Why is monotheism an advance on polytheism?

[ThePersian]

Ty, i am sorry for paying such little attention to spelling. I will try to fix that next time i post.

 

[The_Architect]

Polytheism as a pre requisite for Monotheism is OK - doesn't affect the gameplay much.

 

[brennan]

Being a Christian, I think differently than people of other beliefs

Well I did say that Monotheistic Religions were arrogant...

Edit: lol Architect. Bring us down to Earth why don't you

 

[REX GRACCHVS]

i hate this whole argument about religion, its so pointless, and i hate it when people extole the virtues of the pacifist hindu religion, personaly, i see it as one of the most evil concepts out there(well thats the way i think about all religions to be honest...), i just dont get it, how can people follow a belief which will look at the ground for killing an ant but at the same time lets people die on the side of the road just because they are brahmas

now i could say these sorts of things for all religions, but i cant be bothered, now im not trying to stir things up, im just saying my opinion on the matter and a reason for it...

now, what i have to say in relation to the actual topic is this: the techs are called civilization advances because they advance the civilization, now generally what happens with religion is that after a long period of poly, one god gets a bit more importance, then it all snowballs untill that god is supreme, eg: before the advance of the christianity in the roman empire apollo was becoming the main god in gaul, spain and northern italy, and apparently in greece, and before constantine the great went to iesvs, he fought under the banner of apollo...

 

[frekk]

Why? When has a polytheistic culture independantly converted to monotheism?

Well, the ancient Hebrews for one. "Elohim" (translated as "God" in the first five books of the Bible, the Torah) is actually a plural, in other words, the gods. Hebrews developed monotheism as a way of raising their patron deity above the patron deities of other groups around them, but it didn't start out that way.

Also Hinduism is arguably monotheistic or polytheistic, depending on how you want to view it. The "Godhead" in Hinduism is a supreme being, the brahman, although it is nameless and formless - all of the Hindu gods are merely aspects or avatars of this being, in a sense if Christianity is a trinity then Hinduism is the same sort of idea except expressed in a much greater number of facets than 3.

Also Judeo-Christianity has never been fully able to completely stamp out its own undercurrents of polytheism. Angels, demons, and Satan more or less occupy the same status as the lesser gods of a polytheistic pantheon, each angel or demon having a portfolio in the same manner as pantheistic deities did, and also acting as regional patrons (along with Saints). Satan plays the typical role of the "chief bad god" found in most polytheisms, and is ascribed powers far in excess of gods like Loki or Hades.

 

[Janos]

Well I did say that Monotheistic Religions were arrogant...

Edit: lol Architect. Bring us down to Earth why don't you

It's not arrogant. If we were all like how everyone wants us to be and simply say, "Yeah, well you have your belief... you're right too! We all believe completely different things, but we're all right at the same time!"

One of the religions, or none of them, is the "right" religion. Muslims try to convert people because they believe it is the right thing to do. Christians try to convert people in order to save them from damnation, and to help them gain a place in the kingdom of heaven (as an example, of course there are other factors).

Jamesds was simply stating that he disagreed because he doesn't believe it. He will think differently because of that... it's not arrogance, it's honesty.

 

[brennan]

All religions believe that everyone should get on really well with each other, treat people with respect, not steal, human life is sacred blah blah blah.

But if you don't agree that this rock is holy, or that some bloke got nailed to a tree 2000 years ago for saying hey wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along for a change. Then you are an unholy menace and must die.

If that isn't arrogance, what is?

 

[Janos]

All religions believe that everyone should get on really well with each other, treat people with respect, not steal, human life is sacred blah blah blah.

But if you don't agree that this rock is holy, or that some bloke got nailed to a tree 2000 years ago for saying hey wouldn't it be nice if everyone got along for a change. Then you are an unholy menace and must die.

If that isn't arrogance, what is?

I find that statement very offensive... however, to answer your point. No not all religions do believe that, and you are very ignorant if that is your perception of every religion.

And forgive me, but i don't see Christians killing non-believers. I am a practising Christian who attends Church on a weekly basis - so i am a primary source for that information. We embrace people who are not of our religion, not try to murder them.

The same goes for muslims. They are a very cultured and respectable religion, but if you only concentrate on the fanatics who make all the noise then you will get a very blurred image of things. Please consider others feelings and your own image before deciding to come out with such callous and ignorant statements in future.

 

[Markus6]

As a Christian I'd just like to back up Janos. Can we generally stop bashing peoples beliefs. This is a Civ forum, and theres plenty of that to talk about. If you want a religious arguement i'm sure there's plenty of places on the net for you.

 

[frekk]

if i hear "eurocentric" one more time i am going to scream. It has got to be the most overused non thought out phrase on here- if u live in china ur what? "Asiacentric?"
Africcentric if ur in africa? Well duh of course one is going to carry one's societal construct with them-
I guess there are some that think that by studying different societies they have some kind of "i am above such" reasoning in their minds- which is interesting since they will describe this in english.

You can strive to understand history in the manner of Thucydides, or in the manner of Herodotus. Broadly speaking these are the two main types of history one can strive towards. The problem with a Eurocentric (or any centric) view of history is that it falls far short of the Thucydidian ideals, which is generally acknowledged as a far superior method of historical interpretation.

 

[brennan]

I find that statement very offensive... however, to answer your point. No not all religions do believe that, and you are very ignorant if that is your perception of every religion.

And forgive me, but i don't see Christians killing non-believers. I am a practising Christian who attends Church on a weekly basis - so i am a primary source for that information. We embrace people who are not of our religion, not try to murder them.

The same goes for muslims. They are a very cultured and respectable religion, but if you only concentrate on the fanatics who make all the noise then you will get a very blurred image of things. Please consider others feelings and your own image before deciding to come out with such callous and ignorant statements in future.

Go look up words like 'crusade' and 'jihad'. Maybe 'inquisition' as well.

I originally referred to Monotheistic religions as 'arrogant' because they all share a few important views in common; namely that some divine entity created the world/universe for humans to live in and secondly that they are right and everyone else is wrong (and may well go to hell or it's nearest equivalent) and that God, Allah or whoever has specially selected them to tell everyone else just how wrong they are.

Then someone popped up to say that being a Christian meant that he 'thinks differently' to other religions? How? Does he have a supercharged brain? How exactly do you think differently, you can have alternative views but to say that is just wrong. Hence my little dig.

My point is that you all agree that being nice to each other is a good idea. So why all the other rubbish? Just be nice to each other like good atheists are and the world would be a much better place.

If religions would stop with the weird stuff about what rocks are sacred and what aren't, who should wear what, when, and just get down to the actual being nice to each other (as I expect you do) then the world would be a great place. The unhappy fact is that a large chunk of the world is not as sophisticated and enlightened as you or I. The Anglican church was recently threatened with a major schism by (mostly) African communions who objected to the ordination of homosexual bishops, who are of course wicked perverts according to the bible. A few years ago I became acquainted with a 'gentleman' who thought he was a good Christian and was all in favour of shooting homosexuals, hows that for enlightened behaviour?

Ignorant about religion? That actually made me laugh. I would hope that I never make such assumptions about what other people know unless I actually become psychic.

 

[Janos]

The Crusades are not the now - i wouldn't imagine there will ever be a repeat of them. Also, the Crusades had other factors other than religion contributing to them.

You make some astute observations regarding our "rocks" and holy symbols. Ones which i would love to challenge and shed some light on as to WHY we regard our "rocks" in such high esteem. However, i think it's about time to get back on topic now, as this is a Civilization forum. End of discussion.


Oh and just so you know... i'm psychic .

 

[Gato Loco]

I'd like to point out that the crusades were actually an attempt to rescure the Byzantine mpire and recapture land that had been first stolen by the Muslims. They were about as justified as most wars, are, sacred or secular. All the associted problems and brutality are basically inherent to war itself.

 

[brennan]

What am I thinking?

 

[Brain]

However, i think it's about time to get back on topic now, as this is a Civilization forum. End of discussion.

Sorry, but I don't see the bold font and stars next to your name, so you're not entitled to make such a call. The discussion remains on-topic as long as the mods allow it.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Then someone popped up to say that being a Christian meant that he 'thinks differently' to other religions? How? Does he have a supercharged brain? How exactly do you think differently, you can have alternative views but to say that is just wrong. Hence my little dig.

Just a little point of potential understanding. I believe the person meant that they have different ideas about how the world works than other people, (Just like a separatist 'thinks differently' about certain things than a unionist or how a physicist might 'think differently' from a sociologist when looking at something) They are not refering to a different brain but different ideas about what is actually going on or important.

(Also, "being nice to people," is only one of many good ideas, some of which are more important or more applicable than others at various times)

 

[frekk]

I'd like to point out that the crusades were actually an attempt to rescure the Byzantine mpire and recapture land that had been first stolen by the Muslims. They were about as justified as most wars, are, sacred or secular. All the associted problems and brutality are basically inherent to war itself.

Agree. Motivating the war by religious appeal required a serious and drastic change of direction for Christianity - at least, as it was practiced amongst commoners - which up to that point had not expressed itself in any sort of militant fashion (quite the reverse). After the Crusades, however, Christianity came to be employed with great frequency as a militant justification and things like the Pax Dei movement disappeared. Although I wouldn't say that the Crusades were the first indication of this change, but they certainly bear witness to something very different from the Christianity of a century before, a landmark event in the rush to employ Christianity as a military pretext.

 

[HourlyDaily]

Actually the most disgusting thing about the crusades was that when the Muslims controlled all of Jerusalem, they still welcomed all Christians and Jews and respected their holy sites as much as their own. Yet to the Christians at the time, the symbols, sites and relics apparently were more important to control than the christian ideal of 'Love your neighbour.'

I know that is not the be all and end all of the story but when I first heard that I wondered how differently the world might have turned out.

 

[brennan]

Well this is the post in question:

I guess this arguement is like "who came first: the chicken or the egg?".
Being a Christian, I think differently than people of other beliefs (I am of the opinion that monotheism came first)

Apparently the fact that he is a Christian means that he thinks Monotheism naturally precedes Polytheism (very Descarte) and that (all?) other beliefs would view things differently.

I found this arrogant and lacking in explanation.

And to suggest that the crusades were some kind of 'blip' on the peaceful face of Christianity is absurd, wars had been endorsed by popes for centuries for vaguely religious reasons. William the Conqueror gained papal backing for his invasion of England by claiming that Harold had sworn the crown to him over a religious relic (no one knows whether this is true or not) and had broken this oath.

 

[CornMaster]

The problem may not be the game designers.....the problem is the people who interpret the game.

Most people have a Whig view of history that everything before was inferior and is building to the final solution which will be perfect. But that's not the case as most people here have pointed out.

Also, don't forget that is it just a game and people that learn their facts through gaming and not reading and research aren't really worth the debate.