[BtS] Religions

[Emporer]

When it comes to the mod, does Islam spread itself also? It's another proselytizing religion, and if we're after something realistic it will be more popular than the two-bit religion it is in the game.

Belief!=faith nor religion. I can believe in the existence of aliens, is that religious? I can have faith in humanity, is that a religion?

Both can be, if the belief is strong enough. But belief alone does not equal religious faith. And your idea of a civic to represent secularism would be best, IMO.

In reality, the later religions, Christianity and Islam, used bloodshed and things like the Inquisition to make up for their late start.

Christianity didn't spread like that. Most of the spread of Christianity can be attributed to missionaries and monks, not soldiers and prison guards.

 

[debrooks]

In reality, the later religions, Christianity and Islam, used bloodshed and things like the Inquisition to make up for their late start.

In the case of Christianity, this is simply not true. The Crusades and Reconquista (and subsequent inquisition) were a medium-scale response to large-scale Islamic aggression. Egypt was once a great center of Christian thought. Ditto Syria. And Asia Minor. North Africa was firmly Christian, while Persia was a Zoroastrian state with significant Christian influences. These areas are mostly Muslim today.

By seizing Constantinople in 1452 and shutting down the Silk Road, the Ottomans made Western Europe's search for new routes east necessary, eventually resulting in Columbus stumbling across America in 1492. This act of conquest is quite possibly Islam's greatest contribution to Western civilization, kick-starting both the Age of Exploration and the Renaissance (by sending Greek scholars fleeing to Italy with their priceless, ancient books).

Non-retaliatory aggression in the name of Christianity is pretty much confined to the Age of Exploration, and was more characteristic of state aggression in order to acquire resources than of religious aggression in order to save/exterminate infidels, with religion used as a justification. This era was destructive to the natives of the American continent, to be sure, but this was largely a result of their encountering previously-unknown Eurasian diseases to which they had no immunity. European powers capitalized on this unforeseen event by settling the now-under-occupied land.

The likely outcome, had the Incan, Aztec, and Mississippian (this culture fell entirely to European germs, without ever encountering Europeans themselves, demonstrating the power of Eurasian diseases) cultures had immunity to Eurasian diseases is demonstrated by the case of India, where the existing religious establishment faced little organized threat from Christianity, despite having a long-term colonial presence by a Christian power (same for British colonial Egypt, for example).

In fact, history shows us only one instance of non-retaliatory religiously-motivated (not simply religiously justified) aggression on a large scale, by any faith: the aforementioned conquests of the House of Islam.

Sources: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond andThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer.

 

[The Navy Seal]

I think I might add a couple new religions like Zoroastrianism and Shamanism.

 

[newtkeeper]

In the case of Christianity, this is simply not true. The Crusades and Reconquista (and subsequent inquisition) were a medium-scale response to large-scale Islamic aggression. Egypt was once a great center of Christian thought. Ditto Syria. And Asia Minor. North Africa was firmly Christian, while Persia was a Zoroastrian state with significant Christian influences. These areas are mostly Muslim today.

By seizing Constantinople in 1452 and shutting down the Silk Road, the Ottomans made Western Europe's search for new routes east necessary, eventually resulting in Columbus stumbling across America in 1492. This act of conquest is quite possibly Islam's greatest contribution to Western civilization, kick-starting both the Age of Exploration and the Renaissance (by sending Greek scholars fleeing to Italy with their priceless, ancient books).

Non-retaliatory aggression in the name of Christianity is pretty much confined to the Age of Exploration, and was more characteristic of state aggression in order to acquire resources than of religious aggression in order to save/exterminate infidels, with religion used as a justification. This era was destructive to the natives of the American continent, to be sure, but this was largely a result of their encountering previously-unknown Eurasian diseases to which they had no immunity. European powers capitalized on this unforeseen event by settling the now-under-occupied land.

The likely outcome, had the Incan, Aztec, and Mississippian (this culture fell entirely to European germs, without ever encountering Europeans themselves, demonstrating the power of Eurasian diseases) cultures had immunity to Eurasian diseases is demonstrated by the case of India, where the existing religious establishment faced little organized threat from Christianity, despite having a long-term colonial presence by a Christian power (same for British colonial Egypt, for example).

In fact, history shows us only one instance of non-retaliatory religiously-motivated (not simply religiously justified) aggression on a large scale, by any faith: the aforementioned conquests of the House of Islam.

Sources: Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond andThe Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades) by Robert Spencer.

Hmm... interesting. A things worth noting, however.

The Inquisition (Spanish and otherwise), aka, "Let's Kill/Exile All the Jews/Muslims/Protestants".

The thirty-years war, aka, "They changed their religion! Sounds like a good excuse for loot!".

Wikipedia (not perfect, but the best I could do on short notice), has the Mississipians in decline before Colombus ever set foot in America.

The land the Spanish Settled was not unoccupied, even after diseases. They were quite happy to enslave the survivors. The English were quite happy to shoot them when they got in the way.

Also, why is the Age of (Christian/European) Exploration politically motivated, whereas the Islamic Conquests are motivated by religion? Both claimed to be doing it in the name of God, after all.

 

[Emporer]

The land the Spanish Settled was not unoccupied, even after diseases. They were quite happy to enslave the survivors. The English were quite happy to shoot them when they got in the way.

Out of religious motivation, or political? Was it the monks and missionaries that enslaved and killed the local populations, or was it the former soldiers and others who were out to make a fortune?

Also, why is the Age of (Christian/European) Exploration politically motivated, whereas the Islamic Conquests are motivated by religion? Both claimed to be doing it in the name of God, after all.

Islam is both a religion and a political system. Christianity is just a religion.

 

[newtkeeper]

Out of religious motivation, or political? Was it the monks and missionaries that enslaved and killed the local populations, or was it the former soldiers and others who were out to make a fortune?


Islam is both a religion and a political system. Christianity is just a religion.

But is Islam, as opposed to 'Middle Easternness' really a political system? Sure, the Koran gives advice on how to run a society, but so does the Bible.

And I rather suspect, though I can't prove, that, in the Islamic Conquests, rather few monks were in the field as well. And, from memory of vague sources, they treated the conquered lands rather better- I know that they did not execute/exile all conquered of different faith, as Christians of the era were wont to do.

 

[Emporer]

But is Islam, as opposed to 'Middle Easternness' really a political system? Sure, the Koran gives advice on how to run a society, but so does the Bible.

The New Testament does not, save the commands to love and submit to one another. There are a few more laws for families and for churches, but you will not find a legal code in the New Testament. In a nutshell, all it says about society is love one another, and pay respect to those you owe it to. It was about living a Christian life within the existing framework of the Roman Empire, where the Romans were the ones making the rules. With the Koran, as far as I understand it, the focus is more on setting up a theocratic society.

And I rather suspect, though I can't prove, that, in the Islamic Conquests, rather few monks were in the field as well. And, from memory of vague sources, they treated the conquered lands rather better- I know that they did not execute/exile all conquered of different faith, as Christians of the era were wont to do.

But Christians did not spread their faith through conquest and exile, by and large. Europe was reached through missionaries, not by the sword. Muslims however, relied on it. Had the violence around Mohammed never taken place, and had he never become a warlord, Islam would never have spread as it did.

 

[newtkeeper]

The New Testament does not, save the commands to love and submit to one another. There are a few more laws for families and for churches, but you will not find a legal code in the New Testament. In a nutshell, all it says about society is love one another, and pay respect to those you owe it to. It was about living a Christian life within the existing framework of the Roman Empire, where the Romans were the ones making the rules. With the Koran, as far as I understand it, the focus is more on setting up a theocratic society.

So Christianity is the New, and only the New, Testament? Anyway, while jesus didn't preach much about how society should be run, Paul, I believe, did. No legal code as such, but enough advice to run a society. Anyway, the Christians *did* set up Theocracies, and I make a point of judging people by their actions.

And correct, the Christians did not spread their faith through conquest/exile, at least in the Mediterranean/European region (elsewhere is another story). But, when they had conquered (for whatever reason), they were rather bloodier than the Muslims. It was a matter of Convert and/or Die, rather than Convert or pay a higher tax.

 

[The Navy Seal]

And I rather suspect, though I can't prove, that, in the Islamic Conquests, rather few monks were in the field as well. And, from memory of vague sources, they treated the conquered lands rather better- I know that they did not execute/exile all conquered of different faith, as Christians of the era were wont to do.

Yes the Islamics did not send missionaries or kill their captives if they didn't convert, but they did cut off trade with country's that shared different views and they also forced their culture upon their captives, and their culture revolves around Islam. The Christians at this time in history were run by the Catholics who deviated from the generally excepted interpretation of the Bible (Praying to Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc).

So Christianity is the New, and only the New, Testament?

No the Old Testament is just as important as the New Testament.

The New Testament does not, save the commands to love and submit to one another. There are a few more laws for families and for churches, but you will not find a legal code in the New Testament.

In the New Testament you may not find a legal code but in the old Testament in the book of Exodus several chapters deal with the Ten Commandments and the first five books of the Old Testament provide laws for the Israelites which are at least in part adhered to by many Christians.

And correct, the Christians did not spread their faith through conquest/exile, at least in the Mediterranean/European region (elsewhere is another story). But, when they had conquered (for whatever reason), they were rather bloodier than the Muslims. It was a matter of Convert and/or Die, rather than Convert or pay a higher tax.

That was the Catholic church as well.

 

[newtkeeper]

The Christians at this time in history were run by the Catholics who deviated from the generally excepted interpretation of the Bible (Praying to Saints, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc).

SNIP

That was the Catholic church as well.

Dude, the Catholic Church was *the* Christianity of Western Europe. You make it sound like it was some kind of heresy, as opposed to the driving force of European Civilization. If you weren't a Catholic, you were either Eastern Orthodox or a splinter faction.

How can you deviate from the generally accepted practices of Christianity when you are the generally accepted Christianity? Protestantism is the new kid on the block, after all. (and Roman Catholicism is still a major player)

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

No, the early Christians kept to the Bible, it is the Catholic church which came later which added the traditions and heresies onto it like praying to dead saints and Mary. Christ alone is the mediator between God and man, not Mary or the saints as the Catholic Church teaches, that is what the Bible says, that Church is the sole mediator.

 

[newtkeeper]

No, the early Christians kept to the Bible, it is the Catholic church which came later which added the traditions and heresies onto it like praying to dead saints and Mary. Christ alone is the mediator between God and man, not Mary or the saints as the Catholic Church teaches, that is what the Bible says, that Church is the sole mediator.

Or your interpretation of the bible. And we all do interpret it- most of us don't mind being rich, despite not being very good at squeezing camels through needles. And, of course, we don't follow most of the Old Testament laws.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

There is no interpretation as you say, unless stated otherwise. The scriptures were made to be read clearly and word for word.

 

[newtkeeper]

There is no interpretation as you say, unless stated otherwise. The scriptures were made to be read clearly and word for word.

According to you, or according to the scriptures? And, again, do you keep kosher? If you don't, you are interpreting. If you do, quite impressive.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

God did away with kosher according to the scriptures in the New Testament. What was formerly unclean God made clean.

 

[newtkeeper]

God did away with kosher according to the scriptures in the New Testament. What was formerly unclean God made clean.

See, there you go interpreting again.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Matthew 15:1: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." -Jesus Christ

 

[newtkeeper]

Matthew 15:1: "Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." -Jesus Christ

Quite. And you *interpret* that to mean that Kosher is over and done with, rather than just forced to turn for some other reason for existing.

Hey, look over there! See that thing, a few miles off? Could it be.. the topic?

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

Think about the verse alittle bit, and you'll understand.

 

[newtkeeper]

Think about the verse alittle bit, and you'll understand.

Indeed, your interpretation (that, being clean, it's fine to eat them) is very rational (I would not question it) but an interpretation none the less.