Okay, so then where did Hinduism come from? Where did their ideas about morality come from? From people? Okay, I can see that. People made up some spiritual things that related to their culture. Reincarnation sounded reasonable to them and explained why things are as they are. But there's some "coherency" problems.
The bible says that all men have a God given moral conscience, and all men violate it. This explains why everyone has similar ideas about what is good and evil, but why they differ in key areas at times. So a Hindu has a God given conscience which he incorporates into a false religion. He does so in a flawed manner so you get similarities and some exceptions. The apostle of common sense, the great G. K. Chesterton said "Most men can agree on what is wrong, they just differ on what wrongs to excuse". For example the morally unjustified taking of life exists in almost every culture as a wrong but what is moral justification differs quite a bit.
But, do you really believe there are no incoherent doctrines in Christianity? This thread attests to one of the biggest problems with Christianity. God has the power to stop evil, and one day will, but for now, he allows it? He drowned everybody but Noah's family? For what? Evil still exists, so why did he kill all those people? Even Noah should have been killed, since the world just filled up with his evil descendants. Supposedly, because of some "inherited" sin? I wonder, if none of us are "perfect" enough on our own, and without Jesus none of us are going to make it, but then he already knows who will accept Jesus, why did he make the rest of us? And that salvation loophole? Your "age of accountability" thing? That is a totally Christian made up doctrine, and so is your morally depraved doctrine also. It is your attempt at bringing some "coherency" to your beliefs. But what do you believe? The Bible?
You ask more question per paragraph than anyone.
1. I believe they are all coherent but not all are intuitive to finite beings, nor should they be.
2. Evil is a necessary potentiality of freewill. You can't have freewill without wrong choices.
3. It was the pervasive level of evil that caused either a literal flood or an analogy with one.
New International Version
The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time.
4. That level of evil does not exist currently but we are heading that direction. The bible says when we get there that is it. Christ comes back and wipes out evil for the last time (depending on interpretations about millennialism). If you have traveled abroad you would know evil can take over a population.
5. Noah's descendants did not have that same level of evil. Evil can consume good and would have if not for the flood and if not in modern times for the US in WW2.
6. Knowing you will chose wrong has no effect on your choice. He gave you a choice without compulsion. His knowing what you will chose does not change that. He gave life, if used to reject it's author, that life is taken back. Where is the injustice?
7. I don't get "loop hole"
8. There is no justice in the age of accountability. The last two are not even questions.
9. It is Christian it is not made up by any human.
10. I know Christ, I believe much of the bible by reason and evidence, I accept the rest of faith.
If God acted any differently in any of your quasi-questions he would not be God or just. One paragraph ten questions, amazing.
I would really doubt if you use or even believe in all of "Scripture". Most Christians, it seems, leave out most of the Hebrew part of it. Why? Isn't it because it is irrelevant? Or, could you say, some of it is "incoherent" with your Christian beliefs? How much of it do you really use? I know you'll probably say you believe it is all, but I really doubt it. I doubt you follow "God's" Law and the Sabbath commandment. And why is that? God didn't change his mind on what's important to him did he? Did he stop requiring animal sacrifices for atonement? Did he ever really accept them? Or he only wanted it for a short time to establish the idea of needing blood to atone for sin? Really, where is the "coherency" in Christianity?
1. I have levels of certainty and understanding for each verse. From 100% to less than 10%.
2. I did not leave out any Hebrew part of anything.
3. It is all relevant to faith.
4. Some of it on the surface challenges other parts but with only slight study the challenges usually evaporate.
5. I have no idea how much I really use. I imperfectly use quite a bit.
6. No OT law has applied in the same way in 2000 years.
New International Version
having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross.
The man who said that knew more about the law than the rest of the apostles put together.
We no longer live in a covenant based on law. We live in a covenant based on grace. The laws did not change but our relationship to them has. It would take a book to explain this and with 10 questions per paragraph I can't do so here.
7. Of course he stopped with the animals which never took away sin. The OT contains types and shadows of things that came to pass in the new. The perfect rams and doves only pushed sin forward until the true lamb of God came and washed away sin for good. Your suggesting I do exactly what Christ and the apostles said I am not to do. Now that I have the real thing I am not to go back to the symbolic things. You should understand that which you condemn before you risk your soul in the conclusion. This is Christianity 101 stuff.
8. He provisionally accepted animals until the true sacrifice came along. If you would read about it you will find the animals pushed sin forward and had to do so every year until Christ came. He was the true sacrifice and once completed did not have to be repeated.
9. I have seen no incoherency yet. Is that coming at some point.
Christians scour the Hebrew Scriptures to find verses to make their story make sense, it still doesn't. Why? Because, I believe Judaism is a totally different and separate religion. You claim it is part of Christianity, and that it is all part of the same plan, but that not necessarily so. Look at what you've done to Judaism. You've done to Judaism exactly what Islam and the Baha'i Faith does to you. They say they came from you, but they have changed everything. They've made your beliefs irrelevant. And just like what you have done to Judaism, they found things in the Bible that makes their story sound true. Just like you, they make verses literal when they needed them to be literal. And they make them symbolic what when they need them to be symbolic.
1. It makes so much sense that in spite of their extraordinary claims they have convinced 1/3 of the human race, have conquered empires set on their destruction without drawing a sword, and exploded on the scene in a nation hostile to it, in an empire who sought to eradicate it. It has convinced countless numbers of the greatest intellects in history and is the most scrutinized subject in history.
2. Judaism is a different covenant but the same religion.
3. The rest of that above doe snot make any sense. I think you made some typing mistakes or something.
But I can't believe you don't like the possibility of reincarnation. What's so wrong with it? One shot at life? No, I wouldn't mind several chances. What is so "incoherent" about that? I don't know about you, but a lot of things in this life have been great. I wouldn't mind coming back doing it all over again. But I know, what about all the people born into horrible situations? Well yeah, wouldn't it be a nice gesture of God to reward them with a another life... but under better circumstances? Besides, what are you going to do in heaven for eternity? Praise God day and night? Will there even be days and nights? Really? What are you going to be doing? Why not let God send you back into another physical body. Maybe you could come back as a Hindu in rural India? Wouldn't that be fun?
1. I think re-incarnation is one of the dumbest ideas in theology and that is saying something. It has so many incoherent features I am loath to start listing them.
2. What is wrong with it is another issue from what I don't like about it. Only your side combines the two. Besides what I don't like is not really debatable or relevant.
3. What you like is the same as no 2. above.
4. I really can't find any reason to haggle over re-incarnation. I will just add one anecdote. When the protégées missionaries arrived in India, they were somewhat brutal in their efforts to convert. What surprised everyone was that hordes of Hindus leaped into their arms anyway. Because even if they did not practice it perfectly the idea of human equality was a doctrine in Christianity but was absent in Hinduism. Hinduism stuck people in castes and for the lower rungs there was no way out. You want a real critique of Hinduism and oriental philosophy see Ravi Zacharias or Dinesh D'Souza.
5. For a person who has spent a few fleeting hours in just the foretaste of the kind of peace and contentment that God offers I would be happy to only have that for eternity but doctrine states I have only felt the tip of the ice burg. I have no words that can convey it so won't attempt to.
6. It is not really in my power to dictate what God does so the rest of that is kind of silly. This is not up to us thank God.
