Page 2 of 3
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 2:45 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
Ho hum, so you claim. A real prophet can predict the future. So what will the Dow Jones Industrials close at today?
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:38 pm
by bobevenson
Philosophy Explorer wrote:bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
A real prophet can predict the future.
Please, how many times do I have to tell you that prophecy is a divinely inspired utterance, not a prediction of the future.
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 3:43 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:Philosophy Explorer wrote:bobevenson wrote:Please, prophecy is not subject to legal jurisdiction or science.
A real prophet can predict the future.
Please, how many times do I have to tell you that prophecy is a divinely inspired utterance, not a prediction of the future.
If you want to prove you're a prophet to me, then tell me what the Dow Jones Industrials will close at today. Otherwise preach your religion elsewhere.
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:07 pm
by bobevenson
I'm sorry, but you don't understand the word "prophecy," and there's not much I can do about that except refer you to a dictionary.
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:09 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:I'm sorry, but you don't understand the word "prophecy," and there's not much I can do about that except refer you to a dictionary.
You're not even a second-rate prophet compared to Jesus, Moses and the others.
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:12 pm
by bobevenson
There are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 4:51 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:There are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
That's right, you're not even a second-rate prophet as you can't even make predictions.
As far as your "mystical credentials" goes, you may as well flush them down the toilet as self-referential statements hold no water here so you can just pack up your suitcase and leave.
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:42 pm
by bobevenson
I repeat, there are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 6:49 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:I repeat, there are no second-rate prophets, you're either a prophet or you're not, and I have the mystical credentials to prove it.
And I repeat, you're not even a second-rate prophet as you can't even make predictions.
As far as your "mystical credentials" goes, you may as well flush them down the toilet as self-referential statements hold no water here so you can just pack up your suitcase and leave.
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:01 pm
by bobevenson
Please, educate yourself by looking up the word "prophet," and stop making such foolish comments.
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:03 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:Please, educate yourself by looking up the word "prophet," and stop making such foolish comments.
I'm already educated. Have you ever been to college?
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:35 pm
by bobevenson
Have you looked up the word "prophet," dum-dum?
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:44 pm
by Philosophy Explorer
bobevenson wrote:Have you looked up the word "prophet," dum-dum?
You're not even a second-rate prophet, charlatan.
PhilX
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:49 pm
by bobevenson
And you don't know how to use a dictionary, dum-dum!
Re: Lawyers Should Not Be on the US Supreme Court
Posted: Mon Mar 27, 2017 10:52 pm
by Philosophy Explorer