Religion Mod

[Warz]

the idea is unique i'll check it out

 

[Elysdeon]

XD at the athiests being barbarians. Now I'm athiest myself, but can see where thats coming from; very witty.

 

[Homie]

Funky, an "agnostic" is someone who doesn't know whether there is a God or not. The word comes from the Greek for "not knowing". Of course, technically *no-one* really *knows* whether there is a God or not, so the word normally refers to those who are not sure, that is, they believe there may be a God or there may not. Most people who believe in God (these days) think that God's existence cannot be proved. In fact this is generally accepted today as a given, even though this view is a relatively recent development and is condemned by the First Vatican Council, so a good Roman Catholic should tell you that not only does God exist but this fact can be proved.

Similarly, I fear the dictionary where you found the definition of "religion" is quite mistaken. It was evidently written by somone who only knows about modern Western religion. It would not include Buddhism; neither would it include the monotheism of Aristotled (who believed that the world was eternal and therefore not created). Scholars of religion spend much time today arguing about how religion should best be defined, but they all agree that it cannot be summed up in such a simplistic way.

Actually, his dictionary is correct. Which is why Buddhism is often mistakenly referred to as a religion, when it is in fact just a belief system, a life guide. However, modern Buddhism has practicly made Buddha into a God, so modern Buddhism with this Buddha-god could rightly be called a religion.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, you may say that, but the vast majority of scholars of religion would disagree with you, because they recognise that religion cannot be reduced to any one element (such a theism). If a movement offers moral precepts, has metaphysical teachings and beliefs, has rituals and services, has monks and monasteries, and has a hierarchy of teachers and authorities, then most people would call that a religion, irrespective of the precise content of its metaphysical teachings, which are only one element of the whole thing. Any definition of "religion" which excludes Buddhism is not a very helpful definition, since most people would agree that it obviously is one. I don't understand the insistence of some people that there is a single "essence" of religion that all religions worthy of the name must possess. It's a very alluring dream, but a patently fruitless one. Religions are just too complex for that.

 

[Homie]

But things needn't be so complicated. Words are meant for communication, and the simple fact is that Buddhism doesn't fit the definition of the word "Religion". I think we agree on what Buddhism actually is, all we are doing is talking semantics.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, equally, the simple fact is that most people do think of Buddhism as a "religion". As you say, words are meant for communication. This means that people call something a "religion" if it makes sense and if it is useful to do so. And Buddhism clearly fits these criteria. Surely it's less complicated to say that religions have many different elements, some of which are present and some of which are not in most of them, rather than to insist upon a single element, present in only some, as the defining characteristic. Declaring that any religion that doesn't involve God is not really a religion is like Platonists in late antiquity who declared that anyone who didn't believe in an immaterial, ideal world was not really a philosopher. Obviously it is possible to be a philosopher and yet deny this particular philosophical position. Those Platonists were simply making themselves the standard by which they judged everyone - anyone who agreed with them was a philosopher, and anyone who didn't was not. Similarly, many Westerners today judge religions by the standards of those with which they are most familiar, and assume that something is a religion inasmuch as it resembles Christianity, the most prominent feature of which is that it involves God. Even theologians who deliberately try to avoid this mistake, such as John Hick, still commit it (Hick just renames God "Reality" and assesses religions according to how much they talk about "Reality"). In fact, of course, you have to take a more objective viewpoint. Buddhists certainly think they are following a religion - do you really know better? What if they said that any "religion" that does not involve the concept of Nirvana is not really a religion?

 

[Homie]

Plotinus
Well, equally, the simple fact is that most people do think of Buddhism as a "religion". As you say, words are meant for communication

Correct. I just get annoyed when people out of ignorance use a word wrongly. And when enough people do it, that word then takes on the new "wrong" meaning. Why does this annoy me? For one, it makes translating ancient documents hard, because a word that was used "back then" and now might mean something different, which makes everything confusing.

BTW, your scenario looks interesting/fun. I have just downloaded it.

 

[Plotinus]

Correct. I just get annoyed when people out of ignorance use a word wrongly.

Oh believe me, I'm exactly the same way. But trust me, that is not what is happening here - it is not wrong to call Buddhism a religion, because it simply is not part of the "definition" of religion to include belief in God. It just isn't, and it would be very bizarre, not to mention utterly arbitrary, if it were: the assumption that it does is pure Western bias. Honestly, I've spent an awful lot of time studying this kind of thing!

BTW, your scenario looks interesting/fun. I have just downloaded it.

Thanks! Do post any comments on its thread - I'm hoping to do an updated version at some point fairly soon so it's good to get feedback.

 

[Nate1976]

Being a Jehovah's Witness, it was quite...interesting that you pust us in.

I must question some stuff...Did you just rename the different civs? Cause it seem that Jehovah's Witnesses are exactly like English, except for the third trait. I haven't played it, and probably won't(to busy working on my own stuff), but I'm thinking you might want to change the civilopedia, especially the bios. But hey.

Very....interesting. Yes, that's the term fro it. interesting.


EDIT: There' an h at the end of Jehovah