Here is your first error. The story continues in Sodom with their wicked behavior, God sending angels to remove His righteous few, and then God utterly and completely destroying the wicked. He left not a single one standing in that city, and even warned the few righteous that continuing to stay among the wicked would result in their destruction as well.
William James noted [I’m paraphrasing] that a collection of paints in their pots were on one level only containers of saleable matter. But spread on a canvas in certain ways, they became a spiritual presentation. The picture that arose from the placement of paints in particular ways on canvas was more powerful in terms of meaning than the individual paints themselves. The literal understanding focusses on the paints instead of the picture.
God uses people, places and events as paints on His canvas of history to paint larger, more powerful pictures—metaphors. As long as you focus only on the paints--the city of Sodom, the individuals destroyed or saved--you’ll be unable to see the picture. This is why I tried at the beginning to avoid ‘drive by’ textproofing. The great majority of textproofing as used today is just throwing paints at one another. This is the limited domain of literal meaning. I’m trying to get folks to look at the picture, and we can’t do this as long as we refuse to look past paints.
Ask yourself these questions... was Lot's wife considered righteous by God? Was she destroyed in the end? You have created a rather nasty conundrum for yourself here, for if God destroyed a righteous woman, Lot's wife, by turning her into a pillar of salt, then He violated the very improper notion of perfection you have placed upon Him. This is the logical and rational conclusion you have created here, and it's in error.
If you will grasp the spiritual principle in the metaphor and apply it to every physical destruction you’ll see God’s plan for all humanity.
If God has set His mind to destroy something, He does so unless the wicked repent. And if they don't, He removes His righteous from the scene and then destroys most completely. That rule is established throughout all scripture…
This is your thesis, and it is set on an incomplete principle, as I have shown above in my reasonable argument.
You have done a poor job of explaining your "one and many" organization, and your partial prooftext is one if the worst you could have used... because God actually did destroyed Sodom. That fact by itself, and on its most basic face, refutes your thesis completely.
This is wholly irrelevant to the Bible, salvation, or God's redemptive plan.
This is nothing but pure gnostic nonsense. God has always treated each of us as individuals. He does not save a part of us. It is impossible for a single part of our bodies to be righteous, so your gnostic mess falls apart faster than a cheap dry cake.
It’s not possible for any part of our bodies to be righteous my high-spirited feline friend. Value [true/false, good/evil, righteous/unrighteous, etc.] has no prescriptive or moral affiliation to matter. Spiritual principles are being discussed, and whether you approve of it or not, God shows representationally in Gen 18, in His own word, that His work in the soul is directed to what we can conceive of as a multiplicity.
we are individuals, and not some conglomeration of cells, or "value elements" (whatever those are)
I feel all of the cat’s arguments have been addressed and overcome. If there are other objections to the logic of the op I welcome further discussion. If not it should be granted by my antagonistic brethren that what has been presented so far deserves warrant for belief and we can move on to fleshing out the framework thus established to show its accord with Scripture.
Comment