Why does everyone want Confucianism out?
- Thread starter Plankhead
- Start date
Master Kodama
Nitpicker
Yes, that is funny, since that means that both 19th century Western theologians and the Shinto priesthood were wrong.cckerberos said:
Obviously the Western theologians were acting under biased views as to what a religion is (like requiring a moral code, which is not a necessary criteria for a religion), but how could the Shinto priesthood be wrong about Shinto, you ask? Well, while the fact that Shinto even has a priesthood is kind of a dead giveaway that it's a religion, Shinto does not have a centralized clergy or doctrine to make decrees about it. Thus, the assessment of the nature of Shinto must be based on the beliefs of the masses, not the beliefs of a few, even if they want to call themselves "priests" -- their Shinto may be a different, more esoteric Shinto than that which is commonly practiced.
For instance, a priest at the Shinto shrine of Fushimi Inari would probably tell you that the fox-god Inari was not actually a fox-god but a man-god who was symbolized by a fox. However, any other person in Japan who was not a Shinto priest (and that's well over 100 million people) would tell you that Inari is a fox, and that most Japanese people take that for granted. So which is it? Personally, I'd have to say that if everyone in Japan says Inari is a fox, except for a handful of priests, then Inari is a fox. Similarly, if everyone in Japan says Shinto is a religion, and treats it like a religion (again, except a few priests), and it meets the appropriate criteria for a religion (I'll get into that later) then I'd say it's probably a religion.
CrazyMrLeo
Wild Child
Confucianism may not be a religion according certain definitions, but it is considered a religion by many, and that on its own should warrant its inclusion in Civ.
Anyway, I can't imagine wanting a religion out of the game when there are so many left to add in.
Anyway, I can't imagine wanting a religion out of the game when there are so many left to add in.
MRM
Prince
Psyringe said:
Wlauzone said:
This thread was in the modding section before. There is a religion mod where confucianism is replaced by another religion, and there are plans for other mods who want to replace confucianism too - that I guess is the reason for the OT question ( but I don't know why a moderator moved this thread in the generall forum ... )
Of course no one is forced to install a modification he don't like ...
GreenMonkey said:
The problem is simple - there is obviously no definition of religion that all are agree on. For some religion as already if you have an ethical code as a base for a society that includes some sort of rituals - by this definition confucianism is a religion.
For others there have to be a belive in a god / or many gods or at least some kind of spirits - that would exclude confucianism
I guess we can only agree that we all here disagree
Knyx said:
This makes about as much sense as saying "they should just combine China and Japan." After all, they are both Asian countries.
In addition to insulting the beliefs of over half the world's population by dismissing them as being the same, this comment shows a complete lack of understanding of these religions and of history. As someone pointed out on this thread before, Hinduism and Budhism arose from the same tradition, does that mean they should just combine them too?
I'm pretty happy with all the religions in the game. I always end up using one of the first three anyway =/. If Confucianism was replaced by...(misc Religion) I really wouldn't care ;(. But if there was another religion that could replace Confucianism, it would have to be Animism (but that conflicts with Hinduism I guess).
A tangent but, I'm also curious about how Judaism is classified as monotheism so early in the techtree. Judaism evolved over time from polytheism, monolatrism, and finally to monotheism. If anything it should be farther in the tech tree, not immediately in the forefront. The transition to monotheism shouldn't take just a 1..2..3..boom, from Mysticism-->Polytheism--->Monotheism.
A tangent but, I'm also curious about how Judaism is classified as monotheism so early in the techtree. Judaism evolved over time from polytheism, monolatrism, and finally to monotheism. If anything it should be farther in the tech tree, not immediately in the forefront. The transition to monotheism shouldn't take just a 1..2..3..boom, from Mysticism-->Polytheism--->Monotheism.
Master Kodama
Nitpicker
It seems to me that the main problem people are having is deciding what defines something as a religion. I therefore propose not a personal definition of religion, but rather an academic one, and in the interest furthering the discussion I'll base my arguments on fact gleaned from study, not assumptions or hearsay. That way, if anyone disagrees with me, they can disagree with me academically rather than bashing me for having stupid personal beliefs, leading to all sorts of name-calling 
. Here is the definition of religion that was used in a Comparative Religious Studies course I took some years ago.
Religion is: a system of beliefs and practices based on an encounter with ultimate reality.
Thus we have five (5) criteria for defining a religion. A religion is:
1. a system
2. of beliefs
3. and practices
4. based on an encounter
5. with ultimate reality
I've found that it is in defining the last two criteria that most problems hang, and where one finds whether an ideology qualifies as a religion or not. By this definition, Buddhism is a religion (duh), as the Buddha himself not only based his teachings on an encounter with ultimate reality (nirvana/enlightenment), but followers of his teachings can ostensibly have the same encounter. Communism, an ideology that has been mentioned before, does not qualify as a religion under this definition, because it is based on the purely philosophical teachings of Karl Marx.
Confucianism, when divorced from its religious aspects as it often has been in the past and consistently is in the West (particularly in this thread ), does not fit this definition. However, if one takes into account the doctrines and teachings about honoring ones ancestors and the will of Heaven (ultimate reality), things which Confucius himself talked about, then RELIGIOUS Confucianism (for lack of a better term) DOES qualify as a religion. In fact, one of the main reasons that Christians were persecuted by the strict Neo-Confucian regime in Choson Korea was because they refused to give prayer offerings to their ancestors and and the king.
But that is not the point. Whether or not Confucianism is technically a religion or not is a question of minutiae and semantics.
The point is, Confucianism has FUNCTIONED in HISTORY in a capacity which is roughly equivalent to many other bona-fide religions and which makes it undeniably appropriate to have in CivIV (see my previous post with more details about Choson Korea). Now, one could easily argue that Communism has also functioned in a manner similar to the way religions function in CivIV. For this reason, I would not begrudge anyone who included Communism in this form in the game, as long as they did it well and preferably changed "religion" to "ideology," since Communism, unlike the more questionable Confucianism, is distinctly not a religion... but it IS an ideology (hint: ideology ≠ religion).
On that note, I think this thread should be moved back to the C&C forum, because that's exactly what I'm addressing (among other things).
This is such an oversimplification that it's funny. Mind you, unlike some other folks, I thought your personal definition of religion was fairly astute, but the idea that "god = religion" is pretty absurd. Ultimate reality need not come in the form of "God." Similarly, I don't think that believing in a higher power necessarily makes someone a religious person -- practices are an imporant part of any religious tradition. But I understand the sentiment behind your words, even if the content makes me chuckle. You want to rule out non-religious ideologies such as Communism -- which is necessary when having any meaningful discussion about religion, because otherwise things like golf become a religion. And I think that defining stepping onto the green as an encounter with ultimate reality is a BIG stretch.
. Here is the definition of religion that was used in a Comparative Religious Studies course I took some years ago.Religion is: a system of beliefs and practices based on an encounter with ultimate reality.
Thus we have five (5) criteria for defining a religion. A religion is:
1. a system
2. of beliefs
3. and practices
4. based on an encounter
5. with ultimate reality
I've found that it is in defining the last two criteria that most problems hang, and where one finds whether an ideology qualifies as a religion or not. By this definition, Buddhism is a religion (duh), as the Buddha himself not only based his teachings on an encounter with ultimate reality (nirvana/enlightenment), but followers of his teachings can ostensibly have the same encounter. Communism, an ideology that has been mentioned before, does not qualify as a religion under this definition, because it is based on the purely philosophical teachings of Karl Marx.
Confucianism, when divorced from its religious aspects as it often has been in the past and consistently is in the West (particularly in this thread
), does not fit this definition. However, if one takes into account the doctrines and teachings about honoring ones ancestors and the will of Heaven (ultimate reality), things which Confucius himself talked about, then RELIGIOUS Confucianism (for lack of a better term) DOES qualify as a religion. In fact, one of the main reasons that Christians were persecuted by the strict Neo-Confucian regime in Choson Korea was because they refused to give prayer offerings to their ancestors and and the king.But that is not the point. Whether or not Confucianism is technically a religion or not is a question of minutiae and semantics.
The point is, Confucianism has FUNCTIONED in HISTORY in a capacity which is roughly equivalent to many other bona-fide religions and which makes it undeniably appropriate to have in CivIV (see my previous post with more details about Choson Korea). Now, one could easily argue that Communism has also functioned in a manner similar to the way religions function in CivIV. For this reason, I would not begrudge anyone who included Communism in this form in the game, as long as they did it well and preferably changed "religion" to "ideology," since Communism, unlike the more questionable Confucianism, is distinctly not a religion... but it IS an ideology (hint: ideology ≠ religion).
On that note, I think this thread should be moved back to the C&C forum, because that's exactly what I'm addressing (among other things).
maxpublic said:
This is such an oversimplification that it's funny. Mind you, unlike some other folks, I thought your personal definition of religion was fairly astute, but the idea that "god = religion" is pretty absurd. Ultimate reality need not come in the form of "God." Similarly, I don't think that believing in a higher power necessarily makes someone a religious person -- practices are an imporant part of any religious tradition. But I understand the sentiment behind your words, even if the content makes me chuckle. You want to rule out non-religious ideologies such as Communism -- which is necessary when having any meaningful discussion about religion, because otherwise things like golf become a religion. And I think that defining stepping onto the green as an encounter with ultimate reality is a BIG stretch. 
abbamouse
Rodent
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2002
- Messages
- 177
1. Its extent is very close to that of Taoism, and many people follow both at once. You can easily be both at the same time without any contradiction.
2. They left out other important faiths that covered different spatial or temporal areas/eras.
3. Along with Taoism, it doesn't meet Western prejudices about what "real" religion is. Indeed, it's not even clear that it meets standard Eastern views of religion. There were a number of unsuccessful attempts to render it more "religious" by rulers, e.g. by deifying Confucius. These all failed. On the other hand, there are clearly supernatural forces involved in well-established branches of Buddhism and Taoism (though not, of course, in all of them).
I replaced it for Zoroastrianism for reasons 1 and 2, but of course I had to think hard about whether I was really succumbing to # 3.
2. They left out other important faiths that covered different spatial or temporal areas/eras.
3. Along with Taoism, it doesn't meet Western prejudices about what "real" religion is. Indeed, it's not even clear that it meets standard Eastern views of religion. There were a number of unsuccessful attempts to render it more "religious" by rulers, e.g. by deifying Confucius. These all failed. On the other hand, there are clearly supernatural forces involved in well-established branches of Buddhism and Taoism (though not, of course, in all of them).
I replaced it for Zoroastrianism for reasons 1 and 2, but of course I had to think hard about whether I was really succumbing to # 3.
King Flevance
Deity
I havent read through the 4 pages on this topic as honestly, I dont take this subject to seriously. It doesnt matter to me. Its not like it matters anyways. Why am I posting? To show how much it doesnt matter even to the 'historically accurate' or whatever. It is only a specification to the requirements to build a temple and monestaries and such. I vote take out all the religions and put in HOHOALFSUSAISM and HAHARALFSUMAISM religions from afterlife so this stuff wont matter. They put real religions in to add flavor. But now the pagans are mad confusionism made it in when their's didnt and so on. Or whatever this is about. I think people enjoy being offended so that way they cant feel righteous when they feel they have justified themselves.
And to think people say the threads about people not being able to play there copy of civ is a useless thread.
And to think people say the threads about people not being able to play there copy of civ is a useless thread.
warpus
In pork I trust
Tearin said:
"And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property]." (Exodus 21:20-21)
"But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself" (Deuteronomy 20:14)
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
The only way the Bible can be used as a moral compass is if you ignore the parts that you don't like.. which is exactly what people do. So no, isn't that clear on what is right and what is wrong.
King Flevance
Deity
OK I dont want to dig up my bible if I don't have to but I know I am probably going to have to to justify my answers to some people.
This was meant more as to the times. God understands in the times of major slavery. It was common in ancient times and the bible was written for ALL existance of time so he had to address everyone not just us today, and as men are evil, we all do evil things everyday and god has to pick what is 'overlookable' to give men the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: I couldnt help myself but the first 5 verses explain why. And better than I could.
Exodus 21:1-5 Anyone who hits another person hard enough to cause death must be put to death. But if it is an accident and God allows it to happen, I will appoint a place where the slayer can run to safety. However, if someone deliberatly attacks and kills another person, then the slayer must be dragged even from my alter and put to death.
Here it continues to show others that must be put to death for certain actions all the way to your lines.
As far as the forced labor goes, that goes back to Adam's equivalent to childbirth 'Slaving over the land'
It's the virtue of Diligence to work off sins. Granted we can not pay for them all in a lifetime and Jesus will pick up the remainder of our tab, not for free though but through living our lives as he would dictate. By giving him our lives he takes us with him in death to the Kingdom of Heaven. Working hard is a good thing.
This part is up to you, I don't try to get people to see the light, but will defend bogus statements vs the bible. As you have based your life around something else, this is my personal anchor. However, I am not highly certified in the field its more of a personal interest and faith. I mostly post on behalf of all the Christians that are led by the faith but havent began to follow yet. People out there like to say stuff like "The Bible says men aren't suppose to sleep in the same bed as their wife when they are menstral." (sp?) Yet when you say "Where?" They have no idea "but it does say that"
It was a great touch you added the exact spot to find it Warpus.
warpus said:
This was meant more as to the times. God understands in the times of major slavery. It was common in ancient times and the bible was written for ALL existance of time so he had to address everyone not just us today, and as men are evil, we all do evil things everyday and god has to pick what is 'overlookable' to give men the benefit of the doubt.
EDIT: I couldnt help myself but the first 5 verses explain why. And better than I could.
Exodus 21:1-5 Anyone who hits another person hard enough to cause death must be put to death. But if it is an accident and God allows it to happen, I will appoint a place where the slayer can run to safety. However, if someone deliberatly attacks and kills another person, then the slayer must be dragged even from my alter and put to death.
Here it continues to show others that must be put to death for certain actions all the way to your lines.
This is the most powerful arguement in this post. The people they were attacking were detractors of the Christian God. Jewish God at the time. The Jews were descendants of Abraham whom God had a promise to hold himself to. These other men would spit on God's face and had for many years worshipping their own faiths. It states that they are to first go to the city ask for peace, if they accepted the people that accpeted would do forced labor (slavery) to pay for their actions against God. However, they did not and that in this situation they were to kill every man and take the children, women, and all that is in the city as a reward.
As far as the forced labor goes, that goes back to Adam's equivalent to childbirth 'Slaving over the land'
It's the virtue of Diligence to work off sins. Granted we can not pay for them all in a lifetime and Jesus will pick up the remainder of our tab, not for free though but through living our lives as he would dictate. By giving him our lives he takes us with him in death to the Kingdom of Heaven. Working hard is a good thing.
This is just basic humbleness. Put your faith in God that He is aware of your life and it still has a purpose. We will all no doubt in our lives have people higher than us. Just not as extreme of a case.
This part is up to you, I don't try to get people to see the light, but will defend bogus statements vs the bible. As you have based your life around something else, this is my personal anchor. However, I am not highly certified in the field its more of a personal interest and faith. I mostly post on behalf of all the Christians that are led by the faith but havent began to follow yet. People out there like to say stuff like "The Bible says men aren't suppose to sleep in the same bed as their wife when they are menstral." (sp?) Yet when you say "Where?" They have no idea "but it does say that"
It was a great touch you added the exact spot to find it Warpus.
spicytimothy
Warlord
personally, although I do follow confucian morals, I can't consider it a religion, simply becuase it doesn't have any deities. It also doesn't really have temples as far as I know, except maybe the Tao-ized Confucius, which coexists with other Taoist deities...
warpus
In pork I trust
King Flevance said:
Exactly. The Bible was written by people thousands of years ago, and so the ideas contained within the Bible as to what exactly is right and wrong relate to human society in the middle east at that time. When people interpret the Bible today, they leave certain things out, for various reasons, and focus on others.
I was merely trying to show that Tearin was incorrect when he stated that the Bible is very clear as to what exactly is right and what is wrong. It's not. You can interpret it many ways. If you really wanted to, you could use direct quotes from the Bible to show that slavery is alright, for example, just as I did. Most Christians, as you pointed out (and I was hoping somebody would) ignore those quotes because they understand that the Bible is an old book and that certain quotes contained within do not apply to society today. However, who is to say which verses are applicable to today and which ones aren't? It's all very objective.. ie. not clear at all.
This is the original quote I am referring to:
Tearin said:
In any case, this is getting way off topic, so I suggest we end it right here.
warpus
In pork I trust
karadoc said:
And if we take that line of reasoning further, would we assume that any belief system containing a deity is a religion?
I just invented a brand new belief system in which an invisible half-pancake half-rabbit deity rules the universe. Is it a religion just because it contains a deity? Most people (including myself) would say no.
King Flevance
Deity
Agreed but I have to do 2 things first in response in the concerns of my original post. Also I definetly agree things are not crystal clear in the bible. People study it their whole lives because of this.
The bible addresses morality and righteousness that is a teaching not bound to any time, and also a teaching proven in contrast to the time it was written.warpus said:
True. the Bible addresses these people also.
True enough for me.
OK back to the topic at hand.
Leave it in I say. Confucianism has had a big impact on the world at least in Asia. I am in Korea right now and I run into it every day through the customs and habits of the people. It really is ingrained in the culture.
I think it really doesn't matter of it doesn't meet an arbitrary definition of religion. Even if it is just a life philosophy who really cares.
Here is a good article on the subject and a quote from it:
Confucianism, major system of thought in China, developed from the teachings of Confucius and his disciples, and concerned with the principles of good conduct, practical wisdom, and proper social relationships. Confucianism has influenced the Chinese attitude toward life, set the patterns of living and standards of social value, and provided the background for Chinese political theories and institutions. It has spread from China to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam and has aroused interest among Western scholars.
Although Confucianism became the official ideology of the Chinese state, it has never existed as an established religion with a church and priesthood. Chinese scholars honored Confucius as a great teacher and sage but did not worship him as a personal god. Nor did Confucius himself ever claim divinity. Unlike Christian churches, the temples built to Confucius were not places in which organized community groups gathered to worship, but public edifices designed for annual ceremonies, especially on the philosopher's birthday. Several attempts to deify Confucius and to proselyte Confucianism failed because of the essentially secular nature of the philosophy.
http://www.connect.net/ron/confucianism.html
I think it really doesn't matter of it doesn't meet an arbitrary definition of religion. Even if it is just a life philosophy who really cares.
Here is a good article on the subject and a quote from it:
Confucianism, major system of thought in China, developed from the teachings of Confucius and his disciples, and concerned with the principles of good conduct, practical wisdom, and proper social relationships. Confucianism has influenced the Chinese attitude toward life, set the patterns of living and standards of social value, and provided the background for Chinese political theories and institutions. It has spread from China to Korea, Japan, and Vietnam and has aroused interest among Western scholars.
Although Confucianism became the official ideology of the Chinese state, it has never existed as an established religion with a church and priesthood. Chinese scholars honored Confucius as a great teacher and sage but did not worship him as a personal god. Nor did Confucius himself ever claim divinity. Unlike Christian churches, the temples built to Confucius were not places in which organized community groups gathered to worship, but public edifices designed for annual ceremonies, especially on the philosopher's birthday. Several attempts to deify Confucius and to proselyte Confucianism failed because of the essentially secular nature of the philosophy.
http://www.connect.net/ron/confucianism.html
