Missing Major Religion

[SharpMango]

@Sharpmango - you seem pretty pro-Zoroastrianism but it really doesn't seem more than just a local Iranian paganism/national pre-Islamic cultural heritage than a major world religion as such. What separates religions from cults or cultural heritages is that they have a universalist dimension. Even Judaism, which could be said to be similar in this respect to Zoroastrianism, has had an influence beyond the Middle East, particularly into Europe and America, and Islam spread beyond the Middle East similarly because it had an easily universalised appeal. Besides during the Islamic revolution in the 1970s most Iranians supported Khomeini because of the decadence of the Shah and your friends are more likely to be elite dissidents rather than genuinely representative of the Iranian masses. Doesn't make the Islamic regime any better, but at the time of the revolution it had mass support and appeal otherwise it wouldn't have gathered momentum in order to be as genuine as it was. Whether or not Zoroastrianism represents a genuine Iranian (as opposed to outside) influence, it's mostly like saying that the neo-pagan community worshipping the Norse or Celtic pantheons represents British culture more than 1500-odd years of accumulated and shared Christian tradition.

Influence over a longer term matters much more than just having a few prominent Zoroastrian figures at any one time. No religion is going to spread through the actions of three or four charismatic businessmen; it needs a real spiritual cause or political reason to spread further. Judaism at one point was a missionary faith but it cooled down because Christianity took the Jewish God and made Him universal and therefore it spread further than Judaism did because it released its adherents from temporal rules ("Nothing I have created is unclean") and adapted better to practice over a wide area rather than being exclusively linked to a particular region, country or culture. Islam has had more success in spreading beyond its Middle Eastern roots because of a similar universalist principle. Zoroastrianism meanwhile hasn't been as successful. It may be an accident of history, but what you state about Sikhism does it an injustice and actually confirms what you are saying about ZA being a minor bit part in world religious affairs. It will take more than just a few businessmen to make it into a serious global contender and thus worthy of inclusion in Civ.

You have some very interesting points and i do find myself in agreement with most of them. I personally am not bothered at all that zorastarianism isnt included in civ4, but within this thread i found too many examples of people downplaying the influence and effects of the religion too much. Some even thought the religion had died out, i was just trying to point out in a couple of minor ways how the religion is still a living influence in the world.
Yes i am well aware of the dissident iranian community which fled Iran hating the revolution and being to a strange degree, still loyal to the idea of the shah and what he represented. Apart from the jews who left iran, the rest are by and large completely lapsed from islam. they are certainly more likely to celebrate say the zorastrian new year than the islam new year. I was more intrigued by the fact that the iranians i met who'd had come over here as students were so un-religious to the point of being non muslim. they were also much more active in the persian society than the islamic one..and yep u guessed it, the persian society would hold events on all the major zorastrian festivals...Whilst yes, they would have been middle class, they were by no means the elite...the elite these days are the government classes, they by and large had parents who were professionals..Perhaps there is more of a middle class/working class issue in iran when it comes to those who actually follow islam and those who just put it on for show...
about the sikhs...this is a major issue..sikhs in India are actually regarded as a subdivision of hindus..whilst hindus/muslims/christians all have their own personal law i.e in marriages etc..sikhs do not, they do not follow the civil marriages act either..they get married via the hindu marriage act. to me that suggests something.
UK sikhs appear to me to be split into two camps about the status of sikhism, some consider it seperate and some do consider it a sub-division..for example in a similar manner to the 'jains'. Part of the reason for this acceptance is that hinduism is such a massively broad 'church' which is hugely accepting and welcoming of different views. There is no baptism to become a hindu, no reading of the kalma(islamic faith), one merely has to believe themselves to be hindu and they are recognised as such by others...this is in the subcontinent of course. The fact is, most hindus regard sikhs as hindus...a different branch, but fundamentally hindu. This then leads to the discussion of whether a sect per se should be classified as a religion. there are many huge sects in the world with big differences which are larger than sikhism. and they certainly are not included. For example until the fall of constantinople, the orthodox church of constantinople's patriarch would have been considered to have the same prestige as the pope. But we just have one broad term..'christianity'..and lets not get started on the protestant/catholic difference...and then theres sunni/shia etc.

okay, ive talked to long and completely lost my thread for now haha!

 

[a4phantom]

Also, knowing a Jew myself (how many of you are speaking from actual personal knowledge of Judaism?! I suspect most of you are trying to do down Judaism because of political motivations rather than actual first hand knowledge and I suggest you visit your local synagogue and talk to your local rabbi before making any more judgement on this relying on biased sources or your own imagination) I can tell you they definitely do believe in a devil and that he is not just a heavenly bureaucrat designed to punish sinners. Otherwise Jesus, as a Jew, would not have had the concept of Satan to admonish his disciples with, nor would he have recognised Satan in the wilderness when he was being tempted. The devil is a real concept in Judaism but the OT is more a history of the Jews as a people and thus references are rarer than references to pagan gods such as Baal because these were the enemies the people of Judea faced.

Well don't that beat all. Crowqueen knows a Jew! So he can tell us that we definitely believe in a devil, because the Christian Bible includes one.

And who said anything about "a heavenly bureaucrat designed to punish sinners"? Job was actually known as a pretty alright guy. Look him up.

 

[frekk]

They are not Gods in the conventional sense, they are heroes of myth and legend elevated to semi-immortal status through stories. There is no concept in Norse myth or legend of an over-arching, immortal, omniscient/omnipresent Supreme Being

Well ... no, there isn't quite any concept like that. It's not monotheism. The powers accorded to a monotheistic deity, in pantheistic religions, are divided up between the gods and a few other spirits. They're all there, though.

But Odin was not anything like Herakles or Perseus. Like Yahweh, he was indeed a bipedal anthropod, but this does not make him a mere demigod. Odin had the power to see all, and received the souls of the dead in the afterlife. I cannot imagine how this is less than a god, by conventional definition.

If all you're trying to show is that he isn't a monotheistic deity, well that's ... unnecessary. Everyone knows that. If you're trying to say that pantheistic religions are lacking because your god is bigger than their god, well ...

As it happens, the Norse didn't convert to Christianity because they were looking around for some monotheistic deity and couldn't manage to invent one for themselves ... they converted for the same reason everyone else in Europe did, to join the club and enjoy the benefits in trade and diplomatic standing that came with membership.

 

[caketastydelish]

@Sharpmango - you seem pretty pro-Zoroastrianism but it really doesn't seem more than just a local Iranian paganism/national pre-Islamic cultural heritage than a major world religion as such. What separates religions from cults or cultural heritages is that they have a universalist dimension. Even Judaism, which could be said to be similar in this respect to Zoroastrianism, has had an influence beyond the Middle East, particularly into Europe and America, and Islam spread beyond the Middle East similarly because it had an easily universalised appeal. Besides during the Islamic revolution in the 1970s most Iranians supported Khomeini because of the decadence of the Shah and your friends are more likely to be elite dissidents rather than genuinely representative of the Iranian masses. Doesn't make the Islamic regime any better, but at the time of the revolution it had mass support and appeal otherwise it wouldn't have gathered momentum in order to be as genuine as it was. Whether or not Zoroastrianism represents a genuine Iranian (as opposed to outside) influence, it's mostly like saying that the neo-pagan community worshipping the Norse or Celtic pantheons represents British culture more than 1500-odd years of accumulated and shared Christian tradition.

Influence over a longer term matters much more than just having a few prominent Zoroastrian figures at any one time. No religion is going to spread through the actions of three or four charismatic businessmen; it needs a real spiritual cause or political reason to spread further. Judaism at one point was a missionary faith but it cooled down because Christianity took the Jewish God and made Him universal and therefore it spread further than Judaism did because it released its adherents from temporal rules ("Nothing I have created is unclean") and adapted better to practice over a wide area rather than being exclusively linked to a particular region, country or culture. Islam has had more success in spreading beyond its Middle Eastern roots because of a similar universalist principle. Zoroastrianism meanwhile hasn't been as successful. It may be an accident of history, but what you state about Sikhism does it an injustice and actually confirms what you are saying about ZA being a minor bit part in world religious affairs. It will take more than just a few businessmen to make it into a serious global contender and thus worthy of inclusion in Civ.



You could say - in fact you have just said - the same thing about Zoroastrianism. There are large Sikh communities in Britain as well; it is living religion as much as Zoroastrianism and one that is more recognised as such.



They are not Gods in the conventional sense, they are heroes of myth and legend elevated to semi-immortal status through stories. There is no concept in Norse myth or legend of an over-arching, immortal, omniscient/omnipresent Supreme Being - not even Odin was that powerful, especially since he and Thor both die at Ragnarok. Scandinavia ended up being Christianised because the appeal of monotheism or modern religions which survive and perpetuate themselves and become significant world religions all have a concept of a Supreme Being or, failing that, an ultimately perfectionist ideology such as Nirvana/achievement thereof. Therefore it could be said that Judaism, one of the first religions to achieve such a concept, influenced Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Islam; what Christianity did for Judaism was to spread this concept further than just . Whether or not Zoroastrianism has this concept and influenced Judaism or vice versa (and I have a hunch that it is vice versa since the concept of Manichaenism was a Christian heresy popular at the time of St Augustine, whose philosophy owes much to it).

In my opinion, much myth and legend is actually either legends of mortal heroes/early kings who were deified over time, or conversely prophecies of things to come (Ragnarok corresponds a lot to Revelation as a prophecy of the apocalypse and is frighteningly human rather than natural in nature). Christianity took hold in Europe because conventional paganism didn't allow for a Supreme Being which could give people absolute moral direction. Even neo-pagans have the concept of the Goddess (anachronistic and based largely on people mistaking Stone Age fetish items for ancient idols) and ascribe to her most of the characteristics of the conventional monotheistic God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I'm also pretty pro Zoastrian... But oh yeah, we're not allowed to have an opinion.

I don't consider the religion to be "a minor pagan religion". The first two words in that are incorrect. Sure its minor now, but Persia used to be the largest empire in the world! Was it a "minor" religion then? Nor do I consider it to be pagan. The belives of the religion are shockingly simular to Christianity, and some other modern religions in numerous ways. In Islam, if you someone converts from Islam to something else, and your a Moslem, your supposed to kill them! And that religion is treated as a "modern world religion" a more non-violent religion such as Zorastranism you guys call pagan! Just like this guy pointed out you guys apparently don't know much about Judaism(which in the west, people generally know a LOT more about Judaism than Zorastranism) and I think you guys know even less about Zorstranism.

In MODERN times Zorstranism is a minor religion, but Civ is not limited to modern times! Jeez, how many times do I have to say this? Zorastrnaism is basically a blend of Monotheism and Dualism. As the Greeks said, while bashing Zorstranism "You have only one God, and have never saw him"

Also, and I've said this several times, I am in for as many religions as possible, and still have seven per game. Perhaps before the game, in the settings, the person chooses 7 religions from a longer list. I would like to see Greek mythology paganism in the game, as well as Zorstranism, to be frank with you. Having them would benefit RFC quite a bit!

Zorastranism is said to have more influence on the world than any other religion, yet you make it sound like a "nothing" one.

 

[caketastydelish]

Oldschooler88,
Jews don't believe in the devil.

Thanks,
The Jews.

a4phantom
Jews believe in the devil.

Thanks,
The Jews.

 

[a4phantom]

a4phantom
Jews believe in the devil.

Thanks,
The Jews.

In that case, will you finally be providing some references made by Jews to the Devil? The Jewish Bible doesn't refer to the Devil just because Christians say it does, or do you also think it refers to Christ as they also reinterpret it? If you are claiming to be Jewish, then please learn about Judaism and stop spreading misinformation. Enough people already think Judaism is nothing but proto-Christianity, we don't need more people who don't know about Judaism telling the world that it's Christianity-lite.

From your source of choice:

Judaism

Main article: Satan

In Judaism there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (שָׂטָ&#1503 means "the adversary"[2] or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge).

In the book of Job (Iyov), ha-satan is the title, not the proper name, of an angel submitted to God; he is the divine court's chief prosecutor. In Judaism ha-satan does not make evil, rather points out to God the evil inclinations and actions of humankind. In essence ha-satan has no power unless humans do evil things. After God points out Job's piety, ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job. The righteous man is afflicted with loss of family, property, and later, health, but he still stays faithful to God. At the conclusion of this book God appears as a whirlwind, explaining to all that divine justice is inscrutable. In the epilogue Job's possessions are restored and he has a second family to "replace" the one that died.

In the Torah, ha-satan is mentioned several times. The main time is during the incident of the golden calf. As the source of people's evil inclination, or yetser harah, he is responsible for the Israelites building the golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Torah from God. In the book of 1 Chronicles 21:1, ha-satan incites David to an unlawful census.

In fact, the Book of Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Deuteronomy all have passages in which God is credited for exercising sovereign control over both good and evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil#Judaism

 

[CheScott]

Read the Religion entry in the Game Concepts part of the Civilopedia.

The number of religions were chosen based soley on the number that was most conducive to gameplay. As for the ones they chose, I'm pretty satisfied that they represented the major religions.

Granted, which religions are currently considered 'major' religions is rather arbitrary in itself. But.. well, they're selling games to people now, not Pre-Exilic Hebrews.

For the record, Judiasm's take on Satan, Afterlife and many other concepts are subject to much interpretation. While it is possible for a Jew to believe in 'The Devil' and certain that many Jews do, to say that 'Jews believe in the Devil' sort of infers that the Jews that don't (whom are also numerous) aren't really Jews. Which is really pretty ignorant.

 

[a4phantom]

Read the Religion entry in the Game Concepts part of the Civilopedia.

The number of religions were chosen based soley on the number that was most conducive to gameplay. As for the ones they chose, I'm pretty satisfied that they represented the major religions.

Granted, which religions are currently considered 'major' religions is rather arbitrary in itself. But.. well, they're selling games to people now, not Pre-Exilic Hebrews.

You're too sane for this thread. Get out while you can.

For the record, Judiasm's take on Satan, Afterlife and many other concepts are subject to much interpretation. While it is possible for a Jew to believe in 'The Devil' and certain that many Jews do, to say that 'Jews believe in the Devil' sort of infers that the Jews that don't (whom are also numerous) aren't really Jews. Which is really pretty ignorant.

Some Jews believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God too, but that's certainly not a Jewish belief, and neither Satan and the fallen angels' rebellion against God. If people want to challenge their religion's views, great, heresy is a key component of human progress, but Oldschooler shouldn't go around preaching misinformation and telling people that Jews agree with the Christian reinterpretation of our religion. There's a difference between rebellion and ignorance. You hear enough about Hannuka being Jewish Christmas and the Jews waiting for Jesus Christ the Son of God's first coming already. Judaism and Christianity are related, but Judaism is not simply incomplete Christianity.

 

[caketastydelish]

In that case, will you finally be providing some references made by Jews to the Devil? The Jewish Bible doesn't refer to the Devil just because Christians say it does, or do you also think it refers to Christ as they also reinterpret it? If you are claiming to be Jewish, then please learn about Judaism and stop spreading misinformation. Enough people already think Judaism is nothing but proto-Christianity, we don't need more people who don't know about Judaism telling the world that it's Christianity-lite.

From your source of choice:

Judaism

Main article: Satan

In Judaism there is no concept of a devil like in mainstream Christianity or Islam. In Hebrew, the biblical word ha-satan (שָׂטָ&#1503 means "the adversary"[2] or the obstacle, or even "the prosecutor" (recognizing that God is viewed as the ultimate Judge).

In the book of Job (Iyov), ha-satan is the title, not the proper name, of an angel submitted to God; he is the divine court's chief prosecutor. In Judaism ha-satan does not make evil, rather points out to God the evil inclinations and actions of humankind. In essence ha-satan has no power unless humans do evil things. After God points out Job's piety, ha-satan asks for permission to test the faith of Job. The righteous man is afflicted with loss of family, property, and later, health, but he still stays faithful to God. At the conclusion of this book God appears as a whirlwind, explaining to all that divine justice is inscrutable. In the epilogue Job's possessions are restored and he has a second family to "replace" the one that died.

In the Torah, ha-satan is mentioned several times. The main time is during the incident of the golden calf. As the source of people's evil inclination, or yetser harah, he is responsible for the Israelites building the golden calf while Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Torah from God. In the book of 1 Chronicles 21:1, ha-satan incites David to an unlawful census.

In fact, the Book of Isaiah, Job, Ecclesiastes, and Deuteronomy all have passages in which God is credited for exercising sovereign control over both good and evil.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil#Judaism

Wikipedia is not always my source of choice. How about Crowqueen?

"Also, knowing a Jew myself (how many of you are speaking from actual personal knowledge of Judaism?! I suspect most of you are trying to do down Judaism because of political motivations rather than actual first hand knowledge and I suggest you visit your local synagogue and talk to your local rabbi before making any more judgement on this relying on biased sources or your own imagination) I can tell you they definitely do believe in a devil and that he is not just a heavenly bureaucrat designed to punish sinners. Otherwise Jesus, as a Jew, would not have had the concept of Satan to admonish his disciples with, nor would he have recognised Satan in the wilderness when he was being tempted. The devil is a real concept in Judaism but the OT is more a history of the Jews as a people and thus references are rarer than references to pagan gods such as Baal because these were the enemies the people of Judea faced."

 

[a4phantom]

Wikipedia is not always my source of choice. How about Crowqueen?

"Also, knowing a Jew myself (how many of you are speaking from actual personal knowledge of Judaism?! I suspect most of you are trying to do down Judaism because of political motivations rather than actual first hand knowledge and I suggest you visit your local synagogue and talk to your local rabbi before making any more judgement on this relying on biased sources or your own imagination) I can tell you they definitely do believe in a devil and that he is not just a heavenly bureaucrat designed to punish sinners. Otherwise Jesus, as a Jew, would not have had the concept of Satan to admonish his disciples with, nor would he have recognised Satan in the wilderness when he was being tempted. The devil is a real concept in Judaism but the OT is more a history of the Jews as a people and thus references are rarer than references to pagan gods such as Baal because these were the enemies the people of Judea faced."

Ah, Wiki was before, but it says you're absolutely wrong on this issue so now Crowqueen is your source of choice, because he agrees with you and he knows a Jew. I think this argument has officially jumped the shark.

 

[caketastydelish]

Ah, Wiki was before, but it says you're absolutely wrong on this issue so now Crowqueen is your source of choice, because he agrees with you and he knows a Jew. I think this argument has officially jumped the shark.

Every time you say that, it loses meaning.

 

[a4phantom]

Every time you say that, it loses meaning.

Then how many times will I have to say it before it's equally valid to citing a fellow poster who cites his acquaintance with a Jew as proof that Jews believe in the Christian Devil figure? Come on, let's see these OT references to the Devil you were talking about.

 

[caketastydelish]

Then how many times will I have to say it before it's equally valid to citing a fellow poster who cites his acquaintance with a Jew as proof that Jews believe in the Christian Devil figure? Come on, let's see these OT references to the Devil you were talking about.

"Christian devil figure" good luck finding that word for word from any of my post!
OT? What does that even mean?

 

[a4phantom]

"Christian devil figure" good luck finding that word for word from any of my post!
OT? What does that even mean?

If I'd meant it as a direct quote, I would of course have used quotation marks, for example "word for word" or "Then why is the devil mentioned in the old testament in the bible?". Don't you still claim that the Devil, a figure of Christian mythology (and borrowed from Zoroastrianism), is believed in by Jews? So could we please see those elusive Old Testament references?

 

[amazingorange]

they probably just couldnt spell the religion right so they took it out

 

[caketastydelish]

they probably just couldnt spell the religion right so they took it out

Joke of the week.

 

[caketastydelish]

If I'd meant it as a direct quote, I would of course have used quotation marks, for example "word for word" or "Then why is the devil mentioned in the old testament in the bible?". Don't you still claim that the Devil, a figure of Christian mythology (and borrowed from Zoroastrianism), is believed in by Jews? So could we please see those elusive Old Testament references?

Its in the very first book of the Bible, for starters. In the garden of Eden! The devil tricks them into eating the fruit.

 

[Grimz101]

Mainstream Judaism
Source

Spoiler :

http://whatjewsbelieve.org

For God, the Bible, and for Judaism, to have an entity that competes with God, that has power and authority of his own in opposition to God, is to violate the basic idea of monotheism.

My interpretation, is that in Judaism they believe in 'The Satan', but not in a devil. There is a difference between The Satan and the devil.
Its like The Satan, is the angel of death.. controlled by God, not a force opposing him.

 

[a4phantom]

Its in the very first book of the Bible, for starters. In the garden of Eden! The devil tricks them into eating the fruit.

The serpent? I certainly hope no Jew ever told you that was "The Devil." Do you also believe that Jews think Genesis (that very first book) references Christ, like Christians do? Can you at least show me the passage you're talking about? When God talks to and punishes the snake, does He say something like "Hey Satan, you former angel, this is the worst thing you did since you rebelled against my throne and I cast you into Hell?" Or is that just contextually implied, in the first book of the Bible?

I'll stipulate right now that if your position were that there are unsavory characters in the OT, you'd have won. The Amalekites? Total schmucks. Jezebel? Almost as bad as my ex. But you're telling me that we believe in and wrote about the Devil, a Christian mythological figure, and so I'd like to see some references to him not to any given bad actors.

 

[a4phantom]

Mainstream Judaism
Source

Spoiler :

http://whatjewsbelieve.org

My interpretation, is that in Judaism they believe in 'The Satan', but not in a devil. There is a difference between The Satan and the devil.
Its like The Satan, is the angel of death.. controlled by God, not a force opposing him.

Close. Not the angel of death, the angel of being a pain in the neck. But yes, Satan to Jews is part of God's court, not a rebellious exile. Hence the gambling (Job) between them, and the lack of references to fallen angels, rebellious angels, a devil, etc. (All the OT). He is man's adversary, not God's.