[BTS] 43 Religions

[alireza1354]

I am trying sketch out the events in the game. The early religions where you see mutiple selections and vedic I plan to have civs start with. The rest I am thinking of maybe mixing how they are found. Anyway I tried to make a rough outline here. I am thinking of replacing Persian with Vedic. Please give me a critique.

Shamanism
---Old World (African,Chinese,Siberian)
------African Diaspora(Vodou)
---------Pan-Africanism(Rastafari)
------Hundred Schools of Thought
---------School of Scholars(Confucianism)
-------------Family Rituals(NeoConfucianism)
---------School of Mo(Mohism)
---------School of the Way(Taoism)
-------------Three Teachings(Cao Dai)
---------School of Law(Legalism)
---------Kami (Shintoism)
---New World (Mesoamerican,Andean,Native)
Polytheism
---Northern Pagan(Slavic,Celtic,Norse)
-------New Age(Neopaganism)
---Mediterranean(Semitic,Hellenism,Egyptian)
---Vedic(Vedic)
------Brahmin(Vishnu)
------Bhakti(Shiva)
-----------Udasis(Sikhism)
------Vedanta(Hinduism)
------Tantras(Shakti)
------Meditation (Jainism)
---------Dharma(Theravada)
------------Zazen(Mahayana)
---------------Upaya(Varjayana)
------Dualism(Zoroastrian)
---------Paraclete(Manichaean)
---Monotheism(Judaism)
------Messiah(Christain)
---------Council of Ephesus(Catholic)
------------Council of Chalcedon(Coptic)
---------------Great Schism(Orthodox)
------------------Reformation(Protestant)
---------------------Nauvoo(Mormon)
------Isra and Mi'raj(Sunni)
---------First Fitna(Kharjite)
---------Second Fitna(Shia)
------------Tarīqah(Sufi)
------------Mihdi(Baha’i)
---------Mujaddid(Ahmadi)

Very important religious event: THE TAKING POWER OVER THE ABBASID EMPIRE OF MUTAZILIST RATIONALISM AND THE INQUISITION THEY HELD AGAINST SUNNIS AND SHIAS! It could be called the MIHNA. (plz google this word)

Why doesnt anyone notice this? The Isra and Miraj is not sunni, but traditional and held by all sects (except Mutazilism!)

Bahaism and Ahmadism are very and I repeat, very insignificant.


Better add Jihadi (Wahhabism against the Ottomans)

And Mujaddidiyah (Muhammad Abduh/Sayyid Qutb)

 

[alireza1354]

Jeckel thanks again for the help.

3.Islam-Sunni, Shia, Kharjites, Sufi, Ahmadi

No Ahmadi, they are much too insignificant in islamic history and they are quite an impopular and small sect.

Better this:

3. Islam:

Sunni

Shia

Khariji

Mutazili (PLZ refer to the MIHNA and Mutazilites)

Sufi

Wahhabi




Mutazilites are often called the continuation of the kharijites, and there is a relation but Mutazilah is so much more than that.

Today, there is another evolved version of Mutazilist rationalism, and its called Quranism, like islamic protestants, who discard of all religious sources except the holy Book, the Quran.

So you could add Quranism too!

 

[alireza1354]

Disclaimer: I am not a Muslim, so I did not grow up being taught about the divisions or history of the Islamic faith. Most of my knowledge on those topics comes from various history classes and a one-sememester Intro to Islam course that I took at college last Spring. If I am mistaken about anything, I apologize, as my sources and learning are limited. Feel free to offer correction from other sources as you see fit.

The following are most of the relevant bits from "A New Introduction to Islam" by Daniel Brown (my most authoritative and objective-seeming textbook on Islamic history and theology):

"Kharijites - those who withdrew from Ali after the battle of Siffin; a group of political-theological sects which emphasize works over faith." (258)


[At the battle of Siffin, in which members of the army impaled copies of the Qur'an on their spears as an appeal for arbitration] "Ali's Iraqi supporters were split over the morality of the decision and the more rigorous among them withdrew their support from him. By so doing they earned the blame (or credit) for founding a complex of volatile political-theological movements which shared the designation Khawarij (anglicized: Kharijites) because they went out (kharaja) from Ali. A chief distinction of the more extreme Kharijites was a readiness to do away with any leader who failed to live up to rigorous moral standards." (39)


"At the other end of the political spectrum from the Ismaili Shiites, Kharijite leaders could hope for no such unqualified devotion from their followers. Tradition traces the origin of the Kharijites to a battle between Ali and Muawiya at Siffin in 657. When Ali, faced with a military stalemate, agreed to submit the dispute to arbitration, some of his party withdrew their support from him. 'Judgment belongs to God alone' (la hukm illa li-llahi) became the slogan of these secessionists. They also called themselves al-shurat, "vendors," to reflect their willingness to sell their lives in martyrdom.

"The original Kharijites opposed both Ali and Muawiya and appointed their own leaders. They were decisively defeated by Ali, who was in turn assassinated by a Kharijite. Kharijites engaged in guerrilla warfare against the Umayyads, but only became a movement to be reckoned with during the second civil war when they at one point controlled more territory than any of their rivals. Kharijites were, in fact, one of the major threats to Ibn-al-Zubayr's bid for the caliphate; during his time they controlled Yamama and most of Southern Arabia and captured the oasis town of al-Taif.

"The most extreme faction of Kharijites was that of the Azariqa, who condemned all other Muslims as apostates. The Azariqa controlled parts of Western Iran under the Umayyads until they were finally put down in 699. The more moderate Ibadi Kharijites were longer-lived, continuing to wield political power in North and East Africa and in Eastern Arabia during the Abbasid period. The Ibadis are the only Kharijite group to survive into modern times.

"Because of their readiness to declare any opponent apostate, the extreme Kharijites tended to fragment into small groups. One of the few points that the various Kharijite splinter groups held in common was their view of the caliphate, which differed from other Muslim theories on two points. First, they were principled egalitarians, holding that any pious Muslim (even an 'Ethiopian slave') can become caliph and that family or tribal affiliation is inconsequential. The only requirements for leadership are piety and the acceptance of the community. Second, they agreed that it is the duty of the believers to dispose of any leader who falls into error. This second prinicple had profound implications for Kharijite theology, which we will take up in the following chapter.

"...By the time that Ibn al-Muqaffa wrote his political treatise early in the Abbasid period, the Kharijites were no longer a significant political threat, at least in the Islamic heartlands. The memory of the menace they had posed to Muslim unity and of the moral challenge generated by their pious idealism still weighed heavily on Muslim political and religious thought, however. Even if the Kharijites could no longer threaten, their ghosts still had to be answered." (108-109)


"It was clearly possible then to be a Muslim and to perform the outward works identified with Islam without the inner conviction of faith, but was it also possible to have faith apart from works? The Kharijites, of course, vehemently rejected the possibility.

...Uncomfortable with the Kharijite and Murjiite extremes, the Mutazilites tried a compromise position, incorporating works in their definition of faith, which, they argued, consists of three elements: conviction of the truth, confession of the tongue, and confirmation with deeds." (142)


"Muslim Brotherhood attitudes toward jihad and martyrdom were shaped on the battlefield of Palestine. It seemed to Hasan al-Banna that the idea of jihad had been emasculated both by Sufis and modern Muslim apologists. Jihad was a God-given tool which seemed perfectly suited to the modern Muslim situation, but which modern Muslims had abandoned. Thus al-Banna called for a return to militant jihad, directed in the first instance at the British in Palestine. Along with this return to Jihad he revived and restated the Islamic doctrine of martyrdom. 'Muslims,' he said, should learn the 'art of death.' By this he meant that they should deliberately and purposefully plan out how to make their deaths count for the cause of Islam. In all of this al-Banna comes close to reviving an old heresy. The Kharijites had been condemned, in part, for encouraging the 'seeking of martyrdom.'" (216)


"The majority of Muslims and Muslim thinkers have no hesitation in rejecting such calls to violence. In fact, the system of ideas that justifies suicide bombings closely resembles the ideology of the early Kharijite heretics, a connection that more sober Muslim scholars have not been reticent about pointing out." (229)


"Mutazilites - a major Islamic intellectual and theological movement famous for defending freedom of the will, the absolute unity of God, and the createdness of the Qur'an." (262)


"Known as the people of justice and unity, and condemned as 'Zoroastrians of the community' by their critics, the Mutazilites dominated Abbasid court circles under the caliphs Mamun and Mutasim. Their doctrine has been encapsulated in a handy summary, the five points of Mutazilism:
1 - Unity (tawhid). God's oneness is absolute. Nothing else, including God's attributes or God's speech, the Qur'an, is eternal, and God does not resemble his creation in any way.
2 - Justice (adl). God is obligated to act justly, giving out rewards and punishments in strict accordance with each person's performance.
3 - 'The promise and the threat.' When God makes a promise, or issues a threat, he is bound to carry through with it.
4 - The intermediate position. A grave sinner (fasiq) can be considered neither a believer nor an unbeliever.
5 - Commanding the right and forbidding the wrong. It is a duty to oppose injustice (e.g. rebel against an evil ruler) if one has the ability." (136)


"One heresy flows logically into another. The heresy of the Kharijites leads directly to the heresy of the Qadarites, which in turn dows the seeds of the more sophisticated and dangerous errors of the Mutazilites." (148)


"Iqbal is one participant, in other words, in a general reassertion of human freedom and revolt against determinism. Another manifestation of this trend has been the rehabilitation of the Mutazilites. This rehabilitation takes explicit form in some apologetic works, most notably Sayyid Amir Ali's 'The Spirit of Islam' (1922). A more subtle form of what has been called neo-Mutazilism pervades the work of the modern Fazlur Rahman. Although Rahman resists identifying himself with the Mutazila, his opponents have not hesitated to do so, for he consistantly and repeatedly defends human freedom and responsibility and the efficacy of human reason at the moral level." (223-224)


In summary, based upon my "homework," I see Kharijitism and Mutazilism as two somewhat related, but very distinct sects of Islam, both in opposition to the traditional Sunni and Shiite factions. Kharijites are known for pious idealism and a willingness to seek martyrdom in the Islamic cause, very similar in theology to Al-Queda and other radical Islamist factions today. Mutazilites represent a more Rationalist sect of Islam that holds a weaker view of Qur'anic authority (that it isn't eternal) as well as a stronger view of human freedom of the will.

Again, if I am wrong, feel free to cite other sources and correct me. I'd be happy to revise my learning on this subject. However, you can easily now see where my information came from and that as far as I understand it, I have indeed "done my homework." Thank you.

P.S. - To other thread-readers, sorry for the rabbit trail. We can move to PMs or another thread if this goes on much longer.

Good job!


Plz mind the words about Mutazilism and understand


No ahmadi, bahai plz, tooo much insignificant. Its like adding Mormons and Westboro Church.

 

[alireza1354]

If you have some source or information to give to explain it would be a help. How I understand it Mutazilism or Mu'tazili was an entirely different group. Which I may add later as some form of school.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_Islam#Mu.27tazili

Yes I do, but first I will explain.

Mutazilites were a philosophical group who used the principles of Greek rationalism in Islamic Theology. They were revolutionary by discarding of the traditional sunni and shia dogmatics and religious sources (like the sunna, which is made of hadiths and which is the basis of the sharia). They only treated them as historical sources for inspiration, but much more, of criticism. They were after all, anti sunni/shia. Some people call them, the continuation of the kharijites, and there is indeed a relation. But its like calling Chinese communism a version of Marxism, which it clearly isnt, although there are many elements which are related politically

For the mutazilites, the relation with the khariji is more political and less theological, although the mutazilites did consist of different, many opposing, sects also.

The golden era (yes u read it clearly!) the G-O-L-D-E-N era of islamic civilization was under the rule of the mutazilites, through the Abbasid Caliphs Al Ma'mun, Al Wathiq and Al Mu'tasim. Almost ALL of the great thinkers, scientists, philosophers, with very few exceptions, were mutazilites.

These have accepted the mutazilist ideology as the state religion and installed an inquisition to wipe out sunnism and shiism and spread mutazilism. (see the word of MIHNA) When the opposition of the sunnis, who could count on vast reserves of illiterate farmers, nomadic people (bedouins) and other frustrated people, the mutazilites softened their approach to the Shia, and even till 1 point, allied with them agaisnt the sunnis. After the fall of the mutazilites by caliph Al Mutawakkil, who (re-?) installed sunnism as the state religion and reversed the inquisition and started to try to wipe out mutazilites and shia's, the mutazilites managed to take power once more in the muslim world, but only temporarily and with help and alliance with the shia of the Buyid dynasty in Iraq.

After the coming of the sunni Selcuks, and especially cause of the book burning of Rey by the Selcuk shah their role in islams political (but not theological!) history was over. Today mutazilism is only known out of sunni sources of criticism against the mutazilites.

The sunnis didnt manage to kill off rationalism, so they adopted it and sects like the Ash'arites came to being who mixed traditionalist sunni dogma with mutazilite rationalism. The Ash'arite sect died out too and a more conservative sunnism under the Selcuk, Saladin and later, the Mamluks and the Ottomans, became mainstream.

Islam in Morocco and Spain have seen points of mutazilite rationalist success too, especially thanks too Averroes (Ibn Rushd), but they died out too because of sunni anti intellectual narrow mindedness and radicalism.

What causes the misunderstanding that the mutazilites were not a completely different group, is that many sunnis refer to the golden era of islamic civilization as their own, and so, calling mutazilites a "school of thought", but it was much more than that. It was an independent political organization too (with many sects of course), but with 2 mainstream schools (Basra school and Baghdad school) who had power over armies, bureaucracy, politics and even religious affairs, it was the state religion of the Abbasid Empire under 3 caliphs. They even installed an inquisition to wipe out sunnism and shiism (but that changed as I told), and they are called in ancient sunni manuscripts as heathens who's blood is legal to spill. So dont let a sunni apologist fool you, its no "different theological school", its much more than that. It was a state, an institution opposed to allmost all of sunnism and shiisms beliefs.

Today, there are some sects/schools of thought or streams, which are actually continuations of the mutazilite rationalist cause. These are called Quranists, who only accept the Quran as the legitimate source in religion and discard everything else (like protestantism). These are very rationalistic and appalling to mainly the intellectuals in the muslim world, but they are becoming increasingly popular cause of the freedom of thought and practice and discarding of dogma and ritualism which it causes to bring.

I would divide the most important islamic factions in history like this, but plz mind that the order of counting doesnt say anything about its relevance or importance in islamic history:

1. "Sunnism" (Qurayshi elite and followers)

2. "Shiism" (Alawi elites and followers)

3. "Kharijism" (Populist Uprising against political schism of qurayshi (sunni) and Alawi (shia) elitist wars)

4. "Mutazilism" (Golden Era, rationalists influenced by hellenist rationalism and some elements in kharijite political thought)

5. Ismailism (Assassins, Fatimids, radical shia against all non-ismailis, against mainstream shia too)

6. Neo-Sunnism (Hanafiya, Hanbaliya, Shafiiya and Malikiya, mainly developed under the Ottomans)

7. Neo-Shiism (12 imami shiism after the Safavids) Khomeinism is a modern result of this safavid neo-shiism.

8. Wahhabism (sunni reformists, discarding all of sunni theology except the quran and the sunna and reinterpreting sunni islam by these sources only. Rebelled against the Ottomans under Muhammad abd al Wahhab with British Help, seen as traitors by almost all sunni muslims nowadays cause of treason against the Caliph in Istanbul, also state religion of Saoudi Arabia) Out of wahhabist theological and political thought came qutbism and jihadism and salafism, etc..)


9. Neo-Mutazilism or Quranism (muslims of all sects who discard most of all of their sectarian beliefs in favor of rationalism, by which the main point of recognition is accepting only the Quran as the legitimate source of religion which is explained in a rational, sometimes (pseudo-) scientific way. Mostly popular among intellectuals, but becoming increasingly more popular among common people cause of the appalling freedom of thought, rationalism, and easy adoption of many principles of (european) enlightenment. But dont misunderstand, they can be very radical in their political views. Many are pan-islamists, and although they feel a deep grudge against sunni and shia reactionarism, they cant wait till they will set many things straight with western (neo-) imperialism. Many pan-arabists, pan-turkists, or turkish and arab nationalists, even Iranian (nationalist) intellectuals and Pakistani, are quranists.

So....

that was my 10 cts

 

[alireza1354]

O , sources will be added soon

 

[alireza1354]

PS I didnt mention sufism, cuase they were a-political and much more a blend of mysticism and islam in a cultural context. I am only talking about institutionalized religion, with other words, POWER, here

 

[Vrenir]

Very nice. Thank you for the comprehensive look. I also agree that Ahmadi would do well to be replaced in the line-up with something else, and possibly Sufism as well (since it's not really ever been politically-endorsed). Baha'i, though small and never politically-endorsed, I think could remain, as well as Mormonism, simply to acknowledge that they are spin-offs with significant numbers of followers in various parts of the world (spin-off cults big enough for common recognition).

I am in favor of not including any "neo-_____" faiths unless the original is not included. This is simply because the associated benefits, buildings, and units would end up being too similar. Each of our 43 religions ought to be different enough that they must be chosen strategically. In other words, if I want to wage war as an Islamic nation, I'd want my state religion to be something along the lines of Kharijitism or Wahabiism. On the other hand, if I wanted to promote science as an Islamic nation, I'd probably want Mutazilism. If Ahmadi doesn't make the cut and you want a more modern Islamic faction, Wahabiism might be perfect in place of Kharijitism. Then you could put Mutazilism in place of Ahmadi.

I really think it would be great to have an expert (adherant is best) to each of the major religious families speak in this thread about the divisions and history of their faith, so that we can get information beyond layman level and Wikipedia stuff. I don't know if you're Muslim, alireza, but thanks for offering your knowledge to this project. Also, what are your thoughts on the Islamic family tree? You've mentioned all these groupings, but how could we relate them in the game to each other? Which would be the original Islam? Do we need an additional Islam religion for these to split off from?

Incidentally, I could definitely serve in that capacity for Christianity, but I think that group is better-known on average in the West. I also approve of the current spectrum represented in this mod: Christianity, Coptic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Mormonism thrown in to make life interesting. Technically, you could go much further, but we have limited space. If any other group were to be included, I think I'd go for Arian Christianity (a condemned heresy, but held by most of the Germanic peoples during the late Roman empire and early Medieval period, as well as by others throughout church history).

Also, on the topic of Philosophies, Ideologies, etc, I'm somewhat skeptical about their inclusion under civics (civics have a tendancy to become over-crowded resulting in players ignoring a lot of the options). I'd have to see something like a prototype screen to really pass judgement on the idea though; it could turn out wonderfully. Due to this potential complication of the system for the player and the potential extra complication in the programming to achieve it, I would advise simply using the religion screen for the initial run of this mod, only adding faith family tags to the code and an adaptive city screen to display the religions. If that goes off well (we have a functioning mod with 43 religions in proper balance and relation to each other, each specialized for different strategies), then I'd say go for making it more complex with civics, seperating philosophies, etc. But if you bite off the whole thing at once, you might not be able to achieve it, at least not in any reasonable timeframe. Prioritize what you want, get that part as good as it can be, and trust that you can add more features later on.

 

[alireza1354]

Hi there!

Very nice. Thank you for the comprehensive look. I also agree that Ahmadi would do well to be replaced in the line-up with something else, and possibly Sufism as well (since it's not really ever been politically-endorsed). Baha'i, though small and never politically-endorsed, I think could remain, as well as Mormonism, simply to acknowledge that they are spin-offs with significant numbers of followers in various parts of the world (spin-off cults big enough for common recognition).

Believe me, adding Mormonism and Bahaism is too much damaging the reality dimension of the game. My view, with which you are free to disagree, is that you could replace Mormonism with Anglicanism (see wikipedia) and Bahaism with Wahhabism. The influence of Anglicanism on the world and on Christianity, is much more important and its impact on politics, economics, and so forth, countlessly more influencing than that of a bizarre sect like Mormonism. The same counts for Wahhabism in comparison with something like Bahaism.

I am in favor of not including any "neo-_____" faiths unless the original is not included.

I agree. My nomination of some of the different sects as "neo" was only to give you a glimpse of the development history of the sects. Surely no sunni today wants to be called "neo-sunni" cause he believes in theological sources from the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries compared to the "old" sunni's who had mainly a political agenda to distinguish themselves from the shia.

This is simply because the associated benefits, buildings, and units would end up being too similar. Each of our 43 religions ought to be different enough that they must be chosen strategically. In other words, if I want to wage war as an Islamic nation, I'd want my state religion to be something along the lines of Kharijitism or Wahabiism. On the other hand, if I wanted to promote science as an Islamic nation, I'd probably want Mutazilism. If Ahmadi doesn't make the cut and you want a more modern Islamic faction, Wahabiism might be perfect in place of Kharijitism. Then you could put Mutazilism in place of Ahmadi.

I totally agree

I really think it would be great to have an expert (adherant is best) to each of the major religious families speak in this thread about the divisions and history of their faith, so that we can get information beyond layman level and Wikipedia stuff. I don't know if you're Muslim, alireza, but thanks for offering your knowledge to this project.

Yes, I am muslim.

Also, what are your thoughts on the Islamic family tree?

My thoughts I have already shared with u

You've mentioned all these groupings, but how could we relate them in the game to each other? Which would be the original Islam? Do we need an additional Islam religion for these to split off from?

You could start with islam as the original religion, and all of the rest (sunnism, shiism, mutazilism, wahhabism) as offsprings.

I dont know how much space you have for more islamic sects.. But I would definitely add islam, sunnism, shiism, mutazilism and wahhabism.

Some important things about their characteristics:


Sunnism: Always some version of sunnism was the state religion of many large muslim empires. I would choose spiritual and definitely organized, could give them bonusses based on these grounds. They deserve a science penalty; sunni attitude through the ages against science is very staunch, like the catholics were (and still are). The good thing is that they are mostly pragmatic rulers. Bureacracy under the Ottomans is legendary but some impressive progress was only possible to be made after the Tanzimat reforms where many principles of mutazilite rationalism were adopted to fix the backwardness (too late unfortunately).

Shiism: Shiism is mainly known as mystic and political. I would give them definitely cultural bonusses (Persian Culture which is very much influenced by shiism, is the most dominant culture which influenced all other nations in the whole of the islamic world up untill Indonesia and Morocco) and some military bonus (definitely protective) cause of their militantism and isolationist discourse.

Mutazilism: Rationalist and progressive but intolerant to other islamic sects. The first ones to officially develop courts of inquisition against all other islamic sects, especially sunnism and shiism. Fortunately, the inquisition was not organized against science, but for scientific development and against reactionarism. You would get arrested if you claimed the world was flat or that God is an anthropomorph (sunnis believe God has a body like ours and that He sits on a throne based on their interpretation of the Verse of the Throne), I would give them definitely a scientific bonus and maybe trade.

Wahhabism: This is the anti scientific, reactionary, oppressive and very aggressive offspring of neo-sunni islam. (institutionalized sunni islam of the 10th, 11th and 12th centuries as opposed to mutazilism) Osama bin Laden, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, they are all offsprings of the theological and political theory of this sect from the 18th century. I would give them a scientific penalty, but an aggressive and spiritual bonus.

I hope you will find some use in this information!

 

[Vrenir]

Good stuff. Thanks again. I think the plan was to have one row of twelve religions devoted to the Abrahamic religions. So, maybe two Judaism sects, five Christian, and five Islamic?

For the Judaism sects, I wanted one more secular Zionist style one (cultural Judaism) and one orthodox sect. Pharisaism (orthodox) and Sadducaism (cultural) seem good enough labels to me for that, though if a Jewish person wanted input, that would be most welcome.

For Christian: Christianity (minor cultural, very high spread rate), Coptic (cultural/minor science), Catholic (commerce/cultural), Orthodox (cultural/minor espionage), Protestant (science/minor cultural). Something along those lines. Specific benefits would be tweaked when each UB and UU were selected.

For Islam: Islam, Sunni, Shiite, Mutazili, Wahabi.

Then, spin-offs can come under the Modern Religions row, so we can there include Rastafarianism, Mormonism, and Baha'i, as well as Neo-Paganism, Caodai, etc.

Then there is one row of twelve for Animist religions, one row for Dharic religions, and the rest can fill in the row with the Modern religions (philosophies, etc).

Anglicanism would actually be one of the last choices I would make for inclusion as a Christian sect since it is basically a direct cross-breed between Catholicism and early Protestantism, having been formed by a Catholic king who rejected Papal authority and used the situation to appease Protestant activists within his nation by letting them make limited reforms. To this day the two influences are seen in the Anglican church, with individual congregations falling either into the more Protestant (low church) camp or the Catholic (high church) camp. These differences are most notable in liturgy and the treatment of different parts of worship such as Holy Communion.

A better choice, were a subdivision made, would be to further divide Protestantism into Reformed and Baptist, with Protestantism embodying the amalgams that are Algicanism and Lutheranism. Baptist would need to encompass the further class of Pentacostal churches. Because I don't really think it's balancing to the game to include eight or nine Christian denominations when only 43 slots are open for religions and ideologies worldwide, a generic Protestantism is good enough for me. As a Protestant, I think I can make that call without getting into trouble.

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[WiegrafFolles]

Hi all, I've been in contact with Johny Smith for the last week or so and have been figuring out how to do the Chinese stuff. Discussing the matter with my friends who are masters students in this area, we came up with this for the Warring States Chinese stuff.

The Religion is followed by the associated tech and then the color quote.

Confucianism – Ritual Society

"The Master said, 'Master Zeng! All that I teach can be strung together on a single thread.'
'Yes, sir.' Master Zeng responded. After the Master left, the disciples asked, 'What did he mean by that?'
Master Zeng said, 'All that the Master teaches amounts to nothing more than dutifulness tempered by understanding.'

Analects 4.15

Daoism – Naturalism

"The world and all its creatures arise from what is there; What is there arises from what is not there."

Laozi Chapter 40

Mohism – Impartial Care

"If men were to regard the families of others as they regard their own, then who would raise up his family to overthrow that of another?"

-Mozi

Legalism – Centralized Bureaucracy

"If the tiger abandons its claws and fangs and lets the dog use them, it will be subdued by the dog. Similarly, the ruler controls his ministers through punishment and kindness. If the ruler abandons his punishment and kindness and lets his ministers use them, he will be controlled by his ministers."

Hanfeizi Chapter 7

We were thinking that the tech tree should go something like

Zhou Rites->Confucianism->Mohism->Legalism
->Daoism---------------->

Where Confucianism and Daoism come from Zhou rites and are both required for legalism.

Hope this helps!

Following that I sent a bit more info to Johny_Smith

I'm not sure how you're dividing religions and philosophies, but obviously Daoism can go under Religions since that's what it's been for most of its history (really was only "philosophical" in the first bit) but then the line between philosophy and religion in China is pretty blurred so you can probably just leave them as religions if that's easier.

I guess it's fair to say that yes Chinese thought is that important to East Asia. It was like Rome was to Europe for East Asia except for a far longer period of time. Pretty much every intellectual and religious tradition in East Asia has been very heavily influenced by Chinese thought. The only other huge influence for most of history has been Mahayana Buddhism which was very heavily sinified. Of course there are local traditions as well but they generally did not spread a great deal. There was some attempt to spread Shinto during World War II but this was a complete failure.

Lastly:

Just one more thing, the opposition between philosophy and religion is really an intellectual divide that arose out of the Enlightenment in 18th century Europe, so you might have a hard time splitting up religions from philosophies in many cases.

Like I said earlier I think a pretty fair case can be made for Legalism as a philosophy as opposed to a religion, but Confucianism and Mohism are sort of iffy. For instance Confucianists advocated ancestor worship very heavily, and Mohists ascribed to the belief in the benevolence of a godlike "Heaven" as well as the belief in benevolent spirits. Daoism is most clearly religious in its orientation (except for the Dao De Jing and the Zhuangzi two of its founding texts, with the DDJ being ambiguous in its religiosity and the Zhuangzi being most clearly Philosophical)

Hope this helps

Just one question for everyone though, are we going really into detail with this mod or keeping things general? I mean there are numerous Daoist sects to deal with as well as Confucian intellectual currents. I could go into more detail if it's needed or we could stick with this.

Also are we assigning benefits to each religion? If so I'll come up with some for these.

Thoughts?

-Wiegraffolles

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[WiegrafFolles]

Alright I guess we'll figure that out later then.

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[Vrenir]

As strange as it may be, as a non-Mormon, I'm going to defend the inclusion of Mormonism. Do I believe that it is a sect of earth-shattering importance? No; there has never been a Mormon-sponsoring government. Do I really think that it should be accepted as a part of the Christian tradition? No; many of its tenants are in direct opposition to orthodox Christian beliefs. Do I ackowledge that it has grown far beyond most fringe groups in number of adherants worldwide? Yes.

The primary reason I believe that it ought to be included though is that it is necessary to simulate Christian history. Throughout church history, various fringe theologies have arisen. Some of these have been accepted in an eccumenical fashion, and others have been branded as heresies. There are quite a few sects where the line between these two stances is quite blurred. Today, I believe that most Christians (at least in the West) hold a stance somewhat akin to the one put forth by CS Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity," that there are certain creedal boxes that must be checked to qualify as "Christian." However, there are many other boxes that can be checked or unchecked without damaging the core tenants of the faith. These are denominations, divisions with different emphases, different personalities, different strengths and weaknesses. Heresies, meanwhile, are those theologies which leave the core boxes unchecked. They are members of the faith family tree who believe that they fall under the banner, but who are rejected by all others who do. There are many of these, past and present, but none except for Mormonism has been included in your list.

I might prefer the world to be a bit neater, but it isn't. If I were to play this game as a Christian state, it would be a disservice to me if I didn't have to grapple with the same sort of religious issues that the church had to in real history. If I can check a little box that only allows Christian religions to spread within my borders and not ever have to deal with a set of beliefs in my land that I disagreed with, the moral decision is removed. I want to have Mormonism (or another spin-off show up), something that I can't block out without blocking out things that I do agree with. I want to have to grapple with whether or not persecution or inquisition is ever acceptable, or whether the only right thing to do is to preach what I want to spread and trust that it will prevail.

Sorry for the personal stance stuff. I think my point is made though. Spin-offs exist, and governments have to make decisions about how to treat them. To only leave mutually-accepted religions within a family is to short-change the complexity of intra-faith relations. Catholics used to persecute Protesants in much of Europe. Today, Catholics and Protestants in large part believe that each other are part of a larger common community. Therefore, including historic divisions can help simulate historic conflicts, but in order to push player toward personal development and exploration through their gameplay, you need to include something that represents a modern similar situation. If you want players to explore the ideas of persecution and imposed orthodoxy within a faith, there need to be religions that the players know don't fit those criteria in the game. I do not know if members of other religions would agree about including fringe groups from their faiths, but for my own, pondering how to deal with spin-offs is an important spiritual exercise that is necessary for life in this world. This mod creates the ability to explore that part of history, and I think that a great opportunity for myself and others is missed if it is brushed under the carpet. That's what Firaxis did when they made all religions alike and only useful for diplomatic victory and getting money. It's what they did when they made every AI switch to Free Religion as if secularism is a holy grail that everyone aspires for. History isn't like that, hasn't been, and probably never will be. I play Civ because I want to put myself in the place of those who had to make the tough calls. That's how this game becomes something valuable, when we can look at things from a new (often uncomfortable position), understand better why maybe things happened the way they did, and what might be done better in the future. It's not a perfect simulation, but Civ can function in that way. Please allow it to; don't over-simplify the complexities. Thanks.

 

[Vrenir]

You don't need to insult anyone. Simply allow the benefits, buildings, and units to correspond historically and favorably for each religion, things that embody the values espoused by those who adhere to it. If you want to add a military benefit, don't add attack bonuses, add XP points. Then the player can choose to use that benefit peacefully through medic promotions, defensively through garrison promotions, or offensively through attack promotions.

So long as you continue to seek input from adherants, I think that you will be fine.

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[johny smith]

cleaned up

 

[Vrenir]

I think Baptist is probably the biggest and most different, unless you want to try a Pentacostal faction. Pentacostals, however, are even more congregationalist than Baptists, so linking them together could be a stretch.

I think Arians are a very good addition though. They add a more controversial sect and a historically significant one.