User talk:Craig zimmerman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] On the subject of the "image" in the God template

[edit] No

I really don't think that it should be removed. It is fair to everyone since every one has a belief system in a god. I myself believe in Jesus. However, I thought that by simplay bym putting an image on alight in the sky it would be fair to all religions. Monothiestic, Polythiestic, and Diestic.--Angel David 21:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it fair to Satanists? To Gnostics? To Maltheists? Yours is a eutheist-centric perspective: not everyone has a belief system involving a God, and not everyone who does have such a belief system has a positive association with God. Thus it is not fair to everyone, it has an erroneous bias towards eutheism. Craig zimmerman 14:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't understand Craig! Can I call you Craig? Everyone still believes in a powerful source! Don't they? And they believe that it is in the sky. I as a Christian also opposes your statement "God forbids images of Him". I personally dedicated my life to Him! Besides any un-religious teaching does believe in a powerful scource, Buddha (Buddhists), the Tao (Taoists), and Heaven (Confuists). And also this has nothing to with Lucifer. I dispise Lucifer--Angel David 00:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

David (may I call you David?), your statement is extremely misinformed. It should be very obvious that no, not everyone does believe in this powerful source (witness atheists and humanists--or don't they count?) and not everyone who does belief in the existence of this "powerful source" necessarily believes he is beneficent. As for your "opposition" to something your own God dictated to you (about forbidding images of him), that is something only you can reconcile in your own mind. I am glad that you despise Lucifer, but some see him as a hero, for rebeling against the whims of a bullying deity! Sorry, I do understand, and your assertion of what "everyone" still believes is based on your own biases. Sorry you don't get the point I'm trying to make. Craig zimmerman 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Are you a sock? We need as the God template Image--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.76.110.46 (talk • contribs)


Don't know who you are, apparent lover of Nietzsche, but this is no better as a choice of image. Nietzsche tried to rationalize away morality by "killing" God, but he threw out the baby with the bathwater--there are ways of being moral and good and forming positive moral principles for a society without bringing in the dictates of the bullying God we see in the Bible. Are you a sock? Craig zimmerman 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a template about God. It is called God. Then that template is entirely put together for God. Yes you may call me David.--Angel David 00:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

David: I am not at all sure I understand what you mean by "that template is entirely put together for God," or what relevance that has to the statements I made. The template is for the human beings who read and contribute to Wikipedia, not for God. I know people like you tend to focus on doing things "for" God, and I note that historically this has led to nothing but strife and grief for mankind. (Perhaps that's OK, perhaps that's what God wants! Well, I don't agree, sorry.) I noted that not everyone believes in the powerful source you mention, not "every one has a belief system in a god," thus this is an erroneous assumption underlying your assertions. I also note that the picture has, thankfully, been removed from the template. Good riddance. Perhaps the subject of God can now be treated as a focus of honest dispassionate study rather than an excuse for chanting and praising and rationalizing his behavior. Craig zimmerman 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Eh

Well, that image was removed anyway. Oh well. I added a better one. You can see for yourself--Angel David 00:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And I see thankfully that that was removed as well. Your own religion forbids making images of God, and yet you insist on making one. I really don't understand. I also do not understand your erroneous assumption that everyone believes in the existence of God and that everyone holds him in the same high regard you do. That is simply incorrect. Take care. Craig zimmerman (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquette alert

I've filed a Wikiquette alert[1] regarding your recent behaviour. Ilkali (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL! If by "my recent behaviour" you mean my restoring text that I wrote in a discussion page that you unilaterally deleted, sure, go ahead, do that. Like courtesy, common sense, and following protocol, having the good sense not to be embarrassed by irrational behavior doesn't seem to be part of your social repertoire. Whatever. Have fun. Craig zimmerman (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Mr Zimmerman

Just something in passing. I hope all is well. I was wondering why in the Misotheism article there is no mention of Prometheus. You know birds eating his liver and him professing how he hates the Gods and being told that such a thing is pure madness. Have a nice day Mr Zimmerman. Just asking. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are only two reasons I can come up with, 1) no one thought of adding him and 2) his tale is part of the polytheistic pantheon and thus is probably not appropriate. However, in the first section before we get to the notion that dystheism is by nature rooted in monotheism (something I still don't fully concur with), it might be appropriate. Craig zimmerman (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Mr Z here is an article you can use for sourcing on the Misotheism page. Where Was God? An Interview with David Bentley Hart Hope all is well. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, thank you, but I see only an abstract of this interview and no pointer to the actual content. Do you know where we can find the full transcript? Craig zimmerman (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately no. Also Hart uses a different line of logic then the Orthodox one. He uses utilitarianism (ends justifies the means)instead of the black swan. Email me. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)