes intelligibility.

Freely rejecting your morality without consequence, is refuting your self-godhood.

Rejecting an argument is not refuting it.

Refutation requires showing internal contradiction, incoherence, or false premises.

Simply declaring “I reject your morality” does not demonstrate its invalidity. It only signals disengagement.

That is a stance, not a counter-argument.

The Bible God is not moral nor ethical…

If that is your position, then the implications are clear:

• “God is good” is not a moral claim.
• “God is just” is not a moral claim.
• “God is holy” is not a moral claim.

They become statements of allegiance to authority.

But if they are not moral claims, then they cannot be used to answer moral objections.

You cannot appeal to divine goodness to defend divine actions if goodness is not a moral category.

God is light, without any darkness at all. He doesn't argue with man's morality and ethics…

The metaphor of light and darkness only works because humans already understand moral contrast.

If humans had no grasp of good versus evil, “light” and “darkness” would be empty symbols.

Warnings, rebukes, repentance, judgment — all presuppose moral cognition.

Otherwise, exhortation collapses into command without comprehension.

The accusation of the Bible God contradicting His own commandments… is a non-starter.

It is only a non-starter if moral evaluation is ruled out by definition.

But that is precisely what is being challenged.

If divine righteousness is immune from moral assessment, then it is not being defended — it is being insulated.

Insulation is not demonstration.

Man's morality ends in the grave…

Mortality does not invalidate moral reasoning.

Whether one lives 30 years or 3,000 years, the question remains:

Are actions just or unjust?

The duration of the moral agent does not determine the validity of moral claims.

If it did, eternal beings would be automatically right simply because they are eternal — which collapses goodness into longevity.

You have consistently affirmed:

• Divine righteousness is not moral.
• Human moral reasoning is invalid.
• Debate about divine justice is a non-starter.

That position is coherent as an act of faith.

But it is not an argument about goodness.

It is a declaration that authority stands above evaluation.

And once that is acknowledged, the philosophical issue becomes clear:

We are not debating whether God is morally good.

We are debating whether morality itself is allowed to assess power.

That distinction remains the heart of the discussion.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #184]

Moral arguments are only meaningful to them that reject divine righteousness and perfect judgment.

That does not address the logical issue.

You are dividing people into two groups:

• Those who accept Biblical divine righteousness
• Those who use moral reasoning

But the question is not sociological. It is epistemic.

Is moral reasoning a legitimate tool for evaluating claims about goodness and justice?

Simply saying “believers don’t need it” does not show it is invalid. It only describes a posture of faith.

You cannot declare moral reasoning relevant by presupposing the conclusion that God is not perfectly righteous. That is circular.

I am not presupposing that God is not perfectly righteous. I am not convinced the Biblical God exists. You have not proven his existence.

I am asking how the claim “God is perfectly righteous” is to be understood.

If “perfectly righteous” has moral content, then moral reasoning is relevant.

If it has no moral content, then calling God righteous conveys no evaluative meaning.

That is not circular. It is a request for conceptual clarity.

You cannot prove that God is not perfectly righteous.

In philosophy, the burden of proof rests on the positive claim.

If someone asserts:

“X is perfectly righteous and beyond evaluation,”

the responsibility lies with the claimant to explain what that means and why it should be accepted.

Saying “you cannot disprove it” does not establish it.

Otherwise, any unfalsifiable claim would automatically stand.

1 does not need to be proven, in order to prove moral critique is meaningless, by not critiquing morality, and rejecting it out of hand.

Refusing critique does not demonstrate that critique is meaningless.

It only demonstrates refusal.

If I refuse to engage mathematics, that does not prove mathematics meaningless.

Disengagement is not disproof.

Divine righteousness and perfect judgment is declared by righteous believers from Scripture.

Declaration is not demonstration.

Many religious traditions declare divine perfection. The mere act of declaring does not establish truth.

If Scripture is cited as authority, then the question becomes:

Why should Scripture be accepted as divinely authoritative?

That question cannot be answered by quoting Scripture alone without circularity.

Since you acknowledge that your morality cannot be the perfect righteousness of the Bible God…

No one claims personal moral reasoning is perfect.

The argument is not that human morality is flawless.

The argument is that moral language must retain intelligible content.

If “perfect righteousness” is so unlike any recognizable moral concept that it cannot be assessed, then the term “righteous” ceases to function meaningfully.

You have a clear choice to repent of your own temporary morality…

This reframes a philosophical discussion as a conversion appeal.

The issue under debate is conceptual:

Can moral reasoning assess claims about divine goodness?

Turning that into a call to repentance sidesteps the question.

The core tension remains unchanged:

If divine righteousness has moral meaning, then moral reasoning is relevant.

If divine righteousness has no moral meaning, then calling God “righteous” is not an ethical claim — it is an assertion of authority.

Rejecting moral critique does not resolve that tension.

It simply places the claim beyond examination.

And that move — insulation from evaluation — is precisely what is being challenged.