Dharma

semitic religions cannot be separated from the ethnic groups from which they came since they believe that particular group of people and ONLY that group are "chosen ones" and ONLY the descendant of David will be the next messiah...

I do not except this, I don't care if my quarks are the same as their quarks... they keep insisting and saying, there quarks are better...
:devil3:

Answerer

Well, again, that statement reminds me of the Nazi.

To be frank, thats your problem, not mine.

Dharma

Of course it should, since Nazi racial superiority was inspired by the Biblical notions of the "chosen ones" of God...

premjan

I would guess that the purpose of (group) religions is to ensure group survival. Perhaps in the distant past the Neanderthals were too much of individualists (like the Buddhists) whereas the homo sapiens worked for the good of the group (like the Confucians). Hence homo sapiens survived whereas Neanderthals became one with nirvana. Those situations that demand more group solidarity produce more fundamentalist religions (e.g. Islam arose in the badlands).

Answerer

Oh, I guess that it must be disappointing for you to know that in next few centuries, most humans in the future generations of your "chosen people" will most likely be tainted with the blood and genes from the other "forsaken peoples". :funny: :funny: :funny:

Ok, I don't want to derail the thread further, so I end here.

skepticismskeptic

Regarding the Reliability of the Analects:

The Post-Confucian Writings:

a. The Conversations of Confucius (Lun Yu) (Also known as the Analects)


"This work is, at the present time, quite correctly considered the most
direct and reliable source which we have for Confucius, his life, and
his doctrines. It is not, of course, a product of Confucius, nor
yet-at least, as it is now formulated-of his immediate disciples, who,
in part, also appear as "Masters". But it may safely be assumed that
data or traditions regarding the "Master" form the sources of the work, and that these were given their final form by the next succeeding
generation. This material has a double tradition: the one, in Lu, the
native state of the Master, which may, in general, be accepted as
closer to the original; and the other, in the neighboring state of
Chi'i.�1



“The Analects is a collection of sayings by Confucius and his pupils
pertaining to his teachings and deeds. It was probably put together by some of his pupils and their pupils. The name Lun-yu did not appear until the second century B.C. At that time there were three versions of it, with some variations. Two of these have been lost. The surviving version is that of the state of Lu, where it is circulated.
It is divided into two parts, with teen books each. In the Ching-tien
shih-wen by Lu Te-ming (556-627), ch. 24, it is divided into 492
chapters. Chu His combined and divided certain chapters, making a
total of 482, one of which is divided into eighteen sections. In
translations like Legge’s Confucian Analects, and Waley’s The
Analects of Confucius, these divisions are taken as chapters, making
499. The same numbering is used in the following selections.
The material is unsystematic, in a few cases repetitive, and in some cases historically inaccurate. However, it is generally accepted as
the most authentic and reliable source of Confucian teachings.�2






“All scholars seem to be agreed that, while some parts of the Analects are subject to question, the book in general is our best single source for Confucius. This unanimity is remarkable, since the Analects seems not to have been mentioned by name in any work older than the Han dynasty. Passages found in it also appear, however, in works from a period earlier than Han, and it is evident that these sayings were handed down in the Confucian group for some time without having any particular name attached to them.
It seems impossible to be certain when the sayings of Confucius and his disciples were first gathered into a book. The first collection was probably made, not by Confucius’ disciples, but by some of their disciples. It may be, as has been argued, that the first ten chapters of our present Analects were the original book, while the next five were added somewhat later. It seems certain that Ts’ui Shu was correct in his hypothesis that Chapters 16-20 represent a still later addition. In these chapters Confucius is commonly called “Master K’ung� instead of “the Master,� and other differences set them apart. Nevertheless, the fact that the last five chapters were joined to the text late does not mean that none of their material existed early.�3

“Nevertheless, the Analects contain questionable passages, ranging from the slightly dubious to the clearly false. Chapter 10 poses a special problem. Henri Maspero and Arthur Waley have considered it to be a ritual treatise telling what the ideal gentleman should do, which was incorporated into the Analects with certain adaptations. However, 10.2,10.11.2, and 10.12 concern a specific individual, presumably Confucius.
A number of passages have nothing to do with either Confucius or with his disciples, and seem to be irrelevant intrusions into the text; these are 16.14,18.2,18.9-11, and 20.1. The Analects carved on stone in Han times apparently lacked 20.3, and this passage is also said not to have appeared in the Lu version, which is believed to have been the best early text.�4

“Finally, there are six sections that appear to controvert the ascertainable facts, about the circumstances or the philosophy of Confucius, to such a degree that they must be considered false additions to the text. The evidence against these passages has been stated elsewhere; they are 7.16 (see p.201), 13.3 (Chap. XIII, note 13), 16.2 (p.220), 16.9 (p.221), 18.3 (Chap. IV, note 29), and 18.4 (Chap. IV, note 28).�5




Key Points:



“It is not, of course, a product of Confucius, nor yet-at least, as it is now formulated-of his immediate disciples…�




 “…these were given their final form by the next succeeding generation…�





 “…there were three versions of it, with some variations. Two of these have been lost.�





 “The material is unsystematic, in a few cases repetitive, and in some cases historically inaccurate.�





“… some parts of the Analects are subject to question…�



 “…the Analects seems not to have been mentioned by name in any work older than the Han dynasty.�




 “…it is evident that these sayings were handed down in the Confucian group for some time without having any particular name attached to them…�




 “The first collection was probably made, not by Confucius’ disciples, but by some of their disciples.�



 “It may be, as has been argued, that the first ten chapters of our present Analects were the original book, while the next five were added somewhat later.�


 “It seems certain that Ts’ui Shu was correct in his hypothesis that Chapters 16-20 represent a still later addition.�



 “Nevertheless, the fact that the last five chapters were joined to the text late does not mean that none of their material existed early.�



 “…the Analects contain questionable passages, ranging from the slightly dubious to the clearly false.�



 “A number of passages have nothing to do with either Confucius or with his disciples, and seem to be irrelevant intrusions into the text.�



 “The Analects carved on stone in Han times apparently lacked 20.3…�




“Finally, there are six sections that appear to controvert the ascertainable facts, about the circumstances or the philosophy of Confucius, to such a degree that they must be considered false additions to the text.�


1. Wilhelm, Richard. Confucius and Confucianism. Port Washington,
N.Y./London: Kennikat Press, 1931. Page 133.


2. Chan, Wing-Tsit, Translator and Compiler. A Source Book in Chinese
Philosophy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963.
Page 19.


3. Creel, H.G. Confucius: The Man and the Myth. New York: The John Day Company, 1949. Pages 291-292.


4. Ibid. Page 293.


5. Page 294.



-Skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

The Birth of Confucius:


“This was then as it is now the most sacred mountain of China; whose very sight cast a beneficent influence, though none but the King of Chow could pray directly to the spirits of this greatest of shrines or offer sacrifices to it. A few months after a final series of visits to the shrine, the girl dreamed of a black god who appeared before her and told her that she would give birth to a son and that the birth would take place in a hollow mulberry tree. That possibility presented some physical difficulties but the dream appeared to be an omen, and omens and portents were serious matters and not to be brushed away in the sunlight as idle fancies of the night. She told Kung the Tall about the dream and he supplied the logical explanation. A dry cave not far away was known as ‘The Hollow Mulberry Tree’ and this was doubtless the spot the dream referred to. When the pains of labor beset her the girl repaired to the cave. There on a summer day the child was born, a big lusty boy with a peculiar bump on his forehead. This was in the year 551 B.C., about the time that Nebuchadnezzar died, Cyrus became King of Persia, the Jews returned from their exile in Babylon, and Daniel came unscathed from the den of lions.
In gratitude to the spirit of the little hill on which the shrine where they had prayed was located the parents named the child after the name of the hill. In later years when his fame as a scholar transcended such trivialities as personal names the child born under such unusual circumstances became known as Kung Fu-tze or ‘Master Kung’, and name which in all its simplicity embodies the tribute of a great people to their greatest man. About twenty centuries after his birth, when the learning of European scholars became broad enough to give due recognition to the scholarship strange lands, Portuguese Jesuits who learned of him, tried to express what was to them, the awkward sound of his name by means of the Latin alphabet. They did this very carelessly for they dropped one consonant from the name and called him ‘Confucius’. That is the name by which he is known in countries far from his birthplace, but to the countless millions of his fellow countrymen who have for many centuries followed his teachings he has always been and will always be known as ‘Master Kung’.�1


Crow, Carl. The Story of Confucius: Master Kung. New York: Tudor Publishing CO, 1937. Pages 30-33.



-Skepticismskeptic

skepticismskeptic

Hello Duke Leto,


Alright.
Are they? Or are they believed to be a historical document?


How do we know this someone or some group was a reliable source?

How does this support the assertion that Confucius existed? How do we know the Analects are trustworthy sources?



Why didn’t any writers around either Confucius’ time, or at least prior to the composition of the Analects mention him?

I have not seen any evidence that Confucius himself was not a myth in light of the documentation as well as dating of that documentation about Confucius.




The Analects allegedly contain information about Confucius’ life (mentioning the fact that he had disciples, for example), in addition to his teachings. How does one know this person, or group of people, didn’t merely collect popular sayings at the time and then attribute these sayings to a fabricated individual called Confucius?


Given there is no way to know whether or not this person, or group of people, invented an individual, and called him a name, which translates into “Confucius�, how does one conclude that Confucius was the one who was responsible for the formation of the Analects?


Do you freely acknowledge that the contents of the Q document are historically accurate?



Why?



Documentation for the existence of Jesus vs. documentation for the existence of Confucius is in fact the subject of this thread. If you say “Jack and Shit� are the only two pieces of documentation Jesus has, in comparison, what documentation can you offer for Confucius, superior to Jesus?

Also, you should probably read some more about the Analects on Wikopedia, from which you posted an excerpt. Wikopedia also stated:


“There are various theories regarding its (the Analects) compilation, but it is obvious that it is somewhat of a patchwork, assembled over a period of time, but the core of the book could be attributed to the second generation disciples.� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analects_of_Confucius).




This is a matter of opinion.


“Finally, the Chuang Tzu is not consistent with itself on the date of Confucius’ conversion. He is said to have been instructed in Taoism, by Lao Tzu, as early as his fifty-first year and to have been converted when he was sixty. Yet another passage quotes him, at sixty-nine, as saying that he has never heard the Taoist doctrine; he is converted again. Nevertheless, in another part of the same work Confucius is berated as having been, at seventy-one, an unregenerate Confucian, with no suggestion that he had ever been a Taoist.�2

As you can tell from the quote above, stories were told about Confucius, within the same document, that were self-contradicting. Shall we now conclude Confucius did not exist?

Ad hom….



2. Creel, H.G. Confucius: The Man and the Myth. New York: The John Day Company, 1949. Page 197-198.


-Skepticismskeptic

Duke Leto

I'm sorry do you have a point? I have already responded to your contention in a very clear and direct fashion, and you ignored it. Instead you continue to regurgitate the same argument as before by posting a lengthy piece of somebody else's material, reiterating the same points I have already responded to, and then summarizing the same damned thing at greater length.

You must be under the impression that length is more important than substance.

Come up with something new or stop wasting our time.

skepticismskeptic

Hello Ohwilleke,

Which source documenting Confucius’ existence is dated in a period not long after Confucius’ death?


If material facts attributed to the life of Confucius, such as when he is said to have converted to Daoism or converted to Daoism period, were poorly evidenced, and even contradictory, would it be logical to conclude Confucius did not exist?



I agree.

This thread has been moved from the Biblical Criticism forum, but if it had remained there, that would have been a good title indeed.

Not really. There are non-theistic scholars who believe a historical Jesus existed.



-Skepticismskeptic