Masonry prerequisite for Monotheism?

[monitor173]

If the first to "discover" monotheism is granted Judaism, I presume that should be the historical model for this tech progression, but as it is I can't see how this structure can be justified. Can anyone with some experience in this area explain this logic to me?

"Polytheism" being a requisite for a Monotheism is also a little worrying, seeing that the latter (although an historical progression from the former) is essentially an absolute and fundamental rejection of all the ideologies associated with the former. Shouldn't a parallel tech progression be more appropriate?

As a side note: I find it odd that the symbol for Monotheism, is the "all-seeing eye" associated with Freemasonry, which is considered an occult movement by the classic monotheistic religions. *ahem* (checks outside window for suspicious vehicles and bolts front door).

 

[c-mattio]

I'm not quite sure what you're first query actually is regarding but I'll have a go at the second. I'm not an expert but I do read a lot around such topics and have a little relevant knowledge.

Firstly a obvious point that you kind of made but is actually important: surely to reject many gods in favour of one requires you to have many gods in the first place. Cultural evolution implies that polytheism IS a prerequisite for monotheism, but it is also fairly innaccurate (of the game) to suggest that mono immediately followed poly. The ancient Jews were not strict monotheists, but were monolatric (is that the right adj?), they accepted the other gods existed but only worshipped Jehova (or Baal if you believe some academic sugeestions). Likewise, ancient Egyptians followed a slightly different path towards monotheism with involved defining all gods in terms of the one main god. They never made it to monotheism before being conquered by true polys. Hope that makes sense...

 

[Martinus]

"Polytheism" being a requisite for a Monotheism is also a little worrying, seeing that the latter (although an historical progression from the former) is essentially an absolute and fundamental rejection of all the ideologies associated with the former. Shouldn't a parallel tech progression be more appropriate?

This is historically correct. JHWH was at first a tribal god of Israelites, that was worshipped along many others - there are many accounts of this in the Bible itself. It developped from that by becoming a monotheistic religion, rejecting not only worship but also existence/divinity of other gods.

The natural progression of religions is animism/shamanism -> pantheism -> polytheism -> monotheism.

 

[Yoshua]

Yes, but where does masonry fit into all of this? I'm sure stone working could evolve without the desire to build temples.

 

[Martinus]

Yes, but where does masonry fit into all of this? I'm sure stone working could evolve without the desire to build temples.

That was a game design decision. Since Monotheism is a very important early tech, giving access both to a religion and the first religious civic, it was necessary to give it two prerequisites (if for no other reason, then to prevent a situation in which a Spiritual civ is able to grab all three religions without much problem). Out of all second tier techs, Masonry is one of the more suited to be such a prerequisite, since it indicates a level of development that is associated with constructing grand temples and what not.

 

[narmox]

Yes, but where does masonry fit into all of this? I'm sure stone working could evolve without the desire to build temples.

Exactly, that's why stone working is a prerequisite to build temples! (Though I think Temples come with another tech don't they?)

 

[monitor173]

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear in the initial post, but it pertained to the notion of historical progression versus ideological/creedal progression - that you do not necessarily need to believe in many gods first as a REQUIREMENT before believing in one.

This is written from the Christian perspective, so that seems to be the source of the misunderstanding. From a purely scholarly perspective, it seems that the most logical progression by which to end up with one God is by first having many to "choose" from. From an absolutistic perspective, it seems incorrect that belief in the one True God needs a precedent in fallacious belief.

 

[c-mattio]

This is written from the Christian perspective, so that seems to be the source of the misunderstanding. From a purely scholarly perspective, it seems that the most logical progression by which to end up with one God is by first having many to "choose" from. From an absolutistic perspective, it seems incorrect that belief in the one True God needs a precedent in fallacious belief.

Try looking at it from a more fundamental point of view, or look at what Martinus quoted:

The natural progression of religions is animism/shamanism -> pantheism -> polytheism -> monotheism.

Religion evolved as a need by the early human intelligence to understand the world. Think of it in a sense as growing up, you need to understand easy principles before grasping harder ones. Early religions defined things in the context of what they knew. They could see other men and animals so things like the sun and tides were explained in terms of things men with more power than they, as the early gods of ancient Egypt were so defined.

As societies grew and developed culturally and interllectually more far reaching concepts became apparent. A primitive understanding of astronomy for example could allow religion to take on a more other-worldly view, as it did in Babylon from where most of the Old Testament derives its origin.

As society moved from one where occupation was determined by family to one based on ability, the religion shifts focus from one man(god) for each skill (as in ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece) to one man(god) having many different skills (Later Egyptian religion defined all Gods in relation to the Sun God, Early Israelite monolatry and Taoism in a way) and finally to the one man(god) who is omnipotential and the only one of his kind, Judaism.

One further step, is towards the greater power of earthly man and his ability to represent/understand god (which lead to both Islam And Christianity). Of course, the next progression could be argued to be the absolute omnipotential capacity of humans themselves which negates the need for a god and is often refered to as Humanism (of which Confucianism is an example).

Religion mirrors cultural evolution and as such, progression occurs through the stages based on how advanced the society is. Civ4 aims to reflect the advance of civilisation rather than specific religious precepts and therefore it is perfectly logical for polytheism to be a prerequisite for monotheism.

Blimey, overkill for the topic maybe, but hope it means something to you all.

 

[pilight]

Cultural evolution implies that polytheism IS a prerequisite for monotheism, but it is also fairly innaccurate (of the game) to suggest that mono immediately followed poly.

You don't have to research mono right after poly.

 

[warpstorm]

Not every design decision in the game is based on historical or realism reason, many are based on game balance and flow.

 

[panzooka]

liberalism leads to communism, this isnt correct either

 

[monitor173]

Try looking at it from a more fundamental point of view, or look at what Martinus quoted

Hm, it seems your idea of "fundamental" lies at the relativistic end of the spectrum. That's a little alarming, but not surprising. Please read through what I wrote carefully, and try to understand what I meant by the term "absolutistic".

 

[NP300]

This is historically correct. JHWH was at first a tribal god of Israelites, that was worshipped along many others - there are many accounts of this in the Bible itself. It developped from that by becoming a monotheistic religion, rejecting not only worship but also existence/divinity of other gods.

Very true, in fact, if you read the ten commandments carefully, they imply that there are other gods.

In any case, Judaism was not the first monotheistic religion. Zoroastrianism and Akhenaton preceded Jewish monotheism. Judaism as we know it developed in Babylon. There, the Jews absorbed Zoroastrian ideas, such as angels, monotheism, dualism, etc. They also absorbed Babylonian/Sumerian creation myths.

 

[Grogs]

The polytheism -> monotheism track seems pretty natural to me. Historically, I can't think of a single group of ancient people (including the Israelites) who started out with just one god. More accurately, I think that that way back in the mists of pre-history each little village had their own patron deity. As these villages began to group together into nations, they undoubtedly discovered that the other villages didn't worship the same thing they did. The easiest and least painful way to rectify this situation was to just say that there were many gods and each controlled a particular city or aspect of life. Monotheism doesn't seem to come into play until a strong central government has developed that can command everyone to worship the same deity without destroying the kingdom.

As for the masonry requirement, since monotheism produces Judaism, I suspect it's a tip of the hat to the Palace of David, the Temple of Solomon, and the 2nd Temple in the time of Christ.

 

[monitor173]

Zoroastrianism is better described dualistic in nature than truly monotheistic.

The idea of equally opposing powers of good and evil in eternal conflict are fundamentally different from the core tenets of the Abrahamic religions, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, transcendent God (scripture is clear in stating that Satan is not in any way an equal or a counterpart or the opposing "polarity" of God).

To see a direct line of derivation from Sassanid beliefs of the era to Judaism would be an arbitration, much in the way that it is wrong to hypothesise that whales are not mammals but fish as they resemble fish and swim in the sea.

 

[Ariks]

Sorry, but Jews were not monolatric. And there is nothing like that in the Torah either that suggest something like that. There were Kings of Israel that adopted foreign cults through intermarriage - but this has nothing to do with the faith itself. Judaism was born on Mount Sinai and not im Babylon. I'm not sure were this revisionist trash is coming from. The transformation of Judaism in Babylon was due to the fact that we were severed from our homeland from the first time. The homeland and the Temple is, respective was central in our faith. In Babylon the focus of the prayers and service to g-d changed to accomodate the new reality.

 

[Ariks]

This is historically correct. JHWH was at first a tribal god of Israelites, that was worshipped along many others - there are many accounts of this in the Bible itself. It developped from that by becoming a monotheistic religion, rejecting not only worship but also existence/divinity of other gods.

The natural progression of religions is animism/shamanism -> pantheism -> polytheism -> monotheism.

YHWH was not the "first tribal" g-d. YHWH is still the name of our g-d but one is not allowed to speak the name and therefore Elohim or Adonai is used. Elohim = G-d, Adonai = Lord.

And to go back on topic... I have no idea why it requires masonary .

 

[NP300]

Zoroastrianism is better described dualistic in nature than truly monotheistic.

The idea of equally opposing powers of good and evil in eternal conflict are fundamentally different from the core tenets of the Abrahamic religions, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, transcendent God (scripture is clear in stating that Satan is not in any way an equal or a counterpart or the opposing "polarity" of God).

I think that's an arbitrary distinction because Judaism, Islam and Christianity are not 100% monotheistic either. As previously posted, Judaism retains vestiges of polytheism. Kabbalism also includes elements of polytheism.

Christianity in turn has the trinity, the virgin mary and the many saints. The trinity is defined as three gods in one. The Arians disagreed. In Orthodox and Catholic Christianity the saints and the virgin are technically venerated but the parallel with polytheism is evident, especially since the Church appropriated polytheistic beliefs and declared them to be the celebration of some Saint's birth.

Islam also has a vestige of polytheism with the Kabah, among other things.

As for dualism vs monotheism I'd say that's also an arbitrary distinction. The Abrahamic God clearly has not been able to defeat Satan, at least not yet, so it really doesn't seem all that different from Zoroastrianism. Satan is functionally like an anti-God in the Abrahamic religions. Also, some versions of Zoroastrianism approach the Abrahamic way of looking at things.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

According to him, then, the Evil Spirit can not be a creation of Ahura Mazda, and the system becomes truly dualistic, for opposing forces that spring from different sources may be equal, while a conflict between a Good Creator and a Created Evil can only end in one way, metaphysically speaking--the victory of the maker over the made. It is interesting to note how this philosophy from Mardanfarrokh of no-evil-arises-from-God contrasts with the preceding concept that humans, who came from Ahura Mazda, are in fact capable of evil. This paradox is essential to the logic-based framework of Zoroastrianism, though, for if Ahura Mazda can make something which does evil, then he might also have created the Evil Spirit, a set of circumstances which would place the belief structure with the Abrahamic faiths, but post-dating the Judaism-Christianity-Islam structure by an admitted millennium or more, raising questions of its originality.

To see a direct line of derivation from Sassanid beliefs of the era to Judaism would be an arbitration, much in the way that it is wrong to hypothesise that whales are not mammals but fish as they resemble fish and swim in the sea.

It is quite evident, particularly when it comes to concepts such as angels. The Torah/Old Testament wasn't written down until the Babylonian exile. It was written while the Jews were in Babylon, under the rule of the Persian empire. If you would like to believe that the similarities are all a coincidence you are free to do so but to me the conclusion is evident.

 

[Ariks]

It is quite evident, particularly when it comes to concepts such as angels. The Torah/Old Testament wasn't written down until the Babylonian exile. It was written while the Jews were in Babylon, under the rule of the Persian empire. If you would like to believe that the similarities are all a coincidence you are free to do so but to me the conclusion is evident.

That is absolutely baloeny. There are artefacts from the first temple period quoting the Torah.

 

[NP300]

Sorry, but Jews were not monolatric. And there is nothing like that in the Torah either that suggest something like that.

Of course there is. The commandment to have only one god:

I am the LORD your God. who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery: 7you shall have no other gods before me.

It only says that they shall not worship other gods. It doesn't say that there is only one god in the entire universe, nor that the other gods are false.

The Torah/Old Tesmanent is full of vestiges of the older Jewish beliefs. There is a part where Yahwe says that "WE" shall do this and that as if it were manny gods and not one.... Christians explain it away by saying that the plurals refer to the trinity. The writers of the Old Testament took the older Jewish polytheistic beliefs or the Sumerian/Babylonian ones and pasted in Yahwe in place of the many gods from the pantheons. But whoever did it slipped up here and there leaving such telltale clues.

There are even two inconsistent creation stories in the Bible.