Comments on: President Obama and the bench

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:20:33 +0000

Now who is digging? I never said you did mention “God, Jesus or the Bible”. I was not even having the discussion with you. I made nothing “circular & vacuous”, that is just your pejorative way of trying to refute what you otherwise cannot. Should that be called any less childish? You sir, are well aware what “sue me” means.

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:30:35 +0000

#10 Mrs. Saunders….I never mentioned “God, Jesus or the Bible” in this thread. (Very seldom in any thread).

As to learned, (indoctrinated?) “empiricle” knowledge vis-a-vis innate knowledge….I understand the difference in concept/definition.

You blurred the two to “prove” your “argument”. Instead, IMO, you made it circular & vacuous.

Then, the personal insults & IMO (sue me) childish remarks. Have a nice evening, barring a new vector I’m finished with this thread.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:56:18 +0000

I do not believe I am “(Mis)-using words & concepts” and I know that I understand them. You are being your usual self and denigrating for the sake of denigrating. It is par for this course but it solves nothing.

I repeat, people who have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible are more than capable of “good” and knowing what it is. You cannot dispute that so you parse my words and decide the definitions you will accept, as per usual.

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 21:30:35 +0000

#8 This time the third definition, yet it still proves my point.

Explicitly not; (your #4) “Of course we have every “idea what “good” is”. We do not need a Theocracy to know it either. Free will was given to us all.”

Or; (your #6) “Whatever innate knowledge we gain….”

Keep digging Mrs. Saunders. (Mis)-using words & concepts one does not understand….but never being wrong. Tough ground.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:05:50 +0000

OK, I did:

“3: originating in or derived from the mind or the constitution of the intellect rather than from experience”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innate

Oh, that’s right Jim Lucas rules of discussion prevent the use of any other than his accepted definition of any word.

Sue me!

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:29:58 +0000

#6 “Whatever innate knowledge we gain…”

Thank you.

(Hint; look up “innate”).

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:49:13 +0000

I think you have it backwards. Whatever innate knowledge we gain is used in the exercise of our free will. People who have never heard of God, Jesus or the Bible are more than capable of “good” and knowing what it is.

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:30:50 +0000

#4 “Of course we have every “idea what “good” is”. We do not need a Theocracy to know it either. Free will was given to us all.”

Your words, correct? If you’re not equating knowing “good” with free will (and assumming such “good” supports your free will & vice versa) what are you saying?

The “distinct difference” is to most, obvious. People can & do use, mis-use, abuse, mis-represent, etc., “knowledge” (including as to what constitutes “good”) routinely with their “free will”. Even if there is such innate knowledge.

By: Sandi Saunders

Sandi Saunders — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 16:09:44 +0000

Oh, and his isn’t?

What is this “distinct difference” and where did I claim it did not exist?

By: Jim Lucas

Jim Lucas — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 15:31:39 +0000

Mrs. Saunders….there is a distinct difference between “free will” and innate knowledge. They are not necessarily mutualy exclusive, but neither are they necessarily mutual.

Your entire argument is circular & self serving.