CROSS-EXAMINATION ON THE THEOLOGY OF SPIRIT
On the later part of the direct examination, Bishop Shrewd strategically managed to propound his last two questions:
Bishop Shrewd: Considering all those presentations, can you please tell us your educational qualifications and studies in relation with your thesis on the existence of the spirit?
Rev. Swindler: I obtained my Bachelor of Christian Ministry in 1970; Bachelor of Theology in 1973; Master of Arts in Theology in 1975; and Doctor of Theology in 1979. All from Harvard University.
Bishop Shrewd: Now, can you categorically state that spirit exists in reality?
Rev. Swindler: Affirmative.
Bishop Shrewd: Thank you, Reverend.
Arbiter: Cross-examination, any?
Barrister79: Reverend, in all years of your studies, have you come to directly observe spirits?
Rev. Swindler: Yes, in many ways.
Barrister79: I am not asking about the “many ways”, Reverend. Did you understand the question?
Bishop Shrewd: Is that a sort of an insult, sir?
Barrister79: You have the right to take it as such, Bishop. I was asking about the direct observation on spirits based on the assertion of its real existence. Was it difficult to understand?
Arbiter: Are you asking of an observation based on physical contact?
Barrister79: I want to know if that is what he meant with his statement that spirit exists in reality.
Bishop Shrewd: That is preposterous, Your Honor. Spirits does not have physical bodies. Its reality is not based on material substance as what is established in the direct examination, this Holy Tribunal has the record.
Barrister79: That is the reason why I am asking, Your Honor, about the Reverend’s direct observation to check whether the reality he is talking is excusively a product of his studies or something which we could possibly know by virtue of the object which could be directly observed.
Bishop Shrewd: I am requesting for an order, Your Honor. I recommend to aim his examination on the term “reality” as the foundation which is ought to be laid.
Arbiter: Comment from the cross-examiner.
Barrsiter79: That is improper, Your Honor. It is my understanding that there is no reality other than the observable reality. If the purpose of the Bishop’s obstruction is to prevent me from asking any further question, then I will yield should they admit that the reality they are talking are mere concepts and not the objective reality. Now, if I may proceed, Your Honor?
Arbiter: Please proceed.
Barrister79: Thank you! Reverend, do you know that every real object has a component?
Rev. Swindler: Yes, I am aware of it.
Barrister79: Are you also aware that only nothing is composed of nothing?
Rev. Swindler: Ahhh… Yes.
Barrister79: Do you know that there is no reality when there is no composition which makes it real?
Bishop Shrewd: Your Honor, the examiner was just playing the semantics of language.
Barrister79: We can stop playing, Bishop, if the reality of your spirits will be established. Allow me to proceed, Your Honor!
Arbiter: Answer the question.
Rev. Swindler: Yes, of course. No composition – No reality.
Barrsiter79: Good. [smiling] Now, can you tell us what composed the spirit you have directly observed?
Rev. Swindler: You mean the composition that makes spirit real?
Barrister79: Never mind, Reverend. Just don’t bother yourself about it.
No comments yet.
Leave a comment
-
Recent
- Business Lessons 6: Systematic Designation
- Questions on Sound Business Practice
- The Defects of the “Proof of Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt”
- Business Lessons 5: Management Guides
- CONDEMNATIONS ON ACTS AGAINST WOMEN
- Business Lessons 4: Questions on Capital
- DEATH OF A PERSON AFTER SEXUAL AFFAIRS: Questions
- Ancient Legal Doctrines Involved in Negligence Cases: Comments and Simplified Explanation
- The Salient Features of Niccolo Machiavelli’s “The Prince”
- COMMENTS ON THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
- Comments on the Jurisdictions of the International Criminal Court
- My Analysis on the Territorial Application of Criminal Law
-
Links
-
Archives
- September 2009 (1)
- August 2009 (1)
- May 2009 (1)
- September 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (3)
- May 2008 (7)
- April 2008 (3)
- March 2008 (4)
- February 2008 (22)
- January 2008 (4)
-
Categories
- American Politics
- Argumentation & Debate
- Bible
- Business
- Business & Strategy
- Business Consultancy
- Business Lesson
- Business Philosophy
- Catholicism
- Civil Law
- Commentary
- Common Sense
- Conspiracy Theory
- Corruption
- Criticism
- Cross-Examination
- Elegy
- Epistemology
- Ethics
- Existential Atheism
- Existentialism
- FreeThinker Philosophy
- God
- Hermeneutics
- Heroism
- Human Rights Advocacy
- International Traditions
- Interpretation & Construction
- Jean Paul Sartre
- Jurisprudence
- Language
- Law
- Law on Negligence
- Legal Hypocrisy
- Legal System
- Memory
- Moral Standards
- Niccolo Machiavelli
- Philosophy
- Political Philosophy
- Politics
- Proposed Legislation
- Psychology
- Questioning
- Religion
- Rene Descartes
- Rhetorical Prayer
- Rhetorics
- Semantics
- Skepticism
- Strategic Questioning
- Theology
- Thesis
- Truth
- Uncategorized
- War
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS