TLC

It's me alone, not "you guys." And I think it's your own lack of vision that leaves you blind to the substance of the objection. Mere physical (mortal) life should not be set above, and valued so much greater than, eternal life.

It probably goes back half a dozen pages or so where I probably first alluded to it, but as I see it the fundamental flaw in this whole thread is a failure to take into account "the end game" that's always been an integral part of God's plan for man. In other words, if morality is only viewed and judged from man's very limited tactile perspective on what he thinks this mortal life can or should be, with little no thought whatsoever given to the any possible effect on all of creation (say nothing of any possible eternal effect it might have on any individual in particular), then morality itself is only going to be defined by man's restricted view of what is or isn't it "good." When Egypt's army chased after the unarmed children of Israel fleeing into a path across the floor of the Red Sea... was it "genocide" when not a one of them survived the waters? By the most common of men's standards, it wasn't. But, why not? What was/is the difference? Take that and extend it into eternity... and all of a sudden perhaps your perspective on what is or isn't "moral" (which means what, exactly... that which offers or results in the greatest benefits to the most people? you tell me) needs some tweaking. In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want... What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher. The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)? What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made. well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.

post was for raf. (you just happened to sneek one in before I had it up)

Sell a false premise, and you can build (or buy into) the most logical looking POS thought imaginable. Why insist on attributing any and every differences to a change in the nature of God - which you've disparagingly referred to as an "evolution" of God - rather than allowing any possibility for a changing vantage point and perspective on the progressive revelation of something so significantly beyond the realm and scope of man's very limited tactile perception and mental comprehension? God has not changed. But, perhaps it's not so unlike the elephant that blind men can't get their head around, looking through the one sided lens of "the law" (engraved in stone, so to speak) - which was given only to a very limited number of people (which you never mentioned), for a specific and limited length of time (which you refuse to acknowledge), for a very specific purpose (the depths of which remain unspoken, and which you evidently fail to grasp.)

It was possible for Jesus Christ, who lived without sin. Seems you're missing the fact that his morality (or goodness) was not a product or result of the law, nor any obedience to it. Evidently you choose not to (or can't) make any distinction between righteous which is of the law and the righteousness which is of God. (A distinction which is rather plainly made in Romans 9:30-10:5.) But, I'm quite done with this issue. You can make whatever case you want for it directly with Him.

Thus sayeth Raf. Still, I think the error is in a simple failure to see the intent of the law, which in and of itself is designed to lead to the conclusion that apart from God (who is good) man is (and will one day be judged) inherently immoral (i.e., not good.)

It's not just people that say it. Scripture itself says that God is good. But simply equating morality to that which is "good" and attributing the cause (or source) of it to the law (and then equating the law with God Himself) is a false premise, something which Jesus himself appears to point out several times in the gospels: Mark 3:4 And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. Luke 6:9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it? In fact, Paul rather plainly states that the law is not made for a righteous man (1Tim.1:9.) So, why suppose or portray God (who the scripture so clearly declares "good") as intending for the law to make Himself - or anyone else - appear "good"? Furthermore, along this same line, why would Paul acknowledge his own lack of good (see Rom.3:12) while at the same time tell us that concerning the righteousness of the law, he was without fault (Phil.3:6)?

"natural" reactions, indeed, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men.

at least you're pointing in the right direction.

That's not at all what I said. Try reading it again. (The vacancy was singular.)

proof that people will only hear what they want to hear, no matter what or how you say it...

In light of what I've said previously (below) on the other thread, no.

Granted, certain details were omitted, but were they necessary? I don't think so. Fact is, I think they probably had a much better understanding and clearer picture of "the end game" (so to speak) - which the vast majority still don't have or know.

Well, evidently there can comes a point where very little, if anything, results in any change of what someone believes. Seems a shame, though, when someone promoting their position as "scriptural" would so easily cast other scriptural evidence or reasoning aside.

Why presume that something (or for that matter, much of anything) wasn't (or couldn't be) known prior to Moses writing it down? It actually appears to be a rather ignorant or stupid (or incredibly arrogant) presumption. As for Cain's offering not being acceptable, I don't believe it was some deep, dark, unknown secret that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. How or where do you suppose the animal skins came from that God clothed Adam with to cover his nakedness?

I'm not really on board with that (or whatever it is that you might be trying to say - I'm not exactly sure.) Because it seems more likely that creative genius (if that's even a reasonably fair or sensible way to speak of it) would find itself more important than whatever was produced or resulted from it. At least, that's what appears to be mostly evidenced in lives today. In a way, yes. Think of it as "what if," if you want... What if Lucifer was second, only to the Lord God, in all creation. (forget any nonsense about being one of three "archangels." there are no others beside him, and there is one - and only one - above him.) But, there came a point where that wasn't enough. And (you probably know this part) ... he abdicates his second place position and reaches for higher. The result? A vacancy at the right hand of God (i.e., second only to God Himself.) You're a smart young guy... what should God to do? Create another perfect being to fill that position? Wait... wasn't the first one created perfect for that position? How is God going to do any better in a "do over"? And, what happens to the first character that failed (aka, the devil)? What if (and to show how utterly foolish the prior morning star was), a rock - a chunk of dirt - (i.e., "man" - aka, Adam) is the nominee. But, there will be a time of proving, after which - if proven worthy, the appointment will be made. well, it's a deep rabbit hole (not much related to this thread) ...and you're already working to fill in the blanks, so... 'nuff said.

Demonstration of his own, I presume is your intent... (as in... open mouth, insert foot.)

That man wasn't first in Gen.1:1, and it was the fall of Lucifer that precipitated the reason for man.

If you suppose that we are currently living in "the millennium," and if: ...then exactly when do you think the leopard shall lie down with the kid, and a little child shall lead them, or when will the wolf and the lamb feed together, and the lion eat straw like the bullock? Or when shall the days of His people be as the days of a tree? not hardly... but given you're the second in a week to suggest I could be, why do you ask?

As elementary as that appears, I think there's a fundamentally different way to see it. However, lacking the innate ability to perceive spiritual realities, not only will natural man not see it, he'll find it impossible to understand or believe. This was not God's original intent, nor was it how He designed Adam. In short, I think the real choice that Adam had was not between good and evil, but rather, between what could be perceived and known spiritually, and what could be perceived and known physically. And the consequences of his choice (which is plainly evident) resulted in... yeah, you guessed it. The lack of choice for mankind thereafter. (that's the short version... more could be said, but perhaps you get the point) I take it you mean, the best way possible - given and considering his inherent genetic limitations. Unless you're equating wisdom with believing God (and you might be), I don't see it being some natural talent or ability that saved Noah. God didn't necessarily have much to work with here, but it was evidently enough to allow the grace of God to shine through. Consequently, the focus is centered on God's grace (and not Noah.) I trust you realize that I'm not the source for that. (It probably starts in Rom.5:20.) According to what is written in Rom.3:19, it was given to, and intended for, Israel. I don't know of anywhere in scripture that indicates it was at any time given to, or intended for (at any time), any of the rest of the world. But that's not letting the rest of the world "off the hook" (so to speak.) More than anything else, I suppose that Israel was singled out... favored above every nation in the world... to prove this one thing - that it really didn't matter. No one was worthy, and (absolutely) nobody (not even Jesus Christ) was going to get by or make it (past death) merely by trying to fine tune (or perfect, if you will) their "physical awareness" (which was the route that Adam chose to go when he "ate" of - and became one with - it.) It probably won't fit in your computer, but I actually don't see or think of the end of life in the flesh as a something that was only imposed upon man as a result of sin. (Note how that was worded.) As a further note to that, I also do not believe that Adam would have "lived forever" had he not sinned. Nor do I think that he would have died, had he not sinned. Not that I can necessarily prove it from scripture, but personally, I think that eternal life was always a part of God's original plan for man, and the life that Adam started with was (always) purposefully designed to be temporary. In other words, had he not sinned, it would eventually have needed to be "exchanged" (for lack of a better word) for what, I suppose, is the kind of life that Christ now has. (but, hey... my mind is far from normal, so it'd be highly unusual - if not impossible - for you to make much sense of this.)

I think much is missed if what is said about Eden doesn't consider and view it as being flawless. But, such thoughts undoubtedly veer sharply off course from anything being discussed on this thread... In short, anything less than "very good" just isn't the same condition that's intended and communicated in the word "Eden."

Then the "generality" surrounding your reference to Gog and Magog also being saved makes no sense. In other words, I haven't yet been able to figure out how or who (and why) you think (anyone) is going to be saved, much less see what you think being "saved" actually means.

Actually, the primary purpose (or intent) of the law was not to establish or improve morality. Remove that from the equation, and perhaps what you think of (or how you view) God (and the law) changes. Little did they know or realize it at the time, but the law was set forth to convict (all) mankind. Why? Well, because the acceptance of being worthy of death points a man towards the need (and acceptance) of the savior from death.

Then you're a Universalist?

He doesn't change, merely how He deals with man