"Incoherent" does not mean "incomprehensible". You need to look up the meaning of words before you use them.

A view is incoherent if (and only if) its elements fail to cohere -- that is to say, they cannot be consistently combined. An incoherent view is one that is self-contradictory. It collapses under a small, accurately targeted criticism.

I understood your view, as expressed, perfectly well. It was self-contradictory.

Now, point by point:

1. Right, so you were simplifying. I suppose if you had been more verbose, we would all have seen how coherent your view was.

Not convincing. It seems more likely to me that you were "simplifying" because you had nothing substantial further to say.

In any case, you can't defend a poor argument by claiming that you have a better one up your sleeve.

2. The incoherency of your views (about deserving, need I remind you?) had nothing to do with the bible. Invoking it here is irrelevant.

As it happens, I know the bible passably well. I am, I confess, a bit rusty on the Old Testament.

3. You are under no compulsion to believe Gide's aphorism. I do not present it as an argument, but merely as an item for reflection. I do not claim to justify his assertion in any way.

And, by the way, he was a French writer and moralist.

This view is different from the one you expressed before. It is coherent (it forms a consistent set). You can also consistently include my claim that desert must not be based on chance, to make for a severe but logically sound position.

I happen to disagree with this view -- I think it is inhumanly uncompassionate and, if heartfelt, evinces a disturbing nihilism -- but I respect its intellectual integrity.

Not everyone has JC, and it never says that we DESERVE to have his grace, it says it is a GIFT. That's the whole point. Even those who DO have JC still DESERVE death, they just won't get it because they've accepted God's grace.

[edit] Gollum, let me correct myself "Everyone deserves what he gets, but NOT everony gets what they deserve." this leaves room for the lucky folks who DON'T get the bad consequences, yeah?

I don't think it's nihilistik at all. Yes, we all DESERVE death and hell, but if we do the right thing, (not THINGS) then we don't have to get what we truly deserve. There is a lifeline extended to us by God, and all you have to do is take it and you will be saved from the unfortunate fate we have made for ourselves because of our sin. Unfortunately, in this day and age, it's REALLY hard to get people to BELIEVE in God. I know I wouldn't take a lifeline if I didn't see anything at the other end. How pointless. Anyway, that's pretty much the basis of Christianity... lol

PS. I'll send ya an OT bible if you want.

In Matthew 5:17 Jesus Himself says:

17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

Apparently, VERY little is changed. Yeah, "an eye for an eye" doesn't really apply, but it was not one of the LAWS to begin with. It is written in the bible, but it is not one of the 600-some-odd commandments.

Fisheye: That's not being pedantic. To deserve something is not always to get something, and to get something is not always to deserve it. Don't you agree?

If we're being pedantic then if you will look at "deserve" in the thesaurus, you will see the "earn" is a synonym. What do you do to wages? You earn them!