jrm@cbuxc.UUCP (John Miller) (09/06/85)
I noticed that Paul has consistently used the non-word "whorship" in place of what what I first assumed to be "worship". Upon checking with Webster, I find that there is no word "whorship", but there is a word "whor-ish" which is a derivitave of whore. According to Webster to "whore after" is defined as ...to pursue something immoral of depraved... I can't help wondering if this mis-use is intentional. Care to comment Paul? As to the content of Pauls articles - I agree that analysis of the bible would certainly lead one to those conclusions. However, the bible is a document written by humans, direct observation of humans leads me to beleive that they are flawed and imperfect and capable of writing all kinds of things they don't really know anything about. Therefore, I largely reject the content of the document. I would have to say that it is open to considerable interpretation on the readers part. This eliminates a rather large piece of Paul's evidence. As to the rest of his evidence, it is subjective and also open to interpretation. Paul asks some pretty pressing questions that I too have asked, but been unable to provide suitable answers. My own experience (totally subjective) has revealed a loving God. I didn't have clear enough communication with Him, however, to ask Him if Jesus is his son, if He really did all those nasty things the Bible says He did, etc, etc. We never really got past love. To me, that is a good start - I mean He could have shoved a lot of shit my way, but He didn't. I am still trying to know Him (part of the reason I read this newsgroup) better. I must admit, however, that Paul's theory is new to me - I would warn Paul not to get caught in the same trap he warns others of. Don't get so caught up in your own beliefs that you can't see anything else ------> just in case you are wrong. His articles remind me of a series of hypothetical letters that I once read between Satan and (his brother?) Michael? Satan presented many good arguments for his behavior and really came across as an OK guy. Michael answered the letters on God's behave and attempted to support God's position. I bring this up because some of Paul's writings remind of some of Satan's letters. I have a terrible memory for such details, but I wonder if anyone out there knows what it was that I read? If so, is there a similarity? Is Paul Zimmerman a merely a pen name for Satan? Would Bell Labs ever hire such a person knowing this? enough.... Regards, John R. Miller I have nothing cute to say at this point in the article - bear with me.