Hebrew civilization

[ddog14]

I'm an atheist, just saying it now. Raised catholic, lost faith in the church, lost belief in god. I don't believe in any religions, gods, afterlife, you know. Personally, I think the pope was much more influential back then. The catholic church back in those days was selling "Indulgences". These were basically donations to the church that supposedly gave time off purgatory and cleaned your soul of something like that. It was a very corrupt idea, but the church made millions. This partly influenced Martin Luther, John Calvin, and other people who broke off from the RC church and formed their own sects. So in other words, no, the church's money wasn't all from ancient roman "treasures" if you will.

Back to Hebrew civilization debate. I think they should be included. They might have been small, and they might not necessarily have been an empire, but you could also call them Judea. Judea had the kings of the ancient jews, thus pretty much making them an empire. Thing was, they were very small and weak so they were conquered by other civs often. I think calling them Judea, naming them the hebrew civilization, and making they're figurehead King David would suffice. I think they were highly influential (Even though I don't believe in religion) to the modern world. I don't believe they were ever escorted out of egypt by g-d, or captured Jericho through g-d crushing Jericho's walls, but they nevertheless had a major impact on the world today. Jesus was supposedly Jewish. Moses was the founder of the Jews. The Hebrews founded two major religions and were pretty much an empire.

 

[jeps]

Moses was the founder of the Jews

So incredibly wrong. Avram/Avraham (aka Abraham, Ibrahim) was the founder of Judaism and Islam. Arguably it is Yaakov (Jacob), who gained the name Israel, and gave birth to the nation. Moses merely was the leader at the time we recieved the torah from har sinai.

 

[LightSpectra]

It was a very corrupt idea, but the church made millions.

Holy crap is that an exaggeration. Abuses were never endorsed by the Church itself, they were done by a couple of corrupt priests in the middle of nowhere. Even if the Church made money off of it, it certainly wasn't millions.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

So incredibly wrong. Avram/Avraham (aka Abraham, Ibrahim) was the founder of Judaism and Islam.

Muhammad, perhaps?

Edit,

Interesting -- it seems that some sources say that Abraham is founder (or original prophet) of Islam with other prophets and that Muhammad was last of them. Seems to be in Quran so it has to be true .

 

[ddog14]

"So incredibly wrong. Avram/Avraham (aka Abraham, Ibrahim) was the founder of Judaism and Islam. Arguably it is Yaakov (Jacob), who gained the name Israel, and gave birth to the nation. Moses merely was the leader at the time we recieved the torah from har sinai." -j_eps

My mistake. I meant to say Abraham, I was thinking more about the foundation of the religious beliefs. Thanks for the correction.

"Holy crap is that an exaggeration. Abuses were never endorsed by the Church itself, they were done by a couple of corrupt priests in the middle of nowhere. Even if the Church made money off of it, it certainly wasn't millions."
-Lightspectra
I was translating what they got at the time into current amounts. I probably should've stated that. Other than that, you're wrong. The popes themselves did it, same with bishops and cardinals. It was quite widespread. The church did make money off it. A lot of money. See, nobles, monarchs, etc. would give money to the church for time off purgatory. It is an acknowledged fact. The church made so much money through this they ended up with a massive political influence. The crusades were started by the pope unquestionably. The leaders of the church told the knights that fighting in the crusades would get them entrance into heaven. Also, the nobles didn't exactly listen to the pope, yes, but the pope held massive influence. His word wasn't necessarily law, but people quite often followed it.

I would've put normal quotes in this but my computer's messed up, it keeps saying connection lost. I'll work on it later.

 

[rabidveggie]

Indulgences thats the word and yes the Pope endorsed them. It eventually influenced a number of catholics to break off and start their own sects. On the whole founder of Judaism Abraham was unquestionably the founder and I suppose he indirectly founded Christianity and Islam. Jesus being the figurehead of the Christians and the 7th and supposed final prophet Muhammad being the key difference for the Islams.

 

[cybrxkhan]

eventually influenced a number of catholics to break off and start their own sects.

like the Protestants.

 

[dh_epic]

the problem with half of those achievments is that they occured when the Jews weren't in a unified political state, hence a civilization, so that renders half of those achievements "disqualified".

How do you "disqualify" an accomplishment? They accomplished it. Those things are all huge.

A unified political state isn't a pre-requisite to be a civilization. It is, however, a pre-requisite for an empire. But not all civilizations are empires. We have Stonehenge as a wonder, and it wasn't even created by a civilization by your definition -- so why is it in the game?

I can't see why people invent technical rules to justify who they want in or out anyway. At the end of the day, Firaxis includes content (including leaders and civilizations) that maximize profits and offer the most historical variety -- hence why you can have Carthage instead of Phoenician civilization, and they are led by Hannibal (a general) rather than Hano or Dido (a king).

 

[cybrxkhan]

How do you "disqualify" an accomplishment? They accomplished it. Those things are all huge.

A unified political state isn't a pre-requisite to be a civilization. It is, however, a pre-requisite for an empire. But not all civilizations are empires. We have Stonehenge as a wonder, and it wasn't even created by a civilization by your definition -- so why is it in the game?

I can't see why people invent technical rules to justify who they want in or out anyway. At the end of the day, Firaxis includes content (including leaders and civilizations) that maximize profits and offer the most historical variety -- hence why you can have Carthage instead of Phoenician civilization, and they are led by Hannibal (a general) rather than Hano or Dido (a king).

okay... here we go...

first of all, realize that i am not saying that an Israeli civilization should or should not be in. that is up to Firaxis, and i myself don't really care if Israel is in or not. there are arrogant people in the world that think the Hebrews are a bunch of useless dirtbags. i am not one of those people, realize that.

i did not say that their accomplishments were inexistent or stupid. they were there, yes they were.
but, my main point is, the REPRESENTATIONS of all of the civilizations in the game were while they were independent states. so, half the accomplishments listed earlier were when the Jews weren't an independant state.

now about Stonehenge. that is a wonder, not a civ. that has nothing to do with whether a civ is in or not, though it can hint at it. for example, the Mongols have no wonders representing them, and yet they are in. i am not talking about wonders.

anyhow, of course there are no technical rules for having civs in the game. however, you can see... emerging obvious patterns (and patterns can be broken). for example, the civs chosen tend to be "Westerno-centric", as i put it. Firaxis puts the Celts over the Maya, they have now pretty much two and a half civs representing Rome (Rome, Byzantium, HRE), and yet if they do that, then they shold have at least five civs for China. another pattern- they tend to put in more marketable things in the game then what histoircally was more important, like your example of Hannibal over Dido; or, Boadicea instead of some other more important leader.

so, what is my point?

the pattern i am speaking of is that EVERY CIVILIZATION (only civilizations, not wonders, religions, or anything else) IN THE GAME, AND THEIR ACCOMPLISHMENTS, ARE REPRESENTED WHILE THEY WERE INDEPENDENT POLITICAL ENTITIES


that is all i have to say.

 

[injeKT]

Wow. This thread is full of Christophobia, Ameriphobia and straight up anti-semitism. But, that doesn't surprise me.

The Hebrew nation should definitely be in.

 

[ddog14]

Wow. This thread is full of Christophobia, Ameriphobia and straight up anti-semitism. But, that doesn't surprise me.

The Hebrew nation should definitely be in.

Christophobia? Where has anyone been anti-christian? As far as I've seen, everything posted about the faults of the christian religion is proven fact. The crusades, the inquisition, indulgences, yea, they all happened at the fault of the church. Sure, lightspectra was trying to defend it, but even he didn't deny these events. With all due respect he was wrong a few times about indulgences and the crusades. Second of all, where's the anti semitism? I haven't seen anyone insult the jews or jewish nation (I did get a few facts wrong about them). I agree with you that a civ called Israel or Judea should be in a later project.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Christophobia? Where has anyone been anti-christian? As far as I've seen, everything posted about the faults of the christian religion is proven fact. The crusades, the inquisition, indulgences, yea, they all happened at the fault of the church. Sure, lightspectra was trying to defend it, but even he didn't deny these events. With all due respect he was wrong a few times about indulgences and the crusades. Second of all, where's the anti semitism? I haven't seen anyone insult the jews or jewish nation (I did get a few facts wrong about them). I agree with you that a civ called Israel or Judea should be in a later project.

Please, please, PLEASE do not confuse the actions of the church with Christianity as a religion! There are plenty of Christians who do not associate themselves with such a large, corrupt power structure. In the Bible, the church is defined as any community of Christians who come together to worship God and serve others. There doesn't even have to be a building or a hierarchy or anything of that sort.

 

[yewsef]

Muhammad, perhaps?

Edit,

Interesting -- it seems that some sources say that Abraham is founder (or original prophet) of Islam with other prophets and that Muhammad was last of them. Seems to be in Quran so it has to be true .

Abraham was what we call in our language Haneef. Which is pure Monotheism without any corruption. Since Islam is a Monotheist religion so it is to a degree considered Abrahamic religion. Islam also recognize Abraham as a prophet of one message, just like Noah, Moses, and Jesus. They ask people to worship only one God which is the absolute(The first commandment ""YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND HIM ONLY SHALL YOU SERVE"") but people changed their religion because of corruption or ignorance. Corruption which was in the Jews, thus, Jesus came to "fix" the religion and not change it(isn't that what Jesus said int he bible? correct me if I'm wrong). Muhammad is the grandson of Abraham from Ishmael. Before Islam there were few people who follow the religion of Abraham, not Jews not Christians it was different but the religion is almost destroyed. Also, the Ka'aba in Mecca was built by Abraham and Ishmael.

So, arguably and to a degree Abraham is the founder of Monotheism and since Islam recognize all prophet as the carriers of one message so Abraham is the founder of Islam to a degree. Jews also recognize Abraham as the founder of monotheism and thus their religion.

I hope that make sense.

 

[ddog14]

Please, please, PLEASE do not confuse the actions of the church with Christianity as a religion! There are plenty of Christians who do not associate themselves with such a large, corrupt power structure. In the Bible, the church is defined as any community of Christians who come together to worship God and serve others. There doesn't even have to be a building or a hierarchy or anything of that sort.

I was more speaking of the human aspect of the church. You know, the church as a business, an army, a nation, a human led group of corrupt individuals. I think personally I'd have a lot more respect for the catholic and christian religions if people never established the church. I think Christianity as a religion is also wrong, but I have some respect for it. The church, however, I have no respect for at all.

 

[injeKT]

Christophobia? Where has anyone been anti-christian? As far as I've seen, everything posted about the faults of the christian religion is proven fact. The crusades, the inquisition, indulgences, yea, they all happened at the fault of the church. Sure, lightspectra was trying to defend it, but even he didn't deny these events. With all due respect he was wrong a few times about indulgences and the crusades. Second of all, where's the anti semitism? I haven't seen anyone insult the jews or jewish nation (I did get a few facts wrong about them). I agree with you that a civ called Israel or Judea should be in a later project.

Awesome. More Christophobia.

 

[Ozymandias]

Sorry, I know I'm jumping into this thread a long way in, but I can't help throwing fuel on the fire

1. The Israelites did NOT begin as monotheists. They were monolaterists (aka "henotheism") up until about the writing of Deuteronomy. As monolaterists, followers of Judaism acknowledged the existence of other gods, but demanded sole (soul? ) obedience to Jehovah.

2. Both Christianity and Islam can be considered heresies of Judaism.

3. "Jewish history" really began ca. 1280 with the flight from the Egyptian Empire (which included most of modern day Israel) into inland Moab. As a "Civ", there were relatively few moments in history when there was an independent Israel (ruled by the Egyptians ca. 1300 BCE; "Philistines" ca. 1200 BCE; Assyrians ca. 670 BCE; Babyloniams ca. 560 BCE; Persians ca. 480 BCE; then Alexander the Great followed by his Ptolomaic successors; then the Romans; then the Diaspora.) An "independent Israel" (as opposed to a geographic area occupied by those of the Jewish faith in the "Holy Land" under conquering powers) is really a 20th century invention.

4. AFAIK Judaism has never been a proselytizing religion (with perhaps the quirky exception of present-day "Jews For Jesus"). If anything, nearly everything about Judaism (from prohibitions on marrying non-Jews to arcane dietary laws) is essentially exclusionary.

5. Whereas Islam is most certainly a Middle Eastern religion, "Christianity" is IMHO actually a European religion, with the early "Church Fathers" doing all they could to "overlay" (and thereby intermingle with, and thereby evolve) "pagan" tradition (you have wondered what eggs and rabbits have to do with Easter, haven't you?).

6. Arguably, a monotheistic Europe could as easily have arisen from Zoroastrianism as from Judaism - indeed, Zoroastrians were monotheists.

All that being said, I shall leave unanswered my opinion as to whether or not Israel "should" be a Civ.

Best,

Oz

Best

 

[jeps]

Judaism is the OPPOSITE of a prostelyzing religion. Converts are REJECTED (on average about 3 times before they are converted) at first, (to prove devotion to conversion, not because Madonna did it), and it is a hard process. As well, Jews for Jesus are not Jews. They claim to be, but they are christians pretending they are jewish to convert Jews to christianity (*said by a friend who was a former convert and is now a member of Jews for Judaism*)

 

[ZB2]

Ehh ozymandias is right though.

 

[Withouthatred]

Sure why not? Moses and David seem like good leader possibilities.
traits can be; philosophical/spiritual, and agressive/spiritual.

 

[amaterasu]

If the hewbrews are in we should include all other slightly important ethnic groups. Where are the tibetans, the taiwanese natives, the tupi, and the kongo?


Isreal was never important, it wasn't even a state for >almost of the areas life, dominated by other powers, then part of other empires like byzantium, then part of the muslim world, then made by the west and in the state it is now. Doesn't sound like a civilisation to me.