Alternate Religion Tech Tree

[Patricius]

"Eusebius

PS. I've been wondering what a suitable Buddhist substitute would be for the Sistene Chapel. Anyone have any ideas?"

I think the biggest Buddhist Stupa in the world is Borobudur in Indonesia.
Or maybe you could use that really big statue of Buddha that was torn down by the Taliban in Afghanistan.I'm not sure of the name of it.

Patricius

 

[Jordal]

Not HinduistAnd there is some evidence that the Taj Mahal, the supposed creation by an Islamic ruler for his love for his wife, was built over a 100 years before, and was infact a temple to Shiva.

The only scholars who have supported that are part of the Institute for Rewriting Indian History and they also claim that both Islam and Christianity were originally corrupted Hinduism.

I'm downloading the mod right now.

 

[Hephaistion]

I'd imagine that the religion which forms the foundation of most martial arts disciplines has been involved in at least one war. Possibly against Confucianists.

Indeed, throughout the 1600s-1800s, there were Taoist secret societies in China that acted more or less as anarchist terrorists, teaching martial arts in secret, murdering public officials, and stirring up provincial revolts and urban unrest. Not a very "go with the flow" attitude, huh? They also had cool names, like, "Society of the White Hand," and something do with lotuses.

Which leads me to my two cents: it seems to me, and to many contemporary scholars of religion (I was a history of religion grad student), that the very idea of "commandeering" a "true" or "authentic" religion is bunk. Extremist Muslims, for instance, aren't "false" Muslims, just like Buddhists who gas Japanese subways are not "false" Buddhists and Christians who shoot abortion doctors are not "false" Christians. Rather, these are directions in which properly motivated individuals and groups can take readily available religious ideologies which they have absorbed and then disseminate in changed or radicalized forms. Since religions ALWAYS do this over time, which is why no religion nowadays is the same as it was when it was founded, it doesn't seem right to say that all these people are "false" examples of a religion, unless all religious practitioners are "false" practitioners. Rather, we can say that there is a politically agreeable orthodoxy (and agreeable in other ways!) to most religions which supports peaceful pursuit of religious goals rather than violent.

Blah, blah, blah, etc., etc. Thanks everyone for indulging my two cents, which turned out to be more like a quarter.

 

[Eusebius]

Hi all,

Thanks for all the interest in this mod and all the good discussion. I'm taking what I learned here and merging it with some great ideas from True Prophets to make a mod which incorporates all world religions. Check out the discussion at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3798807

Eusebius

 

[alireza1354]

One remark:

Crusading Religion: Any and all means are justified for you to “share” your religion with the rest of the world. Spiral Minaret, Police State. First founds Islam.

Crusader muslims? What a joke.


Greetings!

 

[dh_epic]

Virtually ever religion before 1600's AD has gotten into wars. Buddhist fought over Buddha's body parts, etc. So you really can't say "This religion did peaceful things, this religion did bad things" since virtually all of them did.

Christianity: Nuff said.
Islam: Nuff said.
Buddhist: Just said.
Hinduist: I'm pretty certain wars were fought over Hinduism.
Taoist: Well, most likely not.
Confucianism: Not really a Religion in my opinion, and no wars fought over it.
Judaism: From bible to real life, Judaism has started wars.

Actually, I think a sect of Taoist philosophers helped to justify Japanese militarism in World War 2.

Pretty much every religion has peaceniks and warmongers. Just like every country does.

I think much more central to Islam is Obliged Pilgrimmage. More than the crusading belief that affected many religions, the idea that everyone had to convene at a central location allowed for religious unity that stretched from Morocco to Indonesia. This is really their unique position -- and the foundation of a more international feeling of community between Muslims (even if there are many internal disputes about what that community is).

 

[Calavente]

just to bring my two cents :
edit : word changing for a slightly better english

I still and will ever think that confucianisme is/was a kind of religion. I base this on the fact that most ministers or judges (etc..) in china were following confucianism and went in shrines to do devotions... for me that qualifies it as religion. It was based on and for administration and following a "legism" kind of organisation for the imperial state of china.
furthermore, in the early christian era, the religious "wars" (more or less economic/ more or less agressive) in china involved wars of influences between tao, buddhism, early christianism and confucianism : it is an other item showing that confucianism was a kind of religion as its influence was reduced by other religion's growth.

As for taoisme : the issue is that it was mostly a popular doctrine, always dominated in china by either confucianism or buddhism as state religion. Furthermore, as it is/was a belief centered on self-improvement and self-interest, it never ever became a state religion as opposed to all other religions displayed in CIV4. (and basically no holy taoist city ever existed if I'm not making a mistake). as taoism was neither a state religion nor a state-friendly religion, I do not think it did ever launched wars/conflict in the name of it. BUT China's emperor / administration launched armed forces against tao believers as they did not make servile citizens... "bad guys! you are not thinking of bringing gold to your emperor... " ...

thanks for your attention

 

[Calavente]

Pretty much every religion has peaceniks and warmongers. Just like every country does.

I think much more central to Islam is Obliged Pilgrimmage. More than the crusading belief that affected many religions, the idea that everyone had to convene at a central location allowed for religious unity that stretched from Morocco to Indonesia. This is really their unique position -- and the foundation of a more international feeling of community between Muslims (even if there are many internal disputes about what that community is).

I kinda disagree in the way that if a religion is peace oriented (at the origine) such as buddhisme or early christianism (do not bore me with crusades and all that, I will speak about it later) it shall be providing this kind of improvement. BUT it does not forbide you (civ player) to begin war in the name of it... as in RL where peoples used religious pretexts to go warring for territories (ireland/palestine...), for domination (wars of religion), for ressources (irak).

For me most of the differences between the fouding aspect of a religion and it's actual image can be translated in civ by the civics you are using and the real politic you are playing...

So each religion's bonus (if ever) shall illustrate what the religion was at first / or what it preachs, not the vision we have nowadays of it through history. As for any principle, religions evolve with time and peoples' influence, a peacefull one may become aggressive in practice (christianism at some times), an aggressive one may become peacefull in practice (eventually islam one day or even hindduism).
(For principles other than religions you may think about the theories of communisme, capitalisme...etc and how they were applied in our history)

To that peacefull/aggressive trait you may add others such as (at creation of the religion) : interest in peoples (freedom/ self-interest/ cast system...etc), devotion to other / to state and possible impacts (+ or -) on civ4 feature : culture, food growth, health, happy face, unit building, city maintenance...
To illustrate : at first, christianism was not at all state-friendly : no worshipping of the imperator, passive rebellion against the authority... etc. Whereas confucianism was form the beginning a religion believing in laws and order, ie state ...etc,

(oups, I've lost my thoughts.. ah yeah : I think that islam founded with crusading religion seems good as it was true -idea of jihad / idea of propagating the religion very present from the founding of islam- and that christians crusades came after islam's foundation..Etc )

EDIT : I forgot to say that judaism already had obliged pilgrimmage in the name of the "temple of salomon" which was the only place to worship God. Believers were supposed to go there from all judaic countries if the wanted to be faithfull, thus providing unity. So the "Obliged Pilgrimmage" thing already existed way before islam. (or maybe I'm wrong... but I guess not by a lot)


that's all folks !!

 

[dh_epic]

The Temple of Solomon wasn't a required pilgrimmage as far as I know. Just a popular pilgrimmage. Although there IS a similarity between Judaism and Islam -- that's that their central prophets both picked up the sword.

A Battle Involving Moses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian_war
A Battle Involving Muhammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud

If anything, Crusading Religion existed way before Islam, with Obliged Pilgrimmage being the new idea. Not the other way around.

 

[Calavente]

sorry to disagree with you again, but how do you call something as "you may only worship God in this place and nowhere else". I agree that it was not technicaly a pilgrimmage, but it had the same effect : every first child of any family had to be presented there, so every man had to go to the temple of salomon once in his life...

furthermore, again, following the bible that is the only source on moses, tehcnically moses only fought once, and not even in a battle, only when he attacked an egyptian, way before he was a prophet.
Once again, islam was "even during the life of its founding prophet" a religion which fought with weapons: for God, for vengeance, for honor... etc but they fought. It is even written that jihad (that is not always about fighting but can be) is something very religious.
Whereas the founding prophet (abraham) of judaism never spoke about fights, it only came with the following ones.

hmm, may you tell me about crusades before the islam era : ie: 660 ad. because I have no exemple of such.
just to remember : crusade = going to war, as an agressor, in the name of religion. most of the times it implies going to fight against an other religion.

 

[dh_epic]

I showed you an example. The Midian War. The Midians were considered an abomination against God, and Moses led a war to purify the faith. That's a crusade if I ever saw one. Islam did not invent the notion of a religious crusade.

Moreover, a crusade is not a pillar of Islam, whereas the pilgrimmage is. And the pilgrimmage is not a pillar of the Jewish faith, either.

There WAS a ritual sacrifice of a sheep or bull at the Temple of Solomon, but this was extended to pretty much any temple, and then eventually fell by the way side. A ritual at the local temple is different from an international pilgrimmage. And that's not to take anything away from the Jewish faith -- it just so happens it was born in more local times, and is tied closely with one specific ethnicity. Christianity and Islam were the big travellers because they were born in more international times, with elaborate road systems, trade routes, and empires.

Divine Patronage works for the Jews. But I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on making Crusading Religion the most salient aspect of Islam when there are 5 other pillars spelled right out for all Muslims that have nothing to do with War. But I see we're going to have a lot of problems if you think the Bible is the only source on, well, anything. There's lots of history books that should be used as pretty important sources.

 

[Psycadelic_Magi]

Oh, man. Personally I think I'll just stick to indifference...

 

[Calavente]

But I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on making Crusading Religion the most salient aspect of Islam when there are 5 other pillars spelled right out for all Muslims that have nothing to do with War. But I see we're going to have a lot of problems if you think the Bible is the only source on, well, anything. There's lots of history books that should be used as pretty important sources.

I do not know why I like crusading religion, but I think it fits the best the founding of islam (but clearly not its actual reality). But we are lookin for a tech symbolising the founding of religions, not its actuall history.
The ritual sacrifice was never extended to any other temple than the one of jerusalem -at least until its destruction- and it wasn't international because all jews were in the same land if not country. so de facto the sacrifice at the temple of salomon was a kind of obliged pilgrimage. In facts if not in words.
Furthermore, pilgrimage already existed, just the fact that it was obliged is not an invention for me. If you proposed pilgrimage it would have been acceptable (if for another religion because pilgrimages existed way before islam) but the "obliged" part of your proposal is IMO not enough of a new idea to change mens' way of worshipping God. It would be as if you defined catholicism by the invention of "indulgence".

For the 5 pillars of islam : none of them were new : faith in god, daily prayer, distributing money for the poor, fasting, and pilgrimage all existed in some religions before islam, not exactly in the same way, but they were all known ways for worshipping God. (Oh, you may note that none of the 5 pillars save the first one are in the Quran, they were invented after...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_pillars_of_Islam :
"There is considerable debate over how recently the five pillars model of Muslim belief and practice has come to be widespread"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piliers_de_l'Islam
"Ces devoirs ne sont pas listés dans le Coran comme les Dix Commandements de la Bible, mais ont été énuméré par des théologiens aux débuts de l'Islam. Ce concept a été adopté par toutes les branches de l'Islam, sauf exceptions tels les Kharijites qui le rejettent."
Which means in french : "the five pillars are not in the Quran as the ten commandements in the bible, but were proposed by theologians at the begining of islam. they were adopted by all islam, with the exceptions such as the Kharijites".)
How does something not followed by all muslims be a prerequist to islam's discovery? wheras jihad, even if not followed by all in the waremongering version, even if not one of the 5 pillars is still in the founding text and corresponds to the way islam was during it's first century.

About your aggression about the "bible only source" thing: YOU quoted :

A Battle Involving Moses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midian_war

And in wikipedia the ONLY source about moses or midian war comes from the Bible.

The Midian War documented in the Hebrew Bible, Numbers 31

If the bible is the only source on a topic, you have to look at it, if there existe more than one source, if they are in adequation, no issue, if they are opposing, you have to search for other sources and use your own cleverness to make your own opinion. But try to find me sources on moses or midian war that do not makes any reference to the bible...

PS: sorry for the long posts, but I always seems to have a lot to says ..

 

[dh_epic]

The Midian War was not only written in the Bible, is my main point. My intention wasn't to come across as aggressive, but to show that you ought to dig deeper whenever possible. And it also shows that religious crusades are much older than Islam.

Religious Crusades aren't unique to Islam. Obliged Pilgrimmage IS unique to Islam.

However, you say that Obliged Pilgrimmage isn't good enough, since the pilgrimmage wasn't a new idea -- only the idea of making it obligatory was new. So if something HALF-new isn't good enough, that's your justification for picking something with no unique or new quality whatsoever? I fail to see any broader justification other than personal preference.

Just want to be clear. People are welcome to their own opinions, but not their own facts.