I. The (not-so-problematic) Problem of Evil

I.I The problem of Evil

One of the most classical arguments against any religion with the definition of a tri-omni God is The Problem of Evil. Which states that “If God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there so much evil?”. This problem is so big and so well-known that the arguments against this has gained their own name, the so called theodicies. ¹

I.II Theodicies

A theodicy meaning ‘vindication of God’, from Ancient Greek θεός theos, “god” and δίκη dikē, “justice”) is an argument with the attempt to reconcile an all-powerful all-good God’s existence with evil’s existence.

Free Will

God thinks (and if God thinks something it must be true) that free will is more important than creating perfect loving creatures that don’t disobey Him at all. If he programmed us to just love each others without the free will to not do it, the love we share wouldn’t be true love, since we were forced to do so.

Soul-Making Theodicy & Greater Good Theodicy

I really find these theodicies to be too similar to just put them in a different category

Evil and suffering are necessary for moral and spiritual growth. Life is a soul-making journey where hardships help develop virtues like courage, compassion and resilience. A painless world would produce morally immature being. God allows evil to bring about a greater good that couldn’t happen otherwise.

Punishment Theodicy

Suffering and evil are divine punishment for sin, caused by the original sin that we humans, have. God is just, and evil is the result of human rebellion. All suffering is deserved, either as a consequence or as discipline.

All of these theodicies have a million rebuttals and counter-rebuttals which are outside the scope of this article. However, they’re here just to demonstrate the importance and weight this problem has.

I.III The Argument from Morality

One of the most popular arguments for the existence of God (especially in Christian apologetics) is called the Argument from Morality. It basically claims that objective morality can only exist if God exists. So if you believe things like murder, rape, or slavery are really wrong (not just personal preference), then, the argument goes, you’re implicitly relying on God’s existence.

If God does not exist, then objective morality does not exist. But objective morality does exist. Therefore, God exists.

The Core of the Argument:

It usually goes something like this:

1. If God doesn’t exist, then objective moral values and duties don’t exist.
2. But objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The idea is that moral laws require a moral lawgiver, a transcendent source outside of human opinion. According to this view, just like physical laws point to a lawmaker, moral laws must come from God.

Christian apologists like William Lane Craig lean on this argument heavily. They claim that atheistic or naturalistic worldviews can’t account for why anything is objectively right or wrong. At best, they say, you get cultural norms, evolutionary instincts, or personal preferences; not real, binding moral truths.

The argument dodges the Euthyphro dilemma ². Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s good? Either morality comes from the nature of God, or it exists independently of God (which makes the argument unfeasible). Christian philosophers often resolve this dilemma by claiming that morality is grounded in God’s unchanging nature, which is perfectly good. In this view, God neither arbitrarily invents morality, nor is He subject to it; rather, His nature is the standard.

Of course, the first option is what most Christians believe, morality exists just because God exists.

II The logical conclusion

So let’s put the pieces together: Many Christians claim God is the source of morality. Also, we find pain and suffering in the world and there are several theodicies to fix this problem, however the need for these theodicies is itself a sign of the problem’s weight.

I speak of The Problem of Evil and theodicies, but this also comes linked with another problem, which I think its solved by the same explanation. I’m talking of disturbing things not just happening, but endorsed by God in the Bible.

To name a few examples:

Morally Problematic Acts Endorsed by God in the Bible.

“You may buy male and female slaves from the nations around you… They will become your property… You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property.”

Leviticus 25:44-46

“A man may beat his slave with a rod; as long as the slave doesn’t die immediately, there’s no punishment.”

Exodus 21:20-21

Both of these verses don’t just acknowledge the existence of slavery. They regulate and legitimize it, even the violent abuse of slaves, without ever condemning the institution. God had the opportunity (multiple times) to condemn explicitly (if that was His will), and yet, he didn’t.

“Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.”

1 Samuel 15:2-3

This is not a military strike, it’s a divine command to exterminate an entire population, including infants and animals. Later, Saul is punished for not killing enough. (1 Samuel 15:9-11)

“If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her… he shall pay the father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife.”

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

The punishment for the rapist is to marry his victim, effectively binding her to a lifetime with her abuser, with no concern for her consent or traume.

After David commits adultery with Bathsheba and murders her husband, God punishes David by killing their child.

2 Samuel 12:13-18

An innocent child dies for someone else’s sin, raising obvious questions about justice and divine fairness.

Taking all the points discussed previously, we get this conclusion:

God isn’t just moral; he defines morality. So if God commands he death of children, the enslavement of peoples, or eternal torment; those acts, by definition, are good.

III. But Doesn’t God Give Us a Moral Compass?

“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”

Romans 2:15

This verse changes everything, God has written the law on our hearts, most Christians would argue that’s the meaning of this verse. Our moral intuitions come from God, that’s the “law written on the heart.”

If that’s true, how can those same intuitions scream that slavery or genocide is wrong when clearly God, is all for it?

Who’s wrong? Us or God?

Well, God can’t be wrong, God can’t lie (Hebrews 6:18) so we MUST be wrong about some things, these things can include acts that God endorses in the Bible and we find them reprehensible.

IV. Apologists Explaining the Horrific

Many Christian apologists are aware that some of God’s commands in the Bible seem deeply immoral to modern readers. Instead of acknowledging this moral tension, they often try to reinterpret, downplay, or sanitize the verses to protect God’s image.

IV.I Reinterpretation Through Language

Apologists argue that we’re misreading the original Hebew or Greek. A famous example is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which many take as a law requiring rape victim to marry her rapist. Apologists claim the Hebrew word translated “seized” doesn’t necessarily imply force, and therefore, it’s not rape. But even if that’s true, the passage still mandates forced lifelong marriage after a premarital sexual encounter, a punishment that clearly harms the woman more than the man.

So the “softened” interpretation is morally disturbing, just slightly less so.

IV.II “It was a Different Time” Defense

This line of reasoning claims that God was simply working within an ancient cultural norms ;that slavery, genocide, or patriarchy were regrettable but necessary due to the time period. But that implies that an all-powerful, all-good Gas somehow limited by the morality of Iron Age tribes; unable to command something better or set a moral example.

If God the moral authority, or is He taking moral cues from Bronze Age norms?

IV.III Greater Good Rationalizations

Some claim these morally disturbing actions served a greater divine purpose we can’t fully understand. But that’s exactly the kind of reasonins Christians reject when it’s used to excuse real-world evil. If a dictator kills children for a “greater cause,” we call that evil; not mysterious goodness.

If these rationalizations were applied to any other being, Christians would be horrified. But because it’s God, they twist themselves into knots trying to justify what they’d never accept from a human.

V. The Real Problem: Christians Don’t Want to Say It

This is the core issue. Most Christians do not want to admit the full implications of their own theology.

If God defines morality, then anything He command is, by definition, good; no matter how repugnant it seems to human conscience. That includes:

• Slavery
• Genocide
• Eternal torture
• Killing infants
• Focring marriage after rape

The consisten Christian response (if take seriously) would be to say:

“Even though my conscience is repulsed by this, I submit to God’s authority, because my moral intuitions are fallible and God’s will is perfect.”

But almost no one actually says that.

Instead, Christians do everything they can to avoid saying what their theology requires. They reinterpret, dodge, or dilute the text to protect their moral instincts. This creates a bizarre situation:

• They believe morality comes from God.
• They morally reject some things God does or commands.
• Yet they refuse to admit that either God is wrong or their theology is flawed.

They want to preserve both God’s moral perfection and their own sense of justice; even when the two clash. That tension is never resolved. It’s just papered over.

VI. Conclusion: The Cost of Consistency

Here’s the uncomfortable truth:

You can resolve the Problem of Evil if you’re willing to let God define morality. But that leads to a horrifying conclusion: anything God commands (even genocide, slavery, or child killing) is morally right.

The only alternative is to say that some things God did or commanded in the Bible were actually wrong; that would mean God is not the source of morality, and the Argument from Morality collapses.

So you’re left with a choice:

• Submit your moral compass to God, even when it revolts you.
• Or trust your moral compass, and admit that God, as described in some parts of Scripture, might not be perfectly good.

I can’t think of a rationalization of having it both ways.

You can have a God who defines good and evil. Or you can have a moral compass you trust. But I’m not sure you can have both.

---