User talk:Craig zimmerman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:01, 3 November 2007

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 21:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 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.--[[User:Angel 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. [[User:Craig zimmerman|Craig zimmerman]] 22:14, 30 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. [[Special:Contributions/Craig zimmerman|Craig zimmerman]] 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 ==Eh==