It is now time, for Shalmo the Dishonest Debater Part 4. Since this guy can't stop using ad hominems against me, I am going to start to call him Shamo.
So here we go. Shamo the Dishonest Debater Part 4. This is in reference to the comments section of http://thoughtsofasj.blogspot.com/2010/04/delving-into-theology.html
What happened was Shamo thinks he backed me into a corner with his bull shit after I told him to get help. Let us review why the post that Shamo wrote that inspired me to tell him to get help was indeed bull shit.
>> SJ I am sorry but your responses are just too ridiculous. You don't deal with any of the issues, you just post pseudo-responses which I don't think even you take seriously.
Ok here we have Shamo mocking my answers which I do give on a point by point basis. This isn't sticking to the issues, this is just mocking.
>> I suppose I cannot argue with a blind believer. You seem to be as dogmatic as Garnel is with his precious oral Torah, even though you and I both know the Kings 22 argument is irrefutable.
Calling me a blind believer is absurd. I was switching from agnostic to atheist back and forth for a long time and the irony is Shamo called me a blind believer on a thread where I do indeed question a fundamental aspect of mainstream religious thought.
I answered the Kings 22 thing already in the thread Delving into Theology but Shamo steamrolled over it with ad hominem instead of fact.
>> That said you do bring up something interesting. You state that the NT removes the OT law because its impossible to follow. Well why the fuck did your god reveal such a horrible, impossible to follow law in the first place, if he was just going to remove it anyway?
It is important to note that Biblical Judaism was not as strict as present day Judaism. The rules were difficult but they made sense. The problem was the pharisees were trying to make them more difficult. In Acts 15:10-11 Jesus asks the Pharisees "Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Christianity was the first secularism. It was the first time that Jews revolted against a growing list of chrumas. To paraphrase, the pharisees sought to establish their religiousity via the performance of rituals and with NT it is via faith and good deeds.
As for the Old Law, abstaining from premarital sex protected from STDs, abstaining from pork protected from Trichinellosis, and the Sabbath was vital in maintaining a communal atmosphere (I would question the Sabbath's importance now in 2010 though but that's for another thread). Clearly, the Old Law as it was written was given for the follower's own good.
>> the same goes for the messianic age. if God eventually plans on removing free will, to ensure that in the future nations will not raise sword against nation, then he could just as well never have given us free will to begin with. Why not jsut start the messianic age with Adam and Hawwah?
Whether free will will exist or not in the messianic age is merely speculatory.
>> If the wage of sin is death then I wonder. Why the hell did God make such a system in the first place, where due to the weight of sin he has to come down and committ suicide to save us from himself? Why not just make us in a form where he would not have to do that?
Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." It is a statement on free will.
>> In the parable of the prodigal son Jesus teaches that sincere repentence alone was enough for the father to forgive his son for his sins. Yet with Pauline Christianity, all of sudden we are told without Jesus' suicidal atonement, there can be no forgiveness. In which case did Jesus contradict himself in the parable of the prodigal son, or is the more likely scenario, that Jesus was never even familiar with Paul's ideas on vicarious sacrifice?
Shamo, stop making up imaginary contradictions. We already covered this in previous threads and on Garnel's blog. Also Shamo, get help.