Yellowlab

Sorry...I thought you would be an Annuarian Jan. 6 but I see it's Bi-Annuarian. Everyone's on there by now. One request: It's getting pretty hard to keep track of who is and who is not on the list, so if you're just posting in here and not reporting a change (i.e. new status), please write No Change at the top of your post. Thanks.

Hamilton, Canada: Home of Simtropolis. I think. @ N.O.: How about some New Year's Eve treats? Honey roasted peanuts?

Date: 12/31/2005 5:49:06 PM Author: deadwoods Very interesting and educational post Yellowlab. Thanks. I wouldn't propose that the Catholic Church is the largest in the world because it is inherently the best/most accurate/true word, and people automatically flocked to it given a choice of many. My simple high school history lessons (run by Catholic Brothers in a Catholic school) taugh me that the Catholic faith was imposed on the 'heathens' in many poorer parts of the world by the Europeans (Spanish, Portugese, French, British) as part of the wave of colonisation between the 16th and 19th centuries. The millions in Latin and South America didn't choose Catholocism, it was forced upon them. I'm not knocking Catholocism, just the zeal to impose it on other cultures. How many amazing cultures (such as the Mayans and Aztecs) were destroyed by the people doing the Popes work? But I digress.quote> Not to mention the same Spanish nation that so earnestly spread it. If you want a treatise on why separation of church and state is a good thing, go read a detailed book on Spanish history. I suggest John Crow's Spain: The Root and the Flower, which is truly awesome if you're into history.

Congrats both of you! Great job!

Sola scriptura was a movement of the Reformation; it did not begin with Luther, nor did it end with him. Martin Luther is to Reformation as Martin Luther King is to American civil rights movement; neither was responsible for either, but they were both icons of the movement. Martin Luther believed (and I agree) that the medieval Catholic Church controlled a monopoly of faith over the people of Europe. Latin Mass, sacraments with no scriptural base, the selling of fake indulgences, and the belief that clergy alone could save a person from Hell were ideas he attacked. His 95 Theses attacked the selling of indulgences to raise money to construct Catholic cathedrals. The most famous seller, Johann Tetzel, was officially sanctioned by Pope Leo X and sold them throughout Germany to raise money for the renovation of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. Often these indulgences were little more than strips of paper guaranteeing the buyer forgiveness from all previous sins and a period of a number of days of punishment-free sin. Tetzel's famous line on indulgences, as soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs, is well documented historically. These practices were wholly supported by the Pope. Luther attacked the idea of indulgences because he believed that they made a person rely on them as opposed to confession and repentance. His 95 Theses, nailed to the door of Castle Church, condemnced the Church's greed and corruption and were an open invitation for a debate on the use of indulgences in Catholic teaching. Pope Leo X responded by calling Luther a drunken German who when sober will change his mind and ordered an inquistion on him. Luther was later denounced as a heretic and the selling of indulgences affirmed; any departure from the Church was heresy and any who questioned were outside of the Church and going to Hell. Luther was excommunicated in 1521 by a papal bull. But I digress. I meant to write this about sola scriptura. Sola scriptura was the idea that the Catholic Church did not have control over who did and did not go to Heaven, nor control over the personal faith experience of any Christian. Sola scriptura as it existed in the 1500s did not mean that the interpretation of a minister was wrong and heretical. It only meant that any person interpreting the Bible should use only the Bible as the basis for that interpretation; Church traditions and the secular world were null and void in that interpretation. The whole idea is best summed up in the words of John Wesley: The Church is to be judged by the Scriptures, not the Scriptures by the Church. Reformers believed that because the Scriptures were unchanging and men do change, only the Scriptures, not Church tradition (no matter how old) could be used in interpreting the Bible. Sola scriptura did not disavow the clergy at all, as has been implied earlier in the thread. Pure Lutheran churches retained a clergy; how would it be possible if the advice of a pastor was null? The doctrine meant that each person must decide for themselves what the Bible meant for them. A major goal of the Reformers was to translate the Bible into the vernacular. While this had been done by the Church on a limited basis, the Reformers sought full translation and the cessation of services in Latin, which was spoken only by the clergy, the highly educated, and the nobility. How could one find God, they reasoned, if one could not understand the lessons of the Church or read the Bible? Because the Church taught in Latin, Luther and other Reformers believed that overambitious, evil men inside the Church had corrupted the message of Christ. This idea was taken a step further by the Reformist Anabaptists, who believed in the idea of the Great Apostasy, which held that around the time of Constantine the teachings of Jesus were significantly altered to help the Church Political retain control over the people. I subscribe to this viewpoint, but that is another matter altogether. Bibles in the time of the reformation were expensive, yes, but certainly not a fortune. In 1455, Gutenberg Bibles were sold for 300 florins each, about three years' wages for a peasant. The invention of movable type in Europe (it had been invented in Korea in the 1300s) allowed for the rapid exchange of ideas (which was generally feared by the Church, as it reduced their control on the flow of knowledge). For example, in 1519, Luther's 95 Theses spread from just one copy nailed to a Church to being available in every city in town in Germany in just two weeks; they were available anywhere in Europe within months. Clearly the days of translating by hand were over; they had been over since the mid-1400s. While some Bibles were still copied, it was now possible to mass-print them, making them affordable for the masses and certainly multiple copies of parish churches. Sola scriptura did not hold that each person must have their own Bible. It had nothing to do with ownership; it meant that each person needed to devote their lives to finding their own truth about the Scriptures and that the ideas of the Church were not absolute. A person could certainly borrow their neighbors' or their church's Bible to study; sola scriptura had nothing to do with ownership. In a perfect world, sola scriptura would mean going to the original texts, but as it existed to Luther, the idea was that people should attempt to find clarity in the true words of God, namely, the Bible. Luther understood the limits of the world he lived in; he was no idiot. Sola scriptura today has been distorted from its original meaning, but in the 1500s, it simply meant the end of the Catholic Church's hegemony on religious idea. EDIT: Sorry this post is so long.

I don't hold my own parties. Too much work. I prefer to parasite other peoples'. 'Parasite' may not be a verb.

I really like this one! How in the world did you get all of those rowhomes? Just to do one street of them takes me ages...did you plop or grow them? This journal looks great - I love the real-life pictures sprinkled in.

@ simman: You said, Okay, are you part of the Catholic Church? Do you know EXACTLY what is preached? Probably not, and if you do not know what you are talking about please don't say anything about that issue, first get educated. Not all Catholics believe that the other divisions of christianity will go to hell, as ephorex_77 said, they can be saved by the glory of God at the last moment before death. My apologies. I did not mean to write exactly what I wrote. My intention was to say that Catholics span the same ideological range as Protestants, but that the official Vatican doctrine is generally more conservative. That it did not come out that way is entirely my fault. Also, this thread has taken a more hysterical bend. I would advise everyone to cool it a little or it's bound for that great Closed Threads Box in the sky.

Another thing that bothers me is the incoherence of the different sects of Christianity, and religions in general. All of the major ones in the western world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism) think they are Right and everyone else is Wrong. And within Christianity, you have the Protestants who fall across the political spectrum from very conservative to conservative and the Catholics. The Catholics say the Protestants are without a doubt going to Hell because they do not go through whatever sacrament and they differ slightly in their interpretation of the Bible. The fundamentalists say that everyone outside Christianity is definitely going to Hell. The more moderate churches say that perhaps non-Christians are going to Hell, but maybe not. And then some churches don't think anyone is going to Hell. The idea that you should be Christian just for fear of the existence of God is incomprehensible to me. I should love God because I fear what he'll do to me? Sounds more like Stalin's USSR (not a joke) than a religion of love. I mean, wow. Love me or you'll pay! That is not love. Being in a religion out of fear of punishment is not loving whatever deity, it is fear. They are not the same.

Wrong forum and the question is answered. This thread is now closed. -----------------------------------------Cut Here-------------------------------------------------

I don't like them. I can never get my things to scan. Also, I like the personal interaction with the checkout line employees.

I don't believe that if God exists he would exhibit human jealousy. Isn't that the whole point of God? That he transcends human emotion? I would also certainly dispute that atheism makes you god. I do not view myself as a deity, nor important, nor free from the rules of life. I view myself as a person, another person, who will die like everyone else. And in response to Simman's question: What's the harm in believing in something? Even if it isn't Christian? I mean, you may not go ot heaven, but at least you put your faith in something. That's what confuses me about atheists, why don't they at least try? Are they lazy, scared? I would like an atheist to answer my question in a NICE way. I'm thinking of how to answer this as I go, so bear with me. Asking me to simply believe that there is a God and that Jesus Christ is his son, born of a virgin, is like me asking you to believe that everything around you is made of lasagna noodles. Your computer, your house, everyone you know...they are all just compressed lasagna. The sky is lasagna too; it levitates due to Pasta Power. This is all recorded in a book originally started around 4,000 years ago, but the book has been edited beyond recognition since then by various people. That is what it's like. It is believing with every rational part of your mind that something is false. No matter how hard you try, it is false, false, false. The world is not made of lasagna noodles. To me, it is also not the creation of a God. As I sensed that I was losing my faith (I never really had faith to begin with, just called myself Christian because I was told to), I tried desperately to retain it. I prayed for years for guidance, intervention, assistance, something to help me. Nothing. I would not call it fear, and I would certainly not call it laziness. Another question I have is why Jesus is believed to have never sinned. There are two incidents, recorded in the Bible, that I would view as sins. The first is the deal with the money changers in the Temple. Jesus reacted with rage. He made a whip, according to Scripture, and turned the tables over. He whipped and flipped and went pretty much insane. The Bible does not mention anything about repentence from this sustained anger. The second deals with discrimination. Jesus refuses to help a Gentile woman because she is not the blessed of God. Later, he listens to his disciples and does help her. This is interesting to me because it presents a paradox with only two possible solutions. 1. Helping the Gentile was a sin; therefore, Jesus did not, because he did not sin, but later sinned by helping her. 2. Ignoring the Gentile was a sin, therefore Jesus sinned, then repented, but still sinned. Unfortunately, I do not have the citation, but I can find it if anyone is curious. Any thoughts? I am mostly in agreement with SkiGeek. I find the amount of hate projected by the far-right church sickening. Anyone who dares to be different, whether through disbelief or deviant lifestyle, is automatically bound for hell. Why? Why is it necessary? Why would God do that if He loves you and me, when he could so easily save you? There is absolutely no logical explanation. It's like a parent telling their baby, Well, we love you, but because you threw up, we are going to make your life unbearably painful in every way; you spend your days of torture alone, your soul rotting in the fiery pits of your deepest, darkest fears. If God exists, we have as little comprehension of what He is like than a baby has of string theory. We cannot know and thus cannot obey, yet God punishes us for this? Why? And why are Hindus wrong?

I hate commercials where a kid tells you in a matter-of-fact way about something no kid would ever be interested in, such as the vitamins in Welch's Grape Juice or how soft toilet paper is.

Date: 12/27/2005 12:15:00 PM Author: the_new_simman Okay, vid, what are you losing by being Christian? Nothing, you will get eternal glory in heaven AND prosper on Earth. If you are an aethist, you are risking not going to heaven, because what if there actually is a God and a Hell? What will you do then? You'll be screwed. quote> Fear is no reason to embrace a religion. My biggest problem with the church is the difference between God loves you and you'd better love him too, or you're burning in eternal agony. That really doesn't make any sense at all... Also, is anger/rage a sin?

As someone who doesn't have one to be with on Christmas, I would advise going. Even though it's 1:55 AM here and dinner has come and gone long ago.

I was once an unthinking Christian but am now a thinking atheist. By that, I mean that when I was a Christian, it was because I was told to be; I do not mean that Christians are unthinking. I went to church with my parents, sat through the talking, and left. Next Sunday, repeat. I did as I was told and was Christian. I never got anything from it, though. As I grew older, I began to notice how hollow it all seemed. Slowly, beginning probably around when I was 13 or 14, I became an atheist. My conversion to atheism was kind of like when you throw a pebble at a car's windshield. First, a hole appears in the pane, and slowly the cracks spread across the entire surface, before eventually the whole thing shatters. I finally shattered about 2 years ago, when I was 16. The story of why is long and I am not going to type it out here for multiple reasons. Basically, it began when I became convinced that there is no Hell, which led to there is no Heaven. If there is no Heaven, the Bible is not totally factual. Once that chink in the armor appears, there is no stopping the collapse of everything on it. I believe that there was a Jesus, but I do not believe that he was divine, nor born of a virgin, nor the Son of God, seeing as how I do not believe that God exists. Part of me still recoils at writing that, but the greater part of me genuinely believes it. I am not atheist due to some sort of reaction against the values of my parents (my father is a minister) or of mainstream society through a desire for nonconformity, but I have thought for a very, very long time on this, and continue to do so today. I see no evidence of the existence of a deity in the world. I look around and see imperfection, things done wrong, things that make no sense. I see overwhelming evidence supporting ideas so strongly fought against by the church. I believe that the ideas of Jesus were corrupted, first by the Apostle Paul, then by Constantine and the early Church, and finally by the medieval Church Political. I see today's church as the husk of what could have been, and I see people of faith throughout history doing horrible, horrible deeds, and I cannot believe. I cannot believe in the Church as it exists today outside of a strong belief in the general values promoted by Jesus himself. I have nothing against the Church Religious. At one time, I would have given anything to be part. I spent hours in prayer, begging to be shown the light that others around me so obviously knew. Nothing came. I fear the Church Political. These are my views. They are not meant to attack or tear down anyone else's system of beliefs, but they are my own.

I can tell you what my least favorite is. The Family Circus. The level of detest-ment I feel towards that cartoon knows no bounds.

Looks like my city council... We have spent something like $50 million over the past 15 years trying to determine whether to tear down a stadium and build two smaller new ones or renovate the old one. The new stadiums are expected to cost $8.2 bn.

Thanks, MsD. Stickied.

Merry Christmas everyone!

Great podcast, guys! I really am impressed. Echoing the sentiments of others, I am looking forward to the next installation. Also, this is the thread for discussion of the Official Simtropolis Podcast. For discussion of other topics, please see their respective threads. And for criticisms of and complaints about other members, please visit the Official Simtropolis Complaint Department to voice it to our friendly 24-hour staff. Thanks.

Yesterday I had a nice, big, long post and was submitting it when it timed out and I lost it. That really is a momentum-killer. I can never seem to get myself to write it over.

Welcome to Simtropolis! As you've been redirected, I suppose this thread is closed. ---------------------------------------------Cut Here----------------------------------------------------

I would like to personally congratulate lilbrownsuga for her Most Likely to be Sprinkled on Oatmeal award. That was my favorite award for Trixies '05. Also, thanks for the Warm Fuzzy, even if it appears to be a llama hairball!

I would love to do it, but unfortunately I am told that I'll never be a public speaker. Accent.