Monotheism vs Polytheism

Which do you prefer


  • Total voters
    23
I wonder if a ban on condoms is the solution to the problem of a aging population we experience in the west.
 
I wonder if a ban on condoms is the solution to the problem of a aging population we experience in the west.
That combined with obligatory everyday intercourse and worship of goddes of plenty.
 
Maybe we should just hardcap life at the age of 25, would solve the problem of aging populations and people would vote for more progressive policies, too.
 
Maybe we should just hardcap life at the age of 25, would solve the problem of aging populations and people would vote for more progressive policies, too.
Its actualy capped that way; not just physicaly but also psychologicaly. Latest by your 30 you will see what I am talking about...
 
Maybe we should just hardcap life at the age of 25, would solve the problem of aging populations and people would vote for more progressive policies, too.

I'm OK with that if we make an exception for people who are already over 25.
 
I'm OK with that if we make an exception for people who are already over 25.
No. But how about a 2-year grace period given that this is a rather drastic change to the previous contract?

Its actualy capped that way; not physicaly but psychologicaly. Latest by your 30 you will see what I am talking about...
Explain?
 
Natural life. You are full of hormons in you physical body and psychologically you feel almost immortal. Thats wears off and you need to start worrying about deeper sense in life or somewhat balance your life amid constant attacks on emotional, physical and mental levels. The brute reality of life without being doped (as much) by hormons from your brain.
 

My phone background can attest to this:

Spoiler :
Screenshot_20170930-221350.png
 
What if you change your form of government to Fundamentalism
That's what I do, as soon as possible (it's called Fanaticism in the Fantasy/Midgard games, and is only available by stealing it either from the Goblins or Infidels, if you're playing a different faction). It means tech research slows down, but considering there's more money coming in (especially if I've got decent caravan routes), I rush-buy the science improvements as circumstances allow (always have enough money on hand to rush-buy a Sorceror, Kraken, or Dwarf; all are useful, particularly if a Dragon is about to roast your cities and you're short of Sorcerors).
 
There are only two good things that start with pan, and that's pandas on the one hand, and pansexuality on the other.

Pantheism seems particularly silly, as they're basically just taking the title of "God" and ascribing it to universe. It's the ultimate word game really.
If strictly Pantheism sure, but what about Panentheism?

Pancakes, panini...uhm..pancreas. It's good to have a pancreas.
 
The Romans could be every bit as <snip> towards people worshiping gods whom they perceived to be weird or unnatural, or people whom they felt weren't venerating the primary gods as much as they ought, as any other monotheistic religious body could.

Still I think Monotheism is scarier, with the one true god and one true faith. There is no ideal religion, but hopefully multiple gods with different human like personalities makes it easier to take them less seriously?. But again if believers of same god can fight over different interpretations of that god , anything is possible.

On the one hand monotheistic religions seem ro have more capacity for tolerance. As dickish as the Romans were, their imperialism wasn't driven by the need to spread their One True Faith and they often identified foreign gods as their own or incorporated them into their pantheon.
On the other hand, polytheism has the potential for internal conflict about which one of your gods is greater, and many polytheistic faiths practiced human sacrifice.
If only monotheism and polytheism are are an option, I would prefer polytheism, but ultimately I'd rather go with an atheistic/agnostic religion.
Polytheism's tolerance for multiple deities and lines of thought was what I was also thinking.
Don't waste your time with Meditation and Buddhism. Even if you're Spiritual someone will probably beat you to it, and even if you succeed the opportunity cost of delaying techs that unlock improvements is too high. Better to get Animal Husbandry and Writing asap and get Code of Laws from a Prophet or Scientist for Confucianism.

Haa my style is research bronze working, whip out axes and go to war. Let one of my neighbor spread his/her religion ,adopt it and conquer the infidels. Once shrine is built , backstab my ally ,when he is fighting the war I started :mischief: .

Meh, let other people found a religion. Then conquer it. :D
Haa exactly. Sometimes I end up isolated start, then optics/astronomy rush still seems to be more important. Then go conquer the founder of the biggest religion and adopt it.

I think some of the serious polytheistic religions had a line of thought , where all the gods are a different aspects of same god or of nature. I think pantheism could coexist with polytheism.
I assume this is from one of the later Civ games?

Religion doesn't play much part in my games. I'll build a temple to stave off Civil Disorder, but as soon as I acquire either the wonder or the form of government that cancels that, the temple gets sold and the money is put toward more important things (FYI, I'm talking about Civ II: Test of Time).

In RL, I've got some mythology-themed art stuff tucked away in the china cabinet - ceramic bookends of Egyptian cats and the Porch of the Maidens. I've occasionally muttered about Loki and Raven when Murphy's Law is happening.


Religion and politics was a problem in ancient Egypt. The Priests of Amon tended to get upset with the Pharaoh if he didn't go along with what they wanted. And just look at what happened to Akhenaten when he tried to introduce monotheism...

Yaa it is Civilization IV, the most fun Civ game for me, compared to V and VI. V has awful diplomacy, I'll hold my opinion on VI till expansions (hopefully?) fix it.
Both awful. I get to worship one bearded heavenly psychopath, or I get to worship a dozen? What choice, what luxury.

Animism, now there's a religion I can respect. Trees, rivers, particularly large rocks, those are things a man can get behind. Stuff you can see, touch, and that might occasionally fall over and crush you. Earthy. Dependable. That's what I look for in a god.

Agreed!. Problem is most people ,don't want to believe normal things. They want a 'higher purpose'. They want to split people into those who get rewarded in afterlife and those who get punished. They keep themselves in the list of people who get rewarded and people they disagree with obviously get punished. This adds so much meaning to their lives.
 
Polytheism has a bad rap in most of the big organized religions. My(limited) understanding is, as these religions have developed replacing the old polytheistic faiths, it was necessary to badmouth polytheism. Monotheism also made it easier to control the masses, with few authority figures.

Other things being equal,I would prefer polytheism to monotheism. My reasoning is polytheists will be less intolerant of other faiths. After all they worship so many gods, what is 1 extra new god. The mythologies involving all these gods is fun. Go choose the god whose personality you like, or create a new one. But again followers of these different gods might start fighting over which god is the more badass. Not on validity though.

But that's the point. Monotheistic religions survived exactly because they were intolerant of other faiths & united as one. Polytheistic faiths necessarily have internal groups that prefer one or the other deity.

So, of course monotheistic religions slowly but steadily superseded polytheistic ones. Simply because they were less tolerant & more united.
 
But that's the point. Monotheistic religions survived exactly because they were intolerant of other faiths & united as one. Polytheistic faiths necessarily have internal groups that prefer one or the other deity.

So, of course monotheistic religions slowly but steadily superseded polytheistic ones. Simply because they were less tolerant & more united.
rip hinduism
 
So, of course monotheistic religions slowly but steadily superseded polytheistic ones. Simply because they were less tolerant & more united.

Saying that monotheistic religions are less likely to have schisms is like saying that trotskyists are all a single, tightly-knit family.
 
Well, more united against something, than united together. Crusades, jihads, whathaveyou. People will put aside killing each other to kill a mutual enemy. Then go back to killing each other.
 
Well, more united against something, than united together. Crusades, jihads, whathaveyou. People will put aside killing each other to kill a mutual enemy. Then go back to killing each other.
The most destructive wars in the history of Christianity were intra-faith, not inter-faith: the Wars of Religion, which dragged on for over a century and literally decimated huge areas of Europe, dwarfing anything seen in even the most hard-fought Crusades. The Islamic world only differs in that the Islamic world got the full blunt of Chinggis & Sons right in the kisser, and that isn't a period marked by any great display of Islamic unity. "Religious unity" is as readily directed against the heretic and schismatic as against the infidel and the pagan.
 
So infidels > heretics? Suppose there was that fourth crusade too.
 
So infidels > heretics? Suppose there was that fourth crusade too.

Well it's a proximity thing more than anything. Far more Papists in Franconia and Antwerp than Muslims.
 
Back
Top Bottom