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 #185]

Only for those that reject the righteous judgment of the perfect One…

No.

Moral language must remain intelligible for anyone who uses it — including believers.

If a believer says:

• “God is righteous.”
• “God’s judgments are true.”
• “God is just.”

Those are evaluative claims.

If those claims have no intelligible moral content, then they communicate nothing.

This is not about replacing God’s judgment.
It is about whether the word “righteous” has meaning.

There are a few with God, that reject all relative morality and don't use moral language at all.

But you are using moral language constantly:

• Righteous
• Perfect
• True
• Judgment
• Evil
• Obedience

If you truly rejected moral language altogether, you could not meaningfully distinguish righteousness from wickedness.

The very act of contrasting them presupposes intelligibility.

After that their moral works will be judged by the righteous Bible God.

Judgment presupposes standards.

If those standards are utterly unintelligible to those judged, then justice becomes indistinguishable from arbitrary decree.

For judgment to be meaningful, at least some shared understanding of right and wrong must exist.

Otherwise, accountability collapses into sheer authority.

NO OTHER BOOK on earth… has an Author declaring Himself perfectly righteous with perfect judgment…

That's false. The Quran does. Even if that were granted (which is impossible as your claim is false), the conclusion does not follow.

Declaring oneself perfectly righteous does not establish that one is.

A book claiming perfection does not prove perfection.

Uniqueness of claim ≠ truth of claim.

If it did, any uniquely bold assertion would automatically be validated.

Having been a Socratic philosopher… this declaration won me to the Bible…

That explains your personal conviction.

But personal persuasion is not a logical proof.

A declaration may be compelling, elegant, or rhetorically powerful — but rhetorical force is not evidence of divine origin.

The question remains:

Why should the declaration be accepted as true?

That requires argument, not repetition.

If anyone is going to read a Book for perfection in eternal righteous judgment… it can only be from the Bible whose God declares Himself to be…

This reasoning follows this pattern:

1. The Bible declares perfect righteousness.
2. Therefore, if perfect righteousness exists, it must be found there.
3. Therefore, the Bible is uniquely authoritative.

But step (2) does not logically follow.

A declaration of perfection does not demonstrate possession of perfection.

Otherwise, any text could secure authority by boldly claiming it.

The core issue still stands:

If divine righteousness is meaningful, then it must have intelligible content.

If it has intelligible content, then moral reasoning is not automatically irrelevant.

If it has no intelligible content, then calling God “righteous” communicates nothing beyond allegiance.

Simply declaring perfection does not resolve this.

It only asserts it.

And assertions — however confident — are not arguments.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #186]

You've failed to prove contradiction in one area. If you want to try another, I'd be glad to look at it.

No, I haven't failed. The website lists 560 contradictions in the Bible. I don't have the time to list all of them here. If you don't want to read them, that's fine by me. I am not here to police what you do or do not read.

But even before examining specific cases, a logical point must be clarified:

The burden of proof lies with the one claiming perfection.

If someone claims:

• This book is perfectly consistent.
• This book contains no error.
• This book is divinely inspired.

Then the responsibility is on that claimant to demonstrate coherence — not on critics to disprove it exhaustively.

Perfection is a strong claim. Strong claims require strong justification.

However, it certainly proves to be written by many perfect authors…

That conclusion does not follow.

Even if a text were internally consistent (which is debated), internal consistency alone does not prove:

• Authorial perfection
• Divine inspiration
• Infallibility

Many philosophical systems are internally coherent without being divinely authored.

Consistency is a necessary condition for perfection — not a sufficient one.

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

This reasoning is circular.

It proceeds as follows:

1. The authors claim divine inspiration.
2. Therefore, if the text is perfect, they must be truthful.
3. Therefore, the text is divinely inspired.

But step (2) assumes the conclusion.

A person can sincerely claim divine inspiration and be mistaken.

A claim of inspiration does not verify inspiration.

Otherwise, every religious text claiming revelation would be validated by default.

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.

That analogy fails.

It is entirely possible for imperfect beings to produce something coherent or even excellent.

Mathematicians are imperfect, yet they can produce valid proofs.

Scientists are imperfect, yet they can discover accurate laws.

Human imperfection does not logically entail that all their outputs must be imperfect.

Perfection of a text must be demonstrated by its content — not inferred from its claims.

More fundamentally:

The argument has shifted from moral reasoning to textual infallibility.

But the original issue remains:

If divine righteousness is meaningful, then it must be intelligible.

If it is intelligible, then moral language cannot be dismissed as irrelevant.

If it is not intelligible, then calling the Bible’s law “perfect” communicates nothing evaluative.

Declaring the text perfect does not resolve that tension.

It merely asserts it.

And assertion is not demonstration.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #188]

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

If they are tools only available to those who already possess them, then they cannot function as publicly accessible epistemic tools.

An epistemic tool must be usable in a way that allows claims to be examined.

If the response to critique is:

• “You cannot see because you are not spiritual.”
• “Only those who already have the Spirit can understand.”

Then the claim becomes insulated from evaluation.

That may be coherent within a faith framework.

But it is not an answer to an external challenge. It is a boundary marker.

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

The issue is not whether you believe you have them.

The issue is whether they can function as justification in a debate.

If the only validation for the tool is:

“I know because I have it,”

then the reasoning becomes self-authenticating and circular.

Every religious tradition can make the same move.

The perfect cannot be challenged and ruled by the imperfect.

Again, that assumes the premise.

The debate is not whether perfection can be ruled by imperfection.

The debate is whether the claim of perfection has been demonstrated.

Saying “the perfect cannot be challenged” presupposes that the object in question is indeed perfect.

That is precisely what must be established.

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

Even if Abraham’s understanding was shaped by prior revelation, he still possessed conceptual grasp.

He understood what justice would exclude.

Otherwise, his appeal would be unintelligible.

If he had no comprehension of justice whatsoever, the question “Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?” would collapse into:

“Shall not the Judge do whatever the Judge does?”

Which adds no meaning.

The narrative only makes sense if moral language is intelligible to the human participant.

The rest of your stuff is just more rehashed moral arguments imposed upon the righteousness of the Bible God.

The discussion is not about imposing morality upon God.

It is about whether words like:

• Righteous
• Just
• Good
• Holy

retain meaningful content.

If those terms are entirely beyond human comprehension, then they cease to function as meaningful descriptors.

If they retain meaning, then moral reasoning is not automatically illegitimate.

You are free to hold that divine knowledge is spiritually discerned.

But once you assert that such discernment is inaccessible to those outside your framework, the discussion shifts from argument to testimony.

Testimony may persuade those who already believe.

But it does not resolve the philosophical issue being raised.

And the issue remains:

If divine righteousness is meaningful, it must be intelligible.

If it is unintelligible, then it cannot be meaningfully defended — only asserted.

[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

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.

Noone mentioned anything about the "morally right things of man." Try to stay on topic.

If God tells you to do something, is it the right thing to do simply because he commanded it?

Tcg

[RBD]

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.
[/quote]

Noone mentioned anything about the "morally right things of man." Try to stay on topic.

[/quote]
Then don't talk about man's shifty morality, but stick to the Bible God's righteousness, that is always righteous at all times.

If God tells you to do something, is it the right thing to do simply because he commanded it?

Tcg

If He is the righteous and true holy God and Creator of all things, then of course, yes.

Which only the Bible God says that He is, and declares it in His word of law and commandments.

Psa 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psa 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Psa 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

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

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

[Clownboat]

Which only the Bible God says that He is, and declares it in His word of law and commandments.

Psa 119:89
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

Psa 119:140
Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Psa 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

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

Mat 24:35
Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

If I were to make an idol out of the Bible like you seem to have done, would that make what you posted meaningful?
Why worship the Bible and not the Quran or Bhagavad Gita?
What came first... belief in the golden calf or the golden calf and then belief?

[RBD]

[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.

False. When judging the actions of others by your morality, you claim supremacy over others. Especially when declaring your morality to be truth over all.

RBD wrote:
Your morality… is 1% of all people, that judges 99% of all people murderers.

Compassionist wrote:
Truth is not determined by a vote.

I'll no longer argue with your unwillingness to own your own morality as supreme.

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

God's righteous commands have no moral content of men.

I'll no longer argue with your imputing your supreme morality into all righteousness.

• Say humans have no valid moral discernment

Moral people do have valid morals, if they live by it. Which validity and life ends in the grave.

• Require humans to understand and obey divine commands

Requires people to repent of their own morality and obey God's divine commands.

Man's morality ends in the grave…

Mortality does not invalidate moral reasoning.

Duh. It reaffirms it. Until the grave ends both.

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

Are actions just or unjust?

Which is what the eternal God of perfect judgment declares, what is just or unjust, good or evil, righteousness or unrighteousness.

Man's morality only lasts as long as the man on earth.

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

The grave does, by ending duration and validity of man's own moral reasoning and mortal lives.

If it did, eternal beings would be automatically right simply because they are eternal

False. Only the uncreated everlasting Being is right, because He is right to create all things by His goodness and pleasure. Where all evil and sin is against Him and His goodness and righteous grace.

Angels and men are created eternal beings, with no right by creation to declare eternal righteousness and truth. We do however have right by creation, as eternal beings, to choose to do the good of God, or our own evil against Him.

Morality of man is usurping the right of the uncreated God to declare His righteousness for all creation.

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.

That usurpation ends in the grave. After which every person is judged by their works according to the eternal God's righteous commandments.

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

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #197]

When judging the actions of others by your morality, you claim supremacy over others.

No.

To make a moral judgment is not to claim supremacy. It is to make a normative claim that can be examined, defended, or rejected.

If I say “causing unnecessary suffering is wrong,” I am not declaring myself supreme. I am offering a claim about what ought to be done — one that others are free to challenge.

Supremacy would mean immunity from critique.

Moral reasoning, by contrast, invites critique.

God's righteous commands have no moral content of men.

If they have no moral content at all, then they are indistinguishable from arbitrary decrees.

If they do have content (e.g., do not murder, do not oppress, love mercy), then humans must be able to understand what those actions mean.

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

You cannot both:

• Say divine commands have no moral content
• Appeal to them as standards of right and wrong

Moral people do have valid morals, if they live by it. Which validity and life ends in the grave.

Duration does not determine validity.

A mathematical truth does not become invalid because the mathematician dies.

Likewise, a moral claim does not become invalid because the moral agent is mortal.

If duration determined validity, then any eternal being would automatically be correct simply by outlasting others — which reduces truth to longevity.

Requires people to repent of their own morality and obey God's divine commands.

Repentance presupposes recognition of wrongdoing.

Recognition presupposes moral awareness.

If human moral awareness is entirely invalid, then repentance is unintelligible.

You cannot require moral self-assessment while denying the legitimacy of moral cognition.

The grave does, by ending duration and validity of man's own moral reasoning and mortal lives.

The grave ends biological life.

It does not logically invalidate propositions.

If a person dies, their statements do not automatically become false.

If you believe eternal judgment continues beyond death, then moral claims do not end at the grave anyway.

And if you do not, then mortality still does not determine truth-value.

Only the uncreated everlasting Being is right, because He is right to create all things…

This again collapses goodness into authority.

If God is right simply because He is uncreated and powerful, then “right” becomes synonymous with “ultimate authority.”

But that is precisely the distinction under discussion.

Is God good because goodness has meaningful content?

Or is God good because whatever He does defines goodness?

If the latter, then moral language becomes definitional rather than evaluative.

Morality of man is usurping the right of the uncreated God to declare His righteousness.

To ask whether an action is just is not usurpation.

It is moral reasoning.

If moral reasoning is forbidden, then:

• Praise becomes meaningless.
• Critique becomes impossible.
• “Righteous” becomes an unchallengeable label.

That is not a refutation of moral reasoning.

It is a declaration that authority stands beyond evaluation.

The central issue remains:

If divine righteousness is intelligible, then moral language has content and can be discussed.

If divine righteousness is unintelligible and beyond moral categories, then calling it “righteous” communicates nothing beyond allegiance.

Appealing to mortality, supremacy, or creation does not resolve that tension.

It only restates it.

[RBD]

[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

The Bible God does:

Isa 64:6
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our moralities are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

You're the only one preaching your own stuff.

2 Cor {4:5}
For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake.

But the question is not sociological. It is epistemic.

The question is if your own morality proves the Bible God contradicts His own righteous commandments, that your own morality is supreme, and
that your own morality is valid.

No, No, yes until the grave.

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.

That's why philosophy is an intellectual dead end road, because it begins with rejecting eternal truth.

There is no argument about the perfectly righteous God, commanding His righteousness for men to do, and judging all men accordingly by our works.

It's either believed and done, or not believed and left undone. The only question is for those that would believe and do His righteousness: What are His commandments.

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

Such as, the Bible God contradicts His own righteous commandments. Judging those commandments by one's own moral standard only proves, that their moral standard is not the Bible God's righteousness.

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

It proves you cannot disprove it.

Otherwise, any unfalsifiable claim would automatically stand.

Already been all the way down that road to the end.

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.

Exactly. Refusing your morality without consequences, proves your morality is only meaningful to yourself, but meaningless to another.

It also proves your morality is meaningless in accusing the Bible God, that He contradicts Himself by His own righteous commandments.

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

To you, yes. Unless of course you use math.

And of course the analogy is flawed, since unlike math, morality by definition is not always true.

Only the Bible God's righteousness is eternally true, and 2+2 always equals 4.

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

Disengagement is not disproof.

Disengagment without consequences disproves one's morality is meaningful to another.

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

No one claims personal moral reasoning is perfect.

False. Not when someone claims their morality is eternal truth, that needs no vote, and judges all morality by your own personal morals, as well as condemning the righteousness of the Bible God.

The claim of course is objectively false, since it's proven meaningful only to you that have it, and completely meaningless to God and men that reject it out of hand, without consequence.

Job 38:1
Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

The argument is not that human morality is flawless.

It is when you accuse the Bible God of contradicting righteousness by your morality.

But, since you declare your morality is flawed, then your charge is meaningless. And so ends any debate about judging the Bible God, that He contradicts His own righteous commandments, according to your flawed morality.

Your moral judgement is flawed.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to RBD in post #199]

The Bible God does: “all our moralities are as filthy rags.”

Quoting a verse does not resolve the epistemic issue.

Even if human morality is imperfect, it does not follow that it is meaningless.

Imperfect ≠ unintelligible.
Limited ≠ void.

If human moral awareness were entirely worthless, then:

• Calls to repentance would be incoherent.
• Accusations of wrongdoing would be unintelligible.
• Judgment would lack shared criteria.

Imperfect tools can still function meaningfully.

The question is if your own morality proves the Bible God contradicts His own righteous commandments…

No.

The question is whether claims about divine righteousness are coherent.

If divine righteousness has meaningful content, then apparent contradictions can be discussed.

If divine righteousness has no meaningful content, then calling it “righteous” communicates nothing evaluative.

That is not a claim of supremacy.
It is a request for clarity.

You cannot prove that God is not perfectly righteous.

Correct — and equally, you have not proven that God is perfectly righteous.

In rational discourse, the person making the positive claim bears the burden of justification.

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

Otherwise, any unfalsifiable claim would automatically succeed.

Refusing your morality without consequences proves your morality is only meaningful to yourself.

Refusal does not determine truth-value.

If someone refuses mathematics, mathematics does not become meaningless.

If someone refuses a moral claim, the claim does not automatically become subjective.

Truth is not determined by who accepts it.

Earlier, you agreed:

Truth is not determined by a vote.

The same principle applies here.

Morality by definition is not always true.

Individual moral judgments may be mistaken.

But that does not entail that moral reasoning as a category is invalid.

Humans can reason badly about science.
That does not invalidate science as a discipline.

Fallibility does not equal futility.

If you declare your morality judges the Bible God, then your morality is supreme.

To evaluate a claim is not to declare supremacy.

If someone claims:

“X is perfectly just,”

asking whether X is just according to intelligible standards is not self-deification.

It is analysis.

Declaring evaluation forbidden is what places authority beyond scrutiny.

Since you declare your morality is flawed, then your charge is meaningless.

No.

Acknowledging fallibility strengthens, not weakens, rational inquiry.

It means conclusions are held provisionally and open to correction.

By contrast, declaring oneself immune from evaluation removes the possibility of correction entirely.

Job 38… Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Appeals to divine grandeur address power and knowledge.

They do not directly resolve questions about moral coherence.

Greatness does not automatically entail moral perfection.

Otherwise, might would make right.

And that is precisely the distinction under discussion.

The central issue remains:

• If divine righteousness is intelligible, then moral reasoning is relevant.
• If divine righteousness is unintelligible, then calling it “righteous” conveys no ethical content.

Rejecting critique does not demonstrate incoherence in critique.

It simply removes the claim from examination.

And removal from examination is not refutation.

It is insulation. My position is that the Biblical God is evil and imaginary. You have not proven the Biblical God to be real and good. I posted my reasons for my position: viewtopic.php?p=1179106#p1179106