Axis of Evil Just Got Some 'Commies

[Caid Ivik]

No they are not; the New Testament changes and adds many things, right down to fundamental questions like the nature of God. For example, Christians believe in the Trinity, while Jews do not.

In any case, I used Christianity and Judaism only as a term of comparison. If you don't like it, I can always think of another comparison - but I think you understood my point anyway. A certain branch of an ideology/philosophy/religion/etc can become so different from the original that it turns into a new ideology/philosophy/religion/etc in its own right.

And that is what I try to refute. Ie trinitar concept of God is in judaism as well - either as godly soul composed of three parts, three High Sephiroth or as cosmical structure of the Infinite God, his emanation and their ("His" to be more exact  ;) ) interaction. In cultic practice it is usually lacking, but how many christians or Jews know about ie Adam Qadmon concept, while it is an important part of both religions? In fact, they accept even Christ as a son of God, altough not usually in the incarnation of Jesus.

Only few cosmetic details like rituals or acceptability changes. Core remains.

[Anathema]

Objectively speaking, Christianity is a (rather large) jewish sect. :)

:D

[Edric O]

That was a joke I made two years ago... ::)

But if you don't like my comparison using Christianity and Judaism, there are plenty of others that can illustrate my point. Let's look at political ideologies, since that's where the argument started. Social liberalism (the ideology that is known as "liberalism" in America) evolved from classical liberalism (a.k.a. libertarianism), but social liberalism is certainly not a kind of libertarianism! In the same way, social democracy evolved out of socialism, but social democrats don't want to abolish capitalism and establish socialism any more.

We can look at history, too: America was originally a British colony, but present-day Americans are clearly not Brits.

If A starts out as an off-shoot of B, that doesn't mean that A will always remain a kind of B. It's quite possible for A to completely break off from B. That was my point.

[Caid Ivik]

I don't know if the data-formative map is same in cultural memetic complex as a word "nation" signifies, and in a spreading of sole idea, like ie religion or political ideology. If we are to reach some point of exactness, we must look at this from more wider perspective. It is clear, that Marx had a vast influence even on both american liberalism and conservativism, take ie Fukuyama the Chuj of the last ones. But no one would say USA is a socialist country. It is different, when you take a bit, when it is a half and when everything. Ie Weber or Chomsky (let we are actual) created fully new systems and then just compared them to Marx' one, but Kim Ir-Sen based his one on Marx, tough adapted for Korean society.

[Anathema]

That was a joke I made two years ago... ::)

I know that. I thought that in this current thread it would be funny. Sheesh.

Less then half of the current USA (don't know precisely how much) was occupied by the Brits, the rest was in the hands of other European countries. That would account for the vast cultural differences. But I get your point.

[Edric O]

It is clear, that Marx had a vast influence even on both american liberalism and conservativism, take ie Fukuyama the Chuj of the last ones.

Well, of course, every major thinker had a direct or indirect impact on all philosophies and ideologies, even those (sometimes particularly those) that opposed him/her.

It is different, when you take a bit, when it is a half and when everything. Ie Weber or Chomsky (let we are actual) created fully new systems and then just compared them to Marx' one, but Kim Ir-Sen based his one on Marx, tough adapted for Korean society.

Actually, Kim based his system on Stalin's model (with "adaptations" for Korean society). And even if you believe that Stalin based his system on Lenin's, as he claimed, you still end up with a large rift between Marxism and Juche - because Juche is based on Stalinism, which claims to be based on Leninism, which is based on Marxism. That's a rather long chain...

I know that. I thought that in this current thread it would be funny. Sheesh.

It was, but, when I wrote my reply, I was slightly exhasperated by Caid's habit of missing the point. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Actually what you take as a joke, may be for someone a field of study, you know. And if you use such joke as an argument, he would not accept it... Same with Stalin and Kim, you are arguing more with an emotion than with facts. Altough not with humor, you take him as a heretic just because his methods became brutal. They both based own philosophy on Lenin and Lenin based it on Marx. By "base" I mean primary axioms (dialectic logic, materialism, historical determinism, monohermeneutism etc), which are the same. Marx claimed to have found an objective and universal theory, but as not whole world was the same (if we take Britain, France and Germany as just a "part" of the world...), he had to accept the fact, that once will come new generations of marxists, which will adapt his theories for non-western nations. Philosophy was here to change the world, as he said, and that is what they did  ::)