Does J. J. believe in the Doctrine of Immutability?

[Alcon]

Sigh, J. J., no.  A strawman fallacy is when you claim that someone holds a position that they don't, and then attack them accordingly.  I haven't attacked Immutability.  You're the one who seemed to claim I believed it, in fact (it being a doctrine of the "Church of Alcon.")

I never claimed that a majority of Christian denominations practice Immutability, just that at least some do.  At first, I assumed that a majority did; now, I suspect that's untrue, but I'm having trouble finding a source that addresses this either way.  I don't see which "liturgical and scriptural" sources you've provided give a meaningful answer to this question.  Maybe you will have to point that out.

Anyway, to commit a Strawman fallacy, I have to:

1. Assert that you have a belief you don't (once you said that you do not believe in Immutability, I did not claim you did); and,

2. Attack that belief (I have neither attacked nor defended Immutability, just explored its repercussions and the requirements for consistency)

Which I haven't done.  But is exactly what you are doing, now.

[J. J.]

Sigh, J. J., no.  A strawman fallacy is when you claim that someone holds a position that they don't, and then attack them accordingly.  I haven't attacked Immutability.  You're the one who seemed to claim I believed it, in fact (it being a doctrine of the "Church of Alcon.")

I never claimed that a majority of Christian denominations practice Immutability, just that at least some do.  At first, I assumed that a majority did; now, I suspect that's untrue, but I'm having trouble finding a source that addresses this either way.  I don't see which "liturgical and scriptural" sources you've provided give a meaningful answer to this question.  Maybe you will have to point that out.

Anyway, to commit a Strawman fallacy, I have to:

1. Assert that you have a belief you don't (once you said that you do not believe in Immutability, I did not claim you did); and,

2. Attack that belief (I have neither attacked nor defended Immutability, just explored its repercussions and the requirements for consistency)

Which I haven't done.  But is exactly what you are doing, now.

Alcon, if very few denominations make a doctrine out of the belief of immutability, and most don't incorporate it, why are you bringing it up and elevating it.  Frankly, immutability is not an orthodox Christian view.  You are assigning a belief to a religion that few, if any, believe in.

You are not attacking a belief, but assigning a belief to what is orthodox Christianity (and the vast majority of Christianity) that it does not hold.  It's like assigning Karma as a Christian belief, or Transubstantiation to Islam.  In that way, you are misrepresenting Christianity.

Alcon=Strawman

[Alcon]

J. J.,

Here is the post you are objecting to:

As far as I know, Christian teaching is pretty uniform in arguing that God is unchanging.  However, for Free Will to be valid, God's knowledge has to have changed.  I guess you could argue that a change in knowledge does not have to affect God, since "unchanging" could arguably not apply to knowledge.  You may also believe that God is not "unchanging" in either sense.

Man, look at the bolded part.  Even before you even told me that Immutability is not a "pretty uniform" belief in Christianity, I noted that it may not be.  I said you may not believe that, and obviously you're a Christian.  I never claimed with certainty that it was.  I just claimed that it was, "as far as I know."  Once you said it wasn't, I never argued that again.  If I did, please show where.  I also never attacked the belief (I even presented an argument defending the belief!), which is a requirement for the Strawman Fallacy.

Meanwhile, you've claimed that I subscribe to Immutability ("this doctrine of the Church of Alcon, Reformed"), and then proceeded to attack Immutability.  That was a Strawman, and you still haven't conceded it.  You are being completely ridiculous.

[J. J.]

As far as I know, Christian teaching is pretty uniform in arguing that God is unchanging. 

[/quote]

Bolding added.  That is a misrepresentation of Christian teaching, certainly mainstream christian teaching.

As I said:  Alcon=Strawman

[Alcon]

Yeah, that's what I just said.

I was incorrect in my supposition, conceded that I might have been when I made the statement, and accepted it when I was informed otherwise.  Where in that did I act irresponsibly or dishonsetly?

And it's still not a Strawman Fallacy unless I attack the position, a fact you've ignored for five consecutive posts.  You also mockingly claimed I believed in Immutability ("Church of Alcon"), even after I explicitly said I didn't.  Unless I am completely missing something here, you are being hypocritical and ridiculous, too.

[J. J.]

Yeah, that's what I just said.

I was incorrect in my supposition, conceded that I might have been when I made the statement, and accepted it when I was informed otherwise.  Where in that did I act irresponsibly or dishonsetly?

And it's still not a Strawman Fallacy unless I attack the position, a fact you've ignored for five consecutive posts.  So:

1. When I make a factual mistake, and accept correction, it's not OK.

You didn't accept recognition of it, until a few minutes ago, after we slaughtered all these electrons on this thread. 

2. When you keep misconstruing the Strawman Fallacy in order to attack me, while ignoring the fact that you wrongly claimed that I believe in the Doctrine of Immutability, that's OK.

Like I said, ridiculous.

No, you've tried to incorporate this doctrine of immutability into your arguments on free will, even after it was noted repeatedly this doctrine was not widely accepted.  That is why Alcon=Strawman.  You basically would have to change mainstream Christian doctrine to come up with your premise.  You are free to do that, if you wish to start your own church, hence electing yourself Grand High Archbishop.  And that wouldn't chance mainsteam, orthodox, Christianity.

That was one of the reasons I wanted a separate thread, because it, immutability, is not part of Christian (and possibly not part of the Judeo-Christian) orthodoxy. 

[Alcon]

Show me an instance where I subsequently claimed that it was a required, or near-universal, belief of Christianity.  Quote one.

Also, you do realize that I presented Free Will from both the Immutability and No Immutability sides?  Do you understand what a permutation is, and why someone might be interested in exploring the ramifications of permutations?

Those permutations are not dependent on how many Christians subscribe to Immutability.  Christianity is irrelevant in that situation.  And, in fact, some Christians do subscribe to Immutability.  Even if that's just 1%, it makes exploring Immutability from a Judeo-Christian perspective valid.

[J. J.]

Right here, bolded.

As far as I know, Christian teaching is pretty uniform in arguing that God is unchanging. 

Now some Christians believe that Old Testament dietary laws still apply (no pork), that reincarnation happens, that the Last Judgment happened in 1757, or that Jesus was a semi-divine being, and that dancing is sinful.  Those views are not held by a majority of Christians, nor are they part of the doctrine of most Christian churches.

No, I'm not interested in discussing how free will applies if the Apocalypse happened in 1757, unless I'm well paid to think about it (I actually was for a few days in 2003).

[Alcon]

So, in other words, I never asserted that as an argument pretext after you disagreed with it, and I even conceded that I might have been wrong two times when I said it originally.  So, I was incorrect in my assumption and owned up to it.  You claimed this is a "Strawman" over a dozen times, which it is not, because I never attacked Immutability, and didn't even continue with the assumption after you disputed it.

Meanwhile, you claimed (in a mocking tone!) that I subscribed to the Doctrine of Immutability.  I said several times that I did not.  You were demonstrably incorrect about this, too.  But you didn't admit to being incorrect, and never conceded that you could have been.  You were also demonstrably incorrect with your claims that I was committing a Strawman Fallacy.  Lo and behold, no admission of this, either.

I don't have issue with incorrect assumptions.  I have made one in this topic, at least; you have, at least, made two.  I have a problem with people who are stubborn about their own errors and completely unempathetic about others'.  You mocked an honest mis-presumption that was not perpetuated after it was disputed.  Meanwhile, you refuse to even take ownership of your own mis-presumptions, which were equally wrong, continued after their errors were pointed out, and founded in hostility.

If I were paying someone to have this conversation, I would get someone with an iota of professionalism.  I am not interested in paying you anything.  It would be wasted on Mensa car stickers, anyway.  Cheers.

[J. J.]

Alcon, I think I'm obviously mocking you for claiming the was a mainstream Christian belief.    I'm saying that if you want to start your own religion and have this as a core belief, even hypothetically, you are free to, but don't claim that it's Christianity.

I've also cited both scriptural and liturgical sources indicating your premise was false, in terms of what Christianity believes, and after that, you still incorporated it. 

This would be like (an example):

Me:  Kosher Jews eat ham sandwiches.

You:.  No, J. J., people who keep Kosher don't eat ham or pork.

Me:  When Kosher Jews eat ham sandwiches, can they drink milk with it?

I think I'd be accused, correctly, of the straw man fallacy  if I seriously something that moronic.

[Alcon]

Then please produce a quote where, after you disputed my original (incorrect) assumption, I re-asserted that Immutability is a necessary or mainstream Christian belief.  You have failed to do this.

(That does NOT include instances where I explored Immutability from a Christian perspective, because some Christian sects do subscribe to it.  There is no misrepresentation there.)

By the way, you still do not understand what a Strawman Fallacy is.  A fallacy has to have #3 and #4.  I assume that you'd object if I mocked this error, because only other people's errors are funny and yours apparently don't exist.  Even though, again, I admitted that my statement might have been correct at the time, and yours was intended only to disparage and mock me.  Charming.

[J. J.]

Then please produce a quote where, after you disputed my original (incorrect) assumption, I re-asserted that Immutability is a necessary or mainstream Christian belief.  You have failed to do this.

(That does NOT include instances where I explored Immutability from a Christian perspective, because some Christian sects do subscribe to it.  There is no misrepresentation there.)

By the way, you still do not understand what a Strawman Fallacy is.  A fallacy has to have #3 and #4.  I assume that you'd object if I mocked this error, because only other people's errors are funny and yours apparently don't exist.  Even though, again, I admitted that my statement might have been correct at the time, and yours was intended only to disparage and mock me.  Charming.

These:

I understand all of those parts, but my questions were if it's not a Presbyterian thing, and what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours.

Plus unless God can have no characteristics beyond those three, that's even more of a non-answer.  You wanted the thread.  I'm getting my money's worth since I have permission to ask questions about a topic that's hard to thresh out on Google

I don't think I've ever claimed that immutability was a "Presbyterian thing."  I actually could not identify a Christian sect that has as part of its theology, as a doctrine, that God is immutable.

Yea, but God even had foreknowledge that he'd create a New Covenant, so that doesn't necessarily involve changing His fundamental nature, knowledge, anything.  That just involves changing his actions.  A change in action can easily be defined out of being a "change."  Do you believe that God's fundamental nature changes, then?

And (not that scripture is very interesting to me in this sort of argument, but) how do you interpret Malachi 3:6?

I can identify numerous Christian sects, including my own, and Presbyterianism, that recognize this change with the New Covenant.  Having a change argues against immutability, and has nothing to do with predestination or free will.

If you want to know why I "disparage and mock" you (and I wouldn't use either term), it is because you've repeatedly misrepresented the importance of these beliefs in Christian theology are and try to string together unrelated concepts.

Now, either you are deliberately creating a straw man or you are nowhere near as bright as I thought you were, and are unwilling to learn.

[Alcon]

That is not re-asserting that it is a universal or majority Christian doctrine.  I asked "what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours."  (Emphasis added -- "some sects"!  How do you interpret that as universal/majority?!)

Either find me a place where I re-asserted the disputed point, or admit that you are wrong.

[J. J.]

That is not re-asserting that it is a universal or majority Christian doctrine.  I asked "what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours."  (Emphasis added -- "some sects"!  How do you interpret that as universal/majority?!)

Either find me a place where I re-asserted the disputed point, or admit that you are wrong.

And then you added "Presbyterian," and I just quoted it.  Of course you left it out.  As far as I know, they do not hold to immutability. 

I understand all of those parts, but my questions were if it's not a Presbyterian thing, and what the core disagreements of scriptural interpretation are that lead some sects and people to belief in Immutability, but not yours.

Simple answer, it is not a Presbyterian thing.

Frankly, I don't even know what these "some sects" are.  Is there some individual that believe in immutability; I'd bet there is.  I know an Episcopalian that believes in reincarnation; as a rule Episcopalians don't. 

Alcon, I use to respect you; I do no longer.

[J. J.]

If I were paying someone to have this conversation, I would get someone with an iota of professionalism.  I am not interested in paying you anything.  It would be wasted on Mensa car stickers, anyway.  Cheers.

Somebody failed the entrance examination.

[Alcon]

J. J.,

The quote was not modified in any way, so I'm not sure what you're accusing me of.  I asked if it was a Presbyterian thing, and why or why not.  I asked if you were a Presbyterian.  I did not re-assert that it was a universal or common Christian doctrine, now did I?

Oh, and I did a little more digging.  Apparently there's this obscure theological text that endorses Immutability called Summa Theologica by some dude named St. Thomas Aquinas.  Pretty far out of the mainstream, I guess?

Now that we've gotten that out of the way:  If you've lost respect for me on the grounds of impatience in the debate, I apologize if I've been excessively hostile.  But if that's the basis, I wonder how much respect you have for yourself after the "Church of Alcon, Reformed" bit.

Cheers.

[Alcon]

If I were paying someone to have this conversation, I would get someone with an iota of professionalism.  I am not interested in paying you anything.  It would be wasted on Mensa car stickers, anyway.  Cheers.

Somebody failed the entrance examination.

Doesn't an IQ test qualify for entrance?  Can you fail those?    I actually scored 28 points lower on the second half of my IQ test than the first, so maybe that failed me.  I had ADHD and just wanted to play Connect Four.  What can I say?

I also wonder if the Mensa bumper-sticker manufacturer people have diversified.  Maybe they also make an "Ask Me About My Gigantic Penis" bumper-sticker, or maybe "I Can ProbablyPiss Farther."  But I digress.

[Aizen]

what is this crap?

[Alcon]

what is this crap?

What about I can probably piss farther do you not understand

[J. J.]

what is this crap?

Alcon either deliberately misrepresenting positions or making numerous mistakes and not being bright enough to correct them.

You are watching Alcon lose it.

[Bacon King]

The only reason Alcon might be losing it is that he's seemingly arguing with a brick wall.

[J. J.]

The only reason Alcon might be losing it is that he's seemingly arguing with a brick wall.

He lost it a long time ago on this thread.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Seems that this thread is confusing "changes in God's law" with the idea that "God himself has changed".

But, God himself does NOT change and any statement to the contrary is going to run smack into this verse:

Heb 13:8 "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

and...

"but you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Hebrews 1:12; Psalm 102:25-27 )

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And Alcon, anything, is unchanged until it is changed.  I don't interpret Malachi the way you do.  Mainstream Christianity doesn't interpret Malachi the way you do.  

It doesn't?!

are you saying that "Mainstream Christianity" believes that God himself changes?  If so, on what basis to they believe that?