[net.religion] Paul Zimmerman's spelling and other thoughts

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.