Originally posted by @romans1009
Actually, most of it is your response to what I posted, and the big mistake you made was in assuming I was writing to you.

Heads up. If you respond directly to a post I have made you are 'writing to me'.

You can contribute to a thread without doing that. Try it.

Originally posted by @sonship
You can get some truth from him.
You'll probably have to do some sifting eventually to separate it from errors.

You cool with that?

Sorry old chap, didn't realize you were the measure of truth.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You seem to have no problem communicating with me on other threads, trollmaster.

Got the cramps from Aunt Flo visiting?

Is he not communicating with you because he thinks you are me or is he not communicating with you because he simply can't handle the truth?

Originally posted by @someonewhodoesnotwanttobeaddressed
Sorry old chap, didn't realize you were the measure of truth.

Apparently you are the measure of truth? No?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Heads up. If you respond directly to a post I have made you are 'writing to me'.

You can contribute to a thread without doing that. Try it.

I’m not “writing to you” exclusively when the post is publicly available for everyone to read.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Is he not communicating with you because he thinks you are me or is he not communicating with you because he simply can't handle the truth?

Who knows why a troll does what he does?

Originally posted by @romans1009
<<People have seen gods for tens of thousands of years, in every culture and on every continent. People have seen gods in rivers and stags and lightning storms and burning bushes and eclipses and dreams and goats' entrails for as long as history records anything at all. Doesn't that strike you?>>

To be honest, it strikes me as nonsense. You’re identif ...[text shortened]... ck of better words) these people saw throughout history as gods?

On what basis? Their say-so?

'Signs and wonders', yup; no different to what is claimed in the Bible (virgin births and people rising from the dead and all the rest of it): somebody said he saw 'signs and wonders' and assumed it was a deity's or deities' work. Strikes me too as nonsense, but there's no denying that some people believed it then and still believe it now.

Have you heard of the case of the Cottingley Fairies? Even as recently as a hundred years ago, intelligent, educated people still believed in garden fairies. See the following article:

http://hoaxes.org/photo_database/image/the_cottingley_fairies/

That's what I mean about people seeing what they want to see; they have pre-conceived beliefs about how things are, and they interpret 'evidence' to support their beliefs. All it takes is one person's 'say-so' and someone else is bound to believe it and propagate it. Fake news and alternative facts are nothing new; gullible people are everywhere.

Originally posted by @moonbus
'Signs and wonders', yup; no different to what is claimed in the Bible (virgin births and people rising from the dead and all the rest of it): somebody said he saw 'signs and wonders' and assumed it was a deity's or deities' work. Strikes me too as nonsense, but there's no denying that some people believed it then and still believe it now.

Have you heard ...[text shortened]... d propagate it. Fake news and alternative facts are nothing new; gullible people are everywhere.

I think the evidence for Christ’s divinity is much stronger and widespread than evidence for other religions (as well, I suspect, gods from mythology though I really haven’t bothered to look into that.)

Haven’t heard of the Cottingley Fairies, but thanks for the link; will check it out later today.

I think, when it comes to Jesus Christ, nothing about how He came to earth, the message He preached and how/why He died was expected, so it’s hard to think it was simply 1st century Jews concocting a story based on preconceived ideas about what they thought their Messiah should do.

And even though some Messianic prophecies are in the Old Testament, the Pharisees of Christ’s time completely missed who they were dealing with.

Originally posted by @romans1009
Who knows why a troll does what he does?

Maybe since he is a mental health professional he would know why he does it.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Maybe since he is a mental health professional he would know why he does it.

I’ve heard most mental health professionals get into the field because they’re nuts and trying to diagnose and cure themselves.

I wonder if his behavior on the Internet is a symptom of some noggin trouble. It definitely reveals a sickness of the soul.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I’ve heard most mental health professionals get into the field because they’re nuts and trying to diagnose and cure themselves.

I wonder if his behavior on the Internet is a symptom of some noggin trouble. It definitely reveals a sickness of the soul.

Previously you implied that using the analogy 'torturing babies for fun' meant something was wrong with my 'noggin' until you realised the expression came exclusively from becker not me.

Then of course you went quiet.

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Previously you implied that using the analogy 'torturing babies for fun' meant something was wrong with my 'noggin' until you realised the expression came exclusively from becker not me.

Then of course you went quiet.

What are you babbling about? Post something substantive for a change.

Originally posted by @romans1009
What are you babbling about? Post something substantive for a change.

As stated;

'Previously you implied that using the analogy 'torturing babies for fun' meant something was wrong with my 'noggin' until you realised the expression came exclusively from becker not me.'

Can we therefore conclude you believe something is wrong with becker's noggin?

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
As stated;

'Previously you implied that using the analogy 'torturing babies for fun' meant something was wrong with my 'noggin' until you realised the expression came exclusively from becker not me.'

Can we therefore conclude you believe something is wrong with becker's noggin?

As stated:

What are you babbling about? Post something substantive for a change.

Originally posted by @romans1009
As stated:

What are you babbling about? Post something substantive for a change.

'Previously you implied that using the analogy 'torturing babies for fun' meant something was wrong with my 'noggin' until you realised the expression came exclusively from becker not me.'

We can therefore conclude you believe something is wrong with becker's noggin.