Thread: A Lawyer Presents a Case for the Afterlife

Oh my, a book?

Humm, I'll read it when I'll have time.

That will be in like, 20 years. Thanks for the tip, though. 8)

The problem with a Lawyer's argument is that it is guaranteed to be intellectually dishonest. Lawyers are advocates. They do not represent the Truth, or indeed, feel the least interest in the Truth. They are only employed to prostitute their intellects toward advancing a cause they are paid to endorse. You will never hear the Truth from a lawyer unless it should first fit into some clever and cunning strategy to win his case.

The essense of Intellectual Honesty is more likely to come from one who sits more as a magestrate... not even a Judge, for they are like lawyers also, advocating their own decisions, fearful of the Appelate Courts above themselves. But a Traditional Majestrate, like King Solomon, who would have to look upon everything before him and incorporate within his Decision the pros and the cons -- showing both sides of the scales in his weighing -- THAT is Intellectual Honesty... something you'll never get from a lawyer.

Besides, lawyers don't know anything but the the trickeries and obfuscations of the Law. If you would like to know about the Afterlife, why shouldn't you consult those who have encountered the Subject honestly.

I know how you feel, I don't like lawyer's either, which is why you should read it.
All references he gives can be fully researched for yourself by going into google and looking up the topics for yourself. This is not a project he's paid to endorse, simply giving the other side of the coin to most people who have written off many things as easily explainable, that may not be.
I understand you feelings about lawyers, and coming from someone who has actually read the ebook, you should give it a read through before making that sort of decision about the writer. He doesn't make the case for you, simply gives you alot of information which has probably not come to light for alot of people who are interested in the subject. Its worth a read, but if you would rather stray away from it because of what you think the man might represent, I'd suppose I can understand that as well. To each his own.

Originally posted by Oneironaut
I know how you feel, I don't like lawyer's either, which is why you should read it.
All references he gives can be fully researched for yourself by going into google and looking up the topics for yourself. This is not a project he's paid to endorse, simply giving the other side of the coin to most people who have written off many things as easily explainable, that may not be.
I understand you feelings about lawyers, and coming from someone who has actually read the ebook, you should give it a read through before making that sort of decision about the writer. He doesn't make the case for you, simply gives you alot of information which has probably not come to light for alot of people who are interested in the subject. Its worth a read, but if you would rather stray away from it because of what you think the man might represent, I'd suppose I can understand that as well. To each his own.

I'm sorry but some people simply have to maintain a certain moral standard and not touch anything that was touched by a lawyer.

Originally posted by Leo Volont


I'm sorry but some people simply have to maintain a certain moral standard and not touch anything that was touched by a lawyer.

The concept of such a moral standard is arbitrary, of course.
However, even if one considers it nonarbitrary, it still seems rather odd. What moral superiority is obtained by not reading something put together by a lawyer? Is reading it going to turn you into one of them, or something like that?
What would happen if the book were brought to your attention, and you were not told that he was a lawyer (supposing that it did not say so on that website)? If you read it unknowingly, would you still lose some of your moral high-ground?

Just because something is someone's job doesn't mean that he/she acts similarly for everything else.

Thats just kinda stereotypical. As understandable as somebody having the point of view that "All cops are bad," when in fact there are alot of cops out there who do their jobs right, and justly.
The higher moral standard would not be to Stereotype, but to be able to read through something that May be tainted, and still have the insight to decide for yourself.

There are actually some lawyers out there who only represent people they feel are truely innocent. They're tough to find though.

People are individuals and even though a lawyer plays a side rather then the truth most of the time I would have two opinions without having read the who book at this time. 1.what has the story teller to gain .2 Like Oneironaut said (He doesn't make the case for you, simply gives you allot of information). If he is giving empirical data to review, then it can't hurt to review it as long as you maintain your independence and analytical mind. I will read it more later when I have the time.

Originally posted by Oneironaut

The higher moral standard would not be to Stereotype, but to be able to read through something that May be tainted, and still have the insight to decide for yourself.

Well said!

Thankya. 8)