- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 1255 Hour
- Reading permission
I'm not sure why you insist on continuously discussing Christianity relative to Confucianism. Let me now begin a point-by-point refutation:
Despite its huge influence in China and in other Asian countries, Confucianism as it was composed and intended never seemed to aspire for the status of religion, even though some people like to think that way.
Confucianism has most facets of religion and the way that a Confucianist approaches the concept of heaven, especially insofar as it having will, implies a religious belief system. It is improper to compare Confucianism to Christianity because they are not part of a similar religious pattern. A correct understanding of Classical Greek or Roman theology bares out the thesis that Confucianism is too similar to other ancient religious beliefs to not be classed with them. Moreover, Buddhism is generally considered to be religious even though it lacks nearly all features of Judeo-Christian religion, especially in Ch'an/Zen, where this difference is very stark. Finally, Shinto, a decidedly religious practice, has no resemblance whatever to Christianity, Judaism or Islam. So the assertion, by comparison to Christianity, that Confucianism is not a religion is false because it misdefines religion in such a way that many things considered to be religions would not qualify under the comparison.
Confucius (551-479 B.C.) missed the chance to make an all-powerful claim like the Book of Genesis, which came out maybe a few years earlier. Confucius also didn抰 have the foresight of making a preemptive claim like Jesus, who came quite a few hundred years later. So Confucius has been admired as a thinker-philosopher, at best a saint. Confucius was secular and not religious.
This and succeeding paragraphs confuse the idea of Confucianism as a religion and Confucius as the center of that religion. There are many incarnations of Taoist religion but few consider Laozi to have been a deity. You are thus provided with a counterexample and I will also warn again about comparing East Asian religions to Christianity. Moreover, the intent of Confucius is quite beside the point, it was not the intent of Siddhartha to be worshiped as a god of any sort and, yet, he is in many Buddhist traditions.
In fact, Chinese emperors had nothing comparable to the power of god or god抯 son or the Bible at their disposal to inspire reverence and enforce obedience, nor an organized and ritualized national system (like church districts with bishops and priests) to worship Confucianism as a state religion.
This is quite irrelevant. I made the comparison between the emperor and the Pope, not to the emperor and the Judeo-Christian god. The emperor could, by decree, change religious practices and interpretations of Confucian doctrine and did. He even went on anti-religious pogroms against non-Confucian groups. So he quite well fits the role as being head of a theocracy.
Many emperors or dynasties formulated their own laws for the government and the nation, such as the Ching Dynasty Codes of Laws, and many emperors did not have the kind of absolute power typical of a theocracy. The Ming Dynasty, for example, had is Imperial Council that pretty much acted like a balance of power. In fact, what you see in China is a long history of a lack of integration of church and state.
You poorly understand theocracies. Iran has a central council which controls many state functions and even the Pope is checked by the Curia. Theocrats do not generally enjoy absolute power, if only because their power rests on a clearly defined idea (a religious system) rather than their personal authority.
Claiming to be divine as a ruler, or to possess a heavenly mandate is far from enough for an effective and working theocracy. Many of these branches of a theocracy government were not what Confucius was concerned about, nor what Chinese emperors were able to obtain, even if some of them were interested. And this does place the Chinese emperor far away from the Pope, I am afraid.
Once more you seem confused about the nature of extant theocracies. The government of Iran claims only to govern by the will of Alla.h and scriptural authority, the Pope is claimed only to be the representative of god as revealed by Providence (which, really, is synonymous with "will of heaven"). And, again, of course, the concerns of Confucius himself are not central to whether Confucianism is a religion, all that matters is whether it has the features of a religion.
With history cleared up, I now turn to theology:
Atheism was not invented by Karl Marx, who was neither the first nor the last person to stand by it.
No one claimed this, so it's not clear why you say it.
As to non-believing and atheism, a statement like 揟here is no god? is not a negative statement; it is simply a statement more straightforward than 揑 don抰 believe in god?. Is the latter statement saying 搕here is a god, only I don抰 believe in him?, or 揑 don抰 believe in god because there is no god??
It appears that I must now take out an example. Consider: a murder mystery. A body has been found, the man has been shot to death and a list of suspects has been drawn up. One of the suspects is a man name Jones, about whom I know nothing.
It would be absurd for me to believe that Jones killed the man, lacking any knowledge of Jones, how could I say such a thing? But I cannot also say that I believe Jones did not kill the man for precisely the same reason: I don't know anything about Jones so I can't really say that he isn't a murderer. My lack of belief does not imply that I believe the negative statement "it is not the case that Jones is the murderer" because I am simply withholding judgment.
Likewise, when I say "I do not believe in god", I qualify as an atheist but it is not the case that I would agree with the statement "there is no god". This is especially so in my case: I've never seen any evidence for a god and so simply don't believe in one, but for that same reason I won't say there isn't one, there might be one, the option is open, but I refuse to believe in one. You will note that all agnostics, then, are atheists and you can check that up at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I'm sure. But when a person or government says, straightforwardly, "it is not the case that there is a god" or, equivalently, "there is no god", that person or government has beliefs about god, namely that such a being does not exist. Since all theology requires is a belief about divinity, this sort of god-does-not-exist atheist has a theology insofar as it draws any implications from the statement "there is no god".