that's not what a strawman is. a strawman is defending an argument that no one is actually making that you can easily defend. In doing so you put can manipulate the argument to show whatever it is you want it to show while giving the impression you've addressed the argbut you've actually not addressed the issues at all and instead only focusing on the made-up argument no one is representing.
it's called a strawman because it's easy to build and even easier to knock over. You've built the argument no one is defending and then you knock it over and pretend that this works. Who said Jesus abolished the law? I certainly haven't, in fact, I have been very explicitly said he hasn't, so why are you telling me that's what I'm saying and then taking this made-up argument and proving it wrong? Who are you talking to and what argument are you proving wrong? it isn't mine because that's not what I said. You are refuting your own made-up argument.
Your primary method seems to be refuting other people's ideas by labelling them in the spirit of abolished (which you have done in this reply) and then accusing them of going against God's words and in doing and liberally misrepresent their words to force the abolished side. That my friend is called a strawman and there is nothing else that it can be called. it is a deceitful poor defence and shows you actually don't care about discussing the issue critically.
My position is not a strawman because it's actually what I believe. I'm not taking your words, changing them, and then telling you why my version of your words do not follow God's word (that's what you're doing) and if I was doing that it would be a strawman. What I am doing is representing my own words and using scripture to show why I think dietary laws are no longer in effect which then implicitly disagrees with your position. that's not called a strawman, it's called defending my own position.
So I will say it again, I explicitly reject that Christ came to abolish any laws and explicitly accept that Christ came to fulfill the law. now I will explicitly tell you the moment you tell me what I actually am saying is "abolished" this is a strawman. As far as I can see this is your only defence to throw out every one's comments and say they don't follow God but without showing any sources. We get why you think this way but you're not disproving anything your just repeating the same lines over and over and accusing people of rejecting God's words. This is antagonistic and shows poor character on your part.
