Brief responses and withdrawal from net.origins
Paul Zimmerman
First, to Charles Blair: let me assure you that I do not hate
animals. The word ``pig'' is loaded with negative connotations in American
English. It is those connotations (and not those related to the animal
itself) that are best associated with the Damager-God. Likewise, when I
speak of God as an animal, the word is used to describe God's amorality
in action. Amorality is expected in an animal which is not a sentient being.
Not in a sentient deity. You say you find my hatred ``both offensive and
scary.'' I am curious to know what you might mean by that. If I expressed
hatred for Hitler, I'm sure you would want to join in. What is offensive
or scary about expressing similar hatred for the being who motivated
Hitler, who interferes in the world and wreaks havoc throughout it daily?
To David Green: no one doubts that six million Jews were killed by
an evil hideous man and his followers (a man who was himself fulfilling the
will of the evil God Himself). But why believe that the actions that followed
(the establishment of a Jewish state) were the acts of God? I tend to think
that they occured despite God, not because of God. After all, He failed in
His attempt to give His lackey (Hitler) control of the Earth, so we know He
is not as all-powerful as He claims to be.
To Scott Collins: I apologize if I misunderstood your article. I had
gotten the impression from earlier articles of yours that you were from the
school that says ``believe in the goodness of God regardless of what your
common sense tells you.'' But let me ask you this. Why do you presumptuously
assume that I erroneously absorbed an incorrect negative impression of what
you said. I don't mean this to be harsh or cruel, but your writing is not
the clearest nor the easiest to understood. Certainly your mastery of
grammar (you said ``I had wrote'') and spelling (you were the one who kept
refering to Satan as ``Satin'' a long time ago) leave something to be desired.
Again, I'm not saying this to insult you, but the impression I got from that
sentence about common sense was reasonable, especially in light of your past
articles and the ambiguity in your style. You claim that Satan is a separate
evil entity distinct from God. Unfortunately, God and Satan are one and the
same, with God using the name Satan whenever He wants to engage in evil and
blame ``someone else.'' I feel sorry for you that you wish you could see less
of my writing. Do my points frighten you? I hope not.
To Yosi Hoshen: I believe most of your questions were answered in
other articles of mine, but feel free to ask further questions if necessary.
Only through an atmosphere of open conversation can learning take place.
Lastly, a number of people have written to me asking me why I have
continued posting to net.origins. My point of contention in the area of
origins and creation is that it appears to be a debate between people who
claim that the universe and life were created by natural forces and people
who believe in God as the Creator. What I pointed out was the contradiction
in believing in God as the Creator of things, and also that the evidence points
to God as a Damager rather than a Creator. Even the Bible after Genesis bears
me out on this. In light of this, I have considered my beliefs fundamental
to the debate on origins, because it is not a binary ``yes-no'' question.
The possibility of God as liar and damager, interfering in the natural flow
of things and then taking credit for everything good that occured. However,
I understand the viewpoint of those who feel that most of the articles on
maltheism do not belong in net.origins. Hereafter, I will only post articles
to net.origins when discussing topics relevant to origins.
Be well,
--
Paul Zimmerman - AT&T Bell Laboratories
pyuxn!pez