the 7 religons:S

[Ramalhao] Yes, what you say is probably right. The important thing to remember is that with something as slippery and tricky as religion, there can be no definitive answers. So of course you can have whatever point of view you like! But you can't make out that it's definitive.

I think that most people would accept that Greek, Egyptian religion etc were actually religions. "Mythology" refers not to the religion as a whole but to the stories that many religions have, and also to the supernatural characters that may be involved. So we talk about Roman mythology, say, referring to the stories of Jupiter, Romulus and Remus, and so on. But that is only part of Roman religion, which also involved rites and rituals, such as burning incense to Caesar's genius. You can apply the same thing to religions today such as Christianity - Christianity also has its own mythology, such as the story of Jesus, his life, death and resurrection. That story plays a key part in the religion, but obviously there is more to the religion than that, both in doctrine and in practice.

Of course, in a religious context, to call something "mythology" isn't to pass judgement on whether it's true or not. It's simply to establish the genre we're talking about. So the story of Jesus is a myth in the same way that the story of Osiris is a myth, but it doesn't follow from that that they are equally true, obviously. A myth is a story or legend that connects at some deep level and expresses important truths or aspirations. An example of modern mythology that is not religious would be the story of Star Wars, which has the basic elements of many myths (good versus evil, but at the heart of it, having to choose between them, and the consequences of these choices).
 
Xineoph said:
When Atheism does something that helped shape history, then we'll talk.

In the meanwhile Religious Tolerance, is the exact same thing, that you would've wanted.

Just give your nation Religious Tolerance, and there ya go, everbody has the right to believe what they want to believe.

An Atheism sponsored government, is no different then a government that seperates Chuch and State.

Unlike religions, there are no rules to Atheism.....

So stop making a fuss, Religious Tolerance is more then fine.

No. No no no. Just no. You couldn't be more wrong.

Remember that Separation of Church and State came from a Christian worldview, not an atheistic one (before you think I'm getting high and mighty, I realize that it was because these Christians had been persecuted by other Christians).

Personally, I'm a Christian. I believe the separation of Church and State is necessary for the functioning of democracy and for proper expansion of the Christian church (i.e. nobody forced into it). I want the government out of my church and the church out of my government.

Contrast this with the largest atheistic governments of the last 100 years: the USSR and China. The USSR actually clamped down and tried to stamp out religion (remember that whole "opiate of the masses" thing?). That doesn't sound like separation of church and state to me; it's the state imposing itself upon the church. I have friends who recently (last week) went to China. There were very specific rules about when, where, and with whom they could talk about their religion. If they strayed outside of it, they would face deportation. Does that sound like Religious Tolerance to you?

Granted, I do not think that that state sponsored atheism represents the views of all atheists. It most certainly doesn't, and I Know quite a few of them who prefer separation of church and state as well. But it does take apart the idea that "Atheism=Religious Tolerance". Some of the most religiously intolerant and aggressive people I've met have been atheists.


On another topic....

As for Zoroastrianism and Mithraism, I just want to point out that the idea that they influenced Judaeism and Christianity assumes that those two religions are not correct. If they are correct, remember, then their religions stretch back to the dawn of time, and thus precede Zoro and Mith. If they are correct, then their teachings came from God; Zoro and Mith would then have just happened to hit upon similar ideas or even could have been influenced by Jud. It is only if you assume that God was not guiding either of those religions that the idea of Zoro and Mith influencing Jud and Chr becomes feasible.

Beyond that, I can't really debate with you, because I don't know too much about Zoro and Mith (yet), so I won't try.
 
There are no such people as Zoro and Mith... Zorastrianism was founded by Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) and Mithraism was the cult of the god Mithras.

There's nothing incompatible with saying that Christianity is true and with saying that it was influenced by Zoroastrianism (personally I don't think it was much influenced by Mithraism). Even if Christianity is true, it does not follow that Christianity existed from the dawn of time, only that the things it teaches have always been true - and there is no reason why other people couldn't have taught some of those things before the Christians turned up. After all, Christians believe that the Jews did. So you could, for example, say that God was working through Zoroaster, so that he got some things right even though his religion is not a way to salvation. Or you could say that much of what Christians believe through revelation is also knowable through natural reason, and the Zoroastrians just happened to work it out before the Jews did. The former approach would be similar to that of St Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian theologians, who believed that because Christ is the Divine Reason ("Logos", in John ch 1) anyone who follows Reason is, to some extent, following Christ, and Christ has enlightened even those who did not realise it, such as the ancient Greek philosophers. The latter approach would be that of Roman Catholicism, which teaches that certain things, such as the existence of God, can be proved without recourse to revelation.
 
Mithraism influenced Christianity in such a way that it was the dominant monotheistic cult in the Roman Empire (mostly in the Army) when Christianity became official state religion. In the following, the Christians inherited the Holy places of Mithraism. And it is this way that we find under almost every ancient Christian church a Mithraistic temple. Or that is what I remember from a (school) work of a school colleague of mine sometimes ago. Correct?

mitsho
 
Mithraism was one cult among many others, not "the" dominant one. I'm not sure about the claim that most Christian churches were built on top of Mithraist temples - that sounds rather unlikely to me. Even if it were true, though, it wouldn't follow that Christianity was influenced by Mithraism, simply that the Christians wanted to show that they were "replacing" it. The claim that Christianity was based upon Mithraism is based on supposed similarities between their liturgies and cultic celebrations, but I think that most such similarities are probably fairly superficial.
 
Plotinus said:
There are no such people as Zoro and Mith... Zorastrianism was founded by Zoroaster (or Zarathustra) and Mithraism was the cult of the god Mithras.

Nor did Jud and Chr found Christianity. I just got tired of writing the whole words out and wasn't sure on the spelling of Zoro and Mith, so I abbreviated.

Plotinus said:
There's nothing incompatible with saying that Christianity is true and with saying that it was influenced by Zoroastrianism (personally I don't think it was much influenced by Mithraism). Even if Christianity is true, it does not follow that Christianity existed from the dawn of time, only that the things it teaches have always been true - and there is no reason why other people couldn't have taught some of those things before the Christians turned up. After all, Christians believe that the Jews did. So you could, for example, say that God was working through Zoroaster, so that he got some things right even though his religion is not a way to salvation. Or you could say that much of what Christians believe through revelation is also knowable through natural reason, and the Zoroastrians just happened to work it out before the Jews did. The former approach would be similar to that of St Justin Martyr, one of the earliest Christian theologians, who believed that because Christ is the Divine Reason ("Logos", in John ch 1) anyone who follows Reason is, to some extent, following Christ, and Christ has enlightened even those who did not realise it, such as the ancient Greek philosophers. The latter approach would be that of Roman Catholicism, which teaches that certain things, such as the existence of God, can be proved without recourse to revelation.

I don't think that we disagree as much as it might appear.

I'm not saying that Zoro (abbreviation, not a swordsman so good he founded a religion retroactively ;) ) didn't have similarities or work things out through reason before/independent of how the Jews/Christians did. I don't know if that happened or not. My beef was with the word "influence". This implies that the Jud/Chr got their views by borrowing from Zoro and Mith, rather than by divine relevation, or changed their previous views because they liked what Zoro and Mith had better. Replace influence with parallel, and I have no problem with that. I believe that Jud/Chr got their beliefs from relevation. I don't think that that conflicts with what you laid out above or how the two religions were similar or the idea of the Zoros arriving at their beliefs through reason. (of course the preceding paragraph assumes that Chrisitanity is true. If it's not, then it makes sense that Zoro might influence Jud and Chr.)

Oh, and by Christianity seeing itself as existing since the dawn of time, I mean that in that Christianity sees itself as the completion of Judaism, which both Jud and Chr hold existed since the beginning.

Edit: I just realized that we (all of us) need to be more specific about whether we mean Christianity or the Christian/Catholic Church. I agree, it's plausible that the Catholic Church could have been influenced by outside sources, because it's made up of humans.
 
Xineoph said:
I hope they put Israel/Hebrew's as a main Civ in future games, they truly deserve it, as they truly stood the test of time....;p

Not all jews are Zionist. :rolleyes: I certainly hope this does not end up in the game (and seriously doubt it will).
 
No Sikhism? What a shame the fifth largest religion gets overlooked.
 
I am grateful that Firaxis has chosen to include the concept of religion and I get the impression that it's a work in progress... dare I write that Civ V will have a more 'baked' version of it.

As a Zoroastrian, I would be thrilled if it was included, but completely understand why it wouldn't be. As for influencing the other monotheistic religions, it depends on your point of view... we have similarities with the other 3 as well as some significant differences.

We're not extinct... still here... barely! :)

Truly, if religions must be narrowed down to 7 for gameplay reasons, some important ones will be left out. I assume that Firaxis playtested with more and found them either cumbersome or problematic with the game. They have the unenviable task of deciding on a list of 7 out of many excellent choices.

If their earlier products are any indication, I'll be happy with Civ 4.

Well... after years of reading... and learning, I finally posted

Regards
 
I have to say keep Confucius, it really influenced Chinese thought and government, at least moderately.

Zoraster almost belongs being argueably the oldest large scale religion. And arguably its a grandparent to some of the other large scale religions.


Buddhism is a natural choice.

Daoism? Is that like Japanese. Never heard of it before.
 
I hope there are as many religion mods as nation mods.

I think philosphy becomes blurred with religion when there's a feverent body of believers, and a select caste of teachers that act like preachers. Add some pseudo-science or mysticism to the philosophy, and it really starts resembling a religion.

Crazy Eskimo said:
Just for the record, I believe that (barring generic religions which would be a much better choice than using actual ones) Judaism, Confuscianism, Sun cults, etc. should all be in the game. Why have less variety when you can have more?

However, I do think there is a difference between a philosophy like Confuscianism and a religion. A philosophy sets out a moral code based a certain set of beliefs. A religion does the same, but attempts to explain the supernatural as well. As far as I know, confuscianism never tried to do the latter. That does not, however, mean that Conscianism should be excluded from the set of "religions" that Civ offers. After all, the state sponsored atheism of the Soviet Union certainly had a profound influence on the course of history, yet, as has been pointed out, it's not truly a religion. Atheism and Confuscianism should be included, even though they might not be pure "religions".
 
Yes Goodgame. First thing I'm doing is going straight to the modding.
 
Civ 4 has the concept of religion and divide it into 7 different forms. These are names from religion in humankind history. Remembering that this is a game, these religion in the game do not neccessarily have to be the same belief as it do in history and modern times. Therefore Judaism (civ4) can be more like Hindu (modern day) while Christianty (civ4) can be more like Daoism (modern day). The whole point is that in the game, you can influence what people believe in and if they share the same religion as your holy city, you have an advantage of some kind that is vaguely explained and will be cleared up as release approaches.

Remember....IT JUST A GAME.
 
Life is just a game ;)
 
Bright day
Whoa :eek: !!
Isn't there still zoroastrian community in India?

And to put my own log in the fire... if confucianism belongs there, why not Stoicism or Epicruranism?
 
Don't worry about it! I assure you, the day modding begins, a scenario will arrive featuring Polythism as one of the religions.
 
I keep wondering if communism is officially atheist then in the game will there be atheism? I do know that there are no more strait forward governments anymore but still they said you can choose to replacate any form of government or mix them together to make your own ones. So what if I want to replecate communism?
 
Ranbir said:
No Sikhism? What a shame the fifth largest religion gets overlooked.

I agree. I think it was overlooked beacuse relatively few people in the US, and perhaps most of the western world, know of/understand it, but it definitely deserves to be in the game
 
Back
Top Bottom