bfniii

not if the prescience is one possible outcome. in other words, seeing what might happen. it is possible that such a being, crystal ball, magic 8 ball, etc., can see multiple possible outcomes and they could all be correct.

not necessarily. excluded middle.

keep in mind you are trying to box God into our conception of time. what we think of as future and present tenses don't apply to a being that exists OUTSIDE of our space-time.

obviously, we know this is not true. what might be the "present tense" to God, would almost certainly be different to whatever He created.

except by changing your mind. of course no matter what you choose, God can foretell whatever the possible outcomes are. there is a theory in quantum mechanics that all possible outcomes do in fact occur.

concordantly, prescience does not preempt choice.

see possible outcomes above.

there is a difference between allowing evil and executing evil. God is responsible for the former, not the latter.

what makes you say that?

in our case, God has made fair rules and has played by them.

bfniii

i am saying that He has every reason for allowing it. i just don't always understand it at the time. big difference.

certainly not. removing suffering would take away a powerful human experience.

i may not understand the specifics at the time, but i do understand the general principle. that certainly doesn't make God evil, or enjoy evil.

not in this universe. to prevent that suffering would be to not only remove a mechanism for some good, but would also remove a bridge that some people cross to acheive redemption. that would be a great injustice on God's part. besides, we don't know that God didn't create that world you mention. some would say your description matches heaven. maybe this world is a necessary stepping stone to heaven.

enjoy isn't the right word. when a loved one goes to the doctor, sometimes the treatment is painful. however, healing is the outcome. during the suffering you wouldn't enjoy the fact that they were in pain. but you would be relieved. relieved is a more accurate word.

what makes you so sure? how do you know God doesn't have some greater purpose for it that is not immediately apparent? the short answer is, you don't. however, as i pointed out, we do know the general principle behind suffering.

oh i'm not skirting anything. as far as we know, heaven is the best of all possible worlds. this may be the best possible world to get us to heaven. or it may just be one of multiple equal worlds that God created.

excluded middle(s). one option is that God created multiple worlds with varying degrees of differences that all acheieve the same end. another is that God has a morally right reason for creating things as they are which involves freewill which takes us back to the logical form of the argument.

John A. Broussard

Excellent. You've answered my original question.

This is the best of all possible worlds. God moves in mysterious ways its wonders to perform. You can't measure god with a human yardstick.

As you can see, this settles the argument. It also means that any complaints about the nature of the world are totally misplaced. Human suffering is essential--we just don't know why it is.

In essence we must believe--period. There is no room for human questioning.

I don't hold to your view, but I now see that it's internally consistent. It's a slave mentality--but slaves have been known to love their state. Who am I to say they are wrong?

bfniii

i definitely do not agree as i stated in my previous post:
as far as we know, heaven is the best of all possible worlds. this may be the best possible world to get us to heaven. or it may just be one of multiple equal worlds that God created.

agreed. although, we have been informed of the basics regarding our existence.

on the contrary, they are quite natural. i think God knows that we are limited in our perceptions. given the fact that He created us with the ability to reason, He expects us to ask questions and even experience doubt.

in this existence, i agree with you. we do experience suffering, but absolutely none of it is meaningless or without purpose. we have discussed more than one justification for it.

i hope this most recent response helps clear up some of the perceived inconsistency. slaves are subjugated to their owner. that is certainly not the case between us and God.

Jack the Bodiless

You don't seem to understand what is required of you here.

You have repeatedly declared that I am in error: that I have "misinterpreted" Ezekiel by assuming that his prophecy of the destruction of Tyre is to be taken literally.

...And yet you are unable to support this claim.

Yes, apologists would PREFER a figurative interpretation, because they think they can make it work that way. However, it is obvious that the only reason they seek a figurative interpretation is because the literal one fails. As they are unable to provide evidence that the figurative interpretation was INTENDED, then the claim of "misinterpretation" is unsupported and should be dropped.

I say that YOU are in error: that you have misinterpreted Ezekiel. And you cannot prove me wrong. But only one of us is actually basing his position on fact: on what Ezekiel actually says.
It is the most obvious interpretation of the text, and you cannot demonstrate that any other meaning was intended. YOU are the one attempting "stonewalling".
Tyre has been part of various kingdoms, both before and after Alexander, and the city remained powerful and prosperous. And NEBUCHADNEZZAR led an army of "many nations" against Tyre.

...But all this has been covered in great detail on the Tyre thread, and on the links provided.
But God's crude, vindictive morality IS understandable to us. It isn't "mysterious" at all. I reject it, NOT because I don't understand it, but because I am a more moral person than God.
God does more than "allow" the consequences of a person's actions to affect others, he INFLICTS suffering on others, through no fault of their own: and this is unjust.
You obviously haven't read Genesis yet.
You are again ignoring what the Bible actually says (and I note that you've been doing a LOT of this). The reason for the curse is GIVEN.
Nope, they are CURSES. That's why the Bible calls them CURSES. You are again ignoring the Bible and pretending that nothing more than "natural consequences" are being discussed. You apparently wish to write your own Bible rather than use the one you have.

I don't see that it's necessary to continue with these examples. It is quite clear that "jackism" involves simply reading what the Bible actually says, whereas "bfniii-ism" involves imagining that the Bible means something entirely different (whatever is necessary to preserve the beliefs of the apologist), without ever demonstrating that the author intended this meaning. The pattern has become familiar.
So that's a "no" then. You won't address the fact that the Bible states a specific REASON for attacking the Amalekites: one that is unjust. You'd prefer to believe that ANOTHER reason applies: that "they're still bad".

Same pattern.

On Biblical inerrancy:
You seem to lead a very sheltered life. Almost all major Christian denominations reject Biblical inerrancy, and Biblical creationism (which implies inerrancy) is almost unknown outside the United States (and only accounts for about half of Christians within the United States).
No, it isn't. Jesus failed to fulfil the Messianic prophecies (ask any Jew).
They co-opted a considerable amount (like the Sumerian flood story, for instance, or Zoroastrianism's angels).
Let me know when you finally get around to reading Genesis.
You are continuing to miss the point. I'm NOT claiming that the powers they were stealing would be enough to make them fully equal to God. But they were powers reserved for gods: hence "godlike powers". And we were ejected from Eden (after taking one) to stop us taking another.
Some do, yes. And those are the ones who are well aware of Judaism's pagan roots. You DON'T have to be a non-Christian to consider the Old Testament to be largely the work of uninspired men.
There's a recommended-reading sticky on this forum. Two titles that come up quite often are "Who Wrote the Bible?" and "The Bible Unearthed". Unfortunately I haven't read either, but a lot of the regulars around here have, you could just browse the threads.

Most of the rest of your post refers to such material: stuff that mostly isn't in the Bible, or is only mentioned in passing. There are others far better qualified than I to discuss such matters (indeed, most of what I know was picked up just by browsing material on this forum). But I note that some of your replies seem to assume that the events happened as described (e.g. the Jews being "already monotheistic" at the time of the Exodus). Scholars generally don't consider the Exodus to be a historical event anymore: it appears to me a myth devised to create a separation between the Hebrews and the other Caananite tribes: "WE didn't arise among you lot, WE came here from a faraway land, guided by our God". Most Hebrew literature is either post-exilic in origin, or re-worked. The "Documentary hypothesis" is an attempt to unravel the history of the pentateuch by tracking style changes such as the terms used for God: this throws up the interesting point that El ordered Abraham to sacrifice Isaac but YHWH sent an angel to intervene, and Isaac never appears again in the "E section" of the pentateuch, implying that he was sacrificed in the original (this also explains why Abraham apparently descends the mountain alone, and why he's apparently congratulated for not holding back).
Yes, but priests invoke gods (the notion that unaided humans could work major miracles would be rather amazing). Also, YHWH smites the Egyptian gods (not their priests) at one point, though I've forgotten where.
...The firstborn children. Those WERE the ones who were (involuntarily) "entered into" the agreement. It's clear from the context that this isn't something you volunteer for: the previous verses describe "men and beasts" being "devoted" (by other men). But, again, extra-Biblical historical material helps understand the context (no Exodus, these WERE Caananites, and that was a Caananite custom).
A "simple Internet search" is NOT how you determine what a scholarly consensus is! That would give you the impression that (for instance) there is "scholarly support" for the notion that the WTC was demolished by the CIA and Mossad, or that aliens are abducting and anally-probing ranchers in the American Midwest, or that evolution is a "scientific controversy".

Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica says about Daniel:
No controversy is even mentioned here. This IS the mainstream consensus, not the "fringe".

John A. Broussard

Is this or is it not the best possible world to get us to heaven? Those other worlds don't happen to be ours, so they are meaningless.

Want to try again? Is this the best possible world that god could have created for us?

If god could have done better, why didn't god do so?

If god couldn't then god is limited in his power.

Since your god punishes and/or rewards us as he/she/it sees fit, how can your god be any different from a slave owner? Doesn't your god demand that we obey him? Doesn't your god reward us if we do? Doesn't your god punish us if we don't. How does that differ from a master's treatment of his slaves?

Much as you may want to, your view of your god leads inevitably to this being the best of all possible worlds. If it isn't the best of all possible ones, you would have to show me why it isn't to convince me otherwise.

bfniii

it appears that i am require to acquiesce after you repeat a statement several times.

i see no reason why the part about nebuchadnezzar should not be taken literally.

i've supported it. you just don't like it.

you are entitled to feel that way if you like. your peception of the motive would be incorrect.

in verse 2, God refers to tyre as a common not a place just as in the reference to jerusalem. "tyre has said". places don't "say" anything. groups of people do. in verse 6, "they shall know that". if He were referring to the place, He would say "it". verse 7 claims "against tyre". the language implies that an attack would come against a people, not a place. an enemy isn't against a city. in verse 15, which picks up the word against the nation, God says sound of your fall. the word used is Mappeleth which means overthrow. a place isn't overthrown, a seat of power is. the lamentation in verse 17 uses the word "perished". the original word is 'abad which means perish, die, be exterminated, kill, put to death. those words don't refer to a place. in verse 20 God says He will "bring you down with those". the word "those" is `am which means nation or people. that obviously doesn't refer to a place.

the word figurative doesn't really apply to this prophecy. ezekiel was literally talking about the nation of tyre. i realize you disagree, but obviously i have provided reasons to support that view.

that should be sufficient to show it's not just a preference but a position supported by the text.

another judgment on motive obviated by the above explanation.

not that that matters. as i have pointed out, when a prophet makes a prophecy about a future event, anything thought about the prophecy before that event is mere speculation. the prophecy could be realized in a number of ways not known to contemporaries of the prophet.

since i just provided more support for the position (other than what has been provided in the rest of the thread), the charge of misinterpretation should stand.

you haven't shown any such reasoning about the literal nature of the references to tyre in the verses i addressed above. yet here claim that you can't be proven wrong even though you haven't even supported your own case. i guess that would constitute a jackism.

apparently you haven't been reading the thread.

in order to stonewall, i would need to repeat rebutted statements which i have not done. on the contrary, i have provided a rebuttal based on the text and even the original language, to every point made thus far.

first, you don't respond to this portion of my rebuttal:
tyre did not recover from alexander. alexander usurped tyre and then co-opted what was left of it for his purposes. at that point, the original tyre was no more.

i was hoping that you could address how alexander razing the island, killing or enslaving every inhabitant and rebuilding it supports my case that alexander did indeed fulfil part of the prophecy, specifically verses 3-6 and 15-21.

in a very sneaky jackism, you don't respond to my translation of many nations:
king of kings=Melek (king)
nations=Gowy (nation, people)

as you can see, two totally different meanings. there is absolutely nothing in the chapter that makes the reader believe that ONLY nebuchadnezzar will do the destroying.

in another jackism, you fail to respond to the challenge that you explain where in the text you find that ezekiel specifically states that nebuchadnezzar will be the ultimate downfall of tyre.

not the translation i just provided (as of post #236).

i have provided explanations that show God is neither crude nor vindictive but that He is just. if you will read back through the thread, including the responses to john broussard, you will see that His jurisprudence is justified.

then you aren't referring to the same God as the one in the bible. you haven't even shown that the bible portrays God as you state. you provided some verses that were either out of context, truncated or just misunderstood.

given that your interpretation of the verses provided is in debate, there is no substantiation for such an assumption. perhaps if you were to continue to respond to my rebuttals, OT justice might make more sense.

blatant jackism. you make two contradictory statements and don't even have the integrity to try and respond to it. why bother making the jackism? just bury it and hope i don't notice.

i saw you make your unsupported accusation. i even CHALLENGED you to show where and you were silent. then i underscored the hypocrisy by counting 13 separate instances where you lack rebuttal (i haven't added this round to the total). again, i have provided an explanation of every verse you cite. i even went so far as to include context and original language. why bother posting if you're going to commit such hypocrisy?

jackism. i challenged you to show where the text supports your assertion. once again, no answer to the challenge. this is getting repetitive.

ok. i will explain why you are in error. you state that canaan's fate is unwarranted because you assume that canaan is underserving of such a fate. please show where in the text you see "innocent", "underserving" or "unredeemable".

this is not the first time you have committed this hypocrisy. i can point out the other time if you like.

you mean whenever you just repeat your original statement several times, i should just give in and stop criticizing it? what fun would that be?

i would have never even started that had you not been so proficient and repetitive about it.

oh my. you have distorted, truncated, invented and stonewalled. the reason the term began to be used is because of the pattern of you making a statement, i respond with rebuttal and you repeat your original statement instead of moving the debate forward.

right after you assume something to be in the text that isn't there. funny.

i have quoted the original language, analyzed the text in context and word by word. i find your charge baseless and this thread has plenty of examples to prove it. deep down, i think you know that. i would like to ask that if you are going to continue making these accusations, that you provide specific examples.

are you trying to just be obstinate? could you please provide specific examples of this? i think you don't want to because you know i'll be able to cut and paste whatever response i provided and i'll be able to show how it specifically addresses the text.

indeed.

same old thing. i will post the challenge again:
1. show in the text where the amalekites are said to be innocent, even the descendents.

your objection is nothing more than sophistry based on the assumption that God curses them, doesn't allow them to be redeemed and follows through with an unwarranted punishment.

yes. the pattern of you making up the word "innoncent" where it does not occur in the text. in each case you provide (canaanites, amalekites, etc), the bible outlines how the punishment was warranted based on OT justice.

like which ones? could you please provide sources to support your claim?

again, from what sources do you derive this info?

oh sure. ask any jew. that's hilarious! you would choose them. they're not biased about isaiah 53 at all. you mean the ones who won't allow the teaching of isaiah 53? i tell you what. i'll see your challenge and raise you that YOU ask them why they are avoiding teaching isaiah 53 in schools and in synagogues.

oh and btw, i did notice the all too familiar jackism of you avoiding analyzing isaiah 53 for yourself, but instead try to deflect me to someone else to do your work for you.

sigh. i guess this will never end.

jackism. you didn't respond to my challenge that you prove how similarities equal theft.

jackism. again, i made a response and you don't analyze or critique my response. you come back with this insubstantial non-argument. is that supposed to acheive anything other than wasting time and keystrokes?

you must enjoy this. maybe you're not serious about this debate, you're just trying to provoke me. generally in a debate, one person makes an argument, another person analyses/refutes the point, first person defends original point, etc. but not with you. i guess that's it. you're just trying to occupy my time with frivilous non-arguments.

the point you are missing is that i have rebutted (it's a debate word) this assertion by elucidating how acquiring morality is NOT NECESSARILY a god-like power. i even used an analogy (another debate word) to show how "like us" does NOT NECESSARILY imply god-like ability. you are making what is called an assumption. if you are going to make said assumption, you bear the burden of supporting (debate phrase) it beyond the shadow of a doubt. otherwise, it is merely an opinion.

could you please quantify this by citing an effort by someone to poll each and every pertinent scholar as to their belief that judaism was an outgrowth of a prior, pagan religion?

friedman does an amirable job of presenting the documentary hypothesis. unfortunately, not all OT scholars (some with more credentials than friedman) are as loyally adherent to it as friedman. therefore, your source is not irrefutable and is certainly the product of "scholars" who are not interested in weighing the hypothesis against it's alternatives. in other words, your source is not without peer or opponent.

we've already discussed finkelstein and his problems.

i won't dissuade you from reading them. however, since you seem to be familiar with what is in them, try reading authors who write from an alternate viewpoint. see if their arguments stack up.

assume would imply i haven't provided support for what i post. that's not the case. i am asking non-christians who try to debunk the bible to convince me that they are right.

this is one of the biggest problems i have with non-christians who post here. they act like whatever they have read (the two books you cited, for example) proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that anything not in lock-step is the dogmatic, archaic, unscholarly, dishonest obscure minority. this simply isn't true and i have provided an example in the case of archaeolgy we discussed to prove my point. i find it completely deceitful and without integrity perpetuate such falsity.

according to some, but not all

the documentary hypothesis is not new and is not without peer. i'm just asking you to explore the alternatives. in other words, "the alternative explanations are x, y and z. here is why i prefer the DH.

there is no mention that they did so. you have read into the text.

what in the text leads you to believe that the people in the agreement are children?

if you will please read ALL of deut 28, you will see that verse 15 is a mere continuance. from the beginning of the chapter, the "you" referred to is not a child. the first 14 verses describe blessings to the obedient. children don't have fruit of the body, produce of the ground, cattle, flocks, etc.

the curse is a warning to people who are disobedient that their negative actions will affect those around them (keep in mind this is not transfer of guilt or permanent spiritual punishment). there is nothing unjust about that by OT standards.

i would also like to point out that, since you don't consider the context of the passage, the first 14 verses are blessings to the obedient including the fruit of the body. what if the children are evil and do nothing to merit the blessing? God would be unjust to bless those who don't deserve it. the point is, this is about earthly reciprocity to obedience.

no but it sure is a helpful tool to dispel the dishonest notion of a "consensus among mainstream scholars".

i checked the full article and it's quite disappointing in that it shows a complete lack of representing any alternate views most notably the traditional view which has been vindicated. not very scholarly.

the most ovbious and blatant oversight is the failure to mention the impact the dead sea scrolls had on the authenticity of the book of daniel. two main facts are pertinent. it is clear from the scrolls that daniel had been accepted as canon among the essenes. given that the oldest fragments are dated to the 2nd century, origination during that time is out of the question. in addition, the language of the aramaic is not the western aramaic typical of the maccabean region of the 2nd century but of the eastern aramaic from several hundred years earlier. there are other examples supporting earlier dating such as the musical instruments mentioned in chapter 3. why would the EB not mention one of the most significant historical/archaeological finds of the 20th century? not only was the impact on daniel profound, but pertinent. very puzzling.

there are several misrepresentations regarding some specifics in daniel. it mentions that the date for the fall of jerusalem is wrong. first, daniel doesn't give a specific date, he gives a date range. big difference. second, jerusalem fell during the time daniel predicted. belshazzar is not represented as nebuchadnezzar's direct son, but as lineage. the aramaic word used is 'ab which does mean father. however, in every usage of the word in both ezra and daniel, the word refers to patronage or lineage, not immediate father. there is no reason to take this one instance any other way. clearly, daniel himself had done so in other places. nabonidus did indeed turn over reign of babylon to belshazzar when nabonidus left for teyma, contrary to what EB says. EB claims that daruis the mede is fictitous because no secular source mentions him. that's it? that's the entire case against darius the mede? that's flimsy at best. there is very little historical information available about babylonian administration following the persian conquest. given that the word for darius in 5:31 is Dar@yavesh meaning "lord", it very well could have been gubaru who indeed adminstrated the empire for cyrus. in other words, darius could very well be a title.

as far as the antiochus charge, EB doesn't even exhibit internal consistency. note the observation that "The last six chapters of the book are apocalyptic." chapter 12 is clearly eschatological. additionally, 11:40 begins with "at the time of the end". the word "end" is Qets which is translated "at the end of time". this stands in stark contrast to the EB claim that "when the narrative reaches the latter part of the reign of Antiochus do notable inaccuracies appear". if the last 6 chapters are apocalyptic, then not all of the references in those chapters are regarding antiochus. there seems to be a blend of commentary on antiochus and the antichrist. some scholars posit multiple earthly rulers being hinted at by daniel. what's worse is that EB doesn't even list the alleged historical inaccuracies it charges daniel with. that is most troubling.

not that it should. the only recent event that might constitute such are finkelstein's colorful tales, which EB doesn't even cite.

without researching the idea, i might agree. however, as reputable as the EB is, it isn't perfect nor does it perfectly represent all academic ideas equally. the least it could have done is to mention alternate explanations and why they may or may not be true.

bfniii

i have said so twice before, but i will repeat: it seems that there is at least one world better than this one. heaven.

you asked if they were possible, not if they were meaningful.

according to the bible, heaven is better.

apparently, He did.

not necessarily. there are assumptions made in this statement that have been addressed in our other posts.

subjugation. we have been given the ability to accept or reject God. slaves don't have that option. God apparently desires for us to choose to have a loving relationship with Him.

i don't know how many times you want me to repeat that heaven is better according to christianity.

Jack the Bodiless

No, you haven't. At the time, Nebuchadnezzar was about to attempt the "overthrow" of Tyre by conquering it. He failed.
Alexander DID NOT raze the island, and DID NOT kill or enslave every inhabitant.

Why are you pretending that he did these things?

Because you want HIM to be the one who "fulfilled the prophecy" after Nebuchadnezzar failed.
No, you haven't. If God inflicts suffering on people because of the actions of other people, then it's STILL UNJUST even if the victims go to Heaven afterwards (they still didn't deserve the suffering, even though it was temporary). Furthermore, it is STILL UNJUST even if the victim is an evil person, because that is NOT the reason they're being made to suffer.

You keep dodging on this issue.
These baseless charges are becoming tiresome. Never on this thread have you managed to demonstrate a single instance where I have taken any Biblical quote out of context, changed the context by truncating it, or misunderstood it.
What on Earth are you blathering about now? The BIBLE says that we DO have the ability to know what is good and what is evil. And the BIBLE says that God didn't GIVE us this ability: that he didn't want us to HAVE this ability.
I referred you to the BIBLE: a book you apparently haven't read yet. ...The reason is RIGHT THERE, in the verse I QUOTED.
You are "losing the plot", this was a different set of verses. But you're still making the same mistake: IMAGINING that there's another reason, and IGNORING the reason actually given in the Bible.
I am beginning to wonder if this is some sort of joke. You are describing yourself here.
More of the same. You are IGNORING the reason GIVEN in the Bible.

I am under no obligation to disprove your non-Biblical fantasies.
The Catholics aren't inerrantist, nor are the Episcopalians, Presbyterians... basically everyone except the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Southern Baptists (and even they only became inerrantists reltively recently) and a handful of minor denominations.
I am British. I was unaware of the existence of creationists until a few years ago, most Christians are STILL unaware of their existence. That's why Richard Dawkins was attacked by a Christian columnist in a British newspaper for his "foolish notion" that some Christians believe the Bible to be literally true.

You really need to get out more.

Of course, the figures on creationism within the US are confirmed by numerous surveys, it's a subject that comes up regularly in the E/C forum.
Isaiah 53's "suffering servant" is an allegorical representation of Israel. I note that you have avoided my point again: that Jesus FAILED to fulfil the ACTUAL Messianic prophecies. That's WHY the Jews are still Jews, and WHY Christianity was so dependent on the gentiles.
Judaism contains "similarities" to EARLIER religions in the same region. Theft is the most obvious explanation. After all, it's not as if (for instance) the Great Flood actually HAPPENED as described.
You have not "rebutted" my point, because you have MISSED my point.

When you've finished dancing around it, maybe you could finally ADDRESS it.
..."Non-Christians"?

CHRISTIAN scolars don't agree with you either!
I am merely giving you the SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS.

You have already demostrated that you have no idea what the rest of the world thinks. Frankly, that isn't MY problem.
Let me know when you're ready to stop evading and get back to the topic being dicussed here, which was the human sacrifices in EXODUS and LEVITICUS, and NOT Deuteronomy 28.
The existence of a handful of crackpots with Web-pages doesn't change what the mainstream scholarly consensus is.
...According to a handful of crackpots with websites.
That's because they made no impact whatsoever. The Dead Sea scrolls have a RANGE of ages, and scholars ALREADY KNEW that Daniel was written in an "archaic" style, which was fashionable for apocalyptic literature at the time.

Jack the Bodiless

...Bfniii, maybe you should take a break from Biblical apologetics. You keep making the same mistakes, over and over again, in many different contexts.

Let's consider a non-Biblical analogy instead.

Mr. Smith is obsessed with physical cleanliness. His neighbor, Mr. Jones, is a slob. One day, Smith goes next door and guns down Jones' teenage son, Jones Junior. On being arrested, he gives his reason for doing so: "Jones Senior hasn't bathed for weeks, I hate the whole stinking family, and I wanted to make Jones Senior suffer and learn the consequences of his slobbish lifestyle".

Smith's lawyer has the task of defending him in court, and wants to find mitigating circumstances. Let's say that he finds out that Jones Junior wasn't a very nice person: he has a string of juvenile offenses. There is also some doubt that Jones Junior bathed regularly himself.

However, even if true: none of this CHANGES the stated reason for the killing, given by Smith himself. The lawyer is trying to argue that Smith was LYING about the "real reason" for the murder of Jones Junior: that another "better" reason was the "real" reason. And if the lawyer produces a comment from Smith such as "I really respect people who bathe at least once a day" (impying that Jones Junior might have lived if he'd been cleaner): even THAT wouldn't change Smith's statement that Jones Junior was killed for his FATHER's unleanliness, not HIS OWN... and that's unjust.

That's what you've been doing. You want to convince us that the Bible is LYING about the stated reasons for the punishment of various people for the crimes of others: because you want us to believe that there's a better reason. You don't seem to grasp the fact that, even if you CAN demonstrate that there WAS a better reason, that is NOT the reason STATED.

...And this analogy still misses the magnificent absurdity of the "natural consequences" defense. "Well, your honour, it seems that the children of unhygeinic parents have a natural tendency to develop spontaneous gunshot wounds".