ok then, menwia. If you think you can provide a complete model for religion which will NOT offend anyone, I would be thrilled if you could post it. Personally, I think it is impossible, but don't prove it by quoting scripture; prove it by giving us a workable model.
Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions
- Thread starter Loppan Torkel
- Start date
rhialto said:
Thank you rhialto - I'll try - to the best of my abilities - but its got be a team effort - there's no way I can do it alone. in one of my earlier postings I outlined a rough way of implementing world religions as dh and Sir S. are aware of - its in no way a finished version but I think it might have some potential.
But as dh and Sir S. and myself have agreed - there's alot more need for imporovment about the features we already have in civ - like diplomacy and inmproving culture - its better to get those right before we go off and try implement something new. I don't think civ is really ready to implement religion - why waste time with that when other areas of the game need urgent mprovment.
We have Four Classes of Relgion with four specific religons in each class.
Pagan, (Belief in Nature and Such)
Polytheism (Belief in Many Gods)
Monothism (Belief in One God)
(UNKnown) - UNKNOWN
If there is another Class of Religion please let us know - more then happpy to include it.
Within the Classes of REligion we can have specific Relgion - I'll give example.
Pagan - Druidism
Polytheism - Greek Gods of Olypious
Monothism - Islam
There should be maybe four specific religion in each class - that is open to change depending on what people think is best.
How it will be impemented in the game.
1:Culture : The effects of what your religion is shall be incorportaed into the culture model - that way it will effect other civs how your present culture effects othe civ. If Culture is improved the better. Effects if a city goes over to your side, how much they will revolt if you capture a city - you know, all the rest of the stuff.
2:Tech: Specific relgions can not be chosen until you have discovered certain techs. Eg - you can't discover Islam before you have already researched Jewdisam, Christainty and then finally Islam. The same with the other relgiions as well. That way giving it some proportion to the real world and increae of immersion in the game.
later on in the game- you can discover a certain tech which will make the religion effects on your civ nulified - eg - Seculism, this is just an idea - but at least a player who wants full control and change his society to seculerism later on in the game. You could call it Seculism - or Atheist - upto, the spefics can be decieded later, but you get what I mean.
3: Government: Depending on what government you are in - your actions will have different effects on the populace. Also your differnt religous buldings - bonuses and minus will have varying effect depending on which government system you are in. Communist having no effect of religon upon your civ, whilst Theocracy all relgious effects could be doubled.
4: Relgious Buildings, Units, and Wonders. Depedning upon your specific relgion you can build different buldings, build different units, and also build uniquie religous wonders. Also there could be shared unique wonder which spans the whole Class of a Relgion.
Please Comment: Im thinking that a player should not be able to change from Class of Relgion to other -you can change within the Class but it should be alot more difficult to change from One Class to another. I know that in the real world that is not necessarily true - What do YOu Think?
THiS IS JUST A ROUGH OUTLINE OF WHAT KIND OF MODEL ONE COULD HAVE.
what you guys think?
Pagan, (Belief in Nature and Such)
Polytheism (Belief in Many Gods)
Monothism (Belief in One God)
(UNKnown) - UNKNOWN
If there is another Class of Religion please let us know - more then happpy to include it.
Within the Classes of REligion we can have specific Relgion - I'll give example.
Pagan - Druidism
Polytheism - Greek Gods of Olypious
Monothism - Islam
There should be maybe four specific religion in each class - that is open to change depending on what people think is best.
How it will be impemented in the game.
1:Culture : The effects of what your religion is shall be incorportaed into the culture model - that way it will effect other civs how your present culture effects othe civ. If Culture is improved the better. Effects if a city goes over to your side, how much they will revolt if you capture a city - you know, all the rest of the stuff.
2:Tech: Specific relgions can not be chosen until you have discovered certain techs. Eg - you can't discover Islam before you have already researched Jewdisam, Christainty and then finally Islam. The same with the other relgiions as well. That way giving it some proportion to the real world and increae of immersion in the game.
later on in the game- you can discover a certain tech which will make the religion effects on your civ nulified - eg - Seculism, this is just an idea - but at least a player who wants full control and change his society to seculerism later on in the game. You could call it Seculism - or Atheist - upto, the spefics can be decieded later, but you get what I mean.
3: Government: Depending on what government you are in - your actions will have different effects on the populace. Also your differnt religous buldings - bonuses and minus will have varying effect depending on which government system you are in. Communist having no effect of religon upon your civ, whilst Theocracy all relgious effects could be doubled.
4: Relgious Buildings, Units, and Wonders. Depedning upon your specific relgion you can build different buldings, build different units, and also build uniquie religous wonders. Also there could be shared unique wonder which spans the whole Class of a Relgion.
Please Comment: Im thinking that a player should not be able to change from Class of Relgion to other -you can change within the Class but it should be alot more difficult to change from One Class to another. I know that in the real world that is not necessarily true - What do YOu Think?
THiS IS JUST A ROUGH OUTLINE OF WHAT KIND OF MODEL ONE COULD HAVE.
what you guys think?
The romans managed the change from pantheism to monotheism easily enough. If anything, I'd say a change within a single class should be harder if anything, but in game terms, I'd place both of them at the same level of upheaval.
I'd also change Pagan to Animism, as pagan is usually used to refer to a specific set of European traditions.
This model is great so far, but the real issue is in what effects you give to the various religions. That is where the potential to offend every religious group on Earth exists.
I'd also change Pagan to Animism, as pagan is usually used to refer to a specific set of European traditions.
This model is great so far, but the real issue is in what effects you give to the various religions. That is where the potential to offend every religious group on Earth exists.
rhialto said:The romans managed the change from pantheism to monotheism easily enough. If anything, I'd say a change within a single class should be harder if anything, but in game terms, I'd place both of them at the same level of upheaval.
I'd also change Pagan to Animism, as pagan is usually used to refer to a specific set of European traditions.
This model is great so far, but the real issue is in what effects you give to the various religions. That is where the potential to offend every religious group on Earth exists.
Toshay rhialto - working out the detail and different efects is the hard work. One could change from Pagan to Animism - which ever is more accurate, its good with me. But before we can deciede what effects you would have - eg, what buildlings, units and wonders - one must decied which relgions to implement. Hinduism is just as important, you have the Sikha relgion as well as Buddism being one of the oldest religions in the world.
I think the effects and buildilngs one puts in is not as hard as chosing which relgions to include in the model. I personally think that's the real difficult question.
Having the same upheaveel no matter what the religion change could be plausable. I think that changing relgions should be much more difficult and more costly then changing government types - for example you could have all your followers destroy the old religous buildings of the old faith as they set upon buliding the new ones. This could be done when they change Classes? Just a thought - or it could be just as simple as having anarchy for a said number of turns - which ever is best.
I'll try and give some idea's on buildings, units and wonders - but i have n't really thought it out. Please fill in blanks or add your ideas.
Religion Over Time - You start out in one certain religous Class. As you move through time, you discover different techs and thus have the option of changing to a differnt religion. However, as you change - it will take time for your population to slowly convert to the new faith. However, there will be ways of speeding up that transistion - with different buildings and units that could be used. Also, if your not careful - you could have civil unrest - or cities flocking over to other civ's depending upon your culture. This in conjustion with all other factors already within civ - like courthouse and other such improvements.
Monothisesim:
A:jewdism
Synogog - happy people (for Jewish portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - rabbi (diplomatic - conversion)
wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
B:Christianty
Church - happy people (for Christian portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - priest (diplomatic - conversion)
Wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
C:Islam
Mosque - happy people (for muslim portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - Muller (diplomatic - conversion)
Wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
SHARED RELIGIOUS WONDER - a wonder important to all relgions within this Class.
rabbi, priest and muller units could be sent to othe civ cities and you can try to convert them. If succesfull that city will be more likely to swap over to your civ or more likely to revolt.
I've just had an idea - how about, if you change from one religion to another, instead of just have anarchy - you also have it take time for the citizens of your civ to slowly swap over to the new religion. Also you can use rabbi/priest/muller units to help the tranisation along as well as convert other civ's people. That way, if you convert enough people to your religion - they would less likely to rebel when you take their cit, more likely to revolt and come on to your side, also it will be an incentive for the other civ to change to the relgion you are as their civil disorder could too much for them to continue as they are. (Just a note on how it could be used tactically - sounds like fun to me).
Religion Over Time - You start out in one certain religous Class. As you move through time, you discover different techs and thus have the option of changing to a differnt religion. However, as you change - it will take time for your population to slowly convert to the new faith. However, there will be ways of speeding up that transistion - with different buildings and units that could be used. Also, if your not careful - you could have civil unrest - or cities flocking over to other civ's depending upon your culture. This in conjustion with all other factors already within civ - like courthouse and other such improvements.
Monothisesim:
A:jewdism
Synogog - happy people (for Jewish portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - rabbi (diplomatic - conversion)
wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
B:Christianty
Church - happy people (for Christian portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - priest (diplomatic - conversion)
Wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
C:Islam
Mosque - happy people (for muslim portion of population) + increase rate of conversion in that city.
unit - Muller (diplomatic - conversion)
Wonder - please suggest appropiate wonders.
SHARED RELIGIOUS WONDER - a wonder important to all relgions within this Class.
rabbi, priest and muller units could be sent to othe civ cities and you can try to convert them. If succesfull that city will be more likely to swap over to your civ or more likely to revolt.
I've just had an idea - how about, if you change from one religion to another, instead of just have anarchy - you also have it take time for the citizens of your civ to slowly swap over to the new religion. Also you can use rabbi/priest/muller units to help the tranisation along as well as convert other civ's people. That way, if you convert enough people to your religion - they would less likely to rebel when you take their cit, more likely to revolt and come on to your side, also it will be an incentive for the other civ to change to the relgion you are as their civil disorder could too much for them to continue as they are. (Just a note on how it could be used tactically - sounds like fun to me).
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Very excellent use of syllogism.
The same can also be said of the conquest of Palestine by the Israeli's in the 14th century BC. Both are proofs that God does approve of war for the faith. I am not trying to be controversial, that is just syllogism.
I am not argueing against the beheading of prisoners but rather the indescriminant attacks on Discos, Cafes, and other marketplaces. To be honest I forgot the original argument at play here.
The same can also be said of the conquest of Palestine by the Israeli's in the 14th century BC. Both are proofs that God does approve of war for the faith. I am not trying to be controversial, that is just syllogism.
I am not argueing against the beheading of prisoners but rather the indescriminant attacks on Discos, Cafes, and other marketplaces. To be honest I forgot the original argument at play here.
sir_schwick said:
You approve of the deductive logic then Sir S. - I myself can see nothing wrong with it. The only argument one can use against the final conclusion is that you disagree with the tactics of the prophet MOhammed. But that's a differnt issue enterlly. The aim was to find out what does Jihad mean in Islam. I 'll just post the steps below that leads us to the conclusion of what is allowed in Jihad. Just to refreash things.
Deductive logic and the sturcture i'm using is very simple.
1:As a Muslim one must follow the example of the prophet Mohammed.
Do you accept this. If yes we move on to 2
2: Did Mohammed go on a holy War/Jihad? We know this answer to be Yes.
3: Did Mohammed chop the head of POW's and sell their women and children into slavery? We know this answer to be YES
4: Did Mohammed give express orders for women and children - the non fighting kind - to be executed or killed or mudered? The answer to my knowledge so far is NO.
So if you accept 1 to be true. Then any Muslim involved in a Holy War/Jihad is allowed to chop off the heads of his enemies that he captures (POW's) - sell their women and chidren into slavery, but not go around slaughtering women and children as a means of waging Holy War.
I also agree with you Sir S. that i'm against all the blowing up of cafe's, disco's buses and such. However, I can see how a person can argue for it . . . in regards to reason. Putting aside my own personal views I've tried to take a logical appraoch to things - trying to just go on pure logical and find out where that leaves us. That's the things with logic - sometimes you can come up with unwanted answers - doesn't mean that their not the right conclusions though . . .
The argument was about some people not beliveing that the Prophet mOhammed went on a Holy War - and that in his holy war he done some things that people don't like - but nevertheless as Muslims one must follow the Prophet's example. It left us with a conclustion that alot of people didn't want to accept - but if you look at it logically and use deductive reasoning - there is no other conclusion one can reach. The only wahy the conclusion is wrong is if in the Qu'ran after the Prophet Mohammed finished with his Holy Wars he told all of his followers that they should no longer fight HOly Wars or that when they fight Holy Wars that they do not do as He done - which please correct me anyone - He does not . . .
Some people - for reasons of their own don't want to accept this. I think its the old human weakness of turning the blind eye to things . . .just because you ignore it don't mean its gonna go away or change the truth of the matter. The main benifit is now we can clealy state what is allowed in a Jihad. Now, if we like the idea of Jihad or think it is an acceptable means of carrying out one's faith is something differnt - but at least we now know where we stand.
You can't disagree or agree with Jihad unless you know what it means and how it should be carried out.
I know it might be an uncomfortable conclusion. But at least its an honest one. From here we deal with the issue much more effectivally, because we now know what it is and how it is carried out.
'sir_schwick said:
Who led the war for the jews in 14th B.C. - I'm not very versed in that aspect of things. Was it a major Prophet? Did he chop of the heads of his captives? did he sell the women and children into slavery? how did he carry out his war?
I'm pretty ignorant of the facts here at the moment. Apprciate your insight into this. Its been along day, my thinking cap ain't working properly - I'm being lazy here and want the answers given to me.
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
Menwia: You say that most muslims look at the battle of Mohammed with pride as a glowing example of how a muslim should act when faced wtih a Holy War.
I don't think you can speak for most muslims. You don't even sound like you have enough experience with even having muslim friends. Most muslims and scholars put it in historical context. Mohammed lived and prophecized during a time of war, and during a time when history was well recorded. Jesus lived in a time of peace but history was not well recorded. Abraham lived in a time of war but history was not well recorded.
Just because a religious figure engaged in violent acts doesn't mean he endorsed violent acts as an ideal. Most historians will tell you -- Mohammed (and Abraham) did so out of a perceived necessity and the cultural context of the region. The Koran says "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." And we don't need to talk too much about the Torah and the Old Testament, we know they have multiple, sometimes confusing views on violence. Only extremists will tell you that the texts suggest executing all non-believers. Only extremists will ignore certain quotes in favor of the most violent or hateful of quotes and try to apply it as broadly to every person and situation they can.
No one would deny that Mohammed -- or at least his followers -- converted people by the sword. But to say that this is a central tenant of Islam is as ignorant as saying that keeping slaves is a tenant of Judaism.
I'm not concerned that a game that incorporates these beliefs is being offensive. I'm concerned your ideas are WRONG. Not morally wrong, factually wrong. It does not represent the religion that most people practice (even if it represents the religion some people practice and/or practiced). It would NOT make Civ represent real life more, nor would it open up new strategies and possibilities.
And to pigeon hole each religion into the most literal, fundamentalist, extremist interpretations of their religious texts is nothing short of naive and ignorant. Again, it's not offensive. Just ignorant. Maybe honest, but still poorly researched. And did I mention ignorant?
I don't think you can speak for most muslims. You don't even sound like you have enough experience with even having muslim friends. Most muslims and scholars put it in historical context. Mohammed lived and prophecized during a time of war, and during a time when history was well recorded. Jesus lived in a time of peace but history was not well recorded. Abraham lived in a time of war but history was not well recorded.
Just because a religious figure engaged in violent acts doesn't mean he endorsed violent acts as an ideal. Most historians will tell you -- Mohammed (and Abraham) did so out of a perceived necessity and the cultural context of the region. The Koran says "Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love the aggressors." And we don't need to talk too much about the Torah and the Old Testament, we know they have multiple, sometimes confusing views on violence. Only extremists will tell you that the texts suggest executing all non-believers. Only extremists will ignore certain quotes in favor of the most violent or hateful of quotes and try to apply it as broadly to every person and situation they can.
No one would deny that Mohammed -- or at least his followers -- converted people by the sword. But to say that this is a central tenant of Islam is as ignorant as saying that keeping slaves is a tenant of Judaism.
I'm not concerned that a game that incorporates these beliefs is being offensive. I'm concerned your ideas are WRONG. Not morally wrong, factually wrong. It does not represent the religion that most people practice (even if it represents the religion some people practice and/or practiced). It would NOT make Civ represent real life more, nor would it open up new strategies and possibilities.
And to pigeon hole each religion into the most literal, fundamentalist, extremist interpretations of their religious texts is nothing short of naive and ignorant. Again, it's not offensive. Just ignorant. Maybe honest, but still poorly researched. And did I mention ignorant?
dh_epic said:
I don't think you are ignorant dh - I think you are trying to do the right thing. If I have it wrong - then which of my facts are wrong?
Correction dh - Mohammed did endorse Holy War - stating that any who get killed will go to heaven and those muslims who stay at home will not reap the rewards of those who fought with the Prophet Mohammed in their struggle of Jihad/Holy War. If you want - I will give you everysingle quote the Qu'ran and all Islam texts on the issue of Holy War. The problem I think you may be having is that you are confusing plain, raw barbaric violence with Holy War. The Prophet Mohammed never endorsed Violence for the sake of violence - but when we get to the question of Holy War - that is a different issue.
I put my statement forward in a very logical, and clear format. You are using emotion and not logic in the debate dh. People can put spin on things as much as they want - but if one looks at the cold hard facts - words and actions taken together - then I think one can reash a fairly vaible conclusion.
Most of my friends are muslims - and the muslims I know are very dear to me, they are like my brothers, And in Time of Peace and in Time of War every Muslim looks at the actions of the Prophet Mohammed wtih admiration - for it is his example that all wish to follow.
I don't understand your reluctance to just accept what is plainly obvious. I can't make it any simpler or any clear then I already have. If I have got any facts wrong please correct me. Which ones have I got wrong.
1:Is my fact about the Prophets Mohammed going on a Jhad/HOly War wrong?
2:If my fact about the Prophet MOhammed de-capatating prisoners wrong?
3:Is my fact about the Prophet MOhammed selling women and children in to slavery wrong?
4:Is my fact about isalm viewing Unbelivers in two camps - Pagan's/ People of the Book wrong?
5:Is my fact that every muslim on this world wants tp follow the example of the Prophet mohammed in times of Peace or War wrong?
6:Is my fact that it is every musilm's duty to defend the faith of Islam from any who attack or threanten it wrong?
All were looking at dh is - Is Holy War/Jihad part of Islam?
If yes then how is one suppose to carry it out?
To the best of my knowlege - I have not put anything down which the Prophet Mohammed has not done or has not said. I'm not leaving out the violent parts or the merciful parts dh, i'm inlcuding them all. If you want I can lie about things - and say that the Prophet Mohammed never hurt a fly.
You got one thing wrong on Judaism - proselytisation. Judaism has never been big on converting others to the religion, which would make your rabbi unit an anachronism at best. Plus, people have generally been against assymetrical warfare units (Im for them only wrt to spies and diplomats).
rhialto said:
accpetalbe rhialto - its just that I was looking for a balanced model - game wise, the way i'm thinking abou it - it could cost more for a rabbi unit to try and convert poplulation, be you own civ or others. He will have the same chance of succes - but just cost a little more, while his diplomatic actions could cost a little less, just to portray under lying factors - but still keep it balanced - game wise.
Maybe we should leave out the spy part - I think normal spies would be the best units for that.
Oh - didn't intend for them be military units the rabbi/priest/muller ones. We can come up with the appropiate military units for each faith. Depending upon which building they would build or maybe which wonder one might build. The approach is open to evolution.
I think a really good source for such ideas, units, wonders and such would be to ask the learned folks of each relgion, that's includes all the other religions and not just the three faiths mentioned above. That way one can see what is trully important to differenct faiths and even ask them what effects certain wondres could have - to relfect their true nature. I'm no expert on every single faith - to be honest i'm no expert on even one faith, but try to muddle along best i can . . .
dh - I wrote some more stuff, but realized its pointless. If I can't make you see the logic of my debate with what I have written alreaedy, then there is nothing more I can do.
I've tried to be as clear, concise, logical, rational, fair and honest as possible. There's nothing more I can do.
If the problem you have is proof about the facts that i'm using or belive that they are very off the cuff examples which appear in only a few extremist version, please tell me, and I will try to provide you with a range of sources that will complement each other. IF its proof you need that the facts stated are supported in all main stream Islamic texts and history books then I will complie an extensive list where such things are refered to.
Also the facts i stated - I didnt just find in one place, but scores of places have refered to the same thing, each with a bit of varying detail, but all saying generally the same thing. The quote about unbelivers, or about teachings about what is a Holy War and what to do is not just in one place, but is many places through the Qu'ran.
It seems I have no option but to give you and show you the over-whemling number of times how the same thing is said or the same meaning refered to thoughtout the Islmaic texts as well as support from history books.
I can send it by private message if you like - so as not clatter up the forum, it will be a very long message with alot - and I mean alot of refrences and links. If you feel it should be posted so everyone can view it - I'm easy on the subject - but just so you know it will probably extend at least a few pages if not more.
If I do this, will you accept the logic of the statements?
I've tried to be as clear, concise, logical, rational, fair and honest as possible. There's nothing more I can do.
If the problem you have is proof about the facts that i'm using or belive that they are very off the cuff examples which appear in only a few extremist version, please tell me, and I will try to provide you with a range of sources that will complement each other. IF its proof you need that the facts stated are supported in all main stream Islamic texts and history books then I will complie an extensive list where such things are refered to.
Also the facts i stated - I didnt just find in one place, but scores of places have refered to the same thing, each with a bit of varying detail, but all saying generally the same thing. The quote about unbelivers, or about teachings about what is a Holy War and what to do is not just in one place, but is many places through the Qu'ran.
It seems I have no option but to give you and show you the over-whemling number of times how the same thing is said or the same meaning refered to thoughtout the Islmaic texts as well as support from history books.
I can send it by private message if you like - so as not clatter up the forum, it will be a very long message with alot - and I mean alot of refrences and links. If you feel it should be posted so everyone can view it - I'm easy on the subject - but just so you know it will probably extend at least a few pages if not more.
If I do this, will you accept the logic of the statements?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I believe Johsua led the armies of Israel against the gentiles in Cannan. If I remember the book of Joshua correctly, it was often mandated that cities be razed and all the posessions(including women and children) destroyed. While this is not a call for the elimination of non-Jews by God, it could be interpreted that way hisotrically. Jesus said he completed the Jewish doctrine and faiths, not replaced it. By this argument you could argue that Christianity shares in the same violent legacy as Judaism, and Islam adds that and the Jihad of the day of the prophet. I am not counting the Inconquista or the Crusades because they were not recorded in a religious historical context in any holy book.
sir_schwick said:
If that's true Sir S. then I guess that's what happened. If the women and children were all slaughtered - its pretty drastic to say the least. But I guess in the case of the Cannna's that what God intended - if God told Johsua to wipe out the Cannan then that's what he intended and Joshua done nothing but follow Gods will.
But is pretty specfic to one race or people - Joshua didn't extend the same treatment to other people's did he?
However - when you say to have all their possesions destoyed - are you certain it also meant women and children? Destroying their cities and destroying all their possesions isn't the same as slaughtering all the women and children. Just want that point confirmed - that's all.
If iJoshua slaughtered all the women and children of the Cannan then all I can say is - wow - that's pretty drastic - God must of been really pissed of with the Cannan.
I respect and appreciate your approach of keeping to the main propehts of the religion and not crusades and other such things.
But before we move any further on this point - lets jsut clarify that in fact the women and children were all slaughtered.
Sir S. - I done some really really quick reading. I think you are right.
Joshua took over from Moses after they came out of Egypt. And yes, there were many reported miracles - one of the most famous being the walls of jericho falling down.
and yes, I think you are right. Joshua and the jews destroyed all men, women, children, ox and all living things within the city of Jericho -They literally wiped out all the othe people - the Cannanittes the Hiatties - excuse the spelling, and basically dominated the whole region. They done this with the help of God causing miralce's to happen before them as they foughttheir enemies - and when they turned or sinned against the Lord they wwre defeated in battle and the LOrd did not intervene on their behalf until they had made right their sins.
Yes - its pretty plain and explist - This war was condoned by God and He himself was with them in battle destroying all that stood before the Chosen People.
It was something which supposedly God had Given to the Jews and had deciede that all those other peoples would be destoryed and driven from the Land. Its not the first Time God has taken some really DRASTIC actions. NO one can deny that it happened - rather, its proof that any one who stands against God's word will be destroyed as He has done throughout the Holy Books of all faiths, you name it God has sent terrable wrath upon the world throughout our history.
I complelty accept this fact according to the Religous writings Sir S., we must accept that it's something that happened, and it must of been one hell of a brutal time - probalby even more violent then even during Mohammed's time.
For Christains I think, that yes, you must accept it, and yes, Jesus came to complete that went before - and just like we have accept the other acts of Violence by God agaisnt those who stood against Him, we must also realize that Jesus upon completion of the teachings showed us a non-violent approach, and a approach filled with Love.
For Christians jesus shows the most perfect example of how one should live. So - one must accept that which went before, but like you said - for Christians Jesus completes what came before and thus must follow his example in this day and age. So going around killing all the canannites and such is not one of the Christians main duty or responsablity.
(I changed the questions below - i'm trying to clarify the issue logically in my own mind).
Okay, we know what example Jesus set to Chritians and how they should act in this day and age - one does not reject the violence of the past as was Gods will. It is not Christian duty to kill and drive out the canannites or their desendants.
Okay, we also know what example Mohammed set for muslims in this day and age and the duty of every muslim to defend the Islamic faith when it is threated.
NOW. What does Joshua and the war of the jews for the promised land say to Jews in this day and age about how they should act? EG, is it still their repsonsablity to destroy all the canannities and their descendents as they did before?
Because they did not fully drive out the canaanites from their presence as the Lord decreed they should, He said to them that they would remain as a thorn in their side for their disobiance. I think even now the decendants of the canannites and other peoples in that region are like a thorn in the side of the Jews/Israel. So where does it leave our present day jewish people in regards to this aspect?
Because, even if the jews did not accept Jesus as the Saviour, nevertheless - that which the Lord has said shall not be taken back - so logically I'm thinking that if the jews adhere to the Ten Commandments and their leaders/kings as of old should walk in the shadow of Moses - then and only then will they find peace in Israel and their enemies shall be smitten before them - in essence refering to the decendants of the Canannities or any other enemies - because God did give that land to the Jews - and some mention about the lost tribes of the children of Israel - it was only their disobdiance to the Lord that was the cause for them losing the Promised Land.
Your thoughts!
Joshua took over from Moses after they came out of Egypt. And yes, there were many reported miracles - one of the most famous being the walls of jericho falling down.
and yes, I think you are right. Joshua and the jews destroyed all men, women, children, ox and all living things within the city of Jericho -They literally wiped out all the othe people - the Cannanittes the Hiatties - excuse the spelling, and basically dominated the whole region. They done this with the help of God causing miralce's to happen before them as they foughttheir enemies - and when they turned or sinned against the Lord they wwre defeated in battle and the LOrd did not intervene on their behalf until they had made right their sins.
Yes - its pretty plain and explist - This war was condoned by God and He himself was with them in battle destroying all that stood before the Chosen People.
It was something which supposedly God had Given to the Jews and had deciede that all those other peoples would be destoryed and driven from the Land. Its not the first Time God has taken some really DRASTIC actions. NO one can deny that it happened - rather, its proof that any one who stands against God's word will be destroyed as He has done throughout the Holy Books of all faiths, you name it God has sent terrable wrath upon the world throughout our history.
I complelty accept this fact according to the Religous writings Sir S., we must accept that it's something that happened, and it must of been one hell of a brutal time - probalby even more violent then even during Mohammed's time.
For Christains I think, that yes, you must accept it, and yes, Jesus came to complete that went before - and just like we have accept the other acts of Violence by God agaisnt those who stood against Him, we must also realize that Jesus upon completion of the teachings showed us a non-violent approach, and a approach filled with Love.
For Christians jesus shows the most perfect example of how one should live. So - one must accept that which went before, but like you said - for Christians Jesus completes what came before and thus must follow his example in this day and age. So going around killing all the canannites and such is not one of the Christians main duty or responsablity.
(I changed the questions below - i'm trying to clarify the issue logically in my own mind).
Okay, we know what example Jesus set to Chritians and how they should act in this day and age - one does not reject the violence of the past as was Gods will. It is not Christian duty to kill and drive out the canannites or their desendants.
Okay, we also know what example Mohammed set for muslims in this day and age and the duty of every muslim to defend the Islamic faith when it is threated.
NOW. What does Joshua and the war of the jews for the promised land say to Jews in this day and age about how they should act? EG, is it still their repsonsablity to destroy all the canannities and their descendents as they did before?
Because they did not fully drive out the canaanites from their presence as the Lord decreed they should, He said to them that they would remain as a thorn in their side for their disobiance. I think even now the decendants of the canannites and other peoples in that region are like a thorn in the side of the Jews/Israel. So where does it leave our present day jewish people in regards to this aspect?
Because, even if the jews did not accept Jesus as the Saviour, nevertheless - that which the Lord has said shall not be taken back - so logically I'm thinking that if the jews adhere to the Ten Commandments and their leaders/kings as of old should walk in the shadow of Moses - then and only then will they find peace in Israel and their enemies shall be smitten before them - in essence refering to the decendants of the Canannities or any other enemies - because God did give that land to the Jews - and some mention about the lost tribes of the children of Israel - it was only their disobdiance to the Lord that was the cause for them losing the Promised Land.
Your thoughts!
dh_epic
Cold War Veteran
There is logic in your argument, but the logic stops the second you start applying bigotted interpretations of the facts based on very primitive and fundamentalist views of religion.
Yes, Mohammed was involved in a holy war. But this means many different things to many different muslims.
For some it is a spiritual and internal war, for each person to realize their ultimate goodness. For others, holy war and Jihad implies an act of self-defence -- not an aggressive act. Even now, to fight against someone who is persecuting you is something that is universally held as a noble reason to fight. In 700 AD, that might also involve decapitating the enemy. These are equally valid as the interpretation you go for, that holy war is a war against anyone not Muslim because they are not Muslim. There is no logic in fundamentalist interpretations of a religious text, because most religious texts can even seem contradictory at times -- you only need to pick the quotes that support your view. In other words, your argument is only pseudo-logical.
Yes, the Koran does criticize non-believers. But you take the most fundamentalist interpretation, once again. To most Muslims, non-believers refers to anyone who actively attacks and persecutes the muslim faith -- in 700 AD these threats were polytheists. And, in fact, some parts of the Koran praises Jews and Christians -- they inspired Mohammed, after all. It's only the fundamentalists who interpret "non-believers" to refer to anyone not muslim. In fact, fundamentalists go a step further and persecute fellow muslims who don't interpret the Koran the way they do. This is not the "accepted" interpretation, it is the ignorant interpretation.
Of course people want to "follow the example of mohammed", as you said. But again, it's in your interpretation. Jesus lived in a house without electricity. Is a man who lives in a house without electricy more pious than a man who lives in a house with a computer, telephone, and television? Some people think so. But for other people, they put the actions in context. The way you follow Jesus has nothing to do with the kind of house he lived in. Likewise, many muslims do not applaud the acts of fundamentalists who would kill strictly because someone is a non-muslim. This is not the example Mohammed meant to set -- even if Mohammed happened to kill people who were non-muslim.
Allow me to repeat: there is no logic in fundamentalism. What you are talking about -- the interpretations of the religious texts -- is a fundamentalist interpretation. To say that to be a good muslim is to copy everything Mohammed did without paying attention to differences between the 20th century and the 8th century is a fundamentalist interpretation. You seem to be the only person -- aside from anti-muslim hate groups and fundamentalists themselves -- who believes your argument is "pure deductive logic" without any kind of interpretation and assumption about the Koran.
Implementing this warped and narrow view of all religions would NOT make Civ more realistic, it would make it LESS realistic. Also, it would take away from strategy to be forced down grossly simplified paths like "Islam is the war religion" if you "pick" your Civilization's religion. So not only is your view of Islam -- and all religions -- ignorant. But it also makes for a lousy game of Civ.
Yes, Mohammed was involved in a holy war. But this means many different things to many different muslims.
For some it is a spiritual and internal war, for each person to realize their ultimate goodness. For others, holy war and Jihad implies an act of self-defence -- not an aggressive act. Even now, to fight against someone who is persecuting you is something that is universally held as a noble reason to fight. In 700 AD, that might also involve decapitating the enemy. These are equally valid as the interpretation you go for, that holy war is a war against anyone not Muslim because they are not Muslim. There is no logic in fundamentalist interpretations of a religious text, because most religious texts can even seem contradictory at times -- you only need to pick the quotes that support your view. In other words, your argument is only pseudo-logical.
Yes, the Koran does criticize non-believers. But you take the most fundamentalist interpretation, once again. To most Muslims, non-believers refers to anyone who actively attacks and persecutes the muslim faith -- in 700 AD these threats were polytheists. And, in fact, some parts of the Koran praises Jews and Christians -- they inspired Mohammed, after all. It's only the fundamentalists who interpret "non-believers" to refer to anyone not muslim. In fact, fundamentalists go a step further and persecute fellow muslims who don't interpret the Koran the way they do. This is not the "accepted" interpretation, it is the ignorant interpretation.
Of course people want to "follow the example of mohammed", as you said. But again, it's in your interpretation. Jesus lived in a house without electricity. Is a man who lives in a house without electricy more pious than a man who lives in a house with a computer, telephone, and television? Some people think so. But for other people, they put the actions in context. The way you follow Jesus has nothing to do with the kind of house he lived in. Likewise, many muslims do not applaud the acts of fundamentalists who would kill strictly because someone is a non-muslim. This is not the example Mohammed meant to set -- even if Mohammed happened to kill people who were non-muslim.
Allow me to repeat: there is no logic in fundamentalism. What you are talking about -- the interpretations of the religious texts -- is a fundamentalist interpretation. To say that to be a good muslim is to copy everything Mohammed did without paying attention to differences between the 20th century and the 8th century is a fundamentalist interpretation. You seem to be the only person -- aside from anti-muslim hate groups and fundamentalists themselves -- who believes your argument is "pure deductive logic" without any kind of interpretation and assumption about the Koran.
Implementing this warped and narrow view of all religions would NOT make Civ more realistic, it would make it LESS realistic. Also, it would take away from strategy to be forced down grossly simplified paths like "Islam is the war religion" if you "pick" your Civilization's religion. So not only is your view of Islam -- and all religions -- ignorant. But it also makes for a lousy game of Civ.
dh_epic said:
I don't know what kind of people will delude themselves that mohammed's holy war was some spirtual thing he done whilst the whole region fell under the control of the Islamic sword. Who ever thinks that has got some real reality issues - the Prophet Mohammed was at every battle - over sixty of them, he was in the thick of them - ordering, planning, directing - who ever is telling you it was a spirtual war - that's absolutly absurd. He was involved in real war - where real people died. The person who told you that it was just a spritual war must not have the slightest clue about the life of Mohammed and the Islamic texts and holy books - becuase every muslim will be able to give a whole list of the battles that Prophet mohammed was involved in.
Moving on - dh, you've misunderstood me once more. I never said that Mohammed would go around killing every non-muslim as a matter of principle wiht no provocation. If the circumstances were once again simlar as in the 700's just as the Prophet Mohammed was justified in fighting His Holy Wars then so to would a Muslim be justified in fighting another Holy War.
Your example about electricty in house and having none electricty before is disingenious. I'm not talkin about specific material's, weapons, convieances of this day and age - but the core value - the core principles - which do not change with the invention of the steam engine, the telephone or electricty. The same core values that do not change with the invention of the sword, the gun and now the nuclar missle. The core values and principles of Holy War in Islam has not changed - not has all of its other core values - of not eating pork, of not drinking alchol - of being able to have more then one wife - even if your western social structure only allowes for one wife - sorry dh, Islam does not adhere to your western views of how things should be.
Going back to the electricty point dh - before people lighted fire from lightening, then they found out about rubbing two sticks together, then we got oil and feul and chemicals. It doesn't matter how you light the fire - its what you do with it. a person walks, a person rides a horse, a person drive, a person take a plane, a person takes a boat or a train. The mode of transport does not make a person worse or better. It what that person does while he travles which makes a person better or worse. If a person gave a piece of bread to some one hungry thousands of years ago as a act of kindness, doesn't mean a person who gives a voucher for a meal is any less kind. Its the same with a person killing some with a sword, and some killing some one with a gun in this day and age. Its not the tools you use - tis the actions that you carry out which are important.
Remember - if the same circumstances existed in the present as it did during Mohammed's time, just as you say He was justified in fighting His Holy Wars - so to is a Muslim today.
I'll be honest with you. I don't care what time period your in. But to be a good Jew one must follow the example of Abraham and Moses. To be a good Christian one must follow the example of Jesus. To be a good Muslim one must follow the example of Mohammed. You can't pick and choose what you want or what suites you or is convienant to you in this day and age.
