New Religion Ideas - Well if its still possible to make suggestions.

[OrangeSfwr]

well I still want to see religion as part of teh game, because it is highly influential. But this whole athiesm = corruption thing we've started is getting ridiculous. I think we're pretty much in agreement that athiesm does not = corruption. So lets move on from that. Is there anything else about religion that needs discussing? (Does anyone want to comment about my missionary unit idea?)

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Par4]

quote: Originally posted by beyowulf on 05-10-2000 11:11 AM I salute you and your high moral standards then. But what if everyone was an atheist? Would the motivation remain?

Good point you have me over a bone to a certain extent. I guess if we kept keeping our morals high for oh say 100 years then society would see it taboo to cheat steal lie adulterate. As for the religious people sinning heres what they(most of them have something about asking for forgiveness and jesus died for your sins) say direct quote from Catholic 'Bob'
"People sin because god doesn't want them to be perfect so Jesus died for our sins and we ask for forgiveness from god when we sin and god forgives us and we go to heaven to be with him when we die"
I guess lying is somewhat unavoidable but can you ask for forgiveness for cheating or stealing(something worth wild I don't know about a pencil or something like that) those are very conscious decisions IMHO.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[Par4]

That Catholic 'Bob' quote is exactly what a kid in my school said and it didn't clear up my question to him about how come people can ask for forgiveness for sins that were thought out and clearly intentional. Just to clear a little up about the nature of that quote. If this answer may seem a little 'typical', he seems to be the most well versed person I know about Christianity (nothing against Christians again they're just the majority of the people I talk to, ya can't find many Buddhists around here) that is a kid(I've talked to adults but I hardly ever get a good clear answer like this).

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[raingoon]

Scanning this thread is like looking at posts written by people who aren't reading what others have said in response. The atheism discussion has turned into sophistry. It's old. It's played, long ago dispensed with. Which you would understand if anybody were willing or able to refer to the Religion Model.

Beowolf said he looked at the model, and yet his original post about "one true religion" and subsequent posts suggest he has yet to retain any of it. Similarly, OrangeSfwr, your missionary unit is the same unit suggested in the model already. Called a Cleric, in that case.

Not that you aren't free to expound with each other all you want, but the name of this thread IS, after all, "New Religion Ideas..."

Well --? Where are they?

[MidKnight Lament]

I don't have anything against a religious model. I think the game will be lacking without a proper one.

However drawing parallels between an historical religion, and one included in Civ is asking for trouble. Many different religions (or lack thereof) should exist in the game, but their names shouldn't be important; All we want is a representation that different people have different beliefs, and model the consequences of that.

raingoon - if you're wanting people to look at your proposed model, I'd suggest you link to it, otherwise most people aren't going to bother. Personally, I've read it, but it was a long time ago.

- MKL

[lago]

This thread demonstrates why religion shouldn't be a major part of the game...

[Grier]

I think religion should be tied in closely with diplomacy and to be more historicaly accurate should be spread by the sword rather than religious units as there are far to many units to micrmanage as there is.

Some of examples of involving religion with diplomacy might be:
Declaring war on a civ because of their religion.
Becoming friends with a civ by embracing their religion.

It could also be tied deeply to your peoples views on another civ. So declaring war on a civ with the same religion as you might make your people unhappy, where as war against a civ that has no religious foothold in your civ may make your people happy.

[raingoon]

quote: raingoon - if you're wanting people to look at your proposed model...

Actually I'm not feeling too insistant about that. Firaxis has had the model for nearly seven months, I believe. And recently received it again as part of the EC3, which was voted on by Apolyton. I mention this only in the context of the thread to which we are currently posting because it seems kinda relevant to do so.

Btw, the model was written by numerous contributors over the last year and a half. So it really isn't "my" proposal per se. I recommend it again to yourself and others (you may have forgotten it does address the issue of naming religions).

[MidKnight Lament]

quote: Btw, the model was written by numerous contributors over the last year and a half. So it really isn't "my" proposal per se.

I did realise that. For the sake of simplicity I said it that way though. Almost changed it - in hindsight I probably should have.

quote: I recommend it again to yourself and others (you may have forgotten it does address the issue of naming religions).

I didn't remember that, but I feel it needed to be said anyway.

- MKL

[This message has been edited by MidKnight Lament (edited May 11, 2000).]

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Par4 on 05-10-2000 07:59 PM That Catholic 'Bob' quote is exactly what a kid in my school said and it didn't clear up my question to him about how come people can ask for forgiveness for sins that were thought out and clearly intentional. Just to clear a little up about the nature of that quote. If this answer may seem a little 'typical', he seems to be the most well versed person I know about Christianity (nothing against Christians again they're just the majority of the people I talk to, ya can't find many Buddhists around here) that is a kid(I've talked to adults but I hardly ever get a good clear answer like this).

I've seen similar, but seems to me, that for people who think like, that they sin again and again, and ask for forgiveness for the same sins, again and again, that for these people, God isn't real for them, or is 1 dimensional, or only exists for 2 hours on Sunday. Before they sin, they never think, what would God think about what I am doing, and since God is not real for them, they're just a shade a way from not believing God.

Its like kicking someone, saying 'sorry', and repeating ad nauseum. Now its true we all sin, but, I would think that God would want us to make the effort to -not- sin.

In game terms, if a beginning religion might start at a conviction of say..25, than these guys might have a conviction of 2 or 3. So how about this, the higher ones conviction, the less corrupt they are.

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by Ubergeek on 05-10-2000 01:19 PM I could go on at some length, but what's the point? beyowulf is, I fear, beyond convincing. He asks for proof that atheists are less prone to corruption than are religious people. I ask him from proof that religious people are less prone to corruption.

First and second century Christians. Known for their honesty, and integrity. Refused to hold public office or go to war. What changed?

Chrisitianity was made Rome's state religion, bunch of doctrinal changes were made, including concepts taken from other religions, conversions were made by the sword, rather than persuasion, and oh yeah, early christianity had no clergy/laity distinction.

So basically, Christianity was compromised, which results in further corruption later.

Now I never asked for proof that that atheists are less prone to corruption than religious people. I asked for a reason why this would be so. There is a subtle difference in what I am asking. Besides since religion has held sway for the last several thousand years at least, atheism hasn't really had a chance to 'strut it stuff', so to speak. Also unlike a religion, atheism requires little of its adherents, only that they not believe in God. Its doesn't require them to honest or have integrity, if they do, its in addition to being atheist, not because of it, or so it seems to me.

[korn469]

beyowulf

could you define corruption please?

and wouldn't atheist have more of a reason to obey the law in this life than a religious person?

i mean if the atheist is either sentanced to life in prison or sentanced to be executed they don't think they would have anything after that so wouldn't they live up the here and now more than a devout person who believes that they will have eternal life after physical death?

so maybe atheist should be less likely to riot or to revolt than religious people

i mean if the muja hadeen guerillas in afganistan had of atheist instead of muslims wouldn't they have been less likely to take up arms and fight?

then again maybe not

korn469

p.s. this post isn't very serious but i'd still like to hear your answers

[Par4]

This thread is turning into an off topic type thread. Oh well all for the better I totally agree that the Roman Catholic church 'revised' what Christianity was originally about. Korn I agree that atheists probably aren't going to start on a crusade like Muslims or Christians but buddhists are even more hmm what's the right word mellow I guess than atheists IMHO. For the new ideas I'm thinking maybe we should have just the names then depending on where the religions pop up ideology comes from native lands size, wheter it's warlike other stuff. I don't know this is a very touchy subject, anyone think civ3 might be branded anti christian like smac if we put religion in there(well in the US at least I have no idea about Europe)??

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse

[beyowulf]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 05-12-2000 12:20 AM beyowulf could you define corruption please? and wouldn't atheist have more of a reason to obey the law in this life than a religious person? i mean if the atheist is either sentanced to life in prison or sentanced to be executed they don't think they would have anything after that so wouldn't they live up the here and now more than a devout person who believes that they will have eternal life after physical death? so maybe atheist should be less likely to riot or to revolt than religious people i mean if the muja hadeen guerillas in afganistan had of atheist instead of muslims wouldn't they have been less likely to take up arms and fight? then again maybe not korn469 p.s. this post isn't very serious but i'd still like to hear your answers

Doesn't have to be serious, but they are valid. Corruption, well that sort of blanket statement, covering say, lying, bribery, adultery. Actions that may benefit oneself in the short term, but harm society in the long term.

Now an atheist might be inclined to obey the law, so that they won't have to face the consequences of breaking the law. But what if the chances of get caught are slim, or none, it becomes a whole lot more tempting. Or if they just seem that way, or if the punishment isn't really severe,(couple of weeks of prison). And there are those who feel, since they eventually will die, that they should try to get as much out of life, now.

Now, I agree, an atheist isn't quite likely to go on a crusade, or revolt against the government(probably have to get pretty bad for that to happen)

Though if the Muja Hadeen guerillas been following the tenets of their religion, they probably wouldn't have taken up arms in the first place(I heard somewhere that Islam was originally peaceful and benevolent. Not sure though.)

[Stuff2]

I think that ideologies should be incorporated here somehow. Don't know how thought.