Worldreligions or Generic-only-Religions

[dh_epic]

Not a question of emotional discomfort. But any personal aspects are forgiven, as much as I can hope you can say the same of me -- although it was never my intent to get personal.

The point being that a game that's based around the complexities and variety in history and society shouldn't hard code one interpretation of ANY social phenomenon. If there's one constant in history, it's that everyone has a different spin on everything.

I mean, that's why we've been arguing so passionately, no? Both come from different social contexts, and as such we have different views on many different things.

 

[menwia]

Not a question of emotional discomfort. But any personal aspects are forgiven, as much as I can hope you can say the same of me -- although it was never my intent to get personal.

The point being that a game that's based around the complexities and variety in history and society shouldn't hard code one interpretation of ANY social phenomenon. If there's one constant in history, it's that everyone has a different spin on everything.

I mean, that's why we've been arguing so passionately, no? Both come from different social contexts, and as such we have different views on many different things.

there is nothing to forgive dh - nothing at all dear chap. Yes you're right, you've trying to avoid the conflict of things. But it can't be that everybody is right dh? That's not possible, in their heart they might be right, but factually right is another matter.

I thought of something, and this will be my last attempt. This is the last mile - beyond that marathon pain barrier as they say.

You agree Yes on the first question. Right.

The second question you've pointed out that not everyone will think they must do as exactly what mohammed done.

Right - let me put it on the other foot. Do Christians think that if they were able to follow Jesus's examples and action in everything that he done that they would be better Christains? As Christians is there anything in there that is not relevant in this day and age. Is any off Jesus's action Time relative - or are his actions timeless? What do you think christians think about following the examle of Jesus - I'm not talkin about walkin on water, but all those other things that jesus done that one can do as human being.

Take your answer and apply that the same to muslim's and their desire to follow Mohammed's example.

What is your answr to this - just let me know.

 

[dh_epic]

Like I said, it's complicated. I'm sure many people aspire to every single thing Jesus did.

But some people think some things Jesus did just have nothing to do with being a good Christian. For example, many people think the idea of giving up their wealth to become better Christians isn't what Jesus was really about. Sure he lived poor and criticized the rich, but this was back in the Roman times when wealth was concentrated in the hands of very few people and some people were starving dirt poor.

Secondly, the things that Jesus did to be a good Christian might not make sense or be necessary now. Dying on the cross, while noble in ancient Rome, isn't a necessary thing to do these days. Sure people could think of a rare and extreme circumstance under which it would make sense, but most people think such a situation would be next to impossible. And thus, nobody would do this action blindly if someone said "prove you're a good Christian by getting crucified".

Finally, for any aspect of Christianity that occured, many argue about the details and accuracy -- even for things explicitly stated in the bible. They talk about editing the book, and they talk about metaphors, they talk about translation, and they talk about man-made agendas, and before too long, you can have two people with two completely different belief systems based on the same book. Some people think Jesus had sex before marriage quite often, and this was adapted into "The Last Temptation of Christ" (a movie). Others think the idea of him doing this was preposterous, even though the bible says he hung out a lot with prostitutes.

In other words, some parts of a religious founder's life are either unneccessary to follow, or only made sense under the context in which the founder lived, or are even completely historically debatable as to whether they happened at all. This is what leads to religious wars over who is right or wrong, after all. This is how Christianity has fragmented and fractured into literally hundreds of different sects, and the same is true of nearly any religion.

The thing with religion is nobody can ever be proven to be factually right. It's all a matter of conjecture -- the original actions are lost in history, if not the original intentions. And a few game developers would be arrogant to claim they have all the answers and implemented them into a game.

 

[menwia]

What's changed - wealth is still concentrated in the hands of the few and hte majority are poor - so many people below the poverty line and starving and suffering from desease and famine all around the world.

Moving onto your first point. Wow, I know that just becuase you can't attain perfection or do everything you should - doesn't mean its not the right thing to do. I think the Apostle-s correct me if i'm wrong didn't state that their intension wasn't to take from one group and give to the other so that one was still deprived, but to share all things evenly.

Of course Jesus was no normal person, and he done things which are far beyond the perfection of any normal humman being. But it surprises me that even if Christians don't think it necessary attainable- it would not be something that they look to as an example of how to live a perfect life.

Example - no muslim can ever really attain the level of the Prophet Mohammed, but it does not mean that we can not try. EG, if muslims today fought in a Holy WAr - they might not carry it out correctly or as perfectly as the prophet mohammed done, but does that mean they shouldn't try? sAme with all His other teachings, no muslim is perfect and we make sins, but doens't mean that we don't try to aspire to that perfection shown to us.

Second point - to die for your faith does not necessary mean you have to be crusified. Even now and before, Christains have died for their faith - be it by the sword, gun, eaten alive - countless terrable things have been done to Christains because they wouldn't renounce their Christ. Alot done by Muslims and vice versa. I think that God will not disqualify sacrifice under a technicality - If you suffer in the name of Christ I think the Lord will know
about it.

Thirdly, I agree with you. If the historical facts are in doubt - and the differences are extrem, then yes - one can not know the facts. But in the case of the Prophet Mohammed there is no disagreement about the events of the prophet MOhammed - specifically refering to the dates and the versions of the battle that he par-took in.

I find it very difficult to fathom how a Christian, Jew or a Muslim might not want to imulate the example of those they follow relgiously. Maybe they cannot follow it the exact detail, but the very least a person can follow the spirit of things. EG - if a muslim were to go on a holy war - one would use a gun instead of sword, but he would still be fighting a Holy War.

But going back to the main point I think that you have dh, is that some people might actually think a few of the things that Jesus,Mohammed,Moses,Abraham done might not be relevant in todays life. That's the main plank the arguement is standing on.

I can say nothing more then I personally completly disagree with this approach to religion. No where, ijn all of the texts of every religion, Torah, Bible, Qu'ran does it say that for example, you only pray five times a day in this century, or you only hold passover in this century and not this one, and you only have easter in this century and not this one.

I can't follow relgion like that dh, its all or nothing with me.

but if your point isthat some people of differing faiths do not think that way, and chooose what htey think is relevant or not according to the times then yes, you are right and I am wrong.

But you must realize that i start from the assumptoin that if one believes, then one must believe full heartdly and completly and accept that all things are relevant. Jesus for Christains. Abraham/Moses for Jews and Mohammed for Muslims.

But now I understand where you are coming from - from what postion you are starting from - and your argument with your base assumption of chosing what is relative to what time period - then you are right.

We have started out from two very differnt and contray base assumptions on how one would view the actions and teachings of one's leaders of each religion.

Basically you disagree with the premsis that a Muslim/jew/Christian wishs to follow every example set by their respective leaders on how one should act.

Its a bit long winded - but I hope I was able to communicate my thoughts.

Excuse any typo's or mistakes.

 

[dh_epic]

Hey that's okay. I think a perfect example, though, is the Amish. They're a special brand of Christians who believe that electricity and modern life is sinful. They're a minority of Christians, and many Christians disagree with this way of life, and even think it is backwards and sinful in its own right.

Another example is Jehovah's Witnesses. While having many common beliefs of their parent religions, they believe an important part of their life is actively seeking people out and converting them. They are also a religious minority, and many Christians disagree with this way of life, and think to bother and force one's self upon people is sinful in its own right.

I'm not saying that either religion is right or wrong. But merely that they all model themselves after Jesus, and ended up with starkly different conclusions.

They'd probably tell someone like you or me that "religion is all or nothing for them" and that they can't follow religion in the way we do.

 

[menwia]

So where does that leave us then dh.

Do some christians/jews/Muslims chooose what is time relative in the religiion or do they try to follow every example, even if they can't they still reconize that is what's preferable.

Let me answer my own question. What your saying is it's both. Some followers think its time relative and other think its all or nothing.

the first lot - I hold my hands up and state that my deductive reasoning is flawed because the first premis was that all muslims want to folllow the example of Mohammed in everything he done and said.

For the second lot - my deductive reasoning still holds. All you have to do is agree what the actions of the Prophet was and what his teachings/words were.

But half correct don't cut it.

So I accept your call on this. Some people -and theer are some people out there that actually choose and pick what is hsitorically relavent in their faith.

Fair enough. I can comprehend it, but I just don't agree with that approach, I could never agree with it, but I acknowledge that people are different and that my approach is just one approach to religion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it says somewhere in the Bible, not sure if Jesus said this or one of his disciples - but they said something about those that are cold and hot towards Christ - and those that are warm - that it would be better for them to cold then just warm. You know what I'm getting at.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, some think it's time relative, some think it's constant... and for some people "all or nothing" means different things. "All" could include the fact that Jesus didn't have a telephone, whereas other people think that kind of detail is irrelevent.

I know what you're saying. I think some people have said it this way: "it's better to be a good nothing than a bad catholic". But everyone's got a different interpretation of what a bad catholic is.

If everyone agreed on what that was, there wouldn't be so much religious dispute, especially within people of the same religion. Again, it just depends on what you mean by "all". The Amish think they have "all". The Jehovah's witnesses think they have "all". The pope thinks he has "all" and so does the president -- even if their actions don't always match up with their beliefs. And yet they disagree on so much.

That's the point, you can't just implement one theory of a religion in a game. It ends up being inaccurate for a lot of people.

 

[menwia]

lol - forget religon in Civ. Its too much headache . .. lol

 

[dh_epic]

Haha, true.

I guess my point is this -- even if we assume that your interpretations are right. Not just for your religion but for all religions -- Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism.

Is that going to be historically accurate, in a world where religion has shaped history as much as history has shaped religion? Are these constant, unified theories going to represent how much disagreement and change religion has undergone?

I just think it's not worth it. I find myself in a catch 22 about many implementations. If Christianity rewards war in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has ushered in peace or tried to usher in peace. If Christianity rewards peace in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has brought out aggressive zeal during war.

You can't win. Even if you implement it "neutrally", you end up with this generic label that is nothing more than a "team name" to be used when you go to war.

But yeah, I know. Religion in Civ is a lost cause anyway.

 

[menwia]

tell me about it dh - I even used deductive logic to find the answers but hell - couldn't get the core premis correct - and without that there's no conclusion one can reach with the deductive logic.

You're right, it does become kinda generic as you get forced into not actually being able to define what each religion is about - becuase if you do, there will always be some one who will get offended or completly disagrees with your defination of that religion.

And i'd be honest - I think we had a real good crack at it ourselves, and we've come full cirlce - back to where we started from, although I hope a little wiser - myself in particular.

I was so sure about my premis dh. But you could have saved us alot of heart ache if you would have just attack the premis to begin with . . . it would have saved us so much, but then again maybe the journey is just as important as the destination.(I hope).

 

[Teabeard]

Animism should be the starting Religion of most if not all CIVs.

 

[rhialto]

I think we are agreed on that, terabeard. The problem that we've discovered is that if you use real world religions, you either have to keep the differences cosmetic (which defeats the point) or risk offending billions of people.

not something you really want to risk the commercial success of a game over.

 

[Teabeard]

I think we are agreed on that, terabeard. The problem that we've discovered is that if you use real world religions, you either have to keep the differences cosmetic (which defeats the point) or risk offending billions of people.

not something you really want to risk the commercial success of a game over.

How many people have been offended by the traits each civ has? I don't recall many people being offended by that, so why worry about religion? As long as things are well balanced I don't see anyone being offended... but if you were to make one religion vastly superior to another then that could offend people.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

THIS IS ON TOPIC!!!
Menwia, and dh_epic
I see that your debate went astray.
Of course, not ALL muslims follow every single deed of Mohammed. But, MOST of them (99%) would follow if they could. Their priests (hodjas, ulems, etc.) give answers to any question of life ON the strict literal meaning of the Quran and the Sunna (if not shiites) and mainly on the example of Mohammed.
Let's look at one example (islam.com)

Question
Can a woman appear in public and can they hold political post.
Answer
Yes, they can. Hadhrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) wife of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings on him) was the leader of an army.

An other part of the question.
In Islam, there are many strict regulation for any minor situation.
Let's see an example. (islam.com)

Question
If a lady or woman take political post or perfect in school, and in some occasion, they are to present a gift or award to male pupil (that means they have to shake his handing before presenting the gift) Is she allowed to do so?
Answer
Hand shaking between males and females is not permissible in Islam. This is easily avoidable. The organizers of any event etc., should and could be informed well in advance that the lady will not shake hand with males. Wallaho Alam Bissawab.

I regard these teachings as niggling and melticulous regulations of every aspect of life.
So, we can make differences between religions, differences based on the traits of them.
for example, Islam is religion regulating the public and private sphere.
Christianity is regulating only the private sphere.
It is not about good religion and bad religion.
However we can make statements on religions, thus, forming traits of these statements.
It is independent of being member of one church or an other.
Some basics of sociology are the books of Max Weber. In one them he describes how a religion can shape a society.
So, we need religions in Civ4.
so, if not world religions then generic only religions!

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Correct me if I'm wrong but..
One thing that should be remembered is that christians do things in the name of Christ/Jesus while muslims do it in the name of Allah. In the eyes of the believers Jesus is the Son of God, and God equally to the Holy Spirit and the Father. This would mean that the things Jesus did were absolutely good and perfect, which in turn would make a perfect example to follow, whereas Allah is a seperate entity from Muhammed who was his prophet who revealed the truth through Quran. If I remember correcty Muhammed didn't live a sinfree life like Jesus, which means that although he makes an example to follow there might be areas with higher importancy than others in his life to follow. Some of the things he did maybe could/should be seen from a historical context to a greater degree than the things Jesus did.

In short - The differences in the religions make them not entirely comparable. Therefor the basis for the religions traits and differenses should not be brought from religious interpretations and beliefs but from in what ways the religions have influenced history. This would not be as offendable as teological traits since a historical evaluation is harder to argue against, it wouldn't be much different from the historical traits that are bound to the civs in civ3.

 

[dh_epic]

K.F. Huszár, I think you raise important details. But I think you're, again, making assumptions. Islam.com is not the sole authority on Islam, and unfortunately no one is. Many would say the same thing about Christianity. Even the pope tries to regulate the private sphere (in particular regulations on sex) but many Christians do not even think some of these acts are sinful.

Sorry to menwia, I really should have focused on the premises, you're right. I should have been more clear that while the logic is there, there are hidden assumptions in your phrasing of the premises that are easy to take for granted.

Loppan Torkel is right. The comparisons don't always apply. There are many slight variations.

And Teabeard, I can't speak for those who would get offended, but I could speak for people who appreciate realism and accuracy. Traits are a catch 22.

"If Christianity rewards war in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has ushered in peace or tried to usher in peace. If Christianity rewards peace in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has brought out aggressive zeal during war. You can't win. Even if you implement it 'neutrally', you end up with this generic label that is nothing more than a 'team name' to be used when you go to war."

Religion has had a way of shaping society, but right now Civ doesn't even have a model of society being shaped! Society literally flips at the switch of a button. I might be able to suspend my disbelief about government, but to believe that a nation can be entirely Christian and you flip a switch and become entirely Buddhist is pretty ridiculous. Before they implemented religion as a social force, they'd need to have social forces in the first place! (What social forces does Civ have? War weariness, martial law, luxuries, entertainment. That's it.)

 

[sir_schwick]

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.

Actually God was really pissed off with the inhabitants of Cannan. He had told Abraham five centuries earlier that Cannan was not rife enough with sin, but would be by the time his children came out of Egypt.

 

[riadsala]

"If Christianity rewards war in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has ushered in peace or tried to usher in peace. If Christianity rewards peace in Civ, then you ignore the number of times that Christianity has brought out aggressive zeal during war. You can't win. Even if you implement it 'neutrally', you end up with this generic label that is nothing more than a 'team name' to be used when you go to war."

Religion has had a way of shaping society, but right now Civ doesn't even have a model of society being shaped! Society literally flips at the switch of a button. I might be able to suspend my disbelief about government, but to believe that a nation can be entirely Christian and you flip a switch and become entirely Buddhist is pretty ridiculous. Before they implemented religion as a social force, they'd need to have social forces in the first place! (What social forces does Civ have? War weariness, martial law, luxuries, entertainment. That's it.)

Agree.

I can't see how it could work. At the best it would be gimmiky (appeal to the American bible belt though, as then Civ would be a good moral game where you can lead your Christian empire to victory, or whatever). At worst, it would be annoying and offensive.

I think the religeous model in civ 3 is good enough. Religeous buildings help to keep the population under control and make your civilisation more cultural.

Maybe implamenting it superfically would be ok though. So, only western civs build cathedrals, while Arabs build Mosques, etc. But they all do the same thing.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah, I think that if their market research shows religion is so desireable, they should just repackage some of the features they already have and put a greater emphasis on religion. Say "Experience religion, galvanize your population, and crusade against your enemies!" -- That's already stuff you can do in Civ 3, more or less. You build temples, and fight enemies. The superficial modifications would be enough, in my mind.

Because any deep model of religion WILL suck, unless they basically tear apart and rebuild the entire game from the ground level.

Let's see a greater improvements to other factors -- like diplomacy, intelligence, economics, and culture.

 

[sir_schwick]

Agreed, you must improve the culture model before you consider implementing religion. Additionally, all parts of culture including religion are affected by the others. Pakistani Islam is much different from Iranian Islam, and the subdivisions within the nations are even more so. The common history of region effects the criteria with which religion is judge, and vice versa. This could be said about any of the many factors that affect Culture.